The Oxford Latin Syntax Volume II The Complex Sentence and Discourse 9780199230563 0199230560 Compress

THE OXFORD
LATIN SYNTAX
VOLUME 2
THE COMPLEX SENTENCE

AND DISCOURSE
The Oxford Latin Syntax
THE OXFORD
LATIN SYNTAX
Volume II
The Complex Sentence and Discourse
HA R M P I N K S T E R
1
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Harm Pinkster 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020937312
ISBN 978–0–19–923056–3
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
CONTENTS
Preface xxvii
Signs and other conventions xxix
Abbreviations xxxi
14 Subordinate clauses: common properties and internal structure 1
14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 1

14.2 Formal and semantic properties of subordinate clauses 6
14.3 Ambiguous or hybrid instances of clause combining 9
14.4 The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used 11
14.5 The internal properties of subordinate clauses 13
14.6 Finite subordinate clauses 13
14.7 Non -finite subordinate clauses 16
14.8 The internal structure of accusative and infinitive clauses 17
14.9 The nominative and infinitive construction 20
14.10 'Fused' clauses 21
14.11 Prolative infinitive clauses 22
14.12 Gerundial clauses 24
14.13 Supine clauses 25
14.14 Participial, gerundival, and nominal clauses 25
14.15 Means of tightening and making more explicit the relationship
between subordinate and superordinate clauses 31
14.16 Preparative elements in the main clause 31
14.17 Resumptive elements in the main clause 36
14.18 Particles and adverbs tightening or clarifying the relationship between
subordinate and superordinate clauses 37
14.19 Forms of interlacing of superordinate and subordinate clauses 39
14.20 Subordinators 40
14.21 Subordinators used with both argument and satellite clauses 41
14.22 Subordinators and relative adverbs 43
14.23 Developments in the system of subordinating devices from Latin to the
Romance languages 44
14.24 The period 45
14.25 Direct and indirect speech 48
vi Contents
15 Subordinate clauses filling an argument position 52
15.1 The functions of argument clauses 53

15.2 Types of argument clauses 56
15.3 Finite argument clauses 57
15.4 Finite declarative argument clauses 57
15.5 The use of quod in argument clauses 59
15.6 The use of quad clauses with the verb accedit 'to be added to' or 'to
constitute an addition to' 59
15.7 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions meaning
'to leave unmentioned' 61
15.8 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion 61
15.9 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions of perception,
cognition, and communication 63
15.10 The use of quad clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and
convicting and of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating,
and thanking 66
15.11 The use of quad clauses in combination with a subject or object
complement 69
15.12 The use of quad clauses with a variety of other expressions 70
15.13 The use of quad clauses with verbs of happening 71
15.14 The use of quad clauses in combination with a preparative or
interrogative pronoun or similar expressions 73
15.15 The use of quia in declarative argument clauses 76
15.16 The use of quia clauses with the verb accedit 'to be added: or 'to
15.17 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions meaning
'to leave unmentioned' 76
15.18 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion 76
15.19 The use of quia with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition,
and communication 77
15.20 The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of blaming,
praising, congratulating, and thanking 78
15.21 The use of quia clauses in combination with a preparative
pronoun or determiner 78
15.22 The use of quoniam in declarative argument clauses 79
15.23 The use of cum (quom) in declarative argument clauses 80
15.24 The use of quomodo and quemadmodum in declarative
argument clauses 80
15.25 The use of ut in declarative argument clauses 81
15.26 The use of ut clauses with the verb accedit 'to be added to' or 'to
Contents vii
15.27 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of happening

and befalling 83
15.28 The use of ut clauses as subject with the verb sum 85
15.29 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning 'the
conclusion is: 'it follows' 86
15.30 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning 'it remains
to be done: 'it is sufficient' 86
15.31 The use of ut clauses with various third person singular verb forms
(so-called impersonal verbs) 87
15.32 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and an
adjective functioning as subject complement 88
15.33 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and a
noun or noun phrase functioning as subject complement 90
15.34 The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and
other categories that function as subject complement 91
15.35 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of perception,
15.36 The use of ut clauses in 'periphrastic' constructions 93
15.37 The use of ne in declarative argument clauses with verbs and
expressions of fearing and worrying 94
15.38 The use of quin in declarative argument clauses with a negative
main clause 96
15.39 The use of si in declarative argument clauses 100
15.40 The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of waiting in
expectation and trying 100
15.41 The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of surprise 101
15.42 The use of si clauses in combination with so-called impersonal
expressions 102
15.43 The use of quasi in argument clauses with verbs and expressions
of pretending 103
15.44 The use of tamquam (si) and quasi in argument clauses with
verbs and expressions of accusing and of emotion and with
verbs of communication 104
15.45 Finite interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) 105
15.46 Verbs and expressions governing indirect questions 106
15.47 Types of interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) 107
15.48 Simple interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions) 108
15.49 Indirect clausal questions 108
15.50 Inclirect clausal questions without a question particle 108
15.51 Indirect clausal questions with a question particle 109
15.52 The use of -ne in indirect clausal questions 110
15.53 The use of nonne in indirect clausal questions 111
Copy· 1ghted ~•te

viii Contents
15.54 The use of num in indirect clausal questions 111

15.55 The use of utrum in indirect clausal questions 113
15.56 The use of an in indirect clausal questions 113
15.57 The use of si in indirect clausal questions 115
15.58 The use of ne (not clitic) in pseudo-indirect clausal questions 117
15.59 Indirect questions with indefinite pronouns, determiners, adjectives,
adverbs, and particles formed with ec- 118
15.60 Indirect constituent questions 119
15.61 Overlap of indirect constituent questions and autonomous
relative clauses 122
15.62 Multiple indirect questions 123
15.63 Minor combinations of particles in multiple indirect questions 125
15.64 Finite imperative argument clauses 126
15.65 Verbs and expressions governing imperative clauses 129
15.66 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
ordering and commanding (class (i) (a)) 131
begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b)) 133
advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c)) 134
inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d)) 135
15.70 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions
of permitting, granting, allowing (class (i) (e)) 136
of forcing (class (i) (f)) 137
of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g)) 138
of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a)) 139
striving (class (ii) (b)) 140
15.75 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs of causation (class (iii)) 142
15. 76 The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions
of deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv)) 144
deserving (class (v)) 145
15.78 The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a neuter
singular adjective or a comparable expression that functions as
subject or object complement (class (vi)) 145
15.79 The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a noun
functioning as subject or object complement (class (vii)) 147
Copyngrted 11ater al
Contents ix
15.80 The use of finite imperative clauses with so-called impersonal

expressions (class (viii)) 148
15.81 The subordinating devices of finite imperative clauses 149
15.82 The use of ut, ut ne, and ne in imperative clauses 149
15.83 Imperative clauses with a simple subjunctive (without a subordinator) 150
15.84 The use of the subordinator ne in imperative clauses 154
15.85 The use of quin in imperative clauses 154
15.86 The use of quominus in imperative clauses 154
15.87 The use of quoin imperative clauses 154
15.88 The use of qui in imperative clauses 155
15.89 Exclamatory argument clauses 155
15.90 Non-finite argument clauses 156
15.91 Infinitival argument clauses 156
15.92 Accusative and infinitive clauses 157
15.93 The functions of accusative and infinitive clauses 157
15.94 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object
with verbs and expressions of happening and befalling or
causing to happen 159
15.95 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with
accedit 'to be added to' or 'to constitute an addition to' 160
15.96 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object
with verbs and expressions meaning 'to leave unmentioned' 161
15.97 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and
expressions of emotion 161
expressions of perception, cognition, and communication 162
expressions of praising, blaming, and thanking 170
15.100 The non-declarative use of the accusative and infinitive clause 170
15.101 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with
one-place and so-called impersonal verbs 181
15.102 The use of accusative and infinitive clauses in combination with
expressions that function as subject or object complement 183
15.103 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with
a preparative pronoun 184
15.104 Independent accusative and infinitive clauses 186
15.105 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in interrogative
clauses and sentences 186
15.106 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in exclamations 189
15.107 The use of the accusative and infinitive in relative clauses 189
15.108 The use of the accusative and infinitive in correlative and
comparative structures 190

x Contents
15.109 The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate (especially

satellite) clauses with a subordinator 191
15.110 The use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of passive
two- and three-place verbs 192
15.111 The nominative and infinitive construction 194
15.112 Other personal constructions resembling the Nd construction 200
15.113 Diachronic developments of the accusative and infinitive 202
15.114 Prolative infinitive clauses 204
15.115 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions
of ordering and commanding (class (i) (a)) 204
of begging, requesting, etc. (class (i) (b)) 205
of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc.
(class (i) (c)) 205
15.118 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of
inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d)) 206
permitting, granting, allowing, etc. (class (i) (e)) 207
of forcing (class (i) (f)) 208
of hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g)) 208
wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a)) 209
of striving (class (ii) (b)) 209
15.124 The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs of causation (class (iii)) 211
deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv)) 211
deserving (class (v)) 212
15.127 The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with a neuter
singular adjective that functions as subject or object complement
(class (vi)) 212
15.128 The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with other
expressions that function as subject or object complement (class (vii)) 213
15.129 The use of the prolative infinitive with so-called impersonal
expressions (class (viii)) 215
15.130 The use of the infinitive with verbs of accusing and convicting 216
15.131 The use of the (present) infinitive with auxiliary verbs and verbs
with a related meaning 219
Contents xi
15.132 Participial argument clauses (dominant participles) 220

15.133 The use of the dominant participle construction as subject 220
15.134 The use of the dominant participle construction as object or as
third argument 223
15.135 Gerundial argument clauses 224
15.136 The use of gerundial clauses as argument with verbs 225
15.137 The use of gerundial clauses as second or third argument 225
15.138 The use of gerundial clauses instead of prolative infinitives 227
15.139 The use of gerundial clauses with two-place adjectives that
function as subject or object complement 229
15.140 Gerundival argument clauses 229
15.141 The use of gerundival clauses as arguments with verbs 230
15.142 The use of gerundival clauses with adjectives that function as
subject or object complement 233
15.143 Relative clauses functioning as argument 234
15.144 Nominal (verbless) argument clauses 234
16 Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position 237
16.l Verbal and nominal satellite clauses 237

16.2 Finite satellite clauses 237
16.3 Classes of finite satellite clauses 238
16.4 The role of subordinators in satellite clauses 238
16.5 Satellite clauses (seemingly) filling an argument position 239
16.6 Space clauses (adjuncts) 240
16.7 Time clauses (adjuncts) 241
16.8 Time clauses denoting an event that is simultaneous with the
event in the main clause 243
16.9 Time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (cum,
dum, quando, quoniam, quotiens) 243
16.10 Time clauses with cum (quom) 243
16.11 So-called cum inversum clauses 245
16.12 The temporal use of quoniam 248
16.13 Time clauses with quando, quandoque, and quandocumque 249
16.14 Time clauses with dum locating the event of the main clause in time 250
16.15 Time clauses indicating the extent of time of the event in the main clause 251
16.16 Time clauses indicating a co-extensive event 251
16.17 Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event
of the main clause 254
16.18 Time clauses indicating an event that concludes the event of the
main clause 255

xii Contents
16.19 Time clauses denoting anterior events 257

16.20 Time clauses with cum 258
16.21 Time clauses with postquam 258
16.22 Time clauses with simul 260
16.23 Time clauses with ubi 261
16.24 Time clauses with ut 262
16.25 Time clauses with mox, primum, and statim 264
16.26 Time clauses with ex quo 264
16.27 Time clauses denoting a posterior event 265
16.28 Non-temporal interpretations of time clauses 266
16.29 The interpretation of cum (quom) clauses as indicating the reason
for the content of the main clause 266
16.30 The interpretation of dum clauses as indicating the reason for the
content of the main clause 268
16.31 The concessive (or: 'adversative') interpretation of cum (quom) clauses 269
16.32 The concessive and reason interpretations of postquam clauses 270
16.33 Manner clauses 270
16.34 Manner adjunct clauses 271
16.35 Attitudinal manner clauses (disjuncts) 274
16.36 Illocutionary manner clauses (disjuncts) 277
16.37 Degree clauses (adjuncts) 278
16.38 Respect clauses (disjuncts) 279
16.39 Reason (causal) clauses 281
16.40 Reason clauses with quia (adjuncts) 285
16.41 Reason clauses with quad (adjuncts) 287
16.42 Reason clauses with quoniam (disjuncts) 289
16.43 Reason clauses with quando(quidem) (disjuncts) 293
16.44 Reason clauses with quandoque (disjuncts) 294
16.45 Reason clauses with quatenus (disjuncts) 294
16.46 Reason clauses with quin (adjuncts) 295
16.47 Reason clauses with qua (adjuncts) 296
16.48 Later developments 297
16.49 Purpose (final) clauses 297
16.50 Purpose clauses with ut and (ut) ne 300
16.51 Purpose clauses with qua (adjuncts) 304
16.52 Purpose clauses with qui (adjuncts) 305
16.53 Stipulative clauses 306
16.54 Result (consecutive) clauses 308
16.55 Conditional clauses 314
16.56 Negation of conditional clauses 316
16.57 Conditional clauses functioning as adjunct 322
16.58 J\bbreviated' conditional periods 332
Contents xiii
16.59 Purpose si clauses 334

16.60 Adversative, concessive, and causal interpretations of
conditional clauses 336
16.61 So-called temporal si clauses 339
16.62 Ni/Nisi 'de rupture' 341
16.63 Conditional clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct 343
16.64 Conditional clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct 345
16.65 Alternative conditional clauses with sive/seu 346
16.66 Conditional comparative clauses 348
16.67 Nisi clauses of exception 350
16.68 Concessive clauses 354
16.69 So-called concessive conditional clauses 358
16.70 Concessive and concessive conditional clauses functioning
as adjunct 360
16.71 Concessive clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct 362
16.72 Concessive clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct 364
16.73 The individual concessive subordinators: quamquam, quamvis,
the si compounds, and licet 365
16.74 Concessive clauses with quamquam 365
16.75 Concessive clauses with quamvis 366
16.76 Concessive clauses with etsi, etiamsi, tametsi, and tamenetsi 369
16.77 Concessive clauses with etsi 370
16.78 Concessive clauses with tametsi (and tarn etsi) 371
16.79 Concessive clauses with etiamsi (and etiam si) 371
16.80 Concessive clauses with tamenetsi (and tamen etsi) 373
16.81 Concessive clauses with licet 373
16.82 The concessive interpretation of ut clauses 375
16.83 Quod and quantum clauses of qualification (disjuncts) 377
16.84 Satellite clauses introduced by complex subordinators 378
16.85 Non-finite satellite clauses 383
16.86 Infinitival satellite clauses 383
16.87 Participial satellite clauses 386
16.88 Participial ablative absolute clauses 387
16.89 The semantic relationship between the participial ablative
absolute clause and the main clause 388
16.90 The relationship between arguments of the participial ablative
absolute and the main clause 394
16.91 The internal complexity of the participial ablative absolute clause 397
16.92 Ablative participles without a subject noun (phrase) 400
16.93 Ablative absolute clauses of one-place verbs 402
16.94 Participial absolute clauses in other case forms 402
16.95 Participial nominative absolute clauses 402

xiv Contents
16.96 Participial genitive absolute clauses 403

16.97 Participial accusative absolute clauses 403
16.98 Prepositional participial satellite clauses 404
16.99 Gerundial satellite clauses 406
16.100 Gerundial purpose adjunct clauses 406
16.101 Gerundial instrument/manner adjunct clauses 409
16.102 Gerundial temporal adjunct clauses 412
16.103 Gerundial reason adjunct clauses 412
16.104 Gerundial adjuncts in other semantic relations (ablative and
prepositional expressions) 413
16.105 Gerundival satellite clauses 414
16.106 Gerundival purpose adjunct clauses 414
16.107 Gerundival instrument/manner adjunct clauses 416
16.108 Gerundival temporal/circumstantial adjunct clauses 418
16.109 Gerundival reason adjunct clauses 419
16.110 Gerundival adjunct clauses in other semantic functions (mostly
prepositional phrases) 419
16.111 Supine satellite clauses 420
16.112 The use of the first supine (in -um) as a purpose adjunct 421
16.113 The so-called second supine in - u 423
16.114 Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses 427
16.115 Nominal ablative absolute clauses 427
16.116 Substantival ablative absolute clauses 427
16.117 Adjectival ablative absolute clauses 430
16.118 Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative 433
16.119 Prepositional nominal absolute clauses 433
17 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs 435
17. I Introductory remarks 435

17.2 Subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level 436
17.3 Finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 439
17.4 Declarative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at the
noun phrase level 440
17.5 Declarative clauses with quad and quia at the noun phrase level 440
17.6 Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level 441
17. 7 Declarative clauses depending on nouns of fearing and worrying 442
17.8 Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level 443
17.9 The use of tamquam and quasi clauses with nouns of emotion,
17.10 Interrogative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at
the noun phrase level 444
Contents xv
17 .11 Imperative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at

the noun phrase level 446
17.12 Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute
at the noun phrase level 448
17 .13 Infinitival subordinate clauses functioning as attribute
at the noun phrase level 448
17.14 Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun
phrase level 448
17.15 Prolative infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the noun
phrase level 449
17 .16 Participial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 451
17 .17 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the
noun phrase level 452
17.18 Gerundial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 454
17.19 Gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level 456
17.20 Optional gerundial and gerundival clauses at the noun phrase level 458
17.21 Subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level 459
17.22 Finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 460
17.23 Declarative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective
phrase level 460
17.24 Interrogative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the
adjective phrase level 461
17.25 Imperative finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective
phrase level 462
17.26 Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 463
17.27 Infinitival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 463
17.28 Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective
phrase level 463
17.29 Prolative infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 464
17.30 Participial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 466
17.31 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective
phrase level 466
17.32 Gerundial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 467
17.33 Gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level 468
17.34 Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as optional
constituents at the adjective phrase level 469
17.35 Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level 469
18 Relative clauses 471
18. l Introduction 471

18.2 Types of relative clauses 473
18.3 Adnominal relative clauses 478

xvi Contents
18.4 Semantic types of adnominal relative clauses 478

18.5 Restrictive relative clauses 479
18.6 Non-restrictive relative clauses 484
18. 7 The function of the relative expression in the relative clause 487
18.8 Exceptional case marking of relative expressions 489
18.9 The syntactic functions of heads with an adnominal relative clause 492
18.10 Interlacing of adnominal clauses with other subordinate clauses 492
18.11 Reduction of inferrable elements in adnominal relative clauses 494
18.12 The relative order of the adnominal relative clause and its head 496
18.13 Multiple adnominal relative clauses 498
18.14 Adjectives and other constituents related to the relative expression
instead of to the head 500
18.15 Autonomous relative clauses 501
18.16 The syntactic functions of autonomous relative clauses and
their formal expression 514
18.17 Complex autonomous relative clauses 527
18.18 The presence of the same noun (phrase) in the relative and
superordinate clause 528
18.19 Autonomous relative clauses at the adjective phrase level 532
18.20 Some observations on the use of the tenses in relative clauses 536
18.21 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a future indicative 536
18.22 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a subjunctive 53 7
18.23 The use of the moods in relative clauses 538
18.24 The use of the moods in non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses 539
18.25 The use of the moods in restrictive adnominal clauses 544
18.26 The use of the moods in autonomous relative clauses 547
18.27 Autonomous relative clauses functioning as clausal appositions 551
18.28 Relative connexion 555
18.29 The use of the connective relative in ablative absolute clauses 560
18.30 Coordination of relative clauses 562
18.31 Indefinite relative clauses 567
18.32 Indefinite adnominal relative clauses 567
18.33 Indefinite autonomous relative clauses 568
18.34 Relative adjectives and adverbs 570
18.35 Relative adjectives 570
18.36 Relative adverbs 575
18.37 Relative clauses containing a space adverb 575
18.38 Adnominal relative clauses with cum (quom) 579
18.39 Relative clauses with adverbs ofreason (quamobrem, quapropter,
and quare) 580
Contents xvii
19 Coordination 583
19.1 Introductory remarks 583

19.2 Syndetic coordination 588
19 .3 Syndetic coordination of clauses 588
19.4 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level 589
19 .5 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject 591
19.6 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object 592
19. 7 Syndetic coordination of verbs with different argument marking
that share an object or a comparable constituent 593
19 .8 Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing a third argument or a satellite 595
19.9 Syndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level 595
19.10 Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level 597
19.11 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level 597
19.12 Syndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level 599
19 .13 Syndetic coordination of prepositions and of prepositional phrases 600
19.14 Asyndetic coordination 606
19.15 Asyndetic coordination of clauses 609
19 .16 Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject 611
19 .17 Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object, indirect
object, or satellite 613
19 .18 Asyndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level 614
19.19 Asyndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level 618
19.20 Asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the noun phrase level 619
19.21 Asyndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level 620
19 .22 Asyndetic coordination of nouns and noun phrases in
prepositional phrases 620
19.23 Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 620
19.24 Simple conjunctive coordination 621
19 .25 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator -que 624
19 .26 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/ atque 628
19 .27 The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator et 632
19.28 The single use of the negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque 637
19 .29 Correlative conjunctive coordination 638
19 .30 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator -que 638
19.31 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque 640
19.32 The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator et 640
19 .33 The correlative use of the negative conjunctive coordinator
nec/neque 642
19.34 The correlative use of different conjunctive coordinators 644
19.35 Correlative combinations of -que with another conjunctive
coordinator 644

xviii Contents
19.36 Correlative combination of et and ac/atque 646

19.37 Correlative combinations of nec/neque with another
conjunctive coordinator 647
19.38 Multiple conjunctive coordination 649
19.39 Multiple syndetic conjunctive coordination 650
19.40 Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) conjunctive coordination 651
19.41 The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins 653
19.42 The use of cum resembling a comitative coordinator 656
19.43 Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 657
19 .44 Simple disjunctive coordination 658
19.45 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator aut 658
19.46 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator vel 660
19.47 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve 662
19 .48 The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/ seu 665
19.49 The simple use of an as a disjunctive coordinator 667
19.50 Correlative disjunctive coordination 668
19.51 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator aut 668
19.52 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator vel 671
19.53 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve 672
19.54 The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu 672
19.55 The correlative use of the negative disjunctive coordinator neve 674
19.56 The correlative use of different disjunctive coordinators 675
19.57 Multiple disjunctive coordination 676
19.58 Multiple syndetic disjunctive coordination 676
19.59 Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) disjunctive coordination 678
19.60 The semantic relation between disjunctively linked conjoins 679
19.61 Adversative coordination 680
19.62 The use of the adversative coordinator sed 682
19.63 The use of the adversative coordinator verum 684
19.64 The use of the adversative coordinator ceterum 685
19.65 The correlative use of the adversative coordinators 686
19.66 Hierarchical ordering of sequences of conjoins 689
19.67 Epitactic coordination 691
19.68 Conjunctive epitactic coordination 693
19.69 Adversative epitactic coordination 696
19. 70 Asyndetic epitactic coordination 698
19.71 Quasi-coordinators 698
19.72 The quasi-coordinating use of nedum 699
19. 73 The use of the combination cum ... tum as a correlative conjunctive
quasi-coordinator 701
19.74 The use of the combination ut . .. ita (sic) as a correlative coordinator 702
Contents xix
19.75 Less common types of coordination 703

19. 76 Coordination of two or more functionally equivalent conjoins
belonging to different lexical categories 704
19.77 Coordination of nouns and noun phrases with constituents that
belong to other lexical categories 704
19.78 Coordination of adjectives with constituents that belong to
other lexical categories 705
19. 79 Coordination of adverbs with constituents that belong to other
lexical categories 706
19 .80 Coordination of two or more functionally unequivalent conjoins 707
19.81 Other noteworthy types of coordination 710
19.82 Hysteron Proteron 710
19.83 Zeugma 711
19.84 Hendiadys 713
20 Comparison 715
20.l Introduction 715

20.2 Comparison between two terms with respect to a certain standard 716
20.3 Comparison of non-equivalence 724
20.4 The comparative particles of non-equivalence 726
20.5 The comparative particle quam 'than' 727
20.6 The use of ac/atque and et in comparison of non-equivalence 729
20.7 The ablative of comparison (ablativus comparationis) 729
20.8 Minor alternative expressions for the basis of comparison in
comparisons of non-equivalence 733
20.9 The comparative element used with expressions of quantity,
extent of space or time, age, etc. 735
20.10 Expressions specifying the measure of difference in comparisons
of non-equivalence 739
20.11 Comparison of equivalence 744
20.12 Comparison between two properties 747
20.13 Comparison of non-equivalence between two properties 747
20.14 Comparison of equivalence between two properties 750
20.15 Similarity and dissimilarity 752
20.16 The use of coordinators in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 754
20.17 The use of ac/ atque in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 755
20.18 The use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 755
20.19 The use of quam in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 756
20.20 The use of the ablative in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity 759
20.21 The use of relative adverbs of manner and conditional comparative
subordinators in expressions of similarity 760

xx Contents
20.22 The use ofprepositions and nisi in expressions of dissimilarity 761

20.23 Expressions specifying the degree of dissimilarity 761
20.24 Comparative expressions of quality 762
20.25 Ut clauses characterizing a quality of a constituent in the main clause 762
20.26 Ut and related phrases functioning as secondary predicate 763
20.27 Ut phrases of qualification 765
20.28 Proportional comparison 766
20.29 The proportional pattern with a comparative 766
20.30 The proportional pattern with a superlative 770
20.31 The absolute use of comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs 772
20.32 The superlative and related expressions 773
21 Secondary predicates 777
21. l Secondary predicates: introductory remarks 777

21.2 Categories of constituents functioning as secondary predicate 780
21.3 Adjectives functioning as secondary predicate 780
21.4 The use of adjectives as secondary predicate in poetry and
poeticizing prose 784
21.5 Adjective phrases functioning as secondary predicate 789
21.6 Nouns and noun phrases (showing agreement) functioning as
secondary predicate 789
21 .7 Participles functioning as secondary predicate 791
21.8 Accusative and participle construction with perception verbs 796
21.9 Gerundives functioning as secondary predicate 797
21.10 Noun phrases in the genitive functioning as secondary predicate 799
21.11 Nouns in the dative functioning as secondary predicate 800
21 .12 Noun phrases in the ablative functioning as secondary predicate 801
21.13 Prepositional phrases functioning as secondary predicate 803
21.14 The gerund developing into an alternative for the present participle 804
21.15 Autonomous relative clauses functioning as secondary predicates 806
21 .16 The distribution of secondary predicates 807
21.17 The semantic relationship between a secondary predicate and
its clause 810
21.18 Explicit marking of the semantic relation between a secondary
predicate and the clause to which it belongs 814
21.19 Secondary predicates and related constructions 815
21 .20 The difference between an adjective functioning as secondary
predicate and a related adverb 816
21.21 Potential ambiguity: secondary predicate or apposition? 818
21.22 Pragmatic considerations 819
21.23 Quantifiers and related expressions seemingly functioning as
secondary predicate 819
Contents xxi
21.24 Ipse and idem 824

21.25 Co-occurrence of various secondary predicates and related
expressions in the same clause 825
22 Information structure and extraclausal expressions 826
22.1 The information structure of clauses 826

22.2 Topic 829
22.3 Topic and subject 830
22.4 Eligibility of constituents for the function of topic 830
22.5 Types of constituents that function as topic 838
22.6 Formal properties of topics 839
22.7 Focus 839
22.8 What makes a constituent of a clause focus? 841
22.9 Complex focus 842
22.10 How can we identify focus constituents? 843
22.11 Presentative sentences 844
22.12 Cleft sentences 846
22.13 The extraclausal functions theme, setting, and tail 849
22.14 Theme constituents 850
22.15 Setting constituents 856
22.16 Tail constituents 857
22.17 Contrast and emphasis 858
22.18 Contrast 859
22.19 Emphasis 862
22.20 Emphasizing particles 865
22.21 Additive emphasizing particles 868
22.22 Scalar additive particles 872
22.23 Exclusive particles 875
22.24 Particularizing particles 877
22.25 Quidem and equidem 877
22.26 Quidem 878
22.27 Equidem 884
22.28 Saltern and related expressions 888
22.29 Saltern 888
22.30 Certe 890
22.31 Utique 891
22.32 Dumtaxat 893
22.33 Praesertim and related expressions 894
22.34 Praesertim 894
22.35 Praecipue 896
22.36 Imprimis 899
22.37 Maxime 900
22.38 Potissimum 901

xxii Contents
22.39 Demum 902

22.40 lam 904
22.41 Suffixes of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives 906
22.42 Preparative expressions as emphasizers 908
22.43 Parenthetical clauses and other types of extraclausal constituents 909
22.44 Parenthetical constituents 909
22.45 Parenthetical clauses and sentences 910
22.46 Parenthetical use of verbs and expressions of perception,
22.47 Curses and swear words 919
22.48 Interjections 923
22.49 Sound-reproducing interjections 924
22.50 Summonses 925
22.51 Introductory interjections 92 7
22.52 Expressive interjections 931
22.53 Address 937
22.54 The functions of address 939
22.55 The forms of address 942
22.56 The syntax of address 946
23 Word order 948
23.1 Methodological preliminaries 949

23.2 Roman ideas about word order 952
23.3 Factors that determine the linear order of words and larger constituents 954
23.4 Sentence type 954
23.5 Text type 955
23.6 Categorial factors 955
23.7 Domain integrity 956
23.8 Semantic factors 958
23.9 Syntactic factors 959
23.10 Pragmatic factors 959
23.11 Euphonic and rhythmic factors 960
23.12 Complexity 960
23.13 Iconicity 961
23.14 Artistic factors 962
23.15 Typological considerations 965
23.16 Syntactic structure and intonation structure 966
23.17 Pause and the determination of sense boundaries 967
23.18 Clausulae 970
23.19 The order of constituents at the clause and sentence levels 972
23.20 Categories of constituents with a more or less fixed position 973
23.21 Connectors and interactional particles 973
Contents xxiii
23 .22 Anaphoric constituents 976

23 .23 Subordinating devices 978
23.24 Subordinators 978
23.25 Relative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners 981
23.26 Question words 982
23.27 Interrogative particles 982
23.28 Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners 983
23 .29 Categories of constituents that tend to be placed after
another constituent 983
23.30 Indefinite determiners and pronouns 983
23.31 Personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum 984
23.32 The position of personal pronouns 987
23.33 The position of forms of the verb sum 991
23.34 Emphasizing particles 994
23.35 Bound clitics 995
23.36 The position of the coordinators -que and -ve 995
23.37 The position of the interrogative particle -ne 999
23.38 The position of negation adverbs 1000
23.39 The relative position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates,
and (finite) verbs 1001
23.40 The position of arguments, satellites, secondary predicates,
and (finite) verbs in declarative sentences 1003
23.41 The first position in declarative sentences 1005
23.42 Arguments in fir t position in declarative sentences 1006
23.43 Satellites in first position in declarative sentences 1012
23.44 Secondary predicates in first position in declarative sentences 1013
23.45 Finite verbs in first position in declarative sentences 1015
23.46 The last position in declarative sentences 1020
23.47 Arguments in final position in declarative sentences 1021
23.48 Satellites in final position in declarative sentences 1024
23.49 Finite verbs in final position in declarative sentences 1025
23.50 Intermediate positions in simple declarative sentences 1027
23.51 Word order in interrogative sentences 1027
23.52 Word order in sentence questions 1027
23.53 Word order in constituent questions 1031
23.54 Word order in multiple questions 1033
23.55 Word order in imperative sentences 1033
23.56 Word order in imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force 1034
23.57 Word order in imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force 1036
23.58 Word order in imperative sentences with a concessive illocutionary force 1036
23.59 Word order in superordinate (main) clauses 1037
23 .60 Word order in subordinate clauses 1037
23.61 Word order in finite subordinate clauses 1038

xxiv Contents
23.62 Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses 1041

23.63 Word order in ablative absolute clauses 1044
23.64 The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses
in complex sentences 1047
23.65 The relative order of finite superordinate and subordinate
clauses in sentences with two clauses 1049
23.66 The relative order of superordinate and accusative and infinitive
23.67 The relative order of superordinate and ablative absolute
23 .68 The relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses
in multi-clausal sentences 1059
23.69 Word order at the noun phrase level 1062
23.70 The relative order of head and attribute 1066
23.71 The position of attributes that agree with their head 1066
23.72 The position of determiners 1067
23 .73 The position of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners 1067
23.74 The position of indefinite determiners 1071
23.75 The position ofrelative and interrogative determiners 1071
23.76 The position of attributive possessive adjectives 1072
23. 77 The position of identifiers 1074
23. 78 The position of attributive quantifiers 1075
23. 79 The position of attributive adjectives 1076
23.80 The position of attributive adjective phrases 1080
23.81 Comparatives and superlatives 1083
23.82 The position of modifiers of attributes 1084
23.83 The position of nouns and noun phrases functioning as attribute 1084
23.84 The position of attributive noun phrases of description (or quality)
(genetivus and ablativus qualitatis) 1090
23.85 The position of adnominal arguments 1091
23.86 Word order in complex noun phrases 1093
23.87 Discontinuity (or: hyperbaton) of noun phrases 1097
23.88 Constituents causing hyperbaton of noun phrases 1101
23.89 Word order in prepositional phrases 1108
23.90 The order of constituents in continuous prepositional phrases 1109
23 .91 The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases without
a modifier 1109
23.92 The position of prepositions in prepositional phrases
with a modifier 1113
23.93 The pattern modifier-preposition-noun 1115
23.94 The pattern noun-preposition-modifier 1118
23.95 The position ofprepositions in restrictive appositive phrases 1119
23.96 Discontinuous prepositional phrases 1120
Contents xxv
23.97 The relative order of constituents in phrases with the auxiliary

sum 'to be' and other auxiliaries 1122
23.98 The relative order in complex verb forms with the auxiliary
sum 'to be' 1122
23.99 The position of the auxiliary iri 1125
23.100 The relative order of infinitives and the verbs that govern them 1126
23.101 Discontinuity of coordinated constituents 1129
23.102 Tmesis 1132
23.103 Tmesis created by the coordinator -que 1134
23.104 Diachronic developments 1135
24 Discourse 1138
24.1 Introduction 1138

24.2 Sentence and discourse 1138
24.3 Text types (or: discourse modes) 1140
24.4 Discourse coherence 1143
24.5 Anaphoric reference to participants 1144
24.6 Lexical repetition and variation 1144
24.7 Lexical repetition in combination with anaphoric determiners 1146
24.8 Zero-anaphora: the absence of explicit subject and other
obligatory constituents 1148
24.9 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs 1150
24.10 Anaphoric reference to states of affairs and to segments of discourse 1153
24.11 Nouns used to refer to preceding states of affairs or segments
of discourse 1153
24.12 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs used to refer to
preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse 1157
24.13 Preparative (cataphoric) reference to following states of affairs
and segments of discourse 1161
24.14 Cohesive devices linking sentences 1162
24.15 Syndetic connexion of sentences 1164
24.1 6 Conjunctive connexion of sentences 1166
24.17 The conjunctive connector -que 1166
24.18 The conjunctive connector ac/atque 1167
24.19 The conjunctive connector et 1168
24.20 The conjunctive connector nec/neque 1170
24.21 Disjunctive connexion of sentences 1171
24.22 Adversative connexion of sentences 1172
24.23 The adversative connector ast 1174
24.24 The adversative connector at 1175
24.25 The adversative connector atqui 1176
24.26 The adversative connector autem 1177

xxvi Contents
24.27 The adversative connector ceterum 1181

24.28 The adversative connector sed 1184
24.29 The adversative connector verum 1187
24.30 The adverb contra 1188
24.31 The adverb tamen 1188
24.32 The adverb nihilominus 1189
24.33 The adverb/connector vero 1190
24.34 The use of etsi, tametsi, and quamquam as connectors 1191
24.35 Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences 1193
24.36 The connector nam 1194
24.37 The connector namque 1197
24.38 The connector etenim 1198
24.39 The connector quippe 1199
24.40 The interaction al particle enim 1201
24.41 The interactional particle nempe 1206
24.42 Consecutive connexion of sentences 1208
24.43 The connector igitur 1209
24.44 The connector itaque 1212
24.45 The interactional particle ergo 1213
24.46 Sequential connexion of sentences 1216
24.47 The semantic relation between asyndetically connected sentences 1218
24.48 The use of connectors and interactional particles to connect paragraphs 1223
24.49 Grammatical devices contributing to discourse coherence 1226
24.50 Opening and concluding a conversation or letter 1228
Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I 1233

Bibliography 1247
Index locorum 1303
Index ofgrammatical terms and Latin words 1356
Colour versions of Figures 15.1, 19.1, and 23.1 can be found on the book's companion
website at www.oup.co.uk/ companion/pinkster
PR EFACE
This second (and final) volume of The Oxford Latin Syntax appears six years after the
first. My considerations for writing this Syntax can be found in the Preface to the first
volume and they are still valid. Inevitably, I changed my mind on some minor points
(for example, on the use of the notion ‘subjunct’ and of the term ‘comparative clause’)
and some of the things promised in the first volume I decided not to deal with at all.
The title of this volume is ‘The complex sentence and discourse’, but in reality
this volume contains more, for example word order. A number of items might also
have been dealt with in the first volume. I hope that the two volumes together are a
useful instrument for people working with Latin texts and/or interested in how Latin
works.
The first volume has been received very positively and I am grateful to the reviewers
for their reports and for their suggestions. I am also grateful to readers who have sent
me their suggestions. In preparing this volume I myself have noted several minor
mistakes and omissions. Some of these have been corrected silently in the second
impression and others will be corrected in a later one. In addition, I have collected
more serious corrections and references to publications which are not in the
Bibliography of the first volume in a list of addenda and corrigenda at the end of this
volume.
Most of the work for this volume was done at home in Amsterdam and sometimes
in the Library of the University of Amsterdam, but I have also spent much time in the
Regenstein Library of the University of Chicago and in the Bodleian Library in
Oxford. I am very grateful for their support and hospitality.
It is time now to thank a number of people who greatly contributed to my work, in
the first place, PhD students of the University of Chicago. I have been very fortunate
to profit from Branden Kosch’s acumen for most chapters in this volume, even after
he finished his PhD and started his own academic career. Of other graduate students
of the University of Chicago who assisted me I thank especially David (Douglas)
Williams for his work on the final chapters. I also thank Stephen van Beek in
Amsterdam for his assistance in the final stage.
Jim Adams, James Clackson, Cynthia Damon, Helma Dik, Andy Dyck, Daan den
Hengst, Alex Mazzanti, Josine Schrickx, and Jaap Wisse discussed various items with
me, asked questions, and sent suggestions. A number of colleagues read one or more
chapters and sent me their comments. Esperanza Torrego organized a wonderful dis-
cussion day in Madrid with the community of Spanish Latin linguists, which was
followed by written comments by several participants. I mention especially Olga
Álvarez Huerta, José Miguel Baños, Conchita Cabrillana, Antonio Revuelta, Eusebia
xxviii Preface
Tarriño, Luis Unceta, and Jesús de la Villa. Esperanza herself sent me her comments
on several chapters, as did Caroline Kroon, Hannah Rosén, and Peter White. Guus
Bal and Roland Hoffmann read the whole work and contributed detailed comments.
In the final stage of proof reading, several friends mentioned above contributed much
more than just reading the proofs, as did Rodie Risselada and Hans Smolenaars. Olga
Spevak not only generously commented on several versions but also undertook the
making of the Index of grammatical terms and Latin words. I thank them all, not only
for their learned comments, but also for the moral support it implied. Last but not
least I thank my daughter Akke Pinkster, who again did the Index locorum and helped
me with the bibliography.
I thank Julia Steer, commissioning editor at OUP, Vicki Sunter, assistant editor, and
Clare Jones, production editor, for their efficient and competent support. I have
greatly benefitted from the acribia, learning, and good advice of Malcolm Todd, copy-
editor, and Ginny Catmur, copy-editor and proof-reader. It was a privilege to work
with them.
At the end of my Odyssey of twenty-four chapters I thank my daughters Fenne and
Akke and their families, Willy van Wetter, and all my friends for their support and
their patience.
Like the first, this volume is dedicated to the memory of Machtelt Bolkestein and
Simon Dik.
Amsterdam and Chicago
October 2019 / January 2021
SIGNS A ND OTHER CON VENTIONS
* indicates a nonexistent or ungrammatical expression

? indicates an expression that may be ungrammatical
Ø indicates a missing element
< originating from
> A > B means: A comes before B
[] indicates portions of a text that should be removed
<> indicates portions of a text that should be inserted
NB: in editions of inscriptions the practice is the other way around: in those
editions [] means ‘insertion’; this practice is ignored in this book
†...† ‘obeli’ or ‘daggers’ indicate that the text between them is regarded as corrupt
** indicates a lacuna in the Latin text.
/ line break (in poetry and in inscriptions, etc.)
// indicates the transition from one column to another in inscriptions
… indicates that one or more words are omitted; occasionally used for incomplete
quotations of texts by other authors of Antiquity (for example, Ennius quoted by
Cicero)
_ indicates an illegible letter in directly transmitted texts
# indicates change of speakers in a dialogue
↔ in contrast with
A indicates a particular manuscript, in this case the ms. A
Small capitals are used for directly transmitted texts (inscriptions, etc.) and for definitions.
Vowel quantity is very rarely indicated, only when it is necessary for a correct understanding
of the text. When necessary, long vowels are marked by a macron: ā.
Punctuation in ancient documents (when known) is indicated by an interpunct: ‘·’.
ABBR EV IATIONS
AcI accusative and infinitive (accusativus cum infinitivo)

add. addidit ‘added by scholar X’
ad loc(c). ad locum/locos ‘at the passage(s) quoted’
alii alia ‘different solutions proposed’
ap. apud ‘quoted in’
c. circa ‘approximately’
cj. X conjecture (proposed by X)
cod(d ) codex (codices)
corr. correxit ‘corrected’
deest X manuscript X is not available here
del. X deleted by X
dett. deteriores ‘worse manuscripts’
ed(d ). editor(s)
edd. nonnulli some editors
ex(x). example(s)
fin. in fine ‘at the end’
Gramm. Grammatici (Latini)
LLT Library of Latin Texts
ms(s). manuscript(s)
N number of instances
NcI nominative and infinitive (nominativus cum infinitivo)
NP noun phrase
OCT Oxford Classical Texts
om. omisit or omiserunt ‘left out by X or by X and Y’
p.c. personal communication
PHI Packard Humanities Institute
pler. plerique ‘most (editors)’
Rep. dating from the Republican era
recc. recentiores ‘the more recent (manuscripts)’
sc. scilicet ‘to wit’
secl. seclusit ‘regarded as an intrusion by X’
xxxii Abbreviations
suppl. supplevit ‘supplied by X’

s.v(v). sub voce (vocibus) ‘under the specified word(s)’
tr. translated by X
v(v).l(l). varia(e) lectio(nes) ‘alternative reading(s) in (an)other manuscript(s)’
Eng. English
Fr. French
It. Italian
CHAPTER 14
Subordinate clauses: common properties

and internal structure
14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms

of clause combining
Latin has various means by which simple clauses can be combined with other
constituents to form larger units. We will start with the distinction made in § 2.2
between the two ways of combining ‘simple’ clauses to form ‘multiple’ clauses, viz. the
use of ‘subordination’ to form ‘complex’ clauses and of ‘coordination’ to form ‘com-
pound’ clauses. After that attention will be given to clauses of comparison and to sec-
ondary predicates.¹
(i) Complex clauses (subordination)
Examples of complex clauses are (a)–(c), repeated from § 2.2.
(a) . . . sine. / # Non sino neque equidem [[illum {me vivo} corrumpi]] sinam.
(‘Let it be.’ # ‘No, I won’t, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac.
418–19)
(b) Postquam peperit, pueros lavere iussit nos.
(‘After she gave birth, she told us to wash the boys.’ Pl. Am. 1102)
(c) Miser est qui amat.
(‘Wretched is the man who is in love.’ Pl. Per. 179)
In (a), the constituent between double square brackets [[ . . . ]] is an accusative and
infinitive clause which is an obligatory argument (the object) of the governing verb
sinam. In (b), the postquam clause is an optional constituent which is not required by
the meaning of the verb iussit, that is, it is a satellite in the terminology of this Syntax.
Whereas (a) has a non-finite clause, the one in (b) is finite. Different again is (c): here
the relative clause qui amat is an obligatory constituent (the subject) required by the
meaning of miser (est). These three clauses differ from each other in many respects,
but what they have in common is that they are part of another clause, together with
¹ For a typological analysis of Latin subordination, see Lehmann (1989).
The Oxford Latin Syntax. Harm Pinkster, Oxford University Press (2021). © Harm Pinkster.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0014
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
which they form a complex sentence. For that reason they are called subordinate
clauses. By contrast, the clauses containing sinam, iussit, and miser est are called
superordinate clauses. In all three cases, since the superordinate clauses are not
themselves again part of another clause, they are also main clauses.
(ii) Compound clauses (coordination, also called: conjunction)
The situation is entirely different with compound clauses. An example is (d). Here two
grammatically independent clauses (indicated by curly brackets) are combined into a
whole by the coordinator et, which, unlike postquam and qui in (b) and (c), does not
belong to the clause that follows:² whereas from a grammatical point of view the order
of the clauses in (b) and (c) could be switched, it would be impossible to put the
sequence et . . . proficisci in front. Also in compound sentences in which the events
themselves could be inverted, as in (e)—amo et odi is quite well possible—inversion is
excluded: *et amo odi.
(d) {Haec evincit in consilio sententia} et {prima luce postridie constituunt
proficisci.}
(‘This opinion prevailed in the meeting, and they decided to set out the following day
at first light.’ Caes. Civ. 1.67.6)
(e) Odi et amo.
(‘I hate and love.’ Catul. 85.1)
So both in (a)–(c) and in (d) and (e) simple clauses are combined into larger units, but
the two types of clause combining are different.³
There are two further differences between subordination and coordination. In the
first place, some of the coordinating devices, notably et, can also be used to connect
independent sentences, as in (f). As the example shows, it is not always clear whether
we are dealing with coordination of clauses that belong to the same sentence or con-
nexion of different sentences, and editors vary sometimes in their decisions. In the
domain of subordination only relative clauses can be used as independent sentences
(see § 18.28 on relative connexion).
(f) Hac oratione habita (sc. Caesar) concilium dimisit. Et (del. Meusel) secun-
dum ea multae res eum hortabantur quare sibi eam rem cogitandam et sus-
cipiendam putaret . . .
(‘With this speech he dissolved the convention. And straightway many consider-
ations induced him to suppose that he must take thought and action in the matter.’
Caes. Gal. 1.33.2)
² Editors put a comma after sententia, probably to suggest that there is a semantic relation of conse-
quence between the second conjoin and the first. In English a comma would be normal.
³ The notions of subordination and coordination are relatively recent in the history of grammar. See
Pfister (1995).
Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 
More importantly, et is often used to coordinate constituents within clauses, for which
no parallel exists in the case of subordinators. Examples are (g) and (h), with two
coordinated pronouns and adjectives, respectively.
(g) Quid? Auspicia, quibus ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute
praesumus.
(‘What of augury, over which you and I, Crassus, preside, greatly to the welfare of the
Republic?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.39)
(h) Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo.
(‘I want to ask you for a just and a small favour.’ Pl. Am. 33)
(iii) Comparison
Another category of expressions that are usually regarded as subordinate clauses are
‘clauses of comparison’.⁴ These clauses are usually divided into two types: ‘clauses of
manner’ and ‘clauses of degree’. The first type is illustrated by (i), the second by ( j) and
(k) below.
(i) Ut sementem feceris, ita metes.
(‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.261—tr. May and Wisse)
The ut clause in (i) resembles the postquam clause in (b) in that (i) it is an optional
constituent (a satellite) with respect to metes; (ii) ut belongs to the clause with sementem
feceris and the whole clause could be placed after (ita) metes. For these reasons such
manner clauses are discussed in the Chapter on satellite clauses in this Syntax
(§§ 16.33–6).
The ‘clauses of degree’ in ( j) and (k) are different. There is no indication of subor-
dination. In addition, as the examples suggest, it is very rare to find a verb like the
supplied est in the part after quam. The comparison is rather between two constitu-
ents within the same clause. In this respect comparison of this type resembles coord-
ination. Such comparative expressions have a chapter of their own (Chapter 20).
( j) Meus equus tam celer est quam tuus (est).
(‘My horse is as fast as yours is.’)
(k) Meus equus celerior est quam tuus (est).
(‘My horse is faster than yours is.’)
(iv) Secondary predicates
There is one more type of expressions which are usually not described as ‘clauses’ that
are part of a larger unit, but which are often regarded as more or less equivalent to
subordinate clauses proper. The clearest examples are so-called ‘predicatively used’
participles, for which in this Syntax the term ‘secondary predicate’ is used. An example
⁴ For this paragraph, see Woodcock (1959: 205), from whom the examples are taken. They are called
‘Vergleichende Adverbialsätze’ in K.-St.’s (II.448) terminology.
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
is (l).⁵ Although Woodcock’s paraphrase with ‘while’ suggests that we are dealing with
a satellite clause comparable with the postquam clause in (b), in reality scribens is
related in some way to the subject qui (see Chapter 21). Grammatically speaking
scribens has nothing to do with subordination nor with clause-combining proper.
(l) . . . Platonis, qui uno et octogesimo anno scribens est mortuus . . .
(‘. . . of Plato, who died writing in his eighty-first year . . .’ Cic. Sen. 13—‘while he
was writing’)
Figure 14.1 indicates the various forms of combining discussed above and their rela-
tive similarity: secondary predicates, at least the participles, are only semantically
related to the other types of clauses. Subordinate clauses in the broad sense (sensu
lato) are different from coordinate and comparative expressions. A further distinction
can be made between subordinate clauses in the narrow sense (sensu stricto) and rela-
tive clauses (see (v) below).
y secondary
predication
subordination s.l. z
subordination s.s. relativization coordination comparison
Chs. 15–17 Ch. 18 Ch. 19 Ch. 20 Ch. 21
Figure 14.1 Subordination and other forms of clause combining

The signs ‘x’, ‘y’, and ‘z’ are used to mark nodes in the tree; they have no particular meaning.
(v) Subordination sensu stricto and relativization

The relationship between subordination sensu stricto and relativization needs some
additional discussion. Both postquam in (b) and qui in (c) are part of the clause in
which they occur (as a relocation test easily shows) and both form the link between
the superordinate clause and their own. But there is a difference as well: qui has a
function of its own (subject) in its clause, as appears among other things from the
agreement between the subject and the finite verb est; however, nothing similar can be
said about postquam. For a speaker of English, the interpretation of a relative pronoun
in its clause can be quite complicated, as in (m). Here, the relative clause inter se quos
nunc credo dicere is the subject in the main clause with sunt hic. The relative clause is
complex itself: the relative pronoun quos is subject in the accusative and infinitive
clause, which is as a whole the object of credo.
⁵ The example is also used by Woodcock (1959: 72), where a clear exposition of the standard descrip-
tion can be found.
Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 
(m) Sunt hic inter se quos nunc credo dicere: . . .

(‘There are (people) here who I believe are saying to each other: . . .’ Pl. Cas. 67)
In (c) and (m) the relative clauses fulfil a function in the main clause. For this kind of
use this Syntax introduces the term ‘autonomous relative clauses’ (see § 18.2).
However, relative clauses are more often used at the noun phrase level, as in (n). Here,
the relative clause qui puellam ab eo emerat is a modifier (attribute) of the noun
adulescenti and fulfils no function at the clause level (this type of relative clause is
called ‘adnominal’ in this Syntax—see § 18.2).
(n) Adulescenti qui puellam ab eo emerat / ait sese Veneri velle votum solvere . . .
(‘To the young man who had bought the girl from him he said he wanted to fulfil a
vow to Venus . . .’ Pl. Rud. 59–60)
(vi) Finite and non-finite subordination
Examples (a) and (b) above illustrate two forms of subordinate clauses, the non-finite
accusative and infinitive clause and the finite postquam clause. Most scholars now-
adays would agree in regarding these clauses as subordinate. Not everyone, however,
will classify the so-called ablative absolute construction me vivo in (a), repeated here
as (o), as a subordinate clause (which itself is part of another subordinate clause).
However, in this Syntax the ablative absolute, along with a few other constructions not
typically classified as subordinate clauses, will be treated as such. The reason for
regarding me vivo as a clause is that the relationship between me and vivo resembles
that between ego and vivus in a finite clause (ego) sum vivus and because the ablative
absolute clause potentially shares many of the properties of such a finite clause, for
example the possibility of adding satellites, such as adhuc to form me adhuc vivo ‘with
me still being alive’. For further details, see § 14.14.
(o) . . . sine. / # Non sino neque equidem illum me vivo corrumpi sinam.
(‘. . . let it be.’ # ‘No, I won’t, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac.
418–19)
(vii) The history of subordination
Subordination is found in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts written in all
sorts of registers. However, there are changes over time in the subordinating devices
used; further, the degree to which these devices are used varies from author to author
and from text to text.⁶ Generally speaking, subordination is less frequent and less
complex in interactive texts (comedy and dialogue, for example) but more frequent
and more complex in literary narrative and in didactic texts. Details are given in the
following chapters.
It is often assumed that Indo-European did not possess subordinating devices and
that as a consequence the structure of complex sentences has to be explained starting
⁶ For quantitative data, see Denooz (2013).

 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
from two so-called paratactic, or juxtaposed, simple clauses. Since all known lan-
guages have complex sentences, such an assumption is not very helpful, and even
though specific devices of historic times may go back to originally paratactic struc-
tures, ‘the paratactic stage had been passed centuries before Plautus’.⁷
. Formal and semantic properties of subordinate clauses
Latin possesses a wide array of subordinate clauses in the narrow sense discussed in
the preceding section. A distinction can be made between verbal clauses, which can
be either finite or non-finite, and verbless nominal clauses. Table 14.1 presents a sur-
vey of the various possibilities.
Table . Survey of subordinate clauses
Verbal clauses Nominal clauses

Finite clauses Non-finite clauses ‘substantival’ ‘adjectival’
various various accusative ‘fused’ ‘participial’ clauses (see clauses (see
interrogative clauses with and clauses: clauses: § 14.14) § 14.14)
clauses (or without) a infinitive infini- participle
subordinator (nominative gerundive
tive and gerund
infinitive) supine
The properties of these clauses are discussed from § 14.6 onwards.

Subordinate clauses, whatever their formal structure, have a number of properties
(not the same for all) which show their subordinate status. In the first place, subordin-
ate clauses that function as argument, such as the accusative and infinitive clause in
(a) and, in a similar way, the ut clause in (b), must be subordinate because they are
required by another constituent, dixit and dignos, respectively.⁸
(a) Te pro filio / facturum dixit rem esse divinam domi, / quia Thebis salvos redierit.
(‘He said you were going to offer sacrifice at home for your son, because he returned
safely from Thebes.’ Pl. Epid. 414)
(b) . . . quos ut socios haberes dignos duxisti, haud indignos iudicas quos in
fidem receptos tuearis.
(‘. . . men whom you have considered worthy to be your allies you do not judge
unworthy for you to guard after they have been taken under your protection.’ Liv.
23.42.13—NB: parallelism of the ut and the relative clause)
Apart from this indirect clue, there are also a number of positive indicators.⁹
⁷ So Bennett: I.255, discussing the use of the simple subjunctive as a subordinating device. See also
Pinkster (1972: 167–9) and Sznajder (2003: 14–16) on ‘le mythe de la “parataxe primitive”’.
⁸ For this argument, see Bennett: I.244–5.
⁹ For a discussion of these properties applied to clauses with a simple subjunctive, see Sznajder (2003:
37–69).
Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 
(i) Most subordinate clauses are formally marked as such. For non-finite clauses,
such as the accusative and infinitive clause in (a), the fact that the verb form is an
infinitive and the subject an accusative (and not a finite form and a nominative) is a
clear signal of its subordinate status. With regard to the ablative absolute, the parti-
cipial clause naturally lacks a finite verb form, as in (c), and the participle is marked
by the regular case for satellites, the ablative.
(c) Victores victis hostibus legiones reveniunt domum . . .
(‘With the enemy conquered, our legions are returning home as conquerors . . .’ Pl.
Am. 188)
Finite clauses, in turn, are almost always marked by a subordinator (for exceptions,
see below), like postquam in (b) in § 14.1.
(ii) Moreover, the finite verb forms are often subjunctives for which a regular semantic
explanation along the lines of § 7.8 can hardly be given. See §§ 7.130 and 7.138.
(iii) The tense of finite subordinate clauses in the subjunctive is often determined
by the tense of the superordinate clause (according to the ‘rules of the sequence of
tenses’, consecutio temporum—see § 7.85). This is the case with haberes in (b), where
the imperfect tense is adjusted to the perfect form duxisti of the superordinate clause,
if one assumes that haberes is contemporaneous with duxisti.
(iv) Negator climbing (see § 8.6) is another form of ‘domination’ of a subordinate
by the superordinate clause, as can be seen in (d). Here, the negator non precedes the
verb puto, but it has in fact esse venalis in its scope, not puto.
(d) Clodiae (sc. horti) sane placent, sed non puto esse venalis.
(‘Clodia’s gardens would be admirable, but I don’t think they’re for sale.’ Cic. Att.
12.38a.2)
(v) Sometimes constituents that semantically belong to a finite subordinate clause
function as pseudo-object in the superordinate clause, as in (e), where te is syntactic-
ally the object of faciam, but semantically the first argument of miserrumus . . . sis (see
§ 9.17).
(e) . . . ego te faciam miserrumus mortalis uti sis.
(‘I’ll make sure you’re the most wretched mortal on earth.’ Pl. Aul. 443)
(vi) A feature shared by finite and non-finite subordinate clauses concerns the use
of the reflexive pronoun and the reflexive possessive adjective to refer to a constituent,
usually the subject, of the superordinate clause. This use of the so-called indirect
reflexive is shown for an accusative and infinitive clause in (f) and for an ut clause in
(g) (see § 11.127).¹⁰
(f) Me sibix epistulas dedisse dicitx.
(‘He says that I have given him the letters.’ Pl. Trin. 896)
¹⁰ The exponent ‘x’ marks coreferentiality.

 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(g) Nam illa mulierx lapidem silicem subigere ut sex amet potest.
(‘That woman could force a flintstone to love her.’ Pl. Poen. 290)
(vii) In addition, there are a number of tests to prove the subordinate status of a
clause. A subordinate clause can be given in answer to a question word or phrase, as
the accusative and infinitive clause is given in reply to quid in (h), the object of its
clause. Also, a subordinate clause may be announced by a preparative (or: cataphoric)
expression, as in (i). Here hoc, the object of dicito, announces the accusative and
infinitive clause facturum me . . ., which functions as object as well. A subordinate
clause may be coordinated with a noun phrase, as in ( j), where the quia clause is
coordinated by means of non . . . sed with the cause adjunct in the ablative iactantia.¹¹
(h) Quid dicis? An bello fugitivorum Siciliam virtute tua liberatam?
(‘What are you saying? That Sicily was saved from the war with the revolted slaves by
your courage?’ Cic. Ver. 5.5)
(i) Quin etiam illi hoc dicito, / facturum <me> ut ne etiam aspicere aedis
audeat . . .
(‘Well now, you just tell him this—that I shall see to it he does not dare give that
dwelling so much as a glance.’ Pl. Mos. 422–3)
( j) Quod non iactantia refero, sed quia collegio quindecimvirum antiquitus
ea cura . . .
(‘A fact which I recall not out of vanity, but because from of old this responsibility
belonged to the College of Fifteen . . .’ Tac. Ann. 11.11.1)
(viii) Finally, it should be mentioned that in indirect speech main clauses become
accusative and infinitive clauses and subordinate clauses as a rule stay more or less as
they are (see § 2.2 and, for exceptions, § 15.109).¹²
Unfortunately, we do not have access to the best criterion for determining the sta-
tus of clauses, namely intonation. Just as in contemporary languages, the intonation
contour must have been the best indicator for determining whether a given sequence
of clauses constituted a single complex sentence or several independent sentences.
As for pragmatic and semantic aspects of the subordinate clauses in Table 14.1, the
various types differ in the degree to which they allow and exhibit the characteristics
that are typical of independent sentences. Most of them lack an illocutionary force of
their own and do not contain connectors or interactional particles that belong to the
clauses themselves (and not to the complex sentence to which they belong). Finite
clauses in the left hand column of the Table exhibit many of the internal properties of
independent sentences. Although there are certain constraints on tense and mood,
especially for argument clauses, and although the governing verb may also constrain
the category voice (see § 15.2), these clauses are less restricted in terms of type and
number of obligatory and optional constituents than non-finite and nominal clauses.
¹¹ For more instances from Tacitus, see Sánchez Martínez (2000: 244–53).
¹² For this test and some exceptions, see Pfister (1995: 245).
Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 
Of the non-finite clauses the accusative and infinitive clause allows for relative tense
distinctions, but the category of mood is irrelevant. For the other non-finite clauses
the number of constraints is higher. The nominal clauses in the right hand column
lack most sentential properties. There are, therefore, considerable differences between
the various clauses in their degree of ‘desententialization’.¹³ Further details are pro-
vided in the following sections.
. Ambiguous or hybrid instances of clause combining
Whereas in most cases identifying subordinate clauses (and also main clauses) as such
is unproblematic, there are also cases where two different analyses are possible and
even cases which seem to have a status in-between one complex sentence and two
independent simple sentences.¹⁴ First person singular forms of a number of cognition
verbs (which may also govern an accusative and infinitive clause) can be used as
qualified truth disjuncts (see § 10.101) to modulate the illocutionary force of declara-
tive (§ 6.2), interrogative (§ 6.21), and imperative sentences (§ 6.29). Examples of the
verb credo used in the sense of ‘presumably’ are (a) and (b). In the former credo is usu-
ally described as a parenthesis, a more or less independent structure that is inserted in
another structure, without being syntactically a part of that structure. It functions as a
modulator of the assertive illocutionary force of the sentence. In (b) credo is best
taken as modifying ad uxorem meam. In the case of (c), where credo precedes a com-
plete sentence, it is more difficult to regard it as unrelated to what follows: the fact that
it is the first word creates the expectation that something will follow expressing what
the I believes, so the sequence may have been perceived as a single sentence. In this
particular case, however, one cannot be sure, since it is impossible to know what the
intonation contour was.
(a) Pol ea ipsa credo ne intro mittatur cavet . . .
(‘She herself avoids being let in, I suppose . . .’ Pl. Aul. 101)
(b) Intro edepol abiit, credo ad uxorem meam.
(‘He went inside, to my wife I believe.’ Pl. Am. 1045)
(c) Credo aurum inspicere volt, ne surruptum siet.
(‘I think he wants to look at his gold to make sure that it hasn’t been stolen.’ Pl.
Aul. 39)
In (d) the segment ni nocias meos might be taken as a subordinate imperative clause
with rogo (see § 15.67), but comparison with (e) and (f) may also suggest that it should
be regarded as an independent prohibition: nolei (= noli) and the perfect subjunctive
feceris signal independent prohibitions. See also (g) with an imperative.
¹³ On ‘desententialization’, see Bolkestein (1989a; 1989b) and Lehmann (1989).

¹⁴ For the problem in general, see Pfister (1995: 243–5).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(d) rogo · te · viator · ni nocias (= ne noceas) · meo<s>

(‘I ask you, traveller, not to harm my family.’ CIL X.4053.1 (Capua)—NB: for the
exceptional use of the accusative instead of the dative, see § 12.31)
(e) rogo · te / viator · nolei / me · nocerei
(‘I ask this of you, traveller: do not harm me.’ CIL I2.3121.4–6 (Capua, 1st cent. bc
(mid))—NB: nocerei is a deponent form)¹⁵
(f) rogo · te · viator · monumento · huic · nil · male · feceris /
(‘I ask this of you, traveller: do not damage this tomb.’ CIL VI.9545.3 (Rome, Rep.))
(g) Rogo, inquam, domina, . . . celerius confice.
(‘I ask,’ I said, ‘madam, be quick with it.’ Petr. 20.1)
Faxo ‘I will bring about’, the sigmatic future of facio, serves as another illustration of
the difficulty involved in determining whether a sequence of clauses should be regarded
as two independent sentences or as one complex sentence.¹⁶ The clause which tells us
what is brought about may be in the future indicative, as in (h), or in the present
subjunctive, as in (i). In Early Latin the future is much more common than the sub-
junctive, and there is only one instance of faxo + an explicit subordinator (ut) + a
subjunctive, viz. ( j).¹⁷ The (ut +) subjunctive clauses in (i) and ( j) seem to be the object
of faxo and can be compared to instances of the normal future faciam with either the
simple subjunctive or (more common) ut + subjunctive (see § 15.75). Semantically
there seems to be no difference between (h) and (i), both meaning roughly ‘I shall
bring it about that . . .’, but taking iam . . . hic erit as an object clause in the indicative
with a verb of causation is very problematic. Instead, it seems better to assume that
faxo in (h) had developed into an idiomatic parenthetical expression meaning some-
thing like ‘certainly’. This interpretation seems inevitable in a case like (k). The clauses
with erit in (h) and amabit in (k) must then be described as independent.
(h) Iam faxo (sc. machaera) hic erit.
(‘I’ll make sure it’s here in a second.’ Pl. Mil. 463)
(i) Faxo hau quicquam sit morae.
(‘I’ll make sure that there won’t be any delay.’ Pl. Am. 972)
( j) Sine, revenias modo domum, faxo ut scias / quid pericli sit dotatae uxori
vitium dicere.
(‘Well then! Just come home, I’ll make sure that you know what danger there is in
speaking badly about a wife with a dowry.’ Pl. As. 897–8)
(k) Sane sapit / atque ob istanc industriam etiam faxo amabit amplius.
(‘He’s just doing the smart thing and because of your officiousness he will surely make
love to her even more.’ Pl. Men. 790–1)
¹⁵ So Solin (in CIL I2.iv.1, p. 1009).

¹⁶ This discussion of faxo is based on de Melo (2007: 180–9). See also Sznajder (2003: 35–7).
¹⁷ There are also a few future perfect and perfect subjunctive instances, which are not relevant to the
problem discussed here. There are also instances of faxim + simple subjunctive.
The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used 
14.4 The levels at which subordinate clauses can be used

Just as with constituents of simple clauses, a distinction is made between argument
clauses, required by the meaning of a governing verb of the superordinate clause, and
satellites, optional constituents from the perspective of the governing verb of the
superordinate clause. These two types of clauses will be treated in detail in Chapters
15 and 16. Satellite clauses will be distinguished by semantic function and, where
applicable, will be divided into adjunct and disjunct clauses. This threefold distinction
is illustrated by the ut clauses in (a)–(c), all three of which are related to a main clause
together with which they form a sentence. In (a), the ut clause is the object argument,
governed by the three-place verb imperat in the main clause (for details, see § 15.66).
In (b), it is a purpose adjunct. In (c), it is an illocutionary disjunct that serves as a
justification for why the speaker tells the addressee that he was born in Carthage (for
details, see § 16.48).
(a) Ecce, Apollo mihi ex oraclo imperat / ut ego illic oculos exuram lampadibus
ardentibus.
(‘Look, Apollo tells me through a divine utterance to burn out that woman’s eyes with
flaming torches.’ Pl. Men. 840–1)
(b) Quam mox navigo / in Ephesum, ut aurum repetam ab Theotimo
domum?
(‘How soon shall I sail to Ephesus to take my money back home from Theotimus?’ Pl.
Bac. 775–6)
(c) Carthagini ego sum gnatus, ut tu sis sciens.
(‘Just so you know, I was born in Carthage.’ Pl. Poen. 1038)
Subordinate clauses can also function at a lower level, as constituents of noun, adjec-
tive, and adverb phrases (details in Chapter 17). Examples of an ut clause functioning
as an adnominal argument in a noun phrase are (d) and (e), governed by de voluntate
tua and officium meum, respectively. Note that an ut clause may also be used in com-
bination with the same noun at the clause level: in (f) ut facerem is the subject of the
clause, meum officium the subject complement. The ut clause in (d) can be compared
with the one in (g), which is the object of the verb volo.
(d) De voluntate tua ut simul simus . . . non dubito.
(‘Of your desire for us to be together . . . I have no doubt.’ Cic. Att. 12.26.1)
(e) Quamquam ego serva sum, / scio ego officium meum ut quae rogiter vera, ut
accepi, eloquar.
(‘Even though I’m a slave girl, I know my duty: to say the truth about what I’m asked,
just as I’ve heard it.’ Pl. Per. 615–16)
(f) Fuit meum officium ut facerem, fateor.
(‘It would have been my duty to do so, I admit it.’ Pl. Ps. 913)
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(g) Dimidium / volo ut dicas.

(‘I want you to say half.’ Pl. Rud. 960–1)
Examples of a subordinate clause with an adjective are (h) and (i): in the former an ut
clause and in the latter a gerundival clause function as the argument of two-place
dignus (see § 4.101); the whole expression ((vir) dignus . . . credamus) is in apposition
to Cornelius Celsus.¹⁸ In ( j) the gerundial clause ad persuadendum is required by the
two-place adverb apte with which it forms a manner adjunct.
(h) . . . Cornelius Celsus, mediocri vir ingenio, . . . dignus vel ipso proposito ut
eum scisse omnia illa credamus.
(‘. . . Cornelius Celsus, a man of very ordinary ability, because of his plan alone is
worthy of our trusting him in the claim that he knew all those things.’ Quint. Inst.
12.11.24)
(i) . . . Agrippina . . . testaretur adultum iam esse Britannicum, veram dignamque
stirpem suscipiendo patris imperio . . .
(‘. . . Agrippina testified that Britannicus was now mature, the true and worthy stock
for undertaking his father’s command . . .’ Tac. Ann. 13.14.2—tr. Woodman)
( j) Hi fere aut in persuadendo aut in dicendo apte ad persuadendum positum
orandi munus sunt arbitrati.
(‘They almost all believe that the function of oratory lies in persuading or in speaking
in a way adapted to persuade.’ Quint. Inst. 2.15.3)
All the examples in the preceding two paragraphs concern subordinate clauses that
are required by the valency of the nouns, adjectives, and adverbs involved. It is less
common for subordinate clauses that resemble satellites at the clause level to be used
at the phrase level, although gerundial and gerundival clauses at that level are com-
mon, as in (k).
(k) Decemviros legibus scribendis intra decem hos annos et creavimus et e re
publica sustulimus.
(‘Within the past ten years we have elected decemvirs for drawing up the laws, and
removed them from the commonwealth.’ Liv. 4.4.3)
The various types of clauses mentioned in Table 14.1 are very diverse as far as their
distribution is concerned. Whereas supine clauses can only be used as purpose
adjuncts and accusative and infinitive clauses only as arguments (with specific gov-
erning expressions), other classes of clauses can be used in all sorts of functions at the
clause level (see the examples of ut clauses above). Verbs and other governing expres-
sions vary in the types of clauses that can function as arguments with them. This is
illustrated by the following examples of second arguments with the verb volo. In (l)
the agent of accipere is identical with the subject of volo; this is the typical context
for a prolative infinitive clause. However, in the same situation an accusative and
¹⁸ For the relatively rare instances of ut clauses with dignus, see TLL s.v. 1152.24ff.
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
infinitive is not excluded, as is shown by (m).¹⁹ For different subjects in the main and
the accusative and infinitive clause, see (n). When the subjects are different, it is also
possible to use a finite clause with or without ut, as in (o) and (p), respectively.
(l) [Immo] hoc primum volo, / quaestioni accipere servos.
(‘This I want first, to accept his servants for questioning.’ Pl. Mos. 1091–2)
(m) Magnufice volo me viros summos accipere, ut mi rem esse reantur.
(‘I want to entertain some high-class gentlemen in grand style so that they think I
have money.’ Pl. Ps. 167)
(n) Vera volo loqui te, nolo assentari mihi.
(‘I want you to tell the truth, I don’t want you simply to agree with me.’ Pl. Am. 751)
(o) Quid vis? # Hos ut accipias coquos . . .
(‘What do you want? # That you take these cooks . . .’ Pl. Aul. 351)
(p) Le/no argentum hoc vo/lo a me accipiat . . .
(‘I want the pimp to receive this money from me . . .’ Pl. Ps. 1121a–23)
Details concerning the distribution of argument clauses are discussed in Chapter 15.
14.5 The internal properties of subordinate clauses

Sections § 14.6 up to and including § 14.14 deal with the internal structure of subor-
dinate clauses. The order of treatment follows to some extent the order in Table 14.1.
. Finite subordinate clauses
A common feature of finite clauses is, of course, that they have finite verb forms and
therefore can be marked for tense, mood, and person/number. The rules for the use of
the tenses and moods in the individual types of subordinate clauses are discussed in
§§ 7.85ff. and §§ 7.128ff., respectively. Historic infinitives are exceptional.
In most finite clauses the identity of the subject is inferrable from the verb form
(notably for the first and second person) and/or is expressed explicitly. Examples in
which the subject has to be inferred are (a) and (b). The subject of fieret in (a) is iden-
tical to is in the main clause; in (b) the subject of curet is Naevius, to be inferred from
the object of the main clause.
(a) Is speculatum huc misit me, ut quae fierent fieret particeps.
(‘He sent me here to watch out so that he’d have his share in knowledge of what’s
happening.’ Pl. Aul. 605)
¹⁹ For such instances in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. volo 909 § 2a.
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(b) Naevium certiorem facit, rogat ut curet quod dixisset.

(‘He informed Naevius, and asked him to provide for the payment, a thing which he
had said he would do.’ Cic. Quinct. 18)
Another common feature of finite subordinate clauses is that they have a recognizable
linking device, that is a particle, a subordinator, or a special pronoun, determiner,
adjective, or adverb (for clauses without such a device, see the end of this section).
However, there are differences in the role these linking devices play in their own
clause. This is illustrated for each class of finite subordinate clauses below. Examples
of interrogative subordinate clauses (indirect questions) are (c)–(e). In (c) the inter-
rogative particle -ne marks the clause as an interrogative clause; the particle belongs
to the clause as a whole and in this respect differs from the subordinating devices in
(d) and (e). The interrogative adverb quo and the interrogative determiner quas in (d)
and the interrogative pronoun quis in (e) not only mark their clauses as subordinate
and interrogative but also fulfil a function within these clauses: quo is a direction
argument in its clause, quas is the attribute of the noun aedis within another direction
argument, and quis is the subject complement in its clause (for details on the function
of these interrogative words in their clauses, see §§ 15.45ff.; for the corresponding
types of direct questions, see §§ 6.6ff.).
(c) Rogato servos veneritne ad eum tuos.
(‘You must then ask whether your slave has come to him.’ Pl. Poen. 181)
(d) Ill’ clam opservavit servos <qui eam proiecerat> / quo aut quas in aedis haec
puellam deferat.
(‘That slave who’d abandoned her observed secretly where and into which house the
woman was taking the girl.’ Pl. Cist. 168–9—NB: the lines are deleted by Degering,
followed by de Melo)
(e) Verbero, etiam quis ego sim me rogitas . . .
(‘You thug, you even ask me who I am . . .’ Pl. Am. 1029)
A similar distinction exists between relative clauses and clauses with a subordinator.
This is shown in (f), repeated from § 14.1, and in (g). In (f) the relative pronoun qui
functions as subject in its clause and at the same time marks the clause as subordinate.
By contrast, ut in (g), repeated from § 14.4 (a), has no function in its clause; it only
marks it as a subordinate clause. Note that in (h), repeated from § 14.4 (b), ut not only
marks the clause as subordinate, but also contributes to the interpretation of the
clause as a purpose adjunct.
(f) Miser est qui amat.
(‘Wretched is the man who is in love.’ Pl. Per. 179)
(g) Ecce, Apollo mihi ex oraclo imperat / ut ego illic oculos exuram lampadibus
ardentibus.
(‘Look, Apollo tells me through a divine utterance to burn out that woman’s eyes with
flaming torches.’ Pl. Men. 840–1)
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
(h) Quam mox navigo / in Ephesum, ut aurum repetam ab Theotimo domum?

(‘How soon shall I sail to Ephesus to take my money back home from Theotimus?’ Pl.
Bac. 775–6)
Finite clauses can also be incorporated into their superordinate clause by means of
prepositional expressions, both as argument and as satellite. An example of an argu-
ment is shown in (i), with the-two place verb versor in (see § 4.42); the ut . . . defenderet
clause functions as the second argument. Since prepositions cannot directly govern
clauses, the pronoun eo serves as a support. Together the prepositional phrase and
the subordinating device form a complex subordinator.²⁰ In ( j), cum (eo) marks the
quod . . . fiat clause as an adjunct of accompanying circumstances (see §10.76). The
combination of cum eo . . . quod with tamen makes it more or less equivalent to a stipu-
lative adjunct clause (see § 16.53). In (k) the autonomous relative clause is marked by
cum (with the anaphoric determiner eo) as the associative argument of cohaereo (see
§ 4.38). As the examples show, the regular expression is with the anaphoric pronoun/
determiner is in the case form required by the preposition. For relative pronouns, see
§ 18.16. For a rare instance of an indirect question in combination with a prepos-
itional phrase, see (l). Of the combinations exemplified below those with cum, de, ex,
and in are relatively common from Cicero’s time onwards. For further examples of
satellite clauses, see § 16.84. This use of is should not be confused with the preparative
use of pronouns and related expressions that is discussed in § 14.16.
(i) Nempe eius omnis oratio versata est in eo ut scriptum plurimum valere
oportere defenderet.
(‘Surely his entire address was concerned with defending the claim that the written
word ought to prevail to the uttermost.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.244)
( j) Sit sane, quoniam ita tu vis, sed tamen cum eo, credo, quod sine peccato meo fiat.
(‘So be it, since you will have it so, but with the proviso surely that it come about
without any fault on my part.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.7)
(k) Simplex autem conclusio reprehenditur, si hoc quod sequitur non videatur
necessario cum eo quod antecessit cohaerere.
(‘A simple conclusion is refuted if that which follows does not seem to be necessarily
consistent with that which precedes.’ Cic. Inv. 1.86)
(l) Equidem pro eo quanti te facio quicquid feceris approbabo.
(‘For my part, in accordance with how greatly I esteem you, I shall approve of what-
ever you have done.’ Cic. Fam. 3.3.2)
Instances of the combination of a preposition with a subordinator are all (very) Late.
An example is (m).²¹
²⁰ See Herman (1963: 74–116) on these ‘locutions conjonctives’.

²¹ See Sz.: 583, Norberg (1943: 232–42), and especially Herman (1963: 88–104) for combinations of
prepositions with quod, much less often quia and ut—e.g. ante, de, post, pro, propter (taken as an adverb in
TLL s.v. 2117.43ff.), secundum—in Late Latin. See also TLL s.v. pro 1435.51ff. (very late).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(m) . . . et cibum recusat et multum bibet, propter quod ardorem siccum pulmo-
nis patitur.
(‘. . . and he rejects food and drinks a lot, because he suffers a dry burning of the lungs.’
Mulom. Chir. 170)
Scholars have had difficulty describing combinations such as praeter quod, that is
combinations in which a word that is used as both a preposition and an adverb is fol-
lowed by a subordinator. Praeter in the combination praeter quod ‘except that’ is
described as an adverb by TLL s.v. praeter 1001.33ff. The OLD makes a distinction
between praeter adverb (§ B) and praeter conjunction (§ C) and calls it a conjunction
in the cases under discussion ( praeter id quod is attested earlier, from Mela onwards).
For other combinations meaning ‘except that’, see § 16.84.
A number of verbs that govern argument clauses with ut are also used with subordin-
ate clauses in the subjunctive without a subordinator, and with some verbs this is quite
common (with facio, for example). Two examples are (n) and (o) (the null sign ‘Ø’
indicates the missing ut). In this Syntax such clauses are called ‘clauses with a simple
subjunctive’. For further illustrations of this type of clause, see § 15.83, and, for excep-
tional instances of satellite clauses, § 16.4.
(n) Rogo vos Ø quam primum mihi rescribatis.
(‘I beg you to answer this letter as promptly as possible.’ D. Brut. Fam. 11.15)
(o) Qui Summanu’s? Fac Ø sciam.
(‘How come you’re Summanus? Let me know.’ Pl. Cur. 414)
Appendix: The use of an infinitive in an ut subordinate clause is twice attested in Livy

and a few times in later texts. However, most instances are emended, as in (p).²²
(p) Tribuni plebis appellati ab L. Scipione ita decreverunt ut, si morbi causa
excusaretur, sibi placere accipi eam causam diemque a collegis prodici.
(‘The tribunes of the people, when appealed to by Lucius Scipio, thus
decreed: that, if the plea of illness were submitted, it was their pleasure that
this plea should be accepted and the case adjourned by their colleagues.’ Liv.
38.52.8—NB: editors since Frobenius eliminate ut)
. Non-finite subordinate clauses
The ‘non-finite clauses’ as in Table 14.1 constitute a very heterogeneous set; they are
discussed separately below. The main concern here will be the internal structure of
these clauses. Their distribution is discussed in Chapters 15, 16, and 17.
²² Also Liv. 5.15.11, Gaius Inst. 3.160, Cypr. Ep. 57.5. See Panchón (2007: 166–9). See also § 7.71,
Appendix.
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
. The internal structure of accusative and infinitive clauses

A distinction must be made between accusative and infinitive clauses (abbrevi-
ated: AcI clauses) that are used with verbs of perception, cognition, and communica-
tion, and AcI clauses with manipulation verbs. Only the first class is discussed in
detail in this section.
Examples of the first class are (a)–(h). The subjects of the clauses are in the accusa-
tive (me, hanc, Marcellum, clipeum, se, hoc, gratias, and nihil). In (a)–(d) and in (f)–
(h) the subjects of the accusative and infinitive clause are different from those of their
main clause; in (e), the reflexive pronoun se is coreferential with the subject of prae-
dicat. See also suo and sibi in (g). All three infinitives (present (a), perfect (b), or
future (c)) are possible.²³ The AcI clause may be active or passive. Examples of a pas-
sive accusative and infinitive clause are (f) and (g), both with the agents expressed (ab
accusatore, ab his) (though this is relatively rare). The nominal parts of complex verb
forms, such as natam in (b), and subject complements, such as salvum in (d), agree
with the subject of the accusative and infinitive clause in the usual way. Apart from
arguments required by the verb or a comparable expression the AcI clause may con-
tain adjuncts of various kinds, like Athenis in (b) and in pompam and ludis aedilibus
in (e). Ex. (g) also has a disjunct, sine dubio, a sign that the clause is declarative. An
AcI clause may contain modal expressions, as in (h). Note that in (e) part of the AcI
clause precedes the governing verb praedicat (see also § 23.66).
(a) Audivistin’ tu me narrare haec hodie?
(‘Did you hear me tell her about this today?’ Pl. Am. 748)
(b) Quid ego ex te audio? # Hanc Athenis esse natam liberam.
(‘What do I hear from you? # That this girl was born free in Athens.’ Pl. Rud. 739)
(c) Quid . . . spectans deus ipse diceret Marcellum . . . in mari esse periturum?
(‘What consideration could lead the god himself to say that Marcellus was going to
die at sea?’ Cic. Fat. 33)
(d) . . . ei percontanti dictum est clipeum esse salvum . . .
(‘When he asked, it was related to him that his shield was safe . . .’ Cic. Fam. 5.12.5)
(e) Non audis? Mures Africanos praedicat / in pompam ludis dare se velle
aedilibus.
(‘Can’t you hear? He states that he wants to present African mice for the parade at the
games of the aediles.’ Pl. Poen. 1011–12)
(f) At hoc ab accusatore ne dici quidem audistis.
(‘You have not heard this so much as mentioned by the accuser.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 39)
²³ For the increase of the use of (active and passive) future infinitives in Classical Latin as compared to
Early Latin, see Perrochat (1932b: 1–83).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(g) . . . Scipio cum existimasset pro suo beneficio sine dubio ab his gratias sibi
actum iri, potestatem iis dicundi fecit.
(‘Since Scipio had determined that gratitude would undoubtedly be expressed by
them for his kindness, he gave them permission to speak.’ B. Afr. 45.1)
(h) . . . videbat re publica oppressa nihil posse decerni.
(‘. . . he saw that with the Republic crushed nothing could be decreed.’ Cic. Phil. 8.5)
In (a) the accusative and infinitive clause functions as the object of active audivistin’;
it could be replaced by id or something similar. This can be seen from (b), where the
AcI clause as a whole constitutes the answer to the preceding question, replacing the
object quid in that question. The subject of the accusative and infinitive clause fulfils
no function in the main clause, nor does the infinitive. In this respect the accusative
and infinitive clause differs from the accusative and prolative infinitive construction
(see § 14.11). When the governing verb is in the so-called impersonal passive, the AcI
clause functions as the subject, as in (d), where clipeum esse salvum is the subject. The
fact that dictum (est) is neuter singular shows that the accusative and infinitive clause
counts as neuter singular.
Supplement:
Modal expression: . . . cum (sapiens) sibi cum capitali adversario, dolore, depugnan-
dum videret . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.31)
Passive infinitive with explicit agent: . . . sophistas . . . lusos videmus a Socrate. (Cic.
Fin. 2.2); . . . ut ab ipsis Stoicis scriptum videmus . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.15); . . . ne fando qui-
dem auditum est crocodillum . . . violatum ab Aegyptio. (Cic. N.D. 1.82).
Accusative and infinitive clauses have their own illocutionary force, as was shown in
(g) above by the use of the disjunct sine dubio. Most often they are declarative. For
interrogative AcI clauses, see § 15.105. For the use of the AcI in relative clauses, see
ex. (m) in § 14.1 and § 15.107.
When the context offers sufficient support, the subject of the AcI clause is quite
often not expressed.²⁴ The unexpressed subject is easier to supply if it is identical with
the subject of the main clause, as in (i), but sometimes it must be inferred from the
context, as in ( j), where eum has to be supplied referring to the barber in his shop who
is mentioned before. Implicit subjects are particularly common in comedy, but they
are also found in early tragedy, in Cicero (most examples one finds quoted are from
the letters, but see (k) and (l)), Caesar, and other authors. There is no reason to assume
that it was typical of a lower variety of (spoken) Latin.²⁵ In the examples below the
null sign ‘Ø’ indicates an unexpressed subject.
²⁴ For a survey of accusative and infinitive clauses without an explicit subject in Early Latin, see
Bennett: I.383–8. For other authors, see the references in Sz.: 362.
²⁵ See de Melo (2006). For Cicero, see Lebreton (1901b: 378). For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 49–50=
1985: 101).
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
(i) . . . neque ego hau committam ut, si quid peccatum siet, / Ø fecisse dicas de
[me] mea sententia.
(‘I won’t run the risk that if any mistake is made you might say that you had done it
according to my verdict.’ Pl. Bac. 1037–8)
( j) Sed utrum strictimne Ø adtonsurum dicam esse an per pectinem, / nescio.
(‘But whether I should say that he’s going to give him a close shave or one through the
comb, I don’t know.’ Pl. Capt. 268–9)
(k) Hic alios negasse Ø audere, alios respondisse Ø non putare id perfici posse.
(‘At this, some of them had said they would not dare to try it, others had replied that
they did not believe it could be managed.’ Cic. Ver. 23)
(l) Qui negare noluit esse in eo numero Sullam . . . Ø nescire dixit.
(‘The man who did not like to deny that Sulla was among that number said he did not
know.’ Cic. Sul. 39)
Supplement:
Id ego aecum ac iustum fecisse expedibo atque eloquar. (Enn. scen. 148J); Pol si istuc
faxis, hau sine poena feceris, / si ille huc rebitet, sicut confido affore. (Pl. Capt. 695–6);
Ut, si sequentur me, hac abiisse censeant. (Pl. Men. 556); Nisi forte illud quod dictu-
rum te esse audio, quaestorem illius fuisse. (Cic. Div. Caec. 59); Iam ne nocte quidem
turba ex eo loco dilabebatur refracturosque carcerem minabantur, cum remisso eo,
quod erepturi erant, ex senatus consulto Manlius vinclis liberatur. (Liv. 6.17.6); Certe
enim oblitos (sc. esse) agitis. (Tert. Apol. 10.6); Meminerat certe, nisi circumcisum
scirent, non admittendum in sancta sanctorum. (Tert. Marc. 4.7.7)
The subjects of present active infinitives with a future reference (quite common in
Early Latin, see §§ 7.68–9) are relatively often identical to the subject of the main
clause, which explains why they are more often implicit than in accusative and infini-
tive clauses that contain another infinitive. Another facilitating factor is the endings
of the participial elements of perfect passive and future active infinitives, as well as
adjective endings (de Melo 2006). An example is (m), where the ending -am makes it
clear that the speaker is talking about his daughter.
(m) Postremo etiam, si voles, / desponsam quoque esse dicito.
(‘And finally, if you want, even say that my daughter is engaged.’ Ter. Hau. 865–6)
Sometimes one may have difficulty in deciding whether the infinitive is part of an
accusative and infinitive clause (without a subject) or a prolative infinitive.
With manipulation verbs, the use of an AcI clause is for most governing verbs
restricted to their use as a two-place verb. The AcI clause may be active or passive, but
it is restricted in other ways. For details, see § 15.100.
Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as subject or object at the clause level
(see § 15.93), and as argument with certain nouns and adjectives (see § 17.13 and
§ 17.28). For rare instances of AcI clauses in a satellite position, see § 14.16, ex. (f).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
There has been extensive debate in the literature on the origin and structure of
the AcI (see § 12.5). For the distinction between the accusative and infinitive and
the prolative infinitive clauses, see Bolkestein (1976a, 1976b, 1977b, and 1979)
and, from a diachronic perspective, Hettrich (1992). See also Adams (2005a) on
documentary data.
. The nominative and infinitive construction

The nominative and infinitive construction (nominativus cum infinitivo, abbrevi-
ated: NcI), illustrated by (a), is often regarded as a personal passive counterpart of the
use of the accusative and infinitive clause in (b), which itself is often labelled an
‘impersonal’ passive construction. In (a), habitare has no explicit subject of its own:
the person living in the house is Demaenetus, the subject of the passive verb form
dicitur or, in other words: the agent of habitare is coreferential with the subject of
dicitur. In (b), the accusative and infinitive clause is as a whole the subject of dictum’st.
The Latin expression in (a) resembles the English expression John was said to be in
Birmingham, where the entity to which be in Birmingham applies manifests itself as
subject of the passive expression was said.
(a) . . . hasce aedis esse oportet / Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare.
(‘. . . it ought to be this house here where Demaenetus is said to live.’ Pl. As. 381–2)
(b) In hac habitasse platea dictum’st Chrysidem . . .
(‘It is said that Chrysis lived on this street.’ Ter. An. 796)
There is a second type of nominative and infinitive construction with a passive infini-
tive, illustrated by (c). Here, the patient of captus esse is coreferential with the subject
of dici. A corresponding ‘impersonal’ construction with a passive accusative and
infinitive clause functioning as the subject is (d).
(c) Hoc commode reprehenditur, si dici possit ex hostibus equus esse captus . . .
(‘A proper answer is made to this if the horse can be said to have been captured from
the enemy . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.85)
(d) . . . mihi et dictum est et scriptum vehementer consilium vestrum reprehendi . . .
(‘. . . it was both said to me and written that your tactics were being strongly criti-
cized . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.24.1)
Just as with the accusative and infinitive clause all three active infinitives are possible
in the nominative and infinitive construction, as can be seen in (e) and (f), with a
future and a perfect infinitive, respectively (for further examples, see § 15.110). For a
present passive infinitive in the ‘patient’ type of nominative and infinitive construc-
tion, see (g).
(e) Is nunc dicitur / venturus peregre.
(‘Now he’s said to be about to come from abroad.’ Pl. Truc. 84–5)
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
(f) (sc. Pelias) . . . quem medicamento et suis venenis (sc. Medea) dicitur / fecisse
rursus ex sene adulescentulum . . .
(‘(sc. Pelias) . . . whom she’s said to have turned from an old man into a young one
again with her medicine and potions . . .’ Pl. Ps. 870–1)
(g) Amplissime laudari existimabatur qui ita laudabatur.
(‘One so praised was thought to be praised most honourably.’ Cato Agr. praef. 2)
Apart from the formal differences, the AcI and NcI constructions differ in many other
respects as well. Firstly, unlike the accusative and infinitive clause, the nominative and
infinitive construction cannot be said to fulfil a function within a superordinate
clause; it thus resembles the ‘fused’ clauses discussed in §§ 14.10–13 in the require-
ment of identity of the subject of the main verb and the agent or patient of the infini-
tive. Secondly, it seems unlikely that attitudinal disjuncts were allowed with the
nominative and infinitive. Thirdly, there are differences in the contexts in which the
AcI and NcI can be used (see § 15.111). For these reasons the NcI will be regarded as
a distinct construction in this Syntax.
. ‘Fused’ clauses

Infinitival, gerundial, and supine clauses have in common that the first argument of
the clause has to be inferred from the superordinate clause. These clauses are called
fused clauses in this Syntax. In (a), for example, the first argument that is under-
stood with the (prolative) infinitive monere (object) is identical to the subject of volo.
In (b), the first argument of the gerundial clause is identical to the subject of abrogant;
the gerundial clause functions as means adjunct in its sentence. In (c), the agent of the
supine clause (a purpose adjunct) is identical to the subject of isse. The clausal charac-
ter of these expressions appears from the fact that they contain arguments and in (b)
and (c) also satellites.
(a) At hoc volo, monere te.
(‘But what I want is to warn you.’ Pl. Ps. 915)
(b) Male fidem servando illis quoque abrogant etiam fidem / qui nil meriti.
(‘By keeping faith badly they take away faith even from those who haven’t done any-
thing wrong.’ Pl. Trin. 1048–9)
(c) Alii di (sc. Iovem) isse ad villam aiebant servis depromptum cibum.
(‘The other gods said he’d gone to his country estate to deal out rations to his slaves.’
Pl. Trin. 944)
Whereas in (a)–(c) the first argument of the subordinate clause is the same as the
subject of the main verb, identity with another argument is common as well, as is
shown in (d) and (e): in (d) the first argument of the infinitive adsentari is identical
to mihi, the indirect object of the three-place verb imperavi; in (e), the first argument
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
of reverti is identical to eum, the object of rogo. A comparable example of the supine
is (f).
(d) Postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari.
(‘Finally I ordered myself to agree with them in everything.’ Ter. Eu. 252–3)
(e) Sed nunc quoque eum reverti / maturius ex Dalmatia rogo.
(‘But now I appeal to him to hasten his return from Dalmatia.’ Stat. Silv. 4.pr.20)
(f) Pamphilam / cantatum provocemu’.
(‘Let’s summon Pamphila to sing.’ Ter. Eu. 442–3)
. Prolative infinitive clauses
Prolative infinitive clauses are of several types.²⁶ The examples used in the preceding
section and repeated here illustrate two types: those functioning as object with two-
place verbs, as in (a), and those functioning as object with three-place verbs, as in (b).
The object status of monere te in (a) appears from the presence of the cataphorically
used pronoun hoc. With so-called impersonal verbs like licet ‘it is permitted’, the pro-
lative clause functions as the subject, as in (c).
(a) At hoc volo, monere te.
(‘But what I want is to warn you.’ Pl. Ps. 915)
(b) Postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari.
(‘Finally I ordered myself to agree with them in everything.’ Ter. Eu. 252–3)
(c) Nunc licet mi libere quidvis loqui.
(‘Now it is permitted to me to say anything freely.’ Pl. Am. 393)
If the prolative infinitive clause contains the copula sum, the subject complement agrees
with a constituent of the superordinate clause: in (d), callidus and veterator agree with
homo luteus, the subject of vult; in (e), quieto agrees with tibi, the second argument of
licet. The same goes for secondary predicates, like tacitus with os tuum praebere in (f).
(For the rules of agreement involved, and some exceptions, see § 13.18.)
(d) Deinde in hoc homo luteus etiam callidus ac veterator esse vult . . .
(‘In the second place, this dirty fellow wants even in this to seem cunning and wily . . .’
Cic. Ver. 3.35)
(e) Per hanc curam quieto tibi licet esse.
(‘As far as that worry is concerned, you can be calm.’ Pl. Epid. 338)
(f) . . . iis (sc. testibus) tacitus os tuum praebere malueris . . .
(‘. . . you who preferred to show them your face without speaking a word . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.41)
²⁶ ‘The infinitive used in this way with a finite verb is called the Prolative Infinitive because it “carries
on” or extends the sense of the finite verb.’ (Woodcock 1959: 16).
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
With three-place verbs such as rogo—see (e) in § 14.10—the second argument func-
tions as object; accordingly, when the verb is passive, the second argument functions
as subject, as in (g).
(g) Et sane cum quis rogatur accepta certa quantitate portionem restituere,
duplex est fideicommissum . . .
(‘Certainly, when a man is asked, after he has accepted a certain sum, to restore his
portion, the fideicommissum is double . . .’ Ulp. dig. 32.11.3)
Formally, quis rogatur restituere in (g) resembles the first type of nominative and
infinitive construction illustrated by Demaenetus dicitur habitare in ex. (a) in § 14.9.
However, there is a semantic difference: whereas quis in (g) is the person the question
is addressed to, Demaenetus is not the addressee of dicitur. The addressee with the
verb dico is in the dative and can also be expressed in a nominative and infinitive
construction with dico, as in (h).
(h) Dicitur mihi tuus servus anagnostes fugitivus cum Vardaeis esse.
(‘They tell me that a runaway slave of yours, a reader, is with the Vardaei.’ Vat. Fam.
5.9.2)
Another important difference between (g) and the nominative and infinitive con-
struction is that the infinitive in a prolative infinitive clause is usually restricted to the
present (see §§ 7.68–9, where there are also examples of a few other infinitives). In
addition, with three-place rogo the second type of nominative clause with a passive
infinitive (see § 14.9) is excluded. For further details concerning the prolative infini-
tive at the clause level, see §§ 15.114ff.²⁷
With three-place verbs of accusing and convicting there are no restrictions, as is
shown in (i) and ( j) (for accusative and infinitive clauses with these verbs when
meaning ‘to prove’ or ‘to allege’, see § 15.130).
(i) . . . insimulant eum (sc. Ulixem) tragoediae simulatione insaniae militiam
subterfugere voluisse.
(‘. . . the tragedies charge him (sc. Ulysses) with having wanted to escape a
soldier’s service by feigning madness.’ Cic. Off. 3.97—perfect infinitive)
( j) . . . incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium . . .
(‘. . . the charge was made that he would carry his exile lightly . . .’ Tac. Ann.
6.3.3—future infinitive)
The combination of a prolative infinitive clause and volo in (a) and vult in (d) looks like but
is actually not an auxiliary + infinitive phrase; for the difference, see § 4.98. Prolative infini-
tive clauses are also used with nouns and adjectives (see § 17.15 and § 17.29, respectively).
In Early Latin and in poetry infinitive clauses can also be used as adjuncts with verbs
of movement, as in (k), and with the verb do ‘to give’ and related verbs, as in (l). The
²⁷ For the restrictions that hold for prolative infinitive clauses, see Bolkestein (1976a and 1976b).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
term ‘prolative’ is not used for such infinitive clauses in this Syntax. For further
details, see § 16.86.
(k) Illa autem in arcem abiit aedem visere / Minervae.
(‘She has gone to the acropolis to visit the temple of Minerva.’ Pl. Bac. 900–1)
(l) Age, circumfer mulsum, bibere da usque plenis cantharis.
(‘Go on, pass the honey-wine round, give us to drink from full goblets.’ Pl.
Per. 821)
. Gerundial clauses
Gerundial clauses can be used as arguments (see §§ 15.136–8) and as satellites

(see § 16.99–104) at the clause level, as well as with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
at a lower level (see §§ 17.17–20; 31–4). They cannot, however, function as subject
(see § 5.42). In Late Latin they can also be used as secondary predicates in more or less
the same way as present participles (see § 21.14). Gerundial clauses may contain
arguments and/or adjuncts, as in (a), two arguments; in (b), a (contextually given)
argument and an adjunct (saepius); and in (c), one argument with each gerund
(see also (b) in § 14.10). However, instead of a gerundial clause containing an object,
gerundival clauses are preferred (see § 15.140). Satellites are very uncommon.
Disjuncts and connectors and interactive particles are not allowed.
(a) Homines enim ad deos nulla re propius accedunt quam salutem hominibus
dando.
(‘For in nothing do men more nearly approach the gods than in doing good to their
fellow-men.’ Cic. Lig. 38—NB: parallelism with nulla re)
(b) Deinde saepius dando (sc. munus gladiatorum) et modo volneribus tenus,
modo sine missione, etiam [et] familiare oculis gratumque id spectaculum
fecit . . .
(‘Then by frequent repetitions, by sometimes allowing the fighters to go only as far as
wounding one another, sometimes permitting them to fight without giving quarter,
he made the sight familiar and even pleasing . . .’ Liv. 41.20.12)
(c) . . . duorum labori ego hominum parsissem lubens, / mei te rogandi et tis
respondendi mihi.
(‘. . . I’d have been happy to spare two people from trouble, me from asking you and
you from answering me.’ Pl. Ps. 4–5)
The first argument of the gerundial clause is almost always identical to the subject of
the superordinate clause. When ipse is used in the gerundial clause, it agrees with this
subject, as in (d). An exception to the rule of coreferentiality is (e): with the zero-
valent verb pluit (see § 4.90) coreferentiality is excluded. For further exceptions, see
§ 16.101 fin., (f).
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
(d) Sed eos Ser. Sulpicius Galba . . . prensando ipse . . . stimulaverat ut frequentes
ad suffragium adessent.
(‘But Servius Sulpicius Galba had egged on the men to appear for voting in full num-
bers, by buttonholing the men himself.’ Liv. 45.35.8)
(e) . . . Mucius . . . diceret omnem aquam oportere arceri quae pluendo crevisset.
(‘. . . Mucius would come to argue that all water which has risen because of rain should
be excluded.’ Cic. Top. 38)
. Supine clauses
For the categorial status of the two supines and their relation, see § 3.21. The first
supine (in -um) functions as a purpose adjunct at the clause level, whereas the second
supine (in -u) is almost restricted to adjectives. With the first supine arguments are
not uncommon nor is it difficult to find adjuncts, as in (c) in § 14.10 and in (a) below,
with an object and a beneficiary adjunct. With the second supine arguments and sat-
ellites are rarely attested, which may be due to its infrequency. A rare instance of a
satellite is Latino sermone in (b). With both supines disjuncts and discourse particles
are excluded. For further details, see §§ 16.111–13.
(a) Iam hercle ego per hortum ad amicam transibo meam / mi hanc occupatum
noctem.
(‘Now I’ll go over to my girlfriend through the garden in order to secure this night for
myself.’ Pl. St. 437–8)
(b) Ex his (sc. oppidis) digna memoratu aut Latino sermone dictu facilia, a flu-
mine Ana litore Oceani oppidum Ossonoba . . .
(‘Worthy of mention in this district, or easy to say in Latin, are: on the ocean coast
beginning at the river Guadiana, the town Ossonoba . . .’ Plin. Nat. 3.7)
. Participial, gerundival, and nominal clauses

The four remaining classes in Table 14.1 above (p. 6), both the verbal and the nominal
ones, differ considerably from those discussed so far. With regard to their internal
structure, they consist of an element that corresponds to the subject in a simple finite
clause and an element that functions like a subject complement. This is shown in (a).
The internal structure of me . . . auctore, an ablative absolute clause, resembles that of
(ego) auctor sum in (b), where ego is the subject and the noun auctor the subject com-
plement.²⁸ Interestingly, the roles of the content of the advice and the person acting as
adviser are inverted: in (a) the content of the advice is the main clause and the person
acting as adviser subordinate; in (b) the content of the advice is governed by the per-
son acting as adviser.
²⁸ Latin has no present participle of the verb sum.

 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(a) Non me quidem / faciet auctore hodie ut illum decipiat.

(‘Not with me advising him will he bring about the deception of that man today.’
Pl. St. 602–3)
(b) . . . Lysimache, auctor sum ut me amando enices.
(‘Lysimachus, I give you permission to kill me by loving me.’ Pl. Mer. 312)
In (a) the subject complement-like constituent is a noun. This function can also be
fulfilled by constituents that belong to other lexical categories. Ex. (c) contains two
coordinated ablative absolute clauses, one with a present participle (dicente), the other
with an adjective (vivo). This adjective might theoretically be taken as an attribute
modifying Sulla (which would then be its head), thus making it a noun phrase instead
of a clause. However, the coordination with contra dicente Cotta proves that this ana-
lysis is incorrect.
(c) Atque hoc et contra dicente Cotta et Sulla vivo iudicatum est.
(‘And this verdict was given though Cotta opposed it and Sulla was still alive.’ Cic.
Caec. 97)
Further support for the treatment of Sulla vivo as a clause and not as a phrase (and
consequently for the treatment of vivo not as an (optional) attribute of Sulla, but as a
subject complement-like constituent, as in Sulla vivus erat) can be found in the obser-
vation that Sulla alone would be difficult to understand. As for dicente in (c), this can
be compared with the use of a finite verb, as in Cotta contra dicebat. Present participles
rarely function as subject complement (see § 7.78 and § 9.23). Of the other participles
the use of the perfect passive participle in participial clauses is very common, the per-
fect deponent rare, and the future participle extremely rare. In Early Latin nouns and
adjectives are much more common than participles. An indication of the relative fre-
quency of the various categories used in ablative absolute clauses is given in Table 14.2.²⁹
Table . Categories of subject complements in ablative absolute clauses in the

letters of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny the Younger, and Fronto
Perfect participles Present participles Adjectives Nouns Total

Cicero 58% 23% 10% 9% 741
Seneca 52% 40% 7% 1% 204
Pliny 58% 32% 6% 4% 279
Fronto 60% 33% 2% 5% 85
Another type is the gerundival clause lamentando . . . filio in (d). Here, too, filio alone
would be difficult to interpret.
²⁹ For the development of the use of the various categories in the ablative absolute, see Flinck-
Linkomies (1929). For numerical data, see Steele (1902: 298; 1904: 315) on Livy and the letters used for
Table 14.2 respectively, partially repeated in Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 138).
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
(d) Thetis quoque etiam lamentando pausam fecit filio.

(‘And even Thetis stopped lamenting for her son.’ Pl. Truc. 731)
In accordance with the rules of agreement (see § 13.2) the subject complements, par-
ticiples, and gerundives in these clauses agree with their subject constituents.
There are a few exceptions to the rule of agreement between the two constituents
of the ablative absolute that already drew the attention of ancient commentators.
Examples are: absente nobis (Ter. Eu. 649); praesente amicis (Pompon. com. 47);
praesente multis (Rhet. Her. 4.16); posuit · / titulum de suo · astan- / te civibus ·
suis / impensi · . . . (CIL V.895 (Aquilea, Imperial period)).³⁰
As for the subject of these clauses, it is usually a noun or a noun phrase (or a proper
name). However, the subject may also be a pronoun, and this is the most frequent
category in Early Latin. Interrogative and relative pronouns and phrases functioning
as subject of a participial phrase deserve special mention. Two examples of interroga-
tive expressions are given in (e) and (f). For autonomous relative clauses and for argu-
ment clauses functioning as subject of participial clauses, see § 16.91.
(e) . . . tu vero quibus rebus gestis, quo hoste superato contionem donandi causa
advocare ausus es?
(‘But what victory had you won, what enemy had you defeated, that you should dare
to summon a public meeting at which to make such presentations?’ Cic. Ver. 3.185)
(f) Musa, mihi causas memora, quo numine laeso / quidve dolens regina deum
tot volvere casus / insignem pietate virum, tot adire labores / impulerit.
(‘Tell me, O Muse, the causes; wherein thwarted in will or wherefor angered, did the
Queen of heaven drive a man, of goodness so wondrous, to traverse so many perils,
to face so many toils.’ Verg. A. 1.8–12)
The clausal character of the expressions under discussion deserves some further elab-
oration. In (g), the combination of the participle occisus and the noun dictator func-
tions as the subject of the subordinate clause.
(g) . . . cum occisus dictator . . . pulcherrimum facinus videretur.
(‘. . . when the slaughter of the dictator . . . seemed the finest of acts.’ Tac. Ann. 1.8.6—
tr. Woodman)
This combination, just like Sulla vivo in (c), has at first sight all the properties of a
noun phrase. The perfect passive participle occisus agrees with the human common
noun dictator in the same way as an attributive participle, and the unit as a whole is
singular, as can be seen from its agreement with the third person singular verb form
(videretur). Semantically, however, the unit does not refer to a human being with the
property of being dead, but to the fact that this particular human being has been
killed. Thus the unit behaves as an event noun from the semantic point of view (for
³⁰ See TLL s.v. praesens 838.55ff.

 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
example occisio dictatoris—note the translation),³¹ and accordingly can be described

as a most beautiful action. This analysis of the combination is corroborated by the
existence of a few instances of coordination of a participial clause and a noun phrase
containing a deverbal noun, as in (h).³²
(h) Decuriatio tribulium, discriptio populi, suffragia largitione devincta severi-
tatem senatus et bonorum omnium vocem ac dolorem excitarunt.
(‘It was the dividing of the men of a tribe into decuries, the classification of the whole
people, and the attempt to bind men’s votes by bribes, that provoked the severity of
the senate and the energetic indignation of all good men.’ Cic. Planc. 45)
Further evidence that these clauses behave as one unit can be seen in the fact that they
can be replaced by a clause of some sort. Thus the ablative absolute clause in (i) can be
replaced by a postquam clause, as is shown in ( j).³³ A participial clause can also be
pronominalized, as it is by quod in (k).³⁴
(i) (Cethegus) . . . recitatis litteris (a me, sc. Cicerone) . . . repente conticuit.
(‘(Cethegus) . . . after his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)
( j) Postquam litteras recitavi (ego {Cicero}), Cethegus repente conticuit.
(k) Plerique amicorum Alexandri non tam criminum quae palam obiciebantur
atrocitatem quam memoriam occisi per illos Parmenionis, quod tacitum
prodesse reis apud regem poterat, intuebantur . . .
(‘Very many of Alexander’s friends had an eye, not so much to the atrocity of the
crimes that were openly laid to the charge of these men, as to the memory that they
had killed Parmenion, which might secretly help the accused with the king . . .’ Curt.
10.1.6—NB: quod tacitum is also a participial clause)
The clausal character of participial clauses appears also from the possibility of adding
arguments and satellites. This possibility is fully exploited by authors like Livy, espe-
cially for the ablative absolute clause, as in (l). The ablative absolute clause between
the square brackets [[ . . . ]] contains two satellites, prius and a subordinate ablative
absolute clause (agro . . . diviso), which in turn contains the satellite viritim. Its subject
agro is expanded by a participial phrase functioning as its attribute (between curly
brackets). (For similar cases of complexity, see § 16.91.)
³¹ However, participial clauses differ from deverbal nouns in several respects. See Spevak (2018).
³² Holland (1986) discusses the various forms of absolute constructions in older Indo-European
languages. He suggests that absolute constructions are essentially nominal sentences that have been
grammaticalized and received different case forms in the various languages. The idea that the ablative
absolute functions as a clausal unit and not as an expanded noun phrase has been supported inter alios
by Flinck-Linkomies (1929: especially 92–6), Heick (1936), Pinkster (1972), Helander (1977: 28–9 and
passim), Serbat (1979), Bolkestein (1981a), Lavency (1986), Hoff (1989), Longrée (1995), Nikitina and
Haug (2016), and Spevak (2018).
³³ The equivalence of the ablative absolute clause with a finite temporal clause was already noted by
Priscianus (18.14ff.): me vidente puerum cecidisti = dum ego video, puerum cecidisti. See also § 16.88 and
§ 16.89.
³⁴ This point is illustrated by Storme (2010: 126–7).
The internal properties of subordinate clauses 
(l) Servius . . . [[conciliata prius voluntate plebis (agro {capto ex hostibus} viritim
diviso)]] ausus est ferre ad populum vellent iuberentne se regnare.
(‘Servius . . . with the goodwill of the commons having first been obtained through a
division among all the citizens of the land captured from the enemy, made bold to
call upon the people to vote whether they were desiring or ordering him to rule.’
Liv. 1.46.1)
Another proof of the clausal character of participial clauses is the use of negators, as
in (m).³⁵
(m) Atque ex omnibus illa plaga est iniecta petitioni tuae non tacente me maxima . . .
(‘And the greatest of all these blows against your campaign fell not without a warning
from me.’ Cic. Mur. 48)
The examples discussed so far showed clauses functioning at the sentence level.
However, participial and gerundival clauses can also be used at the noun phrase and
the adjective phrase levels, as in (n), repeated from § 3.20. Here the gerundival clause
is in the genitive, just like the noun phrase with which it is coordinated. The clauses
discussed in this section are as a whole marked by the case or the preposition that is
suitable in the context. (For further details, see Chapter 17.)
(n) . . . habere utramque debet disciplinam, et agri culturae et pecoris pascendi . . .
(‘. . . he ought to have a knowledge of both pursuits, agriculture and cattle-raising . . .’
Var. R. 2.pr.5)
Table 14.3 presents a survey of the various functions participial and nominal clauses
may fulfil in their sentences. There are not attestations for all the structurally possible
Table . Syntactic functions of participial and nominal clauses
verbal (participial) nominal

function perf. pass. perf. pres. act. noun adjective
dep.
argument occisus dictator (o) fugiens filius orator (q) gnarus
Pompeius (p) hostis (r)
satellite: recitatis litteris (s) orta nullo hoste me auctore (v) civibus
bare case luce (t) prohibente (u) salvis (w)
satellite: ob amicitiam ante me
preposition servatam (x) consulem (y)
attribute in a conservatae rei
noun phrase publicae testimo-
nium (z)
³⁵ For the use of negators with participles in general, see Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 39–44).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
expressions, and some attested expressions are rare and only found in mannered liter-
ary texts, for example in the works of Tacitus. These expressions are printed in bold.
Examples follow below.
(o) . . . occisus dictator . . . pulcherrimum facinus videretur.
(‘. . . the slaughter of the dictator . . . seemed the finest of acts.’ Tac. Ann. 1.8.6—tr.
Woodman)
(p) Fugiens . . . Pompeius mirabiliter homines movet.
(‘The picture of Pompey on the run affects people marvellously.’ Cic. Att. 7.11.4)
(q) . . . filius legati orator publicae causae satis ostenderet necessitate expressa
quae per modestiam non obtinuissent.
(‘. . . the sight of their general’s son pleading the common cause showed plainly enough
that the things which they could not have obtained by orderly methods had been
extracted by force.’ Tac. Ann. 1.19.5)
(r) Augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis et, si omitteretur ripa,
invasurus hostis.
(‘To add to the alarm, the enemy was cognizant of the disaffection of the Roman
ranks, and invasion was certain if the Rhine bank was abandoned.’ Tac. Ann. 1.36.2)
(s) (sc. Cethegus) recitatis litteris . . . repente conticuit.
(‘(Cethegus,) after his letter was read out . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)
(t) . . . orta luce sub sinistra Britanniam relictam conspexit (sc. Caesar).
(‘. . . at sunrise (Caesar) sighted Britain left behind on the port side.’ Caes. Gal. 5.8.1)
(u) . . . nullo hoste prohibente aut iter demorante incolumem legionem in
<N>antuates . . . perduxit ibique hiemavit.
(‘. . . as there was no enemy to hinder him or delay his march, he brought the legion
safely into the territory of the Nantuates . . . and there wintered.’ Caes. Gal. 3.6.4)
(v) Nicias . . . etsi invito me tamen eodem me auctore, profectus est.
(‘Nicias . . ., on my advice though against my will, set out.’ Cic. Att. 13.28.3)
(w) Hostibus victis, civibus salvis . . . / . . . vobis gratis habeo atque ago, quia probe
sum ultus meum inimicum.
(‘Now that the foes are conquered, the citizens safe . . . I say and give thanks to
you . . . because I have taken proper revenge on my enemy.’ Pl. Per. 753–6)
(x) Amicitiam nonne facile (sc. defendere fuit) ei qui ob eam summa fide, con-
stantia iustitiaque servatam maximam gloriam ceperit?
(‘Would not the defence of friendship be easy for that man who on account of his
preserving it with the utmost fidelity, constancy and sense of justice has gained the
greatest renown?’ Cic. Amic. 25)
(y) . . . mortuus est annis LXXXVI ipsis ante me consulem.
(‘. . . he died . . . exactly eighty-six years before my consulship.’ Cic. Brut. 61)
Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses 
(z) Sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium.
(‘He bears witness to the state having been by him well served, by me saved.’ Cic.
Att. 2.1.6)
Grammarians have used various terms and notions for these clauses. This Syntax will
use the expression dominant (participle) construction.³⁶
14.15 Means of tightening and making more

explicit the relationship between subordinate
and superordinate clauses
The relation between subordinate and superordinate clauses can be strengthened by
various devices. correlative expressions in the superordinate clause, either prepar-
ing for a subordinate clause to come or referring back to one that has preceded, are
shown in § 14.16 and § 14.17.³⁷ These expressions serve several purposes, one of
which is to make the structure of the sentence more transparent, especially when it is
long. They can also serve to draw attention to a salient element. A second device is the
use of various particles and adverbs that clarify the relationship between the two
clauses (§ 14.18). A third device is the use of various forms of interlacing: the inte-
gration of elements that semantically belong to one clause into the syntactic structure
of the other clause (§ 14.19).
. Preparative elements in the main clause
Subordinate clauses can be announced in the superordinate clause by means of pre-

parative expressions of various types.³⁸ Very common are neuter (almost always
singular)³⁹ forms of the pronouns hic, ille, is, and (rarely) iste, in that order of fre-
quency.⁴⁰ Examples of each of these pronouns are (a)–(d). For their cataphoric use in
general, see § 11.139. The use of cataphoric pronouns is particularly frequent in inter-
active texts (e.g. letters, orations, and drama).⁴¹
³⁶ The term ‘dominant participle’ was introduced by A.G. de Man in his Dutch school grammar Accipe
ut reddas (1965). A more common term is ab urbe condita construction. See Woodcock (1959: 75–7),
Bolkestein (1980b; 1980c; 1981b; 1983), Lambertz (1982: 568–86), and Haspelmath (1987).
³⁷ For a very complete survey of correlative devices, see Herman (1963: 74–104).
³⁸ See Bodelot (2000: 41–158) on ‘complétives et construction appositionnelle’. Also Bodelot (2003:
201–5; 2010; 2016) and Lavency (2003: 115–25).
³⁹ For a few exceptional instances of the plural, see TLL s.v. ille 348.40f. (e.g. Cic. Phil. 5.17).
⁴⁰ In the corpus used by Bodelot (2000: 121). See also her p. 139 for the use of the individual words in
various text types. For her description of their meanings, see pp. 122–38.
⁴¹ See Bodelot (2000: 122).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(a) Quid si hoc potis est, ut tu taceas, ego loquar?

(‘What if we do this: you keep quiet, I’ll do the talking.’ Pl. Bac. 35—subject clause)
(b) Eheu, huic illud dolet, / quia nunc remissus est edendi exercitus.
(‘Oh, oh, oh, this one ( points to his stomach) is in pain because the army for eating
has been dismissed now.’ Pl. Capt. 152–3—subject clause)
(c) Quaeso ut sat habeas id, pater, quod Chrysalus / me obiurigavit plurumis
verbis malis . . .
(‘I beg you to consider it enough, father, that Chrysalus has scolded me with a great
many harsh words . . .’ Pl. Bac. 1019–20—object clause)
(d) Idem ego istuc quom credebam credidi, / te nihil esse redditurum.
(‘When I trusted you with that money, I trusted that the very same thing would hap-
pen, that you wouldn’t return anything.’ Pl. Cur. 541–2—accusative and infinitive
clause functioning as object)
Exx. (a)–(d) illustrate the use of these pronouns with argument clauses. The verbs of
the main clauses can also govern these argument clauses without the preparative pro-
noun.⁴² The pronouns can therefore be considered optional and serve to emphasize
the content of the clause. However, there are also cases like (e): without hoc the quod
clause seems difficult to interpret as the object with sollicitudo habet. More difficult is
id in (f). It has generally been regarded as an ‘internal object’⁴³ but it is actually a sat-
ellite in its clause. Different again is (g), where hōc (ablative) marks the quod clause as
a means adjunct (or is it a third argument?).⁴⁴ Note that in this last case the ablative
pronoun is necessary for ensuring a correct interpretation of the subordinate clause
(quod does not mean ‘because’). The function of the pronouns in these cases is not so
much to prepare for the following subordinate clause, but to offer grammatical sup-
port. This use resembles the use of prepositional phrases to integrate subordinate
clauses in a superordinate clause, for which see § 14.6.
(e) Habet hoc sollicitudo, quod omnia necessaria putat.
(‘Anxiety has this quality, that it supposes all things necessary.’ Plin. Ep. 6.9.2—object
clause)
(f) . . . id nunc his cerebrum uritur, / me esse hos trecentos Philippos facturum
lucri.
(‘Their brains are now suffering this annoyance, namely that I am going to make a
profit of these three hundred Philippics.’ Pl. Poen. 770–1—accusative and infinitive
clause functioning as reason adjunct)
(g) . . . hoc me tamen consolor quod posthac ad ludos venies nosque vises . . .
(‘I console myself with the thought that henceforth you will come to the shows and
visit us . . .’ Cic. Fam. 7.1.6—means adjunct)
⁴² See Bodelot (2000: 76–7). ⁴³ So TLL s.v. is 479.33.

⁴⁴ For more instances of means adjuncts (or third arguments) with consolor, see TLL s.v. 480.25ff.
Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses 
A second type of preparative expression consists of noun phrases containing one of

the cataphorically used determiners hic, ille, is, and iste. Examples with the semantic-
ally rather ‘vague’ event noun res ‘act’ are (h) and (i). In these instances the subordin-
ate clauses would also be possible without the res expressions.
(h) Digne autem coqui / nimis lepide ei rei dant operam, ne cenet senex.
(‘And the cooks for their part take care ever so charmingly that the old man won’t get
his dinner.’ Pl. Cas. 772–3—third argument)
(i) Sed in hac difficultate illa me res tamen, iudices, consolatur, quod vos de
criminibus sic audire consuestis ut . . .
(‘But in the face of this difficulty, judges, this thing still consoles me—that you have
been accustomed to hear accusations in such a way that . . .’ Cic. Clu. 3—subject)
Cataphorically used determiners can also be used as preparative devices with nouns
that may govern a subordinate clause, as with mos ‘custom’ in ( j) and consuetudo ‘cus-
tom’ in (k), both with ut clauses. In these cases the determiners have an emphasizing
function.
( j) Habent hunc morem plerique argentarii, / ut alius alium poscant, reddant
nemini . . .
(‘Most bankers have the following custom: they demand money from each other
while they themselves don’t repay anything to anyone.’ Pl. Cur. 377–8)
(k) Habuit et hanc consuetudinem, ut octo calvos rogaret ad c[a]enam . . .
(‘He had this custom, moreover, of asking to dinner eight bald men . . .’ Hist. Aug.
Heliog. 29.3)
Pronouns can also be used as preparative devices in combination with nouns that
function as subject or object complement and are followed by an appropriate subor-
dinate clause, as in (l). Here hunc and hanc are subject of their clauses and sermonem
‘talk’ and opinionem ‘opinion’ are subject complements.
(l) Neminem vestrum ignorare arbitror, iudices, hunc per hosce dies sermonem
volgi atque hanc opinionem populi Romani fuisse, C. Verrem altera actione
responsurum non esse . . .
(‘Gentlemen, I think that none of you is unaware that it has during these last few days
been the common talk, and the belief of this nation, that Gaius Verres would make no
defence at the second hearing . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.1)
(m) Populi Romani hanc esse consuetudinem, ut socios atque amicos non modo
sui nihil deperdere, sed gratia, dignitate, honore auctiores velit esse.
(‘This was the tradition of the Roman people, to desire that its allies and friends
should not only lose none of their possessions, but should enjoy increase of influence,
dignity, and distinction.’ Caes. Gal. 1.43.8)
The same preparative devices are available for most satellite clauses: a pronoun in (n),
a determiner + res in (o), and a determiner + causa in (p). Note that the quod clause
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(a reason adjunct) suits the meaning of causa ‘reason’. In addition there are prepara-
tive adverbs, as in (q). In all these cases the preparative device is optional and merely
gives emphasis, since the subordinators have a clear enough meaning for ensuring the
correct interpretation even without it.
(n) At non eo, quia tibi non cupiam quae velis . . .
(‘But not because I wouldn’t wish you to have what you want . . .’ Pl. As. 844–5)
(o) Sed ego apud me te esse ob eam rem, miles cum veniat, volo, / quia, quom tu
aderis, huic mihique haud faciet quisquam iniuriam.
(‘But when the soldier comes, I’d like you to be with me for the simple reason that
when you’re there, no one will wrong her or me.’ Pl. Bac. 58–9)
(p) Is dicere solebat ob hanc causam praestare nostrae civitatis statum ceteris
civitatibus, quod in illis singuli fuissent fere quorum suam quisque rem
publicam constituisset . . .
(‘Cato used to say that our constitution was superior to those of other States on
account of the fact that in those it had generally been down to individuals, each of
whom had established his own state . . .’ Cic. Rep. 2.2)
(q) Nam partim ideo fortes in decernendo non erant, quia nihil timebant, partim
quia timebant <omnia>.
(‘Thus, some were disinclined to take firm measures because they were not afraid of
anything, others because they were afraid of everything.’ Cic. Mur. 51)
In (n)–(q) the preparative expression and the subordinator are semantically more or
less equivalent. However, there are also combinations of a preparative device and a
subordinator where this is not the case. Examples are (r)–(t).⁴⁵ In all these instances,
the si clauses are prepared by an expression that functions as argument in the main
clause. (In (r), the si clause seems also possible without a preparative element; in (s)
and (t) this looks more problematic.)
(r) Idne irascimini, si quis superbior est quam nos?
(‘Are you mad about it, if someone is more arrogant than we are?’ Cato orat. 169)
(s) Sed totum est in eo, si ante quam ille ineat magistratum.
(‘But everything depends on this, whether (you come) before he starts his term of
office.’ Cic. Att. 2.22.5)
(t) . . . plus esse in eo iudicabant, si uxor et soror tua quam si Augustae
dicerentur.
(‘. . . they believed there was more in this, whether they were spoken of as your wife
and sister, than in whether (they were spoken of as) Augustae.’ Plin. Pan. 84.6)
⁴⁵ Examples (r) and (t) are taken from the OLD s.v. si § 12c. See also TLL s.v. in 779.16ff. for in eo cum
and in eo dum combinations in translations of the Bible.
Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses 
Noun phrases without a determiner can also function as preparative expressions, as

secundis rebus nostris in (u), which prepares the accusative and infinitive clause
duos . . . missos (and its sequence); glorior can also be used with an accusative and
infinitive clause without such a preparative phrase (see § 15.97). The relationship
between the accusative and infinitive clause and secundis rebus nostris is the same as
the one between appositive noun phrases: the accusative and infinitive clause can be
interpreted as a more precise indication of what is meant by secundis rebus nostris
(this relationship is sometimes called ‘explicative’).
(u) Non ego secundis rebus nostris gloriabor duos consules ac duos consulares
exercitus ab nobis sub iugum missos et si qua alia aut laeta aut gloriosa nobis
evenerunt.
(‘I shall not boast of our successes, that two consuls and two consular armies were
sent under the yoke by us, nor of any other events which have brought us either joy
or fame.’ Liv. 23.42.7)
Another common device is illustrated by (v). Here, the quod clause is preceded by an
autonomous relative clause with the determiner illud, the content of which is specified
by the quod clause.⁴⁶ Note that in the Classical period recordor usually governs an
accusative and infinitive clause and not a quod clause.⁴⁷
(v) . . . recordamini illud etiam quod nondum est relatum, quod eodem fere tem-
pore factus in agro Piceno Potentiae nuntiatur terrae motus horribilis . . .
(‘. . . recall, too, what was not discussed before, that an awful earthquake is reported to
have occurred at about the same time at Potentia in Picenum . . .’ Cic. Har. 62)
It is difficult to draw a borderline between the preparative devices discussed above
and the use of non-restrictive appositive clauses discussed in § 11.82 fin.
The adverbs sic and ita can be used as preparative devices with argument clauses, as in
(w) and (x), with accusative and infinitive clauses.⁴⁸
(w) Sic enim sentio ius legatorum, cum hominum praesidio munitum sit, tum
etiam divino iure esse vallatum.
(‘For my feelings are that the privileges of ambassadors are not only fenced round by
human protection, but are also guarded by divine laws.’ Cic. Har. 34)
(x) (sc. Verres) Qui ita dictitat, iis esse metuendum qui quod ipsis solis satis esset
surripuissent . . .
(‘Whose favourite saying it is that they have got to fear who have stolen only as much
as is enough for themselves . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4)
⁴⁶ See Bodelot (2000: 54–9) for this use of relative (and other types of) clauses.
⁴⁷ Quod seems to be first attested in Suet. Tit. 8.1, according to the OLD.
⁴⁸ See Lavency (2004). For the use of ita with facio ut, see Taillade (2019: 174–5).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
. Resumptive elements in the main clause
The same expressions that are used as preparative elements (see § 14.16) can also be
used as resumptive expressions. However, the resumptive use of pronouns and deter-
miners is much less frequent than the preparative use. Most common is the anaphoric
pronoun/determiner is, as is to be expected, followed by hic; ille and iste are very
rare.⁴⁹ Examples of resumptive pronouns and of a resumptive determiner (+ res)
referring to argument clauses are given in (a)–(c) and (d), respectively.
(a) Nondum egressum esse eum, id miror tamen.
(‘That he has not come out yet, that surprises me.’ Pl. Rud. 1201)
(b) Nos secundum ferri nunc per urbem haec omnia, / ne quis tibi hoc vitio vortat.
(‘All this stuff now being carried behind us throughout the city, I’m afraid that some-
one might find fault with you for it.’ Pl. Mil. 1349–50)
(c) Ut filius / cum illa habitet apud te, hoc vostrum consilium fuit?
(‘That my son lives with her in your house, was that your scheme?’ Ter. Ph. 933–4)
(d) Nisi forte quod apud publicanos gratiosus fuisti, in ea re spes te aliqua con-
solatur.
(‘Unless by chance some hope consoles you in the fact that you were popular with the
revenue contractors.’ Cic. Ver. 2.169)
Examples of the same devices with satellite clauses are (e)–(h).
(e) Quia tam misere hoc esse cupio verum, eo vereor magis.
(‘I so desperately want this to be true; for that reason I’m all the more nervous.’ Ter.
Ad. 698)
(f) Acrius ex ira quod enim se quisque parabat / ulcisci quam nunc concessumst
legibus aequis, / hanc ob rem est homines pertaesum vi colere aevom.
(‘For because each man in his wrath would make ready to avenge himself more
severely than is permitted now by just laws, for this reason men were utterly weary of
living in violence.’ Lucr. 5.1148–50)
(g) Videte igitur quam inique accidat, quia res indigna sit, ideo turpem existima-
tionem sequi; quia turpis existimatio sequatur, ideo rem indignam non
vindicari.
(‘See, then, how iniquitously it happens, that because an action is infamous, therefore
a discreditable reputation should attach to it, because a loss of reputation would
ensue, for that reason a scandalous action is not punished.’ Cic. Caec. 8)
(h) Quamquam gravatus fuisti, non nocuit tamen.
(‘Even though you objected, nevertheless it still didn’t hurt you.’ Pl. St. 722)
⁴⁹ In the corpus of Bodelot (2000: 121). See also Bodelot (2016).

Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses 
The resumptive use of id in (a) above resembles its anaphoric use to refer to all or part
of the content of a preceding clause or even passage (see § 11.136). In (i) id refers to
the content of the quamquam clause, whereas tamen resumes the subordinator itself.
In ( j), illud refers to the content of the postquam clause.
(i) Quorum autem officiorum praecepta traduntur, ea quamquam pertinent ad
finem bonorum, tamen minus id apparet . . .
(‘But as regards special duties for which positive rules are laid down, though
they are affected by the doctrine of the supreme good, still that is not so
obvious . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.7)
( j) Ceterum postquam parte muri arietibus decussa per ipsas ruinas transcen-
derunt in urbem armati, illud principium velut novi atque integri laboris fuit.
(‘But when a section of the wall was thrown down by the battering-rams and
the soldiers had entered the city over the ruins, that was, so to speak, the
beginning of new and fresh toil.’ Liv. 32.17.6)
. Particles and adverbs tightening or clarifying the relationship

between subordinate and superordinate clauses
Certain particles can also be used to tighten the relationship between superordinate
and subordinate clauses. An example is the use of iam in main clauses that are accom-
panied by subordinate clauses of manner or time, and especially with conditional clauses,
as in (a)–(d). Here iam puts emphasis on the specific semantic relation between the
subordinate clause and its main clause.⁵⁰ For a similar use of demum, see (e).⁵¹
(a) Iam iurgio enicabit (sc. uxor), si intro rediero.
(‘Now she’ll kill me with her nagging if I go back in.’ Pl. Mer. 557)
(b) Nam si cogites, remittas iam me onerare iniuriis.
(‘For if you were to think about it, you would now stop troubling me with your unjust
demands.’ Ter. An. 827)
(c) Ut igitur paulo ante animum inter Fidenatem Romanamque rem ancipitem
gessisti, ita iam corpus passim distrahendum dabis.
(‘Therefore, just as a little while ago you bore a heart divided between the interests of
Fidenae and Rome, so now you’ll give up your body to be torn apart.’ Liv. 1.28.9)
(d) Id tu, Brute, iam intelleges, cum in Galliam veneris.
(‘You will understand presently what I mean, Brutus, when you come to Gaul.’ Cic.
Brut. 171)
⁵⁰ For this use of iam as an emphasizing particle, see Kroon and Risselada (1998; 2002: 73–5). For
critical comments, see Rosén (2009: 360). See also § 22.40.
⁵¹ For demum, see Rosén (1993, especially p. 178) and § 22.39.
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(e) Servata res est demum, si illam videro.

(‘Things are safe at last if I see her.’ Pl. Mer. 909)
Just like other constituents, certain subordinate clauses (adjunct clauses and autono-
mous relative clauses) may contain the emphasizing particle quidem, which follows
the subordinator or relative pronoun. Examples of subordinators and of a relative clause
are (f)–(g) and (h), respectively. See also the use of the scalar particle etiam with a
quia reason adjunct clause in (i). This particle seems to be excluded with a quoniam
reason disjunct clause.⁵²
(f) Haeret haec res, si quidem haec iam mulier facta est ex viro.
(‘This is a sticky matter, if he really has now become a woman instead of a man.’ Pl.
Am. 814—tr. Christenson)
(g) Cedo sis dexteram. / # Ut quidem tu huius oculos illutis manibus tractes aut
teras?
(‘Lend me a hand, please. # So that you can handle or rub her eyes with dirty hands?’
Pl. Poen. 315–16)
(h) Sed <opsecro> te, nullusne est tibi amator alius quisquam? / # Nisi tuos modo
unus filiu’st, quem quidem ego amem alius nemo est.
(‘But please don’t you have any other lover? # Apart from your only son, there’s no
one else whom I can love at least.’ Pl. Cist. 369–70)
(i) Sed qui non modo quia necesse est mori, verum etiam quia nihil habet mors
quod sit horrendum, mortem non timet, magnum is sibi praesidium ad
beatam vitam comparavit.
(‘But the man who is without fear of death, not simply because it is unavoidable but
also because it has no terrors for him, has secured a valuable aid towards rendering
life happy.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.2)
Adverbs are another means to make the relationship between a subordinate clause and
its superordinate clause more precise. Examples are nisi ‘except’, praesertim ‘especially’,
praeterquam ‘apart from’, as in ( j)–(l), respectively. Note that nisi and praeterquam can
also be used as subordinators by themselves. (For more si clauses, see § 16.57; for cum
clauses, see § 16.10.) The same adverbs can also be used in combination with various
participial constructions, as in (m) and (n), with present participles.
( j) . . . nec mi umbra hic usquam’st, nisi si in puteo quaepiam’st.
(‘. . . and I haven’t any shade here anywhere, unless there’s a bit in the well.’ Pl. Mos. 769)
(k) Quo usque negotiabere cum praesertim sis isto loco natus?
(‘How long are you going to continue in business, especially since you were born in
that place?’ Cic. Flac. 70)
⁵² For further examples of the use of particles and adverbs with subordinate clauses, see Rosén (2008:
220–1). For etiam, see also § 22.22.
Relationship between subordinate and superordinate clauses 
(l) De classe Carthaginiensibus remissum, praeterquam si quid navium ex

foedere deberent.
(‘The Carthaginians were released from their promise about the fleet, except if they
had a treaty obligation to provide ships.’ Liv. 36.4.9—NB: see Briscoe ad loc.)
(m) . . . breviter, quoniam non consulto sed casu in eorum mentionem incidi,
quasi praeteriens satisfaciam universis.
(‘. . . but since I have come to mention them not intentionally, but by chance, I will
briefly, as though in passing, satisfy them all in a few words.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 50)
(n) E diverso niger est Alabandicus (sc. lapis) terrae suae nomine, quamquam et
Mileti nascens . . .
(‘On the other hand, the stone named after Alabanda, its place of origin, although it
occurs also at Miletus, is black . . .’ Plin. Nat. 36.62)
A number of connectors can be used in a main clause that follows a subordinate
clause and in this way serve as a ‘superordinator’.⁵³ Examples are (o) and (p). In (o),
atque ‘at once’⁵⁴ follows a temporal clause. In (p), the contrast between the contents of
the conditional clause and the main clause is marked by at.
(o) Quoniam convocavi, atque illi me ex senatu segregant.
(‘When I’ve assembled them, they exclude me from the senate meeting at once.’ Pl.
Mos. 1050)
(p) Si tibi est machaera, at nobis veruina est domi.
(‘If you have a sword, we have a spit at home.’ Pl. Bac. 887)
. Forms of interlacing of superordinate and subordinate clauses
Subordinate clauses behave like self-contained units: constituents of superordinate

and subordinate clauses are usually confined to their own domain. For most types of
subordinate clauses, it is rare to find elements of them within the boundaries of a
superordinate clause or the other way around. However, sometimes a constituent that
belongs semantically to a subordinate clause fulfils a function in the superordinate
clause: this is the case for the pseudo-object constituents discussed in § 9.17, an
example of which is (a), taken from § 14.2. There are also other types of anticipation
and postponement, illustrated by (b) and (c), respectively (see § 18.14 for parallels of
ex. (c)). In (b) meliorem in the main clause is in fact a modifier of condicio in the rela-
tive clause; in (c) it is the other way around: ligneum in the relative clause is in fact the
⁵³ The term is used by Rosén (1989b: 398–9; 2009: 343–6), from whom the examples are taken. For
further examples of conditional clauses, see § 16.57.
⁵⁴ ‘Forthwith’, ‘lo and behold’ are the translations of OLD s.v. § 6. See also TLL s.v. atque 1075.82ff.
‘et statim’.
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
modifier of the noun equos in the main clause. Note that in both instances the form of
the modifier is determined by the clause to which it syntactically belongs.
(a) . . . ego te faciam miserrumus mortalis uti sis.
(‘I’ll make sure you’re the most wretched mortal on earth.’ Pl. Aul. 443)
(b) Nisi qui meliorem afferet / quae mi atque amicis placeat condicio magis, /
quasi fundum vendam . . .
(‘Unless anyone offers a better deal, which I and my associates like more, as if I were
selling a plot by auction . . .’ Pl. Capt. 179–81)
(c) . . . non sunt tabellae sed equos quem misere Achivi ligneum.
(‘These aren’t tablets, but the wooden horse which the Achaeans sent.’ Pl. Bac. 936)
Whereas in the examples above the form of the ‘transposed’ constituent is adjusted to
suit the structure to which it belongs, in another form of interlacing no such adjust-
ment occurs. In (d) eri lenitas belongs to a subordinate clause together with quorsum
evaderet, from which it is separated by the governing verb verebar. Semper, which
belongs with verebar to the superordinate clause, separates eri (topical information)
from lenitas. The forms are the same as if the order had been: semper verebar quorsum
eri lenitas evaderet. (For further discussion, see § 23.65.)
(d) Mirabar hoc si sic abiret et eri semper lenitas / verebar quorsum evaderet.
(‘I was surprised if it could end this way, and I’ve been afraid all the time of where our
master’s calmness was leading.’ Ter. An. 175–6)
Subordinators are often preceded by constituents that form a link with a preceding
sentence, notably relative and anaphoric pronouns and determiners. See § 23.20–8.
14.20 Subordinators
Latin offers a broad spectrum of subordinators, some of which have a very precise
meaning, for example postquam ‘after’, while others have a broader meaning, for
example cum (quom) ‘when’, ‘since’, ‘although’. In addition, their interpretation may
vary depending on the context in which they are used (in the case of cum one can
think of its purely temporal, its causal, or its concessive interpretation). Some subor-
dinators are only used in satellite clauses (for example the two just mentioned,
although there is some doubt about the status of cum clauses with verbs of praising
and thanking—see § 15.23), while others are used in both argument and satellite
clauses (notably ut). Some of the words involved belong to only one lexical category
(e.g. postquam: subordinator—see also below),⁵⁵ others have homonyms in one or
more other categories (e.g. ut (uti): subordinator and interrogative/relative manner
⁵⁵ For Late instances of the use as adverb, see TLL s.v. 250.8ff.
Subordinators 
adverb ‘how’).⁵⁶ Some of them are more or less stable over the period covered by this
Syntax, others undergo significant changes: in Early and Classical Latin there are
instances in which post and postea are combined with quam even though particles or
full words intervene between them, as in (a). This shows the development of the com-
bination of adverb + comparative particle into a subordinator. Another example is
licet, the development of which from an ‘impersonal’ verb ‘it is permitted’ into a con-
cessive subordinator can be seen from Cicero’s time onwards; this development is
shown in (b), where licet is on its way to becoming a subordinator (for further details,
see § 16.81).⁵⁷
(a) Itaque Calpurnius cum . . . cognosset . . . Claudium aedes postea proscripsisse
quam esset ab auguribus demoliri iussus, arbitrum illum adegit . . .
(‘And so, when Calpurnius . . . had discovered that Claudius had advertised his house
for sale only after the augurs had ordered them (sc. the parts of the house obstructing
the augurs’ view) to be pulled down, he summoned the former owner before a
court . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.66)
(b) Licet iste dicat emisse, sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi, iudices.
(‘Verres may say, as he usually does say, that he bought everything; but believe me,
gentlemen.’ Cic. Ver. 4.133)
. Subordinators used with both argument and satellite clauses
Several subordinators are used both with argument and with satellite (adjunct and
disjunct) clauses. The four most prominent ones in all periods of Latin are quod, ut
(uti) and ne, and si. The question of how to distinguish formally between, for example,
an ut argument and an ut satellite clause has received considerable attention in the last
few decades.⁵⁸ Apart from the fact that an ut argument clause occupies one of the
obligatory positions required by the meaning of the governing verb, there are a num-
ber of objective tests that one can use to determine the status of a particular clause.
One such test is to determine which type of correlative device can be used with a given
subordinate clause (see §§ 14.16–17), for example id . . . ut (argument clause) vs
ideo . . . ut (a satellite purpose clause). Another test consists in determining which
question words may trigger the subordinate clause as an answer, for example quid? vs
cur? A third one is to determine whether clauses of both types are found juxtaposed
in one complex sentence, as in (a) with an ut argument and an ut satellite purpose
clause.⁵⁹ For a similar instance of a quod argument and a quoniam reason clause, see (b).
⁵⁶ For the use of the form uti, see Panchón (2013). For Ennius and Vitruvius, see Adams (2016: 9–10).
⁵⁷ For a study of subordinators in satellite clauses from a typological perspective, see Hoffmann (2013,
also in: 2018a: 191–224).
⁵⁸ For ut, see Bolkestein (1977a), LSS § 7.4.1, and Bodelot (2000: 210–42; 2002a); for si, see Bodelot
(2000: 161–210).
⁵⁹ For another instance of two ut clauses (‘at first sight puzzling’ (Dyck ad loc.)), see Cic. Cael. 8.
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(a) . . . intellexi . . . nihil mihi optatius cadere posse quam ut tu me quam primum
consequare, ut, cum ex Italia profecti essemus . . ., tuo tuorumque praesidio
uteremur . . .
(‘I see that nothing could be more desirable to me than that you should overtake me
as soon as possible, so that when I leave Italy I may have the protection of you and
your people . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.1.1)
(b) Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam quidem tam praeclarum mihi
dedisti iudicii tui testimonium.
(‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you, since you have given me so fine a proof
of your good opinion.’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)
Another question which has received attention for a much longer period of time
than the preceding one is how to explain the use of the same subordinator in both
argument and subordinate clauses. Here ut may again serve as an illustration.⁶⁰ It
can be used as a subordinator in argument clauses with manipulation verbs, as in
(c), and as a subordinator in various satellite clauses, for example in purpose clauses,
as in (d).
(c) Impero auctorque <ego> sum ut tu me quoivis castrandum loces.
(‘I order and command you to hand me over to anyone you like for castration.’ Pl.
Aul. 251)
(d) Explicari mihi tuum consilium plane volo, ut penitus intellegam.
(‘I certainly do want to have your advice set out for me so that I thoroughly under-
stand it.’ Cic. Att. 8.12.1)
In (c), the person who gives the order indicates to the ‘you’ that the latter is respon-
sible for the action me quoivis castrandum loces and has to perform it. Completely
different is the situation in (d). The ut clause is optional from the point of view of the
main clause. The person who is asked to explain his plan clearly has no control over
the ‘I’ who has to understand the matter; the ‘I’ could not be ordered to understand
things, because he would have no control over this. So on first sight ut argument and
ut purpose clauses may be thought to share a semantic feature like ‘working towards
the achievement of a future state of affairs’, but in reality they are different from a
semantic point of view. Whereas ut in (d) contributes to the interpretation of the sub-
ordinate clause as ‘purpose’, ut in (c) is ‘only’ a linking device, and the interpretation
of the subordinate clause depends on the governing expression.⁶¹
The difficulty involved in finding a common explanation for the use of ut on the
argument and satellite levels is even greater for so-called ut temporale, as in (e) (for
details, see § 16.24).
⁶⁰ For an extensive discussion of the etymology and the diversity of use of ut, see Panchón (2003:
335–66).
⁶¹ See also Bodelot (2000: 215–18), who discusses ex. (d), and Panchón (2003: 461–6).
Subordinators 
(e) Principio ut illo advenimus, ubi primum terram tetigimus, / continuo

Amphitruo delegit viros primorum principes.
(‘First, when we arrived there, as soon as we touched the shore, Amphitruo immedi-
ately chose the leading men among those of high rank.’ Pl. Am. 203–4)
Temporal ut and purpose ut clauses differ from each other in several respects. The
former usually precede the superordinate clause, are in the indicative, and there are
no restrictions on the tense of the clause. Purpose clauses, by contrast, usually follow,
are always in the subjunctive, and are subject to the rules of the sequence of tenses.
. Subordinators and relative adverbs
Spatial satellite clauses (see § 16.6) are linked to the superordinate clause by means
of a relative adverb. In (a) the second ubi ‘where’ marks the (independently used)
clause as the location where the ego in the previous sentence will be: (eris) ubi
maxime esse vis. In its own clause ubi functions as the space argument with esse in its
meaning ‘to be somewhere’. Like the other space adverbs, relative ubi has interrogative
and indefinite homonyms (see the first ubi? in (a)). Ubi clauses may also function as
adnominal relative clauses with a noun (phrase), as in (b) with aedis. In addition, ubi
may introduce autonomous relative clauses, which can fulfil various functions in
the superordinate clause, for example as the object with invenires in (c). For details,
see § 18.16.
(a) Ubi ego ero? # Ubi maxime esse vis.
(‘Where will I be? # Where you want to be most.’ Pl. Mos. 392)
(b) . . . hasce aedis esse oportet / Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare.
(‘. . . it ought to be this house here where Demaenetus is said to live.’ Pl. As. 381–2)
(c) Ubi habitaret invenires saltem, si nomen nequis.
(‘You should have at least found out where he lives, if you can’t find out his name.’ Pl.
Mer. 636)
The situation is less clear with the linking devices of temporal satellite clauses (§ 16.7).
Quando ‘when’ resembles spatial ubi in the coexistence of relative, interrogative, and
indefinite homonyms. Also, just like spatial adverbs, quando can be combined with
cumque (quandocumque). However, cum (quom) is different. Etymologically it is
related to the relative/indefinite pronoun/determiner qui, quae, quod,⁶² but it has no
interrogative and indefinite homonyms, and it cannot be combined with cumque.⁶³ It
can be used in the same way as an adnominal relative clause with words denoting time
(tempus cum ‘a time at which’) (see § 18.38), but there are no instances of autonomous
⁶² See de Vaan (2008) s.v.

⁶³ With the exception of cum . . . cumque in Lucr. 2.114. See Bailey ad loc.
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
cum clauses parallel to the autonomous ubi clause in (c). In this Syntax cum is treated
as one of the broad variety of temporal subordinators of various origins.⁶⁴
Ut is even more complicated. In the OLD it is labelled an adverb and a conjunction.
There are two adverbial homonyms (interrogative/exclamative ‘how?/!’ and relative
‘in the same way as’). In its temporal use ut (see (e) in § 14.21) is described as being a
‘temporal conjunction’. Apart from that OLD distinguishes ut as a ‘conjunction’ in
argument and purpose and other satellite clauses. In this Syntax two adverbial ut’s and
one subordinator ut (including the temporal use) will be distinguished.⁶⁵
. Developments in the system of subordinating

devices from Latin to the Romance languages
In the period covered by this Syntax a number of major changes took place in the
system of subordinating devices.⁶⁶ Some of these are mentioned here, but detailed
discussion is provided in the following chapters. First of all one can observe the
decrease in the use of a number of non-finite clauses: the accusative and infinitive
clause lost ground—very slowly—to quod (and also to quia) as the subordinating
device with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication (see § 15.9 and
§ 15.113). Quod clauses and accusative and infinitive clauses were already competitors
in several other contexts. Supine clauses gradually disappeared and so did gerundival
clauses. The present infinitive replaced the gerund in certain contexts (see § 16.86). Of
the subordinators (and relative adverbs) used in finite clauses ut as an interrogative/
relative adverb of manner lost ground to quomodo (and qualiter) (see § 16.33) and as
a subordinator to quod (see §§ 15.25–7). There is no trace of it in the Romance lan-
guages. Cum as a temporal subordinator was gradually replaced by dum (see § 16.17)
and quando; it too left no trace in the Romance languages. Quod, which already in
Cicero’s works is used in a broad spectrum of contexts (see Figure 15.1, p. 60),
expanded its functions and so became a ‘general’ subordinator.⁶⁷ At the same time the
number of combinations of quod with prepositional phrases and adverbs increased
considerably (see § 14.6). Although there is no direct etymological relation, que
in French and che in Italian play a role in the Romance languages similar to quod
in Latin.
Appendix: The common Romance subordinator (French) que, (Italian) che, etc. can-
not be derived from quod, nor from quia. Especially in Merovingian Latin (relatively
well documented) one finds forms which must be the predecessor of the Romance
subordinator, spelled as que, but also found as quae or quem, pronounced [ke], as
in (a).
⁶⁴ OLD s.v. calls cum a relative adverb.

⁶⁵ For the unclear etymology of ut, see de Vaan (2008) s.v.
⁶⁶ For the major developments, see Herman (1963: 120–2).
⁶⁷ The term is taken from Rosén (1989a).
The period 
(a) . . . dicens que Neptuno munera daret.

(‘. . . saying that he was giving gifts to Neptune.’ Fredeg. Chron. 4.63)
These forms are most likely some sort of merger of relative quae and quem. Note that
synchronically quod was not only a subordinator, but also a relative pronoun.⁶⁸
14.24 The period

The term ‘period’ goes back to Greek .p{jzoz| (lit. ‘way round’), translated by Cicero
in various ways,⁶⁹ and adopted as periodus from Quintilian Inst. 9.4.125 onwards. In
Antiquity it is not defined in syntactic terms, but as a balanced sequence of cola (uŷvl,
Lat. membra) and/or (smaller) commata (uwwl~l, Lat. incisa) which together form
a semantically coherent whole.⁷⁰ In addition, a period is usually described as a rhyth-
mically well structured utterance. Whereas in modern descriptions the period is
defined as a complex sentence with at least one subordinate clause, the discussion by
Cicero in (a) of his own text ( pro Scauro 45) shows that the term comprehensio was
also used for something longer than a membrum,⁷¹ in fact, for a longer simple sen-
tence. In the terminology of this Syntax we would describe the quotation in (a) as
three asyndetically coordinated sentences or clauses, of which the last is longer (or:
‘heavier’) than the other two.
(a) . . . at membratim (sc. efferuntur) quae secuntur duo: ‘Incurristi amens in
columnas, in alienos insanus insanisti.’ Deinde omnia tanquam crepidine
quadam comprehensione longiore sustinentur: ‘depressam, caecam, iacentem
domum pluris quam te et quam fortunas tuas aestimasti’—dichoreo finitur.
(‘. . . but the following falls into two membra: ‘You have madly dashed against the col-
umns; you have raved wildly against strangers.’ Then the whole passage is set, as it
were, on the foundation of a longer period: ‘a fallen, dark and prostrate home you
thought more valuable than yourself and your fortunes.’ It ends in a ditrochee.’ Cic.
Orat. 224)
The complexity of a sentence can be increased in various ways: In the first place a
speaker is to some extent free to add optional information in the form of satellites to
the information provided by the verb and its arguments. Next, the positions of the
arguments and satellites can be filled by finite or non-finite clauses and these clauses
can themselves contain finite and non-finite clauses. Thirdly, nominal constituents
⁶⁸ Discussion can be found in Herman (1963: 123–5), with special reference to Jeanjaquet (1894).
⁶⁹ For example: ambitus, circuitus, and comprehensio (Cic. Brut. 162; Orat. 204).
⁷⁰ Compare the requirement in K.-St.: II.629 that a period must represent one unified idea (‘die Einheit
eines Gedanken’). See also Sz.: 732.
⁷¹ In fact, periods consisting of one membrum were also accepted. For the ancient ideas about period,
colon, and comma, see Lausberg (1990: §§ 923–47).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(both at the clause level and below) can be modified by adnominal relative clauses and
can be expanded by appositions and secondary predicates, which can be complex as
well. Finally, at all these points the complexity can be increased by coordination. In
spontaneous spoken language there is a certain limit, both for the speaker and for the
hearer, to the number and the type of clauses that can be incorporated within one
sentence. In prepared speeches, however, and in writing sentences can be extended
considerably. The period in Cicero’s oration pro Archia 3, for example, contains some
twenty-five clauses. (We are dealing with grammatically correct and fully understand-
able sentences, not with anacoluthons.)
In the examples of periods that follow, the clauses of which they consist are num-
bered.⁷² Some of the clauses are interrupted, which explains why the same number
returns at different places. The first example, (b), is used twice by Quintilian as an
illustration and is still much discussed.⁷³ The sentence consists of three coordinated si
clauses, each with its own internal complexity, and a heavy main clause at the end (in
bold). The structure of (c) is completely different. Here the short main clause encom-
passes a sequence of a secondary predicate (circumsessa), a cum temporal clause, and
two ablative absolute clauses, of which the first is complex in itself. These four seg-
ments are arranged in chronological order to illustrate the sequence of events leading
to the surrender of the town. For again a different structure in a different type of text,
see (d), where the main clause is followed by a complex ablative absolute clause.⁷⁴
(b)
1. Si quid est in me ingeni, iudices,
2. quod
3. sentio
2. quam sit exiguum,
4. aut si qua exercitatio dicendi,
5. in qua me
6. non infitior
5. mediocriter esse versatum,
7. aut si huiusce rei ratio aliqua ab optimarum artium studiis ac disciplina
profecta,
8. a qua
9. ego
8. nullum
9. confiteor
8. aetatis meae tempus abhorruisse,
⁷² For a discussion and graphical presentation of these and other complex sentences, see
Coleman (1983).
⁷³ For an analysis of this sentence, see Gotoff (1979: 96–100). For the rhetorical effect, see von Albrecht
(2003: 198–202).
⁷⁴ For Pliny’s sentence structure, see Pinkster (2005: 248–50).
The period 
10. earum rerum omnium vel in primis hic A. Licinius fructum a me

repetere prope suo iūrĕ dēbet.
(‘Gentlemen of the Jury: Whatever talent I possess (and I realize its limita-
tions), whatever be my oratorical experience (and I do not deny that my prac-
tice herein has been not inconsiderable), whatever knowledge of the theoretical
side of my profession I may have derived from a devoted literary apprentice-
ship (and I admit that at no period of my life has the acquisition of such know-
ledge been repellent to me),—to any advantage that may be derived from all
these my friend Aulus Licinius has a pre-eminent claim, which belongs to him
almost as of right.’ Cic. Arch. 1)
(c)
1. Ea urbs
2. circumsessa
3. cum a Celtiberis auxilia arcessisset,
4. morantibus iis,
5. non quia ipsi cunctati sunt,
6. sed quia
7. profectos domo
6. inexplicabiles continuis imbribus viae et inflati amnes tenebant,
8. desperato auxilio suorum
1. in deditionem venit.
(‘When this town was besieged, it sent for assistance from the Celtiberians but
they were slow to arrive, not from any hesitation on their part but because after
leaving home they were held up by roads made impassable by incessant rain
and by swollen rivers. Thus, losing hope of receiving aid from its friends, the
town surrendered.’ Liv. 44.33.2)
(d)
1. Nilus
2. incertis ortus fontibus,
3. ut per deserta et ardentia et inmenso longitudinis spatio ambulans
4. famaque tantum inermi quaesitus sine bellis,
5. quae ceteras omnes terras invenere,
1. originem,
6. ut Iuba rex potuit exquirere,
1. in monte inferioris Mauretaniae non procul Oceano habet
7. lacu protinus stagnante,
8. quem vocant Nilidem.
(‘The sources from which the Nile rises have not been ascertained, proceeding
as it does through scorching deserts for an enormously long distance and only
having been explored by unarmed investigators, without the wars that have
discovered all other countries; but so far as King Juba was able to ascertain, it
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
has its origin in a mountain of lower Mauretania not far from the Ocean, and
immediately forms a stagnant lake called Nilides.’ Plin. Nat. 5.52)
Sentences with such a degree of complexity are common in prose from Cicero
onwards. The frequency with which they are used and the types that are used vary
between authors and text types. In Cicero there is a difference between his personal
and official letters, between his judicial and political orations, and even between parts
of the same oration, depending upon the audience and the intended rhetorical effect.
Periods are not limited to prose. However, the use of periodic sentence structure is
mainly a matter of individual style and this short introduction must suffice.⁷⁵
14.25 Direct and indirect speech

A person’s words (written or spoken) or thoughts may be reported by a speaker or
writer in two different ways. It may be in the form of an (often fictitious) repetition of
the words that were actually used (or will be used). This is called direct speech (also
‘direct discourse’, oratio recta). Alternatively, the words (or rather a paraphrase or a
summary of them) may depend on a verb of speaking or thinking, which may be
explicit or implicit. This is called indirect speech (also ‘indirect discourse’, oratio
obliqua). Examples of direct speech are the sentences in quotation marks of (a,ii) and
of (c), with the very common verb inquit; examples of indirect speech are the accusa-
tive and infinitive clauses in the first sentence of (a) and in (b).
(a) (i) . . . dico med esse atriensem. (ii) Sic hoc respondit mihi: / ‘Ego pol Sauream
non novi neque qua facie sit scio. / Te non aequom est suscensere. Si erum vis
Demaenetum, / quem ego novi, adduce. Argentum non morabor quin feras’.
(‘. . . I said that I am the steward. He answered me like this: “I don’t know Saurea or
what he looks like. It wouldn’t be fair of you to be angry. Do bring along your master
Demaenetus, whom I do know, if you please. I won’t delay you getting the money.”’
Pl. As. 352–5)
(b) Hospes respondit Zacynthi ficos fieri non malas.
(‘My friend has replied that there are decent figs in Zacynthus.’ Pl. Mer. 943)
(c) ‘Immo duas dabo,’ inquit ille adulescens, ‘una si parum est. Et si duarum
paenitebit,’ inquit, ‘addentur duae.’
(‘ “No, I’ll give you two,” says that young man, “if one is too little; and if you’re not
content with two,” he says, “two more will be added.”’ Pl. St. 550–1)
⁷⁵ For a historical survey, see Sz.: 732–9 and Wilkinson (1963: 167–88). For Cicero’s style in general, see
von Albrecht (2003).
Direct and indirect speech 
Both (a,ii) and (b) contain the verb respondeo. In (a,ii) the direct speech is not syntac-
tically related to respondit, whereas in (b) it is (it is the object). In (a,ii) the direct
speech is prepared by hoc. It could also have been used in (b).
In principle each text in direct speech can be also be expressed in indirect speech,
albeit with some limitations. The indirect AcI clause corresponding to Ego pol . . . scio
in (a,ii) could not contain pol (*respondit se pol Sauream non novisse neque qua facie
esset scire), nor could immo in (c) be used in a corresponding indirect expression.⁷⁶
Apart from these limitations there are also a number of formal differences. In the
indirect version the accusative se corresponds to the nominative ego in the direct ver-
sion and the infinitive novisse to the finite verb form novi. Furthermore, the imperfect
esset in the relative clause has respondit as its reference point, whereas the present sit
in the direct speech has the time of speaking as its reference point (for details on the
use of the tenses in indirect speech, see § 7.113). The indirect version of Si erum
vis . . . adduce would be Si erum vellem Demaenetum, quem ipse novit, adducerem,
where the past subjunctive adducerem corresponds to the present imperative adduce
(see § 7.62). (For interrogative and exclamatory sentences in the AcI, see §§ 15.105–6.
For interrogative sentences in the subjunctive, see § 7.61.)⁷⁷
Due to its ‘indirectness’ the preferred contexts for indirect speech are words or
opinions of crowds and rumours, accusations, and summaries of spoken or written
texts. The content of the indirect speech can be coloured or characterized by the
choice of governing verb. The range of verbs governing indirect speech is accordingly
much wider than the range of verbs introducing direct speech.⁷⁸
The term ‘indirect speech’ is used in various ways. Some grammarians do not include
verbs of thinking, others include manipulation verbs like hortor ‘I urge’, which do not
necessarily imply verbal behaviour at all.
It is important to realize that the speech presented as ‘direct’ is usually not what
was actually spoken and is almost always fictitious. This is not only the case in liter-
ary dialogue, but is shown by Cicero’s and Sallust’s quotations of a letter in the
Catilinarian affair.⁷⁹
(d) Erant autem sine nomine, sed ita: ‘Quis sim scies ex eo quem ad te misi.
Cura ut vir sis, et cogita quem in locum sis progressus. Et vide quid tibi iam
sit necesse et cura ut omnium tibi auxilia adiungas, etiam infimorum’.
(‘The letter was unsigned but read as follows: “You will know who I am from
the man whom I have sent to you. Be resolute and take stock of your pos-
ition. See what you must now do and take care that you get the support of
everyone, even the lowest.”’ Cic. Catil. 3.12)
⁷⁶ For ‘unreportable entities’ in indirect speech, see Bolkestein (1990a; 1990b). See also Rosén (2013:
243–5), who, however, incorrectly suggests that certe and similar words cannot occur in indirect speech.
⁷⁷ For a discussion of the linguistic properties of indirect speech, see Adema (2017: 32–75; 2019a:
295–6, with references).
⁷⁸ See the lists of verbs in Lambert (1946: 56–7) and Wiesthaler (1956: 79–83).
⁷⁹ For Cicero’s way of reporting, see Wiesthaler (1956: 23–8).
 Subordinate clauses: properties and internal structure
(e) ‘Qui sim ex eo quem ad te misi cognosces. Fac cogites in quanta calamitate
sis, et memineris te virum esse. Consideres quid tuae rationes postulent.
Auxilium petas ab omnibus, etiam ab infumis’.
(‘ “My present situation you will learn from the person I have sent you. See
to it that you bear in mind in what a desperate situation you are, and remem-
ber that you are indeed a man. Consider what your interests demand; seek
help from all, even the lowliest.”’ Sall. Cat. 44.5)
Indirect speech is also regularly used without an introductory verb of speaking or
thinking. The term used for this in this Syntax is free indirect speech.⁸⁰ A common
English term is ‘implied indirect discourse’. In such cases there is some contextual
information from which the notion of speaking or thinking can be inferred. A simple
form is when an accusative and infinitive with a governing verb precedes (so that it is
not always clear whether we are dealing with free indirect speech), but there are also
less direct ways. Ex. (f) has the free indirect speech preceded by an exhortation. In (g),
there is a verb of refusing; in (h), the noun mandata. Here an imperative sentence in
the subjunctive is followed by a declarative sentence in the AcI. In (i), the free indirect
speech continues the command vox . . . ut.
(f) Pro quibus rebus hortatur ac postulat ut rem publicam suscipiant atque una
secum administrent. Sin timore defugiant illis se oneri non futurum et per se
rem publicam administraturum.
(‘For all these reasons he exhorted the senators and asked them to take charge of the
state and administer it with him. “But if fear makes you shirk the task, I will not be a
burden to you but will administer the state myself.”’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.7)
(g) In senatum venit. Mandata exposuit. Sententiam ne diceret recusavit.
Quamdiu iure iurando hostium teneretur non esse se senatorem.
(‘He came into the senate and stated his mission; but he refused to give his own vote
on the question; for, he held, he was not a member of the senate so long as he was
bound by the oath sworn to his enemies.’ Cic. Off. 3.100)
(h) Illi <re> deliberata respondent scriptaque ad eum mandata per eos remit-
tunt. Quorum haec erat summa: Caesar in Galliam reverteretur, Arimino
excederet, exercitus dimitteret; quae si fecisset Pompeium in Hispanias
iturum . . .
(‘After deliberation they replied in writing and sent the message to Caesar through
Roscius and Lucius Caesar. The gist was this: Caesar was to return to Gaul, leave
Ariminum, dismiss his army. If he did this, Pompey would go to Spain.’ Caes. Civ.
1.10.2–3)
(i) Nam non multo ante urbem captam exaudita vox est a luco Vestae, qui a
Palatii radice in novam viam devexus est ut muri et portae reficerentur; futu-
rum esse, nisi provisum esset, ut Roma caperetur.
⁸⁰ For properties of free indirect discourse, see Adema (2017: 22–30, esp. p. 29).
Direct and indirect speech 
(‘Not long before the capture of the city by the Gauls, a voice, issuing from Vesta’s
sacred grove, which slopes from the foot of the Palatine Hill to the New Road, was
heard to say, “the walls and gates must be repaired; unless this is done the city will be
taken.”’ Cic. Div. 1.101)
There are other indirect ways in which a speaker or writer can allude to another per-
son’s words or thoughts. Two illustrations are ( j) and (k). In ( j), the sentence with the
three imperfect forms reflects Curtius’ story about what Caesar was doing at the time
of Curtius’ visit to Cicero. In (k), Virgil reports Aeneas’ deliberations, resulting in the
sententia mentioned a few lines later (the subjunctive is deliberative; usually it is first
person—see § 7.42).⁸¹ In instances like these formal clues are absent, and the inter-
pretation is purely contextual.
( j) Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram cum ad me currens ad illum (sc. Caesarem)
Postumus Curtius venit, nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus; eripiebat
Hispanias, tenebat Asiam, Siciliam, Africam, Sardiniam, confestim in
Graeciam persequebatur.
(‘I had hardly read your letter when Curtius Postumus arrived at my door hurrying
to join Caesar and with nothing but fleets and armies on his tongue. He (Caesar) was
snatching Spain, holding Asia, Sicily, Africa, Sardinia, pursuing Pompey hot-foot
into Greece.’ Cic. Att. 9.2a.1–2)
(k) (sc. Aeneas) ardet abire fuga dulcisque relinquere terras / attonitus tanto
monitu imperioque deorum. / Heu quid agat? Quo nunc reginam ambire
furentem / audeat adfatu? Quae prima exordia sumat? . . . Haec alternanti
potior sententia visa est.
(‘He burns to flee away and quit that pleasant land, awed by that warning and divine
commandment. Ah, what to do? With what speech now dare he approach the fren-
zied queen? What opening words choose first? . . . This, as he wavered, seemed the
better counsel.’ Verg. A. 4.281–7)
The interest of Latinists in indirect ways of representing the words (or thoughts) of
characters in a narrative started with the publications of Bayet (1931; 1932), which
were stimulated by studies on the frequent use of this narrative mode in modern
literature.⁸²
⁸¹ The interpretation of ( j) is disputed. See Rosén (2013: 234–6). For instances like (k) in Virgil, see
Laird (1999: 167–83).
⁸² See Hyart (1954—sceptical), Laird (1999: 84–102), Biraud and Mellet (2000), Sznajder (2005),
Rosén (2013; 2015), and Adema (2017). See also Nølke et al. (2004: 57–83).
CHAPTER 15
Subordinate clauses filling

an argument position
With certain types of verbs or comparable expressions (see below) one of the argu-
ments may or must be a clause belonging to one of the classes indicated in Table 15.1
(p. 58). These clauses are called argument clauses in this Syntax; they are also
referred to in the literature as ‘nominal’ or ‘noun’ clauses, as ‘substantive’ clauses, and
as ‘complement’ clauses. The argument clauses themselves consist of a verb or a com-
parable expression together with its argument(s) and possibly other constituents.
The best-known contexts in which argument clauses are used are those in which
they function as argument of a verb. An example is (a), where the accusative and
infinitive clause is the object of the verb spero ‘to hope (that)’.
(a) Speroque me ob hunc nuntium aeternum adepturum cibum.
(‘And I expect that for this message I’ll get food forever.’ Pl. Capt. 780)
However, accusative and infinitive clauses can also be used with various expressions
containing the related noun spes ‘hope’: for example, spes est (b), spem habere (c), and in
spem venire (d). The verbs in these combinations can be regarded as support verbs (see
§ 4.4), and the combinations can be regarded as alternate expressions for spero, more or
less equivalent to sperare potes in (b), aliquantum sperare in (c), and valde sperare in (d).
The accusative and infinitive clauses with these expressions are argument clauses.
(b) . . . aliquid aliqua aliquo modo / alicunde ab aliqui aliqua tibi spes est fore
mecum fortunam.
(‘. . . you have some hope to have a fortune with me, something, somehow, in some
way, from somewhere, from someone.’ Pl. Epid. 332–3)
(c) . . . tu mihi videris spem non nullam habere haec aliquando futura meliora.
(‘. . . you appear to cherish a hope that things will one day get better.’ Cic. Fam. 5.13.3)
(d) . . . magnamque in spem veniebat pro suis tantis populique Romani in eum
beneficiis . . . fore uti pertinacia desisteret.
(‘. . . he began to have a good hope that, in consideration of the signal benefits con-
ferred upon him by Caesar and the Roman people, . . . (sc. Ariovistus) would abandon
his obstinacy.’ Caes. Gal. 1.42.3)
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0015
The functions and types of argument clauses 53
Whereas in (b)–(d) the accusative and infinitive clauses depend on the combination
of spes and the verbs involved, this analysis is excluded for (e). Here the accusative and
infinitive clause sibi id utile futurum depends solely on spe, in a way that is comparable
to largitionis further on. Cases like these are discussed in Chapter 17. Note also in (e)
the ne clause depending on metu.
(e) Ducuntur enim aut benivolentia aut beneficiorum magnitudine aut dignita-
tis praestantia aut spe sibi id utile futurum aut metu ne vi parere cogantur
aut spe largitionis promissisque capti . . . aut . . . mercede conducti.
(‘They may be influenced by good-will; by gratitude for generous favours conferred
upon them; by the eminence of that other’s social position or by the hope that their
submission will turn to their own account; by fear that they may be compelled per-
force to submit; they may be captivated by the hope of gifts of money and by liberal
promises . . . or . . . they may be bribed with money.’ Cic. Off. 2.22)
The difference between (b)–(d) on the one hand and (e) on the other is rather clear-
cut. Some other cases are not so easy to classify as belonging to one or the other types
discussed above.1
Another familiar context in which argument clauses can be used is with neuter forms
of adjectives that function as subject or object complement, as in (f) and (g), respect-
ively. Argument clauses with adjectives in other functions are dealt with in Chapter 17.
(f) . . . in urbes Campaniae, quas satis certum erat non mutasse fidem, perfugerunt.
(‘. . . they fled for refuge to those cities of Campania of which it was known that they
had not changed sides.’ Liv. 23.17.6)
(g) (sc. consules) Certum habere maiores . . . dimicationem subituros fuisse . . .
(‘They felt certain that their forefathers . . . would have faced any conflict whatso-
ever . . .’ Liv. 4.2.9)
15.1 The functions of argument clauses

Subordinate clauses of various classes can be used in the function of subject with one-
place verbs and comparable expressions. First, they can be used with the so-called
impersonal one-place modal verbs licet and oportet discussed in § 4.14. An example
of this use is (a), where an accusative and infinitive clause functions as the subject of
oportet. Secondly, they can be used with a variety of third person singular forms of
one-place verbs, such as abest, constat, and accidit, as in (b)–(e) (see also § 4.12).
Thirdly, they can be used with combinations of third person singular forms of copular
verbs and adjectives or nouns that function as subject complement, as in (f) and (g),
respectively. These combinations function as support verbs. As the examples show,
1 For a discussion of the problems involved, see Bodelot (1995; 2010), Lavency (2003: 115–25), from
whom exx. (d) and (e) are taken, and especially Hoffmann (2015; 2018b).
54 Subordinate clauses filling an argument position
certain verbs or other governing expressions can be used with more than one class of
subordinate clause. (Autonomous relative clauses are different; they can be used as
subject with all sorts of verbs. Ex. (h) will suffice. Further illustrations of these relative
clauses can be found in § 18.16.)
(In the examples, subordinators are shown in italics; the class to which clauses
without a subordinator belong is indicated in the translation line.)
(a) Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse
oportet.
(‘Either this woman is by far the greatest trickster or the bowl ought to be in here.’ Pl.
Am. 782–3—accusative and infinitive clause)
(b) . . . quo id factum nomine appellari oporteat constat . . .
(‘. . . it is clear by what term the act should be defined . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.12—indirect
question)
(c) Prorsus nihil abest quin sim miserrimus.
(‘There is really nothing wanting to make me the most miserable of mankind.’ Cic.
Att. 11.15.3)
(d) Hoc loco percommode accidit quod non adest is qui paulo ante adfuit . . .,
C. Aquilius.
(‘Now it happens most conveniently at this point that there is absent from the court
one who was here but recently…, Gaius Aquilius.’ Cic. Caec. 77)
(e) Interdum accidit ut non habeat furti actionem is cuius interest rem salvam esse.
(‘It sometimes happens that there is no action for theft available to the person who
has an interest in the safety of the thing.’ Gaius dig. 47.2.49)
(f) Non fuisse ei grave nec difficile eam causam excipere . . .
(‘It was not hard or difficult for him to make an exception of the excuse . . .’ Cic. Inv.
2.130—prolative infinitive clause)
(g) Videtur tempus esse ut eamus ad forum . . .
(‘It seems to be time for us to go to the forum . . .’ Pl. Mil. 72)
(h) Quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur, dum valet, sentit, sapit.
(‘He whom the gods love dies young, while he has his strength, senses, and wits.’ Pl.
Bac. 816–17—autonomous relative clause)
Subordinate clauses can be used as second argument with a variety of two- and three-
place verbs. Examples from various classes are (i)–(p).
(i) Audivistin’ tu me narrare haec hodie?
(‘Did you hear me tell her about this today?’ Pl. Am. 748—accusative and infinitive
clause)
( j) Nemo fere vestrum est quin quemadmodum captae sint a M. Marcello
Syracusae saepe audierit . . .
The functions and types of argument clauses 55
(‘There can hardly be any among you who has not often heard how Syracuse was
captured by Marcus Marcellus . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.115—indirect question)
(k) Abs quivis homine . . . beneficium accipere gaudeas.
(‘You should be happy to receive a kindness from anybody.’ Ter. Ad. 254—prolative
infinitive clause)
(l) Metuo in commune ne quam fraudem frausus sit.
(‘I’m afraid he might have got into some mischief involving the two of us.’ Pl. As. 286)
(m) Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi . . .
(‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)
(n) . . . nonnumquam interdiu, s<a>epius noctu si perrumpere possent conati . . .,
hoc conatu destiterunt.
(‘(the Helvetii) . . . having attempted sometimes by day, more often by night to see if
they could break through . . ., abandoned this attempt.’ Caes. Gal. 1.8.4)
(o) Curabo ut praedati pulchre ad castra convertamini.
(‘I’ll make sure that you return to the camp after acquiring booty in fine style.’ Pl.
Per. 608)
(p) . . . obiurgavit Albium Granius quod . . . valde absoluto Scaevola gauderet . . .
(‘. . . Granius reproved Albius because the latter was much delighted by Scaevola’s
acquittal.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.281—participial clause)
Examples of subordinate clauses that function as third argument are (q)–(w).

(q) Tantum te admonebo, si illi (sc. Ligario) absenti salutem dederis, praesenti-
bus te his daturum.
(‘I will merely remind you that if you grant life to the absent Ligarius you will grant it
to all these here present.’ Cic. Lig. 38—accusative and infinitive clause)
(r) Rogabis me ubi sit.
(‘You’ll ask me where he is.’ Pl. Bac. 189—indirect question)
(s) Nonne te . . . Quinta illa Claudia aemulam domesticae laudis in gloria muliebri
esse admonebat . . .?
(‘Did not even . . . that celebrated Quinta Claudia admonish you to emulate the praise
belonging to our house from the glory of its women . . .?’ Cic. Cael. 34—prolative
infinitive clause)
(t) Qua re ut ad me omnia quam diligentissime perscribas te vehementer rogo.
(‘Therefore I earnestly beg of you to write everything to me in full detail.’ Cic. Fam.
2.10.4)
(u) Sed iam impedior egomet, iudices, dolore animi ne de huius miseria plura
dicam.
(‘I am now prevented by my mental anguish, Judges, from saying more about his
misfortune.’ Cic. Sul. 92)
(v) . . . ne quid inpediare quin ad hanc utilitatem pariter nobiscum progredi possis.
(‘. . . so that you may in no way be kept from being able to make equal progress with
me towards the mastery of this useful art.’ Rhet. Her. 3.1)
(w) . . . quos ad capiendam fugam naturae et virium infirmitas inpediret.
(‘. . . whom weakness of nature and strength hampered from taking flight.’ Caes. Gal.
7.26.3—gerundival clause)
Whereas in the examples discussed so far the argument clauses fulfil functions that
would be marked by the nominative, accusative or other case if we were dealing with
argument noun phrases, the following examples concern arguments that are marked
by prepositions or similar expressions. In (x) id functions as a pronominal support for
the ut clause, which cannot be governed by a preposition directly. The combination ad
id ut . . . simillimi functions as the second argument of accedunt. Similarly, the eo . . . ut
clause in (y) functions as the second argument of pertinet. (For this use of preposi-
tions, see § 14.6, with further references.) Comparable is the role of the adverb huc in
(z), with an indirect question.2
(x) Qui proxume accedunt ad id ut omnia habeant eadem vocantur gemini,
simillimi.
(‘Those who come nearest to having them all alike, are called most like, as it were,
twins.’ Var. L. 10.4)
(y) Hoc eo pertinet ut nihil existiment esse tam difficile quod non pro te mihi
susceptum iucundum sit futurum.
(‘The point is that they must think nothing too difficult for me to undertake with
pleasure on your behalf.’ Cic. Fam. 6.10a.3)
(z) Ubi friget, huc evasit quam pridem pater / mihi et mater mortui essent.
(‘When the conversation flagged, she turned off to this point, asking how long ago my
father and mother had died.’ Ter. Eu. 517–18)
Supplement:
Desunt omnino ei populo multa, <qui> sub rege est, in primisque libertas, quae non in eo
est ut iusto utamur domino, sed ut nul<lo>. (Cic. Rep. 2.43); Tamen tantum afuit ab eo ut
ulla ignominia iis exercitibus quaereretur ut et urbs Roma per eum exercitum . . .
reciperaretur. . . (Liv. 25.6.11–12); Hoc autem ad id pertinet quod, qui fida gratia inter
se iuncti sunt, numquam ab amicitia resolvuntur. (Porph. Hor. Carm. 3.21.22)
15.2 Types of argument clauses

Just as sentences can be assigned to sentence types in accordance with their communica-
tive function, one can also distinguish between declarative, interrogative, imperative, and
2 The example is taken from Bodelot (2003: 202–3), where further discussion can be found.
Finite declarative clauses 57
exclamatory subordinate clauses. The last mentioned are difficult to distinguish from
interrogative clauses.3 These clause types share certain properties with the sentence types
discussed in Chapter 6. An important distinction between declarative and interrogative
argument clauses on the one hand and imperative clauses on the other is the use of the
negator. Characteristic of declarative and interrogative clauses is that their negation is by
non (and not by ne); one of the zero quantifiers, such as nemo ‘nobody’ and nihil ‘nothing’;
or by a negative verb, such as nolo ‘to wish not’. Another characteristic of these clauses is
that there are no restrictions on tense. Finally, in imperative argument clauses true passive
verb forms are exceptional, due to the fact that their content is ‘controlled’; in declarative
clauses, by contrast, these verb forms are not uncommon.
Some of the classes mentioned in Table 15.1 are typical of a specific clause type: The
accusative and infinitive clause is typical of declarative clauses; ut (negation ne) clauses are
typical of imperative clauses; clauses with a question particle or question word are
typical of interrogative clauses.4
15.3 Finite argument clauses

For ease of exposition finite and non-finite clauses are discussed separately. Finite
argument clauses contain an indicative or a subjunctive verb form; there are no argu-
ment clauses containing an imperative verb form. For finite argument clauses a dis-
tinction is made according to type: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.
15.4 Finite declarative argument clauses
Table 15.1 contains an overview of the contexts in which the main classes of declara-
tive finite argument clauses can be used. Also included are the accusative and infini-
tive clause and the nominative and infinitive construction. Some of the contexts are
determined by the meaning of the governing verb (emotion verbs, for example), others
are of a different kind: in (a), for example, the clause is anticipated by the preparative
pronoun hoc (on this example, see § 14.16); in (b), the main clause is negated.
(a) Habet hoc sollicitudo, quod omnia necessaria putat.
(‘Anxiety has this quality, that it supposes all things necessary.’ Plin. Ep. 6.9.2—object
clause )
(b) . . . non dubitabam quin te ille aut Dyrrachi aut in istis locis uspiam visurus
esset.
(‘. . . I didn’t doubt that he would be seeing you at Dyrrachium or somewhere else over
there.’ Cic. Att. 1.17.2)
3 For independent exclamatory accusative and infinitive sentences, see § 6.35.

4 See Torrego (1986). She relates the use of the subordinator quod with a verb like gaudeo to exclama-
tory clauses.
Table 15.1 Survey of classes of declarative clauses and their governing expressions (selected)
Semantic classes of governing verbs Classes of subordinate clauses
Finite clauses Non-finite

clauses
quod quia quoniam other ut (non) ut (ne) ne (non) quin si AcI NcI
‘to be added to’ (accedit) + L L + (+)
‘to leave unmentioned’ (mitto, praetereo) + (L) +
‘emotion’ ( gaudeo) + ? L + +
‘fearing’ (timeo) L + L
‘perception’, ‘cognition’, ‘communication’ (video, scio, dico) + L L + +
‘praising’, ‘blaming’, ‘congratulating’ (laudo, arguo, + (+)L + + +
gratulor)
‘to be surprised’ (miror) + +
‘to wait’, ‘to try’ (exspecto, conor) ? + +
‘to happen’ (evenit, fit, accidit) + (+) (+)
‘to conclude’, ‘to follow’ (relinquitur) + +
transition expressions (reliquum est, restat) +
various other verbs and expressions (refert, satis) + + +
verbs of happening (bene accidit) + +
preparative pronouns and other expressions (illud, hoc) + + + +
negated main clauses (non dubito) (L) (L) + + (S)
Legend: + = attested throughout; L = Late Latin ; S = Silver Latin; ? = unclear; () = rare

As observed above, a feature that declarative clauses have in common is that there are
no restrictions on the tense of the verb and that they are negated by non. Exceptions
to these general properties will be signalled below. The established subordinating
form for most classes of declarative clauses is, from the beginning of our records
onward, the accusative and infinitive clause (for its description see §§ 15.92ff.).5 This
remained the dominant subordinating construction for the entire period covered by
this Syntax, although in Late Latin finite constructions became more frequent in cer-
tain types of expression and also are preferred more generally by certain authors.
Finite declarative clauses are discussed according to the subordinators. The internal
order of the discussion of each subordinator will be the same as that given in Table 15.1.
. The use of quod in argument clauses

The subordinator quod is used from our earliest texts onward in various types of sub-
ordinate clauses. Its use as a subordinator of argument clauses can also be traced from
Early Latin onwards, in a range of contexts that varies in the course of time. These
contexts are discussed separately in the sections that follow. In addition to this usage, it
is found as a subordinator marking disjuncts describing the sphere of applicability of
the main clause ‘as to . . .’ (see § 16.38—respect clauses),6 also from Early Latin onwards.
Its use as a subordinator of reason clauses meaning ‘because’ can also be found in all
periods (see § 16.41). Apart from its being used as a marker of reason adjuncts, it came
to be used in other types of adjuncts as well: in Cicero’s time it is not infrequently used
in combination with prepositional phrases, such as in eo quod ‘in respect of the fact
that’, and in the Post-Classical period it is used on its own in a wide range of satellites
(see § 16.84). Figure 15.1 gives an impression of the frequency of use of quod and quia
in each of these categories in Cicero’s orations.7 As Figure 15.1 shows, quia is almost
entirely restricted to reason adjunct clauses, with or without a correlating expression.8
Quod, by contrast, is used in many more contexts; its use as a marker of arguments (on
the right in the graph) constitutes about a third of all its uses in subordinate clauses.
. The use of quod clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to
constitute an addition to’
Quod is used in argument clauses with accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to constitute an
addition to’. In (a) the quod clause refers to a factual situation, which accounts for the
use of the indicative habent. In (b) the subjunctive esset is counterfactual (sc. si istic
5 For statistical data concerning Pl. As., see Serbat (2003: 529).
6 For the etymology and development, see Sz.: 572–3. For a synchronic sketch of the relation between
the various uses, see Taylor (1951).
7 Based on Merguet (Reden). For more numerical data, see Herman (1963: 108–11) and Serbat (2003:
734–8).
8 For quia, see Baños (1991a) and (2014: 54–6).
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
disjunct
reason
reason + cor
non reason
addition
emotion
praise
cleft
preparatives
various
quod quia
Figure 15.1 Distribution of quod and quia clauses in Cicero’s orations (in percentages)
Quod N = 935; quia N = 200
non sederes). The main clause may contain a preparative expression, as in (c). For the
semantic difference from accedit ut, see § 15.26.
(a) Accedit quod orationis etiam genus habent fortasse subtile et certe acutum . . .
(‘There is the further point that they have a way of speaking that is perhaps subtle and
undoubtedly penetrating . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.66)
(b) Huc accedit quod paulo tamen occultior . . . ista cupiditas esset.
(‘There must be added to this, that that cupidity of yours should have been a little
more concealed.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 104)
(c) Accedit illa quoque causa quod a ceteris forsitan ita petitum sit ut dicerent
ut . . .
(‘There is this reason, also, that perhaps the request to undertake this cause was made
to the others so that . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 4—subjunctive because of forsitan)
Supplement:
Accedit etiam quod . . . T. Annio devota et constituta ista hostia esse videtur. (Cic.
Har. 7); . . . cum ad has suspiciones certissimae res accederent quod per fines
Sequanorum Helvetios traduxisset, quod obsides inter eos dandos curasset, quod ea
omnia . . . inscientibus ipsis fecisset, quod a magistratu Haeduorum accusaretur, satis
esse causae arbitrabatur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.19.1); Ceterum id quoque ad gloriam acces-
sit quod cum illo simul iusta ac legitima regna occiderunt. (Liv. 1.48.8); Eo accedit
quod Enoch apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet. (Tert. Cult. fem. 1.3)
. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions meaning
‘to leave unmentioned’
Quod is used with a variety of verbs and expressions meaning ‘to pass over’, ‘to leave
unsaid’. There are two Early Latin examples of this usage which was to become a com-
mon rhetorical device in Cicero. Examples are (a) and (b). With this type of expres-
sion the accusative and infinitive is used as well (see § 15.96).
(a) Nam ut mittam quod ei amorem difficillimum et / carissimum, a meretrice
avara virginem / quam amabat, eam confeci sine molestia . . .
(‘Not to mention that I’ve secured for him without trouble a very difficult and very
expensive love affair, since the girl he loved belonged to a greedy courtesan . . .’ Ter. Eu.
926–8)
(b) Praetereo quod . . . eam sibi domum sedemque delegit . . .
(‘I pass over the fact that . . . she chose as her own residence and home the very
house . . .’ Cic. Clu. 188)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb):

Suo loco praeteritum’st quod equites ex Italia cum Asprenate ad Caesarem venissent.
(B. Hisp. 10.2); Taceo enim quod princeps civitatis filiam ei nuptum dedit, cuius
pecunia tam ieiunos penates videbat. (V. Max. 4.4.9); Non tango quod avarus homo
est, quodque improbus, mitto. (Lucil. 1224M=1248K); . . . transeamusque quod
Archimedes unus obsidionem Syracusarum in longius traxit. (Quint. Inst. 1.10.48)
. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion
Quod is used from Early Latin onward as a marker of object and subject clauses with
verbs of emotion such as gaudeo ‘to be glad’, doleo ‘to be grieved at’, miror ‘to be sur-
prised’, moleste fero ‘to be annoyed at’, me pudet ‘to be ashamed’.9 However, it is used
much less often than the accusative and infinitive in this context (see § 15.97), and in
Early Latin it is also less frequent than both quia, which itself is not used that frequently
(see § 15.18), and quom (see § 15.23).10 Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether the
quod clause is an argument or a reason adjunct. It is not easy to tell what determines
the choice between the accusative and infinitive clause and the finite subordinate
clause. According to K.-St.: II.277 the quod clause is used to emphasize the factuality
of the emotion, but there is no objective evidence for this.11 Examples are (a)–(e). For
the (indicative) mood, see § 7.131.
(a) Quod male feci crucior.
(‘I am tormented by the thought that I treated him badly.’ Pl. Capt. 996)
9 There are a few instances of metuo and timeo ‘to fear’ in Late Latin.
10 For the development from Early to Classical Latin—increase of the accusative and infinitive—see
Perrochat (1932b: 95–131).
11 For discussion, see Bolkestein (1989b: 47–8).
(b) Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam quidem tam praeclarum mihi
dedisti iudicii tui testimonium.
(‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you, since you have given me so fine a proof
of your good opinion.’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)
(c) Doluisse se quod populi Romani beneficium sibi per contumeliam ab inimi-
cis extorqueretur.
(‘He was indignant that a benefit to him from the Roman people was being insolently
wrested from him by his enemies.’ Caes. Civ. 1.9.2)
(d) Molestissime autem fero quod te ubi visurus sim nescio.
(‘I am very upset, however, that I don’t know where I will see you.’ Cic. Fam. 3.6.5)
(e) Nunc quoque ne pudeat quod sis mihi nupta . . .
(‘Even now be not ashamed that you are wedded to me.’ Ov. Tr. 4.3.61)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing expression):
. . . ad officium pertinere aegre ferre quod sapiens non sis . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.68); Angebatur
tamen animi necessario quod domum eius exornatam atque instructam fere iam iste
reddiderat nudam . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.84); . . . neque te tam commovebat quod ille cum toga
praetexta quam quod sine bulla venerat. (Cic. Ver. 1.152); Itaque non tam ista me sapi-
entiae . . . fama delectat . . . quam quod amicitiae nostrae memoriam spero sempiternam
fore . . . (Cic. Amic. 15—NB: coordination with fama); Nunc me delectat quod fugerunt
treceni. (Sen. Suas. 2.8); Sed de maiestatis iudicio duo mihi illa ex tuis litteris iucundis-
sima fuerunt: unum quod te ab ipsa re publica defensum scribis . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.11.3);
Atque illud in primis mihi laetandum iure esse video quod in hac insolita mihi ex hoc
loco ratione dicendi causa talis oblata est in qua oratio deesse nemini possit. (Cic. Man.
3); Ergo mirabar quod dudum scapulae gestibant mihi (Pl. As. 315); Miror quod
mihi tot tempus nihil rescripsti (CEL appendix Vindol. r 4–6 (Vindolanda, c. ad
105)); . . . mirabar quod non mitterentur mihi bestiae. (Passio Perp. 10.5—NB: unmoti-
vated subjunctive); Mirum quod (sc. a certain plant) eodem die germinat quo iniectum
est. (Plin. Nat. 13.129); Eho an te paenitet / in mari quod <semel> elavi . . . (Pl. Rud.
578–9); Pol haud perit quod illum tantum amo. (Pl. Truc. 581); Placet tamen inter haec
quod inaestuas et pio metu antevertis necessitatem. (Symm. Ep. 4.54.3); Adiutorium
hoc ad causam putatis? Me pudet quod rogatus sum. ([Quint.] Decl. 9.9); Eho tu, inpu-
dens, non satis habes quod tibi dieculam addo . . .? (Ter. An. 710)
It is common to include in this semantic class of emotion verbs the verbs queror ‘to
complain’, conqueror ‘to complain’, and glorior ‘to boast’, although they would better be
described as denoting the verbal manifestation of emotions (TLL s.v. glorior:
‘plerumque fere i.q. gloriose loqui’), since they seem to behave more like communica-
tion verbs (proportionally they are found more often with the accusative and infini-
tive than the emotion verbs proper). Examples are (f) and (g).
(f) Sed . . . (sc. Scipio) querebatur quod omnibus in rebus homines diligentiores
essent.
(‘But (sc. Scipio) used to complain that men were more painstaking in all other
things.’ Cic. Amic. 62)
(g) . . . qui glorianti cuidam mercatori quod multas navis in omnem oram
maritimam demisisset . . . inquit . . .
(‘. . . who, . . . when a certain trader boasted that he had dispatched a great number of
ships to every distant coast, remarked . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.40)

. . . indignatione conquerimur quod ab iis a quibus minime conveniat male tracte-
mur . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.109); Seneca missum ad se Natalem conquestumque nomine
Pisonis quod a visendo eo prohiberetur . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.61.1); Nunc autem, cum
prope gloriati sint quod se hostibus dediderint . . . (Liv. 22.60.7); Socrates, deorum
hominumque <iudicio sapientissimus>, gloriari solebat quod numquam neque in
tabernam conspexerat nec . . . (Petr. 140.14); . . . gloriantem quod illa pusillitas . . . in
manus Dei . . . pervenit . . . (Tert. Res. 6.1); Is mihi etiam queritur quod ab nobis novem
solis diebus prima actio sui iudicii transacta sit . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.156); Quam multi quod
nati sunt queruntur. (Sen. Ben. 1.1.11)
. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of perception,
cognition, and communication
Quod, just like quia (see § 15.19), is also used in subordinate clauses with verbs and
expressions indicating perception, cognition, and communication, which in Early and
Classical Latin normally govern an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.98).12 There
are very few instances before the second century ad, but ecclesiastical authors from
Tertullian onwards use it with increasing frequency (together with quia and—much less
frequently—quoniam, later also quomodo, quemadmodum, and qualiter) as an alternative
for the accusative and infinitive expression.13 However, the accusative and infinitive
clause remained the normal expression throughout the period taken into account in this
Syntax. The spread of quod, quia, and quoniam was stimulated by Ø~t (hóti) and ot~t
(dihóti) in Greek texts, although the accusative and infinitive is also found in translations
of Greek. The ‘advantages’ of the finite quod clause over the accusative and infinitive are
first that it avoids potential ambiguity about which entity is the subject and which the
object, and second that it allows for the expression of grammatical mood. These ‘advan-
tages’ may indeed be the explanation for the use of the subjunctive in the very first attested
instances of quod clauses, with the cognition verb scio ‘to know’ in Plautus, (a), and with
the communication verb renuntio ‘to report’, (b): the speaker/author of the main clauses
does not necessarily subscribe to the truth of the content of the quod clauses (see my
paraphrase of (a); for (b), see the continuation of the story in B. Hisp. 37).14
(a) Equidem scio iam filius quod amet meus / istanc meretricem . . .
(‘Well, I already know that (people say that) my son is in love with that prostitute . . .’
Pl. As. 52–3)
12 Statistical data can be found in Mayen (1889: 47–8).

13 For the use of quod in the old Latin gospels and the use of the moods, see Burton (2000: 189–90).
14 Discussion in Cuzzolin (1994: 106–7), (2013a), and (2013b).
(b) . . . legati . . . renuntiaverunt quod Pompeium in potestatem haberent.

(‘. . . envoys reported that they had Pompeius in their hands.’ B. Hisp. 36.1)
Although proper verbs of communication are exceptionally found with a quod clause,
the verb addo ‘to add’ in its meaning ‘to add (orally or in writing)’ is used with a quod
clause (in the indicative) from Terence onwards, as in (c).15 (For the AcI, see § 15.98.)
(c) . . . ut ne addam quod sine sumptu ingenuam, liberalem nactus es / quod
habes, ita ut voluisti, uxorem sine mala fama palam.
(‘. . . to say nothing of the fact that without any expense you’ve got yourself a respect-
able freeborn woman and have married her, just as you wanted, all in the open and
without any harm to your reputation.’ Ter. Ph. 168–9)
Supplement:
Adde quod inbecilla nimis primordia fingit. (Lucr. 1.847); Adde huc quod perferri
litterae nulla condicione potuerunt (Pol. Fam. 10.31.4); Adicite ad haec quod foedus
aequum deditis . . . (Liv. 23.5.9)
Quod is initially more frequent than quia, but the latter increases in frequency from
the Bible translations found in Cyprian’s writings onwards (c. ad 250). Of the pair
quia and quod the former seems to be used by less educated language users more often
than the latter. This distinction between the two can be seen as early as Petronius, and
it becomes particularly apparent later on from the way Augustine uses them. He
strongly prefers quod in his more formal writings, quia in his more popular Sermones.16
Quod (+ subjunctive) is strongly preferred by Jerome and is also used in his Vulgate
Bible translation when he translates from the Hebrew (Old Testament). Quia is used
to translate Greek Ø~t in the New Testament.17 A regional difference has been suggested
between the use of quod and quia in very Late writings of the fifth and sixth centuries.
Quod is used more frequently in Merovingian Latin texts, quia in Italy and Spain.
However, these differences probably have other explanations.18 For the use of the
moods in these clauses, see § 7.131.
Quod clauses normally follow the main verb, both for pragmatic reasons (usually
non-topical information) and because quod is a polysemous subordinator. By contrast,
the subjects of accusative and infinitive clauses are often topical and coreferential with
15 Examples in TLL s.v. addo 590.6ff.

16 Further details can be found in Sz.: 577. Recent quantitative data can be found in Cuzzolin (1994)
and in Stotz (1998: 397); see also Raviolo (2002) on Augustine. For Petronius, see Herman (2003) and
Adams (2005a). Quod/quia clauses are absent in the Passio Perp. (Adams 2016: 328). For Priscian’s fre-
quent use of quod (often in stereotyped expressions like sciendum est quod ), see Biville (2014; 2015). For
the historical development, see Scivoletto (1962), Cuzzolin (1994), Serbat (2003: 650–6), Touratier (2005),
and Calboli (2012). For ‘hybrid’ use of these subordinators with direct speech in Bible translations, see
Sznajder (2017b).
17 For the variation in the distribution of quod, quia, and quoniam in the works of Jerome and in the
Vulgate, see Bejarano (1975), García de la Fuente (1981), Calboli (2012), Sznajder (2017a; 2017b), and
Greco and Ferrari (2019). For the Peregrinatio, see Bejarano (1983). For Symmachus, see Haverling (1988:
242–3).
18 Regional variation has been suggested by Herman (1963: 40–3), but see Adams (2007: 456).
an entity that is already present in the preceding context, especially if the AcI clause
precedes the main clause.19
Perception: . . . et cum audisset quod iam evenerat . . . (Pass. Perp. 20.9); Unde in
Plinio Secundo legimus quod (Mazzarino; quoniam Keil) nominativus singularis
non debet esse ‘iuger’, sed hoc ‘iugerum’. (Pomp. V. 193.36sqq. K); Dein cum
metuens sibi quisque mussaret monstraretque perspicua veritas quod repulsus
forsitan ariditate vel altitudine montium ad aquas redire non poterit miles . . . (Amm.
24.7.5); At illa gaudio exultans ‘vides’ inquit ‘Chrysis mea, vides quod aliis leporem
excitavi?’ (Petr. 131.7); (Pharao) . . . quando vidit quod filii Israhel dimiserant
eum . . . (Pereg. 8.5)
Cognition: Omnium est aestimare . . . quod (sc. fama) ab uno aliquando principe
exorta sit necesse est. (Tert. Apol. 7.11); Adiuro enim tuum mihi carissimum caput
nulli me prorsus ac ne tibi quidem ipsi adseveranti posse credere quod tu quicquam
in meam cogitaveris perniciem. (Apul. Met. 3.14.3—NB: subjunctive); . . . et nos credi-
mus quod tu sis Christus (Tert. Prax. 21.18 (paraphrasing Joh. 6.69)—NB: subjunct-
ive); . . . credo quod litteras meas libenter accipias . . . (Symm. Ep. 9.1—NB: subjunctive);
Nec Hiberum pro ea re dubitare puto quod rem non permissam facit . . . (Proc. dig.
8.2.13);20 Malo quod illum talem inveni quam si multiplicatum hoc ad me de quo
loquebar alia via pervenisset. (Sen. Ben. 2.3.3); . . . affirmans et praescisse se olim et
praedixisse quod centenario iam contiguus sepelietur in solo Romano. (Amm.
24.1.10); Puto quod nec ipse audeas adversum talem ac tantum virum, tibi veritatem,
illi mendacium reputare. (Hier. C. Iohan. 10—NB: subjunctive); Atque etiam recorda-
tus quondam super cenam quod nihil cuiquam toto die praestitisset, memorabilem
illam meritoque laudatam vocem edidit: amici, diem perdidi. (NB: subjunctive) (Suet.
Tit. 8.1); Illic reputans ideo se fallacibus litteris accitam et honore praecipuo habitam
quodque litus iuxta non ventis acta, non saxis impulsa navis summa sui parte veluti
terrestre machinamentum concidisset. (Tac. Ann. 14.6.1—NB: coordination of an
accusative and infinitive and a quod clause (in the subjunctive)); Scis enim quod epu-
lum dedi binos denarios. (Petr. 71.9 (Trimalchio speaking)); Sciendum quod hodie is
<qui> praevaricati sunt poena iniungitur extraordinaria. (Ulp. dig. 47.15.2); Sciendum
etiam quod de capillis his qui cum homine nascuntur certiora sint signa (Physiogn.
13—NB: subjunctive); . . . sciens quod, si remanserit usquam, exsectis cruribus
relinquetur. (Amm. 23.5.21); Unum sane sciendum est quod Germani omnes cum
ad auxilium essent rogati a Proculo, Pro<bo> servire maluerunt quam cum Bonoso
et Proculo <imperare>. (Hist. Aug. Prob. 18.7)
Communication: Non commemoro quod draconis saevi sopivi impetum, / non
quod domui vim taurorum et segetis armatae manus. (Enn. scen. 274–5V—NB: for
the attribution of this text to Ennius, see Jocelyn, p. 350); Denuntiavi enim litem
moventi quod ad me causa pertineat nec defuturum eis meae actionis auxilium.
(Symm. Ep. 9.24.2—NB: subjunctive); . . . non sine causa dicetur quod usuras quoque
percipere debeat . . . (Paul. dig. 17.2.67.2—NB: subjunctive); In summa autem dicendum
19 For the pragmatic differences between the AcI and quod (and quia) clauses, see Herman (1989),
Cuzzolin (1994), Greco (2008), and the summarizing discussion in Greco (2012: 44–50). For Merovingian
texts, see Greco (2014).
20 For later instances, also with the subjunctive, see TLL s.v. 2088.1ff.
est quod omnibus stellis noceat vicinitas Solis. (Firm. Mat. 2.8.2—NB: subjunct-
ive); . . . docetque quod apud Parisios natus in Galliis et equestri militans turma vin-
dictam quondam commissi facinoris timens ad Persas abierat profugus exindeque
morum probitate spectata sortita coniuge liberisque susceptis speculatorem se mis-
sum ad nostra saepe veros nuntios reportasse. (Amm. 18.6.16—NB: parallelism with
accusative and infinitive); Fama est quod Ampelium et quosdam alios de Sardinia, ut
adseritur, senatores in crimen adductos forum conpetens observare praeceperis.
(Symm. Ep. 2.33a—NB: subjunctive); Deinde cum esset in Asia bellum Mithridaticum
gerens, per Lucium Titium ei mandatum est a Iove quod esset Mithridatem super-
aturus, et factum est. (August. Civ. 2.24—NB: subjunctive); Promiseras enim quod
non dares sanctum tuum videre corruptionem, et nunc in sepulcro tegitur. (Hier.
Tract. psal. 88.272—NB: subjunctive); Veritas . . . sanctis fidelibusque promittit quod
erunt aequales angelis Dei. (August. Civ. 11.13); At hercule nemo refert quod Italia
externae opis indiget, quod vita populi Romani per incerta maris et tempestatum
cotidie volvitur. (Tac. Ann. 3.54.4)
For exceptional instances of eo quod in the same context as quod, see (d). In some
cases the interpretation of the eo quod clause as a reason clause is not excluded.21
(d) Nam dicent eo quod filii Israhel in honore ipsorum eas (sc. statuas)
posuerint.
(‘And the people will tell you that the children of Israel set them up in their
honour.’ Pereg. 8.2—tr. Wilkinson)
For the use of quod, quia, and quoniam as introducers of direct speech in ecclesiastical
authors, see Sz.: 578–9.
Appendix: Quod in the following much-debated fragment of Cato can be taken as an
interrogative determiner modifying bonum.
(e) Dicam de istis Graecis suo loco, Marce fili, quid Athenis exquisitum habeam,
et quod bonum sit illorum litteras inspicere, non perdiscere.
(‘I shall speak about those Greek fellows in their proper place, Marcus, my
son, and point out the result of my enquiries at Athens, and convince you
what benefit comes from dipping into their literature, and not making a
close study of it.’ Cato Fil. 1(J))
. The use of quod clauses with verbs and expressions of accusing and
convicting and of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking
A quod clause (and—less often—quia) is the regular construction that is used with
verbs and expressions of blaming, excusing, praising, congratulating, and thanking.
These verbs can be found with a second argument which is either the addressee who
21 See Herman (1963: 47–9), Väänänen (1987: 73), and Baños (2014: 158–9). For a causal interpretation of
eo quod in (d), see Griffe (2011).
is blamed, praised, etc. or the content of the blame, as in (a). They can also be found
with three arguments, with both the addressee and the content. With some verbs the
addressee is in the accusative, as in (b), with others in the dative, as (c). There are also
related expressions with which the quod clause is the subject, as in (d). As illustrated
by (e), it is not always easy to decide whether the quod or quia clause is the content of
the praise, blame, etc. or the reason for praising or blaming somebody.22 In Early
Latin cum (quom) is relatively common as an alternative to quod (see § 15.23). With
some verbs the accusative and infinitive clause is also possible (see § 15.99).
(a) Nec vos arguerim, Teucri, nec foedera nec quas / iunximus hospitio dextras.
(‘Yet I would not blame you, Trojans, nor our covenant, nor the hands we clasped in
friendship.’ Verg. A. 11.164–5)
(b) . . . cum obiurgavit Albium Granius quod . . . absoluto Scaevola gauderet . . .
(‘. . . when Granius reproached Albius with being delighted by Scaevola’s acquittal . . .’
Cic. de Orat. 2.281)
(c) Tibi . . . tamen quod abes gratulor, vel quia non vides ea quae nos, vel quod
excelso et illustri loco sita est laus tua . . .
(‘But all the same, I congratulate you on your absence. On the one hand, you do not
see what we are seeing; on the other, your renown is situated in a lofty and distin-
guished place . . .’ Cic. Fam. 2.5.1—NB: co-occurrence of a quod argument clause and
reason adjunct clauses with quia and quod )
(d) Quod te in tanta hereditate ab omni occupatione expedisti valde mihi gra-
tum est.
(‘It is very good news to me that you have freed yourself from business although you
have so large an inheritance to think of.’ Cic. Att. 3.20.2)
(e) Eo in metu arguere Germanicum omnes quod non ad superiorem exercitum
pergeret . . .
(‘Amid the alarm all condemned Germanicus for not going to the upper army . . .’ Tac.
Ann. 1.40.1)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb or comparable expression):
Without an addressee: . . . accusabat quidam vilitate ipsa despectus quod, cum
imperium Procopius affectasset, aliqua pro eo locuti sunt bona. (Amm. 29.3.7); ‘Nihil
aliud scio’, inquit, ‘nihil arguo, nisi quod cum ferro comisatum venerunt.’ (Liv. 40.14.5);
Non quidem sibi ignarum posse argui quod tam recenti dolore subierit oculos sena-
tus. (Tac. Ann. 4.8.3); . . . criminabatur etiam quod Titum filium, qui postea est
Torquatus appellatus, ab hominibus relegasset . . . (Cic. Off. 3.112); Hoc tu igitur in cri-
men vocas quod cum iis fuerit C. Rabirius . . .? (Cic. Rab. Perd. 24); . . . (sc. litterae)
videntur . . . quasi exprobrare quod in ea vita maneam in qua nihil insit nisi propagatio
miserrimi temporis. (Cic. Fam. 5.15.3); Gaudeo et gratulor quod Fusco Salinatori
filiam tuam destinasti. (Plin. Ep. 6.26.1); . . . quod te intro misi gratiam referat mihi.
22 For gratias ago, see Ros (2005), with arguments in favour of considering quod clauses with this
expression as reason adjuncts. See also Ripoll (2012).
(Lucil. 835M=904K); Gratulemur quod iam nulla civitas fame laborat. ([Quint.]
Decl. 12.10); Quod minuit auctionem decemviralem laudo, quod regi amico cavet
non reprehendo, quod non gratis fit indignor. (Cic. Agr. 2.58); Quod bene cogitasti
aliquando laudo; quod non indicasti gratias ago; quod non fecisti ignosco. (Cic.
Phil. 2.34)
Accusative addressee: Accusat eos quod eius modi de se sermones habuerint. (Cic.
Ver. 5.102); Pacem petebat excusabatque sese quod per Aetolos recuperasset pater-
num regnum. (Liv. 38.3.2); Laudor quod osculavi privignae caput. (Titin. com. 155—
NB: unless to be regarded as causal quod ); Phalereus Demetrius, qui Periclem . . .
vituperat quod tantam pecuniam in praeclara illa propylaea coniecerit. (Cic. Off. 2.60)
Dative addressee: Criminique ei tribunus inter cetera dabat quod filium iuve-
nem . . . prope in carcerem atque in ergastulum dederit . . . (Liv. 7.4.4); Quod bene fecisti
referetur gratia. (Pl. Capt. 941); Fecisti mihi pergratum quod Serapionis librum ad
me misisti. (Cic. Att. 2.4.1); . . . cum laetor tandem longi erroris vobis finem factum
esse, tum quod secundis potissimum vestris rebus hic error est sublatus et vobis et
propter vos rei publicae gratulor. (Liv. 5.3.3); Ago tibi gratias quod me dign<um>
habuisti et sequrum fecisti. (CEL 142.7–8 (Karanis, c. ad 115)); Obicio tibi quod
occidisti hominem . . . (Sen. Con. 7.2.8); Vitio mihi dant quod mortem hominis neces-
sari graviter fero atque eum quem dilexi perisse indignor. (Matius Fam. 11.28.2)
Damno and condemno ‘to condemn’ are included in this semantic class by K.-St.: II.276.
However, the quia and quod clauses in (f)–(i) are better taken as reason adjuncts.23
(f) . . . C. Decianus, de quo tu saepe commemoras, quia, cum hominem omni-
bus insignem notis turpitudinis, P. Furium, accusaret summo studio bono-
rum omnium, queri est ausus in contione de morte Saturnini, condemnatus
est. At Sex. Titius, quod habuit imaginem L. Saturnini domi suae, condemna-
tus est.
(‘But take the case of Gaius Decianus, whom you are so fond of quoting: he
was condemned because—while with the entire approval of all good citizens
he was accusing Publius Furius, a man notorious for every kind of infamy—
he dared to lament in the course of his speech the death of Saturninus. And
Sextus Titius also was condemned because he had a portrait of Saturninus in
his house.’ Cic. Rab. Post. 24)
(g) Et ii qui Fabrici libertum, quia minister in maleficio fuerat, patronum, quia
conscius esset condemnassent, ipsum principem atque architectum sceleris
absolverent?
(‘And could those who had condemned the freedman of Fabricius, because
he had been an agent in the crime, and his patron, because he had been
privy to it, acquit the principal and original contriver of the whole wicked-
ness?’ Cic. Clu. 60—see also Clu. 61)
(h) In qua cognitione magis utra pars Romanis, utra regi favisset quaesitum est
quam utra fecisset iniuriam aut accepisset; . . . A. Baebius unus est damnatus,
quod milites Romanos praebuisset ad ministerium caedis.
23 Examples taken from TLL s.v. condemno 124.65f.; s.v. damno 15.49ff.
(‘In this investigation, the question was more which side had favoured the
king and which the Romans, than which had done wrong or had been
wronged; . . . only Aulus Baebius was condemned for furnishing Roman
soldiers to help carry out the slaughter.’ Liv. 45.31.1–2)
(i) . . . arguimus nos ipsi penitusque re visa atque inspecta damnamus, quod
humanitatis iure deposito naturalis initii consortia ruperimus.
(‘. . . we ourselves accuse and condemn ourselves when the thing is seen and
looked into thoroughly, because, neglecting the law which is binding on
men, we have broken through the bonds which naturally united us at the
beginning.’ Arn. Nat. 7.4—tr. Bryce)
. The use of quod clauses in combination with a subject or object

complement
In (a)–(c) the quod clauses function as subject of a clause whose verb consists of a form
of sum in combination with a subject complement; in the first two examples the subject
complement is an adjective (neuter singular form), in the last a noun phrase. A quod
clause functioning as object in combination with an object complement is shown in
(d). The main clause can have a preparative pronoun as its object, as in (e). Note that
the nouns and adjectives involved are semantically related to the verbs discussed above.
(a) . . . nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem . . . praeesse voluerunt . . .
(‘. . . but no action of theirs was ever more wise than their desire that the same men
should superintend. . .’, Cic. Dom. 1)
(b) Est autem in hoc genere molestum quod in maximis animis . . . existunt hono-
ris, imperii . . . cupiditates.
(‘But the trouble about this matter is that it is in the greatest souls that lust for honour
and power emerges.’ Cic. Off. 1.26)
(c) Parumne est malai rei quod amat Demipho . . .?
(‘Is it not enough of a bad thing that Demipho is in love . . .?’ Pl. Mer. 692)
(d) Maximum vero eius beneficium numero quod hoc animo in rem publicam
est . . .
(‘But I count it as his greatest benefaction that he is of this mind toward the
Republic . . .’ Cic. Phil. 13.7)
(e) Nisi hoc indignum putas quod vestitum sedere in iudicio vides quem tu e
patrimonio . . . nudum expulisti.
(‘Unless you think it scandalous to see in this court sitting fully clothed the man
whom you have driven naked out of his patrimony.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 147)
Sed causa erat iudici postulandi quod ex edicto professus non esset. (Cic. Ver. 3.39);
Praecipuum destinationis meae documentum habete quod de nemine queror. (Tac.
Hist. 2.47.3); Tot luctibus funesta civitate pars maeroris fuit quod Iulia Drusi filia,
quondam Neronis uxor, denupsit in domum Rubellii Blandi . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.27.1);
Alterum est vitium quod quidam nimis magnum studium multamque operam in res
obscuras atque difficiles conferunt . . . (Cic. Off. 1.19)
Fuerit verecundiae tuae quod nihil hactenus nobis adloquii detulisti. (Symm. Ep. 8.8)
Quod autem idem maestitiam meam reprehendit, idem iocum, magno argumento
est me in utroque fuisse moderatum. (Cic. Phil. 2.40); . . . nisi etiam quod omnino
coluit crimini fuerit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 49); Cn. Octavio . . . honori fuisse accepimus quod
praeclaram aedificasset in Palatio . . . domum . . . (Cic. Off. 1.138); . . . indicio fuit quod
ipse expulso Dionysio imperium dimittere noluit. (Nep. Tim. 2.3); Voluptati mihi est
quod vales. (Symm. Ep. 7.37)
Cuius ex omni vita nihil est honestius quam quod cum mima fecit divortium.
(Cic. Phil. 2.69); Optimum vero quod dictaturae nomen in perpetuum de re publica
sustulisti (Cic. Phil. 2.91)
Quod Thebae cecidere meum est (Ov. Met. 13.173); Nostrum est quod evocavi-
mus ad causam dicendam eos . . . (Liv. 39.36.13)
Quam ob rem etsi magis est quod gratuler tibi quam quod te rogem, tamen etiam
rogo . . . (Cic. Att. 16.5.2)24
With a preparative pronoun: Nec vero illud non eruditorum temporum argumen-
tum est quod et deorum pulvinaribus et epulis magistratuum fides praecinunt . . .
(Cic. Tusc. 4.4)
Quamquam illud est egregium quod hac lege ante omnia veneunt . . . (Cic. Agr.
2.71); Id vero egregium quod provisu deum vidua iungeretur principi sua tantum
matrimonia experto. (Tac. Ann. 12.6.2); Hoc quidem hau molestum est iam quod
collus collari caret. (Pl. Capt. 357)
. The use of quod clauses with a variety of other expressions
Apart from the more or less precise semantic contexts dealt with in the preceding sec-
tions, quod argument clauses are used with a broad range of other expressions, which
by their meaning allow a quod argument clause referring to a factive content. It is this
enormous variety that testifies to the role of quod as a ‘general’ subordinator, even in
Cicero’s time. A few examples must suffice.25 In (a) and (b), the quod clauses function
as subject with the two-place verbs habeo and adiuvo, respectively. In (c), the quod
clause functions as subject of two-place (so-called impersonal) refert.26 In many
instances some form of preparative expression anticipates the quod clause.
(a) Quod vero ita avocatur a Mutina . . . quam habet ignominiam . . .!
(‘Now he is ordered off from Mutina in such a fashion . . . what a disgrace does that
entail!’ Cic. Phil. 6.6)
(b) Quam ad spem multum eos adiuvabat quod Liger ex nivibus creverat . . .
24 For the various expressions with magis est, see TLL s.v. magis 64.47ff.
25 One can get a good impression by browsing through Merguet’s lexicons to Cicero’s Orations and
Philosophica s.v. quod. For the relationship between these various uses, see Taylor (1951) and
Woolsey (1953).
26 For more instances of verbs of advantage, importance, etc., see Serbat (2003: 579–82).
(‘The fact that the Loire was so swollen from the melting of the snows contributed
greatly to this hope.’ Caes. Gal. 7.55.10)
(c) Nec refert quod inter se specie differunt, cum genere consentiant.
(‘It matters nothing that they differ in special points, seeing that they are generically
alike.’ Tac. Dial. 25.4)
Quod clause as object: Ille dedit quod non anima haec Cyclopis in ora / venit . . . (Ov.
Met. 14.174–5—NB: ut or a prolative infinitive would be normal); Quid habet mea
domus religiosi nisi quod impuri et sacrilegi parietem tangit? (Cic. Har. 33); Neque
satis habuit quod eam in occulto vitiaverat, quin eius famam prostitueret. (Cato hist.
36=27C); At quo teste, di immortales, non satis quod uno, non quod ignoto, non
quod levi. (Cic. Scaur. 29)
Quod clause as subject: Interfecit Opimius Gracchum. Quid facit causam? Quod rei
publicae causa (sc. interfecit), cum ex senatus consulto ad arma vocasset. (Cic. de
Orat. 2.132)
Appendix: Quod clauses are also used in headings in Cato’s Agr. An example is (d).
(d) De brassica quod concoquit.
(‘About cabbage that it promotes digestion.’ Cato Agr. 156.1)
. The use of quod clauses with verbs of happening
Quod clauses are used as subject with a variety of main clauses which have in common
that they contain an expression that, from a semantic point of view, can be understood
as an evaluation of the content of the quod clause. The phenomenon is particularly
common with verbs and expressions of happening when the superordinate clause con-
tains an evaluative expression. Examples are perincommode in (a) and bene in (b).27 In
these examples the adverbs perincommode and bene constitute the salient information;
the content of the quod clause is ‘factive’ and known information. For the combination
of accidit and an evaluative adverb with a non-clausal subject, see (c).28
(a) Sed accidit perincommode quod eum nusquam vidisti.
(‘It is most unfortunate that you did not see him at all.’ Cic. Att. 1.17.2)
(b) Magna me, inquit, spes tenet, iudices, bene mihi evenire quod mittar ad mortem.
(‘ “I entertain, gentlemen of the jury, high hopes,” said he, “that it is for my good that
I am sent to death.” ’ Cic. Tusc. 1.97)
(c) Quod consilium etsi in eiusmodi casu reprehendendum non est, tamen
incommode accidit.
(‘This plan, though not reprehensible in such an emergency, had an unfortunate
result.’ Caes. Gal. 5.33.4)
27 See TLL s.v. incommode 988.57ff.

28 For quod clauses with verbs of happening and with facio, see Bolkestein (1989b), Rosén (1989a),
Cuzzolin (1996), and Panchón (2003: 407–11; 421–6).
The verbs with which such quod clauses are attested are the verbs of happening accidit
‘to happen’, cadit ‘to happen’, evenit ‘to happen’, and fit ‘to occur’. With these verbs ut is
normal when there are no evaluative expressions present (see § 15.27). For accusative
and infinitive clauses in similar contexts, see § 15.94.29
A counterpart of subject clauses with verbs and expressions of happening are object
clauses with the verb facio ‘to do’, as in (d) and (e).
(d) Bene facis, inquit, quod me adiuvas . . .
(‘ “You do a service to me,” he said, “in helping me . . .” ’ Cic. Fin. 3.16)
(e) Sed fecit humaniter Licinius quod ad me misso senatu vesperi venit . . .
(‘Licinius acted kindly toward me in calling on me this evening after the Senate had
risen.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.1.1)
The expressions involved are mainly adverbs like the ones in (a)–(e). Less common
are noun phrases in the ablative expressing cause, as in (f) and (g).
(f) Num tu, inquit, harum rerum natura accidere arbitraris, quod ‘unam terram’
et ‘plures terras’ . . . dicamus . . .
(‘Surely you do not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say
“one land” and “several lands”.’ Caes. gram. 3a—tr. Garcea)
(g) Noli putare pigritia me facere quod non mea manu scribam . . .
(‘You must not suppose it is out of laziness that I do not write in my own hand . . .’ Cic.
Att. 16.15.1)
Hoc loco percommode accidit quod non adest . . . C. Aquilius. (Cic. Caec. 77); Sed
hoc tamen cecidit mihi peropportune quod . . . ad Antonium audiendum venistis.
(Cic. de Orat. 2.15); Numquam edepol quicquam iamdiu quod mage vellem evenire /
mi evenit quam quod modo senex intro ad nos venit errans. (Ter. Eu. 1002–3); . . .
scripseras velle te bene <e>venire quod de Crasso domum emissem . . . (Cic. Fam.
5.6.2); . . . dicere est solitus benigne sibi a populo Romano esse factum quod nimis
magna procuratione liberatus modicis regni terminis uteretur (Cic. Deiot. 36); Itaque
sive casu accidit sive consilio, percommode factum est quod . . . de morte et de
dolore . . . disputatum est. (Cic. Tusc. 4.64)
Pervorse facis. # Quodne amem? (Pl. Mer. 573); Quod scribis scire te mihi illam
rem fore levamento, bene facis. (Cic. Att. 12.43.2); . . . cave suspiceris contra meam
voluntatem te facere quod non sis mecum. (Cic. Fam. 16.22.1); Qua re facis tu qui-
dem fraterne quod me hortaris . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 2.14.2); Tu autem Fanni, quod mihi
tantum tribui dicis quantum ego nec adgnosco nec postulo, facis amice. (Cic. Amic.
9); Bene facitis quod abominamini. (Liv. 6.18.9); Bene fecisti, quod libertum ali-
quando tibi carum reducentibus epistulis meis in domum, in animum recepisti.
(Plin. Ep. 9.24)30
29 For the use of quod clauses and the difference from ut clauses with these verbs, related to quod’s
causal meaning, see Baños (1990).
30 More instances in TLL s.v. facio 106.84ff.
…nec mehercules possum dicere inhumanitate tua fieri quod non audeo . . . (Sen.
Con. 10.1.1); Non magnam rem facis quod vivere sine regio apparatu potes . . . (Sen.
Ep. 110.12)
An exceptional Late Latin instance of a quia clause in a similar context is (h). Ex. (i)
is different: there quia means ‘because’ (compare Pl. Aul. 643).31
(h) Et bene accidit quia nos laboraturos Dominus sciebat . . .
(‘And it is fortunate that the Lord knew that we were going to work . . .’ Ambr.
Virgin. 130)
(i) Istuc male factum arbitror, quia non latus fodi.
(‘I think that (threatening you) was a mistake because I should have stabbed
you in the side.’ Pl. Aul. 418)
There are a few instances with quom in Plautus, as in ( j).
( j) . . . et bene et benigne facitis, quom ero amanti operam datis.
(‘. . . and you are acting well and kindly . . . by helping my lovesick master.’ Pl.
Poen. 588)
Noteworthy instances of combinations of accidit and quod are (k) and (l). In (k) the
context shows that fortuitum (which would require ut—see § 15.27) must be inter-
preted as ‘as an accident’.32 In (l) nihil novi looks like the subject of accidisse, with the
quod clause as its explanation, but it is probably better to take the quod clause as the
subject and nihil novi as equal to non aliquid novi, ‘not as something new’.33
(k) Accidit fortuitum, sed non tamquam fortuitum, quod . . . Certus . . . implicitus
morbo decessit.
(‘It happened by coincidence, though it seemed no mere coincidence, . . . that
Certus fell ill and died.’ Plin. Ep. 9.13.24)
(l) . . . nihil novi accidisse respondit, quod duo senatores in re publica dis-
sentirent . . .
(‘. . . he said that it was nothing strange for two senators to hold different
views in the state . . .’ Tac. Hist. 2.91.3)
. The use of quod clauses in combination with a preparative or

interrogative pronoun or similar expressions
Quod argument clauses are used with preparative and—less frequently—resumptive

expressions from Early Latin onwards (see also §§ 14.16–17). Examples are (a)–(c). In
(a) illuc is the subject complement of the main clause; it prepares for the quod clause.
The sentence would be acceptable without the preparative pronoun, and the quod
31 K.-St.: II.275, Sz.: 579, and Panchón (2003: 408–9) take this as an instance of quia as a marker of a
clause with male facere. Baños (2014: 54) and Taillade (2019: 168–9) take it as a reason adjunct.
32 See Ehlers (1971) and Cuzzolin (1996: 230).
33 See Gerber and Greef s.v. quod 1342, § n; OLD s.v. quod § 6. For a different analysis, see Cuzzolin
(1996: 228) and Serbat (2003: 575).
clause would serve as an argument on its own (see § 15.11). However, the pronoun is
not always omissible, as can be seen in (b) (repeated from § 15.4), since habeo does
not govern an argument clause.34 Ex. (c) shows the use of the determiner illa as a
modifier of antiqua. Illa can either be understood as cataphoric or—more likely—as
exophoric (see § 11.107), ‘the well-known ancient story’. According to this interpret-
ation, the quod clause functions as an appositive clause specifying illa antiqua (see
§ 14.16). In (d) the quod clause is prepared for by the pronoun id (for quod clauses
with vitium as their subject complement, see § 15.11). The use of the interrogative
pronoun quid in (e) can be compared with the use of the preparative pronouns in (a)
and (b). Ex. (f) can be compared with (c). For a resumptive pronoun, see (g).
(a) Quid illuc est quod illi caperrat frons severitudine?
(‘What’s the reason that his forehead is wrinkled from grave thoughts?’ Pl. Epid. 609)
(b) Habet hoc sollicitudo, quod omnia necessaria putat.
(‘Anxiety has this quality, that it supposes all things necessary.’ Plin. Ep. 6.9.2)
(c) Nam illa nimis antiqua praetereo quod C. Servilius Ahala Sp. Maelium novis
rebus studentem manu sua occidit.
(‘I pass over that well-known ancient story that Gaius Servilius Ahala with his own
hand killed Spurius Maelius, who was pursuing revolution.’ Cic. Catil. 1.3)
(d) Id illi vitium maxumum est / quod nimis tardus est advorsum mei animi
sententiam.
(‘It’s his greatest fault that he’s too slow, against my heart’s wishes.’ Pl. Mer. 596–7)
(e) Quid quod Staienus est condemnatus?
(‘What of the fact that Staienus was condemned?’ Cic. Clu. 99)
(f) . . . miretur profecto quae sit tanta atrocitas huiusce causae quod diebus fes-
tis . . . hoc iudicium exerceatur . . .
(‘. . . he would in truth wonder what great atrocity there is in this particular cause such
that this trial alone should proceed during these days of festival and public games . . .’
Cic. Cael. 1)
(g) Quod discordis dispersasque Vitellii legiones . . . fudisset, id pulcherrimum et
sui operis.
(‘As to the fact that he had put to rout the discordant and scattered legions of Vitellius,
Antonius called that a most beautiful achievement and the work of his own hand.’
Tac. Hist. 3.53.2)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by preparative expression):
NB: In some of the instances cited below we find both some sort of preparative
device, on the basis of which they have been placed in this category, and a main verb
that fits in with one of the categories in the preceding sections.
34 For the preparative use of ille, see TLL s.v. 348.36ff.; for is, TLL s.v. 477.66 (quia) and 478.1ff. (quod );
for iste, TLL s.v. 508.28ff. See also Merguet (Phil.) s.v. quod 332B; (Reden) 221A. Ex. (b) is taken from
Bodelot (2000: 76).
Sed quid hoc est quod foris concrepuit proxima vicinia? (Pl. Mos. 1062); Sed hoc inter
me atque illum interest quod ille . . . inimicos suos ultus est . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 20); Hoc
enim uno praestamus vel maxime feris quod conloquimur inter nos et quod exprimere
dicendo sensa possumus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.32—NB: for praesto, see § 4.57)
Quaeso ut sat habeas id, pater, quod Chrysalus / me obiurigavit . . . (Pl. Bac. 1019–
20); . . . semperque id valuisse plurimum quod in se auctoritatis habuisset aequi-
tatisque plurimum . . . (Cic. Caec. 80); Ceterum id quoque ad gloriam accessit quod
cum illo simul iusta ac legitima regna occiderunt. (Liv. 1.48.8); At Pallas id maxime
in Agrippina laudare quod Germanici nepotem secum traheret. (Tac. Ann. 12.2.3)
Hoc nimirum est illud quod non longe a gradibus Aureliis haec causa dicitur. (Cic.
Flac. 66); An illa non gravissimis ignominiis monumentisque huius ordinis ad pos-
teritatis memoriam sunt notanda quod unus M. Antonius in hac urbe post conditam
urbem palam secum habuerit armatos? (Cic. Phil. 5.17); Non ego illud parvi aestimo,
milites quod nemo est vestrum cuius . . . (Liv. 21.43.17)
Quid istuc est quod meos te dicam fugitare oculos, Tyndare . . . (Pl. Capt. 541)
In contexts like (b) the preparative pronoun functions as a grammatical device to

mark the function of the clause in its sentence. This resembles the use of pronouns
with quod clauses functioning as satellite, as in (h). Here, eo is obligatory: the com-
bination of a preposition and a subordinator ( pro quod ) is ungrammatical until
(very) Late Latin (see also § 16.84).
(h) Sin autem pro magnitudine iniuriae proque eo quod summa res publica in
huius periculo temptatur haec omnes vindicarent . . .
(‘But if, in consideration of the greatness of the injustice, and of the fact that
the highest intrests of the State are being attacked in the peril by which he is
threatened—if all were to punish these acts . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 148)
A different phenomenon is the combination of a preparative pronoun + est + quod, for

example hoc est quod, in examples like (i). Here, quod is not a subordinator, but the
accusative neuter of the relative pronoun functioning as a reason adjunct ‘why’.
Similarly, quid est quod ‘what is it why’ in ( j). See also § 18.39 for the use of the relative
adverb cur in the same configuration. Compare also (k), with id in the same function.
Scholars vary in the way they deal with quod in these cases. Some regard it as a subor-
dinator, others as a relative pronoun functioning as ‘adverbial accusative’ or ‘internal
accusative’.35
(i) Hoc ecastor est quod ille it ad cenam cottidie.
(‘Yes, that explains why he has to go to dinner every day.’ Pl. As. 865)
( j) Nam quid est quod haec huc timida atque exanimata exsiluit foras?
(‘What on earth is the reason why she’s rushed out here, all fearful and anxious?’ Pl.
Cas. 630)
(k) Id nos ad te, si quid velles, venimus.
(‘That’s why we have come to you, to see if you want anything.’ Pl. Mil. 1158)
35 I follow Baños (1991b), with extensive discussion.

Supplement:
Hoc, / hoc est quod <cor> peracescit. / Hoc est demum quod percrucior . . . (Pl. Bac.
1099–1101); Hoc erat, alma parens, quod me per tela, per ignis / eripis . . .? (Verg. A.
2.664–5)
Sed quid est quod tuo nunc animo aegre’st? (Pl. Cas. 178); Sci’n quid est quod ego
ad te venio? (Pl. Men. 677); Quid est quod tu exanimatus iam hos multos dies / gestas
tabellas tecum . . . (Pl. Ps. 9–10); Quid est quod de voluntate caelestium dubitare pos-
simus? (Cic. Phil. 4.10); Quid est quod diligenter conficiamus tabulas? (Cic. Q. Rosc.
7); Quid erat quod confirmabat se abs te argentum esse repetiturum . . .? (Cic. Ver. 4.43)36
NB: Quid fecerat quod eum totiens per insidias interficere voluistis? (Cic. Dom. 59)
. The use of quia in declarative argument clauses

Quia is relatively uncommon as a subordinator in declarative argument clauses until
its expansion with certain classes of governing expressions in Late Latin.
. The use of quia clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added’, or ‘to
Quia is used with accedit ‘to constitute an addition to’ from Augustine onward. An
example is (a).
(a) Huc accedit quia ipse dies. . . incertus est.
(‘To this fact is added that the day itself . . . is uncertain.’ August. Serm. 17.7)
. The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions meaning
‘to leave unmentioned’
Quia with verbs and expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’ is very rare and
Late. An example is (a).37
(a) Non praeterimus quia aliqui nec in Hebraeo putant esse, nec in ceteris inter-
pretationibus . . .
(‘We do not fail to record the fact that some do not believe that it is either in the
Hebrew or in other versions . . .’ Ambr. Hex. 3.5.20)
. The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of emotion
There are only a few instances in Early Latin and in later periods of quia as a marker
of clauses with verbs and expressions denoting emotion (verba affectuum). An example
is (a). Since with this class of verbs the reason for the emotion is sometimes expressed,
there are instances where one may interpret the quia clause as a reason adjunct. The
36 See Lebreton (1901a: 318–19). For more instances in Cicero, see Merguet (Phil.) s.v. quis 312A;
(Reden) s.v. quod 223, § 7c; Bennett: I.136–7. See also Löfstedt (1966: 262–4; 2000: 85–6).
37 See TLL s.v. praetereo 1020.74ff.
accusative and infinitive is—by far—the normal construction with emotion expres-
sions, of which gaudeo is the only representative with a considerable number of
instances of quia clauses.
(a) . . . ut mi volup est . . . quia vos . . . / rediisse video . . .
(‘. . . as it is a pleasure for me to see that you’ve both . . . returned home . . .’ Pl. St. 506–7)

Sin autem †sicut† hinc discesseras, lacrimis ac tristitiae te tradidisti, doleo quia
doles . . . (Lucc. Fam. 5.14.2); Nam quia vos tranquillos video, gaudeo et volup est
mihi. (Pl. Am. 958); Romae quia postea non fuisti quam discesseras miratus sum,
quod item nunc miror. (Lucc. Fam. 5.14.1); . . . non oportere nos mirari super haere-
ses istas sive quia sunt . . . sive quia fidem quorundam subvertunt . . . (Tert. Praescr.
1.1); Non dedisse istunc pudet: me quia non accepi piget. (Pl. Ps. 282); At nos pudet
quia cum catenis sumus. (Pl. Capt. 203)
As with quod (see § 15.8), instances of queror quia are often included in this class of
verbs. An example from Cicero is (b).
(b) . . . secum Titinium et Servium questos esse quia non . . . remisisset . . .
(‘. . . that Titinius and Servius have grumbled to him for not making the concession . . .’
Cic. Att. 10.3a.2)
. The use of quia with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition,
and communication
The first two instances of quia marking an argument clause with a perception and a
communication verb are found in Petronius (the freedman Echion speaking in his
substandard variety of Latin),38 one of which is (a). This use became more common in
ecclesiastical authors, probably stimulated by the use of Ø~t (hóti) with comparable
verbs in Greek. However, just like quod, it always remained a minor competitor of the
accusative and infinitive, except in the Bible translations in Cyprian (c. ad 250) and in
the Peregrinatio, where it is more frequent than the accusative and infinitive. (For the
relative development of quia and quod, see § 15.9.)
(a) Sed subolfacio quia nobis epulum daturus est Mammaea . . .
(‘I scent that Mammaea is going to give us a meal . . .’ Petr. 45.10 (Echion speaking))
Perception expressions: Sed et haec audivi quia daemonium illos occidit. (Vulg.
Tob. 6.14); . . . quia ubi legebant venturum Christum, ibi legebant quia occisuri erant
Christum. (Aug. Serm. 92.1)
Cognition expressions: . . . et nos credidimus et cognovimus quia tu es Christus . . .
(Vulg. Joh. 6.70); . . . hoc intelligis quia . . . (Mulom. Chir. 118); Novit enim quia, si
dederit illam viro alio, morte periet . . . (Vulg. Tob. 6.13); An opinatus es quia aurum
38 See Herman (2003), Adams (2005a), and Cuzzolin (2013b).

tuum desiderarem? (Ambr. Ep. 4.14); . . . et putans quia ex potu calicis inimicae gentes
interficerentur et ruerent calicem meri libenter accepit non intellegens in omnibus
gentibus etiam Hierusalem conprehendi. (Hier. Ep. 18A.15); Scio enim quia valde me
bene ames. (Scaev. dig. 44.7.61.1); Scit enim quia mortis est fabricatrix voluptas. (Lact.
Inst. 6.22.3); Scias quia his oculis aestimatur etiam Alexander magnus fuisse. (Physiogn.
33); Spero autem de deo quia dabit tibi . . . ampliorem laetitiam. (Hist. Apoll. RA 40)
Manifestum est ergo quia homines dixit deos ex gratia sua deificatos, non de sub-
stantia sua natos. (August. Psal. 49.2)
Communication expressions: Ego illi iam tres cardeles occidi, et dixi quia mustella
comedit. (Petr. 46.4 (Echion speaking)); . . . prophetavit quia Iesus moriturus erat pro
gente . . . (Hier. Is. 15.56.8.9)
. The use of quia clauses with verbs and expressions of blaming, praising,
congratulating, and thanking
With verbs and expressions meaning ‘to blame’, ‘to praise’, ‘to congratulate’, and ‘to
thank’ quia is rarely found before ecclesiastical authors started using it. Just as with
quod (see § 15.10) it is not always clear whether the quia clause is an argument or a
reason adjunct clause.
(a) Quod laudas quia oblivisci me scripsi ante facta et delicta nostri amici, ego
vero ita facio.
(‘As to your praising me for writing that I forget the past actions and errors of our
friend, indeed I do forget them.’ Cic. Att. 9.9.1)
Supplement (by verb in alphabetical order):

Id quia non est a me factum, agi’ gratias? (Ter. Ad. 596—NB: unless it is a reason
adjunct); . . . gratulamini mihi quia inveni . . . drachmam quam perdideram. (Vet. Lat.
Luc. 15.9); Respondens autem archisynagogus indignans quia sabbato curasset Iesus
dicebat turbae . . . (Vulg. Luc. 13.14); Invenimus apostolum tamquam crimen obie-
cisse hominibus quia homines sunt. (August. Serm. 166.2); Vitio vertunt quia multa
egeo; at ego illis quia nequeunt egere. (Cato orat. 173=174M)
. The use of quia clauses in combination with a preparative

pronoun or determiner
Instances of quia in argument clauses combined with a preparative pronoun are found
from Early Latin onward, but this use of quia is relatively infrequent, quod being the
normal subordinator in this function. An example is (a). In some cases quia is used
with the same verbs without a preparative element.
(a) Eheu, huic illud dolet / quia nunc remissus est edendi exercitus.
(‘Oh, oh, oh, this one ( points to his stomach) is in pain because the army for eating
has been dismissed now.’ Pl. Capt. 152–3)
Supplement:
Idne pudet te quia captivam genere prognatam bono / in praeda es mercatus? (Pl.
Epid. 107–8); An id doles, soror, quia illi suom officium / non colunt, quom tu tuom
facis? (Pl. St. 34–6)
Sin ea’st causa retinendi apud vos / quia aegra’st, te mihi iniuriam facere
arbitror . . . (Ter. Hec. 255–6)
. The use of quoniam in declarative argument clauses

Quoniam is found as a subordinator introducing subject and object clauses with verbs
and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication from Tertullian and
the early Bible translations in his writings onward, as in (a).39 However, whereas quod
and quia are increasingly found in various subordinate clauses from Early Latin
onward, this is not the case with quoniam, the spread of which in ecclesiastical and
other later authors may therefore well be ascribed to the influence of the Bible (espe-
cially in imitation of the use of Greek ot~t (dihóti)). An early instance is (b), clearly
translating Gk. ntnx}uptx }p shv Ø~t ( gignóskein se thélo hóti). It seems that quoniam
followed the development of quia, with which it also occasionally overlaps in reason
clauses (see § 16.42). Like quia it is more common than quod in the New Testament.40
Quoniam was used much less frequently than quod and quia, with some individual
variation.41
(a) Si Deus videt quoniam propter ipsum feci, pariter videt quoniam propter
ipsum fecisse me nolui ostendere . . .
(‘If God sees that I have done it for his sake, He equally sees that I have been unwill-
ing to show that I did it for his sake . . .’ Tert. Idol. 22.3)
(b) Scire te volo conia non acc/epi a quratori esopera (= supra) co/ntu-
bernio.
(‘I wish you to know that I have not received (anything) from the curator concerning
the lodging (?).’ O. Did. 417 (Didymoi, c. ad 120–5)—NB: the meaning of contuber-
nium is not clear)42
(c) Nemo cum temptatur dicat quoniam a Deo temptor.
(‘Let no one say, when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God.’ Vulg. Jac. 1.13)
. . . ut cognoscatis et credatis et intellegatis quoniam ego sum. (Vet. Lat. Is. 43.10—
NB: Vulg. has quia); Nam mihi credat volo affectio vestra quoniam nullus
Christianorum est qui non se tendat illuc. (Pereg. 17.2); . . . intellexit . . . quoniam
angelus . . . est. (Vet. Lat. Iud. 13.21—NB: Vulg. has AcI); . . . et nos credimus et cog-
novimus quoniam tu es filius . . . (Cypr. Ep. 59.7—NB: quod in Vet. Lat. Joh. 6.69;
quia in Vulg.); Et scribae qui ab Hierosolymis descenderant dicebant quoniam
39 For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 76–7 = 1985: 148–9). 40 See Sznajder (2019).
41 Irenaeus shows an idiosyncratically strong preference for quoniam. See Svennung (1948: 46).
42 See Bülow-Jacobsen in Cuvigny (2012: 352–5).
Beelzebub habet et quia in principe daemonum eicit daemonia. (Vulg. Marc. 3.22—
NB: coordination); . . . legitur in domo tua de minore filio tuo quoniam ‘mortuus
erat et revixit’, perierat et inventus est. (August. Conf. 8.6); . . . scitote quoniam me
primo odit. (Cypr. ad Fort. 11.7); Dic tu aliter ut scias quoniam necessitate hoc fit.
(Pomp. V.253.32K)
NB: . . . laetati sunt quoniam siluerunt . . . (Vet. Lat. Psal. 106.30—NB: Vulg. has quia)
. The use of cum (quom) in declarative argument clauses

In Plautus’ comedies, and in Early Latin in general, cum (quom)43 is found in subor-
dinate clauses with some of the verbs with which quod begins to be used in that
period, viz. emotion verbs and verbs of praising, blaming, congratulating, and thank-
ing (cf. § 15.8 and § 15.10, respectively). Examples are (a) and (b). Cum in such cases
functions basically as a temporal subordinator (see § 16.10), denoting (inter alia) the
concomitance of two events (see § 7.125). Note in (c) the parallelism of a temporal
cum adjunct clause and a conditional si adjunct clause.
(a) Quom istaec res tibi ex sententia / pulchre evenit gaudeo.
(‘I’m happy this turned out well for you, according to your wish.’ Pl. Rud. 1365–6)
(b) Gratiam habeo tibi / quom copiam istam mi et potestatem facis.
(‘I’m grateful to you for giving me the chance and opportunity . . .’ Pl. Capt. 373–4)
(c) . . . nec minus laetabor cum te semper sordidum, quam si paulisper sordida-
tum viderem.
(‘. . . nor shall I rejoice less at seeing you in constant and unceasing distress, than
I should if I saw you for a short time in the mourning robe of a criminal on his trial.’
Cic. Pis. 99)
Primumdum, quom tu es aucta liberis / quomque bene provenisti salva gaudeo. (Pl.
Truc. 384–5); Metuo quom illic opscaevavit meae falsae fallaciae. (Pl. As. 266); Volup
est quom istuc ex pietate vostra vobis contigit. (Pl. Rud. 1176)
Di deaeque omnes, vobis habeo merito magnas gratias / quom hac me laetitia
affecistis tanta et tantis gaudiis . . . (Pl. Poen. 1274–5); Quom tu recte provenisti
quomque es aucta liberis / gratulor, quom mihi tibique magnum peperisti decus. (Pl.
Truc. 516–17); Gratulor igitur mihi cum et ego tot ac tantis viris adnumeror. (Apul.
Apol. 27); Laudo malum quom amici tuom ducis malum. (Pl. Capt. 151)
. The use of quomodo and quemadmodum in

declarative argument clauses
Quomodo and quemadmodum ‘how’ are manner adverbs, which can be found in
clauses depending on perception and cognition verbs, where sometimes two different
43 I follow the orthography of the Library of Latin Texts.

perspectives on reality can compete: ‘I saw how he fell’ presupposes ‘I saw that he fell’.
An illustration is (a). There are a few borderline cases mentioned in the literature,
especially of quomodo, one of which is (b). The parallelism with the context makes it
likely that this is still a case of strained use of the interrogative adverb and not a sub-
ordinator in statu nascendi. There are, however, from the fourth century onward cases
that cannot be interpreted as interrogative at all. Apart from the semantic overlap
mentioned above, this evolution of quomodo may have been stimulated by its becom-
ing the substitute for interrogative ut as well (see § 15.60). The equivalent use of
quemadmodum is less frequent.44
(a) Non meminisse nos ratu’s, / quo modo trecentos Philippos Collybisco vilico /
dederis . . .
(‘Didn’t you think we’d remember how you gave your overseer Collybiscus three hun-
dred Philippics . . .’ Pl. Poen. 557–9)
(b) Scis Gnaeum quam sit fatuus, scis quomodo crudelitatem virtutem putet,
scis quam se semper a nobis derisum putet.
(‘You know how foolish Gnaeus is, how he takes cruelty for courage, how he thinks
we always made fun of him.’ Cas. Fam. 15.19.4)
. The use of ut in declarative argument clauses

The subordinator ut is used in declarative subject clauses with a number of governing
expressions. These clauses are often called ‘consecutive noun clauses’,45 although in
reality from the semantic point of view no ‘result’ is involved in most cases (in con-
trast to result adjunct clauses). Examples are (a) and (b).
(a) Etenim mihi ipsi accidit ut cum duobus patriciis . . . peterem.
(‘For indeed it happened to me myself that along with two patricians . . . I was candi-
date.’ Cic. Mur. 17)
(b) Restat ut de imperatore ad id bellum deligendo ac tantis rebus praeficiendo
dicendum esse videatur.
(‘It remains, I think, to speak of the choice of a general to direct the war and of his
appointment to a command of such importance.’ Cic. Man. 27)
The regular negation is non, which distinguishes these clauses from imperative ut
argument clauses, in which the negator is ne (the latter clauses are often called ‘final
noun clauses’). In the case of coordination of multiple clauses, the negator in the sec-
ond (or following) clause is neque. In declarative ut clauses the subordinator ut cannot
be omitted (but see § 15.30). These clauses are discussed in § 7.130 (v) from the point
44 Examples can be found in TLL s.v. modus 1283.10ff; 1290.75ff. For a discussion of the evolution of
quomodo, see Herman (1957; 1963: 58–9); for its development in the Romance languages, see Herman
(1963: 166–74).
45 ‘Konsekutive Substantivsätze’ in K.-St.: II.234–47.
of view of the use of the subjunctive mood.46 In contrast to imperative ut clauses,

there are no restrictions on the tense of the verb of a declarative ut clause (see § 7.101).
A common feature of the expressions governing these declarative ut clauses is that
normally no agent is implied: they are, for example, third person singular verb forms
(often called ‘impersonal’), such as accidit ‘it happens’ and restat ‘the possibility remains
that’, combinations of copular est with a subject complement, either an adjective (veri-
simile est ‘it is likely’) or a noun (caput est ‘the main point is’), or third person singular
passive forms (relinquitur). When the context does contain information on the basis of
which ‘control’ by some human entity or other external force must be assumed, the ut
clause is treated as imperative and, if it is negated, ne must be used. A common feature
of the declarative ut clauses is that they usually present the actions and processes as
virtual and non-factive. With most of the governing expressions accusative and infini-
tive clauses can be used and with many of them quod clauses can be used as well.
K.-St.: II.246–7 draw attention to the fact that the relationship between the ut clause
and what seems to be the governing verb can sometimes only be understood by
assuming some form of ‘brachylogy’, that is that one has to mentally insert a link to
understand the precise relationship. Examples are (c) and (d).
(c) . . . ne in cogitationem quidem cadit ut fuerit tempus aliquod nullum cum
tempus esset . . .
(‘. . . since it is inconceivable that there was ever a time when time did not exist.’
Cic. N. D. 1.21—NB: ut fuerit tempus instead of ut fuisse tempus existimemus)
(d) Ille (sc. dixit) et tibi et sibi visum et ita se domi ex tuis audisse ut nihil esset
incommodi.
(‘He said that you and he both thought, and he heard from your people
at home that there was nothing wrong.’ Cic. Att. 6.9.1—NB: ut nihil esset
incommodi instead of ut audiret nihil esse incommodi)
. The use of ut clauses with the verb accedit ‘to be added to’ or ‘to
With the verb accedit the subject clause is more often a quod clause (see § 15.6). The
difference in meaning between a quod and an ut clause is not always obvious. A much-
discussed example is (a), where there can be no doubt that Appius Claudius was
indeed blind, the typical context for factive quod. The common explanation, reflected
in the translation below, which follows Powell ad loc., is that the ut clause indicates
that the content is of relatively major importance.47 However, this is difficult to prove.
(a) Ad Appi Claudi senectutem accedebat etiam ut caecus esset. Tamen is, cum
sententia senatus inclinaret ad pacem cum Pyrrho foedusque faciendum,
non dubitavit dicere . . .
46 For discussion, see Potůček (2000) and Panchón (2003: 361–5).

47 See K.-St.: II.273 and Panchón (2003: 426–8).
(‘In addition to Appius Claudius’ old age it was his misfortune that he should be (ital-
ics Powell) blind; yet when the sentiment of the senate was inclining towards making
peace and an alliance with Pyrrhus, he did not hesitate to say . . .’ Cic. Sen. 16)
(b) Accedit eodem ut etiam ipse candidatus totum animum atque omnem
curam, operam diligentiamque suam in petitione non possit ponere.
(‘A further result is that even the candidate himself cannot devote all his attention, all
his care and all his unremitting effort to the campaign.’ Cic. Mur. 45)
Supplement:
Accedit ut accusatorum alterius crudelitate, alterius indignitate conturber. (Cic.
Deiot. 2); Huc accedit uti quicque in sua corpora rursum / dissolvat natura . . . (Lucr.
1.215–16); Nam ad cetera id quoque accesserat ut ne alendi quidem exercitus nisi ex
Bruttio agro spes esset . . . (Liv. 28.12.7)
NB: TLL s.v. accedo 269.83 and K.-St.: II.242 refer to an exceptional negation by ne
in Cels. 4.8.1, but the text seems uncertain.
The verbs addo, adicio, and adiungo are also mentioned in this context, but for those
verbs the ut (or ne) clause must be explained as with dico (see § 15.64).
. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of happening

and befalling
Ut (non) is the regular subordinator with verbs and expressions of happening and
befalling. Examples are (a)–(c). A few ‘deviant’ negated clauses are given in the
Supplement alongside normal ones with ut non. The use of ne is required if human
participation or some external force is implied in the context, as it is for example by
procuratione in (d).48 Non is required when the negation is local (see § 8.7), as in (e),
where non goes with casu incideret, in contrast with iudicio perveniret.49 For the use of
quod with these verbs, see § 15.13. Whereas the quod clause is usually factive and
contains known information, the ut clause is usually non-factive (or ‘virtual’) and
contains new information (but see ex. (a)).50
(a) Velut / mi evenit ut ovans praeda onustus incederem.
(‘Just as it has become my lot to be marching along rejoicing and weighed down with
booty.’ Pl. Bac. 1068–9)
(b) ‘Insperanti’, inquit, ‘mihi et Cottae, sed valde optanti utrique nostrum, cecidit
ut in istum sermonem, Crasse, delaberemini.’
(‘ “We never looked for it,” exclaimed Sulpicius, “but it has fallen out, Crassus, just as
both I and Cotta earnestly hoped, I mean that you two should slip into this particular
conversation.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.96)
48 See Calboli (1995/6: 147), who also mentions the relative frequency of instances of ne in the jurists.
49 For statistical information concerning the distribution of ut non and ne with fio ‘to happen’, see Kirk
(1923: 263), with further discussion.
50 See Bolkestein (1989b: 48–9), Rosén (1989a), and Greco (2012: 36–7).
(c) . . . cum accidere possit ut (sc. curator) negotio . . . habilis non sit . . .
(‘. . . for it could happen that he is not suited to the business . . .’ Nerat. dig. 27.10.9)
(d) Nihil autem est pro certo futurum, quod potest aliqua procuratione accidere
ne fiat.
(‘But nothing is “certain to happen” which there is some means of dealing with so as
to prevent its happening.’ Cic. Div. 2.21)
(e) Gallus Vibius . . . cui hoc accidisse uni scio ut <in> insaniam non casu inci-
deret, sed iudicio perveniret.
(‘Vibius Gallus, to whom alone, as far as I know, the following happened: he did not
fall into madness by chance but rather came to it by an act of judgement.’ Sen. Con.
2.1.25)
Eadem nocte accidit ut esset luna plena . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.29.1—NB: factive); Id cum
appararetur, priusquam classis exiret, accidit ut una nocte omnes Hermae, qui in oppido
erant Athenis, deicerentur . . . (Nep. Alc. 3.2); Ac forte acciderat ut eam gentem
Rhenum transgressam avus Agrippa in fidem acciperet. (Tac. Ann. 12.27.1); Quod
numquam opinatus fui neque alius quisquam civium / sibi eventurum, id contigit ut
salvi poteremur domi. (Pl. Am. 186–7); Quoniam autem tecum ut essem non con-
tigit, utinam tui consili certior factus essem! (Cic. Att. 8.11d.5); . . . ni antehac vidis-
semus fieri / ut apud lenones rivales filiis fierent patres. (Pl. Bac. 1209–10); Cum hoc,
ut fere fit, in via sermonem contulit; ex quo factum est ut illud iter familiarius facere
vellent. (Cic. Inv. 2.14); Locos quidem quosdam, si videbitur, transferam, et maxime
ab iis quos modo nominavi, cum inciderit ut id apte fieri possit . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.7); . . .
cum . . . Marco Metello obtigisset ut is de pecuniis repetundis quaereret . . . (Cic. Ver.
1.21); Sed ex eo credo quibusdam usu venire ut abhorreant a Latinis, quod . . .
(Cic. Fin. 1.8)
Negated clauses:. . . cum ipsius vitio acciderit ne mandatori possit actionibus cedere.
(Papin. dig. 46.3.95.11.pr.); De possessore quoque furioso quaeri potest, si quid ne in
rerum natura esset per furorem eius accidisset. (Pomp. dig. 26.7.61); Tam facile innocens
occisus est in ea civitate in qua sibi putat aliquis tam facile posse contingere ne reus
fiat? (Quint. Decl. 294.8); Nam si multi gavisi sunt ibi se habuisse divitias suas, quo
contigit ut hostis non accederet . . . (August. Civ. 1.10); Quo evenit ne Hasdrubal cum
duobus se consulibus proeliaturum prius sciret quam utriusque virtute prosterner-
etur. (V. Max. 7.4.4); Sed ob id quod furtum fecit servus aut noxam nocuit evenit quo
minus eum habere domino liceat, sicuti ob id quod obligatus est fundus accidere
possit ut eum habere domino non liceat. (Pomp. dig. 30.45.1); In hoc genere saepe
fieri potest ut non plane par numerus sit syllabarum . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.28);51 Id ne fieri
posset obsidione atque oppidi circummunitione fiebat. (Caes. Civ. 1.19.5); Ita fit ne
decidant fructus. (Plin. Nat. 17.253); Forte ita inciderat ne duo violenta ingenia
matrimonio iungerentur fortuna, credo, populi Romani, quo diuturnius Servi regnum
esset constituique civitatis mores possent. (Liv. 1.46.5)52
51 TLL s.v. possum 135.34ff. mentions two instances of ut ne in Terence (An. 699; Ph. 245), but they
seem to be wrongly analysed.
52 See Ogilvie ad loc. and Panchón (2003: 457–8).
. The use of ut clauses as subject with the verb sum
Ut clauses can function as subject of a third person singular form of sum, meaning ‘to
be the case’ (see also § 4.15). An example is (a). Future forms are relatively common,
as in (b). The combination looks like the ‘periphrastic’ use of facio and committo dis-
cussed in § 15.36.53
(a) . . . quando denique fuit ut quod licet non liceret?
(‘. . . when, in fact, was it that what is allowed was not allowed?’ Cic. Cael. 48)
(b) Quodsi esset aliquando futurum ut aliquis de L. Flacci pernicie cogitaret . . .
(‘And if it was fated ever to happen that any one should devise mischief to Lucius
Flaccus . . .’ Cic. Flac. 2)
Supplement:
Non erat ut, qui modus <a>moribus fuerat, idem esset iniuriae. (Cic. Dom. 65—add.
Nisbet); Ille erat ut odisset primum defensorem salutis meae . . . (Cic. Mil. 35—illi cj.
Clark); Non est igitur ut mirandum sit ea praesentiri a divinantibus quae nusquam
sint. (Cic. Div. 1.128); Qui fuit ut tutas agitaret Daedalus alas, / Icarus immensas
nomine signet aquas? (Ov. Tr. 3.4.21–2); Neque est ut putemus ignorari ea ab ani-
malibus. (Plin. Nat. 18.3)
Future forms: Quodsi diutius alatur controversia, fore uti pars cum parte civitatis
confligat. (Caes. Gal. 7.32.5); Ipse parat sese porro speratque futurum / ut videat
quod consequitur rem quamque. (Lucr. 4.805–6); Quod si permittatur, perpaucis lus-
tris futurum ut deserta oppida deserti agri nullum militem dare possent. (Liv. 41.8.7);
Sed si hoc optinuerit, futurum est ut in potestate eius . . . sit compromissum eludere.
(Ulp. dig. 4.8.30)
Negation by ne: Continuo enim rex adfirmavit fore ne amplius de se Ptolomaeus
quereretur . . . (V. Max. 6.4.3)
Sometimes the main clause has a preparative pronoun or determiner as the subject
(so-called ‘explicative’ ut). An example is (c). Another way of announcing the ut clause
is shown in (d).
(c) Sed fuit hoc in utroque eorum ut Crassus non tam existimari vellet non didi-
cisse, quam . . .
(‘There was nevertheless this point of difference between the two men, that Crassus
did not so much wish to be thought to have learned nothing, as . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.4)
(d) Sed si ita est ut tu sis Iahonis filius, / signum esse oportet in manu laeva tibi . . .
(‘But if it’s true that you are Iahon’s son, you should have a mark on your left hand . . .’
Pl. Poen. 1072–3)
Supplement:
In qua velim sit illud quod saepe posuisti ut non necesse sit consumere aetatem atque
ut possit is illa omnia cernere qui tantummodo aspexerit. (Cic. de Orat. 3.145); Cf.:
53 For more examples, see OLD s.v. sum § 7.

Tum Catulus ‘est’, inquit, ‘ut dicis, Antoni, ut plerique philosophi nulla tradant prae-
cepta dicendi . . . Sed Aristoteles . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.152); Quod si ita est ut neque quis-
quam nisi bonus vir et omnes boni beati sint, quid philosophia magis colendum aut
quid est virtute divinius? (Cic. Fin. 3.76)
. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘the conclusion
is’, ‘it follows’
Ut is used in argument clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘the conclusion is’
or ‘it follows’. Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Relinquitur ut id quod dicitis non modo non fecerim, sed ne potuerim qui-
dem facere.
(‘It follows that I not only did not do what you say, but that I was not even able to do
it.’ Cic. Inv. 1.45)
(b) Restat ut aut summa negligentia tibi obstiterit aut unica liberalitas.
(‘The only alternative is that extreme negligence or unparalleled generosity prevented
you.’ Cic. Quinct. 41)
(c) . . . consequens esse videtur ut scribas tu idem de legibus.
(‘. . . I consider it a logical thing that . . . you should also write about its laws.’ Cic.
Leg. 1.15)
At si tu possideas, consequens est ut utilis mihi actio adversum te dari debeat. (Gaius
Inst. 2.78); Ex quo efficitur ut quod sit honestum, id sit solum bonum. (Cic. Tusc.
5.45); Linquitur ut merito maternum nomen adepta / terra sit, e terra quoniam sunt
cuncta creata. (Lucr. 5.795–6—NB: presence of the attitudinal disjunct merito within
the ut clause); Reliquum est ut per servos id admiserit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 77); Quod si fit,
ut me excutiam atque egrediar domo / id restat. (Ter. Ph. 586–7); Nec enim sequitur
ut, cui cor sapiat, ei non sapiat palatus. (Cic. Fin. 2.24); Superest ut nec te consilii nec
me paeniteat obsequii. (Plin. Ep. 1.1.2)
NB: exceptional negation: Reliquum est ne quid stulte, ne quid temere dicam aut
faciam contra potentis. (Cic. Fam. 9.16.5); Sequitur enim ne ultra velis id te esse
quod, si prius scisses, non fuisses. (Tert. Apol. 8.9)
. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions meaning ‘it remains to
be done’, ‘it is sufficient’
With verbs and expressions meaning ‘it remains to be done’ and ‘it is sufficient’ ut
subject clauses can be used alongside quod clauses and accusative and infinitive
clauses, usually with a clear difference in meaning. Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Sequitur ut de frumento empto vos, iudices, doceam . . .
(‘My next business, gentlemen, is to put before you the purchase of corn . . .’ Cic. Ver.
3.163)
(b) Relinquitur ut si vincimur in Hispania quiescamus.

(‘There remains the possibility that if we lose in Spain I do nothing.’ Cic. Att. 10.8.2)
(c) Sati’n ut quem tu habeas fidelem tibi aut quoi credas nescias?
(‘Is it enough for you not to know who to regard as reliable and who to trust?’ Pl.
Bac. 491)

Proximum est ut doceam deorum providentia mundum administrari. (Cic. N.D.
2.73); Relinquebatur Caesari nihil nisi uti equitatu agmen adversariorum male
haberet et carperet. (Caes. Civ. 1.63.2); Relinquebatur ut neque longius ab agmine
legionum discedi Caesar pateretur. (Caes. Gal. 5.19.3); Reliquum est ut de Q. Catuli
auctoritate et sententia dicendum esse videatur. (Cic. Man. 59); Illud etiam restiterat,
quod hesterno die fecerunt, ut te in ius adducerent, ut nobis tempus quam diu
diceremus praestitueres. (Cic. Quinct. 33—NB: the second ut clause is a result adjunct
clause); Restat ut pauca de eis in quos praerogativae favor inclinavit dicam. (Liv.
24.8.9); Satis est igitur ut nihil finxerit, nihil cupiditate revertendi mentitus
sit . . . (Quint. Decl. 254.16); Hunc si retinere velis, sufficit ut moreris. ([Quint.] Decl.
17.16); Superest ut ad extremas partes corporis veniam, quae articulis inter se con-
seruntur. (Cels. 4.29.1); Tertium est ut caveamus ut ea quae pertinent ad liberalem
speciem et dignitatem moderata sint. (Cic. Off. 1.141)
There are two attestations of a subject clause with reliquum est without ut, emended
by earlier editors (Cic. Fam. 15.21.5 and Dolab. Fam. 9.9.3). See also in the preceding
section Cic. Fam. 9.16.5 with ne.
. The use of ut clauses with various third person singular verb forms
(so-called impersonal verbs)
Subject ut clauses can be used with a few other verbs. Examples are (a)–(c). In (c) the
first ut clause is the subject of abest, the second depends on tantum. Note in (a) the use
of the preparative pronoun hoc as subject. With some of these verbs the accusative
and infinitive is more common.
(a) Quodsi hoc apparet in bestiis . . . ut se ipsae diligant . . .
(‘Now if it is evident in animals . . . that they love themselves . . .’ Cic. Amic. 81)
(b) Quomodo, oro te, convenit ut et Diogenen mireris et Daedalum?
(‘How, I ask, is it consistent that you admire both Diogenes and Daedalus?’ Sen. Ep.
90.14)
(c) . . . tantumque abest ut aliquam mihi bonam gratiam quaesisse videar, ut
multas me etiam simultates . . . intellegam . . . suscepisse.
(‘It is so far from being the case that I have sought any popularity for myself, that I am
aware of having even incurred many enmities . . .’ Cic. Man. 71)

In quo tantum abest ut nostra miremur ut usque eo difficiles ac morosi simus ut
nobis non satis faciat ipse Demosthenes. (Cic. Orat. 104); Iudicis igitur officio con-
venit ut aut satisdatione interposita absolvat maritum aut habita ratione compensa-
tionis eum condemnet . . . (Ulp. dig. 24.3.24.2); Neque posse principem sua scientia
cuncta complecti neque expedire ut ambitione aliena trahatur. (Tac. Ann. 3.69.3);
Expedire omnibus dicunt ut singulae civitates . . . suas leges habeant. (Justin. 34.1.7);
Potest ut alii ita arbitrentur et ego ut ne credam tibi. (Pl. Ps. 633)
With a preparative pronoun as subject: Non enim hoc convenire Antigoni pruden-
tiae ut sic deuteretur victo. (Nep. Eum. 11.3); Id Sabino convenire ut imperium fratri
reservaret, id Vespasiano ut ceteri post Sabinum haberentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.64.2); At id
quoque potest ut non dent homini, ipsi habeant. (Cic. Div. 2.106)
Bene habet ut ea quae Dei sunt circa sacrificium eius agere valeamus. (August. Ep.
213.7)
An exceptional instance of ‘raising’ of the subject of a subject clause with abest to the
position of subject of the main clause is (d). The second argument of absum may also
be filled by an ut clause, in that case in combination with the prepositional expression
ab eo, as in (e) (see also § 14.6).54
(d) Hoc detrimento milites nostri tantum afuerunt ut perturbarentur, ut incensi
atque incitati magnas accessiones fecerint in operibus hostium expugnandis.
(‘Our troops were so far from being dismayed by this reverse that, impas-
sioned and stimulated, they carried out large-scale sallies in the course of
storming the enemy’s defence-works.’ B. Alex. 22.1—NB: cf. tantum afuit ut
milites nostri hoc detrimento perturbarentur ut . . .)
(e) Tantum autem abest ab eo ut malum mors sit . . . ut verear ne homini nihil sit
non malum aliud certius . . .
(‘So wide of the truth, however, is the view that death is an evil . . . that I incline
to think that nothing else is more assuredly not an evil for a human being . . .’
Cic. Tusc. 1.76)
. The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and an
adjective functioning as subject complement
There is a large number of neuter singular forms of adjectives which function as subject
complement with the copula or a copular verb and which have an ut clause as the sub-
ject. Examples are (a)–(e). In many of these combinations the accusative and infinitive
is possible as well or even more common (see § 15.102), not always with a clear differ-
ence in meaning. With many of these adjectives a prolative infinitive is also possible
(see §§ 15.127–8), and in some cases an imperative interpretation is possible as well
(see § 15.78). Some of these adjectives resemble the meaning classes discussed in the
54 Another instance is Liv. 25.6.11.

preceding sections but others do not. Several of them are bivalent adjectives; many are
evaluative. The main clause often has a preparative pronoun as subject, as in (f).
(a) Iustum est <ut> tuos tibi servos tuo arbitratu serviat.
(‘It’s only just that your slave serves you according to your wishes.’ Pl. Bac. 994)
(b) Aequom videtur tibi ut ego alienum quod est / meum esse dicam?
(‘Does it seem right to you that I should say that something belonging to someone
else belongs to me?’ Pl. Rud. 1230–1)
(c) Non est veri simile ut Chrysogonus horum litteras adamarit . . .
(‘It is improbable that Chrysogonus took a fancy to their culture . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc.
121—NB: perfect subjunctive)
(d) . . . consentaneum est huic naturae ut sapiens velit gerere et administrare rem
publicam . . .
(‘. . . it follows from this natural disposition that the Wise Man should desire to engage
in politics and government . . .’ Cic. Fin. 3.68)
(e) Difficile est quidem ut ad haec hilariora studia tam vehementer perculsus
animus tam cito possit accedere.
(‘It would be difficult indeed for a mind so severely smitten to approach so quickly
this lighter kind of literature.’ Sen. Dial. 11.8.3)
(f) Mi illud videri mirum ut una illaec capra / uxoris simiai dotem ambederit.
(‘It seemed strange to me that that one goat should have eaten up the monkey’s wife’s
dowry.’ Pl. Mer. 240–1—NB: perfect subjunctive)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective):

Erat enim sane absurdum ut X servorum domino quinque liberare liceret . . . (Gaius
Inst. 1.45); Aecum est ut cum alienis dividamus liberos quos non dividimus cum
matribus? (Sen. Con. 9.3.1); Quo mihi nihil videtur alienius a dignitate disciplinaque
maiorum quam ut, qui consul Kalendis Ianuariis habere provinciam debet, is ut eam
desponsam non decretam habere videatur. (Cic. Prov. 36); . . . non videtur esse alienum
uti caute summaque diligentia, antequam instituantur opera, eorum expediantur
rationes. (Vitr. 10.pr.4); Quocirca arduum est ut unius sermo conpenset quod tant-
orum contraxit adfectio. (Symm. Ep. 4.4.1); . . . ut omnium artium recte dici potest com-
mune esse ut in aliqua scientia versentur . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.26); Non par videtur nec sit
consentaneum, / . . . / praesentibus illis paedagogus una ut siet. (Pl. Bac. 139–42—NB:
textually uncertain); Est enim inconveniens Deo ut huiusmodi potestate sit praeditus
qua noceat et obsit . . . (Lact. Ir. 3.1); Atque ei ne integrum quidem erat ut ad iustitiam
remigraret, civibus libertatem et iura redderet. (Cic. Tusc. 5.62); Aequissimum qui-
dem ac iustissimum esse ut populo detur summa rerum potestas . . . (Quint. Decl.
339.7); Longum est ut Deum meum bonum ostendam . . . (Tert. Scorp. 5.1); Nec quic-
quam meliu’st mihi, / ut opinor, quam ex me ut unam faciam litteram / longam . . . (Pl.
Aul. 76–8); Mirum satis ut infantia naturaliter animosa sit . . . (Tert. An. 19.9); . . . nihil
mihi fuit potius quam ut Masinissam convenirem regem . . . (Cic. Rep. 6.9); Qui eam
secat rarum est ut non vulneret sese. (Plin. Nat. 25.69); Rarum est autem ut in foro
iudicia propter id solum constituantur . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.10.3); Rectum’st, ego ut

faciam; non est te ut deterream. (Ter. Hau. 79); Quid tam singulare quam ut ex sena-
tus consulto legibus solutus consul ante fieret quam ullum alium magistratum per
leges capere licuisset? (Cic. Man. 62); Quid porro in Graeco sermone tam tritum
atque celebratum est quam, si quis despicatui ducitur, ut ‘Mysorum ultimus’ esse dica-
tur? (Cic. Flac. 65); Si verum est, quod nemo dubitat, ut populus Romanus omnes
gentes virtute superarit . . . (Nep. Han. 1.1—NB: perfect subjunctive)
With a preparative pronoun as subject: De ipso Roscio potest illud quidem esse
falsum ut circumligatus fuerit angui, sed ut in cunis fuerit anguis, non tam est
mirum . . . (Cic. Div.—NB: perfect subjunctive); Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque
hominibus gloriosum ut Graecis de philosophia litteris non egeant. (Cic. Div. 2.5);
Semper tu hoc facito, Lesbonice, cogites, / id optumum esse tute uti sis optumus. (Pl.
Trin. 485–6); . . . cum hoc proprium sit animantium ut aliquid adpetant quod sit natu-
rae accommodatum . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.104); Praeclarum illud est et, si quaeris, rectum
quoque et verum ut eos qui nobis carissimi esse debeant aeque ac nosmet ipsos ame-
mus. (Cic. Tusc. 3.73)
. The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and a noun
or noun phrase functioning as subject complement
Ut subject clauses can be used as subject with various combinations of nouns and
noun phrases (cf. §§ 9.22, 9.29–35) that function as subject complement. Examples
are (a) and (b). Quite often the main clause has a preparative pronoun as the subject,
as in (c). The accusative and infinitive (see § 15.102) and the prolative infinitive (see
§ 15.128) are possible as well. In some cases an imperative interpretation is also pos-
sible (see also § 15.79).55
(a) Fuit occasio, si vellet, iam pridem argentum ut daret.
(‘There was an opportunity for him to give me the money long ago if he’d wanted to.’
Pl. Ps. 285)
(b) Caput autem est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris publici ut avaritiae
pellatur etiam minima suspicio.
(‘But the chief thing in all public administration and public service is that even the
slightest suspicion of self-seeking should be avoided.’ Cic. Off. 2.75)
(c) Sed mos numquam <ille> illi fuit patri meo / ut exprobraret quod bonis
faceret boni.
(‘It was never my father’s habit to cast in good people’s teeth what good turns he was
doing them.’ Pl. Am. 46–7)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun (phrase)):
Consuetudo eorum omnium est ut sine utribus ad exercitum non eant. (Caes. Gal.
1.48.7); Iliaci cineres et flamma extrema meorum, / testor, in occasu vestro nec tela
nec ullas / vitavisse vices, Danaum et, si fata fuissent / ut caderem, meruisse manu.
55 Most examples are taken from K.-St.: II.244–6, where more can be found.
(Verg. A. 432–4); Sed est mos hominum ut nolint eundem pluribus rebus excellere.
(Cic. Brut. 84); Natura rerum est ut qui balbutiunt plus loquantur. (Symm. Ep. 1.76);
Satis est enim certe in virtute ut fortiter vivamus. (Cic. Tusc. 5.53)
Est miserorum ut malevolentes sint atque invideant bonis. (Pl. Capt. 583); . . . negavit
moris esse Graecorum ut in convivio virorum accumberent mulieres. (Cic. Ver.
1.66); Nam et sapientis est consilium explicare suum de maximis rebus et honesti et
diserti ut mente providere, auctoritate probare, oratione persuadere possis. (Cic. de
Orat. 2.233—NB: parallelism of infinitive and ut clause)
With a preparative pronoun as subject: Ea causa fuit <ut> aedis haec dedicare<tur>.
(Cic. Leg. 2.58); Est enim hoc Gallicae consuetudinis uti et viatores etiam invitos
consistere cogant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.5.2); In propriis igitur est verbis illa laus oratoris ut
abiecta atque obsoleta fugiat . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.150); Non ignoro omnium fere qui
abdicantur hunc esse morem ut acta iam causa ad preces convertantur . . . (Quint.
Decl. 258.10); Ea natura rerum est, patres conscripti, ut qui sensum verae gloriae
ceperit . . . nihil cum hac gloria comparandum putet. (Cic. Phil. 5.49); Summa denique
huius generis haec est ut, si in refellendo adversario firmior esse oratio quam in con-
firmandis nostris rebus potest, omnia in illum conferam tela. (Cic. de Orat. 2.293); Id
erat forte tempus anni ut frumentum in areis Hispani haberent. (Liv. 34.9.12); Est
enim hoc commune vitium magnis liberisque civitatibus ut invidia gloriae comes
sit . . . (Nep. Cha. 3.3)
. The use of ut clauses with expressions consisting of the copula and other
categories that function as subject complement
Ut subject clauses are also found with other combinations of subject complements
with the copula. Examples are (a), a possessive adjective (neuter singular form), and
(b), a prepositional phrase.
(a) Hoc meum est ut faciam sedulo.
(‘This is my task: to do my best.’ Pl. Per. 46)
(b) In rem hoc tuam est. # Ut quidem emoriar prius quam ducam.
(‘It’s for your own good. # Certainly, that I die before I marry.’ Pl. Aul. 154)
Supplement:
Adverb: Quibus si finitum malum non fuerit, prope est ut perpetuum sit. (Cels.
3.23.8).
Prepositional phrases: Ex tua re est ut ego emoriar. (Pl. Ps. 336); Est igitur in tua
potestate ut ille in me satis sibi praesidi putet esse. (Cic. Fam. 13.39.1); Nos uti per
otium tuti simus, in vostra manu est, patres conscripti. (Sal. Jug. 14.13)
A cleft-like example is (c), more or less equivalent to magis ipse moleste fert.56 (For
‘cleft’ constructions, see § 22.12.)
56 See Löfstedt (1966: 273–5; 2000: 100) and Norberg (1937: 112ff.).
(c) . . . magis est ut ipse moleste ferat errasse se . . . quam ut istius amicitiae crimen
reformidet.
(‘. . . there is more reason that he should himself be troubled that he made a mis-
take . . . than that he should be in fear of such a friendship being made a matter of
accusation.’ Cic. Cael. 14)
Supplement:
Quin etiam quanto in partes res quaeque minutas / distrahitur magis, hoc magis est
ut cernere possis / evanescere paulatim stinguique colorem. (Lucr. 2.826ff.); Sed
prius est ut vobis, quod initio facere debueram, vel nunc saltem referam, quis iste vel
unde fuerit. (Apul. Met. 10.18.1); Vix est ut occurrat talis oratio . . . (August. Psal.
85.7); . . . ante est ut ostendat et probet esse illic ecclesiam. (Cypr. Sent. 55); Prope est
ut veniat tempus. (Vulg. Is. 14.1)
. The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of perception, cognition,
and communication
Instances of ut without a preparative pronoun in declarative clauses governed by per-

ception, cognition, and communication verbs are found in Late Latin but are very
rare.57 An early example is (a). When used with a preparative pronoun, such clauses
can already be found in Cicero, as in (b). For the use of ut with semantically related
nouns like opinio ‘opinion’, see § 17.6. This use is not uncommon in later periods.58
(a) De hoc fertur ut sit Arcas nomine . . .
(‘It is said concerning this that its name is Arcas . . .’ Hyg. Astr. 2.4.1)
(b) Iam hoc non ignoratis, iudices, ut etiam bestiae fame monitae plerumque ad
eum locum ubi aliquando pastae sunt revertantur.
(‘Now you are not unaware of this fact, gentlemen, that even brute beasts, when
prompted by hunger, generally return to the place where they have at some time pre-
viously found food.’ Cic. Clu. 67)
Supplement:
. . . non esse credendum ut in id genus mortis exposuerit Creator filium suum quod
ipse maledixerat. (Tert. Marc. 3.18.1); Quis hoc crederet ut barbara Getarum lingua
Hebraicam quaereret veritatem . . . (Hier. Ep. 106.1)
Much discussed is the use of ut in (c), a quotation of Protagoras. Ut corresponds to

ì| (hōs) in the Greek original and can be viewed as Cicero’s ‘overliteral’ rendering.59
(c) Nam Abderites quidem Protagoras, cuius a te modo mentio facta est,
sophistes temporibus illis vel maximus, cum in principio libri sic
posuisset ‘de divis neque ut sint neque ut non sint habeo dicere’,
Atheniensium iussu urbe atque agro est exterminatus . . .
57 See Sz.: 645–6. For the use of ut in imperative clauses with dico and other verbs, see § 15.66.
58 For discussion and references, see Greco (2012: 36–9).
59 So Pease ad loc. See also Coleman (1971: 215) and Panchón (2003: 371).
(‘Since as for Protagoras of Abdera, perhaps the greatest sophist of that age,
to whom you just now alluded, for beginning a book with the words ‘About
the gods I am unable to affirm either that they exist or that they do not exist,’
he was sentenced by a decree of the Athenians to be banished from the city
and the country . . .’ Cic. N.D. 1.63)
Appendix: Gregory of Tours has a few instances of verbs of this class governing a
clause with a simple subjunctive, as in (d).60
(d) Quod credo Ø providentia Dei fecisset.
(‘I believe that the providence of God did this.’ Greg. Tur. Hist. 8.20)
. The use of ut clauses in ‘periphrastic’ constructions
In a way that resembles its use with imperative sentences (see § 6.29), facio can be
used to emphasize the active involvement of a person in the action that he is (was, will
be) undertaking.61 Examples are (a) and (b). Another verb used in a similar way is ago
‘to bring it about that’, as in (c). Compare also committo ‘to perpetrate’ in (d). Most
instances come from Cicero. This use is sometimes called ‘periphrastic’.
(a) Etsi . . . videbam te hanc epistulam cum ad urbem esses esse lecturum, . . .
tamen . . . faciendum mihi putavi ut tuis litteris brevi responderem.
(‘Although . . . I see that you won’t read this till you are at the gates of Rome . . ., yet . . . I
thought I ought to be careful to give your letter a brief answer.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.1)
(b) Invitus feci ut fortissimi viri T. Flaminini fratrem L. Flamininum e senatu
eicerem . . .
(‘Against my will I brought it about that I expelled from the Senate Lucius Flamininus,
the brother of that most valiant man, Titus Flamininus . . .’ Cic. Sen. 42)
(c) Atqui ne ex eo quidem tempore id egit Sestius ut a suis munitus tuto in foro
magistratum gereret . . .
(‘But not even since that time has Sestius worked towards being able to discharge the
duties of his magistracy safely in the forum under the guard of his own men.’ Cic.
Sest. 79)
(d) Nam profecto non est meum . . . committere ut neglegens <non> scribendo
fuisse videar . . .
(‘It would hardly be in character . . . to commit the error of appearing negligent
through failure to write . . .’ Cic. Fam. 3.9.3)
Supplement:
Heia, Megadore, haud decorum facinus tuis factis facis / ut inopem atque innoxium
abs te atque abs tuis me inrideas. (Pl. Aul. 220–1); Quapropter et his qui eos ludos
habent et his qui eo venire consuerunt visum est faciundum ut ostenderemus nostram
60 See Bonnet (1890: 667–9) and Sznajder (2003: 34; 90–1).

61 See Bodelot (2000: 68–73) and Panchón (2003: 407–8).
sententiam, nobis non placere. (Edictum adversos Latinos rhetores apud Gel.
15.11.2); . . . negavi me esse facturum ut de periculo publico non ad consilium publi-
cum rem integram deferrem. (Cic. Catil. 3.7); . . . fecimus et alias saepe et nuper in
Tusculano ut ad eam consuetudinem disputaremus. (Cic. Tusc. 5.11); Euntibus vero,
domesticis praesertim, ut nihil ad te dem litterarum facere non possum . . . (Cic. Att.
8.14.1); Eo feci ut [eo] celeriter eunti darem. (Cic. Att. 11.23.2); Faciebat hoc Sextius,
ut consummato die . . . interrogaret animum suum. (Sen. Dial. 5.36)
Id agis ut . . . effugias ex urbe inanis. (Pl. Trin. 699–701); Id egit ut amicos obser-
vantia, rem parsimonia retineret. (Cic. Quinct. 59); Non ergo id agitur ut aliquid
adsensu meo comprobem . . . (Cic. Luc. 126); Adice nunc quod id agis ut et iram feras
et iniuriam. (Sen. Dial. 5.26)
Neque ego hau committam ut, si quid peccatum siet, / fecisse dicas de [me] mea
sententia. (Pl. Bac. 1037–8); Id me commissurum ut patiar fieri ne animum induxeris.
(Pl. Trin. 704); At vero posthac frustra potius dabo quam, si recte dari potuerint,
committam ut non dem. (Cic. Att. 5.11.1); . . . Volumnius ‘Quoniam in collegae
voluntate interpretanda’ inquit ‘erravi, non committam ut quid vos velitis obscurum
sit: manere an abire me velitis clamore significate.’ (Liv. 10.19.11)
. The use of ne in declarative argument clauses with verbs and

expressions of fearing and worrying
Ne is used in declarative argument clauses with verbs and expressions of fearing and
worrying or when fear or worry is implied in the context. When used with such verbs
it has no negative meaning. This is also reflected in the fact that coordination of
another clause is usually by et, -que, or atque, as in (c), or aut, and not by for example
neque (for which, see § 8.36; for aut, see § 19.45). Negation by non is shown in (a) and
(b). Note the occurrence of verb forms that refer to states of affairs posterior and anterior
to the main verb in (d) and (e), respectively. Posteriority is normally not expressed
explicitly: in (c) augeam is understood as pertaining to the future (see § 7.39). The
periphrastic future forms are normally interpreted as ‘prospective’ (see § 7.24).
(a) Ne non sat esses leno, id metuebas miser, / impure, avare . . .?
(‘You wretch, were you afraid that you would not be enough of a pimp, you dirty,
greedy creature . . .?’ Pl. Per. 686–7)
(b) Verebamini / ne non id facerem quod recepissem semel?
(‘Were you afraid that, once I’d given an undertaking, I wouldn’t do it?’ Ter. Ph.
901–2)
(c) Sed vereor ne, dum minuere velim laborem, augeam atque ad illam causarum
operam . . . adiungatur haec iuris interpretatio . . .
(‘But I fear that, while endeavouring to lessen my labour, I may only increase it, and
find that, in addition to my usual pleading of cases . . . this interpretation of the law is
imposed upon me.’ Cic. Leg. 1.12)
(d) Sed non vereor ne aut meae vitae modestia parum valitura sit in posterum
contra falsos rumores aut ne . . .
(‘However, I’m not afraid that the moderation of my career will be too little a defence
against false reports in time to come; nor am I afraid that . . .’ Mat. Fam. 11.28.8)
(e) Accepi tuas litteras, quibus intellexi te vereri ne superiores mihi redditae non
essent.
(‘I got your letter, through which I found out that you were afraid that your earlier
letters had not been delivered to me.’ Cic. Fam. 14.5.1)
From Early Latin onwards ut is used in argument clauses with verbs and expressions
of fearing. The origin and the meaning of ut is disputed: in about half of the instances
in Plautus, Terence, Cicero, and Caesar the interpretation of the ut clause as an indirect
question with ut meaning ‘how’ is perfectly possible, as in (f) (‘I’m afraid how I would
be able . . .’), but in other instances it is preferable to interpret ut as ne non, as in (g) and
(h). In Early Latin ut was four times commoner than ne non, whereas in Cicero’s works
the proportion is the reverse.62
(f) Ornamenta quae locavi metuo ut possim recipere.
(‘I’m afraid I might not be able to get back the costumes I hired out.’ Pl. Cur. 464)
(g) Id paves (vv.ll.) ne ducas tu illam. Tu autem ut ducas.
(‘You fear that you’re going to marry her, you (to Charinus) that you’re not.’ Ter. An.
349—NB: Donatus ad loc.: pro ne non ut posuit)
(h) Quod enim tu afuisti, vereor ut satis diligenter actum in senatu sit de litteris
meis.
(‘For I’m afraid that because of your absence the deliberation in the Senate concern-
ing my letter was not careful enough.’ Cic. Att. 6.4.2)
Eo plus horreo ne illae magis res nos ceperint quam nos illas. (Liv. 34.4.3); Metuo in
commune ne quam fraudem frausus sit. (Pl. As. 286); At metuo ut satis sis subdola.
(Pl. Mil. 355); Metuo te atque istos expiare ut possies. (Pl. Mos. 465); Ehem, te hercle
ego circumspectabam, nimis metuebam male ne abiisses. (Pl. Ps. 912); Primum
omnium iam hunc comparem metuo meum / ne deserat med atque ad hostis transeat.
(Pl. Ps. 1026–7—NB: with pseudo-object, see § 9.17); Metui’ ne non, quom velis,
convincas esse illum tuom? (Ter. Hau. 1017); Ecquid paves ne scelus feceris? (Quint.
Decl. 340.7); Quod mihi ne eveniat non nullum periculum est. (Pl. Capt. 91); Numquid
subtimes ne ad te hoc crimen pertinere videatur? (Cic. Phil. 2.36); . . . rem frumen-
tariam ut satis commode supportari posset timere dicebant. (Caes. Gal. 1.39.7); . . . timeo
ne male facta antiqua mea sint inventa omnia. (Pl. Truc. 774); Timere non debeo ne
non unus iste civis Romanus illa cruce dignus, ceteri omnes simili periculo indignis-
simi iudicentur. (Cic. Ver. 5.171); . . . sed firmae haec vereor ut sint nuptiae. (Ter. Hec.
101); Sed quod vereor ne plures sint futuri qui de hoc genere me quod nimium multa
[re]scripserim reprehendant . . . (Var. L. 7.109); . . . ne verendum quidem est ut tenere
se possit, ut moderari, ne honoribus nostris elatus intemperantius suis opibus
62 So Woodcock (1959: 144–5). OLD s.v. ut § 3 classifies the use of ut with verbs of ‘anxiety or misgiv-
ing’ as indirect interrogative adverb. For the various explanations offered for the use of ut, see Sz.: 534–5
and Ripoll (2012: 303–5).
utatur. (Cic. Ph. 5.48); Quorum si nemo verum vidit de natura deorum, verendum est
ne nulla sit omnino. (Cic. N.D. 1.94); Unum vereor ne senatus propter urbanarum
rerum metum Pompeium nolit dimittere. (Cic. Att. 5.18.1); Si manet, vereor ne exer-
citum firmum habere non possit. (Cic. Att. 7.12.2)
NB: Me nihil magis pudebat quam ne Eumolpus sensisset, quicquid illud fuerat, et
homo dicacissimus carminibus vindicaret . . . (Petr. 113.12)
Further examples of coordination: Pertimuerunt ne caritate patriae ductus ali-
quando ab ipsis descisceret et cum suis in gratiam rediret. (Nep. Alc. 5.1); O colo-
nia, quae . . . vereris . . . ne supinus eat cavaque in palude recumbat. (Catul. 17.1–8);
Etenim vereor ne aut celatum me illis ipsis non honestum aut invitatum refugisse
mihi sit turpissimum. (Cic. Phil. 2.32); . . . veriti ne noctu impediti sub onere con-
fligere cogerentur aut ne ab equitatu Caesaris in angustiis tenerentur . . . (Caes. Civ.
1.66.2)
Exceptional forms of coordination: Magis curae est magisque afformido ne is
pereat neu corrumpatur. (Pl. Bac. 1078); Eos nunc homines metuo mihi ne opsint
neve opstent uspiam . . . (Pl. Mil. 996); . . . non possumus <non> vereri ne male com-
parati sitis nec tantum rei publicae prosit . . . (Liv. 40.46.4)63
Problematic is the use of ut in (i). Various explanations have been suggested,64 but
Madvig’s emendation ne may be the best solution. Much discussed also is ut in Hor.
S. 1.3.120–1, which is best taken as ironic.
(i) Neque erat ulla satis firma statio opposita, quia nihil minus quam ut egredi
moenibus auderent timeri poterat.
(‘And no outpost in sufficient strength had been stationed to face them,
since nothing less could be feared than that they should venture to sally out
from the walls.’ Liv. 28.22.12)
. The use of quin in declarative argument clauses with

a negative main clause
The subordinator quin is used in declarative argument clauses with main clauses that
contain negative expressions, or which are negative by implication (rhetorical ques-
tions, for example); with impersonal abest ‘to be far from’; and with verbs and expres-
sions of doubt (see § 8.27 (ii) and (iii)).65 The content of these quin clauses is positive
(for clauses with a negative content, see below).
Examples of a quin argument clause with a main clause containing abest are (a)–(c).
The only clear instance of a quin clause with a negative expression is (b), repeated
from § 8.27. Ex. (c) has a passive form in the argument clause.
(a) Aberit non longe quin hoc a me decerni velit . . .
(‘It won’t be long before he wants me to sanction this . . .’ Cic. Att. 9.9.3)
63 For further combinations, see K.-St.: II.252–3.

64 See K.-St.: II.256; Orlandini (2003: 495–6); Gowers ad Hor. S. 1.3.120–1.
65 For the contexts in which quin is used, see Moussy (1987; 1998; 2012), Fleck (2008: 204–30).
(b) . . . quid abest quin actum nobis nihil sit quod a Philippo liberavimus
Graeciam . . .?
(‘. . . how does this differ from saying that nothing was accomplished by us in freeing
Greece from Philip . . .?’ Liv. 35.16.12)
(c) . . . haud procul afuit quin violarentur.
(‘. . . they weren’t far from suffering violence.’ Liv. 25.1.11)
Supplement:
Abesse non potest quin eiusdem hominis sit probos improbare qui improbos probet.
(Gracch. orat. 24); . . . naves . . . longas XXVIII invenit instructas neque multum abesse
ab eo quin paucis diebus deduci possint. (Caes. Gal. 5.2.2); . . . quid abest quin prodi-
tis Sidicinis non Romanorum solum sed Samnitium quoque dicto pareamus . . . ? (Liv.
8.4.2); Sed re prospere gesta non multum afuit quin a Bructero quodam occidere-
tur . . . (Suet. Tib. 19.1)
NB: Paene factum est quin castra relinquerent atque cederent hosti. (Quad. hist.
58=59C)66
For argument clauses dependent on expressions of doubt, declarative status is easier

to prove, as is shown by the examples (d)–(f), with (d) and (e) negated and (f) con-
taining an anterior tense. Further examples are provided in the Supplement.
(d) Sibi non fuisse dubium quin nullo foedere a re publica bene gerenda impedi-
retur.
(‘That he never doubted for a moment that he could not be hindered by any treaty
from doing anything which was to the advantage of the republic.’ Cic. Balb. 47)
(e) Sed non est dubium quin non debeat (sc. praedo) melioris esse condicionis
quam bonae fidei possessor.
(‘But there is no doubt that he (sc. one who takes illegal possession) ought not to be
in a better position than the possessor in good faith.’ Paul. dig. 5.3.36.3)
(f) Numquid, Gnatho, tu dubitas quin ego nunc perpetuo perierim?
(‘Can you have any doubt at all, Gnatho, that I am now finished forever?’ Ter. Eu.
1043)
Supplement:
Quid ergo dubitas quin lubenter tuo ero meus quod possiet / facere faciat male . . . (Pl.
Poen. 881–2); Nam hoc haud dubium’st quin Chremes / tibi non det gnatam. (Ter. An.
391–2—NB: with preparative hoc); Equidem non dubito qui<n> animadverteris item
in ea[m] innumerabilem similitudinum numerum . . . (Var. L. 9.32); . . . dubitandum
non est quin numquam possit utilitas cum honestate contendere. (Cic. Off. 3.11);
Quis igitur . . . dubitet quin in virtute divitiae sint? (Cic. Parad. 48—NB: the quin
clause expresses a state); An dubium est quin nihil sit habendum in eo genere quo
vita beata compleatur, si id possit amitti? (Cic. Tusc. 5.40); Non enim dubitabat Xeno
quin ab Ariopagitis invito Memmio impetrari non posset. (Cic. Att. 5.11.6); Itaque
66 For discussion, see Orlandini (2003: 518–19).

non dubito quin ad Pisonem, quin ad Servium scripserit. (Cic. Att. 7.17.3); <Vi>de
quam turpi leto pereamus, et dubita, si potes, quin ille, seu victus seu victor redierit,
caedem facturus sit. (Cic. Att. 10.10.5); Illud non dubito quin, si te mea summa erga
te studia parum mihi adiunxerint, res publica nos inter nos conciliatura coniunctu-
raque sit. (Cic. Fam. 5.7.2—NB: with preparative illud ); Nam de equitibus hostium,
quin nemo eorum progredi modo extra agmen audeat ne ipsos quidem debere dubi-
tare. (Caes. Gal. 7.66.6); Dubitas ergo quin sedendo superaturi simus eum qui senes-
cat in dies . . . (Liv. 22.39.15); Numquid enim dubium esse cuiquam potest quin nihil
sit tam inquietum quam aër, tam versabile et agitatione gaudens? (Sen. Nat. 6.16.4);
Non tamen puto dubites, Vinici, quin magis pro re publica fuerit manere adhuc
rudem Corinthiorum intellectum quam in tantum ea intellegi et quin hac prudentia
illa imprudentia decori publico fuerit convenientior. (Vell. 1.13.5—NB: coordination
by et); Nemo dubitat quin substitutus ultimum diem aditionis exspectare non solet.
(Paul. dig. 29.2.72)
Related expressions (in alphabetical order by governing expression):67 . . . neque
ambigitur quin Brutus idem qui tantum gloriae Superbo exacto rege meruit pessimo
publico id facturus fuerit . . . (Liv. 2.1.3); Nec diu anquirendum quin Agrippina clari-
tudine generis anteiret. (Tac. Ann. 12.6.1); At controversia non erat quin verum
dicerent. (Cic. Caec. 31); Nemo enim est qui aliter dixerit quin omnium naturarum
simile esset id ad quod omnia referrentur . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.32); Nec discrepat quin
dictator eo anno A. Cornelius fuerit. (Liv. 8.40.1); Si istaec vera sunt, divinitus / non
metuo quin meae uxori latae suppetiae sient. (Pl. Am. 1105–6); . . . nec iam aliter
sentire . . . quin paene circumvallati atque omni exitu et pabulatione interclusi
viderentur. (Caes. Gal. 7.44.4)
NB: no overt negation in the main clause: Nam si quis coactus aliquid boni fecit,
quin nos non obliget, manifestius est. (Sen. Ben. 6.7.2)
The various expressions of ‘no doubt’ have a strong assertive illocutionary force.
Possible alternatives for the quin clause are the accusative and infinitive clause (from
Terence onwards—see § 15.98), the nominative and infinitive construction (from
Tac. Ann. 3.8.2 onwards), the quod clause (see § 15.9), and also the quia clause (a few
Late Latin instances).68
Quin argument clauses are also found with a few other negated expressions of cogni-
tion and communication, with which the accusative and infinitive clause is regular.
Examples are (g) and (h).69
(g) Atqui alterum dici non potest quin i qui nihil metuant . . . beati sint . . .
(‘Well at any rate there can be no question of the one point—that those who have no
fear . . . are happy . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.17)
(h) Nec pol me multum fallit quin quod suspicor sit quod velit.
(‘And I can’t be too far from the mark in thinking that what I have in mind is what he
wants.’ Ter. Hec. 728)
67 Examples taken from K.-St.: II.264, where more can be found.

68 For details, see TLL s.vv. dubito; dubius.
69 The quin clause in (g) is regarded as an indirect question in TLL s.v. dico 983.50f.
Supplement:
Non potest dici quin commode fiat . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.39); Quamquam quis ignorat, qui
modo umquam mediocriter res istas scire curavit, quin tria Graecorum genera sint
vere? (Cic. Flac. 64); Illud te non arbitror fugere quin homines in dissensione domes-
tica debeant, quam diu civiliter sine armis certetur, honestiorem sequi partem. (Cael.
Fam. 8.14.3); Itaque negare non posse quin rectius sit etiam ad pacatos barba-
ros . . . exercitum mitti. (Liv. 40.36.2)
Noteworthy: Neque eum consilium suum fefellit quin hostes eo proelio audito nihil
iam de bello essent cogitaturi. (B. Alex. 32.2—NB: alongside the subject consilium suum)
In a way that resembles the use of ut in ‘periphrastic’ constructions (see § 15.36), quin
can also be used in argument clauses with expressions like non possum quin ‘I cannot
but’,70 facere non possum ‘I cannot bring it about that . . .’ and fieri non potest ‘it is not
possible that . . .’, where it is almost equivalent to ut non. When a quin clause is used
with these expressions, its content is negative. Examples are (i) and ( j). For a parallel
with a more emphatic negation by ut non, see (l).
(i) Video non potesse quin tibi eius nomen eloquar.
(‘I see that it’s not possible for me not to tell you his name.’ Pl. Bac. 559)
( j) Ut mihi rem narras, Callicles, nullo modo / potest fieri prosus quin dos detur
virgini.
(‘The way you tell me the story, Callicles, it’s absolutely impossible that a dowry not
be given to the girl.’ Pl. Trin. 729–30)
(k) Tamen facere non possum quin cottidie ad te mittam ut tuas accipiam.
(‘Still I can’t resist sending you a daily letter so as to get your replies.’ Cic. Att. 12.27.2)
(l) Fieri, inquam, Triari, nullo pacto potest ut non dicas quid non probes eius a
quo dissentias.
(‘It’s in no way possible’, I say, ‘that you do not say what you do not approve of in the
views of the man with whom you disagree.’ Cic. Fin. 1.27)
Supplement:
Eheu, nequeo quin fleam, / quom aps ted abeam. (Pl. Mil. 1342–3); Sati’n, si quis
amat, nequit quin nihili sit atque improbis se artibus expoliat? (Pl. Truc. 553); Non
enim faciam quin scias. (Pl. Mil. 283); Sed quom orata huiu’ reminiscor nequeo quin
lacrumem miser. (Ter. Hec. 385); Fieri nullo modo poterat quin Cleomeni parceretur.
(Cic. Ver. 5.104); . . . facere non potui quin tibi et sententiam et voluntatem declara-
rem meam. (Cic. Fam. 6.13.1)
Related examples (in alphabetical order by governing expression): Tribus non
conduci possum libertatibus, / quin ego illis hodie comparem magnum malum /
quinque hanc omnem rem meae erae iam faciam palam. (Pl. Cas. 504–6); . . . ut effici
non possit quin eos tam oderim quam rem publicam diligo. (Cic. Phil. 11.36); Non
possum pati / quin tibi caput demulceam. (Ter. Hau. 761–2); . . . non esse in nostra
potestate quin illa eveniant quorum causae fuerint . . . (Cic. Fat. 45)
70 For this expression, see Fleck (2006).

Appendix: An isolated idiom is constituted by the combination mirum quin ‘it is a

miracle that not’ in Plautus, as in (m).
(m) Mirum quin grex venalium in cistella infuerit una.
(‘It’s odd that there wasn’t a whole group of slaves in that one casket.’ Pl. Cist. 733)
. The use of si in declarative argument clauses

The subordinator si is used in argument clauses with two types of expressions
(§§ 15.40–1). With a third type (§ 15.42), si clauses are better taken as satellites. It is
common in conditional satellite clauses (see §§ 16.57ff.).
. The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of waiting in

expectation and trying
With a couple of verbs and expressions of waiting in expectation and trying, si argu-
ment clauses in the subjunctive refer to situations which are uncertain or the outcome
of which is uncertain. The verbs involved are also found with ut argument clauses that
express aiming at the realization of a state of affairs.71 Examples of si clauses are (a)
and (c); for ut clauses with the same verbs, see (b) and (d). In (e), res seems to function
as a preparative device. The si clause normally follows the main clause; negated clauses
seem not to be attested. With some of these verbs, indirect questions with an inter-
rogative particle occur as well (see § 15.46). These argument clauses must be distin-
guished from the purpose si clauses discussed in § 16.59.
(a) Miror huc iam non arcessi in proxumum uxorem meam, / quae iam dudum
si arcessatur ornata exspectat domi.
(‘I’m surprised that my wife is not yet being sent for to go next door. She’s all dressed up
and has been waiting at home for a long time already in case she’s sent for.’ Pl. Cas. 539–40)
(b) Nisi exspectare vis / ut eam sine dote frater nuptum conlocet.
(‘Unless you want to wait for her brother to give her in marriage without dowry.’ Pl.
Trin. 734–5)
(c) Helvetii . . . nonnumquam interdiu, s<a>epius noctu si perrumpere possent
conati . . . hoc conatu destiterunt.
(‘The Helvetii, after having made attempts sometimes by day, more often by night, to
see if they could break through . . . abandoned this attempt.’ Caes. Gal. 1.8.4)
(d) . . . Caesar intellexit nihil aliud eos conari nisi ut se cogerent castra eo loco
ponere . . .
(‘. . . Caesar realized that what they were trying to do was no less than force him to
pitch camp at a spot . . .’ B. Afr. 69)
(e) Temptata res est si primo impetu capi Ardea posset.
(‘An attempt was made to see if Ardea could be seized by an initial attack.’ Liv. 1.57.3)
71 See Meini (2004) on the element of uncertainty.

Supplement:
Ei rei operam dare te fuerat aliquanto aequius / si qui probiorem facere posses, non
uti / in eandem tute accederes infamiam . . . (Pl. Trin. 119–21); . . . non recusavit quo
minus vel extremo spiritu si quam opem rei publicae ferre posset experiretur. (Cic.
Phil. 9.2); Haec (sc. vipera) cum temptaret siqua res esset cibo, / Limam momordit.
(Phaed. 4.8.4–5); Temptemus tamen si adhuc sorbilia sunt. (Petr. 33.5 (Trimalchio
speaking)); At Germanicus . . . dandum adhuc spatium ratus si recenti exemplo sibi
ipsi consulerent praemittit litteras ad Caecinam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.48.1—NB: depends
on dandum spatium)
. The use of si clauses with verbs and expressions of surprise
Si clauses are used relatively frequently in combination with the verb miror ‘to be sur-
prised’, with which the accusative and infinitive is more common and which is also
found with a factive quod clause, just like emotion verbs (see § 15.8). Although one
may sometimes hesitate as to whether the si clauses are really argument clauses, and
not conditional satellites, the argument status is sometimes proved by the presence of
preparative pronouns like id in (b) and illud in (c). The si clause normally follows the
main clause. The main clause is often negative or understood as negative. The si
expression differs in meaning from the other two expressions.72 There are a few
attestations of negation by nisi, as in (d), unless it is a conditional clause. Instances of
negation by si non are attested in Augustine, as in (e).73
(a) Edepol minime miror si te fugitat aut oculos tuos / aut si te odit, qui istum
appelles Tyndarum pro Philocrate.
(‘Seriously, I’m not surprised at all if he’s avoiding you, or eye-contact with you, or if
he hates you, since you address him as Tyndarus instead of Philocrates.’ Pl. Capt.
545–6)
(b) Idne tu mirare si patrissat filius?
(‘Are you surprised if the son takes after his father?’ Pl. Ps. 442)
(c) Enim vero illud praeter alia mira miror maxume / si haec habet [pateram]
illam.
(‘Honestly, I am astonished if she has that bowl more than I am astonished about the
other astonishing things.’ Pl. Am. 772–3)
(d) Mirarer nisi pro tam bono patre fuisset qui mori vellet.
(‘I should have been surprised had there been no son who was willing to die for so
good a father.’ Sen. Con. 9.4.8)
(e) Ubi miror si non scelere graviore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt.
(‘Here I wonder if it was not a greater crime for them to bestow so great a reward on
so great a crime.’ August. Civ. 3.15.11)
72 See Bodelot (1998: 179–81). 73 TLL s.v. miror 1067.14ff.

Most if not all of the instances of si clauses with other emotion verbs mentioned in
K.-St. (II.424–5)74 can be understood as conditional satellites. An example is (f). TLL
s.v. ignosco 318.81 gives (g) as an illustration of ignosco governing a si clause, but the
parallelism with the quoniam clause shows that this is incorrect. Notable is the use of
the conditional clause in (h), mentioned in K.-St., but it is not the counterpart of a
factive quod clause.
(f) (sc. Demosthenes) Qui dolere se aiebat, si quando opificum antelucana vic-
tus esset industria.
(‘(Demosthenes) who said that he was grieved if ever he had been beaten by
the diligence of workmen rising before the break of day.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.44)
(g) Si quid in te peccavi, ac potius quoniam peccavi, ignosce. In me enim ipsum
peccavi vehementius.
(‘If I have treated you badly in any way, or rather since I have done so, forgive
me. I have treated myself worse.’ Cic. Att. 3.15.4)
(h) Commoti patres vice fortunarum humanarum, si ille praepotens opibus
populus . . . adeo infractos gereret animos ut se ipse suaque omnia potestatis
alienae faceret.
(‘The Fathers were profoundly moved by the vicissitudes of human fortune,
considering how that great and opulent people . . . was become so broken in
spirit as to yield itself up with all its possessions to the dominion of another.’
Liv. 7.31.6)
NB: In (i) si non is local negation (see § 8.7).
(i) Minus mirandum est illaec aetas si quid illorum facit / quam si non faciat.
(‘It’s less of a surprise if a man of that age does some of those things than if
he doesn’t.’ Pl. Bac. 409–10)
. The use of si clauses in combination with so-called impersonal expressions
Si clauses are also used in combination with various so-called impersonal expressions.
An example is (a) with impersonal interest ‘it makes a difference’. More common are
combinations of est with a subject complement like mirum est ‘it is remarkable’, as in
(b)–(d). With these expressions several other types of clauses are found as well (notably
quod clauses, accusative and infinitive clauses, and indirect questions). These clauses
function as arguments. The si clauses, by contrast, are ‘normal’ conditional satellite
clauses.75
(a) Nihil interesse autem non modo si omni ex parte eiusdem modi sint sed
etiam si discerni non possint.
(‘That it makes no difference not only if they are alike in every aspect but also if they
cannot be distinguished from each other.’ Cic. Luc. 40)
74 See also Sz.: 666. 75 See K.-St.: II.425 for the examples quoted below (and more).
(b) Nil mirum—vetus est maceria—lateres si veteres ruont.

(‘It’s not surprising—the wall is old—if old bricks tumble down.’ Pl. Truc. 305)
(c) Ecastor hau mirum si te habes carum, / hominem tam pulchrum . . .
(‘Goodness, it’s no surprise if you hold yourself dear, such a beautiful man . . .’ Pl. Mil.
1041–2)
(d) Quid mirum igitur in senibus si infirmi sint aliquando, cum id ne adules-
centes quidem effugere possint?
(‘What wonder, then, if the aged are sometimes weak, when even the young cannot
escape the same fate?’ Cic. Sen. 35)
Supplement:
Plusque proficit si ponetur spes utilitatis futurae quam praeteriti beneficii commemo-
ratio. (Cic. de Orat. 2.206); Quin et verba Flavi vulgabantur non referre dedecori si
citharoedus demoveretur . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.65.1)
Volup est quod agas si id procedit lepide at<que ex> sententia. (Pl. Mil. 947);
Mirum tibi videtur si tu loquendo talentum quaesisti? (Gracch. orat. 44); Aut, si haec
dici non poterunt, dicendum erit illud extremum, non esse mirum si nunc primum
deliquerit. (Cic. Inv. 2.34); ‘Minime mirum’, inquit Antonius, ‘si ista res adhuc nostra
lingua inlustrata non est.’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.55); Obprobrio fuisse adulescentibus si
amatores non haberent. (Cic. Rep. 4.3); Quod si eam veniam sibi dedisset tantisque
implicatum rebus sublevasset, magno ei praemio futurum. (Nep. Paus. 4.6); Illud te
mihi ignoscere, P. Corneli, aequum erit, si . . . ne tuam quidem gloriam bono publico
praeponam. (Liv. 28.41.1); . . . si pavetis aciem, indignum id quidem . . . (Tac. Hist.
4.58.4)
The negation in these cases is by non, except in the combination mirum est/mira sunt
ni, as in (e). Nisi in this context is rare, but there are already three instances of mira
nisi in Plautus.76
(e) . . . mirumque adeo est ni hunc fecere sibi Aetoli agoranomum.
(‘. . . and it would be a surprise indeed if the Aetolians haven’t made him their
market inspector.’ Pl. Capt. 824)
. The use of quasi in argument clauses with verbs and

expressions of pretending
In Early Latin quasi clauses can be used as second argument with verbs and expres-
sions of pretending.77 Although they are found again in later periods, in Classical
Latin accusative and infinitive clauses are the regular expression. An example in
which both expressions co-occur is (a).
76 For further examples, see TLL s.v. mirus 1074.20ff.

77 The material can be found in Bennett (1900: 416–17). For comparative data, see Perrochat (1932b: 89–94).
(a) Ita praecipito mulieri atque ancillulae, / ut simulet se tuam esse uxorem et
deperire hunc militem, / quasique hunc anulum faveae suae dederit . . .
(‘Instruct the woman and her maid that the woman has to pretend to be your wife
and to be madly in love with this soldier, and that she has to act as though she were
giving this ring to her favourite slave girl . . .’ Pl. Mil. 795–7)

Assimulato quasi gubernator sies. (Pl. Mil. 1181); Adibo atque adsimulabo quasi
nunc exeam. (Ter. Eu. 461); Sed nimium lepide dissimulant quasi nil sciant / fore
huius quod futurum est. (Pl. Cas. 771–2); Simulabo quasi non videam. (Pl. Per. 84)
. The use of tamquam (si) and quasi in argument clauses

with verbs and expressions of accusing and of emotion and
with verbs of communication
From Seneca the Elder onwards tamquam ‘on the ground that’ clauses are used as
argument with verbs and expressions of accusing, blaming, excusing, etc. and with
verbs and expressions of emotion. Semantically, the expressions differ from the more
common quod clauses (see § 15.10) and accusative and infinitive clauses (see §§ 15.97–8)
in that the author does not commit himself to the truth of the reason for the accusation
or emotion to which the clause refers.78 Later on, quasi is used in a similar way,
especially by Suetonius. Examples are (a)–(c).79 (For conditional comparative adjuncts,
see § 16.66.)
(a) Diligentius me tibi excusarem tamquam huic rei non essem natus, nisi
scirem . . .
(‘I should take more pains in my defence (pleading that I was not born for such
things) if I didn’t know . . .’ Sen. Con. 3.pr.14)
(b) Deinde iam me pudet tamquam diu non seriam rem agam.
(‘More recently I have begun to be ashamed on the ground that for a long time I
haven’t been doing anything of substance.’ Sen. Con. 10.pr.1)
(c) De reddenda re p. bis cogitavit. Primum post oppressum statim Antonium,
memor obiectum sibi ab eo saepius quasi per ipsum staret ne redderetur.
(‘He twice thought of restoring the republic. First immediately after the overthrow of
Antony, remembering that the criticism was often laid against him by his rival on the
ground that it was his fault that it was not restored.’ Suet. Aug. 28.1)
Whereas in (a)–(c) the content of the accusation or shame is at the same time the
reason for it, this is different for (d) and (e), where the governing expressions are verbs
of communication.
78 For the meaning of tamquam in these contexts, see Bodelot (2011: 271–2) and Baños (2014: 73).
79 For the use of tamquam (si) in argument clauses and its development from satellite clauses (see
§ 16.66), see Bennett (1900) and Bodelot (2011; 2014b). For quasi, see Bennett (1900). See also Rosén and
Shalev (2017).
Finite interrogative clauses (indirect questions) 105
(d) (sc. Plautius Silvanus) . . . turbata mente respondit tamquam ipse somno
gravis atque eo ignarus et uxor sponte mortem sumpsisset.
(‘. . . he replied in a disturbed state of mind to the effect that he had been heavily asleep
and therefore unaware and that his wife took death upon herself.’ Tac. Ann. 4.22.1—
tr. Woodman, with adjustment)
(e) Nam quo pertinuit . . . differri . . . etiam per externos tamquam veneno inter-
ceptus esset . . .
(‘And what was the point of its being spread abroad, and among foreigners too, that
he had met a premature death from poison?’ Tac. Ann. 3.12.4—tr. Woodman)

Atriplex . . . accusatum a Pythagora tamquam faceret hydropicos morbosque
regios . . . (Plin. Nat. 20.219—NB: following André in his Budé edition); . . . admonen-
tibus domesticis quasi plura polliceretur quam praestare posset . . . (Suet. Tit.
8.1); . . . ut hic pauper inputet diviti tamquam praevaricatus sit. (Quint. Decl. 333.3);
Omnes infamaverunt adulescentem quasi illius criminationibus factum sit ut frater
abdicaretur. (Sen. Con. 2.4.7); At Cicero . . . reprehenditur a quibusdam tamquam
orationem ad rhythmos alliget. (Quint. Inst. 9.4.53—unless it is an adjunct); Diversitas
supplicii illuc respicit, tamquam scelera ostendi oporteat dum puniuntur, flagitia
abscondi. (Tac. Ger. 12.2—NB: preparative illuc)
NB: An early example may be: At primum sumpseras tamquam interesset.
(Cic. Luc. 44).80
15.45 Finite interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions)
The notion ‘indirect question’ covers a variety of expressions, only some of which cor-
respond to direct questions in that they refer to a situation in which a speaker or
writer wants to obtain information from an addressee (see §§ 6.5–26). This is the situ-
ation in (a), where the indirect question sit which is dependent on rogas corresponds
to the immediately preceding direct question which is directed to an addressee. In (b),
however, the indirect question does not presuppose an addressee. Exx. (a) and (b) do,
nevertheless, share a common feature in that they both refer to a lack of information.
The notion ‘indirect question’ is also used for indirect exclamatory argument clauses,
such as (c). In such cases there is no lack of information involved (see § 15.89).
(a) Estne ea intu’? # Sit rogas?
(‘Is she inside? # Are you asking whether she’s inside?’ Ter. Hau. 454)
(b) Pol ego haud scio quid post fuat.
(‘I don’t know what’ll happen later on.’ Pl. Aul. 426)
(c) Vide palliolum ut rugat.
(‘Look how your cloak is all crumpled.’ Pl. Cas. 246)
80 See Bodelot (2014b: 200–1).

Further details concerning the governing expressions are discussed in § 15.46.

It is often difficult to decide whether a sequence that consists of a verb of commu-
nication and a question is an instance of a complex sentence with an indirect question
or of two independent sentences, one of which is a direct question. This problem is
particularly acute if the question is in the indicative mood; specific contexts are dis-
cussed in § 7.133. Here an illustration with dic ‘tell me’ will suffice. In (d), the question
is in the subjunctive (malis), which makes it attractive (though not necessary) to con-
sider the sequence si . . . malis as a subordinate clause (an indirect question). In (e) est
is indicative, which makes it attractive (though not necessary) to consider
Roscia . . . offert an independent sentence (a direct question), with dic sodes inserted as
a parenthesis.81
(d) ‘Dic mihi’, quaeso, ‘Xenophontis uxor, si vicina tua melius habeat aurum
quam tu habes, utrum illudne an tuum malis?’
(‘If your neighbour had a better gold ornament than you have, please tell me, wife of
Xenophon, whether you would prefer that one or your own?’ Cic. Inv. 1.51)
(e) Roscia, dic sodes, melior lex an puerorum est / nenia quae regnum recte
facientibus offert . . .
(‘Tell me, pray: is the Roscian law better or the children’s jingle which offers a king-
dom to those who “do right” . . .’ Hor. Ep. 1.1.62–3)
For the use of the moods in indirect questions see § 7.133–7; for the tenses, see § 7.98.
Appendix: In Late Latin the infinitive is occasionally found in indirect questions
instead of a subjunctive finite form.82 An example is (f).
(f) . . . non habent quid respondere.
(‘. . . they do not know what response to make.’ August. Psal. Don. 40)
. Verbs and expressions governing indirect questions

The verbs that can govern an indirect question can be classified into four categories
(see also § 15.52 and § 15.56):83
1 verba interrogandi, comprising the verbs that mean ‘to ask for information’,
such as quaero ‘to seek to know about’ (OLD § 8) and rogo ‘to ask’; verbs of
this class constitute 6 per cent of all expressions governing an indirect ques-
tion in Bodelot’s sample. With these verbs the source of the information is
often expressed.
2 verba investigandi, comprising the verbs that mean ‘to try to find out’, such as
cogito ‘to consider’, experior ‘to try out’, quaero ‘to examine’ (OLD § 9), tempto
81 This is the way the two examples are treated in the TLL s.v. dico 983.46 and 983.18f., respectively. In
TLL s.v. an 6.47 (e) is treated as an independent question.
82 Examples are discussed by Martínez-Pais (1994).
83 Following Bodelot (1987: 25–51; 2003: 211–14).
‘to find out by trial’ (OLD § 3c), viso ‘to go and look at’; verbs of this class
constitute 11 per cent of the expressions governing an indirect question.
3 verba declarandi, comprising verbs of communication, such as dico ‘to say’,
narro ‘to tell’, scribo ‘to write’, and statuo ‘to make up one’s mind’ (OLD § 14);
verbs of this class constitute 20 per cent of the expressions governing an
indirect question.
4 verba sciendi, sentiendi, etc., comprising verbs of perception and cognition,
such as dubito ‘to be in doubt’, existimo ‘to think’, intellego ‘to understand’,
miror ‘to be surprised’, paenitet ‘to give reason for regret’, scio ‘to know’ and
nescio ‘not to know’, timeo ‘to fear’, and video ‘to see’; verbs of this class con-
stitute 63 per cent of the expressions governing an indirect question.
It is only for verbs of the first class that the indirect questions may reflect real ques-
tions, but even with these verbs this is often not the case: the reported words are so
general that it is difficult to reconstruct a particular utterance from them, for example
in (a), where the original wording of the question cannot be determined with any
precision.
(a) Rogant me servi quo eam. Dico me ire quo saturi solent.
(‘The servants asked me where I was going. I said I was going where those who are
full normally go.’ Pl. Cur. 362)
As for the distribution of the two types of indirect questions, viz. clausal questions
(corresponding to ‘sentence questions’ in § 6.8) and ‘constituent questions’ (see
§ 6.19), the former are relatively uncommon with verbs and expressions belonging to
classes (iii) and (iv), and certain combinations are excluded for obvious reasons.
Typical combinations are (b) and (c), whereas something like (d) is not attested or
conceivable.84
(b) Requireres, / rogitares quis esset aut unde esset, qua prosapia, / civisne esset
an peregrinus.
(‘You should have inquired and asked who he was or where he was from, from what
family, and whether he was a citizen or a foreigner.’ Pl. Mer. 633–5)
(c) Scio quam rem agat.
(‘I know what he’s up to.’ Pl. Aul. 574)
(d) *Scio civisne sit.
. Types of interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions)

Just as with interrogative sentences, a distinction must be made between two types of
interrogative clauses: simple indirect questions and multiple (or: disjunctive) indirect
questions (see § 6.6).
84 See Bodelot (2003: 220–5).

. Simple interrogative argument clauses (indirect questions)
Again, just as with direct questions (see § 6.7), simple indirect questions can be sub-
divided into clausal questions, exemplified by (a), and constituent questions, exempli-
fied by (b). The same verb may govern coordinated pairs belonging to these two types
of clauses, as in (c).
(a) Rogato servos veneritne ad eum tuos.
(‘You must then ask whether your slave has come to him.’ Pl. Poen. 181)
(b) Quid nos opinemur audietis ex iuratis.
(‘What we think, you will learn from the evidence of witnesses on oath.’ Cic. Cael. 4)
(c) . . . cum ex me quidam quaesisset quo die Roma exissem et num quidnam
esset novi.
(‘. . . when someone asked me on what day I had left Rome, and whether there was any
news.’ Cic. Planc. 65)
15.49 Indirect clausal questions

Indirect clausal questions usually contain one of the question particles or ec- com-
pounds that are common in direct questions. The absence of such devices is rare for
indirect questions, in notable contrast to direct questions, where they are very fre-
quently omitted. The most common particles are -ne, num (and its compounds) and
an(ne); by contrast, nonne, si, utrum, and nē (not clitic!) are very rare. Livy has two
instances of the interjection en in indirect questions (for its use in direct questions,
see § 6.15). For the Late Latin use of ne, see § 6.11 Appendix.
15.50 Indirect clausal questions without a question particle

Indirect questions without an interrogative particle are very rare85 and accordingly
the instances in question have sometimes been emended, as in (a). The best early
example is (b), but there are a few more in combination with other clearly marked
indirect questions, as in (c).
(a) Hic nunc volo scire eodem pacto<n’> sine malo fateamini.
(‘I want to know now whether you admit it here in the same way without a beating.’
Pl. Truc. 779—add. Studemund)
(b) Estne ea intu’? # Sit rogas?
(‘Is she inside? # Are you asking whether she’s inside?’ Ter. Hau. 454)
(c) Quom ipsi interea vivant, valeant, / ubi sint, quid agant, ecquid agant / nec
participant nos nec redeunt.
(‘That they aren’t returning and don’t let us know whether in the meantime they
themselves are alive and in good health, where they are, what they’re doing, if they’re
doing anything.’ Pl. St. 31–3)
85 See Sz.: 542. For a problematic passage in Cic. Tusc. 1.60, see Lundström (1986: 32–6).
Supplement:
De Theopompo, summo homine, negleximus, qui ubi terrarum sit, quid agat, vivat
denique an mortuus sit, quis aut scit aut curat? (Cic. Phil. 13.33); Rure<ne> iam
redierim quaeris. (Hirt. Att. 15.6.2—add. Wesenberg); Debes hoc etiam rescribere sit
tibi curae (si tibi curae <est> cj. Chabot) / quantae conveniat Munatius. (Hor. Ep.
1.3.30–1); Tu pande vivat coniugis frater mei / et pande teneat quas soror sedes mea.
(Sen. Ag. 404–5)
It is not surprising that there are so few attestations: with most governing verbs a
subordinate clause without a subordinating device would be ambiguous.
15.51 Indirect clausal questions with a question particle

Of the three most frequent interrogative particles in indirect clausal questions in
Early and Classical Latin (-ne, num, and an), an is mostly restricted to contexts of
uncertainty (haud scio an, nescio an ‘I don’t know if ’, dubito an ‘I am wondering
whether’). The particle -ne is the most frequent of the three: in Cicero there are more
instances of indirect -ne than of num and an together. After Terence it is rare in
poetry.86 Whereas in Classical Latin -ne and num when used in direct questions have
different meanings (-ne neutral as to the response expected, num expecting a negative
response), this is less obvious in the case of indirect questions. In (a) and (b) the two
particles are used in identical contexts, which is taken as proof of their interchange-
ability.87 However, in (b) the num clause refers to a situation that is considered undesir-
able by the person who requests the information, so here num seems to be fully
justified (for further discussion, see below § 15.54).
(a) Atque etiam ante iudicium de constituendo ipso iudicio solet esse contentio,
cum aut sitne actio illi qui agit aut iamne sit aut num iam esse desierit aut
illane lege hisne verbis sit actio quaeritur.
(‘And even before the trial begins there is usually a dispute about the institution of the
trial itself, when the question is raised whether the party taking proceedings has the
right to do so, or has the right to do so yet, or has now ceased to have it, or whether
action is open to him under the law cited, or in the terms employed.’ Cic. Part. 99)
(b) Ac facti quidem controversia in omnia tempora potest tribui. Nam quid
factum sit, potest quaeri, hoc modo: occideritne Aiacem Ulixes; et quid fiat,
hoc modo: bonone animo sint erga populum Romanum Fregellani; et quid
futurum sit, hoc modo: si Carthaginem reliquerimus incolumem, num quid
sit incommodi ad rem publicam perventurum.
(‘As to the dispute about a fact, this can be assigned to any time. For the question can
be “What has been done?” in the following way “Did Ulysses kill Ajax?” and “What
is being done?,” e.g. “Are the Fregellans friendly to the Roman people?” and what is
86 For the general decrease of -ne, especially in prose, see TLL s.v. 261.25ff.; for its decrease in indirect
questions, see 271.71f. For quantitative and distributional data concerning these question particles, see
Bodelot (2002b).
87 So K.-St.: II.513.
going to occur, e.g.“If we leave Carthage untouched, will any harm come to the
Roman state?” ’ Cic. Inv. 1.11)
After the classical period -ne and num are gradually replaced by an. To give one example,
whereas in Classical Latin there are numerous instances of -ne and num with the verb
quaero ‘to inquire’, with no sure attestation of an,88 in Seneca, by contrast, an is normal,
as in (c).89 Instances of variation of the two particles as in (d) provide further evidence
for their equivalence in Post-Classical Latin.
(c) Hoc tam invisum vitium an inpunitum esse debeat quaeritur . . .
(‘Some raise the question whether a vice so odious as this ought to go unpunished . . .’
Sen. Ben. 3.6.1)
(d) Ubi in balneum venit, paulisper resistere experirique num tempora adstrin-
gantur et an sudor aliqui oriatur.
(‘On arriving at the bath, he should sit for a while to try whether his temples become
tightened, and whether any sweat arises.’ Cels. 2.17.6)
15.52 The use of -ne in indirect clausal questions The regular context of -ne is with
verbs and expressions that indicate or imply a request for information: examples are
(a)–(b). However, other governing verbs are also found from Plautus onwards, as in
(c). Examples for the four classes of governing verbs mentioned in § 15.46 can be found
in the Supplement. The particle is normally attached to the first full word of the
indirect question, as in (a). That word is usually the verb of the clause, but it can
be another word that constitutes the scope of the question (for scope, see § 6.8). The
particle is occasionally attached to a question word, as in (d).
(a) Quid tu igitur rogitas tene obiurigem?
(‘Then why do you ask if it’s you that I’m reproaching?’ Pl. Trin. 70)
(b) . . . ex quibus quaererem signa scirentne fuisse quae non essent.
(‘. . . I would make them say whether they knew of the previous existence of statues
that were no longer there.’ Cic. Ver. 1.51)
(c) Contempla, amabo, mea Scapha, sati’n haec me vestis deceat.
(‘Look me over, please, my dear Scapha, to see if this dress suits me nicely.’ Pl. Mos. 166)
(d) . . . Teutonorum legatus respondit interrogatus quantine eum aestimaret
donari sibi nolle talem vivum verumque.
(‘. . . the Teuton envoy when asked what he thought was the value of it said that he
would rather not have even the living original as a gift.’ Plin. Nat. 35.25)

Class 1 (see § 15.46): Ecastor equidem te certo heri advenientem ilico / et salutavi et
valuissesne usque exquisivi simul . . . (Pl. Am. 714–15); . . . commilitones appellans et
88 For a few (apparent) exceptions, most textually uncertain, see K.-St.: II.522.
89 For the use of an in Seneca, see Brodmuehler (1914: 45–6).
magna verborum contumelia interrogans solerentne veterani milites fugere . . . (Caes.

Civ. 3.71.4); Quaero autem . . . iturine ad Pompeium et, si sunt, qua quandove ituri
sint. (Cic. Att. 9.1.2); Volo uti mihi respondeas . . . fecerisne ante rostra pontem . . .
(Cic. Vat. 21); Ac ne subito a me obprimantur, haec sum rogaturus: navem populo
Romano debeantne? (Cic. Ver. 4.150); Illa (sc. mater) rogare, quantane (sc. belua fra-
tres elisisset). (Hor. S. 316–17)
Class 2: Tui consili est, si tempus, si senatus coget, si honeste a nobis recusari non
poterit, velisne perseverare; mei offici est meminisse qua obtestatione decedens mihi
ne paterer fieri mandaris. (Cic. Fam. 8.10.5—NB: parallelism with infinitive);
Primum, sitne ambiguum, quaerendum’<s>t; (Rhet. Her. 2.16); Abi intro ad vos
domum / continuo, vide sitne istaec vostra intus. (Pl. Mil. 535–6)
Class 3: Tu igitur ne de Persarum quidem rege magno potes dicere beatusne sit. (Cic.
Tusc. 5.35); Sed tamen velim scribas ad me, primum placeatne tibi aliquid ad illum,
deinde, si placebit, hocne potissimum. (Cic. Att. 13.6.2); Haec consensu produntur.
Aspexeritne matrem exanimem Nero et formam corporis eius laudaverit, sunt qui
tradiderint, sunt qui abnuant. (Tac. Ann. 14.9.1—NB: instead of an accusative and
infinitive clause)
Class 4: . . . alterum fortasse dubitabunt, sitne tantum in virtute, ut ea praediti vel in
Phalaridis tauro beati sint, alterum non dubitabunt, quin et Stoici convenientia sibi
dicant et vos repugnantia. (Cic. Fin. 5.85); Verum homines notos sumere odiosum
est, cum et illud incertum sit velintne hi sese nominari, et . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 47); Sed
haec ipsa nescio rectene sint litteris commissa. (Cic. Fam. 2.5.2); . . . parum constitit
bellone publico gentis universae tuendi Veientes essent. (Liv. 4.61.2); Hoc primum ex
te, de quo modo Antonius exposuit, quid sentias, quaerimus, existimesne artem ali-
quam esse dicendi. (Cic. de Orat. 1.102)
15.53 The use of nonne in indirect clausal questions Nonne is only attested six times,
and only in Cicero, as in (a), expecting the answer ‘yes’.
(a) Quaero igitur a te, L. Piso, nonne oppressam rem publicam putes, si tot tam
impii, tam audaces, tam facinerosi recepti sint.
(‘Then I ask you, Lucius Piso, whether you would not regard the Republic as crushed
if so many who are so wicked, so bold, and so vicious are taken back.’ Cic. Phil. 12.15)
15.54 The use of num in indirect clausal questions In Cicero about half of the instances
of indirect questions with num depend on verbs and expressions that indicate or imply
a request for information. In most of these the num clause refers to a situation that is
viewed as negative in some way by the person who requests the information, as in
direct questions. Examples are (a) and (b). Sometimes in a similar context it is difficult
to see a negative implication, as in (c). For a rare example of another type of governing
verb with which a num clause is used, again with a negative implication, see (d).
Normally with such verbs the negative implication is absent.90
(a) Tum (sc. Sophocles) senex dicitur eam fabulam quam in manibus habebat et
proxime scripserat, Oedipum Coloneum, recitasse iudicibus quaesisseque
90 For a discussion of all the Ciceronian instances of num, see Stegmann (1890: 25–9).
num illud carmen desipientis videretur. Quo recitato sententiis iudicum est
liberatus.
(‘Thereupon, it is said that the old man read to the jury his play, Oedipus at Colonus,
which he was carrying with him and had just written, and that he inquired whether
that poem seemed to be the work of an imbecile. When he had finished reciting it he
was acquitted by the verdict of the jury.’ Cic. Sen. 22)
(b) Quaerit ex proximo vicino num feriae quaedam piscatorum essent, quod eos
nullos videret. ‘Nullae, quod sciam’ ille . . .
(‘He asked his next-door neighbour whether it was a fishermen’s holiday, since he did
not see a sign of them. “Not so far as I know,” he said . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.59)
(c) Velim . . . alicui des negotium qui quaerat Q. Staberi fundus num quis in
Pompeiano Nolanove venalis sit.
(‘Please . . . commission someone to find out whether there is a farm belonging to
Q. Staberius for sale in the district of Pompeii or Nola.’ Cic. Att. 13.8.1)
(d) Nunc huc intro ibo, visam hesternas reliquias, / quierintne recte necne, num
infuerit febris, / opertaen’ fuerint, ne quis obreptaverit.
(‘Now I’ll go in here and and check on yesterday’s leftovers to see whether they have
slept well or not, whether they’ve caught a fever, and whether they’ve been covered,
so that no one could have approached them stealthily.’ Pl. Per. 77–9—NB: infuerit is
often emended)
Num becomes less frequent from the Augustan period onwards, its place being taken
by an—already normal in Silver Latin—and by numquid, for example in Seneca (see
also § 6.13). An example is (e).
(e) Observa te itaque numquid vestis tua domusque dissentiant, numquid in te
liberalis sis, in tuos sordidus, numquid cenes frugaliter, aedifices luxuriose.
(‘Observe yourself, then, and see whether your dress and your house are inconsistent,
whether you treat yourself lavishly and your family meanly, whether you eat frugal
dinners and yet build luxurious houses.’ Sen. Ep. 20.3)
Class 1 (see § 15.46): A quibus si qui quaereret sedissentne iudices in C. Fabricium,
sedisse se dicerent. Si interrogarentur num quo crimine is esset accusatus praeter-
quam veneni eius quod quaesitum Habito diceretur, negarent. (Cic. Clu. 105); Hic
iam de ipso accusatore quaero, qui P. Sestium queritur cum multitudine in tribunatu
et cum praesidio magno fuisse, num illo die fuerit? Certe non fuit. (Cic. Sest. 78); An
Lacedaemonii Philippo minitante per litteras se omnia quae conarentur prohibitu-
rum quaesiverunt num se esset etiam mori prohibiturus. (Cic. Tusc. 5.42);
Interrogatusque a Tiberio num se mandante eam sententiam prompsisset, sponte
dixisse respondit . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.8.4)
Class 2: Quaeso, reputate cum animis vostris num id mutare melius sit . . . (Sal. Jug.
85.10); Simul circumvehi procul castra iubet specularique num auctum aliqua parte
sit vallum, et ut attendant semel bisne signum canat in castris. (Liv. 27.47.3); Vide
ergo num satius sit aut invulnerabilem animum dicere aut animum extra omnem
patientiam positum. (Sen. Ep. 9.2); Nequeo mirari satis / quo ille abire ignavo’ possit
longius, nisi si domum / forte ad nos rediit. # Vise amabo num sit. # Iam faxo scies.
(Ter. Eu. 661–3)
Class 3: Et haud facile dixerim num illa tanto expeditiora sint discentibus artificia,
quanto minus ampla sunt. (Col. 11.1.9); Tu tamen mitte, quaeso, mihi obviam lit-
teras numquid putes rei publicae nomine tardandum esse nobis. (Cic. Att.
6.7.2); . . . perscribe ad me omnia, sed diligentissime in primisque num quid iudicio-
rum status aut factorum aut futurorum etiam laboret. (Cic. Att. 5.13.3); Volo uti mihi
respondeas num quis ex toto collegio legem sit ausus ferre praeter unum te? (Cic.
Vat. 17—NB: editors assume a lacuna at this point, with various proposals to emend)
Class 4: Dubito num idem tibi suadere quod mihi debeam. (Plin. Ep. 6.27.1);
Opperiar, ut sciam num quid nam haec turba tristitiae adferat. (Ter. An. 235); Sed
velim scire quid adventus Octavi, num qui concursus ad eum, num quae xp~p{t}wzŪ
suspicio. (Cic. Att. 14.5.3)
The precise contribution of num to the meaning of the indirect question is much dis-
puted. The presentation given above follows essentially Stegmann (1890). For a more
sceptical view of the negative interpretation of num clauses, see Bodelot (2003: 251–5).
Noteworthy is the use of num expecting a negative answer ‘whether by any chance’
in combination with permoveor ‘I am filled with concern’ in (f).
(f) . . . plerumque permoveor num ad ipsum referri verius sit . . .
(‘I have often been moved <to consider> whether it might be more probable
for it to be ascribed to the man himself . . .’ Tac. Ann. 4.57.1—tr. Martin and
Woodman)
15.55 The use of utrum in indirect clausal questions Utrum alone is used in simple
indirect questions in literary Late Latin.91 An example is (a).
(a) Utrum Mediolani etiam nunc posito pagina ista reddenda sit in ambiguo
conloco.
(‘I am in doubt whether, on the assumption that you are still in Milan, this page
should be sent to you there.’ Symm. Ep. 1.86)
15.56 The use of an in indirect clausal questions In Early and Classical Latin, indirect
questions with an very rarely reflect true questions. Its usual contexts are expressions
of uncertainty (haud scio, nescio, dubito) (class 4), as in (a)–(c). The verb rogo is used
with an only from Ovid onwards, as in (d), a request to obtain information (class 1).
Verbs of communication (class 3) are exceptional.
(a) Nunc hunc hau scio an colloquar.
(‘Now I don’t know if I should talk to him.’ Pl. Mos. 783)
(b) De accessione dubito an Apronio ipsi data sit merces operae atque inpudentiae.
(‘As for the fee, it may possibly have been given to Apronius himself as the pay for his
trouble—and his unblushing knavery.’ Cic. Ver. 3.76)
91 See Haverling (1988: 237–8).

(c) Qui scis an tibi istuc eveniat prius quam mihi?

(‘How do you know that won’t happen to you rather than to me?’ Pl. Mos. 58)
(d) At si forte roges fecundam Amathunta metallis / an genuisse velit Propoetidas,
abnuat . . .
(‘But if you should chance to ask Amathus, rich in veins of ore, if she is glad that she
gave birth to the Propoetides, she would repudiate . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.220–1)
Class 1 (see § 15.46): Cum versus facias, te ipsum percontor an et cum / dura tibi
peragenda rei sit causa Petilli? (Hor. S. 1.10.25–6); . . . te quaerere ex iis . . . iubebat an
ferrum habuissent . . . (Liv. 40.14.7); . . . quem dereptum vehiculo sarcinis gravant
aguntque primo in agmine per ludibrium rogitantes an tam immensa onera, tam
longa itinera libenter ferret. (Tac. Ann. 1.20.1)
Class 2: Non quaeritur nunc an profueris mihi sed an beneficium dederis. (Sen. Ben.
5.19.6); Et ipsum dolorem scrutamur an aliquid habeat iucundum circa se et volup-
tarium. (Sen. Ep. 99.28); Itane? Temptas an sciamus? (Pl. Poen. 557); Vide an sub his
exemplis patri fortius loqui liceat. (Sen. Con. 10.3.8)
Class 3: An priores coeperint Alexandreae et Pergami reges, qui bibliothecas magno
certamine instituere, non facile dixerim. (Plin. Nat. 35.10); Diplomata, domine, quorum
dies praeterit, an omnino observari et quam diu velis rogo scribas . . . (Plin. Ep. 10.45)
Class 4: An dolo malo factum sit ambigitur. (Cic. Tul. fr. 1b); Tum M. Curtium, iuve-
nem bello egregium, castigasse ferunt dubitantes an ullum magis Romanum bonum
quam arma virtusque esset. (Liv. 7.6.3); Haec memorans animo nunc huc, nunc fluc-
tuat illuc, / an sese mucroni ob tantum dedecus amens / induat et crudum per costas
exigat ensem, / fluctibus an iaciat mediis et litora nando / curva petat Teucrumque
iterum se reddat in arma. (Verg. A. 10.680–4); Moriendum enim certe est et incer-
tum an hoc ipso die. (Cic. Sen. 74); Nescio an noris hominem, quamquam nosse
debes . . . (Plin. Ep. 6.21.3); Atque haud scio an quae dixit sint vera omnia, / sed parvi
pendo. (Ter. An. 525–6)
Other: Di te perdant, si te flocci facio an periisses prius. (Pl. Trin. 992); Nam quid id
refert mea / an aula quassa cum cinere effossus siet? (Pl. Cur. 395–6)
Verb to be supplied (brachylogy): (sc. Latro) Divisit in ius et aequitatem, an abdicari
possit, an debeat. (Sen. Con. 1.1.13)
In the Classical period the combinations haud scio an and nescio an functioned as
idioms, meaning more or less ‘perhaps’. An example is (e). The idiomatic status of
these expressions appears also from their use below the clause level, for example as a
modifier of an adjective, as in (f). They resemble the expressions fortasse an, forsitan,
fors fuat an (for which see (g)).
(e) Constantiam dico. Nescio an melius patientiam possim dicere.
(‘I call it constancy. Perhaps it would be better to say “endurance”.’ Cic. Lig. 26)
(f) Quorum quidem testem non mediocrem, sed haud scio an gravissimum
Regulum nolite quaeso vituperare.
(‘And pray do not disparage Regulus, as no unimportant witness—nay, I am
rather inclined to think he was the very best witness—to the truth of their
doctrine.’ Cic. Off. 3.105)
(g) Nam istaec quae tibi renuntiantur, filium / te velle amantem argento circum-
ducere, / fors fuat an istaec dicta sint mendacia.
(‘Well, as for the things reported to you, that your lovesick son wants to
swindle you out of your money, perhaps those words are lies.’ Pl. Ps. 430–2)
15.57 The use of si in indirect clausal questions The use of si in indirect clausal ques-
tions is first attested with verbs and expressions of seeing, in rare instances like (a) and
(b). It is much more common for these verbs to be used with indirect question particles
such as -ne. Note the instances with -ne in (c) and with num in (d). Ex. (e) shows si
clauses functioning in basically the same way as the -ne clauses in the following
sentence, with both being governed by the verb quaero ‘to inquire’, ‘to examine’ in the
preceding text. Ex. (f) has the si indirect question preceded by preparative id, which
shows beyond doubt that it is an argument clause, and not a satellite.92 Note that here
the si clause is in the indicative (more examples in the Supplement). By the time of
Vitruvius, si is firmly established as an indirect question particle. It survives in the
Romance languages.93
(a) Viso huc amator si a foro rediit domum . . .
(‘I’m popping by here to see if our lover has come back home from the market . . .’
Pl. Cas. 591)
(b) Vide vero si tibi satis placet.94
(‘But see if you like it well enough.’ Pl. Per. 825)
(c) Abi, vise redieritne iam an nondum domum.
(‘Go and see if he’s returned home yet or not.’ Ter. Ph. 445)
(d) Vide num moratur.
(‘See if he keeps you waiting.’ Pl. Mos. 614)
(e) (quaeritur) De expetendo et fugiendo huius modi: Si expetendae divitiae, si
fugienda paupertas. De aequo et iniquo: Aequumne sit ulcisci a quocumque
iniuriam acceperis.
(‘Questions about what to seek and what to avoid are like this: Whether riches should
be sought? Whether poverty should be avoided. A question about right and wrong:
Whether it is right to take vengeance on whomsoever has wronged you.’ Cic. Top. 84)
(f) Nulla lex satis commoda omnibus est. Id modo quaeritur, si maiori parti et in
summam prodest.
(‘No law is entirely convenient for everyone; this alone is asked, whether it is good for
the majority and on the whole.’ Liv. 34.3.5)
Indirect questions with si normally follow the main clause. However, (g) has the
reverse order, which is the normal one for si conditional clauses; a translation ‘in case
92 So Bräunlich (1920: 96).

93 For discussion, see Bräunlich (1920: 201–4), Arias (1995), Herman (1996b), and Bodelot (2013).
94 This example is taken as an instance of purpose si clauses (see § 16.59) by Bodelot (2013: 369).
he has returned’ is not impossible. The negation of si indirect questions is by non,

as in (h).
(g) Nunc redeo. Si forte frater redierit viso.
(‘I’ve come back here now: I’m seeing whether maybe my brother has returned.’
Ter. Ad. 549)
(h) Vide amabo, si non, quom aspicias, os inpudens / videtur!
(‘Please take a look and see if, when you look at him, his face doesn’t seem impudent.’
Ter. Eu. 838–9)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb):95

Class 1 (see § 15.46): Et sic singulariter interrogat episcopus vicinos eius, qui intra-
vit, dicens: ‘si bonae vitae est hic, si parentibus deferet, si ebriacus non est aut vanus?’
(Pereg. 45.3);96 Et interrogatus a Iudaeis si ipse esset Christus . . . (Tert. Prax. 22.9);
Pilatus autem audiens Galilaeam interrogavit, si homo Galilaeus esset. (Vulg. Luc.
23.6); Chlamydes Lucullus, ut aiunt, / si posset centum scaenae praebere rogatus /
‘Qui possum tot?’ ait. (Hor. Ep. 1.6.40–2); Hoc per tuam caritatem rogo, quod praesens
praesentem rogare volueram, si eius haberem copiam. (August. Ep. 148.4)
Class 2: Sed hoc . . . considerandum, ut prius rettuli, si facilis est humus . . . (Col.
3.11.6); Inspice si possum donata reponere laetus. (Hor. Ep. 1.7.39); . . . consulibus
permisere ut perspecto iure et si qua iniquitas involveretur, rem integram rursum ad
senatum referrent. (Tac. Ann. 3.63.1—NB: coordination with iure);97 Quaerebam,
sicca si posset piscis harena / nec solitus ponto vivere torvus aper, / aut ego si possem
studiis vigilare severis. (Prop. 2.3a.5–7); Et de hoc enim quaeratur, si spiritus hominis
ipsius salvus erit. (Tert. Pud. 13.24); Vide si hoc utibile magis atque in rem deputas, /
ut ipsum adeam Lesbonicum, edoceam ut res se habet. (Pl. Trin. 748–9); Vide, quaere,
circumspice, siquis est forte ex ea provincia in qua tu triennium praefuisti qui te nolit
perisse. (Cic. Ver. 3.180); Hoc in genere primum sicut in ceteris, si quid aut ex coniec-
turali aut ex alia constitutione sumi possit, videri oportebit. (Cic. Inv. 2.87); Inscriptio
quoque vide diligenter si haec satis idonea tibi videtur. (Petr. 71.12 (Trimalchio
speaking)); Vide si potes imbenire . . . (CEL 144.6–7 (Karanis, ad 115)); Videamus
nunc, si et apostolus formam vocabuli istius secundum Genesim observat . . . (Tert.
Virg. 6.1); Videamus si Filius quidem animam suam posuit, et ei animam suam Pater
reddidit, non ipse sibi. (August. Serm. 52.13); Ibo, visam si domi’st. (Ter. Hau. 170)
Class 3: Dic mihi si tanti agrum vendidistis. (Vulg. Act. 5.8); . . . ostendat si haeretico
aliquid concedendum putavit aut si fidem et baptisma eorum probavit aut si perfidos
et blasphemos remissionem peccatorum accipere extra ecclesiam posse constituit.
(Cypr. Ep. 73.14.3); Quid est quod mi non rescripsisti si panes percepisti.
(CEL 73.3–4 (Wâdi Fawâkhir, c. ad 50))
Class 4: At haec falsa videntes homines non reprehendunt sed delectantur, neque
animadvertunt, si quid eorum fieri potest necne. (Vitr. 7.5.4); Sed fatis incerta feror
95 A collection of instances can be found in Arias (1995: 304–8), not all of them convincing.
96 Väänänen (1987: 96, n. 223) assumes that the actual words were spoken in Greek.
97 For another interpretation (variation of ablative absolute and si clause), see Woodman and Martin
ad loc.
si Iuppiter unam / esse velit Tyriis urbem Troiaque profectis, / miscerive probet
populos aut foedera iungi. (Verg. A. 4.110–12); De ipsa autem testa, si sit optima seu
vitiosa ad structuram, statim nemo potest iudicare . . . (Vitr. 2.8.19); Nescio si quid
amplius ad controversiam baptismi ventilatur. (Tert. Bapt. 15.1); Nescio si versatur
ante oculos vestros nisi Christus . . . (August. Serm. 45.6); Tum mihi naturae libeat
perdiscere mores, /. . . sub terris sint iura deum et tormenta nocentum, / Tisiphones
atro si furit angue caput . . . (Prop. 3.5.25–40)
There is a rich literature on the question of how this interrogative use of si developed.98
It is plausible that the use of si was extended from its use with verbs and expressions
like exspecto, where the si clause refers to an ‘undetermined situation’99 (see § 15.40),
to verbs like viso and video (in a context that implies obtaining information, for
instance an imperative form like vide). Both with verbs and expressions of ‘waiting in
expectation’ and ‘trying’ as well as in indirect questions, the situation referred to in the
subordinate clause is uncertain. With exspecto, indirect questions with the regular
question particles are exceptional. However, they do occur with viso and video. Si
therefore occupied a position that was already available in the frames of these verbs.
I do not believe, as some scholars do, that si in the Plautine (i) is interrogative; an
interpretation as a conditional satellite clause is perfectly possible. Convincing
instances with verba declarandi are (much) later, but this may have to do with the
overall low frequency of indirect questions with this type of verb. There is also a ten-
dency to point to instances like ( j) as early signs of the development of an interroga-
tive si. In this case the si clause is not a straightforward ‘conditional’, but the fact that
the object position of perscrutabor is filled by fanum is a proof of the satellite function
of the si clause. The use of the same subordinating device in conditional and inter-
rogative clauses is not restricted to Latin. Parallels are provided by pÃ (ei) in Greek
and if in English. Sometimes Greek influence is assumed for the use of si in Latin, but
this is not necessary, given the fact that other languages have developed this double
possibility independently from one another.
(i) Dicito, si (dic si cj. Lindemann) quid vis.
(‘If you want something, tell me.’ Pl. Am. 391)
( j) Ibo hinc intro, perscrutabor fanum, si inveniam uspiam / aurum, dum hic
est occupatus.
(‘I’ll go inside and search the shrine, to see if I can find the gold anywhere
while he’s busy.’ Pl. Aul. 620–1)
15.58 The use of nē (not clitic) in pseudo-indirect clausal questions With a number of
verbs of perception and cognition, notably with video ‘to see’, the subordinate clauses
introduced by nē (‘to check that not’) come close to being indirect questions and ne
resembles a question particle with the sense of num ‘whether not’. Examples are (a)–(c).
In (a), the subordinate clause is not something the subject of visam can control himself
98 See Arias (1995) and Bodelot (2000: 165–72; 2003: 258–63). A survey of earlier literature can be
found in Calboli (1968: 412–13).
99 I adopt the term ‘undetermined situation’, used by OLD s.v. si § 13.
(note also the perfect tense turbaverint). In (b) and (c), the subordinate clauses contain
the negator non. In Late Latin ne is so used with verbs with an interrogative meaning as
well, as in (d). Note the parallelism with utrum. See also § 6.11, Appendix, with refer-
ences.100 For imperative clauses with verbs of perception and cognition, see § 15.74 fin.
(a) Ego ibo ad fratrem ad alios captivos meos, / visam ne nocte hac quippiam
turbaverint.
(‘I’ll go to my brother’s to my other prisoners. I’ll check that they didn’t create trouble
last night.’ Pl. Capt. 126–7)
(b) Quod si auctoritatem interponis sine armis, magis equidem laudo, sed vide
ne hoc ipsum non sit necesse.
(‘If, however, you are bringing into play the respect in which you are held without any
implication of armed force, the more credit to you, say I; but consider whether even
this very act is unnecessary.’ Cic. Phil. 13.15—NB: the translation under Philologic
runs: ‘but beware lest this thing itself be quite unnecessary’.)
(c) Caput illud est, ut, si ista vita tibi commodior esse videatur, cogitandum
tamen sit ne tutior non sit.
(‘The capital point is this: if you feel the life you are leading suits you better, you must
still consider whether it is equally secure.’ Cic. Fam. 4.9.4)
(d) Quaerimus utrum tu sis Christus . . . Quaerimus ne forte praecursor illius
sis . . . Quaerimus ne forte aliquis multum praeveniens praeco es . . .
(‘We ask whether you are the Christ . . . We ask whether you perchance are His
precursor . . . We ask, if perchance you are some herald come long before . . .’ August.
Ev. Jo. 4.8—tr. Gibb)
Supplement:
Vide ne quae illic insit alia sortis sub aqua. (Pl. Cas. 380); Sed speculabor ne quis aut
hinc aut ab laeva aut dextera nostro consilio venator adsit . . . (Pl. Mil. 607–8); Cum
circumspiceret ne quid praeterisset . . . (Var. R. 2.9.16); Atque erit observandum dili-
genter ne nihil ad id quo de agatur pertineat id quod iudicatum sit. (Cic. Inv. 1.82);
Sed vide ne quid Catulus attulerit religionis. (Cic. de Orat. 2.367—NB: perfect tense);
Vide igitur ne nulla sit divinatio. (Cic. Div. 2.12); Aeque ambigentibus inter se ne ipse
esset Christus . . . (Tert. Prax. 22.1); Verum tamen interrogate fideliter animas vestras
ne forte de isto integritatis et continentiae vel pudicitiae bono vos inflatius extulis-
tis . . . (August. Civ. 1.28—NB: perfect tense and indicative mood)
15.59 Indirect questions with indefinite pronouns, determiners, adjectives, adverbs, and
particles formed with ec-
Some general information concerning ec- indefinites is given in § 6.18. In indirect
questions they are mainly used with the first two classes of verbs mentioned in § 15.46
and with verbs and expressions of fearing.101 Examples of pronouns are (a) and (b); of
100 For further instances, see TLL s.v. ne 313.54ff. For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 72=1985: 141–2).
101 See TLL s.v. ecquis 56.38ff.
a determiner, (c); of a particle, (d); of adverbs, (e) and (f). Most attested instances
come from Early Latin and from Cicero.
(a) . . . percontabor ecquis hunc adulescentem noverit.
(‘I’ll ask if anyone knows this young man here.’ Pl. Capt. 459)
(b) . . . ubi sint, quid agant, ecquid agant / nec participant nos, nec redeunt.
(‘. . . they aren’t returning, and they don’t let us know . . . where they are, what they’re
doing, if they’re doing anything.’ Pl. St. 32–3—NB: variation quid . . . ecquid )
(c) Ibo in Piraeum, visam ecquae advenerit / in portum ex Epheso navis mercatoria.
(‘I’ll go to the Piraeus and check if any merchant ship from Ephesus has arrived in the
harbour.’ Pl. Bac. 235–6)
(d) Tace, subauscultemus ecquid de me fiat mentio.
(‘Be quiet, let’s listen to hear if any mention is made of me.’ Pl. Mil. 993)
(e) . . . coepi opservare, ecquī maiorem filius / mihi honorem haberet quam eius
habuisset pater.
(‘. . . I began to observe whether his son would in any way hold me in greater honour
than his father had.’ Pl. Aul. 15–16)
(f) Simul etiam illud volo uti respondeas . . . ecquando dubitaris contra eas leges
cum plebe agere et concilium convocare.
(‘I should also like you to answer this . . . whether you ever hesitated, contrary to those
laws, to transact business with the commons and summon a meeting.’ Cic. Vat. 18)
15.60 Indirect constituent questions

Indirect constituent questions are introduced by the same interrogative pronouns, deter-
miners, adjectives, and adverbs that are discussed in the section on direct constituent
questions (§ 6.19).102 These question words may also fulfil the same functions as indi-
cated there for direct questions, as is shown in (a)–(d). Occasionally they are combined
with one of the interrogative particles or with the emphasizing particle nam, as in (e).103
(a) Loquere filiam meam quis integram stupraverit.
(‘Tell me who violated my innocent daughter.’ Pl. Truc. 821—subject)
(b) Dicisne mi ubi sit Toxilus?
(‘Won’t you tell me where Toxilus is?’ Pl. Per. 281—position in space adjunct)
(c) Ill’ clam opservavit servos <qui eam proiecerat> / quo aut quas in aedis haec
puellam deferat.
(‘That slave who’d abandoned her observed secretly where and into which house the
woman was taking the girl.’ Pl. Cist. 168–9—direction adjunct and determiner,
respectively—NB: the lines are deleted by Degering, followed by de Melo)
102 For quantitative data and the distribution concerning these question words, see Bodelot (2002b).
103 For further instances of nam, see TLL s.v. 29.43ff. and Holmes (2012).
(d) Provisam quam mox vir meus redeat domum.

(‘I’ll check how soon my husband’s returning home.’ Pl. Men. 704—degree modifier)
(e) Sed haec res mihi in pectore et corde curae est / quidnam hoc sit negoti . . .
(‘But this matter is a worry in my breast and in my heart, what this business is . . .’
Pl. Men. 761–2)
Supplement:
Pronouns: Nunc experiemur nostrum uter sit blandior. (Pl. Cas. 264); Videamus
qui hinc egreditur. (Pl. Men. 349);104 Timeo quid siet. (Pl. Mer. 110); Nunc igitur
primum quae ego sim et quae illaec siet / huc quae abiit intro, dicam . . . (Pl. Trin.
6–7); Video cui sit Apulia attributa, quis habeat Etruriam . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.6);
Quoniam cuius consilio occisus sit invenio, cuius manu sit percussus non laboro.
(Cic. S. Rosc. 97); Ex tuis litteris plenus sum exspectatione de Pompeio quidnam de
nobis velit aut ostendat. (Cic. Att. 3.14.1); Neque enim ei deesse volebam et quid
possem timebam. (Cic. Att. 12.24.1); scribit mihi ut ei no / tum faciam quid
gessero (T. Vindol. 645)
Determiners: Obsecro vos ego, mi auxilio, / oro obtestor, sitis et hominem demon-
stretis quis eam abstulerit. (Pl. Aul. 715–16—NB: with hominem as pseudo-object, cf.
Neque hercle ego habeo, neque te quis homo sis scio. (Pl. Men. 301)); Quin percon-
tatu’s hominis quae facies foret / qui illam emisset. (Pl. Mer. 622–3); Quo genere aut
qua in patria nata sit aut quibus parentibus / . . . volo te percontari. (Pl. Per. 596–8); . . .
videte, per deos immortales, quem in locum rem publicam perventuram putetis.
(Cic. S. Rosc. 153); Iam vero in bonis Q. Opimi vendendis quas iste praedas, quam
aperte, quam improbe fecerit, longum est dicere. (Cic. Ver. 1.156)
Adjectives: Dic mihi quali me arbitrare genere prognatum. (Pl. Aul. 212); . . . quom
illum rescisces criminatorem meum / quanto in periclo et quanta in pernicie siet.
(Pl. Bac. 826–7—NB: with illum . . . as pseudo-object); Eho an paenitet te quanto hic
fuerit usui. (Pl. Ps. 305); Recordamini qui dies nudius tertius decimus fuerit, quantus
consensus vestrum, quanta virtus, quanta constantia. (Cic. Phil. 5.2); In qua docet
quot a civitate sua nautas acceperit, quot et quanti quemque dimiserit, quot secum
habuerit. (Cic. Ver. 5.112)
Adverbs: Exspecto quam mox recipiat sese Geta. (Ter. Ph. 606);. . . quaero unde nata
sit aut quo modo. (Cic. Luc. 23); . . . ista tamen amicitia, tametsi vereor quomodo
accepturi sitis, tamen dicam, vos me privastis. (Rhet. Her. 4.29); Ibi cum velut saeptos
montium altitudo teneret Gallos circumspectarentque quanam per iuncta caelo iuga
in alium orbem terrarum transirent . . . (Liv. 5.34.7); Qui cum illi breviter constanter-
que respondissent per quem ad eum quotiensque venissent . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.11); Sed
id genus quid ita populo Romano in urbe fieri non oporteat exponam . . . (Vitr.
2.8.16); . . . non iniuria tibi defleo qualiter ecclesiasticas caulas . . . lupus . . . arrodat.
(Sid. Ep. 7.6.2); Nec quid dicatis scire nec me quor ludatis possum. (Pl. As. 730);
Animus audire expetit / ut gesta res sit. (Pl. Cist. 554–5); Eu ecastor, quom ornatum
aspicio nostrum ambarum, paenitet / exornatae ut simus. (Pl. Poen. 284–5)
104 Qui in this example is taken as a relative by Gratwick. See, however, Bennett: I.120–2 and, for the
variation between quis (before vowels) and qui (before s) in Plautus, see Adams (2016: 48–51). See also § 15.61.
Just like direct questions (see § 6.19), indirect constituent questions may contain more
than one question word, as in (f)–(g).
(f) Quam ob rem etiam atque etiam considera, C. Piso, quis quem fraudasse
dicatur.
(‘Therefore, Gaius Piso, consider again and again who is said to have cheated, and
who to have been cheated.’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 21)
(g) . . . reliquum est, iudices, ut nihil iam quaerere aliud debeatis nisi uter utri
insidias fecerit.
(‘. . . it only remains for you to decide, gentlemen, which of the two was guilty of con-
spiracy against the other.’ Cic. Mil. 23)
Supplement:
Da pignus, ni nunc perieres, in savium, uter utri det. (Pl. Poen. 1242); Mica uter
utrubi accumbamus. (Pl. St. 696); . . . postremo habere regulam qua vera et falsa iudi-
carentur et quae quibus propositis essent quaeque non essent consequentia. (Cic.
Brut. 152); Quos autem numeros cum quibus tanquam purpuram misceri oporteat
nunc dicendum est . . . (Cic. Orat. 196); . . . Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem
ordine enumeraverit notans qui a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus
cepisset. (Nep. Att. 18.3); . . . commemorantium ex quantis opibus quo reccidissent
Carthaginiensium res. (Liv. 30.42.18); . . . ego quid cui debeam scio. (Sen. Ben. 4.32.4);
Illud tibi geometres potest dicere, quantum abesse debeat corpus ab imagine et qualis
forma speculi quales imagines reddat. (Sen. Ep. 88.27); . . . sed plurimum refert com-
positionis quae quibus anteponas. (Quint. Inst. 9.4.44)
NB: with an ablative absolute clause: Sed tamen videmus quibus extinctis oratoribus
quam in paucis spes, quanto in paucioribus facultas, quam in multis sit audacia.
(Cic. Off. 2.67)
Indirect constituent questions are less restricted with respect to the governing expres-
sions than indirect clausal questions (for which, see § 15.46). In addition to (a) above,
consider (h)–(k), in which indirect questions are found with the verbs habeo ‘to
have’, impero ‘to order’, sum ‘to be’, and ‘impersonal’ paenitet ‘to cause dissatisfaction’,
respectively.105 For ambiguous situations, see the next section.
(h) Nunc de peripetasmatis quemadmodum te expedias non habes.
(‘Whereas now you have no way of clearing yourself about these tapestries.’ Cic.
Ver. 4.28)
(i) Non imperabat coram quid opu’ facto esset puerperae . . .
(‘She didn’t give instructions concerning what needed to be done for the woman in
childbirth . . .’ Ter. An. 490)
( j) . . . neque est quor [non] studeam has nuptias mutatier.
(‘. . . and I have no reason why I should be keen to have this marriage replaced by
another one.’ Pl. St. 52)
105 For further instances, see TLL s.v. habeo 2437.13ff.; impero 586.3ff.
(k) Eu ecastor! Quom ornatum aspicio nostrum ambarum, paenitet / exornatae

ut simus.
(‘Goodness! When I look at our dresses, I’m unhappy about how we’re made up.’
Pl. Poen. 284–5)106
15.61 Overlap of indirect constituent questions and autonomous relative clauses

Due to the formal overlap of some interrogative pronouns, determiners, adjectives,
and adverbs on the one hand and relative pronouns, determiners, adjectives, and
adverbs on the other, it is not always easy to determine whether a subordinate clause
is an indirect question or a relative clause; in certain contexts both are real options.
Two formally unambiguous examples are (a)—relative clause in the indicative—and
(b)—an indirect question in the subjunctive. Here the difference between relative
quod and interrogative quid is obvious. However, there is no such formal indication in
instances like (c) and (d) (repeated from § 7.136—where further examples can be
found), and the verbs and expressions in the main clauses allow both an autonomous
relative clause and an indirect question as object.107
(a) Equidem non dubitabo quod sentio dicere.
(‘At all events I will not hesitate to speak what I think.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.61)
(b) . . . neque gravabor breviter meo more, quid quaque de re sentiam, dicere.
(‘. . . and I shall make no difficulty about saying, in my brief fashion, what I think
about every point.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.107)
(c) . . . huc adhibete auris quae ego loquor (v.l. loquar) . . .
(‘. . . apply your ears here to what I’m saying . . .’ Pl. Ps. 153)
(d) . . . dum patefacio vobis quas isti penitus abstrusas insidias se posuisse
arbitrantur contra Cn. Pompei dignitatem.
(‘. . . while I reveal the snares which they think they have laid with complete secrecy
against the honour of Gnaeus Pompeius.’ Cic. Agr. 2.49)
Closer examination of instances such as (a) and (b) shows that the contexts in which
Cicero chooses the relative or the interrogative option are different. One difference
can be seen in (b), the addition of a satellite quaque de re in the indirect question. In
instances such as (b) the addressee of the verb of communication is regularly
expressed. Pragmatically, the focus in the relative option is on the main clause, often
just the verb dico itself, whereas in the interrogative option it is the interrogative clause
or a constituent of that clause. Also, interrogative clauses more often precede the main
clause than relative clauses.108
106 The example is wrongly taken as an example of an ‘ut completive’ clause (which would then belong
to § 15.31 of this Syntax) by Fedriani (2014: 52).
107 For a list of verbs of cognition and communication governing an autonomous relative clause in
Cicero, see Eckert (1992: 17–26).
108 For further details, see Eckert (1992: 65–97). See also Bodelot (2002b) on habeo quid . . . /habeo
quod . . .
. Multiple indirect questions
The most common linking device for multiple (‘alternative’ or ‘disjunctive’—see

§ 6.20) indirect questions is an(ne) alone. Less common are multiple indirect ques-
tions in which the first member contains utrum or utrumne (followed by an(ne)) and
-ne (followed by an(ne)). An may be repeated if there are further alternatives. There
are also several other combinations, which are discussed in the next section. Examples
of the most common types of multiple indirect questions are (a)–(e).109 Sometimes
particles are entirely absent, as in (f).
(a) Quid id ad me tu te nuptam possis perpeti / an sis abitura a tuo viro?
(‘What do I care whether you can tolerate being married or will leave your husband?’
Pl. Men. 722)
(b) Quidnam id est? / # Haec dies summa hodie est mea amica sitne libera / an
sempiternam servitutem serviat.
(‘What is it? # This is the day that decides whether my girlfriend will be free or serve
as a slave for ever.’ Pl. Per. 33–4a)
(c) Nunc me ire iussit ad eam et percontarier / utrum aurum reddat anne eat
secum simul.
(‘Now he has ordered me to call on her and inquire whether she intends to pay him
back his money, or go along with him.’ Pl. Bac. 575–6)
(d) . . . utrumne divi cultu erga se mortalium laetiscant an superna agentes
humana neglegant.
(‘. . . whether the gods rejoice at mortals’ worship of them, or whether they simply
conduct heavenly business and ignore human affairs?’ Sis. hist. 123=79C)
(e) Nunc mi incertum est / abeam an maneam an adeam an fugiam.
(‘Now I’m uncertain whether I should go away or stay or go up to him or run away.’
Pl. Aul. 729–30)
(f) Sit, non sit non edepol scio. Si is est, eum esse oportet.
(‘Whether he is the man or not, I don’t know, by Pollux. If it’s him, it ought to be him.’
Pl. As. 465)
Supplement:
Temptabam spiraret an non. (Pl. Mil. 1336); Nam me isdem edictis nescit laedat an
laudet. (Cic. Phil. 3.18); Non crediderit factum an tantum animo roboris fuerit, nec
traditur certum nec interpretatio est facilis. (Liv. 2.8.8.)
Agitur autem liberine vivamus an mortem obeamus, quae certe servituti ante-
ponenda est. (Cic. Phil. 11.24); Neque certum inveniri poterat, obtinendine Brundisi
causa ibi remansisset . . . an inopia navium ibi restitisset . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.25.3)
109 For quantitative data, see Bodelot (2002b).

Videndum est primum utrum eae velintne an non velint. (Pl. Mos. 681—NB: A
has aut instead of an); Si virum illa meliorem habeat, quam tu habes, utrumne tuum
virum malis an illius? (Cic. Inv. 1.51); . . . quaerendumque utrum una species et lon-
gitudo sit earum anne plures . . . (Cic. Orat. 206)
Nec vero Protagoras, qui sese negat omnino de deis habere quod liqueat, sint non
sint qualesve sint, quicquam videtur de natura deorum suspicari. (Cic. N.D. 1.29);
Velit nolit scire difficile est. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.6.4)
Whereas the alternatives in (a)–(f) concern entire clauses, those in (g)–(i) are con-
stituents.
(g) . . . tuos servos servet Venerine eas det an viro.
(‘. . . your slave shall watch whether she is giving them to Venus or to a man.’ Pl. As. 805)
(h) . . . non illud iam in iudicium venit, occisusne sit, quod fatemur, sed iure an
iniuria . . .
(‘. . . the point before the court today is not, whether Clodius was slain—for we admit
it—but whether the act was justifiable or not . . .’ Cic. Mil. 31)
(i) . . . illos, qui omnia sic incerta dicunt ut stellarum numerus par an impar sit,
quasi desperatos aliquos relinquamus.
(‘. . . let us leave on one side as a hopeless sort of persons the others who say that all
things are as uncertain as whether the number of the stars is odd or even.’ Cic. Luc. 32)
Supplement:
Ferro an fame acrius urgear, incertus sum. (Sal. Jug. 24.3); . . . docete nos agri cultura
quam summam habeat, utilitatemne an voluptatem an utrumque. (Var. R. 1.2.12);
Quid tu, malum, curas, / utrum crudum an coctum ego edim . . . (Pl. Aul. 429–30);
Cremutius Cordus et ipse ait Ciceronem secum cogitasse utrumne Brutum an
Cassium an Sex. Pompeium peteret. (Sen. Suas. 6.19)
For negation of the second or later member of a multiple indirect question, see § 6.20.
Necne, a few illustrations of which are given in the Supplement, is used less frequently
in Early Latin, but is more common in Cicero than an + non or another negator. It is
rare in poetry.110
Supplement:
Non edepol scio / molestum necne sit, nisi dicis quid velis. (Pl. Epid. 461–2); Sed ego
is non sum qui statuere debeam iure quis proficiscatur necne. (Cic. Att. 10.10.2);
Quaesisti proxime, Fabi frater, fugiendum necne sit in persecutione, quod nescio
quid annuntiaretur. (Tert. Fug. 1)
. . . rogitare oportet prius et <per>contarier, / adsitne ei animus necne adsit quem
advocet. (Pl. Cas. 571–2); Quaero enim potueritne Roscius ex societate suam partem
petere necne. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 52)
. . . quaeram utrum emeris necne et quomodo et quanti emeris . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.35)
110 See TLL s.v. necne 278.19ff.

15.63 Minor combinations of particles in multiple indirect questions

The use of the particle -ne in indirect questions in both alternatives is found once in
Terence (Hec. 665) and once in Caesar (Gal. 7.14.8). It is then used in poetry, occa-
sionally also in direct questions. Two examples from Virgil are (a) and (b), the latter
possibly a direct question.
(a) At pius Aeneas . . . / qui teneant (nam inculta videt), hominesne feraene, /
quaerere constituit . . .
(‘But loyal Aeneas . . . determines to learn who dwells there, man or beast—for all he
sees is waste . . .’ Verg. A. 1.305–9)
(b) Namque avia cursu / dum sequor et nota excedo regione viarum, / heu misero
coniunx fatone erepta Creusa / substitit, erravitne via seu lapsa resedit, /
incertum.
(‘For while I follow byways at a run and leave the course of the streets I know, my wife
Creusa—alas! whether she halted, snatched from me by an unhappy fate, or whether she
strayed from the path or sat down in exhaustion, is not clear to me.’ Verg. A. 2.736–40)
The combination an . . . an in indirect questions is found in poetry and in Silver Latin

prose. Two examples are (c) and (d). It is not always clear whether the two clauses are
alternatives or two consecutive simple questions.
(c) Haec memorans animo nunc huc, nunc fluctuat illuc / an sese mucroni ob
tantum dedecus amens / induat . . . fluctibus an iaciat mediis . . .
(‘So saying, he wavers in spirit this way and that, whether because of disgrace so foul
he should in madness throw himself on his sword . . . or plunge into the midst of the
waves. . .’ Verg. A. 10.680–3)
(d) Saepe manus operi temptantes admovet an sit / corpus an illud ebur . . .
(‘Often he lifts his hands to the work to try whether it be flesh or ivory . . .’ Ov. Met.
10.254–5)
In indirect questions the second alternative is sometimes marked by -ne if the contrast
between the alternatives is clear enough; in such cases the first part has no particle.
Examples are (e)–(g). Note the variation in (f).111
(e) Certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent.
(‘They were competing over whether they should call the city Roma or Remora.’ Enn.
Ann. 82V=77S)
(f) Cum igitur dicis: ‘miser M. Crassus’ aut hoc dicis: ‘miser est Crassus’ ut possit
iudicari, verum id falsumne sit, aut nihil dicis omnino.
(‘Therefore when you say “wretched Marcus Crassus,” either you say “Marcus Crassus
is wretched,” so that it can be settled whether the statement is true or false, or you say
nothing at all.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.14)
111 More examples in OLD s.v. -ne § 5c; TLL s.v. -ne 276.26ff. For discussion, see Norberg (1944:
99–100).
(g) Gaudeat an doleat, cupiat metuatne, quid ad rem . . .?

(‘Whether a man feel joy or grief, desire or fear, what does it matter . . .?’ Hor. Ep.
1.6.12)
Other combinations of particles are found as well, especially with the alternative
coordinators aut, sive, and seu. A few examples will suffice.
Supplement:
. . . s<a>epe non minus de tertio quam de primo dubitatur, ut in hoc, utrum primum
una canis aut canes sit appellata. (Var. L. 7.32);112 Temptat enim dubiam mentem
rationis egestas / ecquaenam fuerit mundi genitalis origo, / et simul ecquae sit finis,
quoad moenia mundi / et taciti motus hunc possint ferre laborem, / an divinitus
aeterna donata salute / perpetuo possint aevi labentia tractu / inmensi validas aevi
contemnere viris. (Lucr. 5.1211–17); Num tamen excuses erroris origine factum / an
nihil expediat tale movere vide. (Ov. Pont. 2.2.55–6); De ipsa autem testa, si sit optima
seu vitiosa ad structuram, statim nemo potest iudicare . . . (Vitr. 2.8.19)
15.64 Finite imperative argument clauses
Finite imperative argument clauses, commonly called ‘final noun (or: substantive)
clauses’,113 differ from finite declarative argument clauses with respect to negation: the
latter are negated by non, the former either by the negation adverb ne, in combination
with the subordinator (mostly ut) (see § 8.13) or by the negative subordinator ne (see
§ 8.23) (see also § 15.84). They are in the subjunctive mood and are used with govern-
ing expressions that belong to various semantic classes (see § 15.65). Some of these
governing expressions can also govern non-finite subordinate clauses, with or with-
out a difference in meaning. This is shown in exx. (a)–(b) and (c)–(d) for the verbs
dico ‘to tell’ and hortor ‘to urge’, respectively. In (a), dicebam refers to an order; the ne
clause is a finite imperative clause that functions as the object of the verb. In (b), by
contrast, dicere refers to stating a fact, and the subordinate clause te . . . Sosiam esse is a
non-finite accusative and infinitive clause which as a whole functions as the object of
dicere. Here the difference in class of subordinate clause corresponds to a difference in
meaning.
(a) Dicebam, pater, tibi ne matri consuleres male.
(‘I told you, father, not to play tricks on mother.’ Pl. As. 938)
(b) Tun’ te audes Sosiam esse dicere, / qui ego sum?
(‘You dare say that you are Sosia, the one I am?’ Pl. Am. 373–4)
In the case of hortor, however, the choice of subordinate clause does not affect the
meaning of the sentence. In (c) hortabitur resembles dicebam in (a) with respect to its
meaning; the ut and following clauses are finite imperative clauses that function as the
object of the verb. The meaning of hortatus sum in (d) is the same as that of hortabitur
112 For more instances, see TLL s.v. aut 1575.39ff. 113 ‘Finale Substantivsätze’ in K.-St.: II.208.
Finite imperative clauses 127
in (c); the subordinate clause isto proficisci is a non-finite prolative infinitive clause
that functions as the object of hortatus sum. The agent of proficisci is identical with the
object eum in the main clause. Thus there is no difference in meaning that corresponds
to the difference in form between (c) and (d). The only difference in this case of vari-
ation in form is that (c) is attested earlier than (d). (For hortor meaning ‘to give as one’s
opinion’ with an accusative and infinitive clause, see § 15.100 (iii).)114
(c) Ille extemplo illam hortabitur / ut eat, ut properet, ne matri morae sit.
(‘He’ll instantly encourage her to go and to hurry, so as not to waste her mother’s
time.’ Pl. Mil. 1189–90)
(d) Sed ego eum non solum hortatus sum verum etiam coegi isto proficisci . . .
(‘However, I have not only urged but also compelled him to leave for the place where
you are . . .’ Planc. Fam. 10.17.2)
On closer inspection there are certain factors that influence the choice between a
finite clause and a prolative infinitive.115 When the subject of the governing clause has
a high degree of control on the state of affairs of the subordinate clause the prolative
infinitive is preferred, as is illustrated by (d), where coegi is used alongside hortatus
sum. Factors that favour the use of a finite clause are (i) negation of the main clause,
as in (e), and (ii) forms of modalizing the content of the main clause, as in (f)—with
a non-factive mood— and in (g)—with an attitudinal manner clause (see § 16.35).
(e) . . . nihil prohibet quominus mense Iulio vervacta subigantur.
(‘. . . there is no objection to breaking fallow land in the month of July.’ Col. 2.4.5)
(f) Di prohibeant, iudices, ne hoc quod maiores consilium publicum vocari
voluerunt praesidium sectorum existimetur!
(‘Heaven forbid, gentlemen, that this which our ancestors willed should be called the
public council, would be thought to be a safeguard for brokers.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 151)
(g) Impedior non nullius offici, ut ego interpretor, religione quominus exponam
quam multa . . .
(‘A certain regard for what is due to a colleague, as I interpret the matter, makes me
scruple to set out how many . . . ’ Cic. Sest. 8)
In the case of coordination of two or more finite (subordinate) imperative clauses of

which the second (or following) is negative, several coordinating devices are available
(see also §§ 8.38–40). The most common ones are neve (neu, occasionally also nive
and—in inscriptions—neive) and neque (nec).116
If the preceding clause is positive (with the subordinator ut, rarely without ut), neve
is the regular coordinator from Early Latin onwards, as in (h)–( j), whereas neque is
used equally often from Cicero onwards, as in (k).
114 For the gradual expansion of the accusative and prolative infinitive expression in place of ut + sub-
junctive, see Perrochat (1932b: 207–22).
115 This section follows Torrego (2016a) on verba impediendi, cogo, and iubeo. She presents statistical
data at p. 48.
116 For other combinations, see K.-St.: II.211.
(h) Blepharo, quaeso ut advocatus mi adsis neve abeas.

(‘Blepharo, please help me as an advocate and don’t go away.’ Pl. Am. 1037)
(i) Deinde te hortor ut auctore populo Romano maneas in sententia neve cuius-
quam vim aut minas pertimescas.
(‘And in the second place, I exhort you, having the approbation of the Roman people,
to persevere in those sentiments, and not to fear the violence or threats of any one.’
Cic. Man. 69)
( j) Praecipit atque interdicit . . . unum omnes petant Indutiomarum neu quis
quem alium prius vulneret . . .
(‘He gives this command and prohibition, that . . . they should all make for
Indutiomarus, and no one wound any other man before . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.58.4)
(k) Illi eum commonefaciunt ut . . . utatur instituto suo nec cogat ante horam
decimam de absente secundum praesentem iudicare . . .
(‘They requested him to . . . follow his own regular practice, and to wait till four o’clock
before directing a judgement by default in favour of the party present . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.41)
Supplement:
. . . huic persuadere quo modo potis siem / ut illam vendat neve det matri suae. (Pl.
Mer. 331–2); . . . quaeso oroque vos, patres conscripti, ut . . . accipiatis sine offensione
quod dixero neve id prius quam quale sit explicaro repudietis . . . (Cic. Phil. 7.8)
Te atque senatum obtestamur consulatis miseris civibus, legis praesidium quod
iniquitas praetoris eripuit restituatis neve nobis eam necessitudinem inponatis . . . (Sal.
Cat. 33.5)
Si hercle istuc umquam factum est, tum me Iuppiter faciat ut semper sacruficem nec
umquam litem. (Pl. Poen. 488–9); . . . hortemurque potius liberos nostros ceterosque . . .
ut animo rei magnitudinem complectantur neque . . . exercitationibus quibus utuntur
omnes sed aliis quibusdam se id quod expetunt consequi posse confidant. (Cic. de
Orat. 1.19); His persuaderi ut diutius morarentur neque suis auxilium ferrent non
poterat. (Caes. Gal. 2.10.5)
If the preceding clause is negative (with ut ne or ne) the regular coordinator is

neve/neu, as in (l)–(o). The earliest attestation of neque is found in Nepos, as in (p).117
(l) Eadem exorabo Chrysalo causa mea / pater ne noceat neu quid ei suscenseat . . .
(‘At the same time I’ll persuade my father not to harm Chrysalus for my sake and not
to be angry with him . . .’ Pl. Bac. 521–2)
(m) (sc. lex) Sanxit in posterum . . . ne quis heredem virginem neve mulierem faceret.
(‘It merely enjoined . . . that no one should make a girl or woman his heiress in future.’
Cic. Ver. 1.107)
(n) . . . una cautio est atque una provisio ut ne nimis cito diligere incipiant neve
non dignos.
(‘. . . there is but one security and one provision . . . and that is, neither to enlist your
love too quickly nor to fix it on unworthy men.’ Cic. Amic. 78)
117 In Cic. Off. 1.91 editors read neve, with Nonius and one recent cod.; all other codd. have nec.
(o) Caesar ad Lingonas litteras nuntiosque misit ne eos frumento neve alia re
iuvarent.
(‘Caesar sent letters and messengers to the Lingones (with orders) that they should
not assist them with corn or with anything else.’ Caes. Gal. 1.26.6)
(p) Modo magis Pausanias perturbatus orare coepit ne enuntiaret nec se meri-
tum de illo optime proderet.
(‘Pausanias, still more disturbed, began to beg him not to report and betray one who
had always deserved well of him.’ Nep. Paus. 4.6)
Supplement:
. . . te obtestor ne abs te hanc segreges neu deseras. (Ter. An. 291); Praeclara senatus
consulta fecisti ne qua post Idus Martias immunitatis tabula neve cuius benefici
figeretur. (Cic. Phil. 2.91); Quae ego ne frustra subierim nive (v.l. neve), prius quam
reliquias meae diligentiae consequar, decedere cogar valde laboro. (Lent. Fam.
12.14.5); . . . obsecrat ne quam contumeliam remanere in exercitu victore neve hostis
inultos abire sinat. (Sal. Jug. 58.5); . . . orabat ne quod scelus Ap. Claudi esset sibi
attribuerent neu se ut parricidam liberum aversarentur. (Liv. 3.50.5)
Conspirasse inde ne manus ad os cibum ferrent nec os acciperet datum nec dentes
quae acciperent conficerent. (Liv. 2.32.10); . . . legiones . . . veterem ad morem reduxit
ne quis agmine decederet nec pugnam nisi iussus iniret. (Tac. Ann. 11.18.2)
. Verbs and expressions governing imperative clauses

In § 6.27 three different illocutionary forces are distinguished for imperative sen-
tences: directive, optative, and concessive. Among the governing expressions of
imperative clauses two classes can be identified that roughly correspond to the first
two illocutionary forces: (i) manipulation verbs and expressions, (ii) verbs and expres-
sions of striving, wishing, desiring, preferring, etc.118 Manipulation verbs and expres-
sions comprise a wide range of three-place verbs (see § 4.85) where an external force,
usually a human being, compels, urges, invites, requests, etc. another entity, usually a
person, to bring about a certain state of affairs. Three other classes that do not easily
fit in with the two mentioned above are (iii) causation verbs and expressions, (iv) verbs
and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc. and (v) verbs of deserving. And then there
are (vi) miscellaneous expressions. A more detailed classification is used in Table 15.2.
Examples follow below.
For each (sub)class the examples provided will focus primarily on one verb; there
then follow in a Supplement a few examples of other verbs from these classes. These
verbs are also regularly used with the prolative infinitive, some verbs more than
others.119 Especially in poetry the use of the infinitive seems to be extensive.
118 The terms with inverted commas in this section are taken from Bennett: I.xiv–xv.
119 For the characteristics of ut clauses with these verbs, see Bolkestein (1976b). For differences between
ut clauses and prolative infinitives when it comes to the degree of control exercised by the subject, see
§ 15.64.
Table 15.2 Survey of classes of imperative clauses and their governing expressions
(selected)
Semantic and other properties ut / Ø ne / quin / prol. other
of the superordinate clause ut+ne / ne quominus infin.
(i) (a) ordering and commanding + + – + +
(b) begging, requesting, etc. + + – + +
(c) advising, warning, exhorting, + + – + +
reminding, admonishing, etc.
(d) inducing, persuading, etc. + + – + +
(e) permitting, granting, allowing + + – + +
(f) forcing + + – + +
(g) hindering, preventing, etc. L – + + +
(ii) (a) wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. + + – + +
(b) striving + + – + +
(iii) causation + + – (+) +
(iv) deciding, resolving, etc. + + – + +
(v) deserving + – – + –
(vi) adjective as subject or object complement + + – + –
(vii) noun as subject or object complement + (+) – + –
(viii) so-called impersonal verbs much individual variation, see § 15.80
Legend: ‘+’ = is attested; ‘–’ = is not attested; ‘(+)’ = is very rare; ‘Ø’ symbolizes the absence of ut; ‘prol.
infin.’ = prolative infinitive; ‘L’= Late Latin
Imperative clauses, especially ut clauses, are often announced by preparative pro-

nouns (see § 14.16). Examples are (a) and (b). However, usually the ut clause can also
be used alone. Occasionally, the preparative pronoun seems to facilitate the inter-
pretation of an ut clause, as in (c). For ut clauses related to nouns with a preparative
determiner, see § 17.11.120
(a) Et quoniam videris hoc velle, ut . . . virtus satis habeat ad vitam beatam praesidii . . .
(‘And since you seem to want this, that virtue should be enough of a defence for a
happy life . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.83)
(b) Non enim credo id praecipit, ut membra nostra aut staturam figuramve
noscamus.
(‘For he does not, I suppose, prescribe this, that we should know our limbs, our
height or shape.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.52)
120 For the use of preparative pronouns, see note 34. See also Merguet (Phil.) s.v. ut 889A; (Reden)
1037B.
(c) Distinguunt illud etiam, ut libido sit earum rerum, quae dicuntur de quodam
aut quibusdam, quae ul~rnz{iwl~l dialectici appellant, ut habere divitias,
capere honores . . .
(‘They distinguish also this, that lust may be of the predicates affirmed of a person or
persons (which the logicians call ul~rnz{iwl~l), as for instance a man longs to have
riches, to obtain distinctions . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 4.21)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
ordering and commanding (class (i) (a))
Exx. (a)–(c) show imperative clauses functioning as object of the three-place verb
impero ‘to order’, with ut + subjunctive, with the simple subjunctive, and with a prola-
tive infinitive, respectively. The prolative infinitive construction is relatively rare (see
§ 15.115). Whereas with impero the addressee (recipient of the order) is expressed in
the dative, with other verbs in this class it is in the accusative (see the Supplement).
Ex. (d) has a declarative clause as the object of two-place impero, in the typical form
of an accusative and infinitive clause; there is no addressee constituent. The accusative
and infinitive clause is in the passive, but this is not required (see § 15.100 (iii)). Ex.
(e) is a rare instance of a nominative and infinitive construction (see § 15.111).121
Verbs of communication can be used with a declarative or an imperative subordinate
clause, of which the latter is with ut (ne), as in (f), or Ø. For an expression functioning
as an order, see (g). For the verbs iubeo and veto, see § 15.100 (vi).
(a) . . . Apollo mihi ex oraclo imperat / ut ego illic oculos exuram . . .
(‘. . . Apollo tells me through a divine communication to burn out that woman’s
eyes . . .’ Pl. Men. 840–1)
(b) Huic imperat Ø quas possit adeat civitates horteturque ut populi Romani
fidem sequantur . . .
(‘Him he commanded to visit what states he could and to exhort them to seek the
protection of Rome . . .’ Caes. Gal. 4.21.8—NB: ut is present in the lower-level clause
governed by hortetur)
(c) Postremo imperavi egomet mihi / omnia adsentari.
(‘In short I told myself to agree to everything.’ Ter. Eu. 252–3—prolative infinitive)
(d) Princeps Cleomenes . . . malum erigi, vela fieri, praecidi ancoras imperavit.
(‘Cleomenes, as commander-in-chief . . . ordered the mast to be erected, the sails to be
set, the anchor to be weighed.’ Cic. Ver. 5.88)
(e) In has lautumias siqui publice custodiendi sunt etiam ex ceteris oppidis
Siciliae deduci imperantur.
(‘Into these quarries men are commanded to be brought even from other cities in Sicily,
if they are commanded by the public authorities to be kept in custody.’ Cic. Ver. 5.68)
121 For parallels of (d) and (e), see TLL s.v. impero 585.54ff.
(f) Praedico ut caveas. Dico, inquam, ut caveas. Cave.

(‘I’m telling you in advance that you should be on your guard. I’m telling you, I insist,
that you be on your guard. Be on your guard!’ Pl. Ps. 517)
(g) Itaque Androsthenes, praetor Thessaliae . . . ad Scipionem Pompeiumque
nuntios mittit ut sibi subsidio veniant.
(‘So Androsthenes, the top man in Thessaly . . . sent messengers to Scipio and Pompey
with a request for help.’ Caes. Civ. 3.80.3)

At Laterensis, vir sanctissimus, suo chirographo mittit mihi litteras . . . in quibus
aperte denuntiat Ø videam ne fallar. (Planc. Fam. 10.21.3); Dixi equidem Ø in
carcerem ires. (Pl. St. 624); Imperat (sc. Labieno) Ø . . . eruptione pugnet. (Caes. Gal.
7.86.2); Conclamitare tota urbe et praedicere / Ø omnes tenerent mutuitanti credere.
(Pl. Mer. 51–2); Fabius Maximus . . . scripsit Fulvio et Postumio, qui in praesidio urbi
erant, Ø copias ad Clusium moverent. (Fron. Str. 1.8.3)
Additumque ut, si placeret vellentque, eodem iure amicitiae Elei Lacedaemoniique
et Attalus et Pleuratus et Scerdilaedus essent, Asiae Attalus, hi Thracum et
Illyriorum reges; bellum ut extemplo Aetoli cum Philippo terra gererent; navibus
ne minus viginti quinque quinqueremibus adiuvaret Romanus. (Liv. 26.24.10); . . .
auctores iniuriae . . . clamare coeperunt sibi ut haberet hereditatem. (Cic. Ver. 2.47);
Accusatus in senatu ab uxore Cotyis damnatur ut procul regno teneretur. (Tac. Ann.
2.67.2); Quidam dicunt ut in coitu et sub terra sit luna, quod fieri non potest nisi noctu.
(Plin. Nat. 16.191);122 . . . eum [ego] docebo, / si qui ad eum adveniant, ut sibi esse
datum argentum dicat / pro fidicina . . . (Pl. Epid. 364–6); Nunc adeo tu, qui meus es,
iam edico tibi, / ut nostra properes amoliri omnia . . . (Pl. Ps. 855–6); De · Bacanalibus
quei · foideratei / esent · ita exdeicendum censuere · neiquis · eorum · Sacanal
(= Bacanal) · habuise · velet ·. (CIL I2.581.2–3 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); Edicit ne
vir quisquam ad eam adeat et mihi ne abscedam imperat. (Ter. Eu. 578); Quadraginta
maioribus hostiis quibus dis consules sacrificarent ediderunt et uti supplicatio
fieret . . . (Liv. 43.13.8); Hoc item in Sileni . . . Graeca historia est: . . . Quo cum
(Hannibal) venisset, Iovem imperavisse ut Italiae bellum inferret . . . (Cic. Div.
1.49); . . . nisi ero meo uni indicasso, atque ei quoque ut ne enuntiet / id esse facinus
ex ted ortum. (Pl. Poen. 888–9); Senex est quidam qui illam mandavit mihi / ut
emerem—ad istanc faciem. (Pl. Mer. 426–7); Caesar interim in Sardiniam nuntios
cum litteris et in reliquas provincias finitimas dimisit ut sibi auxilia . . . mittenda
curarent. (B. Afr. 8.1); Deliberantibus Pythia respondit ut moenibus ligneis se
munirent. (Nep. Them. 2.7); Velim domum ad te scribas ut mihi tui libri pateant non
secus ac si ipse adesses . . . (Cic. Att. 4.14.1)
NB: Quidam . . . retinere locum, ferire hostem, seque et proximos hortari et . . .
manus ad obsessos tendere ne tempori deessent. (Tac. Hist. 4.34.4—see Heubner
ad loc.)
122 This is one of the earlier instances cited by Mayen (1889: 57–62) as an example of the use of ut
discussed in § 15.35.
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of begging,
requesting, etc. (class (i) (b))
Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as third argument of the three-
place verb oro ‘to beseech’. The addressee, if expressed, is in the accusative. Ex. (d) has
a declarative accusative and infinitive clause (in the passive) with two-place oro.123 In
addition, oro is used (‘in the Greek manner’ according to Servius) by poets and later
prose authors as a two-place verb with a prolative infinitive (compare cupio), as in (e):
the subject of transmittere is coreferential with the agent of orantes, as appears from
the nominative form of the secondary predicate primi. A verb like peto when govern-
ing an imperative clause is often combined with an ab prepositional phrase that indi-
cates the source (for its status, see § 4.3), as in (f).124
(a) Velatis manibus orant Ø ignoscamus peccatum suom . . .
(‘With covered hands they asked us to forgive them their transgression.’ Pl. Am. 257)
(b) . . . nunc te oro per precem . . . ne me secus honore honestes . . .
(‘. . . I’m now asking you by way of entreaty . . . not to honour me less than . . .’ Pl. Capt.
244–7)
(c) Orant (sc. Thesea) succedere muris / dignarique domos.
(‘They beg him to come inside their walls and honour their homes.’ Stat. Theb.
12.784–5—prolative infinitive)
(d) . . . occultas preces quis permitti Meherdaten patrium ad fastigium orabant.
(‘. . . secret pleas in which they begged that Meherdates be admitted to his ancestral
pinnacle.’ Tac. Ann. 11.10.4—tr. Woodman)
(e) Stabant orantes primi transmittere cursum . . .
(‘They stood, pleading to be the first ferried across . . .’ Verg. A. 6.313)
(f) . . . petam a vobis ut me, dum de his singulis disputo iudiciis, attente audiatis.
(‘. . . I ask you to give me your careful attention while I deal with these trials one by
one.’ Cic. Clu. 89)

Nunc te opsecro, / Ø stultitiae adulescentiaeque eius ignoscas. (Pl. Mos. 1156–7); . . .
magnoque opere abs te peto Ø cures ut is intellegat meam commendationem
maximo sibi apud te et adiumento et ornamento fuisse. (Cic. Fam. 13.34.1—NB: ut is
present in the lower-level clause governed by cures); Quaeso edepol, Charine,
quoniam non potest id fieri quod vis, / Ø id velis quod possit. (Ter. An. 305–6); Nam
quod rogas Ø curem ut scias quid Pompeius agat . . . (Cic. Att. 7.12.2—NB: ut is pre-
sent in the lower-level clause governed by curem); . . . tamen te magno opere non hor-
tor solum sed etiam pro amore nostro rogo atque oro Ø te colligas virumque praebeas
et qua condicione omnes homines et quibus temporibus no<s> nati simus cogites.
123 For (late) non-passive accusative and infinitive clauses and further instances of the passive, see TLL
s.v. oro 1041.15ff.; for parallels of (e), see ibid. 1040.76ff.
124 For the use of rogo in requests, see Halla-aho (2009: 81–5) and Coleman (2012:199–206).
(Cic. Fam. 5.18.1); Ø Meam dignitatem commendatam habeas rogo. (Planc. Fam.
10.21a); Roga patrem tuum Ø cedat tibi. (Sen. Con. 10.2.17); Rogo Ø cures Ø quanti
aequum est emat. (Plin. Ep. 1.24.2)
Fac ut exores Plesidippum ut me <manu> emittat. (Pl. Rud. 1218); At pro me supe-
riores consules semper ut referrent flagitati sunt. (Cic. Red. Pop. 11); Difficile est ab eo
qui peccatorum vindex esse debet ut ignoscat impetrare. (Cic. Inv. 2.104); Qui omnes
ad eum multique mortales oratum in Albanum obsecratumque venerant ut ne meas
fortunas desereret cum rei publicae salute coniunctas. (Cic. Pis. 77); . . . ita ted obtes-
tor per senectutem tuam / perque illam, quam tu metuis, uxorem tuam/ . . . ut tibi
superstes uxor aetatem siet / atque illa viva vivos ut pestem oppetas. (Pl. As.
18–22); . . . peto a vobis ut tantum orationi meae concedatis quantum et pio dolori et
iustae iracundiae concedendum putetis. (Cic. Sest. 4); Verum id te quaeso ut prohi-
bessis, Fides. (Pl. Aul. 611); Cuius causam dignitatemque mihi ut commendaret,
rogavit ut eam ne oppugnarem, si nollem aut non possem tueri. (Cic. Fam. 1.9.9);
His rebus permotus Quintus Titurius . . . interpretem suum Gnaeum Pompeium ad
eum mittit rogatum ut sibi militibusque parcat. (Caes. Gal. 5.36.1); rogo ut eum
commen \ <dare> digneris (T. Vind. 250.10–11); Quia tamen in hoc quoque indul-
sisti, admoneo simul et impense rogo, ut Attium Suram praetura exornare digneris,
cum locus vacet. (Plin. Ep. 101.2.2)
In the same semantic class can be included two-place verbs of demanding, such as
posco and postulo. Examples of finite imperative clauses are (g) and (h). A source
constituent may optionally be added, as in aps te in (h). Flagito in its two-place pat-
tern has the same possibilities (for the three-place pattern, see the Supplement
above).
(g) Ø rem cognoscas simul et dictis animum adtendas postulo.
(‘I ask you to look into this with me and bend your mind to what I say.’ Lucil.
693M=707K)
(h) Postulo aps te ut mi illum reddas servom . . .
(‘I demand that you give me back that slave . . .’ Pl. Capt. 938)
Repente cuncti consona voce flagitant . . . Ø iudicium tantum theatro redderetur.
(Apul. Met. 3.2.6); . . . quin adeas vatem precibusque oracula poscas / Ø ipsa canat
vocemque volens atque ora resolvat. (Verg. A. 3.456–7); . . . plura dicemus postulabi-
musque Ø ex qua lÄ{h}pt ‘vi hominibus armatis’ deiectus sis in eam restituare. (Cic.
Fam. 15.16.3)
. . . semper flagitavi ut convocaremur. (Cic. Phil. 5.30); Miles aegre teneri, clamare
et poscere ut perculsis instare liceat. (Liv. 2.65.2); Atque a me postulat primum ut
clam colloquatur mecum vel Capuae vel non longe a Capua. (Cic. Att. 16.8.1)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
advising, warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c))
Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as object of the three-place verb
suadeo ‘to recommend’, ‘to advise’. With this verb the addressee, if expressed, is in the
dative. Suadeo in this sense is rarely used with an accusative and infinitive clause (see
§ 15.100 (iii)).
(a) Proinde istuc facias ipse quod Ø faciamus nobis suades.
(‘So you should practise yourself what you’re preaching to us.’ Pl. As. 644)
(b) Infit lenoni suadere ut secum simul / eat in Siciliam.
(‘He began to advise the pimp to come to Sicily with him.’ Pl. Rud. 54–5)
(c) Tamen nemo suaserit studiosis dicendi adulescentibus in gestu discendo his-
trionum more elaborare.
(‘Yet no one will urge young devotees of eloquence to toil like actors at the study of
gesture.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.251—prolative infinitive)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by verb and other governing expressions):
Adhortor Ø properent. (Ter. Eu. 583); Hunc admonet Ø iter caute diligenterque
faciat. (Caes. Gal. 5.49.2); . . . amicosque . . . hortatus sum Ø regis sui vitam . . . omni
cura custodiaque defenderent. (Cic. Fam. 15.2.6); . . . eos hoc moneo Ø desinant . . .
(Cic. Catil. 2.20); Quamobrem te quoque, Hortensi . . . moneo Ø videas etiam atque
etiam et consideres quid agas . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.174); Meam sororem tibi Ø dem suades
sine dote? (Pl. Trin. 681)
Adhortatus milites ne necessario tempore itineris labore permoveantur . . . (Caes.
Gal. 7.40.4); . . . Lysimache, auctor sum ut me amando enices. (Pl. Mer. 312); At hic
dehortatus est me ne illam tibi darem. (Ter. Ph. 910); Pol bene facta tua me hortantur
/ tuo ut imperio paream. (Pl. Per. 841–1a); Quae cum esset locutus, monui regem ut
omnem diligentiam ad se conservandum adhiberet . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.2.6); Id modo
simul orant ac monent ut ipsis ab invidia caveatur . . . (Liv. 3.52.11); (sc. Pompeius) . . .
cum Crasso se dixit loqui velle mihique ut idem faceret suasit. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.8.2)
NB: Cohortarer vos quo animo fortiores essetis nisi vos fortiores cognossem quam
quemquam virum. (Cic. Fam. 14.7.2)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
inducing, persuading, etc. (class (i) (d))
persuadeo ‘to persuade’. With persuadeo the addressee, if expressed, is in the dative. With
this verb declarative accusative and infinitive clauses are rare, but see (d) and (e).125
(a) Huic Sp. Albinus . . . persuadet Ø . . . regnum Numidiae ab senatu petat.
(‘Spurius Albinus persuaded this man to ask the senate for the throne of Numidia.’
Sal. Jug. 35.2)
(b) Hoc nunc mi viso opu’st, / huic persuadere quo modo potis siem, / ut illam
vendat neve det matri suae.
(‘This is my task now, to try to persuade him as best I can . . . to sell her and not to give
her to his mother.’ Pl. Mer. 330–2)
125 For a declarative quod clause, see Apul. Met. 3.4.3.

(c) (sc. Plato) . . . ut ei persuaserit tyrannidis facere finem libertatemque reddere

Syracusanis.
(‘. . . that he persuaded Dionysius to put an end to his tyranny and restore their free-
dom to the Syracusans.’ Nep. Di. 3.3—prolative infinitive)
(d) Relinqui ex ea duas partes apibus ratio persuadet . . .
(‘Reason advises that two-thirds of it be left behind for the bees . . .’ Plin. Nat. 11.42)
(e) Cum vero hoc nemini persuadere possis te tam amentem fuisse ut . . .
(‘And as you can make none of us believe that you were so insane as to . . .’ Cic.
Ver. 3.91)
T. Sempronius Gracchus consul . . . exhortatione confirmavit suos et impulit Ø con-
sternatum superstitione invaderent hostem . . . (Fron. Str. 1.12.3); Cunctantem legatum
milites perpulerant Ø fortunam proelii experiretur. (Tac. Hist. 4.20.2)
Non possum adduci ut suspicer te pecunia captum. (Cic. Phil. 1.33); Sed tamen me /
numquam hodie induces ut tibi credam hoc argentum ignoto. (Pl. As. 493–4); Quod
ut facerem egestas me inpulit . . . (Ter. Ph. 733); Postremo, si dictis nequis perduci ut
vera haec credas / mea dicta, ex factis nosce rem. (Pl. Mos. 198–9); Diu cunctantem
Crispinum perpulere turmales ne inpune insultare Campanum pateretur. (Liv.
25.18.11)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
permitting, granting, allowing (class (i) (e))
permitto ‘to permit’, ‘to allow’, and (d) shows a declarative accusative and infinitive
clause.126 When the latter type of clause is used, it is not possible to add an addressee.
For the verbs patior and sino, see § 15.100 (vi). For (impersonal) licet, see § 15.80.
(a) (sc. Cicero praetoribus) Cetera Ø uti facto opus sit ita agant permittit.
(‘As to the rest, he left it up to them to carry out the operation according to what
action was needed.’ Sal. Cat. 45.1)
(b) Nec tamen Epaminondae permitteremus . . . ut is nobis sententiam legis inter-
pretaretur . . .
(‘Nevertheless we should not permit Epaminondas . . . to interpret to us the meaning
of the law . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.70)
(c) . . . ut iam ipsis iudicibus sine mea argumentatione coniecturam facere
permittam . . .
(‘. . . that I may now allow the members of this Court, without listening to any argu-
ments of my own, to infer for themselves . . .’ Cic. Ver. 5.22—prolative infinitive)
(d) . . . impetrato prius a consulibus ut in Gallum tam inmaniter adrogantem
pugnare sese permitterent . . .
126 For corresponding instances of the nominative and infinitive construction, see TLL s.v. 1561.28ff.
(‘. . . first obtaining the consuls’ permission to fight with the Gaul who was boasting so
vainly . . .’ Quad. hist. 12)127

Nam vos quidem id iam scitis concessum et datum / mi esse ab dis aliis Ø nuntiis
praesim et lucro. (Pl. Am. 11–12); Quare concedo Ø sit dives, dum omnia desint.
(Catul. 114.5); Siquidem mihi saltandum est, tum vos date Ø bibat tibicini. (Pl. St. 757)
Et Caesar adulationibus senatus libens cessit ut vicesimo aetatis anno consulatum
Nero iniret . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.41.1); Verum concedo tibi ut ea praetereas quae, cum
taces, nulla esse concedis. (Cic. S. Rosc. 54); Est istuc datum / profecto ut grata mihi
sint quae facio omnia. (Ter. Eu. 395–6); Dabitis enim profecto ut in rebus inusitatis . . .
utamur verbis interdum inauditis. (Cic. Ac. 1.24); Et si qui deus mihi largiatur ut ex
hac aetate repuerascam et in cunis vagiam . . . (Cic. Sen. 83)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of forcing
(class (i) ( f))
Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate imperative clauses functioning as third argument of the three-
place verb cogo ‘to compel’. With this class of verbs subordinate clauses without ut are
rare. For a non-declarative passive accusative and infinitive clause (without an
addressee), see (d) (for further examples, see § 15.100).
(a) Institi itaque gubernatori et illum, vellet nollet, coegi Ø peteret litus.
(‘Therefore, I urged and indeed forced my pilot to make for the shore, willy-nilly.’
Sen. Ep. 53.3)
(b) Iamne isti abierunt, quaeso, ex conspectu meo, / qui me vi cogunt ut validus
insaniam?
(‘Are they out of my sight now, I ask, those two who absolutely compelled me, sound
though I am, to go insane?’ Pl. Men. 876–7)
(c) Non med istanc cogere aequom est meam esse matrem, si nevolt.
(‘It wouldn’t be fair of me to force her to be my mother if she doesn’t want to be.’ Pl.
Epid. 586—prolative infinitive)
(d) Hic . . . indicta causa civem Romanum capitis condemnari coegit.
(‘. . . he forced a citizen to be condemned on a charge involving his life and citizenship
without a hearing of his case.’ Cic. Rab. Perd. 12)
Si modo id liceat, vis ne opprimat, / quae vis Ø vim mi afferam ipsa adigit. (Pl. Rud. 680–1)
Elicerem ex te cogeremque ut responderes, nisi vererer . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.119); Nec tu
me quidem umquam subiges redditum ut reddam tibi . . . (Pl. Cur. 540); Illi se numerare
velle, urgere ut acciperet. (Cic. Att. 5.21.12)
127 For the authorship, see Chapter 16, footnote 278.

. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g))
Exx. (a) and (b) illustrate finite imperative clauses functioning as third argument of
the three-place verb prohibeo ‘to prevent’. With this class of verbs the subordinate
clause has one of the negative subordinators ne, quin, or quominus, without a negative
meaning: see §§ 8.24, 8.27, and 8.31.128 Ex. (c) has a prolative infinitive (see also
§ 15.121). With quin the main clause is usually negated in some way (see § 8.26).
Prohibeo can also be used with an accusative and infinitive clause, as in (d). In that
case it is not possible to add an addressee (see § 15.100). A number of related two-
place verbs are also in this class, such as recusabo in (e).
(a) Simul prohibet Ø faciant advorsum eos quod nolint.
(‘At the same time it prevents them from doing anything they don’t want against
them.’ Pl. Ps. 206–7—NB: unique instance of Ø; the verse is normally bracketed)
(b) Tun’ me prohibeas / meam ne tangam?
(‘Are you forbidding me to lay hands on my own girl?’ Ter. Eu. 806–7)
(c) Tu modo ne me prohibeas accipere, si quid det mihi.
(‘You just shouldn’t prevent me from receiving something if he gives it to me.’ Pl. Trin.
370—prolative infinitive)
(d) Tirones autem iubet inter legiones dispertiri et Cominium cum Ticida in
conspectum suum prohibet adduci.
(‘As for the recruits, he ordered them to be drafted among the legions, and would not
allow Cominius together with Ticida to be brought into his presence.’ B. Afr. 46.3)
(e) Nec vero, ut noster Lucilius, recusabo quo minus omnes mea legant.
(‘Nor yet shall I object, like our Lucilius, to all the world’s reading what I write.’ Cic.
Fin. 1.7)

Iussit maximo / opere orare ut patrem aliquo apsterreres modo / ne intro iret ad se.
(Pl. Mos. 420–2); Hae fundae Samaeos cohibuerunt ne tam crebro neu tam audacter
erumperent . . . (Liv. 38.29.8); Verum tamen nequeo contineri quin loquar. (Pl. Men.
253); . . . neive quis in eo agro agrum oqupatum habeto neive defendito quo
mi<nus quei v>elit compascere liceat. (CIL I2.585.25 (Lex Agr., c.111 bc));
Neque si vivit, eam viva umquam quin inveniam desistam. (Pl. Rud. 228); . . . hau
ferro deterrere potes <hunc> ne amem, Stratophanes. (Pl. Truc. 929); Numquam
hercle deterrebor / quin viderim id quod viderim. (Pl. Mil. 369–70); Plura ne dicam
tuae me etiam lacrimae impediunt . . . (Cic. Planc. 104); . . . nec aetas impedit quo
minus . . . agri colendi studia teneamus usque ad ultimum tempus senectutis. (Cic.
Sen. 60); . . . neque · intercesurum · esse · q(uo) · h(ac) · l(ege) · minus · setiusve
· fiat ·. (CIL I2.2924.20 (Taranto, c.100 bc)); Quod cum audissemus, nullam
moram interponendam putavimus quin videremus hominem . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.1);
128 For this class of verbs, see Orlandini (2003: 496–510). For prohibeo, see Torrego (2014).
Ac ne bello quidem Italico, mox civili omissum quin multa et diversa scisceren-
tur . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.27.2); Nec me Iuppiter nec di omnes id prohibebunt, si volent, /
quin sic faciam uti constitui. (Pl. Am. 1051–2); Quei / ager · compascuos · erit · in ·
eo · agro quo · minus · pecus ascere · Genuates · Veituriosque · liceat · ita
· utei · incetero · agro / Genuati · compascuo · niquis · prohibeto . . . (CIL
I2.584.33–4 (Sent. Minuc., Genoa, 117 bc)); Hiemem credo adhuc prohibuisse quo-
minus de te certum haberemus quid ageres . . . (Cic. Fam. 12.5.1); Reprimam me ne
aegre quicquam ex me audias. (Ter. Hau. 765)
NB: Si ut inopia magna sit meum nomen in causa est, cur nihil impedio ut sit
feracitas maxima? (Arn. Nat. 1.16);129 Di prohibeant, iudices, ut (ne cj. Whitte) hoc
quod maiores consilium publicum vocari voluerunt praesidium sectorum existimetur!
(Cic. S. Rosc. 151)130
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of wishing,
desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a))
The verbs of this class, in contrast with those discussed above in the subclasses of class
(i), are two-place verbs. With the verbs volo ‘to wish’, nolo ‘not to wish’, and malo ‘to
prefer’, subordinate clauses with a simple subjunctive are common, certainly in Early
Latin. For details, see § 15.83. Examples of imperative clauses with the verb volo are
(a)–(c). In (c), the person being referred to by bonus . . . esse is coreferential with the
subject of the main clause. A declarative accusative and infinitive clause with volo is
shown in (d). With some expressions an object constituent in the main clause is pos-
sible, as in (e). Unlike those used with the verbs in § 15.67, these object constituents
are not also the subject of the subordinate clause, nor should they be confused with
the pseudo-objects of § 9.17. The subordinate clause may contain an anterior tense,
just as in unrealizable wishes (for which, see § 7.58). An example is (f).
(a) Amicus sum, Ø eveniant volo tibi quae optas.
(‘I’m your friend, I want your wishes to come true.’ Pl. Per. 293)
(b) Eum ego ut requiram atque uti redimam volo.
(‘I want to find him and set him free.’ Pl. Per. 696—NB: ut is rarely used when the
subjects of the governing and subordinate clauses are the same)
(c) Bonus volo iam ex hoc die esse.
(‘From this day onward I want to be good.’ Pl. Per. 479—prolative infinitive)
(d) Nunc volo me emitti manu.
(‘Now I want to be set free.’ Pl. Aul. 823)
(e) Equidem sana sum et deos quaeso ut salva pariam filium.
(‘I am sane and I ask the gods that I may safely give birth to a son.’ Pl. Am. 720)
129 For further late instances, see TLL s.v. impedio 534.75ff.
130 Dyck ad loc. retains ut. Orlandini (2003: 499) prefers ne. For later instances of ut, see TLL s.v. prohi-
beo 1789.71ff.
(f) Nimis vellem Ø hae fores erum fugissent . . .

(‘I very much wish that this door had fled from its master . . .’ Pl. St. 312)

Cuperem Ø ipse parens spectator adesset. (Verg. A. 10.443); Nam si exoptem Ø
quantum dignu’s tantum dent, minus nihilo sit. (Pl. Ps. 937); Malim Ø istuc aliis
videatur quam uti tu te, soror, collaudes. (Pl. Poen. 1184); At Ø taceas malo (Pl. Ps.
209); Nolo Ø me in via / cum hac veste videat. (Ter. Eu. 906–7); Opto felicissimus
bene / valeas. (CEL appendix Vindol. y 7–8 (Vindolanda, c. ad 105–20)); Sed Ø
mihi vel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat / vel . . . (Verg. A. 4.24–5); . . . Ø ita me audias
precor . . . (Liv. 40.9.7); Ø Mi dederit velim. (Pl. Bac. 334—NB: perfect subjunctive);
Visne igitur te inspiciamus a puero? (Cic. Phil. 2.44)
De quo ut quem optas quam primum nuntium accipias . . . cupio. (Cael. Fam.
8.3.1); Tibi cum omnia mea commendatissima esse cupio tum nihil magis quam ne
tempus nobis provinciae prorogetur. (Cic. Fam. 2.8.3—NB: variation of construc-
tion); Quod ut faceres idque maturares magno opere desiderabat res publica. (Cic.
ad Brut. 17(18).1=1.10.1); Illique exopto ut relicuam vitam exigat / cum eo
viro . . . (Ter. Hec. 490–1); Malim hercle ut verum dicas quam ut des mutuom. (Pl.
Trin. 762); Illum ut vivat optant, meam autem mortem exspectant scilicet. (Ter. Ad.
874); Bene equidem tibi dico, qui te digna ut eveniant precor. (Pl. Rud. 640); Non
speramus ut illum iudex probet sed ut dimittat. (Sen. Con. 9.2.18); . . . quem spes
reliquere omnes esse ut frugi possiet. (Pl. Bac. 370); Ut ille te videat volo. (Pl. Bac.
77); Id quaerunt, id volunt haec ut infecta faciant. (Pl. Cas. 828); At ne videas velim.
(Pl. Rud. 1067); Volo ut mihi respondeas tu . . . (Cic. Vat. 14, cf. 17, 18, 21, 29)
NB: with an object constituent in the main clause: . . . ita ted optestor per senectutem
tuam / perque illam, quam tu metuis, uxorem tuam / . . . ut tibi superstes uxor aetatem
siet / atque illa viva vivos ut pestem oppetas. (Pl. As. 18–22); opto deos · ut bene
valeas . . . (CEL 74.2 (Wâdi Fawâkhir, c. ad 50)—NB: the object deos is exceptional)
Cupio aliquem <mi> emere puerum . . . (Pl. Cur. 382); Regiones colere mavellem
Accherunticas. (Pl. Bac. 199); Voluit in cubiculum abducere me anus. (Pl. Mos. 696)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of striving
(class (ii) (b))
The verbs in this class are two-place verbs. Clauses with a simple subjunctive are rare.
Examples of imperative clauses with the verb curo ‘to undertake’ are (a)–(c). In (c) the
agent of defendere is coreferential with the subject of the main clause. Ex. (d) shows a
declarative accusative and infinitive clause.
(a) Per aestatem Ø boves aquam bonam et liquidam bibant semper curato.
(‘See that the cattle always have good, clear water to drink in summer-time.’ Cato
Agr. 73.1)
(b) Curabo ut praedati pulchre ad castra convortamini.
(‘I’ll make sure you return to the camp loaded with booty in fine style.’ Pl. Per. 608)
(c) . . . si qui sunt qui desertum illum Carneadeum <finem> curent defendere.
(‘. . . if there are any who would make an effort to defend that moral end of Carneades.’
Cic. Tusc. 5.87—prolative infinitive)
(d) Curatum est — esse te senem miserrumum.
(‘Care has been taken — that you should be a most miserable old man.’ Pl. Bac. 1067)

Ill’, quod in se fuit, accuratum habuit Ø quod posset mali / faceret in me . . . (Pl. Bac.
550–1); Cave Ø quisquam, quod illic minitetur, vostrum flocci fecerit. (Pl. Men. 994);
Is curavit quod argumentum ex Dionysio ipse sumpsisset Ø ex eo ceteri sumerent.
(Cic. Luc. 2.71); Ne illa quidem curo Ø mihi scribas quae maximis in rebus rei publicae
geruntur cottidie . . . (Cic. Fam. 2.8.1); Nunc contra Ø villam urbanam quam maximam
ac politissimam habeant dant operam . . . (Var. R. 1.13.7); <Eo> domum studeo Ø
haec priu’ quam ille redeat. (Ter. Hec. 262)
Iam ut eriperes apparabas. (Pl. Aul. 827); Puerum autem ne resciscat mi esse ex illa
cautio’st. (Ter. An. 400); Quod ut ne accidat magis cavendum est. (Cic. Amic. 99);
Tertium est ut caveamus ut ea quae pertinent ad liberalem speciem et dignitatem
moderata sint. (Cic. Off. 1.141); . . . minus hodierno die contendi, minus laboravi ut
mihi senatus adsentiens tumultum decerneret, saga sumi iuberet. (Cic. Phil. 6.16);
Semper curato ne sis intestabilis. (Pl. Cur. 30); Exigere te oportuit navem . . . quae
defenderet ne provincia spoliaretur, non quae provinciae spolia portaret. (Cic. Ver.
5.59); Ex summis opibus viribusque usque experire, nitere / erus ut minor opera tua
servetur. (Pl. Mer. 111–12); Optata ut evenant operam addito. (Pl. Per. 629); Nos hic
valemus recte et quo melius valeamus operam dabimus. (D. Brut. Fam. 11.23.1); . . .
praestaboque et enitar ut in dies magis magisque haec nascens de me duplicetur
opinio. (Cic. fil. Fam. 16.21.2); Heia autem, dum studeo illis ut quam plurumum /
facerem, contrivi in quaerundo vitam atque aetatem meam. (Ter. Ad. 868–9); . . . cum
ille Romuli senatus . . . temptaret post Romuli excessum ut ipse regeret sine rege rem
publicam . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.23)
NB: . . . Tum vero dubitandum non existimavit quin pugna decertaret. (Caes. Gal.
3.23.8); . . . non dubitasse quin et corpus suum et cetera omnia . . . patriae restitueret.
(Liv. 24.22.15)
Verbs of perception and cognition can be used in a similar way. Examples are (e) and
(f). See also § 15.58.
(e) Vide ne me ludas.
(‘Make sure you aren’t making fun of me.’ Pl. Cur. 325–6)
(f) Hic erit considerandum ne quid perturbate, ne quid contorte dicatur, ne
quam in aliam rem transeatur, ne ab ultimo repetatur, ne ad extremum pro-
deatur, ne quid, quod ad rem pertineat, praetereatur.
(‘On this point care will have be taken not to say anything in a confused or intricate
style, not to shift to another subject, not to go back to ultimate beginnings nor to go
on too far, and not to omit anything pertinent to the case.’ Cic. Inv. 1.29)

(sc. vilicus) . . . consideret Ø quae dominus imperaverit fiant. (Cato Agr. 5.2); Vide sis
Ø calleas. (Pl. Poen. 578)
Circumspice dum ne quis nostro hic auceps sermoni siet. (Pl. Mil. 995); Et velim,
quod poteris, consideres ut sit unde nobis suppeditentur sumptus necessarii. (Cic.
Att. 11.13.4); Sed eum videto ut capias (Pl. Mos. 558); Au, obsecro, vide ne in cogna-
tam pecces. (Ter. Ph. 803); Haec ut imperet illi parti animi quae oboedire debet, id
videndum est viro. (Cic. Tusc. 2.47)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs of causation (class (iii))
This class consists of the verb facio ‘to make’ (in its two-place frame) and its com-
pounds.131 With this verb, clauses with a simple subjunctive are very common in
Early Latin (of imperative forms more than half are combined with simple subjunct-
ives) (see also § 15.83).132 Examples of imperative clauses with facio are (a)–(c). Note
in (c) the pseudo-object te ipsam (see § 9.17). Such pseudo-objects are relatively com-
mon in Early Latin with non-imperative forms of facio.133 With the exception of a few
further instances in Late Latin, the prolative infinitive in (d) is unique and as a result
is often emended.134
(a) . . . date viam qua fugere liceat, facite Ø totae plateae pateant.
(‘. . . make way for me to flee, clear all the streets.’ Pl. Aul. 407)
(b) . . . facturum <me> ut ne etiam aspicere aedis audeat . . .
(‘. . . I’ll make sure that he won’t even dare to look at the house . . .’ Pl. Mos. 423)
(c) . . . te ipsam culleo ego cras faciam ut deportere—in pergulam.
(‘. . . I’ll make sure that you yourself will be carried in a leather bag—to the common
brothel.’ Pl. Ps. 214)
(d) . . . visum est faciendum, quoquo modo res se haberet, vos certiores facere.
(‘. . . stand the matter how it may, I feel it my duty to inform you.’ Sulp. Ruf. Fam.
4.12.1)
Supplement:
Dabuntur, Ø animo sis bono face, exoptata optingent. (Pl. As. 726); Iam faxo Ø
ipsum hominem manufesto opprimas. (Pl. As. 876); Tum illam . . . . / faxo Ø se hau
dicat nactam quem derideat. (Pl. Bac. 863–4—NB: illam is a pseudo-object); . . . in
lapicidinas facite Ø deductus siet. (Pl. Capt. 736); Eadem istaec facito Ø mulier ad me
transeat / per hortum. (Pl. Per. 445–6); . . . eo quia paupertas fecit Ø ridiculus forem.
(Pl. St. 178)
131 K.-St.: II.212–13 also include praesto in its meaning ‘to produce (a result, an effect, etc.)’ (OLD § 12).
See also TLL s.v. 2praesto 921.56ff. For facio, see Álvarez Huerta (2014).
132 See Bennett: I.224–8 and Mazzanti (2020) for detailed statistics.
133 For pseudo-objects with facio + ut, see Bortolussi (2014).
134 See TLL s.v. facio 104.53ff. and Shackleton Bailey ad loc.
Collyrae facite ut madeant et colyphia . . . (Pl. Per. 92); Ac te faciet ut sis civis Attica
atque libera. (Pl. Poen. 372—NB: te is a pseudo-object); Iam pol ego illam pugnis
totam faciam uti sit merulea . . . (Pl. Poen. 1289—NB: illam is a pseudo-object); Feci
hodie ut fierent . . . (Ter. An. 603); Si poterit fieri ut ne pater per me stetisse cre-
dat . . . (Ter. An. 699); . . . puer ut satur sit facito. (Ter. Hec. 769); . . . fecisti ut ne cui
innocenti maeror tuus calamitatem et falsum crimen adferret. (Cic. Clu. 168); Di
immortales faxint ne sit alter (sc. Sulla). (Cic. Ver. 3.81); Alterum facio, ut caveam,
alterum, ut non credam, facere non possum. (Cic. Att. 2.20.1); Alterum facio libenter,
ut . . . per litteras tecum quam saepissime colloquar. (Cic. Fam. 1.7.1); Tu me refi-
cisque fovesque, / tu facis ut silvas, ut amem loca sola. (Ov. Met. 7.818–19); Ille, si
[unum] se sequerentur, quo celerius fieret, facturum dixit. (Liv. 41.4.2); Ita fit ne
decidant fructus. (Plin. Nat. 17.253); . . . verba legis Papiae faciunt ut . . . debeatur.
(Gaius Inst. 3.47)
Sicut ego efficiam, quae facta hic turbavimus, / profecto ut liqueant omnia et tran-
quilla sint . . . (Pl. Mos. 416–17); (sc. sol) . . . quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant et in suo
quaeque genere pubescant. (Cic. N.D. 2.41)
Perficito argentum hodie ut habeat filius, / amicae quod det. (Pl. As. 103–4);
Perfeci ut spectarentur. (Ter. Hec. 20); Perfeceratque Fortuna ne quid tale scribere
possem aut omnino cogitare. (Cic. Fam. 4.13.1); Perfice ut ne minus res publica tibi
quam tu rei publicae debeas. (Cic. Fam. 10.12.5)
NB: Quo tardius certior fierem de proeliis apud Mutinam factis Lepidus effecit . . . (Pol.
Fam. 10.33.1)
The interpretation of ut clauses with facio as imperative is obvious if the subject of

facio is human. With a non-animate subject, by contrast, the clause may be inter-
preted as declarative, as in (e), where the negator is non.135 For a declarative accusative
and infinitive clause, see (f) (see also § 15.93). However, with a non-animate subject
like virtus the clause may well be imperative, as in (g).
(e) Splendor vester facit ut peccare sine summo rei publicae detrimento . . . non
possitis.
(‘Your eminence makes it so that you could not err without the greatest injury to the
state.’ Cic. Ver. 1.22)
(f) Nulla res magis penetrat in animos . . . talesque oratores videri facit, quales
ipsi se videri volunt.
(‘Nothing else so penetrates the mind . . . and causes orators to seem such men as they
wish to seem.’ Cic. Brut. 142)
(g) . . . si potest virtus efficere ne miser aliquis sit . . .
(‘. . . if virtue can bring it about that a man not be miserable . . .’ Sen. Ep. 92.15)
Appendix: In their section on causation verbs K.-St.: I.212–13 also deal with Early
Latin poti’n (= potisne) ut/ne ‘is it possible that (not)?’ and with causa est ut/ne ‘there
135 Álvarez Huerta (2014: 85–7) calls such instances ‘causativité faible’.
is a reason to/not to’, as in (h) and (i), respectively. The reason for treating the subor-
dinate clauses with these expressions as imperative is the negation, as in ( j).
(h) Poti’n ut taceas?
(‘Isn’t there any way for you to be quiet?’ Pl. Poen. 916)
(i) An vero non iusta causa est ut vos servem sedulo . . .?
(‘But don’t I have good reason to guard you carefully . . .?’ Pl. Capt. 257)
( j) Poti’n ut mihi molestus ne sis?
(‘Isn’t there any way for you to stop being a nuisance to me?’ Pl. Cist. 465)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
deciding, resolving, etc. (class (iv))
The verbs in this class are two-place verbs. Clauses with a simple subjunctive are rare.
Examples of imperative clauses with the verb decerno ‘to decide’ are (a)–(c). Ex.
(c) shows a prolative infinitive, (d) a declarative accusative and infinitive clause.
(a) . . . senatus decrevit Ø darent operam consules ne quid res publica detrimenti
caperet.
(‘. . . the senate decreed “that the consuls should see to it that the state suffer no harm”. ’
Sal. Cat. 29.2)
(b) Decrevit quondam senatus uti L. Opimius consul videret ne quid res publica
detrimenti caperet.
(‘The Senate once decreed that the consul Lucius Opimius should see to it that the
state suffer no harm.’ Cic. Catil. 1.4)
(c) Quidquid peperisset decreverunt tollere.
(‘Whether it’s a boy or girl, they have decided to raise it.’ Ter. An. 219)
(d) Uxorem decrerat dare sese mi hodie.
(‘He had resolved that he himself would give me a wife today.’ Ter. An. 238)

Immo Ø dicamus senibus legem censeo . . . (Pl. Mer. 1015); Ø Profestos festos habeam
decretum est mihi. (Pl. Poen. 501); Quotienscumque sit decretum Ø darent operam
magistratus nequid res publica detrimenti caperet . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.7.5); . . . instituit Ø
quotannis in demortuorum locum ex iis qui recensi non essent subsortitio a praetore
fieret. (Suet. Jul. 41.3)
. . . sic in animo habeto: uti ne cupide emas . . . (Cato Agr. 1.1); Quo leto censes me ut
peream potissumum? (Pl. Mer. 483—NB: me is a pseudo-object); Alii . . . ut celeriter per-
rumpant censent . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.40.2);136 Labienus . . . ne quam occasionem rei bene ger-
endae dimitteret cogitabat. (Caes. Gal. 5.57.1); Ante omnia ut quaestio de iis habeatur
qui coierint coniuraverintve quo stuprum flagitiumve inferretur. (Liv. 39.14.8); Capio
136 For censeo, see Bolkestein (1998a: 25–6).

consilium ut senatum congerronum convocem. (Pl. Mos. 1049); Consilium capiunt ut

ad servos M. Tulli veniant. (Cic. Tul. 34); Quin rus ut irem iam heri constitueram. (Pl.
Ps. 549); Constitueram ut V Id. aut Aquini manerem aut in Arcano. (Cic. Att. 16.10.1);
Postea mihi placuit, eoque sum usus adulescens, ut summorum oratorum Graecas
orationes explicarem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.155); In dicendo autem nihil est propositum
nisi ut ne immoderata . . . sit oratio. (Cic. Orat. 198); Durius etiam Athenienses, qui
sciverunt ut Aeginetis, qui classe valebant, pollices praeciderentur. (Cic. Off. 3.46)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with verbs and expressions of
deserving (class (v))
This class concerns the two-place verb mereo(r) ‘to deserve’ and its compounds. With
these verbs clauses with a simple subjunctive are not atttested. Examples of imperative
clauses are (a) and (b). An exceptional declarative accusative and infinitive clause is
shown in (c).137
(a) . . . ego te meruisse ut pereas scio . . .
(‘. . . I know you’ve deserved to perish . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1407)
(b) Qua merui culpa fieri tibi vilis, Achille?
(‘Because of what fault do I deserve to be cheap to you, Achilles?’ Ov. Ep.
3.41—prolative infinitive)
(c) Peculium et ex eo consistit quod parsimonia sua quis paravit vel officio
meruerit a quolibet sibi donari . . .
(‘A peculium is made up of anything a slave has been able to save by his own economies
or has been given by a third party in return for meritorious services . . .’ Florent. dig.
15.1.39)

. . . numquam sciens commerui merito ut caperet odium illam mei. (Ter. Hec. 580);
Quom tu es liber, gaudeo. / # Merui ut fierem. # Tu meruisti? (Pl. Epid. 711–12); (sc.
Socrates) . . . respondit sese meruisse ut amplissimis honoribus et praemiis decorare-
tur . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.232); . . . quoniam nulla vis humanave, virtus meruisse umquam
potuit ut quod praescripsit fatalis ordo non fiat. (Amm. 23.5.5);138 Promeruisti ut ne
quid ores quod velis, quin impetres. (Pl. Men. 1100)
. The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a neuter singular
adjective or a comparable expression that functions as subject or object
complement (class (vi))
Subordinate clauses with these expresssions can be understood as imperative, if the per-
son involved in the main clause (explicit—usually in the dative—or implicit) is the same
137 For a few more Late Latin instances, see TLL s.v. mereo 808.65ff.
138 For the negation in argument clauses with mereo, see TLL s.v. 810.63f.
as the subject of the subordinate clause, as in (a). Unfortunately, there are no attestations
of negated clauses, which would make it possible to determine whether such clauses are
declarative or imperative. Ex. (b) shows a comparable object complement.
(a) Quid mi meliu’st, quid magis in rem est, quam a corpore vitam ut secludam?
(‘What’s better for me, what’s more useful, than to take my life away from my body?’
Pl. Rud. 220)
(b) . . . nec habui quicquam antiquius quam ut Pansam statim convenirem.
(‘. . . nor did I hold anything more important than that I should meet Pansa immedi-
ately.’ D. Brut. Fam. 11.4.1)
The other possibilities are illustrated for optimum and melius (est) in (c)–(g).139 In exx.
(c)–(e), it is suggested that the subject of the subordinate clause will undertake some
action to bring about the state of affairs referred to by the subordinate clause. It is only
in (e) that this subject is present in the governing clause (huic urbi). The fact that an
action is required to achieve something can be made explicit by the addition of the
supine factu, as in (f). Ex. (g) illustrates a declarative accusative and infinitive clause.
For declarative ut clauses with adjectives, see § 15.32. For declarative quod clauses
with adjectives, see § 15.11.
(c) Nunc adeam Ø optumum est . . .
(‘It’s best to go up to him now . . .’ Pl. As. 448)
(d) Semper tu hoc facito, Lesbonice, cogites / id optumum esse tute uti sis optu-
mus. / Si id nequeas, saltem ut optumis sis proxumus.
(‘Lesbonicus, always make sure that you consider it to be best to be the best yourself;
if you can’t be that, at least that you should be next to the best.’ Pl. Trin. 485–7)
(e) Moveri sedibus huic urbi melius est atque in alias, si fieri possit, terras
demigrare . . .
(‘It would be better for this city to be moved from her foundations and to migrate,
were it possible, to other lands . . .’ Cic. Phil. 13.49—prolative infinitive)
(f) Nunc hoc mihi factu est optumum, ut ted auferam, / aula, in Fidei fanum.
(‘Now this is the best thing for me to do, my pot: to carry you off into the shrine of
Good Faith.’ Pl. Aul. 582–3)
(g) . . . utrum tandem putes huic civitati . . . melius fuisse et praestabilius me civem
in hac civitate nasci an te?
(‘. . . would you suppose it would have been better and preferable for this State for me
or for you to have been born in it as a citizen?’ Cic. Vat. 10)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by subject complement):

Quid mihi meliu’st quam, quando illi me insanire praedicant, / Ø ego med adsimulem
insanire, ut illos a me apsterream? (Pl. Men. 832); Sed Ø taceam optumum est (Pl.
Epid. 59); Ø Capillum promittam optumum est . . . (Pl. Rud. 377); Prius est igitur Ø
139 For further instances, see TLL s.v. bonus 2100.17ff.

neges creatorem indulsisse aliquando delicta . . . (Tert. Marc. 4.10.4); Reliquum est Ø
tuam profectionem amore prosequar, reditum spe exspectem, absentem memoria
colam, omne desiderium litteris mittendis accipiendisque leniam. (Cic. Fam. 15.21.5)
. . . bonum hercle factum pro se quisque ut meminerit. (Pl. Poen. 45); Ex tua re est
ut ego emoriar. (Pl. Ps. 336); Neque enim ad mare admovit, quod ei fuit illa manu copi-
isque facillimum ut in agrum Rutulorum Aboriginumque procederet . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.5)
Appendix: There are also combinations of necesse ‘necessary’ and the copula (or
something similar).140 Exx. (h)–(k) illustrate the well-known imperative clauses,
(l) an accusative and infinitive clause.141 The simple subjunctive is much more common
than ut + subjunctive, which is the reason to regard these clauses as imperative.142
(h) Ø . . . hoc iudicium reprehendas . . . necesse est . . .
(‘. . . you are bound to find fault with this decision.’ Cic. Clu. 114)
(i) Nam hoc necesse est ut is qui nobis causam adiudicaturus sit aut inclinatione
voluntatis propendeat in nos . . .
(‘For it is necessary that a person who is to decide a case in our favour should
either lean in our direction because his sympathies are so inclined . . .’ Cic. de
Orat. 2.129)
( j) Atque ille eo tempore paruit cum parere senatui necesse erat.
(‘And he obeyed at a time when obedience to the Senate was inevitable.’ Cic.
Lig. 20)
(k) Mihi necesse est ire hinc.
(‘It’s necessary for me to go away from here.’ Pl. Am. 501—prolative infini-
tive, see § 15.127)
(l) Nam necesse est hodie Sicyoni me esse aut cras mortem exsequi / . . .
(‘I need to be in Sicyon today or die tomorrow . . .’ Pl. Ps. 995)
. The use of finite imperative clauses in combination with a noun

functioning as subject or object complement (class (vii))
Interpretation of this type of expression as imperative is most likely when the noun
indicates an obligation or necessity. A good example is officium ‘duty’.143 Ex. (a) shows
the only attested instance of a simple subjunctive. There is one attestation of the negator
ne (see the Supplement). For a declarative accusative and infinitive clause, see (d). Ex.
(e) shows an ut clause in combination with an object complement. Often there is a
preparative pronoun as subject, as in (e).
140 For the unclear categorial status of necesse, see de Vaan (2008: 103–4).
141 Two meanings of necesse can be distinguished, ‘deontic’ and ‘inferential’; see Bolkestein (1980a) and
Núñez (1991). The examples in the text are all deontic.
142 K.-St.: II.236–7 take it as declarative (‘konsekutiv’).
143 For further instances, see TLL s.v. officium 525.82ff.
(a) Primum ego officium scriptoris existimo Ø (v.l. ut) titulum suum legat . . .
(‘I think a writer’s first duty is to read his title . . .’ Plin. Ep. 5.6.42)
(b) Fuit meum officium ut facerem, fateor.
(‘It would have been my duty to do so, I admit it.’ Pl. Ps. 913)
(c) Non matronarum officium est, sed meretricium, / viris alienis, mi vir, sub-
blandirier.
(‘My dear husband, it’s not the job of wives, but of prostitutes, to charm other wom-
en’s husbands.’ Pl. Cas. 585–6—prolative infinitive)
(d) Quid fuit officium meum me facere?
(‘What was it my duty to do?’ Pl. Trin. 174)
(e) Hoccin’ boni esse officium servi existumas, / ut eri sui corrumpat et rem et
filium?
(‘Is this what you consider the duty of a good servant, to ruin his master’s wealth and
son?’ Pl. Mos. 27–8)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun):

Nihil opu’st Ø resciscat. (Pl. Mer. 1004)
Hoc est servi facinus frugi, facere quod ego persequor, / ne morae molestiaeque
imperium erile habeat sibi. (Pl. Aul. 587–8); Neque enim fas est ut tanto dispendio
meo etiam culpa iungatur. (Symm. Ep. 9.125); Etsi scio ego, Philumena, meum ius
esse ut te cogam / quae ego imperem facere . . . (Ter. Hec. 243–4); . . . hoc sapientiae
munus esse dicebant ut, <cum> eum tueretur, qui constaret ex animo et corpore, in
utroque iuvaret eum ac contineret. (Cic. Fin. 4.17); Sed iustitiae primum munus est
ut ne cui quis noceat . . . deinde ut communibus pro communibus utatur . . . . (Cic. Off.
1.20); An erit haec optio et potestas tua ut . . . Milonem dicas . . . gladiatoribus et bes-
tiariis opsedisse rem publicam? (Cic. Vat. 40); . . . hic opus est aliquot ut maneas dies.
(Pl. Poen. 1421); Nihil enim tam contrarium quam si . . . defenderem ut reum, cui
opus esset ne reus videretur. (Plin. Ep. 7.6.4); Sed cur impedimus Antonium, cuius
audio esse partis ut de tota eloquentia disserat . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.26); Videtur tempus
esse ut eamus ad forum, / ut . . . denumerem stipendium. (Pl. Mil. 72–4—NB: ut argu-
ment and ut purpose adjunct clause); Iam tempus est ut isto gladio deorsus ad meum
Tlepolemum viam quaeram. (Apul. Met. 8.13.5); Nunc ad me ut veniat usu’st
Acroteleutium . . . (Pl. Mil. 1132); Qui autem ex eo cogi putat ne ut sedeamus quidem
aut ambulemus voluntatis esse . . . (Cic. Fat. 9)
. The use of finite imperative clauses with so-called impersonal expressions
(class (viii))
Imperative clauses are also used as subject with a few so-called impersonal verbs (for the
term ‘impersonal’, see § 4.13). The evidence for the imperative status, in the form of the
negation that is used, is very limited (see the Supplement). The verb licet ‘to be permit-
ted’ serves as an illustration. Exx (a)–(c) are imperative clauses, (d) is declarative. With
licet, clauses with a simple subjunctive are very common; ut is attested for the first time
in Late Latin, and only rarely there.144 It is from this use of licet with a simple subjunctive
that its use as a concessive subordinator developed (see § 16.81). With decet ‘it is proper’,
the example with a simple subjunctive in the Supplement seems to be unique, and ut is
rarely attested (in Late Latin).145 With oportet ‘it is proper’, ut is rarely attested (in Late
Latin). The prolative infinitive is also only attested in Late Latin.146
(a) Estne empta mi istis legibus? # Ø Habeas licet.
(‘Has she been bought by me on those terms? # You can have her.’ Pl. Epid. 471)
(b) Si credis ex toto corde tuo . . . licet ut baptizeris.
(‘If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized.’ Vet. Lat. Act. 8.37)
(c) Per hanc curam quieto tibi licet esse —
(‘As far as that worry is concerned, you can be calm —’ Pl. Epid. 338)
(d) . . . gladium ut ponat et redire me intro ut liceat.
(‘. . . that she should put down the sword and let me return inside.’ Pl. Cas. 706)
. . . decet / Ø animo aequo nunc stent . . . (Pl. Poen. 21–2); Licet Ø laudem Fortunam,
tamen ut ne Salutem culpem. (Pl. As. 718); Licet Ø iste dicat emisse, sicuti solet dicere,
credite hoc mihi iudices. (Cic. Ver. 4.133); Illa licet Ø non det (sc. oscula), non data
sume tamen. (Ov. Ars 1.664—NB: local negation by non); . . . Ø faber haec faciat oportet.
(Cato Agr. 14.1); Ø Omnia fecerit oportet . . . (Cic. Phil. 7.26); . . . multa oportet Ø discat
ac dediscat . . . (Cic. Quinct. 56); Ø Ego crimen oportet diluam . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 36)
Hominem . . . decuerat ne voluisset aliter reverti. ([Quint.] Decl. 5.2—NB: a unique
(?) negated clause); Filius autem cum sit verus, oportet ut de divina illa substantia
patris genitus cognoscatur. (Filastr. 66.4 (4th cent. ad (late))
. The subordinating devices of finite imperative clauses

Ut + subjunctive for clauses with a positive content and ne for negative clauses are by
far the most common subordinators in imperative clauses. They are used with all
governing expressions discussed in §§ 15.66–80, with the exception of the so-called
impersonal expressions discussed in § 15.80. Argument clauses in the subjunctive
without a subordinator are also quite common. Ne, quin, and quominus are used for
the verbs discussed in § 15.72. The status of quo and qui as subordinators of argument
clauses is not obvious. For discussion, see §§ 15.87–8.
. The use of ut, ut ne, and ne in imperative clauses
If an imperative clause is negative, the regular negation is either by the adverb ne (in
ut ne), which is also used in negative imperative sentences (see § 8.13), or by the
144 See TLL s.v. liceo 1361.72ff. 145 See TLL s.v. deceo 135.5ff.
146 See TLL s.v. oportet 742.14ff.; 741.42ff., respectively.
subordinator ne (see § 8.23). However, with many of the verbs and expressions dis-
cussed in §§ 15.66–80, ut + non is found as well (see also §§ 15.25 and 15.27 for the
reverse situation).147 Most of these instances can be understood in one of the follow-
ing ways: if (i) there is no obvious entity that controls the action the clause is about, or
if (ii) the negation does not affect the clause as a whole, but only part of it, or if (iii) the
content of the clause is in contrast with something else, non is the necessary negator.
An example of efficio, a verb that usually has a negative clause with ne, is (a); however,
here we have a clear contrast with bonum etiam esse mortem in the preceding context,
so non is what one would expect.148 An additional factor in the use of non where ne
might be expected is the gradual decrease in the use of ne, both in independent
sentences and in subordinate clauses.
(a) Ut doceam, si possim, non modo malum non esse, sed bonum etiam esse
mortem. # . . . Ut enim non efficias quod vis, tamen mors ut malum non sit
efficies.
(‘To show you if I can that death is not merely no evil but positively a good.’ # . . . ‘For
though you may not achieve what you wish, still you will succeed in showing that
death is not an evil.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.16)
For the use of neque and neve in coordinated imperative clauses, see §§ 8.38–40.
From Early Latin onwards the combination ut(i) ne is much less common than the
subordinator ne, especially, it seems, in argument clauses: in Cicero’s orations there
are about thirty-five instances of ut ne argument clauses and about thirty-five of satel-
lite clauses, each half a column in Merguet’s lexicon; the instances of ne argument
clauses take up more than eight columns, those of ne satellite clauses three and a half.
In the same texts juxtaposed ut ne is as frequent as separated ut . . . ne.149
Much attention has been devoted to the question of whether the subordinator ne
must be explained as a reduced form of ut ne or ut ne as an extended form of ne. The
latter position is more attractive, but there is no proof.150
. Imperative clauses with a simple subjunctive (without a subordinator)
Among the utterances that contain one of the governing expressions discussed in
§§ 15.66–80 and a clause with a simple subjunctive (that is: without a subordinator),
a large number belong to only a few of these expressions, viz. those of begging and
requesting (§ 15.67), causation verbs (§ 15.75), and a few others, and to these only in
a very stereotyped form.
The first class consists of utterances in which a clause containing a first person sin-
gular present indicative form of a verb of asking (e.g. oro ‘to supplicate’, quaeso ‘to ask’,
147 A very complete collection of verbs that are used with (ut) ne and ut non can be found in Kirk (1923).
For discussion, see Panchón (2003: 448–60).
148 Panchón (2003: 449–50) discusses the same example and explains non as due to the fact that a state
of affairs like mors malum est ‘death is an evil’ is not controllable. Still another explanation is that of K.-St.:
II.246: brachylogy instead of ut mortem malum non esse putem.
149 The data in Merguet (Reden) can be found s.v. ne, p. 253. For Plautus and Terence, see Panchón
(2003: 451).
150 See Panchón (2003: 451–2), with references.
and rogo ‘to ask’) is followed or preceded by a clause with a subjunctive verb form in
the second person. The apparently governing expressions more often follow the sub-
ordinate clause, as in (a), or are inserted parenthetically, as in (b); however, they may
also precede, as in (c). What seems at first to be a subordinate clause functions in fact
as an independent imperative sentence, with the verb of asking functioning almost as
a question particle (like English ‘please’), in the same way as oro functions in (d) with
the imperative dic. (See § 6.29 on modulation of the directive illocutionary force of
imperative sentences.)
(a) Modo Ø pacem faciatis oro, ut ne mihi iratus siet.
(‘Just make peace between us, please, so that he isn’t angry with me.’ Pl. Mer. 992)
(b) Opsecro ego vos, Ø mi auxilio, / oro optestor, sitis et hominem demonstretis
quis eam apstulerit!
(‘I beg you, I entreat you: please help me and show me the man who’s taken it away.’
Pl. Aul. 715)
(c) Quaeso Ø ignoscas, siquid stulte dixi atque imprudens tibi.
(‘Please forgive me if I said anything stupid to you without being aware of it.’ Pl. Men.
1073)
(d) Sed tu dic, oro, pater meus tune es?
(‘But please do tell me: are you my father?’ Pl. Capt. 1021)
In less stereotyped contexts the verb of asking more often precedes and ut is more
common, as illustrated by (e) and (f). In (e) the form of oro is future tense, and the
subject of the ut clause is third person. In (f) oro governs an object (te) and the clause
is longer. In instances like these the governing expressions cannot be regarded as
modulators added to independent imperative sentences. (Obviously, in individual
instances with a first person form it may be difficult to tell whether we are dealing
with its idiomatic use or with its full lexical meaning—see also § 14.3.)151
(e) Igitur orabo ut manu me emittat.
(‘Then I’ll ask him to set me free.’ Pl. Aul. 817)
(f) Et te oro Ø porro in hac re adiutor sis mihi.
(‘And I ask you to continue to stand by me in this.’ Ter. Hec. 721)
A similar idiomatic use (very common in Cicero’s letters) can be observed for the first
person singular present subjunctive form of the verb volo ‘to wish’ (velim) in combin-
ation with a subordinate clause in the second person, as in (g) and (h). The subjunctive
clause might also be regarded as independent in questions with vis and vi’n ( = visne)
‘do you want?’, as in (i). But in ( j), with a third person subject in the clause, such an
analysis is excluded. Note the presence of ut.
(g) Ø Vera dicas velim.
(‘I wish you would tell the truth.’ Pl. Cas. 234)
151 For the use of rogo with and without ut in non-literary letters, see Halla-aho (2009: 81–5).
(h) Et velim Ø cogites, id quod mihi pollicitus es, quem ad modum bibliothecam
nobis conficere possis.
(‘And please give some thought to how you are to procure a library for me as
you have promised.’ Cic. Att. 1.7)
(i) Vi’n vocem huc ad te? # Voca.
(‘Do you want me to call him over here to you? # Yes, call him.’ Pl. Capt. 360)
( j) Velim ut tibi amicus sit.
(‘I hope he will remain your friend.’ Cic. Att. 10.16.1)
Supplement:
Et quo die Roma te exiturum putes velim Ø ad me scribas, ut . . . (Cic. Att. 2.5.3); Et Ø
scribas mihi velim de gladiatoribus, sed ita bene si rem gerunt; non quaero male si se
gesserunt. (Cic. Att. 4.8.2); Ø Dionysium velim salvere iubeas et eum roges ut te
hortetur quam primum venias . . . (Cic. Att. 4.15.10—NB: ut is used in the lower-level
subordinate clause governed by roges)
Cf.: Nolo Ø ames. (Pl. Cas. 233); Ø Erum exhibeas volo. (Pl. Mil. 546); Ø Tu vellem
ego vel cuperem adesses. (Cic. Att. 2.18.4)
Malim hercle ut verum dicas quam ut des mutuom. (Pl. Trin. 762)
The second class of expressions that are used with clauses in the subjunctive without
a subordinator consists of imperatival forms of facio ‘to make’, sino ‘to permit’, and
caveo ‘to beware’. In Early Latin there are 180 simple subjunctives with such forms
of facio vs eighty-seven with ut, of sino sixty-four simple subjunctives vs zero ut,
and of caveo sixty-seven simple subjunctives vs twenty-four ne. Examples of these
imperative forms are (k)–(o). In (k) fac might be omitted (it functions as a metadi-
rective—see § 6.29): second person singular present subjunctive assis alone is not
impossible. In (l), cave (formally a second person singular imperative form) func-
tions de facto like the negator ne with the second person plural subjunctive form
dirumpatis; therefore it is not omissible. Comparable is (m), where cave explains the
use of quicquam (instead of nihil). The other two examples are different. In (n) the
use of second person singular present subjunctive scribas to express an invitation to
write is not excluded, but the coordination of scribas plane et probe with adde would
be strange; so vide is necessary here. In (o) the verb of the subordinate clause is first
person; sinite could be omitted, but the interpretation of the subordinate clause
would be different.
(k) Nunc tu, divine, huc fac assis, Sosia.

(‘Now, divine Sosia, do come here.’ Pl. Am. 976)
(l) Si tenetis, ducite. / Cave dirumpatis, quaeso, sinite transigi.
(‘If you’ve got it, pull; be careful you don’t break it off, please, let it glide through.’ Pl.
Poen. 116–17)
(m) Cave quicquam, nisi quod rogabo te, mihi responderis.
(‘Mind you don’t give me any reply except what I ask.’ Pl. Am. 608)
(n) Addone? # Adde et scribas vide plane et probe.

(‘Should I add that? # Yes, add it and mind that you write clearly and properly.’ Pl.
As. 755)
(o) Sinite abeam, si possum, viva a vobis.
(‘Let me go away from you two alive, if I am able to.’ Pl. Mil. 1084)
The simple subjunctive is attested in clauses with most of the other classes of expres-
sions or with other forms of the verbs mentioned above, but ut + subjunctive in these
cases is the normal expression. Examples are supplied in the relevant chapters. The
degree to which authors (until Late Latin) use the simple subjunctive varies; it is rela-
tively common in Early Latin, in poetry,152 and in poeticizing and archaizing prose.153
It has been suggested that (at least in Cicero) the use of ut is more formal than the
simple subjunctive. Thus Cicero in his ad Familiares uses rogo ut thirty-nine times
and the simple subjunctive only twice, whereas his correspondents prefer the latter
(eight vs four). However, the rogo ut instances in Cicero differ from the rogo + sub-
junctive ones in several respects: (i) the former are often combined with expressions
insisting on the seriousness of the request (vehementer, etiam atque etiam); (ii) ut
seems to be preferred also when the subordinate clause is complex; (iii) ut seems to be
preferred when the clause is separated from the governing verb by intervening con-
stituents; the simple subjunctive most often stands next to the governing verb.
(iv) Furthermore, the simple subjunctive seems to be preferred when repetition of ut
can be avoided, as in (p) and (q). It seems, then, that complexity and requirements of
transparency are the main determinants.154
(p) Tanta est exspectatio vel animi vel ingeni tui ut ego te obsecrare obtestarique
non dubitem Ø sic ad nos conformatus revertare ut, quam exspectationem
tui concitasti, hanc sustinere ac tueri possis.
(‘The anticipation of your spirit and talents is so great that I don’t scruple to beg and
adjure you to return to us with a character so finished, as to be able to support and
maintain the expectations which you have excited.’ Cic. Fam. 2.1.2)
(q) Illud abs te peto, Ø des operam, id quod mihi adfirmasti, ut te ante Kal. Ian.
ubicumque erimus sistas.
(‘I only ask you to try, as you assured me you would, to present yourself wherever
I am before the Kalends of January.’ Cic. Att. 3.25)
Caesar uses simple subjunctives sparingly, but whereas in Plautus the bulk of the
instances are found with a limited number of governing expressions, the distribution
in Caesar is more even; this is not a sign of informality but rather is part of a general
152 See Wieland (1966) on Verg. Ecl. 5.15.

153 Detailed information for Early Latin can be found in Bennett: I.208–45 and Mazzanti (2020) (espe-
cially about facio). A survey of the verbs involved and the first attestations can be found in K.-St.: II.227–31;
Sz.: 530–1. For Symmachus, see Haverling (1988: 228–31).
154 See Halla-aho (2009; 2010), Pinkster (2010b: 198–200), TLL s.v. peto 1975.6ff. In Plautus and Terence
distance between the governing verb and the subordinate clause favours the use of ut (Mazzanti p.c.).
endeavour in the text segments in which they are found to be brief.155 In the
Vindolanda Tablets the simple subjunctive predominates (twelve (+two?) : five).156
The relationship between the governing expression and the clause it governs in the
stereotyped expressions discussed above is sometimes called ‘paratactic’, and many
scholars assume that it was from such ‘paratactic’ combinations that the less stereo-
typed combinations like (e) and (f) above developed. However, the latter show all the
characteristics of subordination mentioned in § 14.2 and must therefore be regarded
as subordinate.157
. The use of the subordinator ne in imperative clauses
The subordinator ne is used with a negative meaning in most of the classes discussed
in §§ 15.65–80, with the exception of verbs of hindering and preventing (§ 15.72). See
also § 8.23.
. The use of quin in imperative clauses
The subordinator quin is used without a negative meaning with verbs and expressions of
hindering, preventing, and hesitating (see § 15.72; also § 8.27) and of striving (see
§ 15.74). The main clause is almost always negative. There are a few exceptions, which are
explained as intrusions of quin into the domain of quominus.158 The first instance is (a).
(a) . . . ut . . . alii morari (nihil morari recc.) Caesarem dicerent quin naves con-
scendere iuberet . . .
(‘. . . that . . . some asserted that Caesar was being slow in giving orders to embark.’
B. Alex. 7.1)
Supplement:
. . . Veranius . . . quin ultra bellum proferret morte prohibitus est . . . (Tac. Ann.
14.29.1); . . . nocturnas tenebras sibi causabatur obsistere quin clavem curiose abscon-
ditam repperiret. (Apul. Met. 9.20.3)
. The use of quominus in imperative clauses
The subordinator quominus is used without a negative meaning with verbs and
expressions of hindering, preventing, and hesitating (see § 15.72; also § 8.31).
. The use of quo in imperative clauses
The subordinator quo is very rarely used more or less in the sense of ut in combination
with a comparative expression in imperative clauses governed by verbs and expressions
155 See Sznajder (1987). 156 The data are taken from Adams (1995: 117).
157 See Bennett: I.244–5 and Sznajder (1996; 2001a; 2003: 37–69; 2012).
158 See K.-St.: II.262.
of admonishing (§ 15.68) and causation (§15.75). See the examples quoted in these
sections. See also (a), which shows the relationship with quominus in § 15.86.
(a) Nemo est enim quin sciat quo minus discessio fieret per adversarios tuos esse
factum.
(‘For there is no one that is ignorant of the fact that it was all the doing of your
opponents that no division took place.’ Cic. Fam. 1.4.2)
. The use of qui in imperative clauses
The interrogative/relative adverb quī is sometimes used in Early Latin in a way that
resembles the use of ut in imperative argument clauses. An example is (a). Note the
negator ne.
(a) . . . / facite, fingite, invenite, efficite qui detur tibi. / Ego id agam mihi qui ne
detur.
(‘. . . plot, scheme, contrive to have her given to you. I’ll do the same to have her not
given to me.’ Ter. An. 334–5)
Supplement:
Nolo ego mi te tam prospicere qui meam egestatem leves, / sed ut inops infamis ne
sim . . . (Pl. Trin. 688–9); Haud facile’st defensu qui ne comburantur proxumae. ( pall. 47)
15.89 Exclamatory argument clauses
This section deals with finite exclamatory argument clauses; accusative and infinitive
clauses that function as independent exclamatory sentences are discussed in § 6.35,
exx. (t)–(y) + Supplement. Finite exclamatory clauses consist of a finite verb form and
one of the exclamatory pronouns, determiners, adjectives, or adverbs which are also
used in exclamatory sentences (see § 6.35, exx. (a)–(g) + Supplement). Formally these
exclamatory words cannot be distinguished from the question words listed in § 6.19.
As a consequence, exclamatory clauses resemble interrogative clauses and in gram-
mars are often not treated as a separate clause type (see § 15.45).159
Examples of exclamatory clauses are (a)–(e), with a pronoun in (a), a determiner in
(b), a manner adverb in (c), and an adverb of degree modifying largus in (d).
(a) Videti’n viginti minae quid pollent quidve possunt?
(‘Can you see what power and what might twenty minas has?’ Pl. As. 636)
(b) Quae hic monstra fiunt anno vix possum eloqui.
(‘I could barely tell you in a year what apparitions take place here.’ Pl. Mos. 505)
(c) Vide palliolum ut rugat.
(‘Look how your cloak is all crumpled.’ Pl. Cas. 246—repeated from § 15.45)
159 See, however, Bodelot (2005) from whom most of the examples in this section have been taken.
(d) Audi’n hunc opera ut largus est nocturna?

(‘Can you hear how generous he is with his nightshift?’ Pl. As. 598)
The subordinate clauses in (a)–(d) do not refer to missing knowledge the addressee might
be interested in; rather, they draw attention to something in the communicative situation
that is surprising, unexpected, or extraordinary. The governing expressions make an
appeal to the addressee or show the involvement of the speaker. In Early Latin, the mood
in these clauses is regularly the indicative, as in the examples above. In fact, in several cases
omission of the governing expression would result in a correct independent exclamatory
sentence. Later on the subjunctive becomes ever more common (see § 7.133–5).
Supplement:
Papae, / audi’n tu ut deliramenta loquitur? (Pl. Men. 918–20); O scelera: illuc vide /
ut in ipso articulo oppressit. (Ter. Ad. 228–29); Non dici potest quam cupida eram
huc redeundi . . . (Ter. Hec. 91–2); Et vide quam conversa res est (sit cj. Lambinus):
illum quo antea confidebant metuunt, hunc amant quem timebant. (Cic. Att. 8.13.2);
Aspice venturo laetentur ut omnia saeclo! (Verg. Ecl. 4.52); Servilius atque Atilius,
proximi consules, vide quemadmodum eum ludificati sint. (Liv. 22.39.17); Vide
quam sit se contentus: aliquando sui parte contentus est. (Sen. Ep. 9.4)
15.90 Non-finite argument clauses

The non-finite verbal argument clauses will be discussed in the following sections in
an order that differs from that used in §§ 14.5–14: here the order will be according to
the traditional morphological classification of infinitives (§§ 15.91–131), participles
(§§ 15.132–4), gerunds (§§ 15.135–9), and gerundives (§§ 15.140–2).
15.91 Infinitival argument clauses
Two classes of infinitival argument clauses are distinguished: accusative and infinitive
(AcI) clauses and prolative infinitive clauses. The difference between the two classes
can be demonstrated with the three-place verb admoneo that allows both. In its mean-
ing ‘to advise or remind (that something is the case)’ it may govern an accusative and
infinitive clause, as in (a); in its meaning ‘to advise or recommend (to do something)’
it may govern a prolative infinitive clause, as in (b).
(a) Tantum te admonebo si illi absenti salutem dederis, praesentibus te his daturum.
(‘I will merely remind you that, if you grant life to the absent Ligarius you will grant
it to all these here present.’ Cic. Lig. 38)
(b) Nonne te . . . Quinta illa Claudia aemulam domesticae laudis . . . esse admonebat?
(‘Did not even that celebrated Quinta Claudia admonish you to emulate the praise
belonging to our house?’ Cic. Cael. 34)
Infinitival clauses 157
In (a), the infinitive daturum has its own subject te (which happens to be coreferential
with the addressee te of admonebo). In (b), by contrast, esse has no subject of its own;
its subject has to be inferred from te, the addressee of admonebat. Thus it is a type of
‘fused’ clause (see § 14.10). In (a), the infinitive is part of an accusative and infinitive
construction that as a whole functions as the third argument of admonebo, whereas in
(b) esse itself (with its subject complement aemulam) is the third argument of admone-
bat. Both have their passive counterpart with the addressee constituent as subject, as
in (c) and (d), respectively.
(c) . . . admonitus sum ab illo multo maiore auctoritate illis de rebus dici posse, si
ipse loquerer de re publica . . .
(‘It was suggested to me that a discourse on such subjects could be given with much
greater force if I spoke of the state in my own person.’ Cic. Q. fr. 3.5.1)
(d) . . . nostrique detrimento admonentur diligentius exploratis locis stationes
disponere . . .
(‘. . . and our own troops were taught by the disaster to post their pickets only after the
prospective locations had been reconnoitred more carefully.’ Hirt. Gal. 8.12.7)
The accusative and infinitive clause with admoneo is a declarative clause, and alterna-
tive finite clauses with quod are also attested for this verb (from Gaius onwards). The
prolative infinitive clause, by contrast, is an imperative clause, and ut clauses can also
be used with admoneo and in fact are more common.
. Accusative and infinitive clauses

For the internal structure of the accusative and infinitive clause, see § 14.8. The con-
tent of an AcI clause is declarative (but see § 15.100 (iii)), which explains the lack of
restrictions on its internal structure: even disjuncts are permitted. AcI clauses are very
common in all periods of Latin. Although the AcI is used with a large range of govern-
ing expressions, it is especially its use with verbs of communication that is responsible
for its high frequency in narrative texts.
. The functions of accusative and infinitive clauses
The AcI is used in four different argument positions:

(i) as subject with various so-called impersonal expressions160 and in the passive
counterparts of two-place active verbs that are found with the AcI as object;
(ii) as object with a variety of two-place verbs and expressions;
(iii) as object with a variety of three-place verbs;
(iv) as third argument with a number of so-called double accusative verbs, such
as admoneo ‘to advise’ and doceo ‘to teach’.
160 Some scholars deny that in this context the AcI has the function subject. For discussion, see Lavency
(2003: 102–9).
In addition, the AcI can be used with all sorts of preparative expressions, which is
sometimes called its explicative use.
The following sections (§§ 15.93–102) deal with the classes of governing expres-
sions with which the AcI is regular; the ordering is the same as for finite subordinate
clauses with quod and quia in §§ 15.5–21. In narrative texts or in narrative passages a
large proportion of accusative and infinitive clauses does not depend on a specific
governing verb.161 Examples are (a)–(d). In (a), repeated from § 14.25, the accusative
and infinitive in the main clause of the second sentence follows an imperative clause
governed by hortatur ac postulat. With hortor the accusative and infinitive is excep-
tional.162 In (b), the accusative and infinitive clause follows an indirect question gov-
erned by rogitantibus, which is not found with an accusative and infinitive clause (for
rogo, see § 15.100). In (c), it is likely that loquitur is used absolutely and does not
immediately govern the AcI (for loquor + AcI, see § 15.98). In (d), criminatus est gov-
erns a personal object (Q. Metellum) and is then continued by an AcI clause. See also
§ 14.25 for ‘free indirect discourse’.
(a) Pro quibus rebus hortatur ac postulat ut rem publicam suscipiant atque una
secum administrent. Sin timore defugiant illis se oneri non futurum et per se
rem publicam administraturum.
(‘For all these reasons he exhorted the senators and asked them to take charge of the
state and administer it with him. “But if fear makes you shirk the task, I will not be a
burden to you but will administer the state myself.” ’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.7)
(b) Ac plerisque rogitantibus dimissi ecquod feminis quoque asylum aperuis-
sent; id enim demum compar conubium fore.
(‘And they were dismissed by numerous people asking if they had opened a sanctuary
for women as well as for men, for in that way only would they obtain suitable wives.’
Liv. 1.9.5)
(c) Audiente utroque exercitu loquitur Afranius: non esse aut ipsis aut militibus
suscensendum, quod fidem erga imperatorem suum Cn. Pompeium con-
servare voluerint.
(‘While each army was listening, Afranius spoke: he said that they shouldn’t be angry
with them or their soldiers because they wanted to keep their loyalty to their general
Cn. Pompeius.’ Caes. Civ. 1.84.3)
(d) C. Marius, cum a spe consulatus longe abesset et iam septimum annum post
praeturam iaceret neque petiturus umquam consulatum videretur, Q. Metellum,
cuius legatus erat, summum virum et civem, cum ab eo, imperatore suo,
Romam missus esset, apud populum Romanum criminatus est. Bellum illum
ducere. Si se consulem fecissent, brevi tempore aut vivum aut mortuum
Iugurtham se in potestatem populi Romani redacturum.
161 See Sznajder (2001b: 613–18). In a corpus analysed by her the majority of accusative and infinitive
clauses are not governed by verbs and expressions that regularly allow the accusative and infinitive clause.
162 Such an exception is Verg. A. 2.33. For instances of continuation of hortor with an AcI, see TLL s.v.
3012.4f. With postulo the accusative and infinitive is not uncommon (see § 15.100).
(‘When Gaius Marius was far removed from any hope of gaining the consulship and
was in obscurity in what was already the seventh year after his praetorship and it
appeared that he would never seek the office of consul, when he was sent to Rome by
his commander Quintus Metellus’ order, before the Roman people he lodged an
accusation against Metellus, a great man and citizen, under whom he was a lieuten-
ant. That man was prolonging the war; if they would make him consul, then within a
short time he would deliver Jugurtha alive or dead into the hands of the Roman
People.’ Cic. Off. 3.79)
What these examples have in common is that the notion of communication is present
in the immediately preceding context, and the AcI clauses reflect what the speaker(s)
said: we are dealing with some form of independent or free indirect speech.
However, it is important to realize that indirect speech is only one of the uses of
accusative and infinitive clauses. When, for example, an AcI functions as the sub-
ject of a verb of happening (see § 15.94), the notion of indirect speech does not
apply at all.
15.94 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and
expressions of happening and befalling or causing to happen
Accusative and infinitive clauses are rare with verbs and expressions of happening.
Examples are (a) and (b). Ut clauses are the regular expression (see §15.27).
(a) Nimis opportune mi evenit rediisse Alcesimarchum.
(‘It’s a very convenient coincidence for me that Alcesimarchus has come back.’ Pl.
Cist. 309)
(b) Videte igitur quam inique accidat, quia res indigna sit, ideo turpem existimatio-
nem sequi; quia turpis existimatio sequatur, ideo rem indignam non vindicari.
(‘See, then, how iniquitously it happens, that because an action is infamous, therefore
a discreditable reputation should attach to it, but because a loss of reputation would
ensue, for that reason a scandalous action is not punished.’ Cic. Caec. 8)
Illud vero mihi permirum accidit tantam temeritatem fuisse in eo adulescente . . . (Cic.
Fam. 3.10.5); Ceterum Tiberio haud ingratum accidit turbari res Orientis. (Tac. Ann.
2.5.1); Sed inpuberes quidem in tutela esse omnium civitatium iure contingit. (Gaius
Inst. 1.189); Evenerat autem isdem diebus . . . Adonea ritu vetere celebrari . . . (Amm.
22.9.15); Ex qua mea disputatione forsitan occurrat illud . . . non posse ea quae inter
se discrepant eisdem praeceptis atque una institutione formari. (Cic. de Orat. 3.34)
The accusative and infinitive construction is also found as object with the verbs of
causation facio and efficio; however, ut clauses are much more common (see § 15.75).
Examples are (c) and (d). This use of facio is very common in translations of the
Bible.163 In some (late) instances the use of facio and efficio resembles that of iubeo, as
163 See Thielmann (1886: 180–91), TLL s.v. facio 115.37ff., Heine (1990: 6), and Hoffmann (2008; 2014;
2016a: 49–52). For the non-relatedness with Romance causative expressions, see Vincent (2016).
in (e). With these verbs the nominative and infinitive construction (see § 15.111)
seems to be excluded. In other contexts, facio means more or less fingo, as in (f).164
(c) . . . desiderium marcescere facit volucres . . .
(‘. . . the longing makes the birds grow thin . . .’ Var. R. 3.5.3)
(d) . . . calida umoris ieiunitas . . . vehementer efficit ea coire . . .
(‘. . . the hot desiccation . . . causes them to combine vehemently . . .’ Vitr. 2.6.4)
(e) . . . quem digredientem post epulas hospitalis officii sanctitate nefarie violata
trucidari securum effecit.165
(‘. . . as he (sc. Gabinius) was departing after the feast and suspected no treachery,
Marcellianus, with abominable violation of the sacred duties of hospitality, had him
murdered.’ Amm. 29.6.5)
(f) . . . nuper fecit servo currenti in via / decesse populum . . .
(‘. . . who recently portrayed a crowd making way for a running slave in the street . . .’
Ter. Hau. 31–2)
Supplement:
Si timuisse eos facis qui discesserunt, concede non timuisse eos qui remanserunt.
(Cic. Dom. 10);166 . . . nulla res magis . . . tales . . . oratores videri facit quales . . . (Cic.
Brut. 142); Quin ipsum Isocratem, quem divinus auctor Plato suum fere aequalem
admirabiliter in Phaedro laudari fecit ab Socrate . . . (Cic. Opt. Gen. 17); Quem tamen
Homerus apud inferos conveniri facit ab Ulixe . . . (Cic. N.D. 3.41); . . . quod faciat nos /
vivere cum sensu . . . (Lucr. 3.100–1); Facit . . . capitis gravitatem . . . sudoresque frigi-
dos manare. (Larg. 180); . . . et factum est illi venire Alexandrie con tirones
et me reliquid con matrem meam . . . (CEL 146.21–3 (Karanis, c. ad 115)—NB: illi
is a dative instead of an accusative);167 Tutores et curatores . . . satisdare debere verba
edicti faciunt. (Gaius Inst. 4.99); Nam et in evangelio Mathei (sc. 5.32): qui dimiserit,
inquit, uxorem suam praeter causam adulterii, facit eam adulterari. (Tert. Marc.
4.34.6—NB: .ztpś lß~ÿx wztpsōxlt); Haec omnia mixta . . . defervere facies. (Mulom.
Chir. 158)
Quidam debitor epistulam quasi a Titio mitti creditori suo effecit, ut ipse liberetur.
(Ulp. dig. 4.3.38); . . . ut instar ducis rerum experientia clari ad arbitrium suum audiri
efficeret causas. (Amm. 19.12.5)
15.95 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with accedit ‘to be
added to’ or ‘to constitute an addition to’
There is only one attestation of the use of the AcI with the verb accedit, viz. (a). Quod
clauses are the norm (§15.6).
a) Quod superest, nescio morum gloriae an indignationis dolori accedat inter
tot Metellos tam sceleratam C. Atini audaciam semper fuisse inultam.
164 See TLL s.v. facio 117.82ff. 165 So Thielmann (1886: 191–206).
166 For these instances, see Thielmann (1886: 177–80). 167 See Adams (1977: 63–4).
(‘For the rest I know not whether it adds to the credit of our morals or to the anguish
of our indignation that among so many Metelli that criminal audacity of Gaius
Atinius for ever went unpunished.’ Plin. Nat. 7.146)
15.96 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject or object with verbs and
expressions meaning ‘to leave unmentioned’
The accusative and infinitive clause is occasionally used with expressions meaning ‘to
leave unmentioned’. An example is (a). Quod clauses are the norm, for which see § 15.7.
(a) Etsi paene praeterii chartam tibi deesse.
(‘Although I almost failed to mention that you are short on paper.’ Cic. Att. 5.4.4)
Supplement:
. . . mitto cupiditate matris expulsam ex matrimonio filiam. (Cic. Clu. 188); Nec illud
praeteribo, aspidum naturae halicacabum in tantum adversam ut . . . (Plin. Nat. 21.182)
15.97 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions
of emotion
The AcI is found with verbs and expressions of emotion from Early Latin onward,
both as the object, as with gaudeo in (a), and as the subject, as with pudeat te in (b),
and with the neuter singular adjective iucundum in (c). From the same time on, finite
clauses with quod and other subordinators are found as well, but these are less com-
mon in Early and Classical Latin: they make up less than 10 per cent of the total num-
ber of subordinate clauses dependent on this class of verbs (see § 15.8). For subject
infinitives with the impersonal verbs of emotion, see § 15.129.
(a) Placiturum tibi esse librum II suspicabar, tam valde placuisse quam scribis
valde gaudeo.
(‘I thought you would like Book II, but I’m very glad you liked it so very much as you
say in your letter.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.8.1)
(b) . . . pudeat te ausum illum umquam esse incedere tamquam tuum competitorem.
(‘. . . you would be ashamed that he ever dared to parade as your competitor.’ Cael.
Fam. 8.9.1)
(c) Qua in re non tam iucundum mihi videri debuit non interfectum <me> a te
quam miserum te id impune facere potuisse.
(‘In this affair the fact that I was not killed by you was necessarily not so pleasing to
me as the thought that you could have done so with impunity was lamentable.’ Cic.
Phil. 2.5)

. . . id nunc his cerebrum uritur, me esse hos trecentos Philippos facturum lucri. (Pl.
Poen. 770–1); Crucior bolum tantum mi ereptum tam desubito e faucibus. (Ter. Hau.
673); Ego te afuisse tam diu a nobis et dolui, quod carui fructu iucundissimae con-
suetudinis, et laetor, quod absens omnia cum maxima dignitate es consecutus
quodque in omnibus tuis rebus meis optatis Fortuna respondit. (Cic. Fam.
2.1.2); . . . Hoc tibi non invideo, caruisse te pulcherrimo spectaculo . . . (Cic. Fam.
8.4.1); . . . laetor tandem longi erroris vobis finem factum esse . . . (Liv. 5.3.3); Istuc tibi
ex sententia tua obtigisse laetor. (Ter. Hau. 683); Maiorum optenui laudem, ut
sibei me esse creatum / laetentur. (CIL I2.15.6–7 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.135
bc?)); . . . qui eam (sc. patriam) nimium tarde concidere maererent. (Cic. Sest. 25);
Sed ut maestus est sese hasc’ vendidisse. (Pl. Mos. 796); . . . populi Romani exercitum
hiemare atque inveterascere in Gallia moleste ferebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.1.3); Vitio
mihi dant quod mortem hominis necessari graviter fero atque eum quem dilexi per-
isse indignor. (Mat. Fam. 11.28.2)
Iuvat me haec praeclara nomina artificum, quae isti ad caelum ferunt, Verris aesti-
matione sic concidisse. (Cic. Ver. 4.12); Nec vero paenitere potest rem publicam me
pro eo spopondisse . . . (Cic. ad Brut. 26.4); . . . simul me piget parum pudere te. (Pl.
Trin. 661); Pudet prodire me ad te in conspectum, pater. (Pl. Bac. 1007); Dolet
pudetque Graium me et vero piget. (Acc. trag. 471); Carthaginienses . . . ita pigebat
inriti incepti, pudebatque adeo se spretos ut . . . (Liv. 26.37.6)
The accusative and infinitive construction is also the usual one with the verbs queror
and conqueror ‘to complain’ and glorior ‘to boast’, which denote the verbal manifest-
ation of an emotion (for quod, see § 15.8, exx. (f) and (g) + Supplement).
(d) Nam quod se similem esse Catilinae gloriari solet, scelere par est illi, indus-
tria inferior.
(‘For as to the fact that he is accustomed to boast of being like Catilina, he is equal to
him in wickedness, but inferior in energy.’ Cic. Phil. 4.15)
Iam vero quomodo ego illam labem ignominiam calamitatemque totius ordinis con-
querar, hoc factum esse in hac civitate . . . (Cic. Ver. 40); . . . (sc. homines) qui glorian-
tur se talem habuisse civem . . . (August. Civ. 1.152); Questus est libertum suum Flacco
praetore esse damnatum. (Cic. Flac. 87)
15.98 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions of
perception, cognition, and communication
From Early Latin onward, the accusative and infinitive clause is the regular argument
clause with two-place verbs and expressions of perception and cognition, and with
two- and three-place verbs of communication (the traditional Latin term for these
classes of verbs is verba sentiendi et dicendi (sometimes declarandi)).
(i) When with a perception verb the accusative and infinitive clause refers to a state
of affairs that is actually perceived as going on at the moment of perception, the infini-
tive is either a present infinitive or a perfect infinitive indicating a state resulting from
an anterior action. Examples are (a) and (b). Note in (b) the parallelism of the perfect
infinitive versa (sc. esse) and the present infinitive ferre.
(a) Non ego te modo hic ante aedis . . . / vidi astare?
(‘Didn’t I see you standing here in front of the house . . . just now?’ Pl. Men. 632–3)
(b) . . . (sc. vestigia) omnia foras versa vidit nec in partem aliam ferre . . .
(‘. . . he saw that they were all turned outward and yet did not lead to any other place . . .’
Liv. 1.7.6)
Supplement:
Audio: Audivisti’n tu me narrare haec hodie? (Pl. Am. 747); Audi’n illum? # Ego vero
ac falsum dicere. (Pl. Am. 755—NB: this is a nice illustration of the immediateness of
the perception: hearing someone doing something implies hearing that person);
Numquam audivi in Epicuri schola Lycurgum, Solonem . . . Epaminondam nomi-
nari . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.67); . . . ut Catonem dicere audivi . . . (Cic. Amic. 76); . . . satis
lubenter te ausculto loqui. (Pl. Ps. 523a)
Sentio: . . . aestuosas sentio aperiri fores . . . (Pl. Truc. 350); Postquam se amari sen-
sit . . . (Petr. 91.7); . . . ubi (sc. sepiae) sensere se adprehendi . . . (Plin. Nat. 9.84); . . . invidia
animalis mori se sentientis. (Plin. Nat. 37.158); . . . validiorem fieri se sentiat. (Plin.
Nat. 20.80); Sensit immensa vi quadam urgente morborum ultimae necessitatis
adesse praescripta . . . (Amm. 30.6.6)
Video: Ut si illic concriminatus sit advorsum militem / meus conservos, eam vidisse
hic cum alieno osculari . . . (Pl. Mil. 242–3); . . . quos semper videas bibentes168 esse in
thermopolio . . . (Pl. Cur. 292); Interea intro ire neminem / video, exire neminem.
(Ter. An. 363–4); Video’n ego Getam currentem huc advenire? / Is est ipsus. (Ter. Ph.
177–8); . . . videmus ex acie efferri saepe saucios . . . (Cic. Tusc. 2.38); M. . . .
Cethegum . . . quanto studio exerceri in dicendo videbamus etiam senem. (Cic. Sen.
50); . . . quorum alterum sedere in accusatorum subselliis video . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 17); . . .
ut per quietem solet, videbat coniugem suam absentem sedere . . . (Amm. 30.5.18)
Quid vos maestos tam tristesque esse conspicor? (Pl. Bac. 669)
In such contexts, the accusative and infinitive clause is to some extent in competition
with an entirely different construction in which someone perceives an entity while
that entity is engaged in a certain state of affairs, as in (c).
(c) Quis hic est quem astantem video ante ostium?
(‘But who’s this I see standing in front of the door?’ Pl. Bac. 451)
Here quem, the object of the perception verb video, is expanded by the present parti-
ciple astantem, which functions as a secondary predicate (the so-called accusative
and participle construction—see § 21.8). Although instances like (c) are seman-
tically close, they differ structurally from the accusative and infinitive construction.
There are also contexts in which the accusative and participle construction is excluded,
for example, when the embedded clause is passive: Latin has no present passive parti-
ciple. The instances with a participle usually do not contain many additional constitu-
ents and are therefore usually simpler than those with an accusative and infinitive.169
However, most instances of accusative and infinitive clauses with perception verbs
do not refer to actual perception, but rather to knowledge and reflection based on
168 This is not an instance of a periphrastic construction. See § 7.79.

169 For a discussion of the differences between the two constructions, see Greco (2013), with references.
some form of perception.170 This is certainly the case when the infinitive in the AcI
clause refers to an anterior or to a posterior event, as in (d) and (e), respectively, but it
is also quite common when the clause has a present infinitive, as in (f). The governing
verbs function de facto as cognition verbs, which explains why in the Latin terminology
the two classes are not distinguished (verba sentiendi). As such, they behave like verbs
such as disco ‘to learn’, cognosco ‘to get to know’, and lego ‘to read’.
(d) P. Clodium, Appi f., credo te audisse cum veste muliebri deprehensum domi
C. Caesaris . . .
(‘I imagine you will have heard that P. Clodius, son of Appius, was caught dressed up
as a woman in C. Caesar’s house . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.12.3)
(e) In hac discordia video Cn. Pompeium senatum quique res iudicant secum
habiturum . . .
(‘In the present quarrel I see that Cn. Pompeius will have with him the Senate and the
people who sit on juries . . .’ Cic. Fam. 8.14.3)
(f) Nam ego illum audivi in amore haerere apud nescio quam fidicinam.
(‘I’ve heard that he is fixated on a love affair with some lyre girl or other.’ Pl. Epid. 191)
Supplement:
Audio: Postquam ante ostium / me audivit stare, adproperat. (Ter. An. 474–5); . . . hunc
audiebant antea, nunc praesentem vident tanta temperantia (sc. esse) . . . (Cic. Man.
13); Audivi ex maioribus natu hoc idem fuisse in P. Scipione Nasica . . . (Cic. Off.
1.109—NB: source of information added); . . . longius eum progressum audiebat
neque ulla de reditu eius fama adferebatur . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.36.1); Audimus quidem te
omne munus consulis obisse, sed audimus. (Plin. Pan. 59.3)
Sentio: Fac te patrem esse sentiat. (Ter. Hau. 925); Sentiri haec putat, ut calere ignem,
nivem esse albam, dulce mel. (Cic. Fin. 1.30); . . . nihil adpetunt, nulla re egent, nihil
sibi deesse sentiunt, nihil requirunt. (Cic. Parad. 52); Falsa haec esse Pompei et
Herculaneum sensere. (Sen. Nat. 6.26.4)
Video: Video hercle ego te me arbitrari, Euclio, hominem idoneum / quem senecta
aetate ludos facias . . . (Pl. Aul. 252–3); . . . videbat re publica oppressa nihil posse
decerni. (Cic. Phil. 8.5); Nonne ad servos videtis rem venturam fuisse? (Cic. Sest. 47);
Sumam annum tertium, quod et recentissimus est et ab isto ita administratus ut cum
se certe decessurum videret, non laboraret, si aratorem in Sicilia nullum omnino
esset relicturus. (Cic. Ver. 3.104); . . . sophistas . . . lusos videmus a Socrate. (Cic. Fin.
2.2); . . . etsi nullum consecuturum emolumentum vident. (Cic. Fin. 2.45); . . . (sc.
homines) ea perferant quae Philoctetam videmus in fabulis. (Cic. Fin. 5.32); . . . nos-
tros victores flumen transisse conspexerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.24.2)
(ii) Verbs and expressions of cognition cover a wide range of mental activities.
Examples with a present, future, and perfect infinitive are (g)–(i), respectively. With
verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving, etc., such as statuo, an imperative ut
clause is possible as well—see § 15.76.
170 See Bolkestein (1976b: 283–8).

(g) . . . qui omnis se amare credit . . .

(‘. . . who believes that all women . . . fall in love with him . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1391)
(h) Non mihi censebas copiam argenti fore . . .?
(‘You didn’t think I’d have a lot of money, did you?’ Pl. Per. 415)
(i) . . . scit peperisse iam, ut ego opinor, / filiam suam.
(‘. . . he already knows his daughter’s given birth.’ Pl. Aul. 729–9a)
Non ego istuc facinus mi, mulier, conducibile esse arbitror. (Pl. Bac. 52); Hoc facto
proelio Caesar neque iam sibi legatos audiendos neque condiciones accipiendas arbi-
trabatur ab iis . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.13.1); Hunc censebat te esse, credo, quom vocat te ad
prandium. (Pl. Men. 1136); . . . confido parasitum hodie adventurum / cum argento
ad me. (Pl. Cur. 143–4); Si id quod dari stipulamur tale sit ut dari non possit, inutilis
est stipulatio, velut si quis hominem liberum, quem servum esse credebat, aut mor-
tuum, quem vivum esse credebat, aut locum sacrum vel religiosum, quem putabat
humani iuris esse, dari stipuletur. (Gaius Inst. 3.97); . . . nihil in eo nisi frugalitatem,
laborem, vigilantiam esse curamus . . . (Cic. Planc. 62); Uxorem decrerat dare sese mi
hodie: nonne oportuit / praescisse me ante? (Ter. An. 238–9); Quam porro quis igno-
miniam . . . ut effugiat dolorem, si id summum malum esse decreverit? (Cic. Tusc.
2.16); Eos me decretum est persequi mores patris. (Pl. As. 73); . . . relinquitur intel-
lectui nostro non dubitare hoc esse proprium angelicae potestatis . . . (Tert. Carn. Chr.
6.10);171 Nam si periclum ullum in te inest, perisse me una haud dubium’st. (Ter. Hec.
326); Non ego illam mihi dotem duco esse quae dos dicitur . . . (Pl. Am. 839); Iam vero
eo magis illi maturandum iter existimabant. (Caes. Civ. 1.63.1); . . . cum exspectaret
effusos omnibus portis Aetolos in fidem suam venturos . . . (Liv. 43.22.2); Quin ipsum
Isocratem, quem divinus auctor Plato . . . admirabiliter in Phaedro laudari fecit ab
Socrate . . . (Cic. Opt. Gen. 17—NB: see also § 15.93); . . . his vocabulis esse deos faci-
mus? (Cic. N.D. 1.83—NB: facimus ‘we assume’); Non me fugit, iudices, vetera exem-
pla pro fictis fabulis iam audiri atque haberi. (Cic. Ver. 3.182); Quis enim haec cernens
et statos siderum (quoniam ita appellare placuit) labores non suae necessitati mor-
tales genitos ignoscat? (Plin. Nat. 2.55); Villam integundam intellego totam
mihi . . . (Pl. Rud. 101); . . . inveniebat ex captivis Sabim flumen a castris suis non amplius
milibus passuum X abesse. (Caes. Gal. 2.16.1); Memoria teneo Milesiam quandam
mulierem . . . rei capitalis esse damnatam. (Cic. Clu. 32); Nunc si filiam locassim
meam tibi, in mentem venit / te bovem esse et me esse asellum. (Pl. Aul. 228–9);
Ecquid in mentem est tibi / patrem tibi esse? (Pl. Bac. 161–2); Iam pridem equidem
istuc scivi et miratus fui / neminem venire . . . ( Pl. Poen. 1347–8); Obliviscor enim
Roscium et Cluvium viros esse primarios. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 50); . . . ne senatus popu-
lusque Romanus in eam civitatem animadvertendum putaret. (Cic. Ver. 1.68); Roga
me viginti minas, / ut me effecturum tibi quod promisi scias. (Pl. Ps. 114–15); In
summa sciendum est, quod lege Aelia Sentia cautum sit, ut creditorum fraudando-
rum causa manumissi liberi non fiant, [hoc etiam ad peregrinos pertinere], [senatus
171 For the use of accusative and infinitive clauses with non dubito in Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903:
50–1= 1985: 103).
ita censuit ex auctoritate Hadriani] cetera vero iura eius legis ad peregrinos non per-
tinere. (Gaius Inst. 1.47); Id me insimulatam perperam falsum esse somniavi. (Pl.
Mil. 392); . . . te speras modo / potesse dissimulando infectum hoc reddere. (Pl. Mos.
1014–15); Occasione / inventa spero me celerius aput te venturum (CEL
147.9–11 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); . . . proprium hoc statuo esse virtutis, conciliare
animos hominum et ad usus suos adiungere. (Cic. Off. 2.17)
NB: . . . nec adducar aut in extis totam Etruriam delirare aut eandem gentem in fulgo-
ribus errare aut fallaciter portenta interpretari . . . (Cic. Div. 1.35—with TLL s.v.
602.59ff. one may understand a prolative infinitive like putare ‘to think’ with adducar
(see § 15.118))
(iii) The term communication is here used in a wider sense, comprising both verbs
which indicate the production of an utterance, such as clamo ‘to shout’ (a two-place
verb) and verbs that indicate the transfer of information to an addressee, such as dico
‘to tell’ (a three-place verb). Many verbs and expressions of the latter type allow both
a declarative and an imperative clause. The accusative and infinitive is used when the
clause is declarative. For imperative ut clauses with verbs and expressions of advising,
warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc., see § 15.68. Examples of accusa-
tive and infinitive clauses with these verbs are ( j)–(l), with a present, future, and per-
fect infinitive, respectively. Some verbs of transfer can also function as communication
verbs, like addo, as in (m). Often the notion of communication is implied by the con-
text, as in (n).172
( j) Ibo intro et dicam te hic astare Erotio . . .
(‘I’ll go inside and tell Erotium that you’re standing here . . .’ Pl. Men. 331)
(k) Iura te non nociturum esse homini de hac re nemini . . .
(‘Swear that you won’t harm anyone for this . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1411)
(l) . . . post id si prehensi simus, excusemus ebrios / nos fecisse amoris causa.
(‘. . . if we were caught afterwards, we could say as an excuse that we did so while
drunk and out of love.’ Pl. Aul. 749–50)
(m) Mercator hoc addebat: e praedonibus / unde emerat se audisse abreptam e
Sunio.
(‘The merchant added this, that he had heard from the pirates from whom he had
bought her that she had been kidnapped from Sunium.’ Ter. Eu. 114–15)
(n) Ostendit sese iam mihi medullitus: / se mi infidelem numquam, dum vivat,
fore.
(‘She revealed herself to me from the depths of her heart: that she’ll never be unfaith-
ful to me for as long as she lives.’ Pl. Truc. 439–40)
Summam spem . . . nuntiabant fore ut . . . Addebant etiam me desiderari, subaccusari.
(Cic. Att. 16.6.4); Ille adicit ab eodem scriptore, si locus umectus sit, ibi cacumina
populorum serenda et harundinetum. (Var. R. 1.24.4); Ille autem affirmat coniugem
172 For more instances in Early Latin, see Bennett: I.383.

esse adulteram . . . (Phaed. 3.3.9); Is ait se mihi allaturum cum argento marsuppium.
(Pl. Men. 1043); Omnis res gestas esse Athenis autumant . . . (Pl. Men. 8); Ecce autem
maxima voce clamat populus neque se uni neque paucis velle parere. (Cic. Rep.
1.55); . . . cum aliquid, quod contra dicatur, aequum esse concedimus . . . (Cic. Inv.
1.96); . . . in novissima parte corporis totum me periturum deflebam. (Apul. Met.
7.24.1); Cingetorigi, quem ab initio permansisse in officio demonstravimus, princi-
patus atque imperium est traditum. (Caes. Gal. 6.8.9); P. Clodium meo consilio inter-
fectum esse dixisti. (Cic. Phil. 2.21); Nec enim hunc ipsum mundum pro certo
rutundum esse dicitis . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.48—NB: pro certo is a disjunct); Tandem hic
exclamat eum / sibi esse sodalem. (Pl. Capt. 510–10a); Fateor eam esse importunam
atque incommodam. (Pl. As. 62); Hisce eum tragoediis liberatum ferebat (sc.
Rutilius). (Cic. de Orat. 1.228); . . . me discedere flevit . . . (Verg. Ecl. 3.78); Et Celsus
inquit vino legato, etiamsi non sit legatum cum vasis, vasa quoque legata videri . . .
(Ulp. dig. 33.6.3.1);173 Loquebantur omnes tamen (credo, quod volebant) in Syria te
esse, habere copias. (Cic. Fam. 12.5.1); Iuppiter e terra genitam mentitur, ut auctor /
desinat inquiri. (Ov. Met. 1.615–16—NB: subject of AcI is implicit); <Ille> aute<m>
negavit se habere aspros. (CEL 141.9 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); . . . sed etiam puer
ipse sibi persuasit te omnia mea causa facturum esse . . . (Cic. Fam. 13.61.1); Itaque
tantum verbo posuit Sacerdote praetore Sthenium litteras publicas corrupisse.
(Cic. Ver. 2.93); praecipiendum habeo, stercus omne . . . segetibus esse maxime
utile . . . (Colum. 2.14.9); Promitto tibi non offuturum, si id hodie effeceris. (Pl. As.
97–8—NB: subject of AcI is implicit); Is nunc ducentos nummos Philippos militi, /
quos dare se promisit, dabit. (Pl. Bac. 969–70); Illud . . . His ego iudicibus non probabo
C. Verrem contra leges pecuniam cepisse? (Cic. Ver. 1.10); Et hunc planius (cj. Storr-
Best) locutum esse Latine quam Hirr[i]um praetorem renuntiatum Romam in
senatum scriptum habemus. (Var. R. 2.5.5); Hospes respondit Zacynthi ficos fieri
non malas. (Pl. Mer. 943); Vincone argumentis te non esse Sosiam? (Pl. Am. 433)
NB: facio = fingo: . . . quem tamen Homerus apud inferos conveniri facit ab Ulixe . . .
(Cic. N.D. 3.41); Si timuisse eos facis qui discesserunt, concede non timuisse eos qui
remanserunt. (Cic. Dom. 10)174
With three-place verbs that have a double accusative pattern, such as admoneo and doceo
(see § 4.72), the third argument may be an accusative and infinitive clause. Examples are
(o) and (p). In the passive the second argument becomes the subject, as is shown by (q)
and (r). (With both verbs an imperative clause is possible as well—see § 15.68.)
(o) Docuerunt enim me periti homines . . . ad Volusium traferri nomen a Valerio
non potuisse.
(‘Experts informed me . . . that the debt could not be transferred from Valerius to
Volusius.’ Cic. Fam. 5.20.3)
(p) Hi, ut dico, hominem admonent rem esse praeclaram . . .
(‘These persons, I say, pointed out to him that the property was a very noble one . . .’
Cic. Ver. 2.36)
173 The use of the AcI with inquam is rare. See TLL s.v. inquam 1778.67ff.
174 For these instances, see Thielmann (1886: 177–80).
(q) (sc. Romani) . . . docti . . . a ducibus erant horridum militem esse debere, non
caelatum auro et argento sed ferro et animis fretum.
(‘The Romans had been taught by their generals that a soldier should be rough to
look on, not adorned with gold and silver but putting his trust in iron and in courage.’
Liv. 9.40.4)
(r) . . . admonitus sum ab illo . . . illis de rebus dici posse . . .
(‘. . . I was told by him that concerning these matters it could be said . . .’ Cic. Q. fr. 3.5.1)

Certiorem te faciunt P. Africanum Carthagine deleta simulacrum Dianae maioribus
suis restituisse . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.80); Primum vos docuit meis consiliis rem publicam
esse servatam . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 16); Mittitur et magni Venulus Diomedis ad urbem /
qui petat auxilium, et Latio consistere Teucros, / advectum Aenean classi victosque
penatis / inferre et fatis regem se dicere posci / edoceat . . . (Verg. A. 8.9–13); . . .
monete eum modum quendam esse religionis . . . (Cic. Dom. 105); Fabius inpedimentis
in locum tutum remotis . . . praemonitis militibus adesse certamen quadrato agmine
ad praedictas hostium latebras succedit. (Liv. 10.14.7)
In the same way the three-place verb persuadeo is found with a dative addressee and
either a prolative infinitive, when meaning ‘to succeed in urging’ (see § 15.118), or an
accusative and infinitive clause, when meaning ‘to induce acceptance of (a statement)’
(OLD). Examples of the latter are (s) and (t). In (s) the AcI clause is the object of per-
suadere; in (t), the subject of persuasum sit.
(s) Cum vero hoc nemini persuadere possis, te tam amentem fuisse ut . . .
(‘Since you can’t persuade anyone of this, that you were so insane as to. . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.91)
(t) Ecquis est iudex cui non . . . persuasum sit istum in aratorum bona fortunasque
impetum fecisse?
(‘Is there one member of this Court who has not been convinced that he (sc. Verres)
made a violent assault on the property and livelihood of the farmers?’ Cic. Ver. 3.142)
Occasionally—in later Latin—communication verbs are found governing an accusa-
tive and infinitive clause that has to be understood as a command; in such cases the
infinitive is present passive (see also § 15.100 (iii)). An example is (u).175
(u) . . . (sc. mulier) subiungi machinae novicium clamabat asinum . . .
(‘. . . the woman shouted that the newly purchased donkey should be yoked
to the mill-wheel . . .’ Apul. Met. 9.15.1)
Exceptional active infinitive: in quam rem legatos ire / dixerunt universos

ordinis viros (CIL VI.1685.13–14 (Rome, ad 321)).
Appendix: With the verbs discussed in this section poets especially (but already
Plautus) sometimes use a prolative infinitive construction, instead of an accusative
and infinitive clause with a subject that is coreferential with the subject of the governing
175 Sz.: 355 calls this the ‘voluntative use’ of verba sentiendi and dicendi. For Apuleius’ usage, see Callebat
(1968: 306–8).
verb. Examples are (v) and (w). This is usually taken as a Graecism, but it can also be
understood as an extension of the use of the prolative infinitive on the analogy of
verbs of wishing and striving (see §§ 15.122–3).176 Some scholars use the term ‘nom-
inative and infinitive’ also for these instances.177
(v) (sc. minae) . . . quas hodie adulescens Diabolus ipsi daturus (sc. esse) dixit . . .
(‘. . . which young Diabolus said he’d give to her today . . .’ Pl. As. 634—NB:
daturus P, daturum M, many scholars reject -us)
(w) Phaselus ille quem videtis, hospites, / ait fuisse navium celerrimus (cj.
Parthenius; -um OGR) . . .
(‘The pinnace you see, my friends, says that she was once the fleetest of
ships . . .’ Catul. 4.1–2)
Supplement:
Altera (sc. puella) non fama dixerit esse prior. (Verg. Cat. 9.24); Sabinus ille quem
videtis, hospites, / ait fuisse mulio celerrimus . . . (Verg. Cat. 10.1–2); Vir bonus et
sapiens dignis ait esse paratus . . . (Hor. Ep. 1.7.22); Iurabo bis sex integer esse dies.
(Prop. 3.6.40); . . . rettulit Aiax / esse Iovis pronepos . . . (Ov. Met. 13.141–2); . . . ventu-
raque (sc. esse) rauco ore minatur hiems . . . (Stat. Theb. 1.347–8); . . . quoad summos
illi promitterent honores habituri (sc. esse) mihi. (Apul. Met. 7.14.3); Felix cum et
domus tuae cultor esse diceret . . . (Symm. Ep. 9.56)
(sc. vox) . . . quam ego non sine admiratione et, cum diceretur, audisse memini et
deinde aliis narrasse . . . (Sen. Cl. 2.1.1)178
Different from the instances discussed above are combinations of a verb that normally
governs an AcI with a perfect participle which agrees with the subject of the verb. The
first attested instance of a verb of perception is (x); of a verb of communication, (y).
It is also attested with other verbs, as in (z), where it is not clearly distinct from the
use of participles as secondary predicate (see § 21.7).179 The use of the participle with
these verbs is common in Greek.180
(x) Dixit, et extemplo (neque enim responsa dabantur / fida satis) sensit medios
delapsus in hostis.
(‘He spoke, and at once—for no reply that he could well trust was offered—
he realized that he had fallen into the midst of foes.’ Verg. A. 2.376–7—NB:
Gr. ĝ}sp~z §w.p}x)
(y) (sc. ianua) . . . pulsata indignis saepe queror manibus . . .
(‘I complain that I have oft been battered by ill-bred hands . . .’ Prop. 1.16.6)
(z) Gaudent perfusi sanguine fratrum . . .
(‘They take joy in being covered in brothers’ blood . . .’ Verg. G. 2.510)
176 See the discussion in Calboli (2009: 121–30), with references. Norberg (1943: 46–63) has the fullest
discussion of the relationship between these instances and other expressions where Greek influence is
unlikely or excluded.
177 For example, Sz.: 365. 178 For this and similar cases, see Haverling (1988: 248–9).
179 For further instances of gaudeo, see TLL s.v. 1709.63ff., also with present participles.
180 See K.-G.: II.50ff.
Supplement:
Superata fateri / cogor opemque tuam timidis exposcere votis. (Ov. Met. 9.545–6); Si
libidinosa essem, quererer decepta. Nunc etiam languori tuo gratias ago. (Petr.
129.4); Invidiae nefariae letali plaga percussi sero sentitis. (Apul. Met. 4.34.4)
Quo nunc Turnus ovat spolio gaudetque potitus. (Verg. A. 10.500); Iniecta mon-
stris terra dolet suis . . . (Hor. Carm. 3.4.73)
15.99 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with verbs and expressions
of praising, blaming, and thanking
The accusative and infinitive is found with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming,
congratulating, and thanking, although in Classical Latin a quod clause is more com-
mon (see § 15.10; also § 15.23 for cum (quom) clauses). The use of the accusative and
infinitive is especially rare when the person who is praised or blamed is identified
explicitly or implied by the context. (For verbs of accusing and convicting, see § 15.130.)
(a) . . . neque ille haud obiciet mihi / pedibus sese provocatum.
(‘. . . and he shan’t throw at me that he was challenged to a footrace.’ Pl. Epid. 664–5)
(b) Gratulor nobis Quintum filium exisse.
(‘I congratulate ourselves that young Quintus has gone out of town.’ Cic. Att. 15.22)
With the person praised or blamed expressed: Boeotis exprobratum societatem eos
cum Perseo iunxisse. (Liv. 42.38.5); Dis gratias agebat, tempu’ sibi dari, / ubi Phaedriae
esse ostenderet nihilo minus / amicum sese quam Antiphoni. (Ter. Ph. 596–8); Exstinxisse
nefas tamen et sumpsisse merentis / laudabor poenas . . . (Verg. A. 2.585–6—NB: passive);
Ah, cave tu illi obiectes nunc in aegritudine / te has emisse. (Pl. Mos. 810–11)
Not expressed: Pergi’n servom me exprobrare esse, id quod vi hostili optigit? (Pl.
Capt. 591); . . . et id gratum fuisse advorsum te habeo gratiam. (Ter. An. 42); Hercules,
decumam esse adauctam tibi quam vovi gratulor. (Pl. St. 386); . . . iterum cum oppres-
sum Seianum apud eosdem gratularetur. (Suet. Claud. 6.1); Obiciebant (sc. eum)
etiam eloquentiae laudem uni sibi adsciscere . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.52.3)
15.100 The non-declarative use of the accusative and infinitive clause

The accusative and infinitive clause can be used not only with the verbs and expres-
sions discussed above (§§ 15.93–9), which imply a factual content. It can also be used
with a number of two-place verbs, notably those of wishing, and with (three-place)
manipulation verbs when there is no addressee. In these cases the content of the
clause is not factual. In this Syntax the term non-declarative accusative and infini-
tive clause is used. The verbs and expressions involved are the following:
(i) verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring, preferring, such as volo ‘to wish’;
(ii) verbs and expressions of deciding and determining, such as placet ‘it seems
good’ and censeo ‘to decide’;
(iii) many of the manipulation verbs in class (i) of Table 15.2 (p. 130), such as
impero ‘to order’ and prohibeo ‘to hinder’, when used as two-place verbs;
(iv) verbs of demanding, such as posco and postulo;

(v) verbs of allowing and tolerating, such as perpetior and fero;
(vi) verbs requiring special attention: iubeo, veto, patior, and sino.
(i) Verbs of wishing, desiring, preferring, etc. occur with a variety of constructions,
among which is the AcI. This variety is shown for the verb volo in § 15.73. When used
with an accusative and infinitive clause, the subject of the AcI may be either identical
to the subject of the main clause, as in (a), or different, as in (b). In the case of identity
the prolative infinitive was initially more common, as in (c) (repeated from § 15.73),
but over the course of time the AcI became the more commonly used construction
(see also the note below).
(a) Equidem me Caesaris militem dici volui, vos me imperatoris nomine appel-
lavistis.
(‘I, for my part, wished to be called a soldier of Caesar: you have addressed me by the
title of Imperator.’ Caes. Civ. 2.32.14)
(b) Vera volo loqui te, nolo assentari mihi.
(‘I want you to tell the truth, I don’t want you simply to agree with me.’ Pl. Am. 751)
(c) Bonus volo iam ex hoc die esse.
(‘From this day onward I want to be good.’ Pl. Per. 479)
Eius cupio filiam / virginem mihi desponderi. (Pl. Aul. 172–3); Cupio, patres con-
scripti, me esse clementem. (Cic. Catil. 1.4); Nunc me gratiam aps te inire verbis nil
desidero. (Pl. St. 514); Namque actor est, qui desiderat aut exhiberi aut restitui, reus
is est, a quo desideratur, ut exhibeat aut restituat. (Gaius Inst. 4.157—NB: variation of
construction); Nam quos videre exoptabam me maxume, / una exeuntis video hinc e
proxumo. (Pl. Mil. 1135–6); Multa illi opera opu’st ficturae, qui se fictorem probum /
vitae agundae esse expetit. (Pl. Trin. 365–6); . . . mori me malim: sentiet qui vir siem.
(Ter. Eu. 66); . . . nisi Quintus aliud quid nos agere mavult . . . (Cic. Leg. 1.13); Secures
suas cruentari scelere noluit. (Cic. Har. 35); Patres ordinem publicanorum in tali
tempore offensum181 nolebant. (Liv. 25.3.12); . . . Chrysidem, / quae sese inhoneste
optavit parere hic ditias . . . (Ter. An. 797–8); Quem te et opto esse et confido futurum.
(Cic. Fam. 10.20.3); Oto te bene val<e>re. (CEL 145.27 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); . . .
quom quid cupienter dari / petimus nobis . . . (Pl. Ps. 683–4); Se quisque hostem ferire,
murum ascendere, conspici, dum tale facinus faceret, properabat. (Sal. Cat. 7.6); . . .
neque est quor [non] studeam has nuptias mutarier. (Pl. St. 52); . . . qui versari in re
publica atque in ea se excellentius gerere studuerunt. (Cic. Sest. 96); Iustam rem et
facilem esse oratam a vobis volo. (Pl. Am. 33); . . . res quaedam est quam volo / ego me
aps te exorare. (Pl. Trin. 324–5); Cur te interponis invitissimis iis quibus maxime lex
consultum esse vult? (Cic. Div. Caec. 21); . . . si id te senatus aut populus Romanus
facere voluisset. (Cic. Ver. 3.117); Augustus, imperii formator, ne dominum quidem
dici se volebat. (Tert. Apol. 34.1)
181 For the use of the perfect infinitive with verbs of wishing, see § 7.76.
NB: . . . tametsi multitudo . . . terrebat eum clamore . . . atque aliis omnibus quae ira
fieri amat, vicit tamen inpudentia. (Sal. Jug. 34.1—NB: ira is nominative; Graecism
according to Koestermann ad loc.)); . . . easque (sc. statuas) . . . auro curant imbrat-
teari . . . (Amm. 14.6.8)
The situation with this class of verbs is more complex than the summary above sug-
gests. In the case of referential identity between the subject of the governing clause and
the agent of the embedded clause, Terence, Cicero, and Caesar use the accusative and
infinitive when the infinitive is the copula, as in (d), or a passive infinitive, as in (e). In
other cases the prolative infinitive is preferred unless there is a special reason to make
the subject explicit, as in (f). Plautus uses the subject accusative more freely.182
(d) . . . Ulixes . . . cum . . . in omni sermone omnibus affabilem [et iocundum] esse
se vellet.
(‘. . . Ulysses . . . when he strove in every word to be courteous to all.’ Cic. Off.
1.113)
(e) . . . a quo Verres minime se accusari velit.
(‘. . . by whom Verres wants least of all to be prosecuted.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 22)
(f) Me enim quam socios tua frui virtute malebam . . .
(‘I should have preferred that I rather than my allies enjoy your virtue . . .’
Cic. Planc. 13)
(ii) The use of an accusative and infinitive clause as subject of impersonal placet is
attested from Terence onwards, as in (g). In an official political context it can be used
to refer to a decision being made, mainly by the senate, as in (h). Visum est can be used
in the same way, as in (i). The cognition verb censeo (see § 15.98) is also used in the
sense of making decisions or voting in favour of, as in ( j). A more explicit way of
expressing the desirability of a certain action is by using the gerund or gerundive, as
in (k). The verb decerno in its sense ‘to declare’ also belongs here.
(g) Placet non fieri hoc itidem ut in comoediis . . .
(‘I don’t want this to happen in the same way as it does in comedies.’ Ter. Hec. 866)
(h) . . . si hic ordo placere sibi decreverit te ire in exsilium, obtemperaturum te
esse dicis.
(‘. . . if this body decides to vote for you to go into exile, you say you will obey.’ Cic.
Catil. 1.20)
(i) Ita deinde diis visum nec inritam conditoris templi vocem esse . . .
(‘It pleased the gods, in the sequel, that neither should the words of the founder of the
temple be in vain . . .’ Liv. 1.10.7)
( j) Equidem cum ante legatos decerni non censuissem, hoc me tamen consolabar . . .
(‘Though on the previous occasion I had voted against the ambassadors being decreed,
still I consoled myself with this reflection . . .’ Cic. Phil. 8.21)
182 See Perrochat (1932b: 192–206).

(k) Haec recitata a consule ita movere senatum ut non exspectanda comitia con-
suli censeret, sed . . . extemplo in provinciam redeundum.
(‘These statements as read by the consul so swayed the senate that it decided that the
consul must not wait for the elections but that . . . he must at once return to his prov-
ince.’ Liv. 27.5.14)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing verb):
. . . senatus populique Romani verbis nuntient velle et censere eos ab armis
discedere . . . (Sal. Jug. 21.4); De bonis regiis, quae reddi ante censuerant, res integra
refertur ad patres. (Liv. 2.5.1); . . . bellum gerendum fuisse censerent hostibus et
Syracusanorum et populi Romani, et urbem recipi, non capi, et receptam legibus anti-
quis et libertate stabiliri, non fessam miseranda servitute bello adfligi. (Liv. 26.32.2—
NB: variation of construction);. . . variae fuere sententiae, ut primus vivam cremari
censeret puellam, secundus bestiis obici suaderet, tertius patibulo suffigi iuberet, quar-
tus tormentis excarnificari praeciperet. (Apul. Met. 6.31.1); Curatum est—esse te
senem miserrumum. (Pl. Bac. 1067); Aditus a parentibus virginis raptae eum qui
violarat convictum relegari decrevit. (Amm. 16.5.12);183 Et Apronianum Romae decre-
vit esse praefectum . . . (Amm. 23.1.4); Deliberatum est tamen id quoque lenius vindi-
cari . . . (Amm. 17.13.2); Hoc sibi pulchra suum ferri Proserpina munus / instituit.
(Verg. A. 6.142–3); De exercitu autem C. C<aes>aris ita censeo decernendum: ‘senatui
placere militibus veteranis qui Caesaris pontificis <pro praetore auctoritatem secuti
libertatem populi Romani> auctoritatemque huius ordinis defenderint atque defendant
i<ps>is liberisque eorum militiae vacationem esse, utique C. Pansa A. Hirti[c]us con-
sules . . . cognoscerent . . .’ (Cic. Phil. 5.53—NB: variation of construction); . . . senatui
placere C. Cassium pro consule provinciam Syriam obtinere . . . (Cic. Phil. 11.30); Hos
corripi dilato ad tempus Sabino placitum . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.19.1)
(iii) The various manipulation verbs mentioned in Table 15.2 (p. 130) are usually
used as three-place verbs, governing either an ut clause (see §§ 15.66–72) or a prola-
tive infinitive (see §§ 15.115–21). However, when there is no (explicit) addressee and
the governing verbs function de facto as two-place verbs, the AcI is not uncommon.
Examples of such AcI clauses functioning as object are (l)–(n); as subject, (o). The
clause is mostly passive and, in accordance with the meaning of the governing verb,
has to be understood as imperative. The states of affairs of the AcI clause must be
controlled; they cannot be anterior or posterior to the tense of the governing verb.184
For this usage with iubeo, see the discussion in (vi).185
(l) Impera suovitaurilia circumagi.
(‘Bid the suovitaurilia to be led around.’ Cato Agr. 141.1)
(m) . . . missusne sis a me consule Puteolos, ut inde aurum exportari argentumque
prohiberes?
183 For Ammianus, see den Boeft et al. ad 23.1.4. See also TLL s.v. decerno 144.70ff.
184 For these and other constraints that are typical of imperative clauses, see Bolkestein (1976a: 284–95).
185 For instances from juridical texts, see Kalb (1912: 84–6). For the extension of the AcI to other verbs
in Fredegar, see Bodelot (2014b).
(‘. . . were you not sent by me when I was consul to Puteoli, that you might prevent gold
and silver from being exported from there?’ Cic. Vat. 12)
(n) Vergilius alternis cessare arva suadet.186
(‘Virgil advises letting the fields “lie fallow every other year”.’ Plin. Nat. 18.187)
(o) Item inpuberem apud populum adoptari aliquando prohibitum est, ali-
quando permissum est.
(‘Again, for a person below the age of puberty to be adopted before the people has
sometimes been forbidden and sometimes permitted.’ Gaius Inst. 1.102)

Passive infinitive: Hic etiam ficta vel dubia adigebat videri certissima vi nimia tor-
mentorum. (Amm. 21.16.10); . . . ita vos estis praediti callenti ingenio improbi / offi-
cium vestrum ut vos malo cogatis commonerier. (Pl. Ps. 149–50); Si vis erat, si fraus,
si metus, si circumscriptio, quis pactionem fieri, quis adesse istos coegit? (Cic. Flac.
89); . . . nequam homines et improbos, quibus aut frumentum aut pecuniam publice
cogebat dari. (Cic. Ver. 3.84);187 Gallicus tumultus dictatorem creari coegit. (Liv.
7.11.4); Thymoetes / duci intra muros hortatur et arce locari (sc. equum) (Verg. A.
2.32–3);188 In quibus casibus illa ratio impedit fideiussorem obligari . . . (Gaius dig.
46.1.70.5); Pro eo tibi praesentem pecuniam solvi imperavi, ne tu expensum muneri-
bus ferres. (Cic. Att. 2.4.1); Eo partem navium longarum convenire, frumentum
commeatumque ab Asia . . . conportari imperat. (Caes. Civ. 3.42.2—NB: parallelism
of active and passive infinitive); Haec aeternitas vestra venerabilis cum senatui
statuenda mandaret, referri ad se protinus imperavit, ut placita cunctis inmortali lege
solidentur. (Symm. Rel. 8.4); . . . signa, quae, ne nuntii morarentur, tolli procul, ut
quidque factum foret, mandaverat. (Suet. Tib. 65.2); . . . si discipulos sabbato ieiunare
mandasset adversus statum scripti et voluntatis creatoris. (Tert. Marc. 4.12.7); hic
senior vates . . . / velleris obscuri pecudes armentaque sisti / atra monet. (Stat. Theb.
4.443–6);189 Nec defuit audentia Druso Germanico, sed obstitit Oceanus in se simul
atque in Herculem inquiri. (Tac. Ger. 34.2); . . . adegit Parthos mittere ad principem
Romanum occultas preces, quis permitti Meherdaten patrium ad fastigium orabant.
(Tac. Ann. 11.10.4); . . . quom quid cupienter dari / petimus nobis . . . (Pl. Ps. 683–4); . . .
eidem (sc. uxori) anulos et vestem reddi ab heredibus petit, quasi propria uxoris fuis-
sent. (Scaev. dig. 34.2.18); Praecepit etiam triremis . . . magna ex parte itinere terrestri
Romam devehi. (Suet. Cal. 47.1); Atquin et apostolus, cum praecipit mulierem a viro
non discedere . . . (Tert. Marc. 5.7.7); Sequantur qui capi signum ab hoste prohibituri
sunt. (Liv. 25.14.7); . . . cum abrumpi dissimulationem etiam Silius . . . urguebat. (Tac.
Ann. 11.26.1); . . . eum ipsum qui cum omnibus creditoribus suis male agat invitum de
praedio detrudi vetat. (Cic. Quinct. 85)
With a gerundive:. . . hortatur ferenda esse praesentia . . . (Suet. Aug. 87.1); . . . cenam
adferri quam optimam imperavit, item optimis insternendum vestimentis. (B. Hisp.
186 For the accusative and infinitive when suadeo means ‘to seek to persuade (that)’, see OLD s.v. § 4.
187 For this use of cogo, see Torrego (2016b: 303, 308–9).
188 For this exceptional use of hortor, see Bolkestein (1976a: 298–9).
189 For this exceptional use of moneo, see Bolkestein (1976a: 297–9).
33.3); Quae cura intercisionis venarum quoquo loco faciendum praecipio . . . (Mulom.
Chir. 104)190
Active infinitive: Nec minus in certo dentes cadere imperat aetas / tempore et
inpubem molli pubescere veste / et pariter mollem malis demittere barbam. (Lucr.
5.672–4); Caesar celeriter de navibus imperat omnes egredi atque . . . milites exspectare.
(B. Afr. 11.2); Irin ad Hersiliam descendere . . . / imperat . . . (Ov. Met. 14.830–1); . . .
quot haberet corpora pulvis, / tot mihi natales contingere vana rogavi. (Ov. Met.
14.137–8)191
(iv) Of the verbs of demanding that can govern an AcI, postulo is the most com-
mon.192 The subject of the AcI clause may be identical to the subject of the governing
clause, as in (p), or different, as in (q). Note in (p) the use of a future infinitive, which
shows that there are no restrictions on the infinitive, as is normal for accusative and
infinitive clauses (see § 14.8). With this class of verbs ut clauses are also common (see
§ 15.67) and prolative infinitives are possible as well (see § 15.116). These verbs are
two-place verbs, with the exception of flagito, which also has a three-place pattern
(see § 15.67).193
(p) Iam postulabas te, impurata belua, / totam Siciliam devoraturum insulam?
(‘You dirty beast, did you expect you’d immediately swallow the whole island of
Sicily?’ Pl. Rud. 543–4)
(q) . . . nos nostras aedis postulas comburere?
(‘. . . do you expect us to burn down our house?’ Pl. Aul. 361)

Ille Armeniam quoque diversis praesidiis vacuam fieri expostulabat. (Tac. Ann.
15.17.3); . . . cum quidem tanta populi Romani contumacia fuit, ut theatri clamoribus
reponi apoxyomenon flagitaverit . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.62); . . . ereptumque dolo reddi sibi
poscit honorem. (Verg. A. 5.342); Ego me amitti, donicum ille huc redierit, non pos-
tulo. (Pl. Capt. 339); . . . quis nostrum tam inpudens est qui se scire aut posse postulet?
(Cic. de Orat. 1.101)
(v) Examples of verbs of allowing and tolerating governing an accusative and infini-
tive clause are (r) and (s) (see also (o) above). Permitto also has a three-place pattern
(see § 15.70 and § 15.119).
(r) Aliam tecum esse equidem facile possum perpeti.
(‘I can easily handle another girl being with you.’ Pl. As. 845)
(s) Ferunt enim aures hominum cum illa quae iucunda . . . tum etiam illa, quae
mirabilia sunt in virtute, laudari.
(‘Men’s ears can endure it when both those aspects of virtue which are pleasing . . . and
also those that are admirable are praised.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.344)
190 More examples and references in Aalto (1949: 86). 191 See Bömer ad loc.
192 For the material, see TLL s.v. postulo 271.16ff. 193 See TLL s.v. 845.33ff.

Neque vero haec inter se congruere possent, ut natura et procreari vellet et diligi
procreatos non curaret. (Cic. Fin. 3.62); Binas centesimas ab sese ablatas ferendum
non putant, et recte non putant. (Cic. Ver. 3.168); Nil moror negotiosum mi esse
tergum. (Pl. Mil. 447); Theopompum, nudum, [non] expulsum a Trebonio, confugere
Alexandream neglexistis. (Ant. in Cic. Phil. 13.33); Aliud quidvis impetrari a me
facilius perferam quam . . . (Pl. Mos. 1170); Quare illud satis est, si te permittis amari.
(Verg. Cat. 4.11); Ille (sc. deus) meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum / ludere quae
vellem calamo permisit agresti. (Verg. Ecl. 1.9–10); Otho . . . concedi corpora sepultu-
rae cremarique permisit. (Tac. Hist. 1.47.2); Etenim quis mortalium . . . tolerare potest
illis divitias superare . . . (Sal. Cat. 20.11)
NB: cf.: . . . da (non indebita posco / regna meis fatis) Latio considere Teucros / erran-
tisque deos agitataque numina Troiae. (Verg. A. 6.65–7)
(vi) The verbs iubeo, veto (voto), patior, and sino deserve separate attention.194 Most
scholars assume that iubeo and veto are three-place verbs governing an accusative
object and a prolative infinitive. K.-St., however, distinguish two major constructions,
depending on whether the infinitive is active or passive.195 Examples for these four
verbs are (t)–(w) and (x)–(aa). In the first—active—series, the accusative is taken by
K.-St. as the object/patient of the governing verb and the infinitive—in the terminology
used in this Syntax—as a prolative infinitive. The examples in the passive series, by
contrast, are taken as instances of a ‘proper’ accusative and infinitive clause, which as
a whole functions as object of the verb. In other words, the first series represents a
three-place, the second a two-place pattern.196
(t) Iubet igitur nos Pythius Apollo noscere nosmet ipsos.

(‘Accordingly the Pythian Apollo bids us “learn to know ourselves”.’ Cic. Fin. 5.44)
(u) . . . ab opere singulisque legionibus singulos legatos Caesar discedere . . . vetuerat.
(‘. . . Caesar had forbidden the several lieutenant-generals to leave the entrenching
and their proper legions.’ Caes. Gal. 2.20.3)
(v) . . . Transalpinas gentis oleam et vitem serere non sinimus . . .
(‘. . . we who do not allow the races beyond the Alps to plant the olive or the vine . . .’
Cic. Rep. 3.16)
(w) . . . (sc. Alcibiades) neque Athenas victas Lacedaemoniis servire poterat pati.
(‘. . . nor could he endure the idea that Athens after being conquered was enslaved to
the Lacedaemonians.’ Nep. Alc. 9.4)
194 The verb censeo can also govern an imperative AcI. See Bolkestein (1998a: 25–6). For iubeo salvere,
see Torrego (2013); for veto, see Torrego (2017a).
195 K.-St.: I.715–18. The examples (p)–(z) are taken from their discussion. For further examples of
iubeo, see TLL s.v. 577.5ff. For a discussion of the imperative use of the AcI with iubeo, see Bolkestein
(1976a: 284–95).
196 This is essentially also the position taken in LSS § 7.4.3. Bennett: I.379–82 regards all clauses gov-
erned by ‘verba voluntatis’ as object clauses—that is, in the terminology of this Syntax, as accusative and
infinitive clauses.
(x) Pontem qui erat ad Gen<a>vam iubet rescindi.

(‘He ordered the bridge at Geneva to be broken down.’ Caes. Gal. 1.7.2)
(y) Caesar . . . castra facere constituit et . . . vallo muniri vetuit . . .
(‘Caesar determined to pitch his camp . . . and he forbade it to be fortified with a ram-
part.’ Caes. Civ. 1.41.4)
(z) . . . nullos honores mihi nisi verborum decerni sino.
(‘. . . I allow none but verbal honours to be decreed to me.’ Cic. Att. 5.21.7)
(aa) Vinum ad se omnino importari non patiuntur . . .
(‘They do not allow wine to be imported to themselves at all . . .’ Caes. Gal. 4.2.5)
K.-St. seem to be correct in identifying a difference in the constructions, but there are
reasons for doubting that the distinction is exactly as they describe—a three-place
construction with the active infinitive, two-place with the passive. The following
paragraphs will survey the arguments and arrive at a more refined distinction. An
important point in the discussion to follow is that some of the constituents in the
accusative in the examples (t)–(aa) cannot be taken as the addressee of the order
expressed by the governing verb.
As evidence for the existence of the three-place pattern K.-St. and other scholars
cite instances like (ab)–(ad), where the governing verbs are in the passive and the
object of the corresponding active governing clause is the subject of the passive gov-
erning clause. This is normal for three-place verbs governing an accusative and a pro-
lative infinitive, such as admoneo (see §§ 15.115–21).
(ab) . . . decemviri libros adire atque inspicere iussi (sc. sunt) . . .
(‘. . . the decemvirs were instructed to approach and consult the Sacred Books . . .’ Liv.
22.36.6)
(ac) Quo factum est ut a praefecto morum Hasdrubal cum eo vetaretur esse.
(‘Because of that charge it came about that Hasdrubal was forbidden by the censor of
morals from being with Hamilcar.’ Nep. Ham. 3.2)197
(ad) . . . (sc. Milo) accusare eum moderate a quo ipse nefarie accusatur per senatus
auctoritatem non est situs.
(‘. . . he has not been allowed by a resolution of the Senate to prosecute dispassionately
the man by whom he himself is prosecuted with such virulence.’ Cic. Sest. 95)
However, these examples can also be taken as nominative and infinitive constructions
of the agent type as discussed in § 15.111 for verbs like dico and audio. Interestingly,
just like these verbs, iubeo is also common in constructions of the patient type, as in
(ae) and (af).
(ae) . . . proxumo iussa’st dari (sc. puella) . . .
(‘. . . she has been ordered to be given to her nearest relative . . .’ Ter. Ph. 416)
197 K.-St. also cite Ter. Ph. 864: Ait (sc. se) esse vetitum intro ad eram accedere, and so does Bennett:
I.389. Alternatively one may regard the infinitive accedere as the subject. See at the end of this section.
There are obviously no passive examples for patior.
(af) . . . Ø iussus es renuntiari consul . . .

(‘. . . the order was given for you to be declared consul . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.79)
Secondly, there are also instances of an accusative with a non-passive infinitive where
the accusative cannot be regarded as the object of the governing verb, and in the case
of iubeo as the addressee of the order (see the examples directly below). This is quite
obvious for instances with a passive infinitive like (x)—the main reason for K.-St.’s
positing an AcI—but it is also evident in many other cases: in (ag) it is clearly not the
narrative that is being commanded, and in (ah), which occurs in a legal context, it is
unlikely that the me and te personally received an order. Similarly in (ai) Caesar will
not have first summoned the cavalry to pass on his orders to them directly. Interesting
too is the parallelism of an ut clause and an accusative and infinitive sequence in the
decretum of L. Aemilius Paullus in (aj), which must both be taken as object clauses.
(ag) Iam vero narrationem quod iubent veri similem esse et apertam et brevem,
recte nos admonent.
(‘Then again, in requiring the statement of the case to be plausible, lucid and brief,
they advise us well.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.83)
(ah) Sed quaero a te, putesne, si populus iusserit me tuum aut te meum servum
esse, id iussum ratum atque firmum futurum?
(‘But I ask you: if the people gave the order for me to be your slave, or for you to be
mine, do you think that this command would be binding and valid?’ Cic. Caec. 96)
(ai) Caesar ab opere legiones revocat, equitatum omnem convenire iubet . . .
(‘Caesar recalled his legions from their work, ordered that the entire cavalry assem-
ble . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.82.2)
(aj) L Aemilius · L · F · inpeirator · decreivit / utei · quei · hastensium ·
servei / in · turri · Lascutana · habitarent / leiberei · essent. · Agrum ·
oppidumqu(e) / quod · ea · tempestate · posedisent / item · possidere ·
habereque / iousit · . . .
(‘Lucius Aemilius, son of Lucius, commander-in-chief, decreed that the slaves of the
people of Hasta dwelling in the tower of Lascuta should be free. The land and the
town which they had possessed at that time he ordered that they should possess and
hold as heretofore . . .’ CIL I2.614.1–7 (near Cadiz, 189 bc)
There are many other instances of iubeo with an accusative and an active infinitive
that could be analysed as proper AcI clauses; in such cases iubeo could be translated
‘to ordain’ or ‘to decree’.198
Thirdly, there are instances of parallelism or coordination of active and passive
clauses, as in (ak) and (al)—coordinated clauses—and (am)—coordinated infinitives.
It is preferable to explain them in the same way (as AcI clauses).
198 García de la Calera (2008) takes the position that in Caesar and Sallust all combinations of iubeo
with an accusative and an active infinitive represent in fact accusative and infinitive clauses. Gavoille
(2014: 218) characterizes iubeo as ‘un verbe de parole . . . constatif ’, for which the AcI is the normal expres-
sion. See also Hoffmann’s (2016a: 50–1) discussion of iubeo as a non-causative verb.
(ak) . . . Caesar portas claudi militesque ex oppido exire iussit . . .

(‘. . . Caesar gave orders that the gates be closed and the soldiers leave the town . . .’
Caes. Gal. 2.33.1)
(al) . . . Perseus . . . prima impedimenta ire, deinde peditum signa ferri iussit.
(‘. . . Perseus ordered the baggage to go first, then the standards of the infantry to be
carried away.’ Liv. 42.64.5)
(am) Haec Demetrius noster utraque manu tenere proficientem iubet . . . eoque
cottidiana meditatione perduci ut sua sponte occurrant salutaria . . .
(‘My friend Demetrius teaches that the tiro in philosophy must grasp these things
with each hand and that through daily meditation he must be brought to the point
where these wholesome maxims occur to him of their own accord . . .’ Sen. Ben. 7.2.1)
Fourthly, if iubeo were being used with a three-place frame, one might expect a more
or less synonymous parallel accusative + (ut +) subjunctive pattern (see § 15.114).
However, convincing instances of such a pattern for iubeo are rare: most of the examples
cited in the TLL lack an entity that could be interpreted as the addressee of the order.199
There are two instances with an accusative constituent plus a simple subjunctive
clause in Plautus, one of which is (an), but these accusatives must be taken as pseudo-
objects (on which see § 9.17). In (ao), with passive alter consul iussus, the active
infinitive gerere is continued by an ut clause. For a few more straightforward later
examples, see the Supplement.
(an) Tu servos iube / hunc ad me ferant.
(‘You tell your slaves to bring him here to me.’ Pl. Men. 955–6)
(ao) Alter consul, cui Italia provincia evenisset, cum Boiis iussus bellum gerere utro
exercitu mallet ex duobus quos superiores consules habuissent, alterum ut mit-
teret Romam, eaeque urbanae legiones essent paratae quo senatus censuisset.
(‘The other consul, to whom Italy should have fallen as a province, was ordered to
carry on war with the Boii, using whichever he preferred of the two armies which the
preceding consuls had had, and to send the other to Rome, and that these, as reserve
legions, should be ready to move wherever the senate should direct.’ Liv. 36.1.9)
There are instances of a double accusative construction with iubeo; this concerns
especially pronouns, as in § 4.76. Examples are (ap), active, and (aq), passive.200
(ap) Heia, hoc face quod te iubet soror.
(‘Now, now, do what your sister tells you.’ Pl. Aul. 153)
(aq) Quod iussus sum eo tempore atque ita feci ut appareret invito imperatum
esse.
(‘I did what I was ordered at a time and in such a way that it was apparent
that I had been ordered against my will.’ Pol. Fam. 10.31.3)
199 TLL s.v. 579.73ff. 200 See TLL s.v. iubeo 582.4ff.
Supplement:
Passive infinitive: . . . cum alia lex iubet aut permittit, alia vetat quippiam fieri . . . (Rhet.
Her. 1.20); . . . interea sarcinas in unum locum conferri et eum ab iis, qui in superiore
acie constiterant, muniri iussit. (Caes. Gal. 1.24.3—NB: explicit agent); Papirius Cursor
ea tempestate dictator securem per lictorem expediri . . . iussit . . . (Amm. 30.8.5)
Cf.: . . . quem digredientem post epulas hospitalis officii sanctitate nefarie violata tru-
cidari securum effecit. (Amm. 29.5.6)
NB: Pleonastic combination with a gerundival clause: . . . ut iuberes dandam in
absentem sententiam? (Lucif. Athan. 1.25, l.23 D)201
Non-passive infinitive: Iubeo / illam te amare et velle uxorem, hanc esse Clitiphonis.
(Ter. Hau. 702–3)
Active and passive coordinated: Eos · fineis · facere · terminosque · statui ·
iuserunt. (Sent. Minuc., CIL I2.584.3 (Genoa, 117 bc))
(ut +) subjunctive: Ubi Britannico iussit Ø exsurgeret progressusque in medium
cantum aliquem inciperet . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.15.2—NB: dative, cf. Tac. Ann. 13.40.2);
Silo Pompeius, dum praeceptum sequitur quo iubemur ut, quotiens possumus, de
omnibus legis verbis controversiam faciamus, illam quaestionem movit: . . . (Sen. Con.
1.2.15); Hunc tribunus militum . . . occidit lectis codicillis quibus ut id faceret iubeba-
tur. (Suet. Tib. 22);202 Eosdem / camellos iube Ø adaquentur . . . (M 1107.6–8
(see § 9.17, (k)); . . . iubere eum debebt proconsul ut idonee caveat. (Gaius dig.
5.3.41.pr.)
NB: coordination with repetition of nos: Iussit vel nos atriensem vel nos uxorem
suam / defraudare (Pl. As. 365–6)
The strongest argument against assuming that the sequence accusative + active infini-
tive is a proper AcI and that this sequence as a whole functions as the object of iubeo
is that there are said to be no passive counterparts attested of iubetur or iussum est in
combination with an accusative and infinitive clause as the subject,203 as discussed in
§ 15.110; but see (ar).
(ar) Nepesinis inde edictum ut arma ponant parcique iussum inermi.
(‘The Nepesini were then commanded to lay down their weapons and the order was
given to spare such as were unarmed.’ Liv. 6.10.5)
Supplement:
Rogo / quam ob rem retineat me. Ait esse vetitum intro ad eram accedere. (Ter. Ph.
863–4—but see note 197); Alio mihi debita fato / summa dies, vetitumque (sc. sum-
mam diem) dari mortalibus armis. (Stat. Theb. 3.623–4)
For all these reasons, in this Syntax iubeo will be taken to have two verb frames: a
three-place frame with an accusative object/addressee and a prolative infinitive, and a
two-place frame, the second argument of which can be filled by a non-declarative
accusative and infinitive clause (as with the verbs discussed in (iii) above). This is
201 Examples from Lucifer can be found in Diercks’ edition (1978: XCII).
202 Following the interpretation of OLD s.v. iubeo § 3, where also Hyg. Fab. 196.1 is quoted.
203 See Lavency (2003: 111–13), who regards the infinitive with iubeo and veto as a prolative infinitive.
close to K.-St.’s position, but with the added recognition that the two-place frame may
contain either an active or a passive infinitive.
Iubeo and the other verbs can also be used with an active infinitive when the identity
of the agent of the infinitive is sufficiently clear or irrelevant, as in (as) and (at),
respectively.
(as) Hic apud me hortum confodere iussi.
(‘I ordered people to dig up the garden here at my place.’ Pl. Aul. 243)
(at) Quocirca bene praecipiunt qui vetant quicquam agere . . .
(‘Wherefore those who bid us not to do anything . . . give us an excellent
precept.’ Cic. Off. 1.30)
Appendix: The situation for the three other verbs is to some extent different from
that of iubeo. For patior there is no evidence at all for a three-place pattern, and the
TLL describes the infinitival clauses as AcI, as does the OLD. For sino the OLD has a
section that is explicitly labelled ‘prolative’ (§ 5), but it also devotes a section to AcI
clauses, including clauses with non-passive infinitives (§ 2b). The same organization
of examples is used for veto (§ 2a and § 1b, respectively). This analysis of the two
verbs is also adopted in this Syntax.
15.101 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause as subject with one-place and
so-called impersonal verbs
Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as subject of a wide variety of one-place
verbs, among these the so-called impersonal verbs of obligation and permission
oportet and licet (see §§ 4.8; 4.12; 4.14).204 (For est + AcI, see also § 4.15.)
(a) Nam lege quidem bona venire non potuisse constat.
(‘For it is evident that the property could not have been sold by virtue of the law.’ Cic.
S. Rosc. 128)
(b) Adparet servom hunc esse domini pauperis / miserique.
(‘It’s obvious that this man is the slave of a wretched poverty-stricken master.’ Ter. Eu.
486–7)
(c) Itaque me malum esse oportet . . .
(‘Therefore it’s necessary that I be malicious . . .’ Pl. Am. 268)
(d) Non licet donati opsoni me participem fieri?
(‘Is it not permitted to me to have my share of the provisions I gave as a gift?’ Pl.
Truc. 747)
Verbs of obligation and permission: Nam iniusta ab iustis impetrari non decet . . . (Pl.
Am. 35); . . . tum verborum omnium definitiones, in quibus neque abesse quicquam
decet neque redundare. (Cic. de Orat. 2.83); . . . teque hilari animo esse et prompto ad
204 For other constructions with licet, see § 15.80.

iocandum valde me iuvat. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.1); ‘Hanc te’, inquit, ‘capere non licuit.’
(Cic. Flac. 56); Sed si properabas magis, / pridie nos te advocatos huc duxisse
oportuit. (Pl. Poen. 525–6); Patrem familias vendacem, non emacem esse oportet.
(Cato Agr. 2.7); Totam enim rem, Catule, Lucullo integram servatam oportuit.
(Cic. Luc. 10)205
Verbs of excellence and desirability: Convenit stellas in occasu vespertino proximas
esse terrae et altitudine et latitudine . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.68); Patrem familiae villam . . . bene
aedificatam habere expedit . . . (Cato Agr. 3.2); Nimio impendiosum praestat te quam
ingratum dicier. (Pl. Bac. 396); Alioquin non prodest eum exheredari. (Gaius Inst.
2.127)
Other verbs: In ceteris partibus vitae continentissimum constat ac sine suspicione
ullius vitii. (Suet. Aug. 72.1); Sed inpuberes quidem in tutela esse omnium civitatium
iure contingit. (Gaius Inst. 1.189) . . . cum hoc nescio quo modo apud eos increbruis-
set me in causis maioribus sicuti te solere versari . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.82); Cum pateat
igitur aeternum id esse quod se ipsum moveat . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.54); Restat Bactra
novis, restat Babylona tributis / frenari. (Stat. Silv. 4.1.40–1)
Appendix: In this context, grammars often deal with other expressions that in reality
involve two-place verbs. Examples are (e) and (f). With placet in (e), a dative argu-
ment for the person who is pleased would be normal.206 In (f), the person who should
feel ashamed is in the usual accusative (te). For the latter, see § 15.97 (emotion verbs).
(e) Apage, non placet me hoc noctis esse (= edere). Cenavi modo.
(‘Away with you! I don’t like eating at this time of night. I’ve just had my din-
ner.’ Pl. Am. 310)
(f) . . . pudeat te ausum illum umquam esse incedere tamquam tuum competi-
torem.
(‘. . . you would be ashamed that he ever dared to parade as your competitor.’
Cael. Fam. 8.9.1)

Quid enim attinet, cum una facies sit, plura esse nomina? (Cic. N.D. 1.84); . . . tamen
conducere arbitror talibus aures tuas vocibus undique circumsonare nec eas, si fieri
possit, quicquam aliud audire. (Cic. Off. 3.5); . . . exemplum . . . litterarum, in quo erat
illas XI esse legiones. (Cic. Fam. 6.18.2); Sed accepi litteras a collega tuo datas Id. Mai.
in quibus erat te ad se scripsisse a Lepido non recipi Antonium. (Cic. Fam. 10.22.2);
Est etiam apud Hippocraten ei quem septimus dies liberaturus sit quartum esse
gravissimum. (Cels. 3.4.14); Quos hostes vicisse tanti fuit? (Plin. Nat. 7.145); Num
me fefellit hosce id struere? (Ter. Hau. 514); Quid secus est aut quid interest dare te
in manus / argentum amanti homini adulescenti . . . (Pl. Trin. 130–1); Sed tamen parvi
refert abs te ipso ius dici aequaliter . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.20); Non mihi videtur ad beate
vivendum satis posse virtutem. (Cic. Tusc. 5.12)
205 For the use of the perfect infinitive in such contexts, see § 7.76.
206 See, for example, TLL s.v. placeo 2261.16ff.
15.102 The use of accusative and infinitive clauses in combination with expressions
that function as subject or object complement
Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as subject of a wide variety of expressions
consisting of the copula and a subject complement. The most common ones are com-
binations of the copula and a noun (or noun phrase) or a neuter singular adjective, as
in (a) and (b), but other types of subject complements (see §§ 9.20ff.) are used as well.
An example of a possessive genitive, sometimes called genetivus proprietatis (see § 9.30)
is (c); of a predicative dative (see § 9.34), (d); of a prepositional phrase (see § 9.37), (e).
Ex. (f) shows the related use of an accusative and infinitive clause with an object com-
plement. Ex. (g) has a preparative pronoun as the subject of the main clause.
(a) Stultitia est ei te esse tristem quoius potestas plus potest.
(‘It’s stupidity to be sulky with someone who has greater authority.’ Pl. Cas. 282)
(b) Si aequom siet / me plus sapere quam vos, dederim vobis consilium catum . . .
(‘If it were proper for me to be wiser than you, I’d give you a smart plan . . .’ Pl. Epid.
257–8)
(c) Sed nunc ea me exquirere / iniqui patris est.
(‘Well, for me to look into that now is to behave like an unreasonable father.’ Ter. An.
186–7—tr. Brown)
(d) . . . num molestiae est / me adire ad illas propius?
(‘Is there any harm in me coming closer to them?’ Pl. Rud. 830)
(e) Ea si dicam non esse e re publica dividi . . .
(‘If I were to say that it is contrary to public interest that those properties should be
brought under assignment . . .’ Cic. Fam. 13.8.2)
(f) . . . antea semper pro indignissimo habuerant se patrio regno tutoris fraude
pulsos . . .
(‘. . . they had always considered it the greatest outrage that they had been ousted from
their father’s kingship by the crime of their guardian . . .’ Liv. 1.40.2)
(g) Illa enim est gloria divina Pompei, . . . praedones . . . redactos esse omnes in
potestatem . . .
(‘This is the superhuman achievement of Pompeius: that he brought under control all
those pirates . . .’ Cic. Flac. 30)

Nouns and noun phrases: . . . magnum dedecus et flagitium . . . eum non virtute, sed
scelere superatum. (Cic. Off. 3.86); Deus est mortali iuvare mortalem, et haec ad
aeternam gloriam via. (Plin. Nat. 2.18); Nunc si me fas est opsecrare aps te, pater, / da
mihi ducentos nummos Philippos, te opsecro. (Pl. Bac. 1025–6); Nimia est miseria
nimis pulchrum esse hominem. (Pl. Mil. 68); Atque etiam morbus est aliquis sapien-
tiam mori. (Plin. Nat. 7.169—NB: the text is problematic); Nunc servitus si evenit, ei
vos morigerari mos bonu’st . . . (Pl. Capt. 198); Quid fuit officium meum me facere?
(Pl. Trin. 174); . . . nunc, quantus pudor esset edocens ab Liguribus . . . Romanum
exercitum obsideri. (Liv. 40.27.10); Res nova et inusitata supplicium de studiis sumi.
(Sen. Con. 10.pr.5); Iam tum erat suspicio / dolo malo haec fieri omnia. (Ter. Eu.
514–15); ‘Sed tempus est’ inquit ‘iam hinc abire, me, ut moriar, vos, ut vitam agatis.’
(Cic. Tusc. 1.99)
With a preparative pronoun: Haec igitur sit prima partitio, quod facete dicatur, id
alias in re habere, alias in verbo facetias. (Cic. de Orat. 2.248); Nimirum haec est natura
rerum, haec potentia eius, saevissimas ferarum maximasque numquam vidisse quod
debeant timere et statim intellegere, cum sit timendum. (Plin. Nat. 8.10)
Adjectives (neuter singular forms): Non possum durare, certum est exulatum hinc
ire me. (Pl. Mer. 644); . . . consequens esse beatam vitam virtute esse contentam . . .
(Cic. Tusc. 5.18); An decorum est advorsari meis te praeceptis? (Pl. As. 508); Nimium
difficile est reperiri amicum . . . (Pl. Trin. 620); Feci ego ista ut commemoras, et te
meminisse id gratum est mihi. (Pl. Capt. 414); Lautissimum quippe habetur e nardi
folio eas dari aut veste Serica versicolori, unguentis madida. (Plin. Nat. 21.11); Sed
maximum est in amicitia parem esse inferiori. (Cic. Amic. 69—NB: generic subject);
Longe optimum est febrem omnino non esse. (Cels. 2.8.6); Sed par est omnis omnia
experiri . . . (Cic. Orat. 4); . . . quanto fuerat praestabilius ubivis gentium agere
aetatem . . . (Ter. Hec. 284); Tanto rarius est servatorem unum a servatis donari. (Plin.
Nat. 22.9); . . . (sc. gladiatores) quos promiscue spectari sollemne olim erat . . . (Suet.
Aug. 44.2); Accusatores multos esse in civitate utile est . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 55); Bene fac-
tum et volup est me hodie his mulierculis / tetulisse auxilium. (Pl. Rud. 892–3)
NB: possessive adjective: Haud tuom istuc est te vereri. (Pl. St. 718)
Predicative datives: Satis scio, quibuscumque dis cordi fuit subigi nos ad necessi-
tatem dedendi res quae ab nobis ex foedere repetitae fuerant, iis non fuisse cordi tam
superbe ab Romanis foederis expiationem spretam. (Liv. 9.1.4); . . . tibi curae est
sentire cives tuos quanto per te onere leventur . . . (Liv. 30.31.3); Circa rem nostram
Siculam turbidum esse Nectarium indicio erunt litterae quas nuper Euscius misit.
(Symm. Ep. 6.66.2); Ita nunc per urbem solus sermoni omnibu’st, / eum velle amicam
liberare . . . (Pl. Ps. 418–19)
Prepositional phrases: Eundem in fame vesci terra inter auguria. (Plin. Nat. 8.83);
An, si pro illo fuit fieri vim quoi facta dicitur, non teneatur qui fecit? (Sen. Con. 9.5.6)
Adverb: . . . cum palam esset per errorem ingressos . . . (Liv. 31.14.8)
Object complement: Tu’n verberes, qui pro cibo habeas te verberari? (Pl. As. 628);
Pompeium pro certo habemus per Illyricum proficisci in Galliam. (Cic. Att. 10.6.3)
15.103 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause with a preparative pronoun
Accusative and infinitive clauses are often announced by preparative pronouns (and
adverbs). Examples with a preparative pronoun are (a) and (b). Compare also (c), with
the preparative adverb ita.207 In (d), the relative pronoun serves a similar function.
(a) Scelestissume, audes mihi praedicare id, / domi te esse nunc, qui hic ades?
(‘You hardened criminal, do you really dare to say that to me, that you, who are here,
are at home now?’ Pl. Am. 561–2)
207 For the use of ita and sic as preparative devices with accusative and infinitive clauses, see
Lavency (2004) and Bodelot (2005).
(b) Inter omnis igitur hoc constat, . . . virorum esse fortium . . . toleranter dolorem
pati.
(‘It is universally agreed then . . . that it is characteristic of men who are brave . . . to
suffer pain with patience.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.43)
(c) . . . mecum Tadius locutus est te ita scripsisse, nihil esse iam quod laborare-
tur . . .
(‘. . . Tadius has told me that you have written him word that there is no need to worry
any longer . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.5.6)
(d) Quod cum audivisset adulescens filius, negotium exhiberi patri, accurrisse
Romam . . . dicitur.
(‘It is said that when the son, who was then a young man, heard this, namely that his
father was in trouble on his account, he hastened to Rome.’ Cic. Off. 3.112)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by preparative expression):

Pronouns: Opsecro, etiamne hoc negabis, te auream pateram mihi / dedisse . . .? (Pl.
Am. 760–1); Sed hoc mementote, quoscumque locos attingam, unde ridicula ducan-
tur, ex eisdem locis fere etiam gravis sententias posse duci. (Cic. de Orat. 2.248);
Rursus mortales oraculorum societatem dedere Chiloni Lacedaemonio tria prae-
cepta eius Delphis consecrando aureis litteris, quae sunt haec: nosse se quemque, et
nihil nimium cupere, comitemque aeris alieni atque litis esse miseriam. (Plin. Nat.
7.119); Nam primum fuit illud asperius, me quae de Plancio dicerem ementiri et
temporis causa fingere. (Cic. Planc. 72); Verum illud dicendum est, illi ita non esse
visum. (Cic. Inv. 2.22); . . . illud tamen exploratum habeto, nihil fieri potuisse sine
causa . . . (Cic. Div. 2.60); Nam illud, nulli rei adsensurum esse sapientem, nihil ad
hanc controversiam pertinebat. (Cic. Luc. 78); Et illud intellego, Quirites, omnium
ora in me convorsa esse . . . (Sal. Jug. 85.5); . . . praeter eos inimicos quibus id ipsum, se
inimicos esse, non liceret aut dissimulare aut negare. (Cic. Att. 4.1.5); Haud mirum id
quidem esse, furere civitatem . . . (Liv. 5.25.4)
Adverbs: ‘Sic igitur’, inquit, ‘sentio,’ Crassus ‘naturam primum atque ingenium ad
dicendum vim adferre maximam.’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.113); Huius oratio ut semper
gravis et grata in contionibus fuit, sic contendo numquam neque sententiam eius
auctoritate neque eloquentiam iucunditate fuisse maiore. (Cic. Sest. 107)
Accusative and infinitive clauses are rarely used in combination with a neuter pro-
noun in non-argument positions in the sentence. An example is (e), where the abla-
tive neuter pronoun illo (an ablativus comparationis) serves as a preparative expression
for the accusative and infinitive clause and, together with the clause, serves as the
basis of comparison (see § 20.1) with esse certius. Ex. (f) has a prepositional phrase
with the same function (see also § 14.16 and § 16.84).
(e) . . . potest illo quicquam esse certius, in tua potestate atque in tuis horreis omne
frumentum Siciliae per triennium atque omnis fructus agri decumani fuisse?
(‘. . . can there be any fact more certain than that for three years all the corn of Sicily,
all the harvests of the tithe-paying land, were in your granaries and under your con-
trol?’ Cic. Ver. 3.178)
(f) Itaque narrabat eum graviter et copiose de hoc ipso, nihil esse bonum nisi
quod esset honestum, cubantem disputavisse . . .
(‘And accordingly he related that from his sickbed the philosopher had earnestly and
fully discussed this very proposition “that there is nothing good except what is
honourable” . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 2.61)
. Independent accusative and infinitive clauses
The AcI can be used without an overt governing expression. A very common use is in
free indirect speech, where it may correspond to a declarative or an interrogative
(rhetorical) sentence in direct speech, but it is also used more or less independently in
utterances expressing indignance or surprise, as in (a).
(a) Criminin’ me habuisse fidem?
(‘To think that I believed that accusation?’ Pl. Bac. 629)
15.105 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in interrogative clauses
and sentences
Accusative and infinitive clauses may correspond to independent declarative sen-
tences (this is the normal situation), but also to interrogative sentences with an
indirect assertive illocutionary force (so-called rhetorical questions, see § 6.23).
Interrogative AcI clauses are not uncommon in historical writers,208 who report
speeches or messages, and occasionally thoughts, which have an indirect assertive
illocutionary force. However, some instances could be construed instead as exclam-
ations. The negation word is non, just as in finite interrogative sentences. Usually there
is no governing verb. Following the distinction made in § 6.7, sentence questions and
constituent questions are dealt with separately.
Instances of simple sentence questions are (a)–(e). Such sentences may, but need
not, contain one of the question particles.
(a) (Caesar ita respondit) . . . quod si veteris contumeliae oblivisci vellet, num
etiam recentium iniuriarum . . . memoriam deponere (sc. se) posse?
(‘(Caesar replied as follows) . . . but even if he were willing to forget their former affront,
could he also lay aside the remembrance of recent outrages?’ Caes. Gal. 1.14.3)
(b) Hocine patiendum fuisse, si ad nutum dictatoris non responderit vir consu-
laris?
(‘Was this the penalty a consular must undergo, if he did not respond to the nod of a
dictator?’ Liv. 6.17.3)
(c) Quid? Ipsorum magistratuum nonne plerosque variis libidinibus obnoxios?
(‘Well, were not too many of the magistrates themselves vulnerable to temptation in
more shapes than one?’ Tac. Ann. 3.34.3)
208 The fullest collection of examples is Kraz (1862). For discussion, see Orlandini (1994).
(d) Romam, caput orbis terrarum, petentibus quicquam adeo asperum atque
arduum videri quod inceptum moretur?
(‘To those seeking Rome, the capital of the world, does anything seem so difficult and
arduous that it should delay the endeavour?’ Liv. 21.30.10)
(e) Adeo neminem isdem in terris ortum, qui principem locum impleat, nisi . . .?
(‘Was it so indisputable that there was not a man born upon the same soil as them-
selves who was competent to fill the princely station . . .?’ Tac. Ann. 11.16.3)
Supplement:
Quid censes, si ratio esset in beluis, non suo quasque generi plurimum tributuras
fuisse? (Cic. N.D. 1.78); Quid tandem? Illi non licere, si quid consules superbe in
aliquem civium aut crudeliter fecerint, diem dicere, accusare iis ipsis iudicibus,
quorum in aliquem saevitum sit? (Liv. 3.9.9); Itaque id quemquam mirari posse,
cur . . . (Liv. 36.40.6)
With question particles: Quid igitur censes Apim illum sanctum Aegyptiorum bovem
nonne deum videri Aegyptiis? (Cic. N.D. 1.82); Nonne Canuleio duce se speraturos
Capitolium atque arcem scandere posse? (Liv. 4.2.14); Potuisse patres plebi scito pelli
honoribus suis. Num etiam in deos immortales inauspicatam legem valuisse? (Liv.
7.6.11); An aequum esse dediticios suos illa fertilitate atque amoenitate perfrui . . .?
(Liv. 7.38.7); An quia victus proelio foret, inexpiabile bellum factum? (Liv. 33.12.8);
An praetorias cohortes, quae binos denarios accep<er>i<n>t, quae post sedecim annos
Penatibus suis reddantur, plus periculorum suscipere? (Tac. Ann. 1.17.6); Easdem artes
Drusum rettulisse numquamne ad se nisi filios familiarum venturos? (Tac. Ann. 1.26.2)
Multiple questions with (utrum) . . . an are rare. Ex. (f), from Cicero, is controversial.
The Livian exx. (g) and (h) and the Tacitean (i) are accepted without comment.
(f) Intellexi hominem moveri, utrum Crassum inire eam gratiam quam ipse
praetermisisset an esse tantas res nostras quae tam libenti senatu laudaren-
tur, ab eo praesertim qui mihi laudem illam eo minus deberet quod meis
omnibus litteris in Pompeiana laude perstrictus esset.
(‘I noticed that the man was agitated, whether at Crassus earning the grati-
tude which he had himself neglected, or at the fact that my achievements
were of such magnitude that the senate was so glad to hear them praised,
especially by a man who was the less under an obligation to praise me,
because in everything I ever wrote my praise of Pompey was practically a
reflection on him.’ Cic. Att. 1.14.3)
(g) Quod naturae damnum utrum nutriendum patri, si quidquam in eo humani
esset, an castigandum ac vexatione insigne faciendum fuisse?
(‘But ought not his father to have healed and mended this infirmity of
nature—if he had a particle of humanity about him—or should he have
chastised it and made it conspicuous by persecution?’ Liv. 7.4.6)
(h) Utrum enim partem regni petiturum esse an totum erepturum?
(‘Was he in doubt whether to seek for part of the kingdom, or to seize it all?’
Liv. 45.19.15)
(i) Nunc pro Othone an pro Vitellio in templa ituros?

(‘Should they go to the temples on behalf of an Otho or a Vitellius?’ Tac.
Hist. 1.50.3)
Constituent questions in the AcI are illustrated by exx. ( j)–(n). In ( j), the governing
verb is expressed.209
( j) Quid esse illi morbi dixeras?
(‘What illness did you say he has?’ Pl. Men. 889)
(k) Postremo quid esse (v.l. esset) levius aut turpius quam auctore hoste de sum-
mis rebus capere consilium?
(‘Lastly, what could be more senseless or more discreditable than to adopt measures
respecting the most important affairs on the authority of an enemy?’ Caes. Gal. 5.28.6)
(l) Quonam haec omnia nisi ad suam perniciem pertinere?
(‘To what does all this tend but to his own ruin?’ Caes. Civ. 1.9.4)
(m) Si bellum in provincia esset, quid sese inter pacatos facere? Si debellatum iam
et confecta provincia esset, cur in Italiam non revehi?
(‘If there was a war in the province, what were they doing among people already
pacified? If the war was over now and the province set in order, why were they not
transported back to Italy?’ Liv. 28.24.7)
(n) Cur enim neminem alium delectum qui saevienti impudicae vocem prae-
beret?
(‘For why had none other been chosen to put his voice at the disposal of that homi-
cidal wanton?’ Tac. Ann. 13.43.4)
Supplement:
Interrogative pronouns and determiners: Quid censes hunc ipsum Sex. Roscium
quo studio et qua intellegentia esse in rusticis rebus? (Cic. S. Rosc. 49); Cui enim non
apparere, adfectare eum imperium in Latinos? (Liv. 1.50.4); . . . cui dubium esse, quin
extemplo conscensurus sit navem atque in patriam rediturus? (Liv. 24.26.6); Quo
enim illum unquam imperatoris functum officio esse? (Liv. 35.48.13); Scio dici simile
aliquid etiam ex parte diversa: quem sibi usum fore pecuniae dicet. (Quint. Decl.
269.11—NB: with the governing verb expressed);210 Sed quos omitti posse, quos
deligi? (Tac. Ann. 6.2.4); Sin populum Romanum armis vocent, quotam partem
generis humani Batavos esse? (Tac. Hist. 5.25.1); Sed revertentibus post laborem quod
honestius quam uxorium levamentum? (Tac. Ann. 3.34.2)
Interrogative adverbs: Quamdiu autem tranquillam, quae secesserit, multitudinem
fore? (Liv. 2.32.6); Eam sententiam alii totam aspernari. Cur enim illos, qui se arces-
sant, ipsos non venire, cum aeque coniungi possent? (Liv. 22.50.5); Quonam modo
enim Hasdrubalem et Magonem, nisi defunctos suo bello, sine certamine adducere
exercitum potuisse? (Liv. 25.35.5); Nam unde, cum pecunia in aerario non esset,
paraturos navales socios? (Liv. 26.35.10); Quando legatum, gravi quidem comitatu et
209 For further examples with dico, see TLL s.v. dico 895.62ff.
210 See Winterbottom ad loc.: ‘an astonishing construction’.
superbo, cum imperio venire? (Tac. Hist. 4.14.3); Cogitavit etiam de Homeri car-
minibus abolendis, cur enim sibi non licere dicens quod Platoni licuisset, qui eum e
civitate quam constituebat eiecerit? (Suet. Cal. 34.2—NB: with the governing verb
expressed)
The distinction between an interrogative sentence with an assertive illocutionary

force and one with an informative illocutionary force (rhetorical vs. real questions) is
not a clear-cut one. Especially if a communication verb immediately precedes,
authors have the choice between an accusative and infinitive and a finite subjunctive
clause, in order to form a rhetorical or a real question, respectively. (For the latter, see
§ 7.115.) There is also variation in the manuscripts (ex. (k), for example), where edi-
tors have to make a decision. Noteworthy instances of the accusative and infinitive
are exx. (o) and (p).211
(o) . . . cunctique instare et: Quanto satius esse (esset cj. Adam) vel socios obsi-
dione eximere vel victam iam semel classem iterum vincere . . .
(‘. . . all the other officers were pressing him (saying) how much better it would
be either to relieve allies from a siege or again to defeat the navy already once
defeated . . .’ Liv. 37.26.12–13—NB: for a different approach, see Briscoe ad loc.)
(p) Et postquam adnuit, agere incipiunt: ‘Quem illum tanta superbia esse, ut
aeternitatem famae spe praesumat?’
(‘When he had nodded assent, they began to plead their cause: “Who can be
so arrogant as to anticipate in hope an eternity of renown?” ’ Tac. Ann. 11.7.1)
15.106 The use of the accusative and infinitive clause in exclamations

Exclamatory accusative and infinitive sentences are discussed in § 6.35.
15.107 The use of the accusative and infinitive in relative clauses

The accusative and infinitive is not uncommon in non-restrictive adnominal relative
clauses and in sentences with relative connexion.212 As is the case with finite clauses, it
is not always easy to decide between the two, and editors vary in their punctuation.
Here they are printed as independent sentences. An example with an antecedent in the
preceding clause is (a); here the relative expression might be taken as an adnominal
clause. In exx. (b) and (c), by contrast, quo and quare refer to the preceding content as
a whole; therefore it is more attractive to take them as instances of relative connexion.
For a rare example of a restrictive relative clause in the accusative and infinitive, see (d).
(a) Unum quasi comperendinatus medium diem fuisse. Quem totum Galbam in
consideranda causa componendaque posuisse.
(‘Only one day before the final hearing intervened, and this whole time Galba devoted
to considering the case and to shaping it for presentation.’ Cic. Brut. 87)
211 More instances in K.-St.: II.541.

212 See Évrard (1992: 180–6; 2011), Orlandini (1994), Álvarez Huerta (1996), Bolkestein (1996b), and
Meyers (2011).
(b) . . . Croesi filium, cum esset infans, locutum. Quo ostento regnum patris et
domum funditus concidisse.
(‘. . . Croesus’ son, when an infant, had spoken. With this serving as a portent his
father’s kingdom and house were utterly overthrown.’ Cic. Div. 1.121)
(c) Postea demonstrabitur ne . . . quidem . . . potuisse hunc ipsum de illa suppli-
cium sumere. Quare esse indignum eum, qui . . .
(‘After that it will be pointed out that he himself could not have inflicted the punish-
ment on her; therefore it is intolerable that he who . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.82)
(d) Fama est aram esse in vestibulo templi cuius cinerem nullo umquam
move<ri> vento.
(‘It is reported that in the space in front of the temple there is an altar whose ashes are
never stirred by any wind.’ Liv. 24.3.7)
Supplement:
Quem iam ingredientem in navem et Verri nimis atrociter minitantem ab se retrac-
tum esse et adservatum . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.160); Quod item fieri nullo modo posse, nisi
cognosset is qui . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.87); Deinde, quos in senatu ne tenuissima quidem
suspicione attigerat, eos nominavit: <L.> Lucullum, a quo solitum esse ad se mitti
C. Fannium, illum qui in P. Clodium subscripserat, L. Domitium, cuius domum con-
stitutam fuisse unde eruptio fieret. (Cic. Att. 2.24.3); Qui si alicuius iniuriae sibi con-
scius fuisset, non fuisse difficile cavere. (Caes. Gal. 1.14.2); Quibus proeliis
calamitatibusque fractos . . . coactos esse Sequanis obsides dare nobilissimos civita-
tis . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.31.7); Cuius rei magnam partem laudis atque existimationis ad
Libonem perventuram si illo auctore atque agente ab armis sit discessum. (Caes. Civ.
1.26.4); Qua oratione deterritos amplius iugulationem non fecisse. (B. Hisp. 16.4);
Quem si Romanis tradidisset, fore ut illi plurumum deberetur. (Sal. Jug. 111.1);
Nobiles iuvenes quosdam, quorum principem L. Caecilium Metellum (sc. esse),
mare ac naves spectare, ut deserta Italia ad regum aliquem transfugiant. (Liv.
22.53.5); . . . illum, quia male administratae provinciae aliorumque criminum urgeba-
tur, culpam invidia velavisse, frustra conterrita uxore, quam etsi nocentem periculi
tamen expertem fuisse. (Tac. Ann. 6.29.1); . . . tuta pone tergum Achaia Asiaque, quas
inermes exponi Vitellio, ni praesidiis firmarentur. (Tac. Hist. 2.83.2); Trepidus ad
haec Vitellius pauca purgandi sui causa respondit culpam in militem conferens, cuius
nimio ardori imparem esse modestiam suam. (Tac. Hist. 3.70.4); Britanniam petisse
spe margaritarum, quarum amplitudinem conferentem interdum sua manu exegisse
pondus. (Suet. Jul. 47.1)
15.108 The use of the accusative and infinitive in correlative and

comparative structures
In correlative structures such as those with ut . . . sic ‘just as . . . so’ both parts can be an
accusative and infinitive clause, as in (a). This is not surprising since the combined
clauses behave in the same way as coordinated clauses. In fact, ut . . . sic and cum . . . tum
can be used as ‘quasi-coordinators’ (see §§ 19.73–4). For cum . . . tum, see (b).
(a) Ex quo intellegi potuit id quod saepe dictum est, ut mare quod sua natura
tranquillum sit ventorum vi agitari atque turbari, sic populum Romanum
sua sponte esse placatum, hominum seditiosorum vocibus ut violentissimis
tempestatibus concitari.
(‘From which one could easily understand what has often been said—that as the sea,
which by its own nature is tranquil, is often agitated and disturbed by the violence of
the winds, so, too, the Roman people is, when left to itself, calm, but is easily roused
by the language of seditious men, as if by raging storms.’ Cic. Clu. 138)
(b) . . . eas (sc. res) a Stoicis esse perspectas, eisdemque de rebus hos cum acutius
disseruisse, tum sensisse gravius et fortius . . .
(‘. . . Those matters were understood clearly by the Stoics, and concerning the same
subjects they had both engaged in more insightful discussions and had perceived
them with greater depth and strength . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.62)
Supplement:
Ut cum in sole ambulem, etiam si ego aliam ob causam ambulem, fieri natura tamen ut
colorer, sic . . . sentio illorum tactu orationem meam quasi colorari. (Cic. de Orat. 2.60);
Huc accedit uti videamus, corpus ut ipsum / suscipere inmanis morbos durumque
dolorem, / sic animum curas acris luctumque metumque. (Lucr. 3.459–61); . . . et tot
acies ut hostium exercitus delesse, ita victoris etiam copias parte aliqua minuisse. (Liv.
23.12.4); . . . quem ad modum, si non dedatur obses pro rupto foedus se habiturum, sic
deditam <intactam> inviolatamque ad suos remissurum. (Liv. 2.13.8); . . . admonemus
cives nos eorum esse et, si non easdem opes habere, eandem tamen patriam incolere?
(Liv. 4.3.3); Ut enim qui in villis intra consaepta morarentur, quam qui foris terram
molirentur, ignaviores habitos, sic eos . . . segniores visos. (Col. 1.pr.17); Quorum
favorem ut largitione et ambitu male adquiri, ita per bonas artes haud spernendum.
(Tac. Hist. 1.17.2); Ceterum quis tam stultus . . . est ut audeat repugnare hominem a Deo
ut primum potuisse fingi ita posse denuo reformari? (Min. Fel. 34.9)
In a similar way, when two clauses are compared, for example with ante . . . quam, both
can be accusative and infinitive, as in (c).213
(c) Censes ante coronam herbae exstitisse quam conceptum esse semen?
(‘Do you think the crown of herbs appeared before their seeds were formed?’ Cic.
Div. 2.68)
15.109 The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate (especially satellite)
clauses with a subordinator
The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate clauses with a subordinator, for
example in a causal clause with the subordinator quia, is rare in Latin (though it is
amply attested in Classical Greek).214 Two examples are (a) and (b). An instance with
cum is (c).
213 See Orlandini (1994).

214 Instances can be found in K.-St.: II.545–7; Sz.: 361. See also Orlandini (1994). A few instances from
Seneca are mentioned by Setaioli (2000: 51). For Greek instances, see K.-G.: II.550–2.
(a) . . . id, quod falsum fuerit, sine ulla dubitatione pro vero probasse. Quia si
dubitarit, summae fuisse amentiae dubia spe inpulsum certum in periculum
se committere.
(‘. . . he undoubtedly held what was false as true. For if he was in doubt it was stark mad-
ness to rush into certain danger through the lure of a doubtful hope.’ Cic. Inv. 2.27)
(b) Ideo se moenibus inclusos tenere eos. Quia (quippe cj. Friedersdorff) si qui
evasissent aliqua, velut feras bestias per agros vagari, et laniare et trucidare
quodcunque obvium detur.
(‘He was keeping them shut up inside the walls for the reason that, if any escaped in
some way, they roamed like wild beasts over the country and mangled and slew all
that met them.’ Liv. 26.27.12)
(c) Iacere tam diu inritas actiones, quae de suis commodis ferrentur, cum interim
de sanguine ac supplicio suo latam legem confestim exerceri et tantam vim
habere.
(‘The measures which had been proposed in their interests lay all this while neglected,
whereas the law that was passed concerning their punishment and their lives was
carried out at once, and was being strictly enforced.’ Liv. 4.51.4)
Unproblematic are accusative and infinitive sentences with the connector quamquam
and with the ironic combination nisi forte, as in (d) and (e), respectively: these are not
subordinate clauses.215
(d) Quamquam nullam nobilitatem, nullos honores, nulla merita cuiquam ad
dominationem pandere viam.
(‘To be sure no nobility, no honours, no merits, opened wide the road to
tyranny for any man.’ Liv. 4.15.5)
(e) Nisi forte clarissimo cuique pluris curas, maiora pericula subeunda, deleni-
mentis curarum et periculorum carendum esse.
(‘Unless your distinguished men must endure more responsibilities and
greater dangers but must lack the relaxations compensating those responsi-
bilities and those dangers.’ Tac. Ann. 2.33.3)
. The use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of passive two- and
three-place verbs
The AcI can be used as subject of a passive main verb. This construction is often called
the impersonal passive construction as opposed to the personal passive construction
of § 15.111 (the nominative and infinitive construction). It is greatly preferred if the
main verb is a complex form (for example perfect passive (a) or gerundive + sum);
when the main verb is governed by a modal verb such as possum ‘to be able’, as in (b);
215 For a discussion of (e), see Goodyear ad loc. A different approach can be found in Sz.: 360–1, who
explains (e) as a subordinate accusative and infinitive clause.
and when the main verb is specified by one or more agent, addressee, or satellite
constituents, like mihi in (c).216 In the case of simplex forms, the personal passive is
much more common than the impersonal. However, there are also situations in which
a nominative and infinitive construction is excluded, for example when the AcI clause
contains an impersonal verb. There are only a few attestations in Early Latin.217
(a) In hac habitasse platea dictum’st Chrysidem . . .
(‘It has been reported to me that Chrysis lived in this street . . .’ Ter. An. 796)
(b) . . . ut recte dici possit omnia officia eo referri, ut adipiscamur principia naturae . . .
(‘. . . so that it may correctly be said that all “appropriate acts” are means to the end of
attaining the primary needs of nature.’ Cic. Fin. 3.22)
(c) . . . dici mihi memini ludorum Romanorum diebus L. Crassum quasi colli-
gendi sui causa se in Tusculanum contulisse.
(‘I remember that it was said to me that Lucius Crassus, as if for the sake of recruiting
his energies, went to his seat at Tusculum during the days of the Roman Games.’ Cic.
de Orat. 1.24)

Aliquot me adierunt, ex te auditum qui <ai>bant hodie filiam / meam nubere tuo
gnato. (Ter. An. 534–5); . . . ne fando quidem auditum’st crocodilum . . . violatum ab
Aegyptio. (Cic. N.D. 1.82); . . . si . . . audiretur Romae nullum in mea provincia num-
mum nisi in aes alienum erogari. (Cic. Att. 6.1.21); Deinde audito Saguntiae
Celtiberum omnes sarcinas impedimentaque relicta, eo pergit . . . (Liv. 34.19.10); . . .
cernebatur . . . novissimos . . . premi . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.64.1); Esse igitur deos confiten-
dum est. (Cic. N.D. 1.44); . . . satis credebatur obsidione domitos hostes in fidem
venisse. (Liv. 8.26.7); Cura hoc. Iam ego huc revenero. / # Curatum est . . . esse te
senem miserrumum. (Pl. Bac. 1066–7); De hoc Verri dicitur habere eum perbona
toreumata . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.38); . . . ei . . . dictum est clipeum esse salvum . . . (Cic. Fam.
5.12.5); . . . non sine causa dicitur ad ea referri omnes nostras cogitationes . . . (Cic. Fin.
3.60); . . . ut pulsis hostibus dici posset eos ab se per fidem in conloquio circumventos.
(Caes. Gal. 1.46.3); Dicitur eo tempore matrem Pausaniae vixisse . . . (Nep. Paus.
5.3);218 Non admisi avum quia dictum erat mihi hoc illum animo venire, ut raperet.
(Sen. Con. 9.5.11); Taprobanen alterum orbem terrarum esse diu existimatum est
Antichthonum appellatione. (Plin. Nat. 6.81); . . . ut non libeat cuiquam dare nisi de
quo exploratum sit tibi eum redditurum. (Cic. Att. 4.15.3); Fertur . . . ab his qui
Hadriani vitam diligentius in litteras ret<t>ulerunt Hadrianum Veri scisse geni-
turam . . . (Hist. Aug. Ael. 3.8); . . . ex quo intellegitur ab Oppianico esse corruptum . . .
(Cic. Clu. 64); . . . ut . . . intellegeretur iam ad summum paene (sc. maturitatem dicendi
Latine) esse perductam. (Cic. Brut. 161); Quae si hominibus solis nota sunt, homi-
num facta esse causa iudicandum est. (Cic. N.D. 2.155); . . . eum mortuum postridie
216 For quantitative data on prose authors from the Rhetorica ad Herennium up to and including
Suetonius, see Kirk (1938).
217 See Bennett: I. 389–96.
218 This instance is the starting point of a detailed treatment of the ‘impersonal construction’ by Calboli
(1962: 3–115).
hora decima denique ei nuntiabatur? (Cic. Mil. 48); . . . nuntiatum est nobis a
M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.1); Nuntiatur Afranio magnos
commeatus, qui iter habebant ad Caesarem, ad flumen constitisse. (Caes. Civ.
1.51.1); . . . nuntiatum regi patribusque est in monte Albano lapidibus pluvisse. (Liv.
1.31.2); Nam istum doctum et sapientem virum fuisse memoriae traditum est. (Cic.
Parad. 23)
As can be seen from these examples, most verbs are verba sentiendi et declarandi.
However, the AcI is also found as subject of the expression mihi videtur ‘it seems to
me’, which is then more or less synonymous with censeo, as in the much discussed (d).
(d) Non mihi videtur ad beate vivendum satis posse virtutem.
(‘It does not appear to me that virtue is enough for leading a happy life.’ Cic. Tusc.
5.12)219
Supplement:
Neque eum ad me adire neque me magni pendere / visum est. (Pl. Cur. 262–3);
Natare autem eos posse ideo videtur, quod terra est de qua ducuntur pumicosa.
(Vitr. 2.3.4)
. The nominative and infinitive construction
In addition to the use of the accusative and infinitive as subject of a passive (singular
neuter) verb form (a so-called impersonal passive construction), Latin has another
passive construction, the so-called nominative and infinitive construction (for its
internal properties, see § 14.9). An example is (a). Here, the person who is meant to
be the comrade of Hercules is unexpressed. This person is identical with qui, the sub-
ject of the passive form diceris. However, this qui is not the patient of the action of
saying and, as a consequence, cannot be regarded as the normal passive subject of
dico. From Early Latin—with few attestations220—onwards this construction is par-
ticularly frequent with passive forms of dico ‘to say’,221 but it is in principle possible
with all passivizable perception, cognition, and communication verbs, as can be seen in
(b) and (c). The infinitives may be active (or equivalent), as in (a)–(c) and (e)—the
‘agent’ type (see § 14.9)—or, less frequently,222 passive, as in (d) and (f)— the ‘patient’
type. The range of governing verbs expands from Cicero onwards, especially in
Lucretius, and in Ovid and other Augustan poets.223 Complex forms are rare, but see
219 Discussion in Orlandini (2000: 340–3). See also the note on videor on p. 197 below.
220 See Bennett: I.388–9.
221 In Kirk’s (1938) prose sample there are 457 instances of the personal passive expression with dico
and only 24 of the impersonal. For credo the figures are 114 against 14. Conversely, for nuntio the figures
are ten against forty-five. For Pliny the Elder, see Tarriño (2002: 276–7). Merguet (Phil.) s.v. dico 679ff. and
(Reden) s.v. dico 96ff. has a large collection of instances, with only a few impersonal forms. See Heine
(1990: 8–9).
222 See Tarriño (2002: 282–4). In her corpus of Pliny the Elder, in twenty-eight NcI’s fourteen infinitives
are ‘transitive’, ten ‘intransitive’ and four passive. With the forty-seven impersonal AcI clauses in the same
corpus it is just the other way around.
223 For Ovid, see Bömer ad Ov. Met. 2.42.
est dicta in (e). Specifications of the main verb (for example, addressee, agent, and
satellite constituents or a modal verb) are very rare, but see possit in (d) and the agent
ab suis in (f). See also § 15.110 for the use of these specifications with the so-called
impersonal construction.
(a) . . . qui <et> Herculei socius esse diceris . . .
(‘(you) who are said to be Hercules’ companion . . .’ Pl. Rud. 161)
(b) Ut enim mel . . . suo tamen proprio genere saporis, non comparatione cum
aliis dulce esse sentitur . . .
(‘Just as honey is perceived to be sweet by its own particular kind of flavour and not
by being compared with something else . . .’ Cic. Fin. 3.34)
(c) Qui habitus et quae figura non procul abesse putatur a vitae periculo . . .
(‘That type of condition and build which is commonly thought of as incurring risk of
life itself . . .’ Cic. Brut. 313)
(d) Hoc commode reprehenditur, si dici possit ex hostibus equus esse captus . . .
(‘A proper answer is made to this if a horse can be said to have been captured from
the enemy . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.85)
(e) Anus / quae est dicta mater esse ei antehac non fuit.
(‘The old woman who was previously said to be her mother wasn’t.’ Ter. Hau. 269–70)
(f) . . . pueri quidam visi ab suis erant inter obsides Illyrios ducti . . .
(‘. . . some boys were seen by their relatives being led along with the Illyrian hostages . . .’
Liv. 44.35.3)
Simple forms:
Perception verbs:
‘Agent’ type: Bibulus nondum audiebatur esse in Syria. (Cic. Att. 5.18.1); Iam Caesar
a Gergovia discessisse audiebatur . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.59.1); . . . quod sub te duce, te iubente,
cessi, / quod tu maximus arbiter meaeque / victor perpetuus legere ripae. (Stat. Silv.
4.3.82–4); . . . quae, si forte notasti, / oscula sentiri non esse sororia possent. (Ov. Met.
9.538–9)
‘Patient’ type: . . . ut lapide hoc uni nupta fuisse legar. (Prop. 4.11.36)
Cognition verbs:
‘Agent’ type: Tametsi mihi nihil fuit optatius quam ut primum abs te ipso, deinde
a ceteris omnibus quam gratissimus erga te esse cognoscerer, tamen . . . (Cic. Fam.
1.5a.1); . . . pro certo creditur necato filio vacuam domum scelestis nuptiis fecisse.
(Sal. Cat. 15.2); Puer o dignissime credi / esse deus . . . (Ov. Met. 4.320–1); . . . plures
aliquanto necaturus (sc. fuisse) . . . creditur . . . (Suet. Tib. 62.3); . . . ut haec inveniantur
hodie esse huius filiae. (Pl. Poen. 1171); Etiamque ubi nunc triglyphi constituuntur, si
ibi luminum spatia fuisse iudicabuntur, isdem rationibus denticuli in Ionicis fenes-
trarum occupavisse loca videbuntur. (Vitr. 4.2.4); . . . P. Sulpicius, qui deinceps eum
magistratum petiturus putabatur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.26); . . . in eas Italiae partis
Pythagoras venisse reperitur. (Cic. Rep. 2.28); Ceterae Illyrici legiones secuturae
sperabantur. (Tac. Hist. 2.74.1)
‘Patient’ type: Et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut
cycnus quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem. (Tert. Carn. 4.7); Haec palam et
vitato omni secreto. Neque dubitabantur praescripta ei a Tiberio . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.8.2);
Existimatur etiam equestres census pollicitus singulis. (Suet. Iul. 33); . . . Hecubam
autem putant propter animi acerbitatem quandam et rabiem fingi in canem esse
conversam. (Cic. Tusc. 3.63); Nam Deus omnipotens mente una omnium et communi
mortalitatis adsensu neque genitus scitur neque . . . (Arn. 1.34.2); Quia igitur plurimae
gentes vi maiore collaturae capita sperabantur, dubia bellorum coniectans sobrius
rector magnis curarum molibus stringebatur. (Amm. 17.3.1)
Communication verbs:
‘Agent’ type: Necessitudo autem infertur, cum vi quadam reus id, quod fecerit,
fecisse defenditur, hoc modo. (Cic. Inv. 2.98); Sub idem tempus e familia Scriboniorum
Libo Drusus defertur moliri res novas. (Tac. Ann. 2.27.1); . . . hasce aedis esse oportet
/ Demaenetus ubi dicitur habitare. (Pl. As. 381–2); Cretae . . . dicitur platanus esse
quae folia hieme non amittat . . . (Var. R. 1.7.6); Dicitur mihi tuus servus anagnostes
fugitivus cum Vardaeis esse. (Vat. Fam. 5.9.1); . . . ut . . . minime . . . pecuniae cupidus
fuisse doceatur. (Cic. Inv. 2.36);224 . . . libere respondisse fertur (sc. Hannibal) . . . (Cic.
de Orat. 2.75); De eo qui naufragus et ante agrorum sterilitate vexatus in scholis fin-
gitur se suspendisse. (Quint. Inst. 8.5.22); . . . incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium . . .
(Tac. Ann. 6.3.3);225 Is (sc. Socrates) autem memoratur prudenter doctissimeque
dixisse . . . (Vitr. 3.pr.1); Caesar enim adventare iam iamque et adesse eius equites falso
nuntiabantur. (Caes. Civ. 1.14.2); . . . complures . . . civitates renovare belli consilia
nuntiabantur . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.1.1); . . . crebris motibus terrae ruere in agris nuntiaban-
tur tecta. (Liv. 4.21.5); Illis (sc. comis) contulerim, quas quondam nuda Dione /
pingitur umenti sustinuisse manu. (Ov. Am. 1.14.33–4); Cervis in capite inesse ver-
miculi . . . produntur. (Plin. Nat. 11.135); Bubonis oculorum cinis collyrio mixtus
claritatem oculis facere promittitur. (Plin. Nat. 29.127); . . . haec avis scribitur conchis
se solere complere . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.124); Blemmyis traduntur capita abesse ore et
oculis pectori adfixis. (Plin. Nat. 5.46)
‘Patient’ type: . . . ne quis in provincia simul virtute tanta et felicitate perdomita
relictus hostis dici posset. (Liv. 28.32.12); Nobili Graecorum et ampla civitate Ephesi
lex vetusta dicitur a maioribus dura condicione sed iure esse non iniquo constituta.
(Vitr. 10.pr.1); Primum ad oppugnationes aries sic inventus memoratur esse. (Vitr.
10.13.1); Oppugnata domus C. Caesaris, clarissimi et fortissimi viri, multas noctis
horas nuntiabatur. (Cic. Mil. 66); . . . alius postea in paradisum ereptus debet ostendi
cui permissum sit eloqui quae paulo mutire non licuit. (Tert. Praescr. 24.6); Plures
(sc. soles) quam tres simul visi ad hoc aevi numquam produntur. (Plin. Nat. 2.99)
Complex forms (including forms of sum understood):
‘Agent’ type: Adnotatusque miles qui fascem lignorum gestabat ita praerigui-
sse manus ut oneri adhaerentes truncis brachiis deciderent. (Tac. Ann. 13.35.3);
(sc. apes) [Cum] a mellario cum id fecisse sunt animadversae . . . (Var. R.
3.16.30); . . . saepe auditus multo antehac rettulisse . . . (Amm. 19.12.10); Septimum
224 Note that the subject of doceatur corresponds with the subject of the AcI in the active parallel
construction and not with the object/patient of doceo.
225 For the NcI with verbs of accusing and convicting in Tacitus, see Draeger (1882: 63).
decimum Kal. Aprilis interclusa anima creditus est mortalitatem explevisse. (Tac. Ann.
6.50.4); Sin fuisse aliis quoque causa faciendi videbitur, aut potestas defuisse aliis
demonstranda est aut facultas aut voluntas. (Cic. Inv. 2.24); Qui autem dictus est
adiutor fuisse et conscius, P. Asicius, iudicio est liberatus. (Cic. Cael. 23); Is ingenio et
industria magna praeter reliquos excellens dictus est artificiosis rebus se delectare.
(Vitr. 9.8.2); Fortasse mirabuntur i qui multa ventorum nomina noverunt quod a nobis
expositi sunt tantum octo esse venti. (Vitr. 1.6.9); Regnum adpetisse est iudicatus. (Cic.
Dom. 101); Apud Arbilam Magni Alexandri victoria luna defecisse noctis secunda hora
est prodita eademque in Sicilia exoriens. (Plin. Nat. 2.180); . . . quia tanta sapientia fuisse
in iure constituendo putanda est quanta fuit in his tantis opibus imperi comparandis.
(Cic. de Orat. 1.196); Reliquae (sc. naves) . . . Uticam versus petere visae sunt. (B. Afr. 7.3)
‘Patient’ type: Prius data est quam tibi dari dicta . . . (Pac. trag. 167—NB: dicta =
promissa); Quae quom sit lex, lege quoque consociati homines cum dis putandi
sumus. (Cic. Leg. 1.23)
There is much discussion about the origin of the nominative and infinitive construction
and its relation to the accusative and infinitive. The best synchronic explanation seems
to be that the entity which becomes the subject in the personal passive construction is
selected for that function for pragmatic reasons, more or less the same ones that deter-
mine the choice between active and passive: it is often topical (see § 5.10), but it can also
be used to introduce a new entity in presentative-like utterances.226 As a consequence
that entity is ‘raised’ from its relation with the infinitive to a relation with the main verb
(for the notion of ‘raising’ in connexion with the accusative and infinitive, see § 12.5).227
Heberlein (2002: 179–81), focusing on dicor in particular, states that it mainly func-
tions as a ‘quotative’ modal verb, comparable with German sollen. However, this
explanation only applies to those instances in which the action of saying is specified
in one of the ways mentioned above.
Combinations of videor, formally the passive counterpart of video ‘to see’, and an
infinitive are usually also treated as nominative and infinitive constructions. However,
with very few exceptions videor in this combination does not mean ‘to see’. In this
Syntax it is taken either as a copular verb (see § 4.97) or as an auxiliary (see § 4.98).
Mihi videtur + AcI (see § 15.110) is different.
As for diachronic explanations, the most common one is to regard the personal
passive with a verb like dico as an extension of the use of the passive of a verb like
admoneo with a prolative infinitive (see § 15.117). Other scholars refer to the object
+ object (passive: subject + subject) complement construction that is found with a
verb like dico, as in tu diceris bonus (esse) ‘you are said to be good’.228
The NcI is in principle also possible with verbs and expressions of praising, blaming,
congratulating, and thanking that govern an accusative and infinitive construction,
but instances such as (g) are very rare.
226 For such cases in Pliny the Elder, see Tarriño (2002: 280).
227 For factors influencing the choice between AcI and NcI, see Bolkestein (1981a; 1983; 1985).
228 So Torrego (1987) and Lavency (2003: 179–83). Interestingly, Roby (1882: II.143) considers the
infinitive a secondary predicate.
(g) Sollers ornare Cypassis / obicitur dominae contemerasse torum.

(‘Cypassis, the girl skilled at fashioning your hair, is accused of wronging her mis-
tress’ couch.’ Ov. Am. 2.7.17–18)
Supplement:
Extinxisse nefas tamen et sumpsisse merentis / laudabor poenas . . . (Verg. A.
2.585–6—NB: belongs to a section (567–88) that is rejected by many editors; see
Conte ad loc. and Horsfall (2008: App. 1))
Nominative and infinitive constructions of the ‘patient’ type can also be used with
iubeo (on which see § 15.100 (vi))229 and a few other verbs that are discussed in
§ 15.100 (iii). Examples are (h)–(k).
(h) Proximo iussa’st dari . . .
(‘She has been ordered to be given to her nearest relative . . .’ Ter. Ph. 416)
(i) His igitur rebus praeclare commendatus iussus es renuntiari consul et qui-
dem cum ipso.
(‘Since you were admirably commended by these qualities, Caesar gave orders for
you to be declared elected consul, and with himself as your colleague.’ Cic. Phil. 2.79)
( j) . . . nec patefieri quae scientiam eius latebant permissis . . .
(‘. . . and without those things which were concealed from his knowledge having been
allowed to be explained . . .’ Amm. 20.2.5)
(k) In has lautumias siqui publice custodiendi sunt etiam ex ceteris oppidis
Siciliae deduci imperantur.
(‘Into these quarries men are commanded to be brought even from other cities in
Sicily, if they are ordered by the public authorities to be kept in custody.’ Cic. Ver. 5.68)

. . . populi maiestas conservari iubetur . . . (Cic. Balb. 36); . . . (sc. aqua pluvia) iubetur
ab arbitro coerceri . . . (Cic. Top. 39); . . . (sc. Romulus) dicitur ab Amulio . . . exponi ius-
sus esse. (Cic. Rep. 2.4—NB: double personal passive); Triginta quinqueremes . . . mitti
iussae (sc. sunt). (Liv. 27.7.15); Trecenae familiae in singulas colonias iubebantur
mitti. (Liv. 32.29.4); Siculum . . . frumentum in Aetoliam ad exercitum portari ius-
sum . . . (Liv. 37.2.12); . . . duo milia electi qui mori iuberentur: novi generis edictum.
(Flor. Epit. 2.9); . . . propter fornicationem carnis permittitur homo a coniuge sepa-
rari . . . (August. adult. coniug. 1.17.19); Ficorum (sc. umbra) levis, quamvis sparsa,
ideoque inter vineas seri non vetentur. (Plin. Nat. 17.89)
It has been suggested (by, among others, Sz.: 364) that in (h) iussa est dari is the regu-
lar passive of iussi eam dari, but this is impossible, since eam is not the object of iussi,
nor is dari a prolative infinitive: the passive is incompatible with ‘ordering’ situations
(see § 7.66).
229 For further examples, see TLL s.v. iubeo 578.54ff.

Examples of the ‘agent’ type of NcI constructions with these verbs are given in § 15.100
(vi), exx. (x)–(z). Additional examples are (l) and (m).
(l) Ubei ea dies venerit quo die iusei erunt adesse . . .
(‘When the day shall have come on which the parties shall be ordered to appear . . .’
CIL I2.583.63 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))
(m) Nam et volgo quaesitam sororem quis vetatur uxorem ducere.
(‘For a man is forbidden to marry his sister even if she is illegitimate.’ Scaev. dig. 23.2.54)
It is uncommon to continue a nominative and infinitive expression with a second or

third infinitive depending on the same governing personal passive expression. There
are a number of instances where this might seem to have been possible, but where
instead the continuation takes the form of an accusative and infinitive expression, as
if governed by an impersonal governing verb. An example is (n). In the first sentence
a nominative and infinitive construction is used, but in the second it is replaced by an
accusative and infinitive clause, which is possible because impersonal videtur can be
understood from the preceding personal videtur (the subject of which is quisquam).
(n) Mihi enim non videbatur quisquam esse beatus posse, cum in malis esset. In
malis autem sapientem esse posse, si essent ulla corporis aut fortunae mala.
(‘No one seemed to me to be able to be happy when encompassed with evil; but (it
seemed) that the wise man could be encompassed with evil if any evils of body and
fortune existed.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.22)
Supplement:
Ad quem (sc. Themistoclem) quidam doctus homo atque in primis eruditus acces-
sisse dicitur eique artem memoriae . . . pollicitus esse se traditurum. Cum ille quaesis-
set, quidnam illa ars efficere posset, dixisse illum doctorem, ut omnia meminisset. Et
ei Themistoclem respondisse gratius sibi illum esse facturum, si se oblivisci quae vel-
let, quam si meminisse docuisset. (Cic. de Orat. 2.299); . . . M. Papirius, unus ex iis,
dicitur Gallo barbam suam, ut tum omnibus promissa erat, permulcenti scipione
eburneo in caput incusso iram movisse atque ab eo initium caedis ortum, ceteros in
sedibus suis trucidatos. Post principum caedem nulli deinde mortalium parci, diripi
tecta, exhaustis inici ignes. (Liv. 5.41.9–10).
Inevitably, with two more or less equivalent expressions mixed utterances (contam-
ination) occur. An example (sometimes emended) is (o). Fertur is personal passive,
with Papinianus as its subject; however, the sentence continues with dicentem, as if
Papinianum had preceded.230
(o) Et fertur quidem Papinianus, cum raptus a militibus ad Palatium traheretur
occidendus, praedivinasse dicentem (dicens cj. Petschenig) em stultissi-
mum fore qui in suum subrogaretur locum, nisi adpetitam crudeliter
praefecturam vindicaret.
230 For references, see Sz.: 365. Examples in Kirk (1938).

(‘And it is further related that Papinian, when, seized by the soldiers, he was
being dragged to the Palace to be put to death, foretold the future, saying that
whoever should succeed to his position would be an utter fool if he did not
take vengeance for this brutal attack on the prefecture.’ Hist. Aug. Carac. 8.8)
. Other personal constructions resembling the NcI construction
Resembling the personal passive construction with cognition, perception, and com-
munication verbs are rare infinitival constructions with intransitive verbs with
roughly the same meaning, such as clueo ‘to be spoken of ’, ‘to be known as’ in (a), and
the expression in suspicionem venio ‘to come under suspicion’ in (b). These construc-
tions are extended in poetry.
(a) Atridae duo fratres cluent fecisse facinus maxumum . . .
(‘The two brothers, the sons of Atreus, are said to have done a most famous deed . . .’
Pl. Bac. 925).
(b) Nonnullis etiam ipsi magistratus veniebant in suspicionem detinuisse nos et
demorati esse . . .
(‘In some quarters the magistrates themselves were suspected of having deliberately
detained and delayed us . . .’ Lent. Fam. 12.15.5)
. . . (sc. barathrum) quod quondam caesis montis fodisse medullis / audit falsiparens
Amphitryoniades . . . (Catul. 68.111–12); . . . tu cum mendax esse clarueris . . . (Lucif.
Athan. 2.25); Esse per gentes cluebat omnium miserrimus. (Enn. scen. 366V); . . . nec
mea conveniunt duro praecordia versu / Caesaris in Phrygios condere nomen avos.
(Prop. 2.1.41–2).231 . . . ut innotesceret praetor curam agere . . . (Ulp. dig. 4.9.3.1);
Hosce opinor Cibyrae cum in suspicionem venissent suis civibus fanum expilasse
Apollinis, veritos poenam iudicii ac legis domo profugisse. (Cic. Ver. 4.30)
The label nominative and infinitive is also used for personal expressions that are occa-
sionally found alongside impersonal expressions with which the accusative and infini-
tive can be used as subject. These impersonal expressions, for example apparet ‘it
appears’ and constat ‘to be an established fact’, are discussed in § 15.101. Examples of
personal use are (c) and (d). In (c) apparent is plural in agreement with haec; in (d),
constarent with quae.
(c) Haec apparent magis ita esse in latioribus regionibus, simplicia cum sunt.
(‘These things are more clearly present in broad stretches, when they are uniform.’
Var. R. 1.6.2)
(d) Quae si omnia e Ti. Coruncani scientia . . . acta esse constarent . . .
(‘But if all these things were known to have been done in a manner equal to the
knowledge of Coruncanius . . .’ Cic. Dom. 139)
231 For this instance and a few others, see Sánchez Martínez (1996).

Atque ut membra nobis ita data sunt, ut ad quandam rationem vivendi data esse
appareant, sic . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.23); . . . quo facilius appareat ita degenerasse a suorum
virtutibus Nero, ut tamen vitia cuiusque quasi tradita et ingenita ret<t>ulerit. (Suet.
Ner. 1.2); . . . sed aliud si is iudex nihil scisset nisi quae praeiudicia de eo facta esse
constarent . . . (Cic. Clu. 104); Tunc modulatae multitudinis conferta vox aures eius
affertur, ut, quamvis hominum nemo pareret, chorus tamen esse pateret. (Apul.
Met. 5.3.5)
In the same way modal expressions that are normally impersonal are sometimes used
personally, like decet ‘to be right’ and oportet ‘to be proper’ and with the impersonal
expression opus est ‘to be essential’ (for the impersonal expressions, see § 15.101).
Examples of personal use are (e)–(g), respectively.
(e) Quae ab imperatore decuerint (sc. provideri) omnia suis provisa . . .
(‘All those things which ought to be provided by a leader were provided for his
troops . . .’ Sal. Jug. 49.2)
(f) Adhuc, Archylis, quae adsolent quaeque oportent (v.l. oportet) / signa esse
ad salutem, omnia huic esse video.
(‘As yet, Archylis, all the symptoms which are normal and which ought to exist
toward recovery, I perceive in her.’ Ter. An. 481–2)
(g) Tu, quae istic opus erunt administrari, prospicies ut . . .
(‘In regard to those things which will need to be done at Rome, please look to it
that . . .’ D. Brut. Fam. 11.11.2)
Quae (sc. porticus) videntur ita oportere conlocari, uti . . . (Vitr. 5.9.2); Haec enim
Marcioni displicere oportebant. (Tert. Marc. 5.19.4); . . . nisi ea quae nil opu’ sunt
scire. (Ter. An. 337); . . . atque quot iuga boum opus fuerint (fuerit edd.) ibi versari, ita
finiantur. (Vitr. 6.6.1)
With the verb possum in its epistemic meaning ‘to be possible’, the personal construc-
tion is the normal one, as in (h)–( j).232
(h) Non esse servos peior hoc quisquam potest / nec magis vorsutus . . .
(‘There can’t be a worse slave than this one, or one cleverer . . .’ Pl. As. 118–19)
(i) Nam unum aliquid aut alterum potest in istum casu cecidisse suspiciose . . .
(‘To be sure, some one or two of these things can by chance have happened in such a
way so as to throw suspicion upon this defendant . . .’ Rhet. Her. 4.53)
( j) Sed cum haec scribebam V Kal., Pompeius iam Brundisium venisse poterat.
(‘But as I write on the 25th it is possible that Pompey has already reached Brundisium.’
Cic. Fam. 8.9a.2)
232 More examples OLD s.v. possum 5; TLL s.v. possum 133.51ff. Discussion in Núñez (1991: 176–84).
The verb debeo ‘must’ in its deductive epistemic meaning is normally found in per-
sonal expressions (see § 7.22). An impersonal exception in Classical Latin is (k); there
are more instances in Late Latin.233
(k) . . . nunc credo eo magis quod debet etiam fratris Appi amorem erga me cum
reliqua hereditate crevisse . . .
(‘. . . I believe that he is more (well-disposed) now because it must be the case
that his brother Appius’ affection for me has grown along with the rest of his
estate . . .’ Cic. Att. 6.1.10)
. Diachronic developments of the accusative and infinitive
The accusative and infinitive gradually came to be used with a wider range of verbs. This
is especially true for verbs of wishing (see § 15.100). Nevertheless, on the whole it lost
territory to finite clauses with subordinators, especially quod, quia, and quoniam, in this
order of frequency, with quoniam decreasing from the third century onwards. Early
examples of the use of quod with verbs of perception, cognition, and communication
are cited in § 15.9 and § 15.19. On the speed of this development opinions vary; in the
written evidence the AcI remains the normal expression by far.234
The use of subordinators is particularly strong in translations of the Bible. The
quotations from this text in ecclesiastical authors show variation between authors.
Jerome uses quod and quia in his Vulgate translation where Vetus Latina versions have
the AcI. For the distribution of quod and quia, see § 15.9.235 In their own works eccle-
siastical writers largely maintained the accusative and infinitive, as can be seen from
Table 15.3. Particularly interesting in this respect is Augustine. Before his conversion
to Christianity the proportion of AcI and finite clauses is 55 : 1. In his Confessiones the
proportion is 11 : 1, and in his Sermones 2 : 1. Similar adaptations to uneducated readers
and hearers are found elsewhere in his work.
Claudius Terentianus uses only AcI clauses, which Adams considers an indication for
the late spread of finite clauses with these verbs (Adams 1977: 61). Calboli (1990)
suggests that the consistent use of the AcI is a sign of Terentianus’ endeavour to write
correct Latin. For a relativizing reaction, see Halla-aho (2003). Adams (2005a: 195)
observes that quod clauses are entirely absent from non-literary Latin texts. Quia and
quod clauses are frequent in Augustine’s correspondent Publicola (Adams 2016: 389).
According to Herman (1989: 135), in the Christian texts he examined about 10 per
cent of the object clauses with these verbs are with a subordinator, 90 per cent are
with AcI. Almost the opposite is the case in the Vitae Patrum, where the AcI is only
233 See Bolkestein (1980a: 120–1) for discussion.

234 This also holds for Medieval Latin. See Bodelot (2017; 2018).
235 Quantitative data and details on the development of alternatives for the AcI can be found in
Mayen (1889), Bonnet (1890: 666), Dokkum (1900), Salonius (1920), Herman (1963; 1989; 2003), Wirth-
Poelchau (1977: 15), Haverling (1988: 242–7), Cuzzolin (1994); Stotz (1998: 393–6); Burton (2000: 189–90),
Roca (2001), Greco (2008; 2012: 39–40), Calboli (2012), Sznajder (2017a; 2019). For the Vulgate, see García
de la Fuente (1981), Olivera (1990), Rodríguez Martín (1993), and Moreno Sánchez (1995). For diachronic
changes in the ordering of AcI clauses with respect to the governing verb, see Greco (2018).
Table 15.3 Percentages of accusative and infini-

tive clauses with verbs of perception, cognition,
and communication in a number of Late Latin
writers
Author/text %
St Augustine: early writings 98.7
Confessiones 91.7
Sermones 66.7
Peregrinatio Egeriae 81.2
Tertullian: Bible quotations 40.7
his own writings 97.1
Cyprian: Bible quotations 21.5
Lucifer of Cagliari: Bible quotations 25.5
Macrobius 96.6
Martianus Capella 96.8
Source: Wirth-Poelchau (1977: 23)
half as frequent as the finite alternatives (Salonius 1920), but in most other authors
the AcI predominates. In Greg. Tur. the proportion is still AcI : quod, etc. = 3 : 1.236
Quod finite clauses are also found in pagan authors, so for example in Ammianus,
who definitely strives after an elevated style and uses them as a source of variation,237
as appears from the parallelism in (a). There are a few Late Latin instances of an
accusative and infinitive construction in combination with the subordinator quod. An
example is (b), possibly also intended as variation.
(a) . . . latentem invenimus militem . . . qui . . . docet . . . quod . . . ad Persas abierat
profugus exindeque . . . speculatorem se missum ad nostra saepe veros nun-
tios reportasse.
(‘. . . we found one soldier hiding who said that he had deserted to the Persians, and
then that he was sent as a spy to our territories and often brought back trustworthy
news.’ Amm. 18.6.16)
(b) Sed hactenus responderunt, quod, cum interiora occupaverint protinus gra-
dientes Romani, se quoque utpote regnorum sequellas victoribus accessuros.
(‘But they went so far as to reply, that as soon as the Romans by further advance had
got possession of the interior, they also would go over to the victors, as appendages of
the kingdom.’ Amm. 24.2.1)
236 See Herman (2000: 24). 237 Hagendahl (1921: 18f.).

. Prolative infinitive clauses

A survey of the verbs and expressions that may govern a prolative infinitive clause is
given in Table 15.2 (p. 130). As the table shows, the prolative infinitive competes with
finite imperative clauses, especially those with the subordinator ut. The relative fre-
quency of each construction with a given governing expression varies and changes
over the course of time. In poetical texts the prolative infinitive is preferred to other
expressions, due to the tendency in poetry to avoid short words.238 In some instances
this preference may have been encouraged by the existence of Greek parallels as well.
Unlike ut clauses, prolative infinitive clauses are negated by non. In the following sec-
tions the order of the governing expressions is the same as in the sections on finite
imperative clauses (§§ 15.66–80). For the prolative infinitive the present is the normal
tense form used, but the perfect is also found. See § 7.70 and § 7.76.
A particular class of verbs that are found with an object and an infinitive consists
of three-place verbs of accusing and convicting. They are not in competition with
imperative clauses, but rather with declarative quod clauses. Also, the infinitive is not
necessarily in the present tense. This class of verbs is dealt with in § 15.130.
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of ordering
and commanding (class (i) (a))
The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of ordering and command-
ing (class (i) (a)) is less common than finite imperative clauses (see § 15.66), but it is
preferred by poets and poeticizing prose writers.239 Examples with impero are (a) and (b).
(a) Animo nunciam otioso esse impero.
(‘Now then, I bid you set your minds at ease.’ Ter. An. 842)
(b) Flectere iter sociis terraeque advertere proras / imperat . . .
(‘He bids his comrades change their course and turn their prows to land . . .’ Verg. A.
7.35–6)
(sc. Augustus) Etiam discedens eodem modo sedentibus valere dicebat. (Suet. Aug.
53.3); Tu, Voluse, armari Volscorum edice maniplis . . . (Verg. A. 11.463—NB: auto-
causative passive); Oblitus es quemadmodum inter vos officia divisa sint: illi oblivio
inperata est, tibi meminisse mandavimus. (Sen. Ben. 7.22.1)
NB: On the analogy of impero, etc. the dative is also introduced with verbs like iubeo,
with a (disputed) early example in Catullus (c).240
238 For Lucretius’ ‘very extended’ use of the prolative infinitive, see Bailey (1949: I.101–2). For Virgil, see
Görler (1985: 271–2). For the use of the infinitive instead of other finite and non-finite expressions, see
also Banniard (2012: 65–7).
239 For a comparison of impero and iubeo, see Gavoille (2014).
240 For an extensive discussion, also of the developments in French, see Norberg (1945: 83–95). See also
TLL s.v. iubeo 577.39ff.
(c) . . . non haec miserae (-am ed. 1472) sperare iubebas, / sed conubia laeta . . .
(‘. . . not this didst thou bid me hope, ah me, but a joyful wedlock . . .’ Catul.
64.140–1)
Supplement:
Quamquam hae mihi (me cj. Corradus) litterae Dolabellae iubent ad pristinas cogi-
tationes reverti. (Cic. Att. 9.13.2); Perdicca pueris (-os edd.) equos iussit conscen-
dere . . . (Curt. 10.8.4); . . . ipsis hostibus iussit suum vincire rectorem. (Amm. 26.8.5); . . .
natura rerum praeceptis physicorum veras patitur habere explicationes . . . (Vitr. 2.1.9)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of begging,
requesting, etc. (class (i) (b))
With verbs of begging, requesting, etc., the prolative infinitive is very rare. There are
some instances with rogo.
(a) . . . qui rogetur de patrimonio sumptus faciendos committere gratiae petentis . . .
(‘. . . who is asked to entrust expenditure at his own cost to the pleasure of the peti-
tioner . . .’ Vitr. 6.pr.5)
Supplement:
Quare, si sapiet, viam vorabit, / quamvis candida milies puella / euntem revocet,
manusque collo / ambas iniciens roget morari . . . (Catul. 35.7–10)
As in § 15.66, two-place verbs of demanding, such as posco and postulo, can be added
here. An example is (b).
(b) Hae duae partes . . . quarum altera dici postulat ornate, altera apte . . .
(‘These two divisions, the first of which demands that an oration be spoken with
embellishment, the second that it be spoken in a suitable manner . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.91)
Supplement:
. . . Iliacosque iterum demens audire labores / (sc. Dido) exposcit . . . (Verg. A. 4.78–9); . . .
Perna magis et magis hillis / flagitat immorsus refici . . . (Hor. S. 2.4.60–1); Esse sacer-
dotes delubraque vestra tueri / poscimus et quoniam concordes egimus annos, /
auferat hora duos eadem . . . (Ov. Met. 8.707–9—NB: infinitives continued by a clause
with a simple subjunctive)241
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of advising,
warning, exhorting, reminding, admonishing, etc. (class (i) (c))
With this class of verbs prolative infinitives are well attested. Examples are (a)—
repeated from § 15.91—and (b). These verbs are also found with an accusative and
infinitive clause instead of a prolative infinitive (see § 15.91).
241 It seems that Bömer ad loc. regards this as an accusative and infinitive clause without an explicit
subject (on which, see § 14.8).
(a) Nonne te . . . Quinta illa Claudia aemulam domesticae laudis . . . esse

admonebat?
(‘Did not even that celebrated Quinta Claudia admonish you to emulate the praise
belonging to our house?’ Cic. Cael. 34)
(b) Neque . . . conamur docere eum dicere qui loqui nesciat.
(‘We do not attempt to teach someone to speak who doesn’t know how to talk.’ Cic.
de Orat. 3.38)

Active: Sed ego eum non solum hortatus sum verum etiam coegi isto profi-
cisci . . . (Cic. Fam. 10.17.2); Haec me tibi scribere non prudentia mea hortatur sed
amor in te et cupiditas oti . . . (Cic. Fam. 11.20.4); . . . ratio ipsa monet amicitias com-
parare . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.66); . . . aspera quis natura loci dimittere quando / suasit
equos . . . (Verg. A. 10.366–7—NB: many editors prefer Madvig’s emendation aquis,
see Harrison and Conte ad loc.)
Passive: . . . nostrique detrimento admonentur diligentius exploratis locis stationes dis-
ponere . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.12.7); Ceterum ad alia defendenda serius sunt redire commo-
niti. (August. Civ. 3.8); . . . an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus?
(Cic. Fin. 2.15); . . . amphorae fumum bibere institutae / consule Tullo. (Hor. Carm.
3.8.11–12); Aut Philippus hasne in capulo quadrigulas vitare monebatur? (Cic. Fat. 5)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of inducing,
persuading, etc. (class (i) (d))
With this class prolative infinitives are well attested. The verb persuadeo is here used in
its meaning ‘to succeed in urging’ (OLD); in its meaning ‘to induce acceptance of (a
statement)’ (OLD) it is also used with an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.98).
(a) [cum] Equus matrem salire cum adduci non posset, <cum> eum capite
obvoluto auriga adduxisset et coegisset matrem inire . . .
(‘When a horse could not be induced to mount his dam and when the groom, having
covered his head, led him up, and forced him to do so . . .’ Var. R. 2.7.9)
(b) Hoc quoque quaerentibus remittamus, quis Romanis primus persuaserit
navem conscendere.
(‘We may excuse also those who inquire into this—who first induced the Romans to
go on board a ship.’ Sen. Dial. 10.13.4)
(c) At ex regulis prior Mithridates Pharasmanen perpulit dolo et vi conatus suos
iuvare . . .
(‘Of the chieftains, Mithridates was the first to induce Pharasmanes to support his
attempts by fraud and by force . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.33.1)
. . . nulla calamitate victus Correus excedere proelio silvasque petere aut invitantibus
nostris ad deditionem potuit adduci . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.19.8—NB: parallelism of the two
prolative infinitives and the prepositional phrase with ad ); Musa, mihi causas
memora, quo numine laeso / quidve dolens regina deum tot volvere casus / insignem
pietate virum, tot adire labores / impulerit. (Verg. A. 1.8–11); Sed tua me virtus
tamen et sperata voluptas / suavis amicitiae quemvis efferre laborem / suadet et
inducit noctes vigilare serenas . . . (Lucr. 1.140–2)
Persuadeo in the meaning discussed in this section can also be used with an accusative
and infinitive clause, if there is no specific addressee involved. An example is (d).242
The infinitives are usually passive. (See also § 15.100 (iii).)
(d) Sed quotiens id fieri publica utilitas persuadet; tyrannis saevitia cordi est.
(‘Yes, but only when the good of the state induces one that this should be
done. It is tyrants for whom cruelty is a source of delight.’ Sen. Cl. 1.12.1)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of
permitting, granting, allowing, etc. (class (i) (e))
Prolative infinitives are very well attested for this class, especially for permitto, as in
(a). Examples are (a)—active—and (b)—passive. Permitto can also be used with an
accusative and infinitive clause, when used as a two-place verb. See § 15.100 (iii).
Concedo in its meaning ‘to admit the truth of ’ (OLD § 10b) can be used with an
accusative and infinitive clause.
(a) . . . ut iam ipsis iudicibus sine mea argumentatione coniecturam facere
permittam . . .
(‘. . . that I may now allow the members of this Court, without listening to any argu-
ments of my own, to infer for themselves . . . ’ Cic. Ver. 5.22)
(b) . . . ita animus si in iram, amorem aliosque se proiecit adfectus, non permit-
titur reprimere inpetum.
(‘. . . so with the mind, if it plunges into anger, love, or the other passions, it has no
power to check its impetus.’ Sen. Dial. 3.7.4)

Active: . . . aut mihi concedant homines oportet in rebus bonis non exquirere ea
iura . . . (Cic. Prov. 46); . . . qui quondam per mare magnum stravit iterque dedit
legionibus ire per altum . . . (Lucr. 3.1029–30—NB: taking iter as a cognate object with
ire); . . . namque tibi divum pater atque hominum rex / et mulcere dedit fluctus et tol-
lere vento. (Verg. A. 1.65–6);243 . . . ac si cui videor non iustus, inulto / dicere quod
sentit permitto. (Hor. S. 2.3.189–90)
Passive: Neque illis concedendum ita imperare, ut verberibus coerceant potius quam
verbis . . . (Var. R. 1.17.5); . . . sed nulli vincere fata datur. (Verg. Cat. 16.4); In araeostylis
242 For more, mostly late, instances, see TLL s.v. 1761.54ff. Ex. (d) is also in the OLD s.v. § 1.c.
243 See Domínguez and Martín Rodríguez (1993) for the development of this use of do (from Lucretius
and Virgil onwards in poetry, from Vitruvius onwards in prose).
autem nec lapideis nec marmoreis epistyliis uti datur . . . (Vitr. 3.3.5); . . . qui per val-
lum Barbationis transiere securi ideo labi permissi, quod . . . (Amm. 16.11.6); . . . non
baptizati in regnum caelorum non permittuntur intrare . . . (August. Anim. 3.13.19)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of forcing
(class (i) ( f))
The most common representative of this class is the verb cogo.244 Examples are (a)—
active, repeated from § 15.71, and (b)—passive. When used as two-place verbs, these
verbs may also govern an accusative and infinitive clause (see § 15.100 (iii)).
(a) Non med istanc cogere aequom est meam esse matrem, si nevolt.
(‘It wouldn’t be fair of me to force her to be my mother if she doesn’t want to be.’ Pl.
Epid. 586)
(b) Atque hoc tantum lucri coguntur dare publice . . .
(‘And they are compelled as a community to pay him that huge bonus . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.75)
Active: . . . tua tristis imago / saepius occurrens haec limina tendere adegit. (Verg. A.
6.696); Num te emere coegit qui ne hortatus quidem est? (Cic. Off. 3.55); Denique
tanto opere in dubiis trepidare periclis / quae mala nos subigit vitai tanta cupido?
(Lucr. 3.1076–7); Obvia Persephone comites heroidas urget / adversas praeferre
faces. (Culex 261–2)
Passive: . . . avaritiam . . . adactam opes suas spargere et domui rebusque in unum con-
latis inicere ignem. (Sen. Dial. 4.36.6); . . . gnate, ego quem in dubios cogor dimittere
casus . . . (Catul. 64.216); Suppeditatur enim confestim lumine lumen / et quasi pro-
telo stimulatur fulgere fulgur. (Lucr. 4.189–90); Mea vi subacta est facere. (Pl. Am.
1143); Dolere integre non potest qui urgetur irasci. (Calp. Decl. 11)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of
hindering, preventing, etc. (class (i) (g))
The use of the prolative infinitive with this class of verbs is relatively common.
Examples of prohibeo are (a)—active, repeated from § 15.72, and (b)—passive. When
it is used as a two-place verb, it can be used with an accusative and infinitive clause as
well (see § 15.100 (iii)). For related two-place verbs, see the Supplement.
(a) Tu modo ne me prohibeas accipere, si quid det mihi.
(‘You just shouldn’t prevent me from receiving something if he gives it to me.’ Pl. Trin. 370)
(b) . . . certe violare alterum naturae lege prohibemur.
(‘. . . we are certainly forbidden by Nature’s law to wrong our neighbour.’ Cic. Off. 3.27)
244 For the use of cogo with a prolative infinitive, see Torrego (2016b: 299–310).

Absiste precando / viribus indubitare tuis. (Verg. A. 8.403–4); Dum mi apstineant
invidere, sibi quisque habeant quod suom est. (Pl. Cur. 180); Iam puerum calamos et
odorae vincula cerae / iungere non cohibes . . . (Calp. Ecl. 4.19–20); . . . simul ac defecit
suppeditare / materies aliqua ratione aversa viai. (Lucr. 1.1040–1); Desiste percontarier.
(Pl. Epid. 40); In stupris vero et flagitiis nefarias eius libidines commemorare pudore
deterreor. (Cic. Ver. 14); Me enim et hunc Sulpicium impedit pudor ab homine
omnium gravissimo . . . haec . . . exquirere. (Cic. de Orat. 1.163); . . . velut tacita quadam
verecundia inhibemur plus nobis credere . . . (Quint. Inst. 10.1.18); . . . si (sc. Pisistratus)
alium facere (sc. malum) prohibuerit. (Cic. Att. 8.16.2); . . . rationes in ea disputatione a
te collectae vetabant me rei publicae penitus diffidere. (Cic. Fam. 5.13.3)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of wishing,
desiring, preferring, etc. (class (ii) (a))
The prolative infinitive is very common with verbs and expressions of wishing, desiring,
preferring, etc., and their antonyms, though not with all of them. Examples are (a) and
(b). The agents of the infinitives are coreferential with the subject of the governing verbs.
(a) Voluit in cubiculum abducere me anus.
(‘The old lady wanted to draw me to the bedroom.’ Pl. Mos. 696)
(b) Age igitur. Nolo advorsari tuam advorsum sententiam.
(‘Go on then; I don’t want to oppose your decision.’ Pl. Mer. 377)
Nam si potuisset, nihil ei fuisset antiquius quam ad Capitonem . . . reverti . . . (Cic.
Fam. 13.29.3); . . . vacui curis etiam quid in caelo fiat scire avemus . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.46);
Cupio aliquem <mi> emere puerum . . . (Pl. Cur. 382); Diligit ipsa alios, a me fastidit
amari. (Ov. Rem. 305); Iam hercle amplexari, iam osculari gestio. (Pl. Cas. 471);
Pergi’n, sceleste, intendere hanc arguere? (Pl. Mil. 380); Regiones colere mavellem
Accherunticas. (Pl. Bac. 199); Si dabor ut condar loculis, exire negabo . . . (Ov. Am.
2.15.19); Sed mea desidia spem deserere nolui. (Pl. Rud. 92); Tun’ domo prohibere
peregre me advenientem postulas? (Pl. Am. 361); . . . tum maxime illo tempore totum
onus sustinere non recusabant . . . (B. Alex. 11.3); Quae mihi ipsi, qui volo et esse et
haberi gratus, grata non essent . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.72)
NB: relatively uncommon: Haec enim scire desidero. (Cic. N.D. 1.65); Quor tu, opsecro,
immerito meo me morti dedere optas? (Pl. As. 608); Nam iam saepe homines patriam
carosque parentis / prodiderunt vitare Acherusia templa petentes. (Lucr. 3.85–6)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of striving
(class (ii) (b))
The prolative infinitive is very common with verbs and expressions of striving and the
reverse. Examples are (a) and (b). The agents of the infinitives are coreferential with
the subject of the governing verbs.
(a) Studeo hunc lenonem perdere . . .

(‘I’m keen to ruin this pimp . . .’ Pl. Poen. 818)
(b) Nam hoc paene iniquom est, comico choragio / conari desubito agere nos
tragoediam.
(‘Well, it would almost be unfair to suddenly try to stage a tragedy with your comedy
get-up.’ Pl. Capt. 61–2)

Pacuvium videri doctiorem qui esse docti adfectant volunt. (Quint. Inst. 10.1.97);
. . . si aut . . . convellere adoriamur ea quae non possint commoveri. (Cic. de Orat.
2.205); . . . ut te videre audireque aegroti sient. (Pl. Trin. 76); . . . delenire appa-
ras . . . (Pl. As. 434); Tun’ te audes Sosiam esse dicere, / qui ego sum? (Pl. Am.
373–4); Concurrunt veluti venti, quom . . . fluctus extollere certant. (Enn. Ann.
443–5V=432–4S); Sed quid ego cesso ire ad forum quo inceperam? (Pl. As.
125); . . . quod sibi probare non possit, id persuadere alteri conetur. (Cic. Q. Rosc.
4); Milites summa vi transcendere in hostium naves contendebant. (Caes. Gal.
3.15.2); Quam ob causam non est cunctandum profiteri . . . hunc mundum ani-
mal esse . . . (Cic. Tim. 10); . . . fundum agrum terramque meam, quota ex parte
sive circumagi sive circumferenda censeas, uti cures lustrare. (Cato Agr.
141.1); . . . neque voluisse se diutius vivere neque curasse . . . (Suet. Jul. 86); (sc.
Augustus) . . . affirmavitque non daturum se quamvis dare destinaret. (Suet. Aug.
42.2); . . . Dionysius, cum a Zenone fortis esse didicisset, a dolore dedoctus est.
(Cic. Tusc. 2.60); Cum haesitaret, cum teneretur, quaesivi quid dubitaret profi-
cisci . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.13); Pasiphaë fieri gaudebat adultera tauri. (Ov. Ars
1.295); . . . ut (sc. Ariovistus) in conloquium venire invitatus gravaretur . . . (Caes.
Gal. 1.35.2); . . . saltem populi Romani commoda respicite, si sociis fidelissimis
prospicere non laboratis. (Cic. Ver. 3.128); Meditor esse adfabilis, / et bene pro-
cedit. (Ter. Ad. 896–7); Metuont credere omnes. (Pl. Ps. 304); An metuit (sc.
anima) conclusa manere in corpore putri / et domus aetatis spatio ne fessa vetusto /
obruat? (Lucr. 3.773–5—NB: change of construction); Em ad quem legatos mit-
tamus, cui bellum moremur inferre. (Cic. Phil. 5.33); . . . sed ut architectus his
litteris imbutus haec nisus sum scribere. (Vitr. 1.1.18); . . . nonne ea dissimulare
nos / magis humanum’st quam dare operam id scire qui nos oderit? (Ter. Hec.
552–3); Operam praeterea numquam sumam quaerere. (Pl. Men. 244); Nunc, ne
quis erret vostrum, paucis in viam / deducam, si quidem operam dare promitti-
tis. (Pl. Trin. 4–5); Ubi primum est licitum, ilico / properavi abire de foro. (Pl.
Men. 599a–600); . . . vehes pol hodie me, si quidem hoc argentum ferre speres.
(Pl. As. 699); . . . (sc. viri) qui hoc sermone quem referre suscepimus continentur.
(Cic. de Orat. 3.9); Post hos aequo discrimine Pristis / Centaurusque locum
tendunt superare priorem. (Verg. A. 5.154–5); Quid ego ineptus, dum sermonem
vereor interrumpere, / solus sto nec quod conatus sum agere ago? (Pl. Trin.
1149–50)
NB: Me miserum, si turpe putas mihi nupta videri! (Ov. Tr. 4.3.51); . . . tutumque
putavit / iam bonus esse socer . . . (Luc. 9.1038–9)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs of causation (class (iii))
The verb facio in its three-place frame can be used with the prolative infinitive and is
in this sense sometimes paraphrased by iubeo.245 However, as with iubeo (see § 15.100
(vi)), many of the examples cited in the TLL can be regarded as accusative and infini-
tive clauses (see § 15.93). Two examples where the accusative constituents can be
regarded as agents of the action denoted by the infinitive which is forced upon him or
her by another person are (a) and (b).
(a) (sc. tibi) . . . qui nati coram me cernere letum / fecisti . . .
(‘. . . you who have made me look on my own son’s murder . . .’ Verg. A. 2.538–9)
(b) Ille dedit vitam. Tu quam dedit ille tueris / et facis (sc. me) accepto munere
posse frui.
(‘He gave me life. You preserve the life he gave and you make me able to enjoy the
boon I have received.’ Ov. Tr. 5.9.13–14)246
Supplement:
. . . deinde fecit reporrigere (sc. phialam) Caesari (Caesarem cj. Scheffer) et illam in
pavimentum proiecit. (Petr. 51.2 (Trimalchio speaking));247 (sc. cucurbitas) Fervere
facias et inferes. (Apic. 4.2.8—NB: unless it is an AcI);248 Sic enim efficitur ut . . . insur-
gant filii in parentes et mori eos faciant. (Vet. Lat. Mat. 10.21 = Tert. Scorp. 10.17—
NB: most codd. and Vulg. have morte eos afficient); Illos aetas facit putare quod non
est, hos stultitia. (Lact. Inst. 1.22.14)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deciding,
resolving, etc. (class (iv))
The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of deciding, resolving,
etc. is very common from Early Latin onwards. Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Mirum ni hic me quasi murenam exossare cogitat.
(‘It would be odd if he isn’t thinking about filleting me like a lamprey.’ Pl. Am. 319)
(b) Nam illi mihi dotem iam constituerunt dare.
(‘They’ve already agreed to hand over the dowry to me.’ Ter. Ph. 676)
(c) Age iam, id ut ut est, etsi est dedecori, patiar, facere inducam animum.
(‘Go on now, whatever it’s like, even if it’s a disgrace, I’ll bear it, I’ll bring myself to do
it.’ Pl. Bac. 1191)
245 See TLL s.v. facio 115.37ff.

246 For discussion of this example, see Álvarez Huerta (2014: 90–3).
247 It does not matter very much whether we accept the ms. or the conjecture, since the intention is
clear, and the confusion of case forms is such that the dative could be understood like the dative with verbs
such as impero.
248 For a discussion of this and other instances in Apicius, see Christol (2014).

Praedium quom parare cogitabis . . . (Cato Agr. 1.1); Coniuravere nobilissumi cives
patriam incendere . . . (Sal. Cat. 52.24); Etenim cum homines nefarii de patriae parri-
cidio confiterentur . . . se urbem inflammare, civis trucidare, vastare Italiam, delere rem
publicam consensisse . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.17); Omnia experti Galli, quod res nulla suc-
cesserat, postero die consilium ceperunt ex oppido profugere. (Caes. Gal. 7.26.1); Ego,
ut ad te pridie scripseram, Nonis constitueram venire in Puteolanum. (Cic. Att.
15.28.1); Quidquid peperisset decreverunt tollere. (Ter. An. 219); . . . cum deliberassent
nobiscum bellum gerere . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.13); (sc. mihi) Persuasum est facere quoius me
nunc facti pudet. (Pl. Bac. 1016); Mihi autem hoc propositum est ostendere . . . (Cic.
Sest. 31); Cum his viris equisque, ut dicitur, si honestatem tueri ac retinere sententia
est, decertandum est. (Cic. Off. 3.116); . . . quamquam statueram in senatum ante Kal.
Ian. non venire . . . (Cic. Fam. 11.6a.1); Pompeius quoque, ut postea cognitum est, suo-
rum omnium hortatu statuerat proelio decertare. (Caes. Civ. 3.86.1); . . . sic habuisti
statutum cum animo ac deliberatum omnes . . . iudices reicere . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.95)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with verbs and expressions of
deserving (class (v))
Prolative infinitives are attested with mereo and mereor and its compounds from
Propertius and Ovid onwards. An example is (a).249
(a) Haec merui sperare?
(‘Have I deserved to expect this?’ Prop. 2.5.3)

. . . ab excellentibus parte in hac viris et veritatem istam commeritis nosse satis plene
accurateque responsum est . . . (Arn. Nat. 3.1.1); Ennius emeruit, Calabris in monti-
bus ortus, / contiguus poni, Scipio magne, tibi. (Ov. Ars 3.409–10); . . . neve merere
meo subscribi causa sepulcro. (Ov. Met. 9.563); Ne Ubii quidem, quamquam Romana
colonia esse meruerint, . . . origine erubescunt . . . (Tac. Germ. 28.4)
. The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with a neuter singular
adjective that functions as subject or object complement (class (vi))
Prolative infinitives are attested with expressions consisting of a neuter singular

adjective that functions as subject or object complement from Early Latin onwards.
Examples of common adjectives used as subject complements are (a)–(c). For a pos-
sessive adjective, see (d). With many of the adjectives involved, the agent or patient of
the prolative infinitive can be expressed explicitly as a dative constituent, as in (e).
(a) Humana matre natus, humano patre / mirari non est aequom sibi si praetimet.
(‘He’s born of a human mother and a human father, so it’s no surprise if he’s afraid for
himself.’ Pl. Am. 28–9)
249 For very late instances of prolative infinitives with promereo(r), see TLL s.v. 1845.38ff.
(b) Facile est miserum irridere.

(‘It’s easy to mock a poor wretch.’ Pl. Cur. 240)
(c) . . . melius sanam est, mulier, mentem sumere.
(‘. . . it would be better to adopt a healthy attitude, woman.’ Pl. Men. 802)
(d) Tuom’st, siquid praeter spem evenit, mi ignoscere.
(‘If anything turns out contrary to expectation, it is for you to forgive me.’ Ter. An. 678)
(e) . . . dignos indignos adire atque experi[ri] certum est mihi.
(‘. . . I’ve decided to approach the deserving and the undeserving and to try my luck.’
Pl. As. 247)
Prolative infinitives can also be used with adjectives functioning as object comple-
ment, as in (f)—note the dative mihi.
(f) . . . non mihi grave duxi scribere ad te . . .
(‘. . . I should not have found it too onerous to write to you . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.5.4)
Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi
Zenonis exponere. (Cic. Fin. 3.51); Eho an amare occipere amarum est, opsecro? (Pl.
Cist. 68); Sed adire certum est hanc amatricem Africam. (Pl. Poen. 1304); Difficile est
finem facere pretio nisi libidini feceris. (Cic. Ver. 4.14); . . . ut inplexis colocasiae foliis
in variam speciem vasorum potare gratissimum habeant. (Plin. Nat. 21.87); In ius
vos voco, nisi honestiu’st prehendi. (Pl. Poen. 1232); Indignum est a pari vinci aut
superiore, indignius ab inferiore atque humiliore; luctuosum est tradi alteri cum
bonis, luctuosius inimico; horribile est causam capitis dicere, horribilius priore loco
dicere. (Cic. Quinct. 95); At tibi tanto sumptui esse mihi molestum est. (Pl. Mil. 672);
Sed nostrum est intellegere utquomque atque ubiquomque opu’ sit obsequi. (Ter.
Hau. 578); Quantum est adhibere hominem amicum, ubi quid geras. (Pl. Per. 595)
Cf.: Mihi necesse est ire hinc. (Pl. Am. 501); Vixisse nimio satiu’st iam quam vivere.
(Pl. Bac. 151)
. The use of the prolative infinitive in combination with other expressions
that function as subject or object complement (class (vii))
Prolative infinitives are used with noun phrases in various cases or with prepositional
phrases functioning as subject or object complement from Early Latin onwards and in
that period they are more common than gerundial and gerundival clauses.250 Examples
of such constituents functioning as subject complement are (a)–(c). In (a), officium is
in the nominative (see § 9.22); in (b), saluti is a predicative dative (see § 9.34); in (c),
patris is a so-called possessive genitive (see § 9.30); in (d), the prepositional phrase in
rem functions as subject complement (see § 9.37). Ex. (e) shows a prolative infinitive
in combination with an object complement.
250 See Perrochat (1932b: 170–87).

(a) Non matronarum officium est, sed meretricium, / viris alienis, mi vir, sub-
blandirier.
(‘My dear husband, it’s not the job of wives, but of prostitutes, to charm other women’s
husbands.’ Pl. Cas. 585–6)
(b) (sc. homines) . . . quibus insputari saluti fuit atque is profuit.
(‘. . . for whom being spat on was helpful and beneficial.’ Pl. Capt. 555)
(c) Neque adeo arbitrari patris est aliter.
(‘Indeed, it’s not for her father to think otherwise.’ Ter. Hec. 529)
(d) . . . cetera quae cognosse in rem erat summa omnia cum cura inquirendo
exsequebatur.
(‘. . . he then went to work with all possible diligence to learn . . . everything, in short,
which it was important to find out.’ Liv. 22.3.2)
(e) Haec . . . haud ab re duxi verbis quoque ipsis, ut tradita nuncupataque sunt,
referre.
(‘These particulars I have thought it not foreign to my purpose to repeat, and in the
very words in which they were formulated and handed down.’ Liv. 8.11.1)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun (phrase) or prepositional phrase):
. . . non est meae consuetudinis initio dicendi rationem reddere qua de causa
quemque defendam . . . (Cic. Rab. Perd. 1); Praecipuamque curam duxit sensum
animi quam apertissime exprimere. (Suet. Aug. 86.1); Et vere tantum laboris . . .
suscipere . . . dementia ducebatur. (Paneg. 3 (11).20.2); Facinus est vincire civem
Romanum, scelus verberare, prope parricidium necare: quid dicam in crucem tol-
lere? (Cic. Ver. 5.170); Leporem et gallinam et anserem gustare fas non putant.
(Caes. Gal. 5.12.6); Ergo erat in fatis Scythiam quoque visere nostris . . . (Ov. Tr.
3.2.1); Nam hoc mi haud labori est, laborem hunc potiri . . . (Pl. Rud. 191); Quia mos
est oblivisci hominibus / nec novisse quoius nihili sit faciunda gratia. (Pl. Capt.
985–6); Communes loci (de iis loquor quibus citra personas in ipsa vitia moris est
perorare, ut in adulterum . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.4.22); . . . nunc adest occasio / bene facta
cumulare . . . (Pl. Capt. 423–4); . . . hoc servi esse officium reor, / retinere ad
salutem . . . (Pl. Aul. 593–4); Quid opus nota noscere? (Pl. Mil. 636); Verum ubi nulla
datur dextra adfectare potestas . . . (Verg. A. 3.670); . . . potestatem habeo dimittere
te . . . (Vulg. Ioh. 19.10); Germanico pretium fuit convertere agmen . . . (Tac. Ann.
1.57.3); An pro illo fuerit rapi. (Sen. Con. 9.5.6); Nec pudor est oculos tenui signare
favilla . . . (Ov. Ars 3.203); Quae petit ille refert, ceterum narrare pudori / qua tulerit
mercede. (Ov. Met. 7.687–8—NB: the text is much disputed); Tempus est subducere
hinc me. (Pl. As. 912)
With a number of these nouns a gerundial clause is also possible, as in (f) (for gerundial
clauses functioning as attribute, see § 17.18).
(f) Tacendi tempus est, nam crepuerunt fores.
(‘It’s time to be quiet: the door has creaked.’ Pl. Poen. 741)
. The use of the prolative infinitive with so-called impersonal expressions
(class (viii))
The prolative infinitive is used with a variety of so-called impersonal expressions from
Early Latin onwards. Examples are (a) and (b).
(a) . . . decet et facta moresque huius habere me similis item.
(‘. . . I also ought to have similar ways and habits.’ Pl. Am. 267)
(b) Qui lubitum est illi condormiscere?
(‘How could it please him to fall asleep?’ Pl. Mil. 826)

Meo me aequom est morigerum patri, eius studio servire addecet. (Pl. Am. 1004);
Immo vero, sed ipsi patriae conducit pios habere cives in parentes. (Cic. Off.
3.90); . . . ita uti liberali esse ingenio decet . . . (Ter. Hec. 164—NB: with a dative); Sunt
autem alii, quos in luctu cum ipsa solitudine loqui saepe delectat . . . (Cic. Tusc.
3.63); . . . ut in sole, quod a te dicebatur, lucernam adhibere nihil interest aut terun-
cium adicere Croesi pecuniae. (Cic. Fin. 4.29); Iuvat enim magnifice loqui et certe
decet . . . (Brut. ad Brut. 1.16.2); . . . nec tibi licet non facere quod iussus es. (Sen. Con.
7.1.3); Quoi illam dedisset exquisisse oportuit. (Pl. Cist. 574); . . . etiam delinquere
non oportet et audientibus. (Tert. Paen. 7.1); Tamen multum prodest ea quae metu-
untur ipsa contemnere. (Cic. Tusc. 4.64); Sed quid meminisse id refert, <rogo> ego te
tamen. (Pl. Mil. 809); Nunc autem mihi est visum de senectute aliquid ad te con-
scribere. (Cic. Sen. 1)
Subject infinitives can also be used with impersonal expressions of emotion such as
piget (me) ‘to be affected with displeasure’ (for which see also §§ 15.8, 15.18, and
15.97). Although they do not properly belong here, because the content of the infini-
tive is factive, this usage is illustrated below. An example with a present infinitive is
(c); with a perfect infinitive, (d).
(c) . . . ut te ne pigeat dare operam mihi quod te orabo, senex.
(‘. . . do not begrudge attending to me in what I ask of you, old man.’ Pl. Rud. 634)
(d) . . . bene si amico feceris / ne pigeat fecisse, ut potius pudeat si non feceris.
(‘. . . if you’ve done a friend a good turn, you shouldn’t be upset to have done so, and
so that you should rather feel shame if you haven’t done so.’ Pl. Trin. 347–8)

Present infinitive: Nam alia memorare quae illum facere vidi dispudet (Pl. Bac. 481);
Huiusce modi Scipio ille fuit quem non paenitebat facere idem quod tu . . . (Cic. Mur.
66); Nam illa quidem piget dicere . . . (Sal. Jug. 31.2); . . . nec me meminisse pigebit
Elissae . . . (Verg. A. 4.335); . . . si quem id facere piget . . . (Liv. 44.22.14); Eam pudet me
tibi in senecta obicere sollicitudinem. (Pl. Mil. 634); . . . nec me pudet ut istos fateri
nescire quod nesciam. (Cic. Tusc. 1.60); At enim taedet iam audire eadem miliens.
(Ter. Ph. 487)
Perfect infinitive: . . . neque me vixisse paenitet . . . (Cic. Sen. 84); Non dedisse (sc. vig-
inti minas) istunc pudet: me quia non accepi piget. (Pl. Ps. 282); Nec genuisse pudet
Sparten Hyacinthon. (Ov. Met. 10.217)
. The use of the infinitive with verbs of accusing and convicting
Three-place verbs of accusing and convicting have (in the active) an object/patient
argument in the accusative and a third argument that indicates the charge. When
this argument is a noun phrase, it is usually in the genitive (see § 4.63). These verbs
can also be used with an infinitive, which, unlike the cases discussed in the previous
sections, can be both a present and a perfect infinitive. An example is (a) with the
perfect infinitive occidisse, which can be taken as a charge argument parallel to geni-
tive of the charge. The agent of the infinitive is coreferential with the object/patient
aliquem.
(a) Sin autem sic agetis ut arguatis aliquem patrem occidisse. . .
(‘But if you act in such a manner as to endeavour to prove that someone has mur-
dered his father . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 57)
This situation formally resembles that of several classes of three-place verbs that are
used with an object and a prolative infinitive, for example verbs of advising, warning,
etc., discussed in § 15.117. This is, in fact, the analysis adopted by many, but not all
Latinists, for (a). Those who do not follow the analysis presented here take aliquem
patrem occidisse as an accusative and infinitive clause.251 The OLD s.v. arguo § 2, for
example, distinguishes for arguo a sense ‘to allege, assert, affirm’—that is, it takes arguo
as a two-place verb. There are facts that can be used as support for either analysis. Ex.
(b) is a straightforward example of an accusative and infinitive clause. In the sense
‘to bring a charge against, to accuse’ (OLD § 4b) the charge can be expressed as an
accusative and infinitive clause, as in (c) (see also further on in this text). Note that the
object/patient is expressed as well: the first me. Ex. (d) can be taken either as the pas-
sive counterpart of the three-place frame where the object/patient has become the
subject/patient or as a personal passive construction, resembling the nominative and
infinitive with verba declarandi (see § 15.100).
(b) . . . cives Romanos necatos esse arguo.
(‘. . . I am making the charge that Roman citizens were put to death.’ Cic. Ver. 5.149)
(c) Nam arguere in somnis me meus mihi familiaris visu’st / me cum alieno
adulescentulo, quasi nunc tu, esse osculatam . . .
(‘A household member of mine seemed to accuse me in my dream of having kissed
an unknown young man, just as you’re doing now . . .’ Pl. Mil. 389–90)
251 My analysis follows K.-St.: I.688 (but see the note further on), Burkard and Schauer (2000: 677), and
Lavency (2003: 110–1). Bennett: I.367ff. and Ernout and Thomas (1953: 321) deal with these verbs as verba
declarandi which govern an accusative and infinitive clause. Many treatments are vague.
(d) Occidisse patrem Sex. Roscius arguitur.

(‘Sextus Roscius is accused of having murdered his father.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 37)
Ex. (c) seems to be the only attestation of an object/patient + AcI combination with
these verbs, although such combinations are found with doceo and admoneo (see
§§ 15.91 and 15.98 (iii)). An alternative analysis could be to take the second me as an
emphatic repetition.
The position taken in this Syntax is that the verbs of this class have two frames, a
three-place frame, as described above, and a two-place frame in which the second
argument can be filled by an accusative and infinitive clause.252 A comparable situ-
ation exists for manipulation verbs (see § 15.100 (iii)) and also for iubeo (see § 15.100
(vi)). (For quod clauses with these verbs, see § 15.10.)
The accusative and infinitive clauses with these verbs are not restricted to passive
clauses such as (b). In some instances there will be clear signals for interpreting the
utterance as an accusative and infinitive clause. In (e)–(g), for example, the subject
constituents in the accusative and infinitive clauses cannot be conceived of as object/
patient of the governing verb, and in (h) the subject of the governing verb is inani-
mate. In (i), however, there are no such signals, and it is only by using common sense
that one is able to determine that one is dealing with an accusative and infinitive
clause: this is simply not about a situation in which someone accuses his conservus.
Many instances, however, are not so easy to construe and must be regarded as cases of
ambiguity.
(e) Metui’ ne non, quom velis, convincas esse illum tuom?
(‘Are you afraid that you cannot prove that he is yours, whenever you please?’ Ter.
Hau. 1017)
(f) . . . in vultu tacitas arguis esse notas.
(‘. . . you charge that in her face were unspoken signals.’ Ov. Am. 2.7.6)
(g) . . . cumque defectionem eius nullam posse excusationem [eius] impruden-
tiae recipere coarguisset . . .
(‘. . . and when he had demonstrated that no excuse for his imprudence could account
for his failure . . .’ B. Alex. 68.1)
(h) Eodem modo Hirtuleium dissolvisse publicae tabulae coarguunt.
(‘The public account-books prove that Hirtuleius in his payments followed the same
method.’ Cic. Font. 2)
(i) . . . eam / arguam vidisse apud te contra conservom meum / cum suo amatore
amplexantem atque osculantem.
(‘I’ll rebut my fellow slave and say that he’s seen this one at your place embracing and
kissing her lover.’ Pl. Mil. 243–5)
252 So K.-St.: I.692.

The infinitive with these verbs in their three-place frame is not restricted to the present,
as is the case with the regular prolative infinitives. For a perfect infinitive—by far the
most frequent—see (a); for a present infinitive, see ( j); for a future infinitive, see (k).
( j) . . . Sullanas res defendere criminor (me criminatur cj. Lambinus)
(‘. . . I am accused of defending the acts of Sulla.’ Cic. Agr. 3.13)
(k) . . . incusabatur facile toleraturus exilium . . .
(‘. . . the charge was made that he would carry his exile lightly . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.3.3)

Three-place frame:
Active main verb: Conlatio est, cum accusator id quod adversarium fecisse crimi-
natur, alii nemini nisi reo bono fuisse demonstrat . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.6); . . . veneni quod
eiusdem Clodiae necandae causa parasse Caelium criminantur. (Cic. Cael. 51); . . .
neque minus Rhoemetalcen quam Trebellenum incusans popularium iniurias inul-
tas sinere. (Tac. Ann. 3.38.3); Insimulant hominem fraudandi causa discessisse. (Cic.
Ver. 2.59); Sed Marcellum insimulabat sinistros de Tiberio sermones habuisse . . . (Tac.
Ann. 1.74.3)
Passive main verb: . . . cum accusetur ambitu magistratum petisse . . . (Rhet. Her.
2.43); Mox Numantina, prior uxor eius, accusata iniecisse carminibus et veneficiis
vaecordiam marito, insons iudicatur. (Tac. Ann. 4.22.3); Is . . . arguitur domi te suae
interficere voluisse. (Cic. Deiot. 15); Tunc mihi, tunc placeant silvae, si, lux mea,
tecum / arguar ante ipsas concubuisse plagas. ([Tib.] 3.9.15–16); Decretum igitur
extemplo ut qui pro Perseo adversus Romanos dixisse quid aut fecisse convinceren-
tur capitis condemnarentur. (Liv. 45.10.14); Aut dabis aut contra edictum fecisse
damnabere. (Cic. Ver. 3.25); . . . tanto infensius caesi quanto perfugae et proditores
ferre arma ad suum patriaeque servitium incusabantur. (Tac. Ann. 4.48.3); Barbatio . . .
cum ex magisterio peditum altius niti quorundam susurris incusaretur . . . (Amm.
14.11.24); Ilotarum deinde quidam . . . transfugere voluisse insimulati . . . necantur.
(Liv. 34.27.9)
Two-place frame:
Active infinitive: Atque arguo / eam me vidisse osculantem hic intus cum alieno
viro. (Pl. Mil. 337–8); Ego te tantum gaudere dico, fecisse non arguo. (Cic. Phil.
2.36—NB: parallelism with dico); . . . Cornelia ac Sergia . . . ab confutante indice bibere
iussae ut se falsum commentam arguerent . . . (Liv. 8.18.8); Non enim urguent ut coar-
guant neminem ulla de re posse contendere nec adseverare . . . (Cic. Luc. 35); . . . nihil
te de bonis rebus in vita . . . nihil de ratione vitae didicisse, nihil omnino quaesisse,
nihil scire convincerent. (Cic. de Orat. 1.42); Haec Carneades aiebat . . . ut Stoicos
nihil de dis explicare convinceret. (Cic. N.D. 3.44)
Passive infinitive: . . . accusantibus Cyrenensibus violatum ab eo thesaurum
Aesculapii dilectumque militarem pretio et ambitione corruptum. (Tac. Ann.
14.18.1); Haec, per se gravia, indigniora ut viderentur tribuni plebis seditiosis con-
tionibus faciebant ideo aera militibus constituta esse arguendo, ut plebis partem
militia, partem tributo conficerent. (Liv. 5.10.6); Tum invectus est Musonius Rufus in
Publium Celerem, a quo Baream Soranum falso testimonio circumventum arguebat.
(Tac. Hist. 4.10); Quid si quaedam bene facta damnaturus est iudex nisi ea non esse
facta convicerimus . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.1.41); Si quis instrumentum litis suae a procu-
ratore adversario proditum esse convicerit . . . (Paul. dig. 48.19.38.8); (sc. litterae ad
Hannibalem) . . . [quibus] non Capuam solam traditam in manum hostibus, sed se
quoque et praesidium in omnes cruciatus proditos incusabant. (Liv. 26.12.11); Nisi
etiam hoc falso dici insimulaturus es. (Pl. Am. 902); . . . insimulat privigni veneno
filium suum interceptum. (Apul. Met. 10.5.3)
NB: nominative and infinitive construction of the ‘patient’ type (see § 14.9): Aut
enim de iure dubitari potest eius qui rogat, ut de P. Clodi, qui non rite creatus tribu-
nus arguebatur. (Quint. Inst. 2.4.35)
. The use of the (present) infinitive with auxiliary verbs and verbs with a
related meaning
Auxiliary verbs are dealt with in § 4.98. On the basis of the criteria discussed in that
section seven clear-cut auxiliaries are distinguished: the modal verbs debeo ‘must’,
possum ‘to be able to’, ‘to be possible’, ‘to be allowed to’, queo ‘to be able’ and nequeo ‘to
be unable’; the habitual auxiliary soleo ‘to be accustomed to’; and the phasal verbs
incipio (coepi) ‘to begin’ and desino ‘to stop’. In their auxiliary meaning, these verbs are
used with a present infinitive. In addition to auxiliaries proper, there is a large number
of verbs that (at least in one of their senses) are semantically similar to the proper
auxiliaries and which can also be used with a present infinitive.
Related to the modal auxiliaries are the verbs scio in its sense ‘to know how to’, ‘to be
able to’ and its negative counterpart nescio; disco ‘to learn how to’ and a number of its
compounds; and habeo in its senses ‘to be able to’ and ‘to have to’.253 Examples are (a)–(c).
For the development of habeo (+ infinitive) into a temporal auxiliary, see § 7.27.
(a) Nescio ego istaec: philosophari numquam didici neque scio.
(‘I don’t know that; I’ve never learned to philosophize and I don’t know how to.’ Pl.
Mer. 147)
(b) Habeo etiam dicere quem . . . de ponte in Tiberim deiecerit.
(‘I can even give you an example of a man whom he threw from the bridge into the
Tiber.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 100)
(c) Quid habui facere? Perducere illum ad patruum? Non feci.
(‘What could I do? Take him to my uncle? I did not do it.’ Sen. Con. 1.1.19)
Related to the habitual auxiliary soleo are suesco ‘to get used to’ and a number of its
compounds. An example is (d).
(d) . . . ut eculi consuescant et videre eorum faciem et e motu audire crepitus.
(‘. . . so that the young horses may become accustomed both to the sight of it and to
hearing the jingling from its motion.’ Var. R. 2.7.12)
253 For further instances, see TLL s.v. 2454.12ff. (= possum) and 2454.53ff. (= debeo). For a discussion
of the modal uses of habeo, and references, see Adams (2013: 654–7).
A number of verbs that are related in meaning to the phasal auxiliaries proper are
discussed in § 4.98. Two further examples are (e) and (f).
(e) Maiores nos res scribere ingressos, C. Trebati, . . . e cursu ipso revocavit
voluntas tua.
(‘When I had set out to write on a larger subject, my dear Trebatius, your request
recalled me from my course.’ Cic. Top. 1)
(f) Iam de istoc rogare omitte. Non vides nolle eloqui?
(‘Stop asking about this now—can’t you see she doesn’t want to tell?’ Pl. Per. 642)
Quod facile est, si quam plurimis constitutionibus aggredietur id inprobare. (Cic. Inv.
2.75); Quem ferunt . . . instituisse . . . non quid ipse sentiret ostendere, sed . . . (Cic. de
Orat. 3.67); . . . reliquis consecutis diebus non intermittebas quasi donum aliquod
cotidie adferre rei publicae. (Cic. Phil. 1.32); Iam scrutari mitto. Redde huc. (Pl. Aul.
651); Sed maneam etiam opinor, namque hoc commodum orditur loqui. (Pl. Trin.
1136); Nunc domum ibo atque ex uxore hanc rem pergam exquirere . . . (Pl. Am. 1015)
15.132 Participial argument clauses (dominant participles)
The internal structure of participial clauses is dealt with in § 14.14. The term intro-
duced there is ‘dominant participle’. This section examines the use of dominant parti-
ciples as arguments of complex sentences. Participial argument clauses are used from
Early Latin onwards; they are relatively popular in authors who strive to construct
complex periods (Livy, for example) and / or to condense information (poets and
Tacitus, for example). The most common form is with a perfect passive participle.
However, the other participles can be used as well (see § 14.14). The perfect passive
participle clause is found in all argument positions, but present and future active par-
ticipial clauses seem to be used only as subjects. Participial clauses (and related nom-
inal ones) can be used in a broad variety of other positions as well, in clauses, in noun
phrases and in prepositional phrases. A survey can be found in § 14.14.254
NB: The participial clauses that are discussed in the following sections should not
be confused with the accusative and participle construction, for which see § 15.98, ex.
(c) and § 21.8.
. The use of the dominant participle construction as subject

It is not always easy to decide whether a sequence consisting of a (pro)noun and a
participle is a noun phrase or a participial clause. This can be illustrated by (a), usually
interpreted as a participial clause (see the translation by ‘the arrest’). The verb terreo is
254 The best survey of the construction in the period from Plautus to Suetonius is Heick (1936, with
statistical data at pp. 71–2—NB: to be read selectively; see Spevak (2019)). For Cicero, see Laughton (1964:
Ch. 4); for Tacitus, Adams (1972: 371); for Ammianus, Blomgrén (1937: 88).
Participial clauses (dominant participles) 221
found with human agents meaning ‘to constrain or inhibit by fear’ ‘to terrorize’, ‘to
overawe’ (OLD § 1a), but it would be odd to speak of people causing this fear after they
have been arrested. It is therefore unlikely that deprehensi functions as an attribute
with the nouns. An example with a present participle, first attested in Cicero, is (b).
The future participle is used in this way from Livy onwards (see the Supplement).
Note that the verb of the superordinate clause agrees with the subject of the dominant
participle construction, plural in (a), singular in (b). Exceptional is the use of a dominant
participle with a clause as its subject, as auditum + postero . . . proficisci in (c). However,
this is more common when such a combination functions as satellite (with the parti-
ciple in the ablative—see § 16.91).
(a) . . . ne eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent . . .
(‘ . . . that the arrest of Lentulus and Cethegus and the others from the conspiracy
should not scare him . . .’ Sal. Cat. 48.4)
(b) In quo vehementer eum consentiens Etruria movebit.
(‘Under this head the unanimous feeling of Etruria will have great influence on him.’
Cic. Fam. 6.6.8)
(c) Haud procul iam Carthagine aberant cum ex obviis auditum postero die omnem
exercitum cum M. Silano in Lacetanos proficisci . . . metu . . . liberavit eos . . .
(‘They were now not far from (New) Carthage when the news, heard from those they
met, that on the next day the entire army would set out under Marcus Silanus against
the Lacetani, relieved them of their fear . . .’ Liv. 28.26.6)
Supplement:
Passive Perfect Participle: (sc. ea) Perdita perdidit me. (Pl. Cist. 686—NB: unless
perdita is taken as a secondary predicate); . . . nec aequitati quicquam tam infestum est
quam convocati homines et armati. (Cic. Caec. 33—NB: parallelism); Irridebatur
haec illius reconciliatio et persona viri boni suscepta . . . (Cic. Clu. 101—NB: coord-
ination); . . . dubitabat nemo quin violati hospites, legati necati, pacati atque socii
nefario bello lacessiti, fana vexata hanc tantam efficerent vastitatem. (Cic. Pis.
85); . . . omnibus amicis quorum benevolentiam nobis conciliarat per me quondam te
socio defensa res publica . . . (Cic. Fam. 4.13.2); . . . ea res saepe temptata etsi impetus
eius consiliaque tardabat . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.26.2); Non illi paucitatem nostrorum mili-
tum . . . non abscisum in duas partes exercitum . . . causae fuisse cogitabant. (Caes.
Civ. 3.72.2); . . . ademptus Hector / tradidit fessis leviora tolli / Pergama Grais. (Hor.
Carm. 2.4.10–12); Alterum (sc. Horatium) intactum ferro corpus et geminata victo-
ria ferocem in certamen tertium dabat. (Liv. 1.25.11); Haec dicta vulgo creditaque
cum indignitate angerent consulis animum, vocato ad concilium populo summissis
fascibus in contionem escendit. (Liv. 2.7.7); Equidem, sicubi loco cessum, si terga
data hosti, si signa foede amissa obici nobis possent, tamen hoc a te impetrari aequum
censerem, ut nos virtute culpam nostram corrigere et abolere flagitii memoriam nova
gloria patereris. (Liv. 7.13.4); Temptatum domi per dictatorem ut ambo patricii con-
sules crearentur rem ad interregnum perduxit. (Liv. 7.22.1—NB: ut clause as the sub-
ject of temptatum); . . . maximum vinculum erant trecenti equites, nobilissimus
quisque Campanorum, in praesidia Sicularum urbium delecti ab Romanis ac missi.
(Liv. 23.4.8); Ceterum transportati milites in Siciliam—et erant maior pars Latini
nominis sociorumque—prope magni motus causa fuere. (Liv. 27.9.1); Ad Prusiam
regem legatus T. Quinctius Flamininus venit, quem suspectum Romanis et receptus
post fugam Antiochi Hannibal et bellum adversus Eumenen motum faciebat. (Liv.
39.51.1); Nec terra mutata mutavit genus aut mores. (Liv. 37.54.19); Ultima pestis
urbis fuit cuniculo subrutus murus, per cuius ruinas hostis intravit. (Curt. 4.6.23);
Urebat nobilem populum mare ablatum, raptae insulae, dare tributa, quae iubere
consueverat. (Flor. Epit. 1.22); Britannos . . . visa classis obstupefaciebat . . . (Tac. Agr.
25.2); Observatum id antiquitus comitiis dirimendis non terruit Galbam . . . (Tac.
Hist. 1.18.1); An excidit trucidatus Corbulo? (Tac. Hist. 2.76.3); . . . filios, e quibus
Zammac comiti nomine Romano acceptus latenter a fratre Firmo peremptus dis-
cordias excitavit et bella. (Amm. 29.5.2)
Active Present Participle: Fugiens denique Pompeius mirabiliter homines movet.
(Cic. Att. 7.11.4); Quod principium favoris et mater Agrippina spem male tegens
perniciem adceleravere. (Tac. Ann. 4.12.1—NB: coordination); Id perniciabile reo et
Caesar truci vultu defensionem accipiens . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.34.2)
Active Future Participle: Nec his nec illis periculum suum, publicum imperium ser-
vitiumque obversatur animo futuraque ea deinde patriae fortuna quam ipsi fecis-
sent. (Liv. 1.25.3); Ab hoc affectu reges suam flevere potentiam, nec illos magnitudo
fortunae suae delectavit, sed venturus aliquando finis exterruit. (Sen. Dial. 10.17.1);
Augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis et, si omitteretur ripa, invasurus hostis.
(Tac. Ann. 1.36.2—NB: parallelism)
NB: Si ambo praesentes, sol occasus (solis Q) suprema tempestas esto. (Lex XII ap.
Gel. 17.2.10)
Comparable with (c) is the use of the adjective notum ‘well-known’ in (d).255
(d) Duri magno sed amore dolores / polluto notumque furens quid femina pos-
sit, / triste per augurium Teucrorum pectora ducunt.
(‘But the cruel pangs when deep love is profaned, and knowledge of what a
woman can do in frenzy, lead the hearts of the Trojans amid sad forebodings.’
Verg. A. 5.6–8—NB: duri dolores and notum coordinated)
There are exceptional instances of a neuter singular perfect passive participle of one-place
verbs functioning as subject of the sentences, as in (e) and (f). In (e) responsum, haesi-
tatum, and titubatum are parallel to deprehensum aliquid; note also visus (sc. reus).256
(e) Haec proprie attingunt eos ipsos qui arguuntur, ut telum . . . ut deprehensum
aliquid, quod ablatum ereptumve videatur, ut responsum inconstanter, ut
haesitatum, ut titubatum, ut cum aliquo visus . . .
(‘These intimately touch the actual persons accused—for instance, a weapon . . . the
discovery of some article that looks as if it had been taken away or snatched from the
victim, an inconsistent answer, hesitation, stammering, having been seen in company
with somebody . . .’ Cic. Part. 114)
255 See Williams ad loc. 256 For more instances, some of which are disputable, see K.-St.: I.769.
Participial clauses (dominant participles) 223
(f) Quin ea arte aequasset superiores reges ni degeneratum in aliis huic quoque
decori offecisset.
(‘Indeed he would have equalled in this art the kings who had gone before him, if his
degeneracy in other things had not also dimmed his glory here.’ Liv. 1.53.1)
Supplement:
Diu non perlitatum tenuerat dictatorem ne ante meridiem signum dare posset. (Liv.
7.8.5); Equidem, sicubi loco cessum, si terga data hosti, si signa foede amissa obici nobis
possent, tamen . . . (Liv. 7.13.4—NB: parallel with dominant participles of two-place
verbs)
. The use of the dominant participle construction

as object or as third argument
It is not always easy to decide whether a sequence consisting of a (pro)noun and a
participle in the accusative should be construed as a participial clause or as an accusa-
tive and infinitive clause without esse. This can be illustrated by (a). The verb fero can
be found with various types of objects: nouns referring to a situation, nouns referring
to human beings, accusative and infinitive clauses, and finite clauses.257
(a) . . . cum auctorem senatus exstinctum laete atque insolenter tulit.
(‘. . . when he displayed delight and insolence at the death of the senate’s advisor.’ Cic.
Phil. 9.7)
Supplement:
. . . in re publica me a se dissentientem non tulit . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 3.4.2); . . . tantum quod
momen mutatum dicere possis. (Lucr. 2.220); . . . cum visa atque audita et obversa-
tum totiens somno Iovem, minas irasque caelestes repraesentatas casibus suis expo-
suisset . . . (Liv. 2.36.6); Scipio . . . cum . . . Carthagini ab se captae captam ab eo
Orongin aequasset . . . (Liv. 28.4.2); Occisum Ciceronem malos mores voco. (Sen.
Con. 7.2.1); Neque populus ademptum ius questus est . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.15.1)
There is obviously no possibility of such ambiguity with objects or third arguments in

the genitive, dative, or ablative,258 illustrated by (b)–(d), respectively.
(b) . . . relicuorum, quos pecuniae captae arcessebat . . .
(‘. . . the rest whom he (sc. Memmius) was accusing of taking bribes . . .’ Sal. Jug. 32.1)
(c) Carthaginienses quoque Capuae amissae Tarentum captum aequabant.
(‘The Carthaginians likewise balanced the capture of Tarentum against the loss of
Capua.’ Liv. 26.37.6)
(d) . . . obiurgavit Albium Granius quod . . . valde absoluto Scaevola gauderet . . .
(‘. . . Granius reproved Albius because he was much delighted by Scaevola’s acquittal.’
257 Examples of an accusative and infinitive can be found in TLL s.v. fero 538.1ff; without esse 538.19ff.
258 For cause expressions in the ablative, see Baños (2007: 19, n. 7).
Supplement:
Genitive: . . . (sc. pacem) cuius impetratae ab insita animis levitate ante deductum
Cremera Romanum praesidium paenituit. (Liv. 2.49.12); . . . cum L. Scipio et accusatus et
damnatus sit pecuniae captae ab rege . . . (Liv. 38.56.8); . . . adnitar ne quem pacis per me
partae paeniteat. (Liv. 30.30.30); . . . ne eius (sc. Marii) nati rem publicam paeniteret . . .
(Vell. 2.12.5); . . . accusatur rei publicae laesae. (Sen. Con. 10.1.13); . . . quia (sc. Labeo)
male administratae . . . provinciae aliorumque criminum urgebatur . . . (Tac. Ann.
6.29.2—NB: coordination)
Dative: Reditum ad vestitum confectae victoriae reservate. Confectio autem huius
belli est D. Bruti salus. (Cic. Phil. 14.1—NB: continuation by confectio); Si . . . peri-
turaeque addere Troiae / teque tuosque iuvat, patet isti ianua leto . . . (Verg. A.
2.659–61)
Ablative: Eas leges quas ipse nobis inspectantibus recitavit, pronuntiavit, tulit, qui-
bus latis gloriabatur . . . evertendas putamus? (Cic. Phil. 1.24); Aut quidnam fracta
gaudes, Neptune, carina? (Prop. 3.7.15); Quae posteaquam litteris Scipionum Romae
volgata sunt, non tam victoria quam prohibito Hasdrubalis in Italiam transitu laeta-
bantur. (Liv. 23.29.17); Classes et Pontica signa / atque indignatos temerato litore
reges / mente agitet . . . (Val. Fl. 1.800–2)
From Early Latin onwards instances are found of the so-called impersonal expressions
opus est and usus est ‘it is needed’ with what seems a dominant (perfect) participle
construction in the ablative, as in (e).259
(e) Celeriter mi hoc homine convento’st opus.
(‘It’s necessary that I meet this man quickly.’ Pl. Cur. 302)
Supplement:
Quid istis nunc memoratis opu’st, quae commeminere? (Pl. Mil. 914); Si duobus
praefurnis coques, lacuna nihil opus erit; cum cinere eruto opus erit, altero prae-
furnio eruito, in altero ignis erit. (Cato Agr. 38.2); Primum ut id iniquissimum
esse confitear eius modi est, ut commutatis eis opus sit legibus, non ut his quae
sunt non pareamus. (Cic. Clu. 150); . . . nihil Oaeneo capto opus esse . . . (Liv.
43.19.4)
Recita modo: ex tabellis iam faxo scies, / quam subito argento mi usus invento
siet. (Pl. Ps. 49–50)
15.135 Gerundial argument clauses
Gerundial arguments are used with both verbs and verbal phrases (§§ 15.136–8) and
with two-place adjectives (§ 15.139). Gerundial clauses do not function as subject (see
§ 5.42) or as object in the accusative, but they do function as non-accusative second
or third argument with a number of verbs and adjectives.
259 Instances in TLL s.v. opus 857.70ff.

Gerundial clauses 225
. The use of gerundial clauses as argument with verbs

Gerundial clauses are sometimes used with verbs in a way similar to other nominal
expressions, but sometimes they are also found as competitors of prolative infinitive
clauses. These two uses are dealt with separately.
. The use of gerundial clauses as second or third argument
Gerundial clauses can be used as second or third arguments, both as bare case forms
and in prepositional expressions, from Early Latin onwards. The dative is the most
common case form of bare case gerunds functioning as argument; particularly com-
mon is the expression scribendo adsum ‘to attend the writing’, exemplified by (a). Ex.
(b) is a rare instance of a gerund functioning as a complement in the ablative (for
absisto + abl., see § 4.44). An equally rare and late example of a genitive complement
is (c) (for admoneo + gen., see § 4.66). A prepositional expression is exemplified by
(d). The gerund may itself govern an argument in the appropriate case, as in (e), where
a gerund in the dative case (quaerendo) governs an accusative object Epidicum.
However, instances like (e) are relatively infrequent, gerundival clauses being the nor-
mal expression (see §§ 15.140–2.). There are a few instances of satellites belonging to
a gerundial argument clause (see the Supplement).
(a) Sc(ribendo) arf(uerunt) M. Claudius M. f., L. Valerius P. f . . . .

(‘Marcus Claudius, son of Marcus, Lucius Valerius, son of Publius, attended the writ-
ing . . .’ (CIL I2.581.2 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc))
(b) . . . desperatione tandem fessum absistere sequendo coegit.
(‘. . . he forced him, at last, tired and in despair, to stop pursuing.’ Liv. 29.33.8)
(c) . . . Latini comici metuentes . . . ne quis fastidiosus finito actu velut admonitus
abeundi reliquae comoediae fiat contemptor et surgat . . .
(‘. . . the Latin comic poets, fearing that some bored audience member, as though
being advised to depart when an act ends, would become a despiser of the rest of the
comedy and would get up to leave . . .’ Don. Ter. Ad. pr. 1.4)
(d) Ad resistendum me paro.
(‘I am getting ready to defend myself.’ Cic. Att. 2.21.6)
(e) Ego . . . Epidicum operam quaerendo dabo.
(‘I’ll make an effort to find Epidicus.’ Pl. Epid. 605)
Supplement (arguments of the gerund are indicated in italics, satellites in bold

italics):
Dative: Atque hominem investigando operam huic dissimulabiliter dabo . . . (Pl. Mil.
260); . . . eae nos lavando, eluendo operam dederunt . . . (Pl. Poen. 223); Aliquando
osculando meliu’st, uxor, pausam fieri. (Pl. Rud. 1205); Scribendo adfui. (Cic. Prov.
28); Neque vero coniuncti Albici comminus pugnando deficiebant neque multum
cedebant virtute nostris. (Caes. Civ. 2.6.3); . . . is censendo finis factus est. (Liv.
1.44.2); . . . prodendo obstat ingens verecundia . . . (Plin. Nat. 28.29); Occasionem
loquendo capto, nec mehercules possum dicere inhumanitate tua fieri, quod non
audeo . . . (Sen. Con. 10.1.1); . . . eo quod nemo e familia restaurando sufficeret . . . (Tac.
Ann. 3.72.2); ‘Parce’, inquit, ‘in verba ista haec tam absurda tamque immania men-
tiendo.’ (Apul. Met. 1.2.5);260 . . . cum / cuncta parasset / edendo . . . (sc. muneri)
(CIL VIII.241.5–7 (Sbeitla (Sufetula), 2nd cent. ad))
Ablative: (sc. Masinissa) Verminam . . . taedio et desperatione tandem fessum absis-
tere sequendo coegit. (Liv. 29.33.8); Desiste canendo, / nata. (Stat. Theb. 4.583–4);
see also § 15.138, ex. (c)
Prepositional expressions:
(ab): Deterrent ab saliendo. (Var. R. 2.2.14); Nullum tempus illi umquam vacabat
aut a forensi dictione aut a commentatione domestica aut a scribendo aut a cogitando.
(Cic. Brut. 272—NB: coordination with abstract nouns); A scribendo prorsus abhor-
ret animus. (Cic. Att. 2.6.1)
(ad): Ita sum inritatus, animum ut nequeam ad cogitandum instituere. (Ter. Ph.
240); Nulla enim res tantum ad dicendum proficit quantum scriptio. (Cic. Brut. 91);
Quod me hortaris ad scribendum, amice tu quidem, sed me scito agere nihil aliud.
(Cic. Att. 16.11.3); . . . ut spatium ad colligendum se homines haberent . . . (Planc. Fam.
10.23.3); . . . pedites . . . rapiditate fluminis ad transeundum impedirentur. (Caes. Civ.
1.62.1); Itaque ad remedium iam diu neque desideratum nec adhibitum, dictatorem
dicendum, civitas confugit. (Liv. 22.8.5—NB: in apposition to a prepositional
phrase); . . . me debilitatum aegre ad exurgendum compellunt. (Apul. Met. 6.25.5); . . .
cogendum se ad ducendum eam uxorem. . . (Suet. Claud. 26.3); . . . Quod autem per-
tineat ad consuetudinem refutandum. (Firmil. ap. Cypr. Ep. 75.19.1)
(cum): Nam et scribendi ratio coniuncta cum loquendo est et . . . (Quint. Inst. 1.4.3)
Gerundial clauses in the dative are also used as argument with the verb sum in its
meaning ‘to be capable of ’. Especially common from Cicero onwards is the use of sum in
this sense with the dative gerund form solvendo ‘(up to) paying’. In later times solvendo
became an idiom yielding utterances like unus non solvendo decessit ‘one . . . died insolvent’
(Modest. dig. 3.5.25). In addition to this combination of sum and a dative gerund,
there are also a few others. (For parallel gerundival expressions, see § 15.141.)
(f) . . . cum solvendo civitates non essent.
(‘. . . although the states were not capable of paying.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.2)
Supplement:
Tu nec solvendo eras nec te ullo modo nisi eversa re publica fore incolumem putabas.
(Cic. Phil. 2.4); Iamque ferendo / vix erat illa gravem maturo pondere ventrem . . .
(Ov. Met. 9.684–5)
It is a matter of dispute whether there are also gerundial clauses in the accusative that
function as second argument. An example that is cited in the literature is (g).261 Here
faciundum looks like a gerund in the accusative that functions as the object of
coiraverunt and which itself governs a number of object constituents in the accusative.
260 For the interpretation of the prepositional in phrase, see TLL s.v. parco 333.70ff.
261 So, for example, Aalto (1949: 84–5) and Blümel (1979: 86).
However, this seems rather a formulaic expression typical of composers of inscrip-

tions.262 A gerundival clause is the normal expression.
(g) . . . portas turreis moiros / turreisque aequas qum moiro / faciun-
dum coiraverunt.
(‘. . . they saw to the construction of gates, towers, and walls and of towers
that were level with the wall.’ CIL I2.1722.3–5 (Mirabella Eclano, c.80 bc))
. The use of gerundial clauses instead of prolative infinitives
Gerundial clauses are sometimes in competition with prolative infinitive clauses.

Prepositional phrases can be used with a number of verbs to indicate the thing or
activity entered upon (with ad ‘to’ + accusative) or the thing or activity from which
one ceases (with the ablative or ab ‘from’ + ablative). An example of the former is the
verb ingredior ‘to begin’; of the latter, desisto ‘to leave off ’. These verbs are usually
found with the prolative infinitive (see § 15.131), but gerundial clauses are found as
well. Examples of prepositional gerundial clauses are (a) and (b). Lucifer, writing c. ad
360, has bare ablative gerund forms with such verbs, as in (c), showing the confusion
of the functions of the gerund and the present infinitive.263
(a) . . . ante quam ad discendum ingressi sumus . . .
(‘. . . before we have entered on the required study.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.94)
(b) . . . ut desisteret ab agendo . . .
(‘. . . that he should cease from doing something . . .’ August. Civ. 8.14.2)
(c) Non itaque cessabimus tibi Domini ingerendo praecepta . . .
(‘Accordingly, we will not cease from repeating to you the sayings of the Lord . . .’
Lucif. De non parc. 9 l. 35D)
Appendix: In Early Medieval Latin the bare accusative case of the gerund (or at least
that is what it presumably would look like through Classical Latin eyes) is also found
in positions where the prolative infinitive is normal, so, for example, with phasal
auxiliary verbs (for these see § 4.98) and then also with modal auxiliaries. Two
seventh-century Merovingian illustrations are (d) and (e).264
(d) . . . de eodem incipiens tempore scribendum . . .
(‘. . . beginning to write about the same time . . .’ Fredeg. Chron. 4pr.)
(e) Theubertus . . . prilium vellens (= proelium volens) committendum
adgreditur.
(‘Theubertus . . . attacks, wishing to join in the battle.’ Fredeg. Chron. 4.37)
262 See Warmington IV.188, n. 4. For a discussion of this inscription, see Baldi (1999: 217). As an alter-
native to the explanation given above he suggests that the neuter form faciundum may have been chosen
because the nouns it agrees with are of different gender, but then one would expect plural faciunda (see
§§ 13.9 and 13.17).
263 Examples can be found in Diercks’ edition (1978: XCI).
264 Further examples from Fredegar can be found in Odelstierna (1926: 45–56).
Another area for competition between the gerund and the infinitive is in more
or less idiomatic phrases that consist of sum and nouns that function as subject
complement, such as mos est ‘it is the/a custom’. With this particular phrase the
normal construction is the prolative infinitive, as in (f), but (g) may be analysed in
the same way. Compare also (h). However, here one might take mala . . . et impia as
the subject complement and contra deos disputandi as the adnominal argument of
consuetudo (see also §§ 17.17–18).265 A step further is (i). Here the explanation
must be that Tacitus wanted to avoid the more common use of the infinitive
vitare.266
(f) Quia mos est oblivisci hominibus . . .
(‘Because it’s people’s custom to forget . . .’ Pl. Capt. 985)
(g) . . . sed quia mos est ita rogandi, rogo.
(‘. . . but because it is the custom to ask in this way, I ask . . .’ Cic. Fam. 12.17.1)
(h) Mala enim et impia consuetudo est contra deos disputandi . . .
(‘For it is a wicked and impious practice to argue against the gods.’ Cic. N.D. 2.168)
(i) Vologaesi vetus et penitus infixum erat arma Romana vitandi . . .
(‘With Vologeses it was an old and deep-seated principle to avoid the Roman arms . . .’
Tac. Ann. 15.5.3)
Supplement:
Mos vero liberos genitos protinus obiciendi saevissimis earum eoque genere pudici-
tiam coniugum experiendi . . . (Plin. Nat. 7.14.2); Nec grave manumissis per idem
obsequium retinendi libertatem . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.26.3); Decernaturque et maneat
provincialibus potentiam suam tali modo ostentandi. (Tac. Ann. 15.21.2); . . . monu-
mentum · refecit · ex / subscriptione · eorum quorum iuris est · dandi . . . (CIL
VI.9035.9–10 (Rome, 1st cent. ad (late))); Iam propositi erat . . . ad Asiam acce-
dendi . . . (Pereg. 23.10); . . . cum id iustitia ipsa persuadeat ab eo haec recognosci, qui
evocandi personas sua interesse crediderit. (Cod. Just. 7.62.6.2); . . . quod eis nec
donandi nec testandi aut capiendi vel ab aliis derelictum penitus subiaceret . . . (Vict.
Vit. 3.9)
Appendix: In Late Latin there are a few instances where the subject complement
analysis seems acceptable, but here a more general confusion between infinitival and
gerundial expressions may be an additional explanation as well, a confusion which is
apparent in other contexts, for example in ( j).
( j) Set quid aliut fieri potest nisi naturae ser/viendum?
(‘But what else can be done except obey nature?’ (CIL VIII.23245.2–3 (Hr
Djuana)).
265 One might occasionally prefer to regard the gerundial clause as the subject of the sentence. A dis-
cussion of these cases can be found in Norberg (1943: 225ff.) and Wistrand (1967).
266 For these exceptional instances in Tacitus, see Löfstedt (1942/1933: I.106).
Gerundival clauses 229
15.139 The use of gerundial clauses with two-place adjectives that function as subject
or object complement
Gerundial clauses can be used with two-place adjectives that function as subject com-
plement or as object complement. The gerunds may be either bare case forms in the
genitive, dative, or ablative, or they may be prepositional expressions (mainly with ad
‘to’). An example with a dative gerund is (a). There are a few instances of such gerundial
clauses with an argument (or a satellite), but the expression normally used in such
cases is the gerundival clause. An example is (b). The gerundial clause videndi—itself
in the genitive—contains an argument vos, in the expected accusative case form, and
an adjunct, hic. The two other gerunds are combined with a space argument.
(a) Illud ediscendo scribendoque commune est . . .
(‘This is common to learning by heart and writing . . .’ Quint. Inst. 11.2.35)
(b) . . . quam cupida eram huc redeundi, abeundi a milite, / vosque hic videndi . . .
(‘. . . how eager I was to come back here, to get away from the soldier, and to see all of
you here . . .’ Ter. Hec. 91–2)
Supplement:
Genitive: Harum partium quaeque suis muneribus fungitur, si modo vinitor gnarus
est iis utendi[s]. (Col. 4.25.1); Armorum et equitandi peritissimus, laboris ultra
fidem patiens erat. (Suet. Jul. 57.1—NB: coordination with a noun)
Dative: Est autem utilis sulpurata (sc. aqua) nervis, aluminata paralyticis aut simili
modo solutis, bituminata aut nitrosa, qualis Cutilia est, bibendo itaque purgationi-
bus. (Plin. Nat. 31.59—NB: coordination with a noun)
Ablative: . . . culpando<o> nihilum dignus, set dignus amari . . . (anth. II.1.650.2 (ad 360))
Prepositional phrase: At quidem hercle est <ad> perdundum magis quam ad
scribundum cito. (Pl. Bac. 738); Non sati’ tutus est ad narrandum hic locus. (Ter. Ph.
818); Ut enim nulla materies tam facilis ad exardescendum est . . . (Cic. de Orat.
2.190); Ac ne me existimaris ad manendum esse propensiorem . . . (Cic. Att. 8.3.6); . . .
ut (sc. balineae) habiles ad lavandum fierent . . . (Scaev. dig. 32.35.3); . . . solers ad
audiendum, clemens ad ignoscendum . . . (CIL V.6725.7 (Vercelli, 5th cent. ad))
15.140 Gerundival argument clauses
For the internal structure of gerundival clauses and their ‘dominant’ character, see
§ 14.14. Dominant gerundival clauses resemble dominant participial clauses with a
past passive participle, the difference between them being that the gerundival clause
denotes something that still has/had to take place (see § 5.41), while the participial
clause refers to something that has/had already taken place. This is illustrated by ex.
(a). The same difference can be seen in Livy’s famous temporal adjunct ante conditam
condendamve urbem in (b).267
267 For the difference in meaning between the participial and the gerundival clauses, see Bolkestein
(1980b: 93).
(a) Non praesentem solum dictatorem obstitisse rei bene gerendae, sed absentem
etiam gestae obstare . . .
(‘Not only had the dictator prevented a successful engagement being fought while he
was present, but even when absent he objected to the victory now that it was won . . .’
Liv. 22.25.4)
(b) Quae ante conditam condendamve urbem poeticis magis decora fabulis
quam incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis traduntur, ea nec adfirmare
nec refellere in animo est.
(‘The things which have been handed down since before the city was founded or
rather was presently to be founded and which are rather adorned with poetic legends
than based upon trustworthy historical proofs, I purpose neither to affirm nor to
refute.’ Liv.1.pr. 6)
Gerundival arguments are found both with verbs (§ 15.141) and with two-place adjectives
(§ 15.142).
. The use of gerundival clauses as arguments with verbs

Gerundival clauses can function as arguments of various types, but not as subject (but
see ex. (g)). In the first place, gerundival clauses in the genitive, dative, or ablative can
be used as second or third arguments, although the number of attested instances is
relatively small. There are almost no attestations of genitive and ablative gerundival
clauses in this use, but the dative is used with a range of verbs, including the verb sum
in its meaning ‘to be equal to’. There are a few attestations of prepositional phrases.
Examples of gerundival clauses are (a)–(c).
(a) . . . cum primores civitatis . . . tumultus hostilis et turbandae rei publicae
accerserentur.
(‘. . . when the leading men of the city . . . were indicted for armed rebellion and for
disturbing the peace of the state . . .’ Tac. Ann. 4.29.1—NB: coordination with a noun
phrase)
(b) Thetis quoque etiam lamentando pausam fecit filio.
(‘And even Thetis stopped lamenting for her son.’ Pl. Truc. 731)
(c) . . . si gerendis negotiis orbatus possit paratissimis vesci voluptatibus.
(‘. . . if, debarred from taking part in affairs, he should be able to enjoy the most exquisite
pleasures.’ Cic. Fin. 5.57)
Supplement (satellites of the gerundive are indicated in italics):

Genitive: Ne feminae quidem exsortes periculi qua occupandae rei publicae
argui non poterant, ob lacrimas incusabantur. (Tac. Ann. 6.10.1)
Dative: Armamentis complicandis, [et] componendis studuimus. (Pl. Mer. 192); . . . bello
gerendo M. Catonem praefecisti. (Cic. Dom. 20); . . . sic noster hic rector studuerit sane
iuri et legibus cognoscendis . . . (Cic. Rep. 5.5); Dum consul placandis Romae dis haben-
doque dilectu dat operam . . . (Liv. 22.2.1); Portoriisque et tributo plebes liberata, ut
divites conferrent, qui oneri ferendo essent: pauperes satis stipendii pendere, si liberos
educarent. (Liv. 2.9.6); Experiundam rem denique in uno aut altero esse sitne aliqui
plebeius ferendo magno honori . . . (Liv. 4.35.9); . . . Domitium Corbulonem retinendae
Armeniae praeposuerat . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.8.1); Et ne ponti iniciendo impedimentum
hostiles turmae adferrent . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.9.1); . . . quod inter spectandum epistulis libel-
lisque legendis aut rescribendis vacaret . . . (Suet. Aug. 45.1); . . . dum magister meus
lectulo probe coaptando destrictus inservit . . . (Apul. Met. 10.35.1); . . . si quis pecuniis
faenerandis, agris colendis, mercaturis redempturisque faciendis praeposuerit (sc.
institorem) . . . (Ulp. dig. 14.3.5.2); . . . qui / cautionibus accipiendis de/sunt . . . (CIL
II.2959.5–7 (Pamplona, ad 119)); . . . qui · se · numini · eius · in perpetuum · / colendo
· obligaverunt . . . (CIL XII.4333.11–12 (Narbonne, ad 11)); (sc. provinciae) . . . quas
natura agro potius eluctando commodavit . . . (Tert. Pal. 4)
Prepositional phrase: A ducenda autem uxore sic abhorret ut libero lectulo neget esse
quicquam iucundius. (Cic. Att. 14.13.5); . . . revocant ab inpugnandis operibus armatos
murisque disponunt. (Hirt. Gal. 8.43.2); . . . cum · domi re/pelleretur · a · gerendis
· honoribus . . . (CIL XIII.1668. I.14–15 (Lyon, ad 48)); Seneca missum ad se Natalem
conquestumque nomine Pisonis, quod a visendo eo prohiberetur, seque rationem
valetudinis et amorem quietis excusavisse respondit. (Tac. Ann. 15.61.1); . . . nec ulla
lege (sc. testes) a dicendo testimonio excusantur. (Charis. dig. 22.5.1.1); Iam se ad prohi-
benda circumdari opera Aequi parabant (Liv. 3.28.7); Hoc ius ad rapa condienda
optime facit. (Col. 12.57.1); . . . quae ad solutionem pecuniae aut operam praebendam
pertinent. (Javol. dig. 4.8.39.1—NB: coordination with a noun phrase)
There are also gerundival clauses functioning as object (and as subject in the passive,
as in (e)), although their existence is ignored in some grammars.268 The clearest
instances occur with the verb curo, as in (d).
(d) . . . cum ad has suspiciones certissimae res accederent . . . quod obsides inter
eos dandos curasset . . .
(‘. . . since to these suspicions the most unequivocal facts were added . . . namely that
he had caused hostages to be given between them.’ Caes. Gal. 1.19.1)
(e) Ne quis concedat quo olea legunda et facienda carius locetur . . .
(‘No one shall form a combination in order that the harvesting and milling of olives
might be contracted out at a higher price. . .’ Cato Agr. 144.4)
This use is limited to the verbs curo ‘to cause to be done’, do ‘to impose (a task)’, and
loco ‘to contract for having done’. The construction is normally regarded as identical
to the use of the gerundive as a secondary predicate (see § 21.9), as in (f).
(f) Sanguinis ingenui mulierem praetor . . . triumviro in carcere necandam tradidit.
(‘A praetor handed over a woman of free birth . . . to the Triumvir to be executed in
prison.’ V. Max. 5.4.7)
268 So K.-St.: I.731 and Sz.: 371–2. Not so Bennett: I.444. The view taken in this Syntax is that of
Odelstierna (1926: 15). She rightly argues that a ‘final’ interpretation is impossible with curare. More or less
similarly Blümel (1979: 88–9) and Töttössy (1998).
However, with these three verbs, and unlike the secondary predicate instances, the
entities the objects refer to very often (in the case of curare always) are the result of the
action denoted by the gerundive (they resemble ‘effected’ objects (in the passive sub-
jects), for which see § 2.12 and § 4.20). By contrast, with the other verbs with which a
gerundive may be used as a secondary predicate, we are dealing with an ‘affected’ object
of the governing verb, as in (g) (see § 2.12 and § 4.20). There are also a few (very) Late
Latin instances of facio ‘to do’ with a gerundival clause as object, but these date from a
period in which infinitive and -nd- forms were confused regularly (see § 15.138).
Supplement (satellites of the gerundival clause indicated in italics):
Cura adservandum vinctum, atque audi’n? Quadrupedem constringito. (Ter. An.
865); . . . deinde ipsum Aurium . . . tollendum interficiendumque curavit. (Cic. Clu.
23); . . . monumentum quam amplissimum locandum faciendumque <curent>. (Cic.
Phil. 14.38); . . . pontem in Arari faciendum curat atque ita exercitum traducit. (Caes.
Gal. 1.13.1); . . . quod Atheniensium legem probantes me arte erudiendum
curaverunt . . . (Vitr. 6.pr.4); . . . aut ullo alio genere (sc. eum) persequendum cura-
bis . . . (Petr. 109.2)
Ibi nunc statuam volt dare auream / solidam faciundam ex auro Philippo . . . (Pl.
Cur. 439–40); Calcem partiario coquendam qui dant, ita datur: . . . (Cato Agr. 16);
Lectulos—in sole—ilignis pedibu’ faciundos dedit. (Ter. Ad. 585); C. Mario L. Valerio
consulibus senatus rem publicam defendendam dedit. (Cic. Phil. 8.15)
(sc. terminos) statuendos locaverunt (CIL I2.400.5–6 (near Rome, 5th cent. bc
(early))); . . . ut tu me quoivis castrandum loces. (Pl. Aul. 251); Villam aedificandam si
locabis novam ab solo, faber haec faciat oportet. (Cato Agr. 14.1); † trapeti † facito si
operarii conducti erunt aut facienda locata erit, pro eo resolvito, aut deducetur. (Cato
Agr. 145.1); Magno cum luctu . . . simulacrum Dianae tollendum locatur. (Cic. Ver.
4.76—NB: subject in a passive sentence); Opera deinde facienda ex decreta in eam
rem pecunia, lacus sternendos lapide, detergendasque, qua opus esset, cloacas in
Aventino, et in aliis partibus qua nondum erant faciendas locaverunt. (Liv. 39.44.5)269
?uxsor benemerenti / faciendum fecit (CIL II.2549.4–5 (Hisp. Tarr.—‘inscriptio
male descripta’270))
A gerundival clause functioning as subject in a non-passive sentence is (g). Here the

use of the gerundival clause is facilitated, as K.-St.: I.754 say, by its coordination with
Gallia. A comparable case which is cited as a gerundival clause functioning as object
is (h).
(g) Cn. Domitio extra Italiam quo senatus censuisset provincia evenit,
L. Quinctio Gallia et comitia habenda.
(‘To Gnaeus Domitius was allotted a province outside Italy, wherever the
senate should decree; to Lucius Quinctius fell Gaul and the holding of the
elections.’ Liv. 35.20.8)
269 Note that in this example detergendas presupposes the existence of cloacae, whereas faciendas
does not.
270 So TLL s.v. facio 87.51.
(h) Nec caelestes modo caerimonias, sed iusta quoque funebria placandosque
manes ut idem pontifex edoceret . . .
(‘And the pontifex was to teach not only ceremonies relating to the gods
above, but also proper funeral observances and the propitiation of the spirits
of the dead . . .’ Liv. 1.20.7)
Supplement:
. . . moverat eum et primi periculi casus . . . et subeunda dimicatio totiens quot coniu-
rati superessent . . . (Liv. 2.13.2)271
Gerundival clauses can also be used as subject complement with the copula sum ‘to be’
or with another copular verb to denote a future state of affairs that is likely to occur.
Such clauses are sometimes described as ‘final’ gerundival expressions, but they should
not be confused with gerundival purpose adjuncts described in § 16.106, where no
copular verb is involved. An example of a subject complement is (i). For a gerundival
clause that functions as object complement, see ( j) (for the genitive, see § 9.42).
(i) . . . quae res evertendae reipublicae solent esse . . .
(‘. . . which matters usually ruin the state . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.132)
( j) (sc. Marius) Quae postquam gloriosa modo neque belli patrandi cognovit . . .
(‘But after Marius realized that such exploits merely brought him glory and did not
tend to finish the war . . .’ Sal. Jug. 88.4)
Supplement:
. . . multa contra morem consuetudinemque militarem fierent quae dissolvendae dis-
ciplinae severitatisque essent . . . (B. Alex. 65.1); Si plebeiae leges displicerent, at illi
communiter legum latores et ex plebe et ex patribus, qui utrisque utilia ferrent quaeque
aequandae libertatis essent, sinerent creari. (Liv. 3.31.7); Lectis rerum summis cum
animum advertisset pleraque dissolvendarum religionum esse . . . (Liv. 40.29.11); . . .
quaeque alia conciliandae misericordiae videbantur . . . (Tac. Ann. 11.3.1)
. The use of gerundival clauses with adjectives that function as subject or
object complement
Gerundival clauses functioning as argument of adjectives in subject or object comple-

ment function are found in all periods of Latin, although they are not frequent. Such
clauses are used in the genitive, dative, and—very rarely—ablative, as well as in prep-
ositional phrases. Examples are (a)–(d), respectively.
(a) . . . ille restituendi mei quam retinendi studiosior . . .
(‘. . . his being more concerned for my restoration than for the prevention of my ban-
ishment.’ Cic. Att. 8.3.3)
(b) Haec nox scita est exercendo scorto . . .
(‘This night is perfect for exhausting a prostitute . . .’ Pl. Am. 288)
271 For ‘variety and inconcinnity’ in Livy, see Catterall (1938), especially p. 313.
(c) At nunc causa mihi est orandae sola salutis / dignum donanda, Caesar, te
credere vita.
(‘But now my only reason for begging for life, is that I think you, Caesar, are worthy
to grant it.’ Luc. 4.346–7)
(d) . . . quod illa aetas magis ad haec utenda idonea’st . . .
(‘. . . since that age is more suitable for enjoying them . . .’ Ter. Hau. 133)
Supplement (satellites of the gerundive are indicated in light italics):
Genitive: Mercatorem autem strenuum studiosumque rei quaerendae existimo . . .
(Cato Agr. pr. 3); Pacis inter civis conciliandae te cupidum esse laetor. (Cic. Fam.
10.27.1); Nam ut ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promptus est animus,
sic . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.19.6); Fuit enim disertus, impiger, laboriosus, rei militaris peritus
neque minus civitatis regendae. (Nep. Tim. 1.1—NB: coordination with a noun
phrase); Latiaris, ut rettuli, praecipuus olim circumveniendi Titii Sabini et tunc
luendae poenae primus fuit. (Tac. Ann. 6.4.1); Eutrapelus . . . corrumpendorum
hominum callidus fuit . . . (Porph. ad Hor. Ep. 1.18.31)
Dative: Sed hoc non liquet nec satis cogitatum est, / . . . utram aetati agundae arbitrer
firmiorem. (Pl. Trin. 227–9); Facilis impetrandae veniae Claudius, Fulvio durior sen-
tentia erat. (Liv. 26.15.1); . . . qui perferendis militum mandatis habebatur idoneus ob
promptum ingenium. (Tac. Ann. 1.23.4); At ego referendis laudibus tuis exilis inge-
nio et adhibendis sacrificiis tenuis patrimonio. (Apul. Met. 11.25.5)
Ablative: (sc. patres) . . . nec iam possidendis publicis agris contentos esse . . . (Liv.
6.14.11); . . . et uberrimum gignendis uvis solum est. (Curt. 6.4.21);272 . . . dum flumen
gignendo sale fecundum et conterminum vi trahunt . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.57.1)
Prepositional phrase: Gonlegium . . . opiparum a<d> veitam quolundam . . . (CIL
I2.364b.1–2 (Falerii, c.150 bc)); (sc. glaebas) . . . aptiores facere ad accipiendum
imbrem . . . (Var. R. 1.27.2); Haec igitur opera grata multis et ad beneficiis obstringen-
dos homines accommodata. (Cic. Off. 2.65)
15.143 Relative clauses functioning as argument

Autonomous relative clauses functioning as argument are dealt with in § 18.16.
15.144 Nominal (verbless) argument clauses

Parallel to the participial and gerundival argument clauses discussed in previous sec-
tions, there are a few instances of clauses that consist of a noun (phrase) and a noun
(phrase), as in (a), or of a noun (phrase) and an adjective, as in (b), and which func-
tion as subject in their sentence. They lack a copula in the way nominal sentences do
272 Commonly taken as an ablative, although it might be a dative.

Nominal (verbless) clauses 235
(see § 4.96). Although they are acceptable on a structural level (given the fact that they
are quite common in satellite positions (see §§ 16.114ff.)), the fact that they occur in
only a few very experimental authors suggests that they are literary exploitations of a
structure that was probably not in use in everyday Latin.
(a) . . . filius legati orator publicae causae satis ostenderet necessitate expressa
quae per modestiam non obtinuissent.
(‘The fact that their commander’s son was serving as pleader of the common cause
clearly showed that they had wrested by compulsion what they had failed to obtain by
good behaviour.’ Tac. Ann. 1.19.5)
(b) Augebat metum gnarus Romanae seditionis . . . hostis.
(‘The fact that the enemy was aware of the Roman mutiny heightened the alarm.’ Tac.
Ann. 1.36.2)
Supplement:
Noun (phrase): Et quantum misericordiae saevitia accusationis permoverat, tantum
irae P. Egnatius testis concivit. (Tac. Ann. 16.32.2—NB: parallelism with saevitia
accusationis)
Adjective: Multa me dehortantur . . .: opes factionis, vostra patientia, ius nullum, ac
maxume quod innocentiae plus periculi quam honoris est. (Sal. Jug. 31.1); Sed minuit
furorem / vix una sospes navis ab ignibus . . . (Hor. Carm. 1.37.12–13); Ceterum
plena Caesarum domus, iuvenis filius, nepotes adulti moram cupitis adferebant.
(Tac. Ann. 4.3.1)
K.-St.: I.770 analyse the noun phrases in (c)–(d) and a few others as argument clauses.
In these cases the information provided by the attributes is definitely salient, but this
does not make the expressions argument clauses.
(c) . . . praeclara . . . est aequabilitas in omni vita et idem semper vultus eademque
frons . . .
(‘. . . an unruffled temper is excellent in every condition of life, as well as an
unchanging expression and the same countenance . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.90)
(d) Quae postquam oppidani cognovere, res trepidae, metus ingens, malum
inprovisum, ad hoc pars civium extra moenia in hostium potestate coegere,
uti deditionem facerent.
(‘After the inhabitants perceived these things, their state of consternation and
extreme dread, the suddenness of the calamity, and, moreover, the consid-
eration that part of their fellow-citizens were outside the walls in the enemy’s
power compelled them to surrender.’ Sal. Jug. 91.5)
Supplement:
Accedere matrem muliebri impotentia. (Tac. Ann. 1.4.5); Facilem adsensum Gallo
sub nominibus honestis confessio vitiorum et similitudo audientium dedit. (Tac.
Ann. 2.33.4)
Just as there are participial clauses functioning as argument with the expression opus
est ‘it is needed’ (see § 15.134), there are a few instances of nominal clauses in that
position, as in (e).
(e) Quid opu’st me advocato . . .
(‘What need is there for me to be an advocate . . .’ Pl. Am. 1038)
Supplement:
Noun (phrase): Si quis tamen virtutibus vitia pensarit, vir magnus ac memorabilis
fuit, et in cuius laudes <ex>equendas Cicerone laudatore opus fuerit. (Liv. ap. Sen.
Suas. 6.22)
Adjective: . . . sobrio tanta ad mala / opus est Thyeste. (Sen. Thy. 900–1)
CHAPTER 16
Subordinate clauses filling

a satellite position
16.1 Verbal and nominal satellite clauses

As with argument clauses, a distinction is made in this chapter between satellite
clauses that contain a finite or non-finite verb form and clauses that contain a noun or
an adjective instead. Examples to illustrate these types are (a)–(b) and (c)–(d), respect-
ively. Ex. (a) contains a finite adjunct clause indicating the reason why the state of
affairs of the main clause takes place; (b), a non-finite (participial) adjunct clause; (c),
a nominal (verbless) adjunct clause containing the noun duce; (d), likewise a nominal
adjunct clause but with an adjective (vivo) instead of a noun. Exx. (b)–(d) are usuallly
called ‘ablative absolute’ constructions. Semantically, they are interpreted as indicat-
ing the time at which the state of affairs of the main clause takes place.
(a) Merito vostro amo vos, / quia me colitis [et] magni facitis.
(‘I’m fond of you two, and deservedly so, because you’re kind to me and appreciate
me.’ Pl. Cist. 21–2)
(b) . . . intellegebat Habito mortuo bona eius omnia ad matrem esse ventura.
(‘. . . he realized that when Habitus died all his property would pass to his mother.’ Cic.
Clu. 45)
(c) (sc. exercitus) . . . quem pulsum a se Domitio duce sciebat . . .
(‘. . . which he knew had been routed by himself when Domitius led it . . .’ B. Alex.
74.3)
(d) Non sino, neque equidem illum me vivo corrumpi sinam.
(‘No I won’t, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac. 419)
16.2 Finite satellite clauses
Finite satellite clauses contain an indicative or a subjunctive verb form. For the
tenses and moods required or allowed in the various satellites clauses, see §§ 7.85ff.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0016
238 Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position
and §§ 7.128ff., respectively. There are no satellite clauses containing an imperative

verb form. Historic infinitives are rare.1
. Classes of finite satellite clauses

The division of finite satellite clauses into fourteen classes that follows is mainly based
on semantic grounds. The number of classes distinguished is not entirely the same as
in Chapter 10 on prepositional and noun phrases functioning as satellite. Where
appropriate, a further distinction is made between the use of a specific class of satellite
clause as adjunct or as disjunct, with a further distinction between attitudinal dis-
juncts (the clause indicates some form of comment on either the content or the word-
ing (or: linguistic form) of the main clause) and illocutionary disjuncts (the clause
specifies the communicative function of the main clause—see § 10.97).
. The role of subordinators in satellite clauses

Finite satellite clauses consist of a clause which is connected to the main clause by a
subordinating device and which contains a finite verb form (but see below). The sub-
ordinating device indicates the semantic relation between the subordinate clause and
its main clause. The function of this subordinating device is not the same in all types
of finite satellite clauses (see also § 14.6). In some clauses the only function seems to
be to indicate the semantic relation of the subordinate clause with respect to the
(complex) sentence as a whole, a relation that may be made explicit by a correlating
expression in the main clause, as in (a). In other clauses, notably in space clauses, the
subordinating device has a syntactic and semantic function in its own clause as well,
and the correlating expression in the main clause may have a meaning that is different
from the subordinating device, as in (b) (see § 16.6, ex. (f)). This usage resembles
that of relative pronouns, which, apart from connecting the subordinate and main
clauses, have a function in their own clause as well; indeed, devices such as unde
in (b) are relative adverbs. Temporal cum satellite clauses are also often included
in this category (see § 16.10). In this chapter the term ‘subordinator’ is used for all
these devices.
(a) Equidem hercle nullum perdidi ideo quia numquam ullum habui.
(‘I for one haven’t lost any such man for that reason, because I’ve never had one.’ Pl.
As. 622)
(b) . . . eo unde discedere non oportuit aliquando revertamur.
(‘. . . let me at length return to those pursuits from which I never should have
departed.’ Cic. Att. 2.16.3)
1 For the use of the historic infinitive in the historians, especially Tacitus, see Perrochat (1932a: 67–70).
Finite satellite clauses 239
Some of the subordinators used in satellite clauses are formally identical to ones used
in argument clauses. See § 14.4. Further, a number of subordinators occur in more
than one type of satellite clause.
Satellite clauses without a subordinator are very rare. Examples are (c) and (d)—
purpose clauses—and (e)—a result clause. There are more instances in (very) Late
Latin texts by less educated authors.2
(c) Siquidem mihi saltandum est, tum vos date bibat tibicini.
(‘If I have to dance, then you two must give the flute player something to
drink.’ Pl. St. 757)
(d) Da quaeso scribae recitet ex codice professionem. Recita.
(‘Kindly hand this to the clerk so that he can read aloud from the volume the
passage about the returns to be made. Read it, please.’ Cic. Ver. 3.26)
(e) Et si fistula erit, turundam intro trudito; si turundam non recipiet, diluito,
indito in vesicam, eo calamum alligato, ita premito in fistulam introeat.
(‘If there is a fistula, insert a pellet; or if it will not admit a pellet, make a
solution, pour it into a bladder, attach a reed to it, and squeeze the bladder
in such a way that the solution enters into the fistula.’ Cato Agr. 157.14)
For the use of the historic infinitive in subordinate clauses, see § 7.71, Appendix, and
§ 7.122. For the use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate satellite clauses, see
§ 15.109. Also, just as in other types of clauses and sentences, a finite verb (and other
constituents) may be absent for various reasons.
. Satellite clauses (seemingly) filling an argument position

Satellite clauses are sometimes so closely interwoven with their main clause that they
resemble argument clauses. Examples are the conditional si clauses in (a) and (b). In
the main clause of (a) the second argument of interdicunt is not expressed and must
be inferred from the si clause: it is coreferential with qui: ‘that somebody’. The si clause
could be replaced by an autonomous relative clause functioning as a whole as the
second argument of interdicunt. (For autonomous relative clauses, see §§ 18.15ff. See
also § 14.17.)3
(a) Si qui aut privatus aut populus eorum decreto non stetit, sacrificiis interdicunt.
(‘If any person or people has not abided by their decision, they ban such from sacri-
fice.’ Caes. Gal. 6.13.6)
(b) Et si quid contusum est, erumpet.
(‘And if a part of the body has been bruised, it will burst.’ Cato Agr. 157.4)
2 For further references, see Sz.: 531–2. For Late Latin, see Svennung (1934).
3 For a discussion of these and related instances, see Bodelot (2005: 469–73).
16.6 Space clauses (adjuncts)
Space satellite clauses locate the event of the superordinate clause in space. There
are four types, introduced by position, direction, source, or path expressions. Each of
these types is typically introduced by one of the subordinators (or more precisely:
relative adverbs—see § 16.4 and below) given in Table 16.1. The main clause may
contain one of the demonstrative or anaphoric adverbs in the right hand column,
which may either precede (their preparative use) or follow (their resumptive use).
Examples of each of the four types are (a)–(d), respectively.4
Table 16.1 Survey of spatial relative adverbs

Position ubi ‘where’, ubicumque hic ‘here’, ibi ‘there’, illic ‘over there’, istic ‘over
‘wherever’, ubiubi ‘wherever’ there’
Direction quo ‘whither’, quocumque huc (and hoc) ‘hither’, illuc (and illo(c)) ‘thither’,
‘whithersoever’, quoquo istuc (and isto(c)) ‘to the place where you are’, eo
‘whithersoever’ ‘thither’, eodem ‘to the same place’
Source unde ‘whence’, undecumque hinc ‘hence’, illinc ‘thence’, istinc ‘from over there’,
‘from whatever direction’ inde ‘thence’
Path qua ‘by which route’ ea ‘along that way’
(a) Istic ubi vis condormisce.

(‘Sleep over there where you like.’ Pl. Rud. 572)
(b) Do fidem, si omittis, isto me intro ituram quo iubes.
(‘I give you my word that if you let go of me, I’ll go in there where you tell me to.’ Pl.
Mil. 455)
(c) Brevis erit (sc. oratio), si, unde necesse est, inde initium sumetur . . .
(‘It will be brief if the beginning is taken up from the point where it needs to be . . .’
Cic. Inv. 1.28)
(d) (Hannibal) . . . effecit ut ea elephantus ornatus ire posset, qua antea unus
homo inermis vix poterat repere.
(‘. . . Hannibal made it possible for an elephant with its equipment to go over places
along which before that a single unarmed man could barely creep.’ Nep. Han. 3.4)
Relative space adverbs are used in a variety of non-spatial senses (for details, see the
OLD). The most conspicuous case is ubi, which is also regularly used in time clauses
(see § 16.23). An example of an ubi clause that is used in a sense somewhere between
the locative and temporal is (e), where ubi has to be taken in the sense of ‘in which
(situation)’.5
4 See Wölfflin (1896). 5 See OLD s.v. ubi § 8.

Time clauses 241
(e) Rursus autem ex cognitionis consultatione, ubi sit necne sit aut fuerit futu-
rumve sit quaeritur, unum genus est quaestionis . . .
(‘And again, under the consideration of learning, in cases where it is inquired
whether a thing is (or was, or will be) or not, one class of question is . . .’ Cic.
Part. 64)
The correlative pairs may have different functions in their own clause, as is shown by
exx. (f), repeated from § 16.4, and (g). In (f) unde is part of a subordinate clause,
where it functions as a source argument with discedere; the clause as a whole functions
as a direction argument with the verb revertamur in the main clause, as is made
explicit by eo. Ex. (g) shows unde functioning as source adjunct. In (h) and (i) there is
no such correlating element.
(f) . . . eo unde discedere non oportuit aliquando revertamur.
(‘. . . let me at length return to those pursuits from which I never should have
departed.’ Cic. Att. 2.16.3)
(g) Eo inpendi laborem ac periculum unde emolumentum atque honos speretur.
(‘Toil was bestowed and danger risked, they said, in causes from which benefit and
honour could be hoped for.’ Liv. 4.35.7)
(h) Sed redeat unde aberravit oratio.
(‘But my discourse should return to the point from which it wandered.’ Cic.
Tusc. 5.66)
(i) . . . ut unde deiecisset restitueret.
(‘. . . to restore to the place whence he had ejected.’ Cic. Caec. 23)
Space clauses as exemplified above are in fact autonomous relative clauses functioning
as space satellites. They are dealt with in this Chapter to maintain the same organiza-
tion of satellites as in Chapter 10. Autonomous and adnominal space clauses are also
used in other functions at the sentence and noun phrase levels. For details, see § 18.36.
Just as with noun phrases functioning as direction and source expressions, it is often
difficult to decide whether the clausal constituents in such sentences are an argument
or a satellite. To a lesser extent this holds also for position expressions. This problem
is ignored in this section, because the internal and external properties of the two
types of clause are very much the same.
16.7 Time clauses (adjuncts)
Time satellite clauses locate the event of their superordinate clause in time. More
precisely they indicate the temporal relation of the event referred to in the super-
ordinate clause with respect to the event in the time clause. This is illustrated by (a)–
(c), in which time clauses are used independently as answers to a question with
quando ‘when?’
(a) Obstitisti videlicet ne ex Italia transire in Siciliam fugitivorum copiae pos-

sent. Ubi, quando, qua ex parte? Cum aut ratibus aut navibus conarentur
accedere?
(‘But you made it impossible, as you claim, for bands of revolted slaves to cross from
Italy to Sicily. Where? When? From what quarter? When they were attempting to
approach Sicily by boat or ship?’ Cic. Ver. 5.5)
(b) ‘Quando tandem, Galba de triclinio tuo exibis?’ # ‘Cum tu,’ inquit, ‘de cubi-
culo alieno.’
(‘ “Galba, whenever will you come out of your own dining room?” # “When you,” he
said, “come away from other people’s bedrooms.” ’ Cic. de Orat. 2.262)
(c) Quando ista vis autem evanuit? An postquam homines minus creduli esse
coeperunt?
(‘When did the virtue disappear? Was it after men began to be less credulous?’ Cic.
Div. 2.117)
The temporal relationship between the events of the subordinate and the superordin-
ate clause may be one of simultaneity, as in (a) and (b); anteriority, as in (c); or poster-
iority, as in (d).
(d) Prius quam intro redii, exanimatus fui.
(‘Before I returned inside, I was practically dead.’ Pl. Aul. 208)
The subordinators used to mark these three types of relationship are given in Table 16.2.
Some of these are in fact relative adverbs (see §16.10 and § 18.38 on cum (quom)).
Table 16.2 Survey of temporal subordinators

simultaneity (a) cum (quom) and quoniam ‘when’, quando ‘when’, quandocumque
and quandoque ‘whenever’, quotiens ‘as often as’ (for ubi, see § 16.6);
(b) donec, dum, quamdiu, quoad, and quatenus ‘as long as’
anteriority cum ‘when’, ‘after’, postquam, ubi, and ut ‘after’, cum primum,
cum extemplo, simul, simulatque, simulac, simul ut, ubi primum, and
ut primum ‘as soon as’ (also ex quo ‘since’ and—very rarely—unde)
posteriority antequam and priusquam ‘before’; donec, (dum,) and quoad ‘until’
The lexical meaning of the subordinators interacts with the semantic value of the
types of states of affairs and the tenses used in the two clauses, which explains why
some subordinators are used in more than one subclass of time clauses. The most
conspicuous subordinator in this respect is dum, which can be translated as both ‘as
long as’ and ‘until’ depending on the type of state of affairs and the tenses and moods
used (for details, see § 16.15 and § 16.17, respectively).6
6 For dum and the types of events with which it occurs see TLL s.v. dum 2202.50ff.
Time clauses 243
Depending on the context, the relationship between a time clause and the main
clause may be interpreted as causal (cum, dum, postquam, quando), concessive (or
adversative) (cum, dum, postquam, quando), conditional (dum and quando), or final
(antequam, priusquam). In most of these cases the mood of the temporal clause is
subjunctive. Cum especially can be used in a wide range of contexts, and it resembles
in this respect ablative absolute clauses.7
There are a few instances of et and atque ‘and’ in the (following) main clause after
finite and non-finite temporal subordinate clauses. See § 19.12.
. Time clauses denoting an event that is simultaneous

with the event in the main clause
The first group of subordinators shown in Table 16.2 (time clauses denoting simultan-
eity) can be divided into two subgroups, one that indicates at what time or in what
period the state of affairs of the main clause was located (cum, quando, and quoniam),
more or less equivalent to quo tempore, and another one that indicates the extent of
time of the state of affairs of the main clause.8
. Time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (cum, dum,
quando, quoniam, quotiens)
The first four time clauses that locate the event of the main clause in time (with cum,
dum, quando, or quoniam) are discussed in separate sections. For quotiens, see § 16.13,
Appendix. The use of quoniam and of quando and its compounds as temporal subor-
dinators is relatively uncommon and mostly attested in Early Latin. The use of dum in
a locating sense is poetic and Late.
16.10 Time clauses with cum (quom)

Cum (< quom) clauses locate the state of affairs of the main clause in time, that is, they
indicate when the state of affairs of the main clause takes, took, or will take place. The
most common uses of cum clauses are treated in § 7.125 (use of the tenses) and § 7.142
(use of the moods). Cum clauses may precede, as in (a), or (less often) follow their
main or superordinate clause, as in (b). When they precede, the information they
convey is usually closely connected to the preceding context. When they follow, they
sometimes describe a further development in a series of events rather than locate the
state of affairs of the main clause in time.9 An example is (c). The relation between the
main clause and a following cum clause is sometimes as loose as between a main clause
and a connecting relative clause, as in (d). (Further examples in the Supplement.)10 In
7 See Lavency (1975; 1976) and Luraghi (2001: 411–13).

8 Woodcock (1959: 177) uses the term ‘contemporaneous’ for this subgroup.
9 Sz.: 623 calls this use of cum ‘weiterführend’.
10 See also K.-St.: II.340–2, which is the source of most of the examples above.
the next section special attention will be given to so-called cum inversum clauses,
which in most cases have an indicative verb form. In narrative texts the locating func-
tion of the cum clause is less prominent, and its function is rather to introduce and set
the stage for the event in the main clause, as in (e).11
(a) Quom exibam, hic erat.
(‘When I came out, she was here.’ Pl. Mil. 181)
(b) Praesagibat mi animus frustra me ire, quom exibam domo.
(‘My mind felt a premonition that I was going in vain when I left the house.’ Pl. Aul.
178—NB: Cicero Div. 1.65 quotes it with subjunctive exirem)
(c) Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci / numquam quicquam faci-
nus feci peius nec scelestius / quam hodie . . .
(‘It’s been more than thirty years since I was born, during which time I’ve never com-
mitted a worse or more wicked crime than today . . .’ Pl. Men. 446–8)
(d) . . . medico quem tecum tu eduxeras imperasti ut venas hominis (sc. Platoris)
incideret; cum quidem tibi etiam accessio fuit ad necem Platoris Pleuratus
eius comes, quem necasti verberibus summa senectute confectum.
(‘. . . you ordered the physician whom you had taken out with you to open the man’s
veins. To the murder of Plator you added that of Pleuratus his friend, whom you
scourged to death, worn out though he was with extreme old age.’ Cic. Pis. 83–4)
(e) Ut Alexandrum regem videmus, qui cum interemisset Clitum familiarem
suum, vix a se manus abstinuit.
(‘As for instance we see King Alexander did, who after he had killed his friend Clitus
could scarcely keep his hands off himself.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.78)
Supplement:
Litteras in contione recitasti quas tibi a C. Caesare missas diceres ‘CAESAR
PULCHRO’, cum etiam es argumentatus amoris esse hoc signum, <quod> cogno-
minibus tantum uteretur . . . (Cic. Dom. 22); Recordare cetera, quam cito senatum illo
die facta sortitione coegerim, quam multa de te verba fecerim, cum tu ipse mihi
dixisti orationem meam non solum in te honorificam sed etiam in collegas tuos con-
tumeliosam fuisse. (Cic. Fam. 5.2.3); Cum Caesar in Galliam venit, alterius factionis
principes erant Haedui, alterius Sequani. (Caes. Gal. 6.12.1)
Primo actu placeo; quom interea rumor venit / datum iri gladiatores, populu’ con-
volat. (Ter. Hec. 39–40); (sc. Piso) . . . domum se abdidit; inde nocte intempesta . . .
navem conscendit . . . et ultimas Hadriani maris oras petivit, cum interim Dyrrachii
milites domum . . . obsidere coeperunt . . . (Cic. Pis. 92)
. . . sed uterque nostrum cedere cogebatur magnitudini animi orationisque gravi-
tati, cum quidem ille maxima laude et gratulatione omnium vestrum pollicitus est se
quod velletis esse facturum . . . (Cic. Phil. 9.9)
Neque est ille vir passus in ea re publica quam ipse decorarat atque auxerat diutius
vestrorum scelerum pestem morari, cum tamen ille (sc. Gabinius), qualiscumque est,
11 See Kroon (1998a) and Heberlein (2014: 272–3).

Time clauses 245
qui est ab uno te improbitate victus . . . conlegit ipse se vix . . . (Cic. Pis. 27); Torpebat
Vitellius et fortunam principatus inerti luxu ac prodigis epulis praesumebat . . ., cum
tamen ardor et vis militum ultro ducis munia implebat . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.62.2)
Cum is a temporal relative adverb, which is used both adnominally (fuit tempus
cum ‘there was a time when’ (see § 18.38)) and autonomously, as in this section.
Some scholars indeed deal with these clauses as relative clauses.12 Cum is also
used as a subordinator in argument clauses with gaudeo ‘to rejoice’ and related
verbs (see § 15.23). For cum clauses that resemble secondary predicates, see
§ 21.15, Appendix.
Unlike quando and its locative counterpart ubi, cum does not have a correspond-
ing interrogative homonym (nor an indefinite one).13
The relationship between a cum clause and its superordinate clause may be made
more precise by various adverbs (see § 14.18), as is illustrated by (f)–(h).
(f) At primum istae ipsae leges quas recitas, ut mittam cetera, significant, quam
noluerint maiores nostri, nisi cum pernecesse esset, hominem occidi.
(‘But, in the first place those very laws which you read—to say nothing of
other points—prove how utterly our ancestors disapproved of any man
being slain, unless it was absolutely unavoidable.’ Cic. Tul. 49)
(g) Omnia cum adprobatione ingenti sunt audita, praeterquam cum ad mentio-
nem Nabidis ventum esset.
(‘The whole speech was received with great applause, except when mention
was made of Nabis.’ Liv. 34.48.5)
(h) (sc. legionem) . . . incitatissimam retinui aegre mehercules, nec retinuissem si
uno loco habuissem, utpote cum singulae quaedam cohortes seditionem
fecerint.
(‘Nevertheless I have managed to retain it though in a most restless state: nor
should I have retained it, if I had kept it united and stationary, for certain
cohorts have actually mutinied.’ Pol. Fam. 10.32.4)
16.11 So-called cum inversum clauses

A special type of cum clause is the so-called inverse cum clause, or cum inversum, in
which the roles of the main and the cum clause are reversed: the cum clause, which
normally locates the state of affairs of the main clause in time and presents back-
ground information, contains the most prominent event itself, and this event is thus
situated within the state of affairs of the main clause. In this configuration the main
clause denotes an event that is part of the set of events in the preceding context and
continues them. Most often the event in the main clause is presented as ongoing
(expressed in the imperfect—see § 7.20, as in (a) and (c)), or as following previous
actions (expressed in the pluperfect, as in (b)), whereas the state of affairs in the cum
12 Discussion in Maurel (1995).

13 For the much disputed cumque in Hor. Carm. 1.32.15, see Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc. and Sz.: 200,
with references.
clause is terminative or momentaneous. Both clauses are in the indicative. Formally,

these cum clauses are subordinate clauses and the identification of them as cum inver-
sum constructions is not always self-evident, as in (b).14
(a) Tu clamabas deum fidem atque hominum omnium, / quom ego accurro
teque eripio vi, pugnando, ingratiis.
(‘You were calling upon the faith of all gods and men, when I ran up and rescued you
by fighting, with force, against their will.’ Pl. Men. 1053–4)
(b) Longe iam abieram / quom sensi. Redeo rursum, male me vero habens.
(‘I was a long way past when I realized it. I retraced my steps in a bad mood.’ Ter. Eu.
633–4)
(c) Iamque ab eo non longius bidui via aberant, cum duas venisse legiones missu
Caesaris cognoscunt.
(‘And by now they were no farther from him than a two days’ march, when they
learnt that two legions were come, as dispatched by Caesar.’ Caes. Gal. 6.7.2)
Cum inversum clauses are used to express that a more or less unexpected incident
occurs in the midst of another event or just after another event. This relationship
between the main and cum clauses is often made more explicit by satellites in the
main clause like vix ‘scarcely’ and iam ‘by this time’, ‘already’, as in (c) and in (d)–(f).
The events in the cum clause are most often expressed in the historic present or the
perfect. However, this combination of main and cum clause is exploited in artistic
narrative, and other tenses (including the historic infinitive) are found as well, as in
(e) and (f). The cum clause may contain an expression of unexpectedness like repente
‘suddenly’ or subito ‘all of a sudden’. The cum inversum construction became a favourite
‘technique de rupture’ (interruption technique) in narrative prose and poetry.15
(d) Vix ea fatus eram, gemitu cum talia reddit.
(‘Scarcely had I said the words, when with a groan he answers thus.’ Verg. A. 2.323)
(e) Iamque adeo donati omnes opibusque superbi / puniceis ibant evincti tem-
pora taenis, / cum . . . inrisam sine honore ratem Sergestus agebat.
(‘And now all had their gifts and, proud of their wealth, were going their way, their
brows bound with purple fillets, when . . . Sergestus brought in his ridiculed, inglori-
ous boat.’ Verg. A. 5.268–72)
(f) Iamque Ostiam invectum multitudo ingens, iam in urbe clandestini coetus
celebrabant, cum Tiberium anceps cura distrahere . . .
14 The best discussion of the relationship between the cum clause and its main clause is still
Nehring (1929: 141–54). See also Lavency (1975).
15 For ‘techniques de rupture’ in narrative prose, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: part IV), with statistical
data on cum pp. 592–5. For the use of cum inversum as a ‘Diskursstrategie’, see Wehr (1984: 181–7),
Heberlein (2008), and Viti (2013). Virgil’s use of the cum inversum and related coordinate constructions is
discussed by Hahn (1956: 179–89). See also § 19.24 on the use of the coordinators et, -que, and atque. For
the similarity of cum and nisi in certain contexts ‘de rupture’, see Orlandini and Poccetti (2019b).
Time clauses 247
(‘Already huge crowds were greeting his arrival in Ostia, already there were clandes-
tine receptions in the capital itself, when the dilemma began to distract Tiberius . . .’
Tac. Ann. 2.40.1)
Supplement:
Cum + historic present: Iam [hosce] apsolutos censeas, / quom incedunt infectores
corcotarii . . . (Pl. Aul. 520–1); Erat hiemps summa . . . cum iste imperat lictoribus ut
Sopatrum de porticu, in qua ipse sedebat, praecipitem in forum deiciant nudumque
constituant. (Cic. Ver. 4.86); Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram, cum ad me . . . Postumus
Curtius venit . . . (Cic. Att. 9.2a.3); Iamque paulum a fuga aberant, quom Sulla profli-
gatis iis, quos advorsum ierat, rediens ab latere Mauris incurrit. (Sal. Jug. 101.8);
Iamque fere spatio extremo fessique sub ipsam / finem adventabant, levi cum san-
guine Nisus / labitur infelix . . . (Verg. A. 5.327–9); Romae interim plerumque obsidio
segnis et utrimque silentium esse . . . cum repente iuvenis Romanus admiratione in
se civis hostesque convertit. (Liv. 5.46.1); Metuque concessum barbarus ratus
moliri portas et claustra refringere parat, cum patefactis repente portis cohortes
duae . . . ingenti cum tumultu erumpunt . . . (Liv. 23.18.2–3); Iam haud procul castris
aberant pedites equitesque, et Thracum quidam in vagos palatosque per agros hostes
impetum fecerant, cum repens terror castris infertur. (Liv. 33.15.6); Nos interim ves-
titi errare coepimus, immo iocari magis et circulis ludentium accedere, cum subito
videmus senem calvum, tunica vestitum russea, inter pueros capillatos ludentem
pila. (Petr. 27.1); Itaque ad casae ostiolum processi, cum ecce tres anseres . . . impetum
in me faciunt . . . (Petr. 136.4—NB: this is the reading of L, which is defended by
Petersmann (1977: 276–7); most editors assume a lacuna because of the perfect tense
in the main clause); . . . cedendum potius quam pellerentur ignavi specie prudentium
admonebant, cum interim cognoscit hostes pluribus agminibus inrupturos. (Tac.
Agr. 25.3); Nec procul seditione aberant, cum Hordeonius Flaccus abire legatos,
utque occultior digressus esset, nocte castris excedere iubet. (Tac. Hist. 1.54.2)
Cum + imperfect: Nulla nota, nullus color, nullae sordes videbantur his sententiis
adlini posse, cum iste repente ex alacri atque laeto sic erat humilis atque demissus ut
non modo populo Romano, sed etiam sibi ipse condemnatus videretur. (Cic. Ver. 17);
Vix erat hoc plane imperatum, cum illum spoliatum stipatumque lictoribus videres.
(Cic. Ver. 4.86—NB: potential subjunctive of the past)
Cum + perfect: Vix annus intercesserat ab hoc sermone cohortationis meae, cum iste
accusavit C. Norbanum defendente me. (Cic. de Orat. 2.89); Iamque haec facere
noctu apparabant cum matres familiae repente in publicum procurrerunt flentesque
proiectae ad pedes suorum omnibus precibus petierunt ne . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.26.3); Et
iam finis erat, cum Iuppiter aethere summo / despiciens mare velivolum terrasque
iacentis / litoraque et latos populos, sic vertice caeli / constitit et Libyae defixit lumina
regnis. (Verg. A. 1.223–6); Sensit utraque acies unius viri casum, cedebatque inde
Romanus, cum M. Fabius consul transiluit iacentis corpus obiectaque parma ‘hoc
iurastis,’ inquit, ‘milites, fugientes vos in castra redituros?’ (Liv. 2.46.5); Necdum sci-
ebamus, <quo> mitteremus suspiciones nostras, cum extra triclinium clamor subla-
tus est ingens, et ecce canes Laconici etiam circa mensam discurrere coeperunt. (Petr.
40.2); C. Asinio C. Antistio consulibus nonus Tiberio annus erat compositae rei publi-
cae, florentis domus (nam Germanici mortem inter prospera ducebat), cum repente
turbare fortuna coepit, saevire ipse aut saevientibus viris praebere. (Tac. Ann. 4.1.1)
Cum + pluperfect: His ex sententia rectoris et militum ordinatis vix dies intercessere
pauci, cum Mamertinum . . . Avitianus ex vicario peculatus detulerat reum. (Amm.
27.7.1)
Cum + (historic) infinitive: Fusis Auruncis victor tot intra paucos dies bellis
Romanus promissa consulis fidemque senatus expectabat, cum Appius et insita
superbia animo et ut collegae vanam faceret fidem, quam asperrime poterat, ius de
creditis pecuniis dicere. Deinceps et qui ante nexi fuerant creditoribus tradebantur et
nectebantur alii. (Liv. 2.27.1); Iam legiones in testudinem glomerabantur, et alii tela
saxaque incutiebant, cum languescere paulatim Vitellianorum animi. (Tac. Hist. 3.31.1)
Certain cum clauses, as in (g) and (h), are sometimes taken as cum inversum clauses,
but they do not exhibit the ‘incident’ character of the latter; rather, they are parallel
events (‘while’, ‘on which occasion’—OLD § 11).16
(g) Itaque multum diei processerat, quom etiam tum eventus in incerto erat.
(‘And so a considerable part of the day had passed, when the outcome of the
battle was still uncertain.’ Sal. Jug. 51.2)
(h) Tria milia ferme aberat, cum hauddum quisquam hostium senserat.
(‘He was some three miles away when not one of the enemy had yet noticed
them.’ Liv. 28.2.1)
Supplement:
Evolarat iam e conspectu fere fugiens quadriremis, cum etiam tum ceterae naves uno
in loco moliebantur. (Cic. Ver. 5.88); Eoque ad te tardius scripsi quod cottidie te
ipsum exspectabam, cum interea ne litteras quidem ullas accepi . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.6.5);
De quo et praesens tecum egi diligenter, cum tu mihi humanissime respondisti, et
scripsi ad te accurate antea. (Cic. Fam. 13.75.1); Iamque dies consumptus erat, quom
tamen barbari nihil remittere atque, uti reges praeceperant, noctem pro se rati acrius
instare. (Sal. Jug. 98.2)
16.12 The temporal use of quoniam

Quoniam (< quom iam) was originally a temporal subordinator and was still mainly
so used by Plautus. By Cicero’s time, however, it had developed into a causal subordi-
nator to mark reason disjuncts (see § 16.42). Examples of its temporal use are (a)–(c).
Note correlative (temporal—see § 10.30) ibi in (c). In (d) it is difficult to tell whether
the clause is a temporal or a reason clause.
(a) Is quoniam moritur—ita avido ingenio fuit— / numquam indicare id filio
voluit suo . . .
(‘When he died, he didn’t even want to make this known to his own son—he was so
greedy . . .’ Pl. Aul. 9–10)
(b) Negavit posse, quoniam arcesso, mittere.
(‘When I invited her, he said he couldn’t send her.’ Pl. Cas. 583)
16 Examples in Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 564ff.).

Time clauses 249
(c) . . . quoniam nuntiatum est / istarum venturos viros, ibi festinamus omnis.
(‘. . . when it was announced that these women’s husbands were going to come, at that
point we all bustled about.’ Pl. St. 676–7)
(d) Quoniam ei qui me aleret nil video esse relicui, / dedi ei meam gnatam qui-
cum <una> aetatem exigat.
(‘When I saw that he had nothing left with which to maintain me, I gave him my
daughter to spend his life with.’ Pl. Trin. 14–15)
16.13 Time clauses with quando, quandoque, and quandocumque

Time clauses with the adverb quando in a temporal sense ‘when’ are common in
Plautus but rare in later times, when cum was preferred. Even more rare are time
clauses with quandoque ‘at whatever time’ and quandocumque ‘whenever’. In the main
clause there may be a correlative expression, like tum in (a). In (b), the quando clause
is in reply to the interrogative adverb quando? ‘when?’ in the preceding sentence. The
events in the quando clause are often iterative, but not necessarily so, as in (c). The
indicative prevails, but the subjunctive is used as well, when it is justified in its context,
as in (d).
(a) Ubi satur sum, nulla crepitant. Quando esurio, tum crepant.
(‘When I’m full, they don’t rumble at all; when I’m hungry, then they do.’ Pl.
Men. 926)
(b) Id quando fit? Quando illi cursus interdictus est.
(‘When does this happen? Whenever its path is forbidden to it.’ Sen. Nat. 6.17.1)
(c) Quando id quod sat erat satis habere noluit, / ego paussam feci.
(‘When she didn’t want to be satisfied with what was satisfactory, I stopped.’ Pl. Poen.
458–9)
(d) Utinam . . . tum essem natus quando Romani dona accipere coepissent. Non
essem passus diutius eos imperare.
(‘If only I had been born in those days when the Romans began to accept bribes. I
should then have suffered them to hold their supremacy no longer.’ Cic. Off. 2.75)
Supplement:
Igitur tum accedam hunc, quando quid agam invenero. (Pl. Mos. 689); Omne ego pro
nihilo esse duco quod fuit, quando fuit. (Pl. Per. 637); Auctoritatem senatus exstare
hereditatis aditae sentio tum quando (quom cj. Klotz) Alexa mortuo legatos Tyrum
misimus . . . (Cic. Agr. 2.41); . . . censuerunt patres Apollini ludos vovendos . . . et
quando ludi facti essent . . . hostias maiores dandas. (Liv. 25.12.12)
Et hoc puta vatem dixisse, quandoque ista gens suas litteras dabit, omnia conrum-
pet . . . (Cato Fil. 1(J)); . . . quandoque ab eadem parte sol . . . iterum defecerit, tum . . .
expletum annum habeto. (Cic. Rep. 6.24); . . . ne cunctaretur Agrippam morte adficere
quandoque ipse supremum diem explevisset. (Tac. Ann. 1.6.1); In proeliis cotidianis
quandocumque fors obtulerat . . . (B. Alex. 22.2)
Appendix: Quotiens ‘as often as’, quotienscumque ‘every time that’ and quotiensque
‘every time that’ indicate iterativity. Examples are (e)–(i). The regular mood is the
indicative, but the subjunctive is found from Pliny the Elder onwards and then
expands (for a comparable development in cum clauses, see § 7.125).17 The main
clause may contain the correlative adverb totiens, as in (g).
(e) . . . quoius quotiens sepulcrum vides, sacruficas / ilico . . . Orco hostiis . . .
(‘. . . whenever you see her tomb, you immediately sacrifice victims . . . to
Orcus . . .’ Pl. Epid. 175–6)
(f) . . . se . . . si tot consulibus meruisset quotiens ipse consul fuit, omnia iura
belli perdiscere ac nosse potuisse.
(‘. . . that if he had served under consuls as often as he himself was consul, he
might have learnt and become thoroughly acquainted with all the laws of
war.’ Cic. Balb. 47)
(g) Quotienscumque dico, totiens mihi videor in iudicium venire . . .
(‘Every time I make a speech I feel I am submitting to judgement . . .’ Cic.
Clu. 51)
(h) Quid tu huc occursas in urbem quotienscumque advenimus?
(‘Why do you keep running here every time we come into town?’ Pl.
Truc. 282)
(i) . . . quotiensque habebis cui des ad me litteras nolim praetermittas.
(‘. . . and as many times as you have anyone to whom you can give a letter for
me, please don’t fail.’ Cic. Att. 11.13.5)
16.14 Time clauses with dum locating the event of the main clause in time
From Ovid onwards instances of dum occur where it locates the state of affairs of the
main clause in time instead of indicating the extent of time (for which see § 16.15).18
Examples are (a) and (b). In later authors this locating use of dum increases at the
expense of cum.19
(a) Forsitan admotis etiam tangere labellis, / rumpere dum niveo vincula dente
volet.
(‘Perchance thou wilt even be touched by her approaching lips when she seeks to
break thy bands with her snowy tooth.’ Ov. Ep. 18.18–19)
(b) Finisque adurendi est, dum ex omni parte sensus doloris est.
(‘The cauterizing is stopped when pain is felt all over the lesion.’ Cels. 5.28.1B)
Supplement:
Ac dum . . . fruendi laborarem inopia, casu scilicet pessumo lucerna fervens oleum
rebullivit in eius umerum. (Apul. Met. 5.26.5); Viderimus de fide istorum, dum suo
loco digeruntur. (Tert. Nat. 1.7.30); Dum promissionem Dei audivit, non haesitavit
omnino. (August. Serm. 16A.12)
17 For examples, see OLD s.v. 18 See Poirier (2001; 2009).

19 For a comparison of some late historical texts with Caesar, Sallust, and Tacitus, see Galdi (2016c:
651–3), with references.
Time clauses 251
. Time clauses indicating the extent of time of the event in the main clause
Time clauses indicating the extent of time can be divided into three groups: (i) the
clause contains an event that is co-extensive with the event of the main clause: ‘while’
or ‘as long as’ (dum and quamdiu; for donec and quoad see below); (ii) the clause con-
tains an event that is co-extensive with the event of the main clause, but lasts longer
than this event: ‘while still’ or ‘during the time that’ (dum); (iii) the clause contains an
event that constitutes the limit of the event of the main clause: ‘up to the time that’ or
‘until’ (donec (donicum, donique, doneque),20 dum, quamdiu (in Late Latin), and
quoad (quaad)).21 The relationship between clauses of the third type and their main
clause is by implication also one of posteriority (see Table 16.2 on p. 242).
16.16 Time clauses indicating a co-extensive event

Of the subordinators used to combine an event in the main clause with a co-extensive
event in the subordinate clause, dum is already found in Early Latin. It is the most
common subordinator meaning ‘as long as’. The main clauses often contain expres-
sions denoting the duration of the event, such as tam diu ‘so long (as)’, tantisper ‘for so
long (as)’, usque ‘all the time (that)’.22 The examples of dum below illustrate the variety
of tense combinations. Ex. (a) shows two present tense forms, (b) two simple futures,
(c) an imperfect and a pluperfect that is notionally an imperfect, (d) two perfects, (e)
a perfect in the main clause, with an imperfect in the subordinate clause, (f)—less
common—the other way around.
(a) Quod sibi volunt, / dum id impetrant, boni sunt.
(‘They are good while they’re trying to achieve what they want for themselves.’ Pl.
Capt. 232–3)
(b) Quia edepol, dum ego vivos vivam, numquam eris frugi bonae.
(‘Because as long as I live my life you’ll never be any good.’ Pl. Ps. 337)
(c) Te dum vivebas noveram.
(‘While you lived I knew you.’ Pl. Truc. 165)
(d) Dedi, dum fuit. # Non peto quod dedisti.
(‘I gave you money as long as I had some. # I’m not asking for what you gave.’ Pl.
Ps. 256)
(e) Fuit haec gens fortis, dum Lycurgi leges vigebant.
(‘This race was brave, while the laws of Lycurgus were being honoured.’ Cic. Tusc.
1.101)
20 For these three forms, see TLL s.v. 1992.32ff.

21 For this tripartition of extent of time clauses, see Woodcock (1959: 177). But see also TLL s.v. dum.
For the differences and similarities in meaning of dum, donec, and quoad, and the historical development,
see Poirier (1996; 1998; 2001; integrated in 2009 and 2012). See also Sz.: 629, 654 for the frequency with
which authors use these subordinators.
22 See TLL s.v. donec 2003.55ff.; s.v. dum 2231.81ff.
(f) Dum Carthaginienses incolumes fuere, iure omnia saeva patiebamur.

(‘While the Carthaginians were unconquered, we quite naturally were suffering all
kinds of hardship.’ Sal. Jug. 14.10)
Quamdiu is used as an extent of time relative adverb from Cicero onwards, as in
(g) and (h).
(g) (sc. aurum) Sumpsit a Clodia, sumpsit sine teste, habuit quamdiu voluit.
(‘He took it from Clodia, took it without witnesses, and kept it as long as he wanted.’
Cic. Cael. 31)
(h) Tamdiu pependit in arbore socius amicusque populi Romani . . ., quamdiu
voluntas Aproni tulit.
(‘This friend and ally of Rome . . . hung there from that tree . . . for as long as Apronius
chose to let him hang.’ Cic. Ver. 3.57)
Instances in which quoad can be interpreted more or less in this way are found from
Cicero’s time onwards, but a translation ‘for the time that lasted as long as’, implying a
limit, is more in line with quoad’s common meaning ‘until’, as in (i). (For the use of quoad
in degree clauses, see § 16.37.) Also interesting is (j) from Tacitus, which might suggest
that the three subordinators are more or less synonymous and used here for the sake of
variatio. However, this variation may have been motivated by the difference between the
types of states of affairs in the quoad and donec clauses as opposed to the dum clause.
(i) Ut aegroto, dum anima est, spes esse dicitur, sic ego, quoad Pompeius in
Italia fuit, sperare non destiti.
(‘As there is said to be hope for a sick man while there is life, so I, as long as Pompey
was in Italy, did not give up hope.’ Cic. Att. 9.10.3)
(j) (sc. tempus) Egregium vita famaque, quoad privatus vel in imperiis sub
Augusto fuit; occultum ac subdolum fingendis virtutibus, donec Germanicus
ac Drusus superfuere; . . . intestabilis saevitia, sed obtectis libidinibus, dum
Seianum dilexit timuitve.
(‘One (phase) of life and reputation was exceptional so long as he was a private indi-
vidual or in command under Augustus; one secretive and guileful in its fabrication of
virtues while Germanicus and Drusus survived; . . . infamous for his savagery, but
with his lusts cloaked, while he loved or feared Sejanus.’ Tac. Ann. 6.51.3—tr.
Woodman (adapted))
Quoad is gradually replaced by donec, which is absent from Caesar and rare in Cicero.
In Livy, for example, donec is three times as frequent as quoad. The archaist Apuleius
has quoad relatively often, but hardly in the ‘as long as’ meaning. The earliest instances
in which donec is used meaning more or less ‘as long as’ are in Lucretius and Horace.
However, its more common meaning until Late Latin is ‘until’. Quatenus is sporadic-
ally used in juridical texts. There is variation among authors in the relative frequency
with which they use these expressions. A few more early instances of each of the sub-
ordinators involved are given below in the Supplement.
Time clauses 253
Supplement:
Donec gratus eram tibi / nec quisquam potior bracchia candidae / cervici iuvenis
dabat, / Persarum vigui rege beatior. (Hor. Carm. 3.9.1–4); Donec eris sospes, multos
numerabis amicos. (Ov. Tr. 1.9a.5); Sed donec stetit ante signa Mago, gradum sensim
referentes ordines et tenorem pugnae servabant. (Liv. 30.18.12); Vulgus trucidatum
est, donec ira et dies permansit. (Tac. Ann. 1.68.5)
Mane dum scribit. (Pl. Bac. 737); Ovibus frondem viridem, usque dum habebis,
praebeto. (Cato Agr. 30); . . . dum id rescitum iri credit, tantisper cavet. (Ter. Ad.
70); . . . nam antea / qui scire posses aut ingenium noscere, / dum aetas metus magis-
ter prohibebant? (Ter. An. 52–4); C. Claudius . . . usus est hoc Cupidine tam diu dum
forum dis inmortalibus populoque Romano habuit ornatum . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.6); Nec
enim dum eram vobiscum, animum meum videbatis, sed eum esse in hoc corpore ex
iis rebus quas gerebam, intellegebatis. (Cic. Sen. 79)
Est quidam Graecus qui cum isto vivit, homo, vere ut dicam—sic enim cognovi—
humanus, sed tamdiu quamdiu aut cum aliis est aut ipse secum. (Cic. Pis. 68); . . .
quamdiu facta est caedes civium, domo se tenuit . . . (Nep. Ep. 10.3)
. . . a tutela et cura excusantur, quatenus rei publicae causa absunt, et interea cur-
ator loco eorum datur. (Justin. Inst. 1.25.2)
Anniculis iam factis dandum hordeum et furfures, usque quaad erunt lactantes.
(Var. R. 2.7.12); Custodiatur igitur vita mea rei publicae eaque, quoad vel dignitas vel
natura patietur, patriae reservetur. (Cic. Phil. 12.30); . . . liciti sunt usque adeo quoad
se efficere posse arbitrabantur. (Cic. Ver. 3.77); Et defendebatur egregie quoad tela
suppeditarunt. (Liv. 30.25.6); A multis tentatus non modo nullum detrimentum exis-
timationis fecit, sed, quoad vixit, virtutum laude crevit. (Nep. Ca. 2.4)
The first instance of a pluperfect in this type of dum clause is (k). As the imperfects in
the preceding sentence show, the pluperfect of terminative averto is equivalent to a
state in the past. Something similar is the case with the future perfect inveneris in (l)
(quoted by Sz.: 612).
(k) Eodem tempore Romani et ruinas muri supervadebant et scalas ad stantia
moenia inferebant. Et dum in unam partem oculos animosque hostium cer-
tamen averterat, pluribus locis scalis capitur murus, armatique in urbem
transcenderunt.
(‘At the same moment the Romans were both climbing over the ruins of the
wall and moving their ladders against the standing ramparts. And while the
eyes and thoughts of the enemy were fixed on the conflict, the wall in several
places was taken by escalade and the soldiers climbed over into the city.’ Liv.
32.24.5)
(l) . . . ut, dum illa legis et in his aliquid doctrinae . . . inveneris, putes tibi quoque
scripta esse quae scripta sunt.
(‘. . . so that, while you read those and find in these some teaching, you may
think that what has been written has been written also for you.’ Hier. Ep. 32.1.3)
For the use of dum in stipulative clauses, see § 16.53. This use is related to its purely
temporal co-extensive meaning.
16.17 Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event of the
main clause
Dum clauses indicating an event that lasts longer than the event of the main clause
(‘while yet’, ‘during the time that’) are found from Early Latin onwards. The main
clause may contain an expression like interea and interim ‘in the meantime’, as in (a)
and (b), or subito and repente ‘suddenly’, as in (c)–(e), which shows that the event of
the main clause is an incident that occurs while the event of the dum clause is going
on. Note in (e) the extent of time expression paucos dies. The verbs of these dum
clauses are usually in the present indicative no matter what the tense of the main
clause is (for details and examples, see § 7.126).
(a) Quid fit deinde? # Dum haec aguntur, interea uxorem tuam / nec gementem
nec plorantem nostrum quisquam audivimus.
(‘What happened next? # Meanwhile, while this was going on, none of us heard your
wife groaning or weeping.’ Pl. Am. 1098–9)
(b) Interim dum de condicionibus inter se agunt . . . paulatim circumventus
interficitur.
(‘While they two were discussing terms together . . . he was gradually surrounded and
slain.’ Caes. Gal. 5.37.2)
(c) Ego dum in provincia omnibus rebus Appium orno, subito sum factus accu-
satoris eius socer.
(‘While I was still in my province honouring Appius with all manner of compliments,
I suddenly became his accuser’s father-in-law.’ Cic. Att. 6.6.1)
(d) Dum spoliandis iis . . . tempus teritur, repente milites . . . concurrerunt.
(‘While time was being taken to strip them . . ., suddenly soldiers . . . came running.’
Liv. 29.9.5)
(e) Dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque causa
moratur . . . tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit ut . . .
(‘While he was tarrying a few days at Vesontio for the provision of corn and other
supplies . . . so great a fear suddenly seized upon all the army, that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.39.1)
Dum clauses are increasingly found with an imperfect subjunctive from the time of
Virgil and Livy onwards, the first sure instance being (f). This semantically unmoti-
vated use of the subjunctive is possibly influenced by the fact that from this time
onwards dum is increasingly used as a locating (instead of as a duration) subordinator,
more or less equivalent to cum, with which the subjunctive became normal in Cicero’s
time (see § 7.142).23
(f) Hic, dum in opere nostri distenti essent, complures ex superiori loco adver-
sariorum decucurrerunt . . .
23 See Poirier (2009), who notes examples from Ovid onwards.

Time clauses 255
(‘At this point, while our men were busily engaged in the operation, a fair number of
the enemy swooped down upon them from higher ground . . .’ B. Hisp. 23.2)
(g) Illa quidem, dum te fugeret per flumina praeceps, / immanem ante pedes
hydrum moritura puella / servantem ripas alta non vidit in herba.
(‘She, in truth, while fleeing headlong from you along the river, saw not the mon-
strous serpent that before her feet, doomed maiden, hugged the banks amid the deep
grass.’ Verg. G. 4.457–9)
(h) In quae haud magno certamine impetu facto, dum praedae magis quam pug-
nae memores tererent tempus, triarii Romani . . . conglobati ad praetorium
redeunt . . .
(‘There, after they had forced an entrance without much opposition, while they were
frittering away their time, their thoughts more taken up with the booty than with the
battle, the Roman reserves . . . closed up their ranks and returned to the praetorium . . .’
Liv. 2.47.5)
16.18 Time clauses indicating an event that concludes the event of the main clause
The main subordinators that are used in clauses denoting an event that constitutes the
limit of the event of the main clause (‘up to the time that’, ‘until’) are donec, dum, and
quoad. Of these dum is found in all periods of Latin (but see below), quoad is very rare
before the Classical period, and donec is very rare in the Classical period. Quamdiu is
rarely used in this type of clause in juridical texts and in Late Latin. The main clauses
often contain expressions denoting duration or limitation, such as tam diu ‘for such a
long time’, usque ‘up to the time that’, adeo usque ‘right until’, ad eum finem ‘up to the
point when’, tantisper ‘for such time (as)’. The regular tenses in this type of subordinate
clause are the present, perfect, and future perfect, as is shown in (a)–(c), respectively,
but the simple future occurs as well, as in (d). Dum is rarely used in clauses with the
perfect tense in Early and Classical Latin:24 for the ‘until’ interpretation, the subjunct-
ive of an infectum tense is normal. For the use of the subjunctive in these clauses when
intention or design is involved, see § 7.141. Donec is increasingly used with an infec-
tum tense (in the subjunctive), so for example in Tacitus and in Late Latin authors.25
(a) Age age, mansero / tuo arbitratu, vel adeo usque dum peris.
(‘All right, all right, I’ll wait just as you wish, or even until you die.’ Pl. As. 327–8)
(b) . . . impedit / piscis usque adeo donicum eduxit foras.
(‘. . . he keeps the fish entangled until he’s taken them out.’ Pl. Truc. 38–9)
(c) Usque ero domi, dum excoxero lenoni malam rem aliquam.
(‘I’ll be at home throughout until I’ve cooked up some misfortune for the pimp.’
Pl. Per. 52)
24 So Sz.: 615. 25 See Poirier (1998; 2001; 2009).

(d) Erroris ambo ego illos et dementiae / complebo . . . / adeo usque satietatem
dum capiet pater / illius quam amat.
(‘I’ll fill both of them . . . with misunderstandings and madness until my father gets
enough of the woman he’s in love with . . . .’ Pl. Am. 470–3)
Supplement:
. . . ne quoquam exsurgatis, donec a me erit signum datum. (Pl. Bac. 758); . . . coquito
usque donec commadebit bene, aquam defundito. (Cato Agr. 156.5); Suadere orare
usque adeo donec perpulit. (Ter. An. 662); . . . tamen usque eo timui, nequis de mea
fide atque integritate dubitaret, donec ad reiciundos iudices venimus. (Cic. Ver. 1.17);
Hic iam ter centum totos regnabitur annos / gente sub Hectorea, donec regina sacer-
dos / Marte gravis geminam partu dabit Ilia prolem. (Verg. A. 1.272–4); Ita de comi-
tiis, donec rediit Marcellus, silentium fuit. (Liv. 23.31.9); Sed neque credes tu mihi,
donec compleris sanguine campum . . . (Liv. 25.12.6); . . . laetique interdum nuntii vul-
gabantur, donec provisis, quae tempus monebat simul excessisse Augustum et rerum
potiri Neronem fama eadem tulit. (Tac. Ann. 1.5.4); . . . hostium potius exercitibus
illum furorem, illam discordiam inicerent orabat, donec fatisceret (v.l. fatiscere) sedi-
tio et extremo iam die sua quisque in tentoria dilaberentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.10.4); . . . tes-
tudinem lanceis contisque scrutantur, donec soluta compage scutorum exsangues
aut laceros prosternerent multa cum strage. (Tac. Hist. 3.27.3)
Eodem modo latitudinem orbiculis ligneis aut armillis ferreis temperato, usque
dum recte temperabitur. (Cato Agr. 22.2); Delibera hoc dum ego redeo, leno. (Ter.
Ad. 196); Si non, saepius facito, usque dum odorem malum dempseris. (Cato Agr.
110); [ea] Mansit in condicione atque pacto usque ad eum finem dum iudices reiecti
sunt. (Cic. Ver. 16); Nunc et Scaevola, quoniam in Tusculanum ire constituit paulu-
lum requiescet, dum se calor frangat . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.265); Tibi igitur hoc censeo,
latendum tantisper ibidem dum effervescit haec gratulatio et simul dum audiamus
quem ad modum negotium confectum sit. (Cic. Fam. 9.2.4—NB: dum + indicative
followed by dum + subjunctive); Tityre, dum redeo (brevis est via), pasce capel-
las . . . (Verg. Ecl. 9.23); Ille quidem lateat malim, dum tempora dentur / laetitiae mix-
tos non habitura metus. (Ov. Ep. 16.5–6); . . . me satiavit, usque dum lassis animis et
marcidis artibus defatigati simul ambo corruimus inter mutuos amplexus animas
[h]anhelantes. (Apul. Met. 2.17.4)
Igitur hanc dotem periculo mulieris esse dico, quamdiu dominus vel pater ratam
promissionem vel donationem habuerit. (Julian. dig. 23.3.46); . . . non cogitare . . .
noctem tamdiu esse quamdiu inlucescat dies . . . (Cypr. Ep. 59.11.2)
Milo autem cum in senatu fuisset eo die quoad senatus est dimissus, domum
venit . . . (Cic. Mil. 28); An id exspectamus quoad ne vestigium quidem Asiae civi-
tatum atque urbium relinquatur? (Cic. Phil. 11.25); Atque hoc scitis omnes, usque
adeo hominem in periculo fuisse quoad scitum est Sestium vivere. (Cic. Sest.
82); . . . tamen non faciam finem rogandi quoad nobis nuntiatum erit te id fecisse
quod magna cum spe exspectamus. (Cic. Att. 16.16e.2); Quoad dedita arx est, caedes
tota urbe passim factae . . . (Liv. 26.46.10)
In historical prose from Livy onwards donec clauses are used to introduce an unex-
pected or sudden interruption of an ongoing state of affairs, comparable with cum
Time clauses 257
inversum (see § 16.11) and ni ‘de rupture’ (see § 16.62) clauses.26 Examples of donec ‘de
rupture’ are (e) and (f). In (e), the main clause has a perfect tense; in (f), an imperfect.
As in the case of sentences containing a cum inversum clause, the imperfect tense is
the most common one in main clauses with a donec ‘de rupture’ clause, but it does not
predominate to the same degree.
(e) Nec minor caedes in urbe quam in proelio fuit donec abiectis armis nihil
praeter vitam petentes dictatori deduntur.
(‘Nor was the slaughter in the city less than it had been in the battle, until, with their
weapons cast aside, they surrendered to the dictator, seeking nothing but their lives.’
Liv. 4.34.3)
(f) Pugnabaturque in angustiis ambigue donec Germani transnatantes terga
Labeonis invasere.
(‘A battle was fought in this narrow space without a decisive issue until the Germans
swam across the river and attacked Labeo’s rear.’ Tac. Hist. 4.66.2)
An exceptional instance of a donec clause with an imperfect cited in the literature is (g).
This is a beautiful illustration of Tacitus’ exploitation of the limits of the tense system.
See also § 7.124. (For a historic infinitive in a donec clause in Tacitus, see § 7.122.)
(g) Inferioris Germaniae legiones diutius sine consulari fuere, donec missu
Galbae A. Vitellius aderat . . .
(‘The soldiers of Lower Germany were without a general of consular rank for a con-
siderable time, until A. Vitellius was present by dispatch of Galba . . .’ Tac. Hist. 1.9.1)
Appendix: Donec, dum, and quoad clauses are also regularly found with the verb
exspecto ‘to wait in expectation’, which is also used with argument clauses, both with
an accusative and infinitive and with an ut clause (see § 15.98 (ii) and § 15.40, respect-
ively). In this combination they resemble to some extent argument clauses, as in (h).
(h) Num exspectatis dum L. Metellus . . . de istius scelere improbitate audacia
testimonium dicat?
(‘You’re not going to wait till L. Metellus gives testimony concerning Verres’
wickedness, dishonesty, and audacity, are you?’ Cic. Ver. 3.122)
. Time clauses denoting anterior events

Latin has a variety of subordinating devices which introduce time clauses that indi-
cate anterior events. The subordinator cum (quom) can be used in clauses that
indicate an event that is anterior to the event in the main clause, in which case it
usually precedes that clause.27 Postquam and the prepositional relative phrase ex
quo indicate anteriority by their own lexical meaning. Simul (ac/atque), ubi, and ut
26 For donec ‘de rupture’, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 617–36).

27 For the lexical status of cum, see § 16.4.
indicate parallel events, and anteriority of the clause has to be inferred from the con-
text or is expressed by the tense of the verb and/or by adverbs denoting succession.
Examples of such adverbs are primum ‘for the first time’, as in the combination ut
primum ‘as soon as’ (from Cicero’s time onwards), statim ‘immediately’, as in statim ut
(from Cicero onwards), and mox ‘soon’, as in mox ut (in Late Latin).
. Time clauses with cum
Time clauses with cum (quom) that denote an anterior event are dealt with in § 7.125.
The anterior interpretation of these clauses is a consequence of the use of one of the
tenses of the perfectum stem. Two examples are (a) and (b). An example of the com-
bination of cum with primum is (c).
(a) Prima pars cum adorta oppugnare est (esset cj. Riemann), atrox sane et
anceps proelium fuit.
(‘After the first third began to attack, there was, to be sure, a fierce and indecisive
battle.’ Liv. 28.3.6)
(b) Cum Ilium captum est, Hannibal . . . omnes statuas aeneas . . . incendit.
(‘After Ilium was taken, Hannibal set fire to all the bronze sculptures.’ Petr. 50.5
(Trimalchio speaking))28
(c) Haec quom primum acta est, vicit omnis fabulas.
(‘When it was first staged, it surpassed all other plays.’ Pl. Cas. 17)
. Time clauses with postquam
Postquam and in prose also posteaquam (especially in Varro and Cicero) are the most
common subordinators indicating anteriority. The elements of the compound—the
adverb post(ea) and the comparative particle quam—are still regularly separated by
particles like vero in Classical prose, as in (a). Postquam is preferred over posteaquam
when the time elapsed is specified, as in (b) (the same holds for the adverbs post and
postea—see § 10.30).29
(a) Postea vero quam intellexerunt isti virum fortem quem summe provincia
expectabat Q. Arrium, non succedere, statuerunt . . .
(‘But after they understood that that brave man, Quintus Arrius, whom the province
was eagerly looking for, was not his successor, they then settled . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.42)
(b) . . . Habonio opus in acceptum rettulit quadriennio post quam diem operi
dixerat.
28 On Petronius’ use of cum, see Petersmann (1977: 275–8).

29 The most complete information can be found in TLL s.vv. posteaquam and postquam. For the (rare)
use of post and postea as subordinators in Late Latin, see TLL s.v. 185.18ff. and 192.10ff. For rare and Late
instances of post quod, see TLL s.v. quod 164.59ff. (see also § 16.84).
Time clauses 259
(‘. . . at last he enters the work in Habonius’ name as undertaken by him, four years
after the day which he had fixed for its completion.’ Cic. Ver. 1.149)
Because of the basically comparative meaning of these subordinators, anteriority
need not be expressed in the verb, although it sometimes is. This is illustrated in
(a) above: both the postea . . . quam clause and the main clause are in the perfect tense.
Another example with two perfects is (c); one with two historic presents is (d); one
with two (actual) presents is (e). In (b) above, by contrast, with the pluperfect dixerat,
and in (f) with the perfect sunt . . . meriti, anteriority is expressed in the verb; in both
cases the tense indicates anteriority with respect to the tense of the main clause. In
Classical prose the pluperfect is preferred when the time elapsed is indicated (as in
(b) above by quadriennio, a so-called ablativus mensurae, see § 20.10), but it also
occurs in other contexts (ex. (g)), especially in Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus. The relative
order of the two clauses may be relevant as well. For the use of the imperfect in a post-
quam clause, see § 7.124.
(c) Postquam peperit, pueros lavere iussit nos.
(d) Abeo ab illis, postquam video me sic ludificarier.
(‘I left them after I saw I was being made a fool of this way.’ Pl. Capt. 487)
(e) Nunc ego illam me velim / convenire, postquam inanis sum, contemptricem
meam.
(‘Now I’d like her to meet me, now that I have nothing, that woman who despises me.’
Pl. Bac. 530–1)
(f) Nam illi qui nil metuont postquam sunt malum meriti, / stulta sibi expetunt
consilia.
(‘For those who don’t fear anything, even after deserving a thrashing, are seeking
stupid counsel for themselves.’ Pl. Mos. 860–1)
(g) Nam omnis posthabui mihi res, ita uti par fuit, / postquam id tanto opere vos
velle animum advorteram.
(‘I’ve put off all my other business, as was only proper after I’d realized you were so set
on the marriage.’ Ter. Ph. 908–9)
The regular mood in the postquam clause is the indicative. The subjunctive (influ-
enced by its use with cum) is found five times in Cicero (quam in each case being
emended to quom or cum)30 and rarely elsewhere, in less elevated texts or in Late
Latin, as in (h) and (i) below.31
(h) Postquam Iuba ante portas diu multumque primo minis pro imperio egisset
cum Zamensibus, dein cum se parum proficere intellexisset, precibus orasset
30 See Sz.: 598–9 and TLL s.vv. posteaquam 196.58ff. and postquam 252.44ff.
31 For further examples of the subjunctive, see TLL s.v. postquam 251.44ff.
uti se ad suos deos penates admitterent . . . petit ab eis ut sibi coniuges liberos-
que redderent ut secum eos asportaret.
(‘After Juba for a long time earnestly treated with the men of Zama before the gates of
the town and at first employed threats, as his authority warranted, but then, when he
realized that he was making but little headway, he besought them with entreaties to
let him have access to his own hearth and home . . . he begged them to hand over to
him his wives and children, so that he could carry them away with him.’ B. Afr. 91.3)
(i) Inter quae illud elucere clarius potuit, si Macrianum regem ea tempestate ter-
ribilem vivum capere potuisset, ut industria magna temptarat, postquam
eum evasisse Burgundios, quos ipse admoverat Alamannis, maerens didicis-
set et tristis.
(‘And among these it would have been a most glorious feat if he had been able to take
King Macrianus alive, who was at that time formidable. He had made great efforts to
do so after he learned with grief and sorrow that the king had escaped from the
Burgundians, whom Valentinian himself had aroused against the Alamanni.’ Amm.
30.7.11)
. Time clauses with simul
Time clauses with simul ‘as soon as’ alone or in combination with ac and atque—also
written as one word—and (in Cicero) also with et, are rare in Early Latin but common
in Cicero’s time. Whereas in Classical prose the longer forms are preferred, simul
becomes more popular in poetry from the Augustan poets onwards and then also in
literary prose from Livy onwards. The choice between ac and atque is mainly phono-
logically determined (see § 19.26). There are also instances of the combination of
simul(ac/atque) with primum, as in (d).32
(a) Simul herbae coeperint nasci, eximito.
(‘Clear off the weeds as soon as they begin to grow.’ Cato Agr. 48.2)
(b) Id quidem tibi hercle fiet, / ut vapules, Demaenetum simul ac conspexero
hodie.
(‘That’ll happen to you, getting beaten, as soon as I set eyes on Demaenetus today.’ Pl.
As. 478–9)
(c) Simul et quid erit certi, scribam ad te.
(‘As soon as there is anything definite I shall write to you.’ Cic. Att. 2.20.2)
(d) Simulac primum ei occasio visa est . . ., aversa pecunia publica quaestor con-
sulem exercitum sortem provinciamque deseruit.
(‘As soon as an opportunity presented itself to him . . ., the quaestor, having embezzled
the public money, deserted his consul, his consul’s army, the lot and his sphere of
duty.’ Cic. Ver. 1.34)
32 The most complete survey of simul is Jones (1906: 90–102).

Time clauses 261
As for the use of the tenses, the same tendency applies in essence to simul (ac/atque)
as was said about the use of the perfect with postquam to denote an event that is anter-
ior to a past event in the main. The indicative is the normal mood, with a few instances
of the subjunctive in Silver and Late Latin (see OLD s.v. § 11b).
A few other temporal adverbs are—rarely—used as a subordinator in combination
with the coordinator atque. Ulpian has a couple of instances of statim atque (see OLD
s.v. statim § 4). TLL s.v. atque 1084.71ff. also mentions Late Latin instances of ilico
atque and protinus atque.
. Time clauses with ubi
Clauses with ubi in a temporal sense ‘at or after the time in or at which’, ‘when’ are
common in Early Latin comedy and are not rare in the Classical period. The combin-
ation with primum meaning ‘as soon as’ is used by Plautus a few times; it is absent
from Cicero, but frequent in the historians Livy and Tacitus. Examples are (a)–(e).
There are also a few instances of ubi combined with semel ‘once’.33 See also § 7.124.
(a) Nam ubi me aspiciet, ad carnuficem rapiet continuo senex.
(‘As soon as he sees me, the old man will drag me to the executioner.’ Pl. Bac. 688)
(b) Principio ut illo advenimus, ubi primum terram tetigimus, / continuo
Amphitruo delegit viros primorum principes.
(‘First, when we arrived there, as soon as we touched the shore, Amphitruo immedi-
ately chose the leading men among those of high rank.’ Pl. Am. 203–4)
(c) Quod ubi iste audivit, usque eo commotus est ut . . .
(‘When Verres heard this, he was so thoroughly upset that . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.39)
(d) At hostes ubi primum nostros equites conspexerunt . . ., impetu facto celeriter
nostros perturbaverunt.
(‘However, as soon as the enemy saw our cavalry, they charged, and speedily threw
our men into confusion.’ Caes. Gal. 4.12.1)
(e) Sed ubi minitari Artabanus et parum subsidii in Armeniis, vel, si nostra
vi defenderetur, bellum adversus Parthos sumendum erat, rector Syriae
Creticus Silanus excitum custodia circumdat . . .
(‘But, when Artabanus started menacing and too little support for Vonones was com-
ing from the Armenians (the alternative, if he was to be defended by our might, was
taking up war against the Parthians), the governor of Syria, Creticus Silanus, sum-
moned him and surrounded him with guards . . .’ Tac. Ann. 2.4.3—tr. Woodman; NB:
historic infinitive coordinated with an imperfect indicative—see § 7.122)
The normal mood in temporal ubi clauses is the indicative, as in the examples above.
However, the subjunctive is found in those clauses that refer to a repeated event (the
33 Details in Jones (1906: 233–45); Sz.: 651–2; OLD s.v. semel § 4.

so-called iterative use of the subjunctive—see § 7.142) from Livy onwards, as in (f)
and (g). This use is almost completely confined to the imperfect and pluperfect, but
see (h). Most authors who allow the subjunctive use the indicative as well and often
more frequently. An instance of the exceptional use of the subjunctive for a one-time
event is (i).34
(f) . . . consilium et modum adhibendo, ubi res posceret, priores erant.
(‘. . . they surpassed him in using wisdom and restraint when the need arose.’ Liv.
3.19.3)
(g) Id ubi dixisset, hastam in fines eorum emittebat.
(‘After he said this, he would hurl his spear into their territory.’ Liv. 1.32.13)
(h) Mox, ubi sanguis <se> in artus extremos suffuderit, levi ictu cruorem eliciunt
atque in vicem lambunt.
(‘Then, when the blood has run to the extremities, they draw it out with a slight
incision, and each prince licks it in turn.’ Tac. Ann. 12.47.2)
(i) Quod ubi coeptum est fieri et equis concitatis Iuliani impetum fecissent,
Pacideius suos equites exporrigere coepit in longitudinem . . .
(‘When this manoeuvre was under way and the Julians had delivered their attack at
full gallop, Pacideius began to deploy his horsemen on a broader front . . .’ B. Afr.
78.4—NB: coordinated with a ‘correct’ perfect)
Supplement:
. . . Titianus et Proculus, ubi consiliis vincerentur, ad ius imperii transibant. (Tac.
Hist. 2.40); Amicorum libertorumque, ubi in bonos incidisset, sine reprehensione
patiens, si mali forent, usque ad culpam ignarus. (Tac. Hist. 1.49.3); . . . erat tamen
interdum timidus ad audaces, contra timidos celsior, ut videretur, cum sibi fideret, de
coturno strepere tragico et, ubi paveret, omni humilior socco. (Amm. 27.11.2—NB:
parallelism with cum clause)
. Time clauses with ut
Clauses with ut (rarely uti in poetry from Virgil onwards)35 in a temporal sense ‘when’,
‘as soon as’, and ‘since’ (see OLD s.v. §§ 25, 26, 27) are found from Early Latin onwards.
Examples are (a)–(c). They are less frequent than simulac, ubi, and cum clauses. The
combination with primum in the sense of ‘as soon as’ is common in Cicero’s time, as
in (d). Later authors use it with varying frequency. It is relatively frequent in Petronius
(but not among the freedmen).36 A few instances of ut combined with semel are found
from Plautus onwards, as in (e). The precise interpretation of the ut clause depends
among other things on the tense in that clause: the simultaneous interpretation ‘when’,
34 For the instances in Livy, see Riemann (1885: 296–7). See also K.-St.: II.364.
35 So Sz.: 635.
36 Details in Jones (1906: 233–45). For Petronius, see Petersmann (1977: 274).
Time clauses 263
for example, correlates with the imperfect (an ongoing event in the past), as in (g) and
(h). See also § 7.124.
(a) Verum in tonstrina ut sedebam, me infit percontarier / ecquem filium
Stratonis noverim Demaenetum.
(‘But as I was sitting at the barber’s he began to ask me if I knew a certain Demaenetus,
the son of Strato.’ Pl. As. 343–4)
(b) Nam <ego> ut dudum hinc abii, accessi ad adulescentes in foro.
(‘When I went away from here some time ago, I approached young men in the mar-
ket.’ Pl. Capt. 478)
(c) Quid ego, qui illam ut primum vidi, numquam vidi postea?
(‘What should I have done? After seeing her for the first time I never saw her again.’
Pl. Epid. 600)
(d) Qui ut primum in illud oppidum venit, statim tamquam ita fieri non solum
oporteret . . . ita continuo signum ut demolirentur et Messanam deportarent
imperavit.
(‘Who, as soon as he came to their city, in a moment, as if it were not only a becoming
thing to be done . . . in a moment, I say, ordered them to take the statue down and to
transport it to Messana.’ Cic. Ver. 4.84)
(e) Quia septem menses sunt, quom in hasce aedis pedem / nemo intro tetulit,
semel ut emigravimus.
(‘Because it’s seven months since anyone put a foot into this house once we’d moved
out.’ Pl. Mos. 470–1)
(f) Ut cuique aliquid acciderit qua re commodius sit esse plebeium, simili
ratione adoptabitur.
(‘Whenever anything happens to anyone to make it more convenient for him to be a
plebeian, he will be adopted in the same manner.’ Cic. Dom. 37)
(g) . . . praegressus Tullius ad caput Ferentinum, ut quisque veniret, primores
eorum excipiens querendo indignandoque, et eos ipsos sedulo audientes
secunda irae verba et per eos multitudinem aliam in subiectum viae campum
deduxit.
(‘. . . Tullius, who had gone ahead, arrived before them at the source of the Ferentina.
There, when any of their chief men arrived, he met them with words of complaint and
indignation, and he led to a field which lay below the road both the leaders them-
selves, who listened eagerly to words which ministered to their anger, and through
their influence the rest of the throng also.’ Liv. 2.38.1)
(h) . . . hac sic communicantibus nobis, iam ut exiremus de aecclesia, dederunt
nobis presbyteri loci ipsius eulogias . . .
(‘. . . and when the oblation had been duly made, at which we communicated, and as
we were coming out of the church, the priests of the place would give us blessed
gifts . . .’ Pereg. 3.6—tr. McClure and Feltoe)
The normal mood in temporal ut clauses is the indicative, as in (a)–(f). Instances of ut

clauses in the subjunctive referring to repeated events are found from Livy onwards,
as in (g) and (h).37
Tacitus extends the use of the historic infinitive to ut clauses (see § 7.122). An example
is (i). Note the imperfect patiebantur in the coordinated clause.
(i) Mox, ut praeberi ora contumeliis et posita omni ferocia cuncta victi
patiebantur, subit recordatio illos esse, qui nuper Bedriaci victoriae
temperassent.
(‘Later when the defeated troops offered their faces to every indignity and,
with all ferocity laid aside, they were suffering all kinds of abuse, the victors
began to remember that these were the troops who had recently shown
moderation after they had won at Bedriacum.’ Tac. Hist. 3.31.3)
. Time clauses with mox, primum, and statim
A number of adverbs that in earlier periods were used in combination with cum, ubi,
and ut to indicate the rapid succession of events came to be used independently, that
is as subordinators, in Late Latin (sometimes combined with atque or quam). Mox
‘soon’ is so used in Vetus Latina versions of the Bible, but also in other texts, as in (a).
A (disputed) example with primum is (b); with statim, (c).38
(a) Mox autem primus pullus cantaverit, statim descendet episcopus . . .
(‘As soon as the first cock has crowed, the bishop immediately comes down . . .’
Pereg. 24.9)
(b) Proinde horrifico adversum fragore terrente, primum apud Argentariam . . .
concurri est coeptum, sagittarum . . . pulsibus crebriores hinc indeque
sternebantur.
(‘Therefore, when from the opposite side the terrifying battle-cry was heard, as soon
as the battle began at Argentaria, many were struck down on both sides by wounds
from . . . flying arrows.’ Amm. 31.10.8—NB: usually emended to ubi primum)
(c) . . . statim est adeptus imperium (sc. Carus), Sarmatas . . . contudit . . .
(‘. . . as soon as he (Carus) received the imperial power, he crushed the Sarmatians . . .’
Hist. Aug. Car. 9.4)
. Time clauses with ex quo
Time adjuncts with the preposition ex in the temporal sense ‘since’ are common from
Plautus onwards (see § 10.29). Time clauses with ex and the relative pronoun quo are
37 See Riemann (1885: 297) and Väänänen (1987: 81). Also K.-St.: II.364.
38 TLL s.v. mox 1553.1ff.; s.v. prior 1368.10ff. See also Jones (1906) and Sz.: 637. For ‘reduction of
subordinators’, see Heberlein (2011: 291–4).
Time clauses 265
attested from Cicero’s time onwards. Two examples are (a)—with quo used as a rela-
tive determiner with tempore—and (b)—with corresponding ex illo.
(a) Ex quo tempore concordia de civitate sublata est, libertas sublata est.
(‘Since the time when concord disappeared from our state, liberty disappeared.’ Rhet.
Her. 4.19)
(b) Impius ex quo / Tydides sed enim scelerumque inventor Ulixes /. . . / corripu-
ere sacram effigiem / . . . / ex illo . . .
(‘But from the time that the ungodly son of Tydeus and Ulysses, the contriver of
crime . . . snatched up the sacred image . . . from that time . . .’ Verg. A. 2.163–9)
. Time clauses denoting a posterior event

Latin has two subordinators to introduce time clauses that denote a posterior
event, antequam (also ante quam as two words, rarely anteaquam—like postea-
quam) and priusquam (and prius quam as two words) ‘before’; the latter is the older
one. It is not always easy to decide whether we are dealing with two words or one.39
Priusquam is found from Plautus onwards and remains prevalent in most Classical
authors, including Livy. However, antequam, which is attested from Cato and
Terence onwards, is already more frequent in Cicero, and priusquam gradually dis-
appears in the course of the development of Latin. The indicative is predominant
in Early and Classical Latin, as in (a) and (b), but semantically justified subjunct-
ives do occur. For the use of the subjunctive when intention or design is involved,
see (c). The expansion of its use without a semantic justification starts from Livy
onward (see § 7.141). For the use of the imperfect and pluperfect in these clauses,
see § 7.124.
(a) Nam semper occant prius quam sariunt rustici.
(‘Farmers always harrow before they hoe.’ Pl. Capt. 663)
(b) Quin iam prius quam sum elocutus scis si mentiri volo.
(‘No, even before I’ve finished speaking you know if I want to lie.’ Pl. Mer. 155)
(c) Haec facito, ante quam viniam fodere incipias.
(‘Do all this before you begin cultivating the vines.’ Cato Agr. 50.2)
(d) Piso in Annalibus scribit . . . Mettium Curtium Sabinum . . . in locum palus-
trem, qui tum fuit in foro antequam cloacae sunt factae, secessisse . . .
(‘Piso in his Annals writes . . . a Sabine named Mettius Curtius . . . got away into a
swampy spot which at that time was in the Forum, before the sewers had been
made . . .’ Var. L. 5.149)
39 Distributional data in Sz.: 600. Contextual criteria for determining whether one is dealing with one
or with two words are given in TLL s.v. priusquam 1410.34ff.
Specifications of the time elapsed beforehand are normal with antequam but very rare
with priusquam. A normal instance of an ablative of measure with antequam is (e).40
An exceptional instance with prius . . . quam is (f).
(e) Itaque vitem triduo antequam inserant desecant . . .
(‘For this reason they cut off the vine three days before grafting . . .’ Var. R. 1.41.3)
(f) . . . / puer septuennis surrupitur Carthagine, / sexennio prius quidem quam
moritur pater.
(‘. . . (sc. the only son) is kidnapped from Carthage as a seven-year-old boy, six years
before his father dies.’ Pl. Poen. 66–7)
There are rare instances of prius = priusquam in Late Latin (TLL s.v. prius 1344.41ff.).
For pridie quam, postridie quam, and related expressions, see § 20.5.
. Non-temporal interpretations of time clauses

Depending on context, time clauses can be interpreted in various other senses, espe-
cially as reason and concessive (or: adversative) clauses. They are dealt with in
§§ 16.29–32. They have received considerable attention in the literature.41 The clauses
for which this is particularly relevant are those with the subordinators cum and post-
quam. For dum, causal interpretations are rare.42
. The interpretation of cum (quom) clauses as indicating the reason for
the content of the main clause
Scholars have different views on the need to distinguish a separate use of cum as a
subordinator of reason. There is also disagreement both about when the first instances
of causal cum can be found and about when the first instances of this cum with a sub-
junctive can be found.43 There is no strong evidence for a separate causal meaning:44
there are no instances of a cum clause in answer to a cur or quare ‘why’ question in the
LLT material. Also, instances of cum with the correlating adverbs idcirco, ideo, and
propterea are exceptional.45 An example of a cum clause with such a correlating
expression is (a). Further support for regarding the causal interpretation as only con-
textually determined can be found in the fact that some authors combine cum with
various expressions to underline the causal interpretation of the cum clause. Examples
are (in decreasing order of frequency) the adverb praesertim ‘especially’ (often in
Cicero), as in (b); the particle quippe ‘as is natural when’, ‘inasmuch as’ (relatively
40 See TLL s.v. antequam 155.28ff.; 157.8ff.

41 For general discussion, see Heberlein (2008; 2011: 238–41).
42 For ubi, see Sz.: 652. Interesting is ubi . . . eo in Sal. Cat. 52.23, as suggested by Branden Kosch.
43 For discussion and references, see Heberlein (2011: 281–4).
44 See Lavency (1996b; 1997: 241–2; 2003) and Baños (2014: 67–70).
45 TLL s.v. idcirco 175.64ff; s.v. ideo 217.43ff.; s.v. propterea 2132.68ff. See also Lodge s.v. quom 528A.
Time clauses 267
frequent in Cicero and Pliny the Elder), as in (c);46 or utpote ‘as one might expect’, ‘as
is natural’ (a favourite of Pliny the Elder), as in (d). These words are very rarely, if ever,
combined with quia, quod, quoniam, and quando in the authors covered by the LLT.
Christian authors do not use utpote with any of these subordinators. Quippe is
occasionally combined with cum, quod, and quia in later Christian authors (not in
Tertullian) and there are more instances of praesertim combined with cum and quia,
notably in Augustine. These three considerations argue against postulating a context-
independent causal meaning of cum. Nevertheless, a few examples that are sometimes
cited in the literature as causal cum clauses are added in the Supplement.47 (For the
use of the moods in causally interpreted cum clauses, see § 7.143.)
(a) . . . praefatus idcirco se hunc iudicandi modum secutum, cum liqueret sibi
Titinium . . . coniugium expetisse.
(‘. . . prefacing that he had followed this mode of judgement because it was clear to
him that Titinius had sought to marry . . .’ V. Max. 8.2.3)
(b) Praesertim quom is me dignum quoi concrederet / habuit, me habere
honorem eius ingenio decet.
(‘Because he has considered me worthy, a man whom he could trust, it’s only fair that
I should respect his inclinations.’ Pl. As. 80–1)
(c) Intellego te, frater, alias in historia leges observandas putare, alias in poëmate.
# Quippe quom in illa omnia ad veritatem, Quinte, referantur, in hoc ad
delectationem pleraque.
(‘As I understand it, then, brother, you believe that one set of principles must be
observed in writing history, another in poetry. # Certainly, Quintus, since in the
former all things are judged by reference to the truth, while in the latter most things
are judged by reference to pleasure.’ Cic. Leg. 1.5)
(d) Me . . . incommoda valetudo, e qua iam emerseram utpote cum sine febri
laborassem . . . tenebat duodecimum iam diem Brundisi.
(‘An indisposition, from which I have now recovered (as is to be expected since I was
ill without a fever) . . . has kept me these twelve days at Brundisium.’ Cic. Att. 5.8.1)
Supplement:
Isto tu pauper es quom nimis sancte piu’s. (Pl. Rud. 1234); Ei obviam bubulcus de
plebe Venusina advenit et per iocum, cum ignoraret qui ferretur, rogavit num mor-
tuum ferrent. (Gracch. orat. 49 ap. Gel. 10.3.5); Sed demiror / quid sit quam ob rem
hunc tanto opere omnis nos celare volueris / partum, praesertim quom et recte et
tempore suo pepererit. (Ter. Hec. 529–31); . . . ut non intellegam, quare aut hic vetet
intercedere aut quemquam intercessurum putet, cum intercessio stultitiam interces-
soris significatura sit, non rem impeditura. (Cic. Agr. 2.30); Nam cum solitudo et vita
sine amicis insidiarum et metus plena sit, ratio ipsa monet amicitias comparare . . .
(Cic. Fin. 1.66); ‘Quem hunc appellas, Zeno?’ ‘Beatum,’ inquit. ‘Etiam beatissimum?’
‘Quippe,’ inquiet, ‘cum tam docuerim gradus istam rem non habere quam virtutem,
46 For quippe cum, see Schrickx (2011: 120–4). 47 More examples in OLD s.v. § 6.
in qua sit ipsum etiam beatum.’ (Cic. Fin. 5.84); Superabatur navium multitudine.
Dolo erat pugnandum, cum par non esset armis. (Nep. Han. 10.4); Hanc (sc. aquam)
putant nimio frigore esse noxiam, utpote cum profluens ipsa lapidescat. (Plin.
Nat. 31.28)
Cum clauses rarely function as an attitudinal or an illocutionary disjunct. An example

of an illocutionary cum clause that gives the reason for making the statement of the
main clause is (e); ex. (f) contains the justification for making the observation of the
main clause (it is an attitudinal disjunct).
(e) Sed quom pietatem <te> amori video tuo praevortere, / omnes <homines>
tibi patres sunt?
(‘But since I can see that you prefer filial piety to your love, are all men your fathers?’
Pl. Ps. 293–4)
(f) Falso excipitur et spartum, quippe cum in Hispania multa in spartariis mella
herbam eam sapiant.
(‘It is a mistake to say that esparto grass is also an exception, because a great deal of
the honey obtained in the broom-thickets in Spain tastes of that plant.’ Plin. Nat.
11.18)48
. The interpretation of dum clauses as indicating the reason for the
content of the main clause
Causal interpretations of dum clauses are found from Pliny the Elder onwards.49
Examples are (a) and (b). Most instances are much later. As with cum, there is little
reason to assume a context-independent causal meaning.
(a) (sc. Apollodorum) . . . crebro perfecta signa frangentem, dum satiari cupidi-
tate artis non quit, ideoque insanum cognominatum.
(‘. . . often breaking his statues in pieces after he had finished them because he was
unable to be satisfied due to his passion for his art, and consequently he was given the
surname of the Madman.’ Plin. Nat. 34.81)
(b) . . . sectam de auctoris appellatione<m> mutari utique probum usitatumque
ius est, dum philosophi quoque de auctoribus cognominentur Pythagorici et
Platonici . . .
(‘. . . it is no doubt a fair and usual custom that a sect should be marked out by the
name of its founder, since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after
their masters.’ Tert. Nat. 1.4.1—tr. Holmes)
48 Discussed by Tarriño (2004: 366–7).

49 See OLD s.v. dum § 4.b ‘with loss of temporal force’ and TLL s.v. dum 2211.80ff.; 2221.55ff. ‘significa-
tione tantum causali’. One dum clause from Plautus Am. 637–9 is cited by the TLL s.v. as an early instance,
but this is unnecessary. See also Baños (2014: 71–2).
Time clauses 269
. The concessive (or: ‘adversative’) interpretation of cum (quom) clauses
The relationship between a cum clause and the main clause may, depending on the
content of the clauses, be interpreted as adversative (‘while’, ‘whereas’) or as conces-
sive (‘though’, ‘even when’). Early instances cited in this connexion are (a)—indicative,
the regular mood in this time period—and (b)—subjunctive.50 Note in (a) the use of
the correlative concessive adverb tamen. Instances of this adverb and also of nihilomi-
nus ‘nevertheless’ are rare, but they can be found until Late Latin. A Classical example
is (c), in the subjunctive which is normal in that period, although there are also
instances of the indicative. A Late Latin example is (d)—in the indicative, although in
other authors the subjunctive is predominant.51 As in causally interpreted clauses, one
occasionally finds praesertim, as in (e), an adverb which is not found with true con-
cessive subordinators.
(a) Servi qui, quom culpa carent, tamen malum metuont, / i solent esse eris
utibiles.
(‘Those slaves who fear a thrashing even when they’re free from guilt are generally
useful to their masters.’ Pl. Mos. 858–9)
(b) Eo vos vostrosque adeo pantices madefactatis, quom ego sim hic siccus.
(‘With that you irrigate yourselves and also your bellies, while I am dry here.’ Pl.
Ps. 184)
(c) . . . Socrates . . . cum facile posset educi e custodia, noluit . . .
(‘. . . Socrates . . . though he could easily have been removed from prison, refused . . .’
Cic. Tusc. 1.71)
(d) Et cum hi (sc. montes) omnes, qui per girum sunt, tam excelsi sint . . ., tamen
ipse ille medianus . . . tanto altior est omnibus illis . . .
(‘And though all the peaks in the group attain such a height, yet the central one . . . is
so much higher than them all . . .’ Pereg. 2.6)
(e) . . . nihil nos magnopere mirari cum praesertim neque necessitati
subveniatur . . .
(‘. . . we are not very greatly astonished, even though by it no extreme need is
relieved . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.56)
Supplement:
Classical indicative forms: . . . etiam cum alienissimos defendimus, tamen eos
alienos, si ipsi viri boni volumus haberi, existimare non possumus. (Cic. de Orat.
2.192); Quom tabulas signa toreumata emunt, nova diruunt, alia aedificant, postremo
omnibus modis pecuniam trahunt vexant, tamen summa lubidine divitias suas
vincere nequeunt. (Sal. Cat. 20.12)
50 The examples (‘adversative’ in his terminology) are taken from Bennett: I.141f.; 303.
51 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 168–70) and Spevak (2005b: 176–80) for the Late Latin use of cum
‘concessivum’.
Classical subjunctive forms: Cuius ingenium variosque sermones immortalitati

scriptis suis Plato tradidit, cum ipse litteram Socrates nullam reliquisset. (Cic. de
Orat. 3.60); Fuit enim perpetuo pauper, cum divitissimus esse posset . . . (Nep. Phoc.
1.2); Nam (sc. Druentia flumen) cum aquae vim vehat ingentem, non tamen navium
patiens est . . . (Liv. 21.31.11)
Late Latin instances: An cum miserum esse neminem libeat, libet tamen esse mise-
ricordem . . .? (August. Conf. 3.2.3); (sc. litterae) Brevi enim erant transcursu quae,
cum mihi voluptatem adferant, negant satietatem . . . (Symm. Ep. 5.50); Nec enim cau-
tum deinde expergefactis, quos petebant insidiae, in apertum properare discrimen,
cum iam undique frendentium catervae Persarum in proelia venirent accensae.
(Amm. 19.6.8)
. The concessive and reason interpretations of postquam clauses
In specific contexts the temporal relationship between a postquam clause and its main
clause may be interpreted as a reason (cf. quoniam), as in (a); or even as concessive, as
in (b), where the main clause contains tamen.52
(a) Nam postquam haec aedes ita erant ut dixi tibi, / continuo est alias aedis
mercatus sibi.
(‘Well, after our house was the way I told you, he immediately bought himself another.’
Pl. Mos. 647–8)
(b) Postquam obtineri non poterat, tamen labefactandae legis Treboniae causa
effectum est, ut cooptarentur tribuni plebis C. Lacerius et M. Acutius . . .
(‘Although this could not be obtained, nevertheless, in order to invalidate the
Trebonian law, it was brought about that Gaius Lacerius and Marcus Acutius should
be chosen tribunes . . .’ Liv. 5.10.11)
16.33 Manner clauses
Manner clauses denote the manner in which the event of the main clause takes
(took or will take) place or the way the event has to be understood. They are intro-
duced by the relative adverbs ut(i) and sicut(i), also velut(i), ‘just as’, ‘like’; by the rela-
tive phrases quemadmodum (also: quem ad modum) and quomodo (also quo modo)
‘in the manner in which’, ‘as’; and the subordinator ceu ‘as (if)’—found mainly in
poetry, in prose from Seneca onwards. The manner expressions based on modus
‘manner’ are relatively infrequent in Early and Classical Latin. The conditional com-
parative subordinators quasi ‘as if ’, tamquam ‘as though’, and velut ‘as if ’ are dealt with
separately in § 16.66. Ut clauses can function as adjuncts and as (attitudinal or illocut-
ionary) disjuncts. The clauses with a subordinator other than ut are mainly used as
52 For further examples of a reason interpretation, see OLD s.v. postquam § 3; TLL s.v. postquam
246.71ff.; 248.33ff. For an ‘adversative force implied’, see OLD s.v. postquam § 3. See also Sz.: 599.
Manner clauses 271
adjuncts. The clauses discussed in this section are usually called ‘comparative clauses
of manner’ or ‘clauses of comparison’.53
Manner clauses can also function as subject complement, as in (a) and (b) (see
§ 9.36).
(a) Haec res sic est ut narro tibi.
(‘This is just as I’m telling you.’ Pl. Mos. 1034)
(b) Ero ut me voles esse.
(‘I will be as you want me to be.’ Pl. Capt. 228)
. Manner adjunct clauses

Manner adjuncts denote the way in which the state of affairs of the main clause takes
place. There may be a corresponding manner expression in the main clause, either an
adverb like sic ‘so’ or—less common—ita ‘so’, also proinde ‘in the same way (as)’, or a
noun phrase, as in (c).54 Examples of ut clauses are (a)–(d), of clauses introduced by
the other expressions, (e)–(g).
(a) Facis ut alias res soles.
(‘You’re handling the matter as you usually handle other things.’ Pl. Am. 536)
(b) . . . cogat alios laudare, sicut in multis conatus est.
(‘. . . let him force others to give praises, as in many cases he has tried to do.’ Cic. Ver.
2.139)
(c) Hoc modo res gesta est ut ego dico.
(‘The matter happened just the way I’m telling you.’ Pl. Rud. 1072)
(d) Ut sementem feceris, ita metes.
(‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.261—tr. May and Wisse)
(e) Conserva igitur tuis suos, ut quemadmodum cetera quae dicta sunt a te, sic
hoc verissimum reperiatur.
(‘Preserve, then, for your adherents their loved ones, so that, just as the rest of the
things said by you, so this may be found completely true.’ Cic. Lig. 33)
(f) Quo modo autem in corpore est morbus, est aegrotatio, est vitium, sic in
animo.
(‘Now as the body is liable to disease, to sickness, to defect, so is the soul.’ Cic.
Tusc. 4.28)
53 For a discussion of the terminology and the various uses of manner clauses with ut, see
Revuelta (2002). A monograph on the subject is Fontana (1997). See also Tarriño (2011: 399–420) and
Van Laer (2013, 2014, 2015).
54 A large number of correlative expressions can be found in Lodge, s.v. ut 922B–923A; Merguet
(Reden) s.v. ut 1053B–1054A; TLL s.v. modus 1285.55ff. (quemadmodum); 1294.41ff. (quomodo). See also
Revuelta (2002: 210–16).
(g) Impastus stabula alta leo ceu saepe peragrans / (suadet enim vesana fames),
si forte fugacem / conspexit capream aut surgentem in cornua cervum, /
gaudet . . . / . . ., / sic ruit in densos alacer Mezentius hostis.
(‘Even as often an unfed lion, ranging the deep coverts, for maddening hunger
prompts him, if haply he has spied a timorous roe or stately-antlered stag, exults . . .,
so Mezentius springs lightly upon the massed foemen.’ Verg. A. 10.723–9)
Supplement:
An te auspicium commoratum est an tempestas continit (cj. Luchs, continet P), / qui
non abiisti ad legiones, ita uti dudum dixeras? (Pl. Am. 690–1); Satis audacter. # Ut
pudicam decet. (Pl. Am. 838); Faciam ita ut iubes (Pl. Am. 1144); Quid tu? recte’n
atque ut vis vales? (Pl. Aul. 183—NB: coordination with a manner adverb); Eandem
puellam peperit quam a me acceperat, / sine opstetricis opera et sine doloribus, / item
ut aliae pariunt quae malum quaerunt sibi. (Pl. Cist. 140–2); Diespiter me sic
amabit— # Ut quidem edepol dignus es. (Pl. Poen. 869); Proinde ut decet amat virum
suom, cupide expetit. (Pl. St. 284); Ut potero feram. (Ter. An. 898); Non, si ex capite sis
meo / natus, item aiunt ut Minervam esse ex Iove . . . (Ter. Hau. 1035–6); Quapropter
ut invitus saepe dissensi a Q. Fufio, ita sum eius sententiae libenter adsensus. (Cic.
Phil. 11.15); Nimirum eodem modo haec aspicitis ut priora. (Cic. Phil. 13.26); Ut fru-
menta nata sunt, ita decumae veneunt. (Cic. Ver. 3.147); Nimirum ut hic nomen
suum conprobavit, sic ille cognomen. (Cic. Ver. 4.57); At reliquarum legionum
milites . . . a tribunis militum legatisque, ut erat a Caesare praeceptum, retinebantur.
(Caes. Gal. 7.47.3); Utque volans alte raptum cum fulva draconem / fert aquila . . . /
haut aliter praedam Tiburtum ex agmine Tarchon / portat ovans. (Verg. A. 11.751–8);
Quare ars est aput te ministrare nec temere et ut libet conlocatur argentum sed
perite struitur et est aliquis scindendi obsonii magister? (Sen. Dial. 7.17.2—NB:
coordination); Hunc ego non ut multi sed artissime diligo. (Plin. Ep. 6.8.2—NB:
coordination)55
Estne intus nunc Phronesium? # Utut aliis, tibi quidem intus. (Pl. Truc. 188)
Itaque ille perfectus quem iam dudum nostra indicat oratio, utcumque se affectum
videri et animum audientis moveri volet, ita certum vocis admovebit sonum. (Cic.
Orat. 55); (sc. Theophrastus scripsit) . . . quae essent in re publica rerum inclinationes
et momenta temporum, quibus esset moderandum, utcumque res postularet. (Cic.
Fin. 5.11)
Sicut tuom vis unicum gnatum tuae / superesse vitae sospitem et superstitem, / ita
ted optestor . . . (Pl. As. 16–18); Atque utinam, sicut mihi tota in hac causa versatus
<es> ante oculos, sic nunc horum te offeras mentibus . . . (Cic. Scaur. 49)
Suspensaeque diu lacrimae fluxere per ora, / qualiter abiecta de nive manat aqua.
(Ov. Am. 1.7.57–8)
Non enim quem ad modum si quaesitum ex eo sit stellarum numerus par an
impar sit, item si de officio multisque aliis de rebus, in quibus versatus exercitatus<que
sit>, nescire se dicat. (Cic. Luc. 110); . . . primo in magna spe fuit quemadmodum
Rhodiam classem ad Samum circumsessis ad exitum faucibus portus expugnasset, sic
et Romanam expugnaturum. (Liv. 37.28.6); Et quo modo hominum inter homines
55 This instance is quoted by Van Laer (2013: 413).

Manner clauses 273
iuris esse vincula putant, sic homini nihil iuris esse cum bestiis. (Cic. Fin. 3.67); Quo
modo in militia aut via fessus adminiculum orarem, ita in hoc itinere vitae
senex . . . praesidium peto. (Tac. Ann. 14.54.2); Nam quomodo fama non est unius
sermo nec infamia unius mala existimatio, sic nec claritas uni bono placuisse. (Sen.
Ep. 102.8)
Ceu cum frigore inhorruimus, tremor sequitur, sic terras quoque spiritus extrin-
secus accidens quassat. (Sen. Nat. 6.24.4)
Some of the corresponding adverbs (e.g. proinde) are also found with the compara-
tive particle atque/ac. There the particle and the phrase or clause it introduces must
be considered obligatory constituents required by the valency of proinde in the same
way as atque in expressions like aliter atque and idem atque—see § 20.15.
Sometimes two events may be compared which are in contrast with each other, with
ita or sic in the main clause and (sic)ut in the manner clause (‘while . . . at the same
time’ (OLD s.v. ut § 5b)). Seneca has an instance of quemadmodum used in this way.
Examples are (h)–(k).
(h) Nam ut (sc. Pausanias) virtutibus eluxit, sic vitiis est obrutus.
(‘For while he possessed conspicuous merits, yet he was overloaded with
defects.’ Nep. Paus. 1.1)
(i) Saguntini ut a proeliis quietem habuerant . . . ita non nocte, non die umquam
cessaverant ab opere . . .
(‘The Saguntines, though they had had a rest from fighting . . . neither by
night nor by day had ever ceased from labour . . .’ Liv. 21.11.5)
(j) Ceterum iter multo quam [ut] in ascensu fuerat, ut pleraque Alpium ab
Italia sicut breviora ita adrectiora sunt, difficilius fuit.
(‘The rest of the path was much more difficult than it was along the ascent,
as indeed most parts of the Alps from the Italian side are shorter but more
precipitous.’ Liv. 21.35.11)
(k) Nam quemadmodum sola non prosunt, sic curationem adiuvant.
(‘For though, by themselves, they are of no avail, yet they are a help towards
the cure.’ Sen. Ep. 94.36)
Quatenus meaning quomodo is found in Late Latin, from Tertullian onwards, as

in (l).56
(l) Sequitur itaque ut, quatenus circumcisionis carnalis et legis veteris abolitio
expuncta suis temporibus demonstratur, ita sabbati quoque observatio tem-
poraria fuisse demonstretur.
(‘It follows, accordingly, that, in the same way as the abolition of carnal cir-
cumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated
at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to
have been temporary.’ Tert. Iud. 4.1)
56 See Wölfflin (1888: 407–8).

If the main and subordinate clause would contain more or less identical constituents
one of them may remain implicit in either clause, as is shown in (m) and (n): nomina-
batur is not repeated as nominatur; erat not as est.
(m) Mensa vinaria rotunda nominabatur cilibantum, ut etiam nunc in castris.
(‘A round table for wine was formerly called a cilliba, as even now it is in the camp.’
Var. L. 5.121)
(n) Antiquis enim torus e stramento erat, qualiter etiam nunc in castris.
(‘For people in old times had bedding of straw, in the same way as in camp now.’ Plin.
Nat. 8.193)
. Attitudinal manner clauses (disjuncts)

Attitudinal manner clauses give evidence for the content of the main clause (or a part
of it), situate it in a general context, or qualify the assertion in some way (see also
§ 6.2). These clauses represent the point of view of the speaker and are therefore usu-
ally in the indicative mood, and often in the present tense. Examples are (a)–(c). A
number of such ut clauses have become idioms, such as ut opinor ‘as I think’ and ut
videtur ‘as it seems’. Manner clauses are also used as disjuncts to justify or to comment
on the wording chosen in the main clause. Examples are (d) and (e). Sometimes the
ut clause can be interpreted in a causal sense, as in (f).57 In these attitudinal manner
clauses the emphasizer quidem is quite common.58
(a) Pol ego ut rem video, tu inventu’s, vera vanitudine / qui convincas.
(‘As I see this matter, you’ve been found to be the sort of person who confutes the
truth with falsehood.’ Pl. Capt. 569–70)
(b) Ut sunt humana, nihil est perpetuom datum.
(‘Nothing, as is the way with all things human, is given for good.’ Pl. Cist. 194)
(c) Nominatae, ut ait Ennius, Titienses ab Tatio, Ramnenses ab Romulo, Luceres,
ut Iunius, ab Lucumone; sed omnia h<a>ec vocabula Tusca, ut Volnius, qui
tragoedias Tuscas scripsit, dicebat.
(‘These tribes were named, as Ennius says, the Titienses from Tatius, the Ramnenses
from Romulus, the Luceres, according to Junius, from Lucumo; but all these words
are Etruscan, as Volnius, who wrote tragedies in Etruscan, stated.’ Var. L. 5.55)
57 Gibert (2007) deals with attitudinal manner clauses; some examples are taken from his article. For
terminology and criteria, see also Revuelta (2002: 203–25). Many examples can be found in Lodge s.v. ut
924B–925A, who observes: ‘comparatio parenthetica est, non genuina’. Also OLD s.v. ut §§ 20–2. In Sz. the
use of ut in expressions like ut opinor is called ‘parenthetical’ (634). So also Fontana (1997),
Bolkestein (1998a)—on the differences between parenthetical expressions of opinion in the use of ut—
and already K.-St.: II.450. For the causal interpretation of ut clauses, see Baños (2014: 73–7) and Van
Laer (2014).
58 So Kroon (2009b: 154).
Manner clauses 275
(d) Quid erat induta? An regillam induculam an mendiculam? / # Impluviatam,

ut istaec faciunt vestimentis nomina.
(‘What did she wear? The royal or the beggarly dress? The marbled dress, as those
women invent names for their clothes.’ Pl. Epid. 223–4)
(e) ‘Serit arbores quae alteri saeculo prosient’, ut ait Statius noster in Synephebis.
(‘He plants the trees to serve another age, as our Caecilius Statius says in his Young
Comrades.’ Cic. Sen. 24)
(f) Pallida est, ut peperit puerum.
(‘She’s pale, as having given birth to a boy.’ Pl. Truc. 576)
Supplement:
Content: Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor. (Pl. Am. 574); Quom me adiit, ut pudentem
gnatum aequom est patrem, / cupio esse amicae quod det argentum suae. (Pl. As.
82–3); Salvos sum. Salva spes est, ut verba audio. (Pl. Cas. 312); . . . nescio, nisi, ut
meus est animus, fieri non posse arbitror. (Pl. Cist. 5); Nam hic latro in Sparta fuit, /
ut quidem ipse nobis dixit, apud regem Attalum. (Pl. Poen. 663–4); . . . quasi Dircam
olim, ut memorant, duo gnati Iovis / devinxere ad taurum . . . (Pl. Ps. 199–200); Atque
ut nunc valide fluctuat mare, nulla nobis spes est. (Pl. Rud. 303); Ita, ut ingenium’st
omnium / hominum ab labore proclive ad lubidinem, / accepit condicionem, dehinc
quaestum occipit. (Ter. An. 77–9); Tria sunt enim, ut quidem ego sentio, quae sint
efficienda dicendo. (Cic. Brut. 185); Natura nulla est, ut mihi videtur, quae non
habeat in suo genere res complures dissimiles inter se, quae tamen consimili laude
dignentur. (Cic. de Orat. 3.25); Quinti fratris epistulam ad te misi, non satis humane
illam quidem respondentem meis litteris, sed tamen quod tibi satis sit, ut equidem
existimo. (Cic. Att. 13.47a.2); Quod reliquum est, cottidie tabellarios habebis et, ut
ego arbitror, etiam quid scribas habebis cottidie. (Cic. Att. 16.15.3); Ad alteram par-
tem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla atque florens, ut est captus
Germanorum. (Caes. Gal. 4.3.3); Patre usus est diligente et, ut tum erant tempora,
diti . . . (Nep. Att. 1.2—NB: at the adjective phrase level); Pastor Aristaeus fugiens
Peneia Tempe / amissis, ut fama, apibus morboque fameque / tristis ad extremi
sacrum caput adstitit amnis . . . (Verg. G. 4.317–19); Paucae civitates, ut quidem ego
audio, quas vicina maxime hiberna premebant in ius dicionemque venerunt. (Liv.
40.35.13); . . . a sole numquam absistens partibus sex atque quadraginta longius, ut
Timaeo placet. (Plin. Nat. 2.38); Circuitus vero totius Ponti viciens semel L, ut auctor
est Varro et fere veteres. (Plin. Nat. 4.77); M. Sergio, ut equidem arbitror, nemo quem-
quam hominum iure praetulerit . . . (Plin. Nat. 7.104);59 Aesculapius . . . novissime fer-
tur Hippolytum . . . sanasse, ita uti Eratosthenes dicit. (Hyg. Astr. 2.14, l. 578)
Et, quemadmodum nostra quidem fert opinio, oratoris ars et facultas in hac mate-
ria tripertita versari existimanda est. (Cic. Inv. 1.7)
Quo modo nunc se istorum artes habent, pertimescenda est multitudo causarum.
(Cic. de Orat. 2.140); . . . quo modo Stoici dicunt omnis esse divites qui caelo et terra
frui possint . . . (Cic. Fam. 7.16.3); Sed, quo modo video, si aestimationes tuas vendere
59 For more instances from Pliny the Elder, see Tarriño (2004: 364). For Pliny the Elder’s use of sicut(i),
see also Duarte (2019).
non potes neque ollam denariorum implere, Romam tibi remig<r>andum est.
(Cic. Fam. 9.18.4); Quo modo quidem nunc se res habet, modo ut haec nobis loca
tenere liceat . . . (Cic. Fam. 14.14.1); Sed quomodo dicunt—ego nihil scio, sed
audivi—cum Incuboni pilleum rapuisset, et thesaurum invenit. (Petr. 38.8
(Hermeros speaking))
Style: O praeclarum custodem ovium, ut aiunt, lupum! (Cic. Phil. 3.27); Venio
nunc ad istius quemadmodum ipse appellat studium, ut amici eius, morbum et insa-
niam, ut Siculi, latrocinium. (Cic. Ver. 4.1); Quam ob rem, si ornate locutus est, sicut
et fertur et mihi videtur, physicus ille Democritus, materies . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.49);
Quamvis sphaeram in scaenam, ut dicitur, attulerit Ennius, tamen in sphaera fornicis
similitudo inesse non potest. (Cic. de Orat. 3.162); . . . cum isdem ad calcem ut dicitur
pervenire. (Cic. Amic. 101); . . . de omni animi, ut ego posui, perturbatione, morbo,
ut Graeci volunt, explicabo. (Cic. Tusc. 3.13); Hunc censes primis ut dicitur labris
gustasse physiologiam id est naturae rationem, qui quicquam quod ortum sit putet
aeternum esse posse? (Cic. N.D. 1.20); Hic tum, ut ait Ennius, nostri ‘cessere
parumper’. (B. Hisp. 23.3)
In nullo genere aeque facilis mixtura cum fero, qualiter natos antiqui hybridas
vocabant . . . (Plin. Nat. 8.213)
Appendix: Causally interpreted ut clauses (as in (f) above) are sometimes treated as
identical to the use of ut clauses that characterize the property of a constituent in the
main clause (see § 20.25).60 A few more examples in which a causal interpretation is
possible are:
Atque in pauca, ut occupatus nunc sum, confer quid velis. (Pl. Ps. 278); . . . aiunt homi-
nem, ut erat furiosus, respondisse . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 33); Horum auctoritate finitimi
adducti, ut sunt Gallorum subita et repentina consilia, eadem de causa Trebium
Terrasidiumque retinent . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.8.3); . . . exploratores hostium, ut omni flu-
minis parte erant dispositi, inopinantes quod . . . a nostris opprimuntur. (Caes. Gal.
7.61.1); Sed ubi ille adsedit, Catilina, ut erat paratus ad dissimulanda omnia, demisso
voltu, voce supplici postulare a patribus coepit, ne quid de se temere crederent. (Sal.
Cat. 31.7); . . . consulem invenerunt, quam poterant maxime miserabilem bonis sociis,
superbis atque infidelibus, ut erant Campani, spernendum. (Liv. 23.5.1); Ipsi, ut est
volgus sine rectore praeceps pavidum socors, adventante Civile raptis temere armis
ac statim omissis, in fugam vertuntur. (Tac. Hist. 4.37.1)
This type of ut clause can also be used with constituents at a lower level, as in (g),
where ut Poenus justifies the qualification expressed by the attribute acutus. Such
cases are discussed in § 20.27.
(g) A Clitomacho sumam . . . homo et acutus ut Poenus et valde studiosus ac
diligens.
(‘I shall take it from Clitomachus . . . a clever fellow as being a Carthaginian, and also
extremely studious and industrious.’ Cic. Luc. 98)
60 So K.-St.: II.451–2.
Manner clauses 277
. Illocutionary manner clauses (disjuncts)

Illocutionary manner disjuncts either denote what the status of the content of the
main clause is in relation to its context or they aim at the involvement of the audience
in what is being said. Examples are (a)–(b) and (c), respectively.61
(a) Quamquam, ut iam dudum dixi, resciscet tamen / Amphitruo rem omnem.
(‘Still, as I told you some time since, Amphitruo will find out the whole thing all the
same.’ Pl. Am. 491–2)
(b) In quo ego tam subito et exiguo et turbido tempore multa divinitus, ita ut
dixi, non mea sponte providi . . .
(‘In that crisis, so sudden, so sharp, so stormy, I showed great foresight guided, just as
I have said, not by my own resources but by divine inspiration.’ Cic. Sul. 43)
(c) Ita sum, ut videtis, splendens stella candida, / signum quod semper tempore
exoritur suo / hic atque in caelo.
(‘I am the way you see me: resplendent with a shining star, a constellation that always
rises in its due season here and in heaven.’ Pl. Rud. 3–5)
Supplement:
Fugitivos ille, ut dixeram ante, huius patri, / domo quem profugiens dominum
apstulerat, vendidit. (Pl. Capt. 17–18); Ita ut occepi dicere, / lenulle, de illac pugna
Pentetronica, / quom sexaginta milia hominum uno die / volaticorum manibus
occidi meis. (Pl. Poen. 470–3); Mercatorem autem strenuum studiosumque rei quae-
rendae existimo, verum, ut supra dixi, periculosum et calamitosum. (Cato Agr. pr. 3);
Hic di immortales, ut supra dixi, mentem illi perdito ac furioso dederunt, ut huic
faceret insidias. (Cic. Mil. 88); Is igitur, ut dico, Timarchides in omnes civitates
accepto pretio censores dimisit. (Cic. Ver. 2.136); Quare cum genere idem sit, fit
aliud, quod parte quadam et specie, ut diximus, differat. (Cic. Inv. 1.40); Quid de
Paulo aut Africano loquar aut, ut iam ante, de Maximo? (Cic. Sen. 61); Scilicet, ut tu
scribis, casus consilium nostri itineris iudicabit. (Cic. Att. 15.25.1); Erat vallis inter
duas acies, ut supra demonstratum est, non ita magna at difficili et arduo ascensu.
(Caes. Civ. 2.34.1);62 Interim ii qui ad alteram partem oppidi, ut supra demonstravi-
mus, munitionis causa convenerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.48.1); Tenebat adversum oppi-
dum e regione pon<tis>, ut supra scripsimus, tripertito. (B. Hisp. 5.2); Ipsius
triquetrae, ut diximus, promunturium Pelorum vocatur . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.87); Sed,
ut coeperam dicere, ad hanc me fortunam frugalitas mea perduxit. (Petr. 75.10
(Trimalchio speaking)); Missus tamen Drusus, ut rettulimus, paci firmator. (Tac.
Ann. 2.46.5)
Cyperos iuncus est, qualiter diximus, angulosus . . . (Plin. Nat. 21.117)
Sed in animo est, quemadmodum ante dixi, leviter transire ac tantummodo
perstringere unamquamque rem . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 91)
61 For the illocutionary use of ut clauses, see Griffe (1985). For instances with the verb dico, see TLL s.v.
973.48ff. and Garcea (2003: 192–4).
62 For the word order demonstratum est, typical for this type of clause, see Devine and Stephens (2006:
189–90).
Nuper quidem, ut scitis, me ad regiam paene confecit. (Cic. Mil. 37); Piso igitur
hoc modo, vir optimus tuique, ut scis, amantissimus. (Cic. Fin. 4.73); L. Coelius
Antipater scriptor, quemadmodum videtis, fuit ut temporibus illis luculentus, iuris
valde peritus, multorum etiam, ut L. Crassi, magister. (Cic. Brut. 102)
16.37 Degree clauses (adjuncts)
Autonomous relative clauses with quod can be used to indicate the degree to which
what is stated in the main clause is (was, will be) realized. Examples are (a)–(b). These
clauses are normally in the indicative.63 Quantum is occasionally found as well, as in
(d)–(f). These clauses resemble the clauses of qualification discussed in § 16.83.
(a) Ill’, quod in se fuit, accuratum habuit quod posset mali / faceret in me . . .
(‘As far as was in his power he took pains to do me all the harm he could.’ Pl. Bac.
550–1)
(b) Di istaec prohibeant! # Deos nescio. Ego, quod potero, sedulo.
(‘May the gods forbid it. # I don’t know as to the gods; so far as I shall be enabled, I
will carefully prevent it.’ Ter. Hau. 1038)
(c) Quae tibi mandavi et quae tu intelleges convenire nostro Tusculano velim, ut
scribis, cures, quod sine molestia tua facere poteris.
(‘What I commissioned you to get for me, and anything you see suitable to my
Tusculan villa, I should be glad if you will, as you say in your letter, procure for me,
so far as you can without putting yourself to too much trouble.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.7)
(d) Postidea domum / me rursum quantum potero tantum recipiam.
(‘Afterwards I’ll return home again as quickly as I can.’ Pl. Aul. 118–19)
(e) Quam (sc. fidem) qui laedit oppugnat omnium commune praesidium et,
quantum in ipso est, disturbat vitae societatem.
(‘One who violates this promise attacks what is the common safeguard of all, and, as
far as it is in his power, ruins all social life.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 111)
(f) Illum deum <induci> (cj. Eden) ab Iove, quem, quantum quidem in illo fuit
damnavit incesti?
(‘That he was made god by Iuppiter, whom he, as far as was in his power, condemned
on the accusation of incest?’ Sen. Apoc. 8.2)
There are related expressions with the relative adverbs quatenus ‘to the extent to
which’ (OLD s.v. 7a) and quoad ‘to the degree that’ (OLD s.v. 3a), as in (g) and (h),
respectively. See also § 16.53 on stipulative clauses.
(g) . . . vulgus quod absit a perfecto non fere intellegit, quatenus autem intellegit,
nihil putat praetermissum.
63 See Hale (1891) and D’Elia (1975).

Degree and respect clauses 279
(‘. . . the common crowd does not, as a rule, comprehend how far it falls short of real
perfection, but, to the extent to which they do comprehend they think there is no
deficiency.’ Cic. Off. 3.15)
(h) . . . animo non deficiam et id quod suscepi, quoad potero, perferam.
(‘. . . I will not lose courage, but will accomplish to the best of my ability the task which
I have undertaken.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 10)
Most grammars distinguish two types of comparative clauses, those of manner (dis-
cussed in this Syntax in §§ 16.33–6) and those of degree, which are discussed in this
paragraph. For comparative clauses with ut, see §§ 20.24–7. See also § 16.83.64
16.38 Respect clauses (disjuncts)
Respect clauses identify a state of affairs or an entity for which the information
contained in the main clause is particularly relevant. The subordinating device is quod
‘as for’, ‘with regard to’. These clauses, which are usually found in sentence-initial pos-
ition, present the frame for the information of the main clause and often make refer-
ence to the preceding context or to an earlier exchange, as in (a) and (b). For an
embedded quod clause, see (c). They are illocutionary disjuncts.65 (See also § 16.83.)
(a) Quod ille gallinam aut columbam se sectari aut simiam / dicat, disperistis, ni
usque ad mortem male mulcassitis.
(‘As to the fact that he might say he was chasing a hen or a dove or a monkey, you’re
done for, unless you savagely beat him to death.’ Pl. Mil. 162–3)
(b) Romae quod scribis sileri, ita putabam.
(‘As to the fact that you write that there is silence in Rome, so I thought.’ Cic. Att.
2.13.2)
(c) Quare quo<nia>m ad analogias quod pertineat non est ut omnia similia
dicantur . . .
(‘Since therefore so far as concerns the Regularities it is not essential that all words
that are spoken should be alike in their systems . . .’ Var. L. 9.83)
Supplement:
Quod illa aut amicum aut patronum nominet / aut quod illa amicai <eum> ama-
torem praedicet, / fores occlusae omnibus sint nisi tibi. (Pl. As. 757–9); Ingenium
patris habet, quod sapit. (Pl. Poen. 1198a);66 Sane quod tibi nunc vir videatur esse
hic, nebulo magnus est. (Ter. Eu. 785); Nam ita me di ament, quod me accusat nunc
vir, sum extra noxiam. (Ter. Hec. 276); Quod quisque pecudes in calleis viasve
publicas itneris causa indu<xerit ibeique paverit . . . pro eo pecore quod
64 For a discussion of the status of degree clauses, see Tarriño (2011: 397–9), with references.
65 For this section, see Serbat (2003: 546–69). See also OLD s.v. quod § 6a,b. The Early Latin instances
of quod can be found in Bennett: I.125–6.
66 For more instances in Plautus, see Lodge: II.520.
eius in calli>bus viei<sv>e publiceis pastum inpulsum itineris causa erit

neiquid populo <n>eive publicano d<are debeto . . . (CIL I2.585.26 (Lex Agr.,
Rome, 111 bc)); Quare quod ad universam naturam verborum attinet, haec attigisse
modo satis est. (Var. L. 8.43); . . . vobis alio loco ut se tota res habeat, quod ad eam civi-
tatem attineat, demonstrabitur. (Cic. Ver. 2.15); Nam quod ius civile, Crasse, tam
vehementer amplexus es, video quid egeris. (Cic. de Orat. 1.234);67 quod in epistula
tua scriptum erat me iam <te> arbitrari designatum esse, scito nihil tam exercitum
esse nunc Romae quam . . . (Cic. Att. 1.11.2); Nam de Appio quod scribis sicuti de
Caesare te non reprehendere, gaudeo tibi consilium probari meum. (Cic. Fam. 1.9.19);
Nam quod rara vides magis esse animalia quaedam / fecundamque magis naturam
cernis in illis, / at regione locoque alio terrisque remotis / multa licet genere esse in eo
numerumque repleri. (Lucr. 2.532–5); Quod sum ligneus, ut vides, Priapus / et falx
lignea ligneusque penis, / prendam te tamen et tenebo prensum . . . (Priap. 6.1–3)68
The main clause may contain a resumptive expression that refers to the content, or
part of the content, of the preceding quod clause, as in (d) and (e).69
(d) Quod itinerum meorum ratio te non nullam in dubitationem videtur
adducere, visurusne me sis in provincia, ea res se sic habet.
(‘As to the fact that my itineraries seem to lead you into some doubt about whether
you are going to see me in the province, that matter stands as follows.’ Cic. Fam.
3.5.3)
(e) Quod multitudinem Germanorum in Galliam traducat, id se sui muniendi,
non Galliae oppugnandae causa facere.
(‘As to the fact that he was bringing a host of Germans into Gaul, he said that he was
doing that to protect himself, not to attack Gaul.’ Caes. Gal. 1.44.6)
Supplement:
Istuc quod das consilium mihi, / tecum illa verba facere de ista re volo. (Pl. Mil.
1114–15); Teque ante quod me amare rebar, ei rei firmasti fidem. (Ter. Hec. 581); Quod
Salas te cum Clodio loqui vult, potes id mea voluntate facere . . . (Cic. Att. 12.30.1); Item
de hortis me quod admones, nec fui umquam valde cupidus et nunc domus suppeditat
mihi hortorum amoenitatem. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.1.14); Quod discordis dispersasque Vitellii
legiones . . . fudisset, id pulcherrimum et sui operis. (Tac. Hist. 3.53.2)
Another type of quod clause is illustrated by (f) and (g), with the verbs attineo ‘to
concern’70 and pertineo ‘to relate’. Here the quod clause serves to introduce an entity
for which the content of the main clause is particularly relevant, and not, as above, a
whole state of affairs. Argumentum in (g) and populum in (h) are to be understood as
the subject and the object of their respective main clauses. In these two examples the
quod clauses function as theme constituents (see § 22.14).
67 For more instances in Cicero, see Merguet (Phil.) s.v. quod 312, § VI; (Reden) s.v. quod 224, § VI and
Garcea (2003: 194–6).
68 On the use of quod in this example, see Szantyr (1972).
69 For further examples, see Serbat (2003: 557–9).
70 See OLD s.v. attineo § 6.c; s.v. pertineo § 4.
Reason clauses 281
(f) Nam quod ad argumentum attinet, sane breve est.

(‘For as far as the plot is concerned, that is quite simple.’ Pl. As. 8)
(g) Nam quod ad populum pertinet, semper dignitatis iniquus iudex est qui aut
invidet aut favet.
(‘For, as to what concerns the people, that man must always be an incompetent judge
of worth who either envies or favours someone.’ Cic. Planc. 7)
Supplement:
Quod quidem ad nos duas / attinuit, praepotentes pulchre / . . . fuimus . . . (Pl. Poen.
1181a–2a); Quod ad rem publicam pertinet, omnino multis diebus exspectatione
Galliarum actum nihil est. (Cael. Fam. 8.8.4)
The grammatical status of quod in (a), (b), (d), and (e) differs from that in the examples
with attinet and pertinet (c), (f), and (g). Whereas in the former quod is merely a link-
ing device (that is: a subordinator), in the latter it functions as the subject of a relative
clause. It has a plural counterpart quae, as in (h). Compare also (i), with the relative
adjective quantum.71
(h) Sed quae ad custodiam religionis attinent, nescio an omnes M. Atilius
Regulus praecesserit . . .
(‘But in what concerns the safekeeping of religion, M. Atilius Regulus may
be thought to take first place . . .’ V. Max. 1.1.14)
(i) M. Atilium . . ., quantum ad Carthaginienses duces attinet, invictum ad ulti-
mum permansisse.
(‘Marcus Atilius . . . , so far as Carthaginian generals are concerned, remained
undefeated to the end.’ Liv. 28.43.17)
Supplement:
Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinet . . . (Cypr. Ep. 64.2.1)
Quod attinet clauses may also be used below the clause level, as in (j), where the quod
clause pertains to (hominem . . .) non ingratum.
(j) Caninium perdidi, hominem, quod ad me attinet, non ingratum.
(‘I have lost Caninius, a man who was not ungrateful as far as concerns me.’ Cic. Att.
16.14.4)
Supplement:
Qui omnes, quod ad me attinet, vellem viverent. (Cic. S. Rosc. 90); (sc. Antonius scripsit)
Quam honorifice, quod ad me attinet, ex ipsius litteris cognosces . . . (Cic. Att. 1.4.13.6)
16.39 Reason (causal) clauses
Reason (or: causal) satellite clauses are marked by one of the subordinators quod
and quia ‘because’, the originally temporal subordinators quandoque ‘whereas’
71 For more examples of the relative quantifier, see § 16.37.

quando(quidem) ‘inasmuch as’, and quoniam ‘seeing that’, and—rarely—the originally

spatial adverb quatenus ‘inasmuch as’. All these subordinators have other functions as
well, especially quod. Time clauses with cum (quom) ‘since’, ‘seeing that’ and dum ‘as’,
‘since’ can sometimes be interpreted as denoting the reason why an event occurs, but
they are not true reason clauses (see § 16.29 and § 16.30). Postquam clauses are also
sometimes interpreted in a causal sense (see § 16.32). For the causal interpretation of
si (especially si quidem) clauses, see § 16.60.
Reason clauses are used as adjuncts (indicating a cause and effect relationship
between the main and the subordinate clause); as attitudinal disjuncts (presenting the
evidence for what is said in the main clause); and as illocutionary disjuncts (indicat-
ing the reason why the statement in the main clause is made or the relevance of that
statement in its context).
The most typical subordinators used for adjuncts are quia and quod, for disjuncts
quoniam. Quia and quod are more or less equivalent to English ‘because’ and French
‘parce que’. Although they are treated as synonymous, they do not overlap completely
in their distribution (see the following sections). Quoniam and quando are used in
Early and Classical Latin to present a cause as an established fact; they are more or less
equivalent to English ‘since’, ‘considering that’ and French ‘puisque’.72
Adjunct reason clauses can be used as answers to cur, quam ob rem, quare (the last
two are much less frequent), and other ‘why?’ questions. While instances of quia
abound in the LLT, as in (a) and (b), a simple scan yields only one instance of quod, as
in (c), and only a couple of instances of quoniam in this use, all of which are found in
Silver Latin texts, as in (d) and (e), when its use is widened (see below).73 Quando and
quatenus are too infrequent to draw conclusions.
(a) Quor negas? # Quia vera didici dicere.
(‘Why are you denying it? # Because I have learnt to speak the truth.’ Pl. Am. 687)
(b) ‘Quare?’ inquit. Respondet: ‘Quia, nisi quod honestum est, nullum est aliud
bonum.’
(‘ “Why?”, says someone. “Because,” he answers, “nothing else is good but what is
morally good.” ’ Cic. Fin. 5.79)
(c) Parere dubitas? # Cur meam damnas fidem? / # Quod parcis hosti.
(‘You hesitate to obey? # Why do you censure my loyalty? # Because you would spare
my enemy.’ [Sen.] Oct. 863–4)
(d) Cur taceri voluit? Quoniam pater erat, quoniam numquam hi adfectus in
tantum vincuntur odio ut . . .
(‘Why did he want nothing said? Because he was a father, because these affections are
never so overcome by hate but that . . .’ Quint. Decl. 322.9)
72 For discussion, see Bolkestein (1991), Fugier (1989), and Mellet (1994; 1995).
73 Mellet (1994) refers to a contribution by Jean Kerger to the Budapest (1991) Colloquium on Latin
Linguistics about the use of quia and quod in answers, in which it was shown that quia is by far the most
frequently used subordinator. See also Baños (2014: 83–5), with a Table on p. 84.
Reason clauses 283
(e) Quare? Quoniam actio huius necessario ad alium pertinet.

(‘Why? Because this person’s action necessarily pertains to someone else.’ Quint.
Decl. 265.7)
Quia clauses can be used after the negative interrogative reason adverb quin ‘why
not?’, as in (f), and after quid? (= cur?) questions, as in (g). Quia clauses are also pos-
sible after a question with qui? in its meaning ‘how do you mean?’, ‘how so?’,74 that is,
they can be used as an illocutionary disjunct, as in (h).
(f) Quin, sceleste, <eam> apstrudebas, ne eam conspiceret pater? / # Quia
negotiosi eramus nos nostris negotiis.
(‘You criminal, why didn’t you hide her away so that my father wouldn’t spot
her? # Because we were busy with our own business.’ Pl. Mer. 190–1)
(g) Quid tibi tactio hunc fuit? # Quia iussit haec Iuno mea.
(‘What did you touch him for? # Because my Juno told me to.’ Pl. Cas. 408)
(h) Sacrufico ego tibi. # Qui? # Quia enim te macto infortunio.
(‘I’m making a sacrifice to you. # How do you mean? # Because I’m giving
you an offering of blows.’ Pl. Am. 1033–4)
With quia and quod clauses the main clause can contain a corresponding causal
expression, for example:
an adverb (in the order of their earliest appearance): ideo, propterea, idcirco,
eapropter ‘therefore’;
an ablative neuter singular form of certain pronouns: eo, hoc ‘through this’;
a prepositional phrase consisting of a causal preposition and a neuter pro-
noun: ob hoc, ob id ipsum ‘because of this’;
a prepositional phrase consisting of a causal preposition and a noun with a
rather general meaning: ob eam rem, ob eam causam ‘because of this matter’,
‘for that reason’.
Such corresponding expressions are used much more often with the subordinator
quod than with quia.75 In particular, they are very commonly used in legal and admin-
istrative texts to add further precision of expression. For the same reason they are
relatively frequent in Caesar (especially propterea, which is relatively frequent in
Cicero’s earlier works as well; the jurists favour ideo (quia)).76 In Early and Classical
Latin the disjunct quoniam is not compatible with these expressions; however, com-
binations do occur after the Classical period when its use is widened to contexts in
which quod and quia are normal.77 Quando and quatenus do not co-occur with these
expressions (no examples in the TLL).
74 See OLD s.v. qui2, § 1b; also Fleck (2008: 23–5).

75 The most common combinations in the period from Lucretius to Gellius can be found in
Baños (2014: 89–96).
76 See Odelman (1972: 139ff.).
77 Instances in TLL s.v. idcirco 175.64ff; s.v. ideo 217.43ff.; s.v. propterea 2132.68ff.
Ex. (i) shows a reason adjunct clause coordinated with a reason adjunct in the abla-
tive (a so-called ablativus causae, see § 10.87).78
(i) Belli Fidenatis contagione inritati Veientium animi et consanguinitate—nam
Fidenates quoque Etrusci fuerunt—et quod ipsa propinquitas loci . . . stimula-
bat, in fines Romanos excucurrerunt . . .
(‘The Veientes, their minds irritated by contact with the war from Fidenae both
because of kinship—for the Fidenates were Etruscans as well—and because the very
proximity of the place was inciting them, made a raid into Roman territory . . .’ Liv.
1.15.1—NB: the Latin sentence is anacoluthic)
Disjunct reason clauses denote the reason (i) for asserting, questioning, or demand-
ing the content of the main clause, (ii) for the form chosen for that content, or (iii) for
the transition to another part of the discourse. They are introduced by the subordina-
tors quoniam ‘now that’, ‘seeing that’, ‘since’, quando (quidem) ‘in view of the fact that’,
‘since’, ‘as’, also written as one word, quandoque ‘inasmuch as’, and quatenus ‘inasmuch
as’. Cum (quom) ‘when’ is also sometimes found in similar contexts, as in (l) (see
also § 16.29).
(j) Peregre quoniam advenis, cena detur.
(‘Since you’ve arrived from abroad, you’ll be given a dinner.’ Pl. Truc. 127)
(k) At etiam maledicis? # Immo, salvos quandoquidem advenis . . .
(‘What, do you even abuse me? # No, since you’ve arrived safe and sound . . .’ Pl.
Trin. 991)
(l) Salvos quom peregre advenis, / cena detur.
(‘Since you’ve returned from abroad safe and sound, you’ll be given a dinner.’ Pl. Bac.
536–7)
The distribution of these subordinators differs. Quoniam is spread evenly from Plautus
onwards, quando (quidem) is relatively frequent in some authors (Plautus, Terence,
Lucretius, and Tacitus) but (almost) absent from others. Quandoque is used by Cicero
in a few formulaic expressions, but is otherwise rare in this causal meaning. Causal
quatenus is introduced by Lucretius, and is then used with some frequency in prose
from Quintilian onwards, but, generally speaking, it is rare (until very Late Latin).
It has been noted that quia is sometimes found in contexts that are typical for quon-
iam and the two might be said to overlap to some extent.79 However, a speaker has a
choice, albeit limited, between presenting the content of the subordinate clause as a
justification for what he says in the main clause and indicating a cause and effect rela-
tionship between the two clauses. For examples, see § 16.40. Conversely, quoniam is
used more or less in the sense of quia and quod from the first century ad onwards. For
examples, see § 16.42.
78 Such cases of variatio are particularly common in Tacitus (Martin 1953: 91–2).
79 See Mellet (1995: 226–7) and Baños (2014: 153).
Reason clauses 285
For the use of the moods in reason clauses, see §§ 7.145–50.80

The relative adverbs of reason cur and quare are attested with the meaning ‘because’
from Quintilian onwards. Examples are (m) and (n). The verbs of the main clause are
verbs of emotion or punishment. Ex. (o) is mentioned as an early sign of the later
development.81
(m) . . . ut pueri non facere quae recta sunt cogantur, sed cur non fecerint puniantur.
(‘. . . that boys are not compelled to do what is right, but they are punished
because they have not done it.’ Quint. Inst. 1.3.15)
(n) . . . et nos pater mutuo mendacio temptat <et> quare non omnia statim
simpliciter dixerimus minatur.
(‘. . . the father is testing us with a lie like our own and threatening us because
we did not simply tell the whole truth in the first place.’ Quint. Decl. 259.15)
(o) Quod me saepe accusas cur hunc meum casum tam graviter feram, debes
ignoscere . . .
(‘As to your constantly finding fault with me for bearing my misfortune so
hard, you ought to pardon me . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.13.2)
. Reason clauses with quia (adjuncts)

Quia is the most explicit causal subordinator from Early Latin onward. Especially in
Plautus’ comedies it occurs in answers to requests for clarification (often reinforced by
enim ‘you know’). In Cicero too it is frequently found in answers, for example, to the
idiomatic phrase quid ita? ‘how come?’ Quod, by contrast, is not used in this way.
Moreover, the most frequent function of quia is that of a causal subordinator, whereas
with quod less than half of the instances are causal, from Early Latin onward. (For the
various uses of quia and quod, see also Figure 15.1 on p. 60.) Outside of the Classical
period, during which quod is used more frequently (see § 16.41), quia is the most
common causal subordinator. Examples are (a) and (b). The position of the quia
clause varies from author to author. It more often follows the main clause in Cicero
and Seneca (it usually contains focal information), while in other authors it more
often precedes (see below § 16.42). When the main clause contains a corresponding
expression, it more often follows than precedes the quia clause (at least in Cicero), as
in (c). This can also be seen as an indication of its unambiguous causal meaning. An
example of coordination of a quia clause with an adjunct noun phrase in the ablative
is (d). (See also ex. (i) in § 16.39.)
(a) Qui? # Quia enim nihil amas, quom ingratum amas.
(‘How so? # Because you love nothing when you’re in love with someone who doesn’t
appreciate it.’ Pl. Per. 228)
80 For the use of the moods in quod and quia clauses (§ 7.146), see Orlandini (2001: 347–55).
81 See Herman (1957) for examples of quare and for a discussion of the various explanations. See also
Bodelot (2003: 243) and Baños (2014: 56–8). See TLL s.v. cur 1451.30ff. for examples.
(b) Sola hic mi nunc videor, quia ille hinc abest . . .

(‘I feel alone now because that one . . . is away from here.’ Pl. Am. 640)
(c) Nam quia quam pulchra essent intellegebat, idcirco existimabat . . .
(‘For because he thoroughly understood how beautiful they were, he thought . . .’ Cic.
Ver. 4.98)
(d) Id facinus contra ius belli non avaritia neque scelere consulis admissum, sed
quia locus Iugurthae opportunus . . .
(‘This deed in contravention of the right of war was committed not as a result of the
consul’s greed and wickedness but because the place was of advantage to Jugurtha . . .’
Sal. Jug. 91.7)
Supplement:
Quid ita? # Quia aurum poscunt praesentarium. (Pl. Poen. 705); Quor me verberas?
/ # Quia vivis. (Pl. Mos. 9–11); Quid ita? Quia de manibus vestris effugit, quia se
occidi passus non est. (Cic. S. Rosc. 34); Concedo, et quod animus aequus est et quia
necesse est. (Cic. S. Rosc. 145—NB: coordination of a quod and a quia clause); . . . quod
tametsi eo volo quia mihi utile est, tamen abs te idcirco quia aequum est pos-
tulo . . . (Cic. Tul. 6); Etenim si qua Galli dicunt idcirco M. Fonteius nocens existi-
mandus est . . . (Cic. Font. 21); Sed qui non modo quia necesse est mori, verum etiam
quia nihil habet mors quod sit horrendum, mortem non timet . . . (Cic. Tusc.
2.2); . . . eaedem poenae in Laelium Balbum decernuntur, id quidem a laetantibus,
quia Balbus truci eloquentia habebatur, promptus adversum insontes. (Tac. Ann.
6.48.4); Neque infamia Paeti angebatur, quod eo maxime patuit quia filio eius tribuno
ducere manipulos atque operire reliquias malae pugnae imperavit. (Tac. Ann.
15.28.2); Quin et Caesarem se dici voluit, aspernatus antea, sed tunc superstitione
nominis et quia in metu consilia prudentium et vulgi rumor iuxta audiuntur. (Tac.
Hist. 3.58.3—NB: coordination with ablativus causae)
Quia is sometimes used in contexts where quoniam is possible as well. See (e) and (f).
This need not imply that the two are (partly) synonymous. Note in (g) the parallelism
between the quia and quoniam clauses.82 In (h), the quia clause serves as a justifica-
tion for the correctness of the content of the main clause, a typical context for quon-
iam. In Late Latin instances of this use of quia as a disjunct are common.
(e) Non quidem mihi opus est, sed quia tam valde vis, faciam tibi mei potestatem.
(‘I really do not need it, but since you so much wish it, I will surrender my will to
yours.’ Sen. Ben. 2.24.3)
(f) Addam, quoniam ita vis, eodem Q. Labienum, patruum tuum.
(‘I will add, since you wish it, that your uncle Quintus Labienus was there too.’ Cic.
Rab. Perd. 20)
82 See Mellet (1995: 226–7) and Baños (2011; 2014: 137–9) for further examples; discussion in
Pinkster (2009).
Reason clauses 287
(g) Tenue locis quia non potis est adfigere adhaesum, / liquitur extemplo et
revocatum cedit abortu. / Crassius hinc porro quoniam concretius aequo /
mittitur, aut non tam prolixo provolat ictu / aut . . .
(‘The thin, because it cannot stick and adhere to the parts, at once flows away and
departs withdrawn in untimely birth. That which is too thick, again, since it is emit-
ted too closely clotted, either does not leap forward with so far-reaching a blow, or . . .’
Lucr. 4.1242–6)
(h) Ergo (sc. sapiens) non miseretur, quia id sine miseria animi non fit.
(‘He, consequently, does not suffer pity, because there cannot be pity without mental
suffering.’ Sen. Cl. 2.6.1)
Supplement:
Nam quia vos tranquillos video, gaudeo et volup est mihi. (Pl. Am. 958—NB: various
interpretations);83 Amicitiarum autem ratio, quoniam partim sunt religionibus iunc-
tae, partim non sunt, et quia partim veteres sunt, partim novae . . . ex causarum dig-
nitatibus . . . ex vetustatibus habebitur. (Cic. Inv. 2.168); Consularia insignia
Nymphidio <Sabino decreta, de quo> quia nunc primum oblatus est, pauca repetam.
(Tac. Ann. 15.72.2—NB: textually uncertain); Et quia de publicandis dispositionibus
mentio contigit: ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectores provin<c>iis dare . . . nomina eorum
proponebat . . . (Hist. Aug. Alex. 45.6); Vigilate ergo, quia nescitis qua die Dominus
vester venturus sit. (Vulg. Mat. 24.42—NB: Greek has Ø~t)
. Reason clauses with quod (adjuncts)

Quod is the most frequent causal subordinator in Classical prose—Caesar has quia
only once—and it is popular in poetry in all periods. In Plautus, by contrast, quia is
the regular causal subordinator and it becomes common again after the Classical
period. Causal quod clauses are usually found in a non-sentence-initial position
(more so than quia clauses) and most often follow the main verb (the clause contains
focal information).84 They are often preceded or followed by one of the correlating
expressions (see § 16.39). Quod is also found relatively more often in immediate juxta-
position with one of the corresponding expressions (for example propterea quod or
ideo quod) than quia. In most authors propterea + quod is largely preferred over prop-
terea + quia.85 Whereas there was a decrease in the frequency of the causal adverbs
that were used independently in the Classical period, new combinations of a prepos-
itional (or adverbial) expression + quod were introduced. Some of these contiguous
83 See Baños (2014: 137).

84 Statistics about quia, quod, and quoniam clauses in Cicero and Seneca phil. in Bolkestein (1991:
437). More statistics, including quando, in Mellet (1994; 1995). See also den Hengst (2007) on Suetonius,
Ammianus Marcellinus, and the Historia Augusta. For a survey of the order of reason clauses with respect
to their main clause, see Baños (2014: 112).
85 See TLL s.v. propterea 2131.69ff.
expressions became idioms, developing into new Latin/Romance causal subordina-

tors and taking over the causal function of quod itself.86
(a) Nam idcirco arcessor, nuptias quod mi adparari sensit.
(‘For I’m being sent for because she’s heard about the wedding preparations.’ Ter.
An. 690)
(b) . . . ob eam rem quod pequniam ex h. l. ceper<it>
(‘. . . for this reason that he took money under this law . . .’ CIL I2.583.A28 (Lex Acilia,
122 bc))
Supplement:
Without a correlating device: Numqui nummi exciderunt, ere, tibi, quod sic terram
obtuere? (Pl. Bac. 668–8a); Non tam insolens sum, quod Iovem esse me dico, quam
ineruditus, quod Minervam sororem Iovis esse existimo . . . (Cic. Dom. 92); <Tau>rus ·
Statilius · Corvinu · promagister · collegii · fratrum Arvaliu<m / nomine>,
quod · hoc · die · C. · Caesar · Augustus · Germanicus · a senatu · impera<tor
appellatus est / in> Capitolio · Iovi, · Iunoni, · Minervae · hostias · maiores ·
III / · inmol<avit . . . (CIL VI.20289–11 (Rome, ad 38)); Namque omnis exercitus
flammaverat adrogantia venientium a Vitellio militum, quod . . . ceteros ut imparis
inridebant. (Tac. Hist. 2.74.1)
With a correlating device: Sane hoc, credo, Tranio, / quod te in pistrinum scis actu-
tum tradier. (Pl. Mos. 16–17); Ecquis est tandem qui vestrorum, quod ad sese attineat,
aequum censeat, poenas dare ob eam rem quod arguatur male facere voluisse? (Cato
hist. 95d=90C); . . . propter · ea · quod · scibamus / ea · vos · merito · nostro ·
facere · non · potuisse . . . (CIL I2.586.6 (Tivoli, 159 bc)); Nec haec idcirco omitto
quod non gravissima sint, sed quia nunc sine teste dico. (Cic. Prov. 6); Quae fama non
idcirco solum emanarat quod iste certe statuerat ac deliberaverat non adesse, verum
etiam quod nemo quemquam tam audacem . . . fore arbitrabatur . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.1);
Idque adeo haud scio mirandumne sit cum conpluribus aliis de causis, tum maxime,
quod . . . gravissime dolebant. (Caes. Gal. 5.54.5); Ob id castigatis ab Hannone,
quod ne fames quidem, quae mutas accenderet bestias, curam eorum stimulare pos-
set, alia prodicta dies ad frumentum maiore apparatu petendum. (Liv. 25.13.7); Non
ideo, quod habeo, meum non est, si meum tuum est. (Sen. Ben. 7.4.6); . . . propter hoc
ipsum, quod sunt prava, laudantur. (Quint. Inst. 2.5.10); Item aut dicenda eam docere
aut non dicenda: ita vel per hoc non esse artem, quod non dicenda praecipiat, vel per
hoc, quod, cum dicenda praeceperit, etiam contraria his doceat. (Quint. Inst.
2.17.30); Nec video, quare curam dicendi putent quidam inde coepisse, quod ii qui
in discrimen aliquod vocabantur adcuratius loqui defendendi sui gratia instituerint.
(Quint. Inst. 3.2.2); Et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes nationes terrae pro eo quod
(quia Vulgate) audisti vocem meam . . . (Vet. Lat. Gen. 22.18); Per id quod ergo de
caelo venisse dicitur, angelorum dictus est panis. ([August.] Qu. test. 20.1); Intelligitur
autem passio ex eo quod sanguineos oculos habeat . . . (Mulom. Chir. 290)
From the Vetus Latina versions of the Bible onwards new causal subordinators or
subordinator-like expressions based on a causal preposition and the subordinator
86 For this development, see Herman (1963: 108–11).

Reason clauses 289
quod emerged, so for example propter quod (‘because’, lit.: ‘because of ’ + ‘that’, as in
(c), and pro quod.87
(c) Dedit mihi Deus mercedem meam propter quod dedi ancillam meam
viro meo.
(‘God has given me my payment because I gave my maidservant to my husband’. Vet.
Lat. Gen. 30.18 (quia Vulgate))
Supplement:
‘Mellitidina’ dicunt pro quod . . . apes manducant. (Diosc. 3); . . . et cibum recusat et
multum bibet, propter quod ardorem siccum pulmonis patitur. (Mulom. Chir. 170)
. Reason clauses with quoniam (disjuncts)

Quoniam ‘since’, ‘considering that’ is used as a causal subordinator from Early Latin
onwards and is common until the mid third century ad. In Early and Classical Latin
it functions as a disjunct, indicating either the evidence on the basis of which the
speaker/writer presents the information in the main clause or the function of that
clause in the context.88 Often quoniam clauses contain information that is shared
between the speaker and the addressee or which is manifest in the situation and is
therefore certain. Quoniam clauses as a rule do not contain expressions that detract
from the certainty of the information (like fortasse ‘perhaps’). The combination non
quoniam followed by the real reason (sed quoniam) is extremely rare (in the LLT only
Quint. Decl. 308.2). Since quoniam clauses often contain given information they are
often found in sentence-initial position (in some authors this tendency is more pro-
nounced than in others).89 On the basis of the meaning of the subordinator it can be
understood why quoniam clauses containing enim are almost non-existent (three
instances in Cicero): enim also appeals to shared knowledge (see § 24.40). By con-
trast, the sequence nam quoniam is not uncommon.90 Quoniam clauses relatively
often contain the emphasizer quidem (see § 22.26; the LLT has no instance of quia
quidem).91 Quoniam clauses often function as a summary of the preceding context
and as a way of making a transition. It is interesting to note that Cicero has seventy-
nine sentences starting with Et quoniam but none with Et quod. Because quoniam
clauses contain statements of the speaker/writer, the perfect tense is more frequent in
these clauses than in satellite clauses with quia and quod, which more often belong to
the storyline in a narrative and are therefore in the imperfect tense. Because of its
87 See Spevak (2006b) and Baños (2011: 228–30; 2014: 166–72).

88 For the disjunct status of quoniam and the differences between it and quia and quod, see Fugier (1989),
Bolkestein (1991: 424–41), and Kroon (2014). For these subordinators and quando, and the differences
between them, see Mellet (1994; 1995).
89 For Lucretius, in which the two orders are equally frequent, see Schrijvers (1970: 184–8). Editors
vary in the way they punctuate quoniam quidem at Cic. Dom. 69.
90 For enim in a main clause with which a quoniam clause is combined, see Baños (2014: 131, n. 186).
91 For the use of quidem in quoniam and other disjunct clauses, see Kroon (2005: 586–7; 2009b: 154).
See also Solodow (1978: 134–5).
specific meaning, the frequency of its use varies across individual authors (and types
of text). Cicero uses quoniam clauses quite frequently, while Livy, given the character
of his work, does not, except (as is to be expected) in the speeches (thirty-nine times
out of a total of forty-six).
In (a) the quoniam clause explains why the speaker is telling the truth in vain. In (b)
it refers to the critique of Cicero by his opponent. It forms the reason to ask the ques-
tion in the main clause. Ex. (c) indicates the speaker’s motive for his exposé. Ex. (d)
indicates the transition of the discourse from one topic to another.
(a) Vera dico, sed nequiquam, quoniam non vis credere.
(‘I’m telling the truth, but in vain, since you don’t want to believe me.’ Pl. Am. 835)
(b) Et quoniam hoc reprehendis, quod solere me dicas de me ipsum gloriosius
praedicare, quis umquam audivit cum ego de me nisi coactus ac necessario
dicerem?
(‘Since you criticize me for this in saying that I am accustomed to talk too boastfully
about myself, who has ever heard me when I was talking about myself except when
constrained to do so and when it was absolutely necessary?’ Cic. Dom. 93)
(c) Equidem vobis, quoniam ita voluistis, fontes, unde hauriretis atque itinera
ipsa ita putavi esse demonstranda, non ut . . .
(‘For my part, I thought that I should show you, since that is what you wanted, the
sources from which you might draw and the paths leading to them, not so that . . .’
(d) Quoniam de genere belli dixi, nunc de magnitudine pauca dicam.
(‘Since I have spoken about the nature of the war, I will now say a few words about its
magnitude.’ Cic. Man. 20)
Supplement:
Attitudinal disjuncts: Mater ancillas iubet, / quoniam iam decumus mensis adven-
tat prope, / aliam aliorsum ire . . . (Pl. Truc. 401–3—NB: combination quoniam iam);
Quaeso edepol, Charine, quoniam non potest id fieri quod vis, / id velis quod possit.
(Ter. An. 305–6); Vos, Quirites, quoniam iam est nox, . . . in vestra tecta dis-
cedite . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.29—NB: imperative main clause); Ubi igitur crimen est, quon-
iam quidem furtum nusquam reprehendis, edictum probas, iudicatum fateris . . .?
(Cic. Flac. 68—NB: interrogative main clause); Quare etsi nefarie fecisti, tamen, quon-
iam in meo inimico crudelitatem exprompsisti tuam, laudare non possum, irasci
certe non debeo. (Cic. Mil. 33); Nunc quoniam hostis est iudicatus Dolabella, bello est
persequendus. (Cic. Phil. 11.16); Et forsitan in suscipienda causa temere impulsus
adulescentia fecerim. Quoniam quidem semel suscepi, licet Hercules undique omnes
minae terrores periculaque impendeant omnia, succurram ac subibo. (Cic. S. Rosc.
31);92 An tu quoniam hoc non audes dicere, illuc confugies, vecturae difficultate
adductus ternos denarios dare maluisse? (Cic. Ver. 3.191—NB: interrogative main
clause); Gratulemurque nobis, quoniam mors aut meliorem, quam qui est in vita, aut
92 For the interpretation of quidem and references, see Solodow (1978: 134–5).
Reason clauses 291
certe non deteriorem adlatura est statum. (Cic. Leg. frg. 1—quoted by Lactantius Inst.
3.19.2); Quoniam habes istum equum, aut emeris oportet aut hereditate possideas
aut munere acceperis aut domi tibi natus sit aut, si eorum nihil est, subripueris necesse
est. (Cic. Inv. 1.84); Tuus est enim profecto, quoniam quidem est missus ad te. (Cic.
Att. 12.6.2); Nam quoniam Fundis sum cum Ligure nostro, discrucior Sestulli fun-
dum a verberone Curtilio possideri. (Cic. Att. 14.6.1); Quoniam autem ex tribus
medicinae partibus, ut difficillima, sic etiam clarissima est ea quae morbis (sc. victu)
medetur, ante omnia de hac dicendum est. (Cels. 1. pr.12); ‘Quomodo ergo’ inquis
‘venti fiunt, quoniam hoc negas fieri?’ (Sen. Nat. 5.4.1); Et quoniam religione vita
constat, prolibare diis nefastum habetur vina . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.119)
Illocutionary disjuncts: Quoniam ad hunc locum perventum est, non alienum esse
videtur de Galliae Germaniaeque moribus et quo differant hae nationes inter sese
proponere. (Caes. Gal. 6.11.1); Sed quoniam in eas regiones per Leptitanorum nego-
tia venimus, non indignum videtur egregium atque mirabile facinus duorum
Carthaginiensium memorare. (Sal. Jug. 79.1); Quoniam sementi terram docuimus
praeparare, nunc seminum genera persequamur. (Col. 2.6.1); Et quoniam de frugum
terraeque generibus abunde diximus, nunc de arandi ratione dicemus . . . (Plin. Nat.
18.167); Sed quoniam de his rebus diximus, nunc terrae positionem definiemus et
mare, quibus locis interfusum videatur, ordine exponemus. (Hyg. Astr. 1.8)
Ammianus Marcellinus has thirty-six instances of sentence-initial Et quoniam (out of
a total of eighty-three) and thirty-two instances of Et quia (out of seventy-four).
Cicero has Et quia only twice. He has eleven combinations of quoniam and igitur,
none of quia and igitur. Ammianus has quia igitur seven times. Quoniam autem is
found eight times in Cicero and a few times elsewhere; quia autem is non-existent in
the LLT until very late.
Quoniam is said to have become ‘entirely synonymous’93 with quod and quia in Silver
Latin (especially in Celsus, Columella, Pliny the Elder, and later authors), which leads
one to wonder what happened to its original, more specific function (see the
Appendix). On closer inspection, the main function of quoniam remained that of a
disjunct (see examples above), although there are instances where quoniam is more or
less equivalent to quia.94 Ex. (e) is sometimes taken as an early example of the equiva-
lence of quoniam to quia since Lucretius has several instances of the sequence quia . . .,
propterea fit, but there is nothing against taking quoniam in its normal sense.95
Correlative causal expressions are relatively rare. An example is (f).96 A remarkable
instance in answer to a cur? question is (i). Note the position of the quoniam clause
after the main clause in (g) and (h).
(e) Postremo quoniam non omnia corpora vocem / mittere concedis neque
odorem, propterea fit / ut non . . .
93 So Sz.: 627; for Celsus, see Marx (1915: 467).

94 See Roca (1997) (on Ammianus), Pinkster (2009; 2010a), Baños (2011: 227–8; 2014: 146–8), and
Sznajder (2019).
95 For ‘weakened’ quoniam in this case, see K.-St.: II.384 and Mellet (1994: 208). For a more balanced
view, see Baños (2014: 147–8).
96 In Cic. Att. 3.1 Quod eo facilius potes quoniam . . . is quod eo supplement of Cratander.
(‘Lastly, since you grant that not all bodies emit sound or smell, for that reason it fol-
lows that . . . not . . .’ Lucr. 2.834–6)
(f) Quod tamen in labris ideo non est necessarium, quoniam excidere commo-
dius est.
(‘This procedure is not necessary for any ulcer on the lips since excision is more con-
venient.’ Cels. 6.15.4)
(g) . . . non est opus ignibus aut flammis, quoniam fumo et fuligine sapor olei
corrumpitur.
(‘. . . fire or flame should not be used, as the taste of oil is spoiled by smoke and soot.’
Col. 1.6.18)
(h) Omne oleo tranquillari, et ob id urinantes ore spargere, quoniam mitiget
naturam asperam lucemque deportet.
(‘That all (sc. sea water) is made smooth by oil, and for that reason divers sprinkle oil
from their mouth because it calms the rough element and carries light down with
them.’ Plin. Nat. 2.234—NB: ob id refers to the preceding clause)
(i) Cur ita? Quoniam subsequens sermo prophetae exprobrat eis dicens: . . .
(‘Why so? Because the subsequent discourse of the prophet reproaches them, say-
ing . . .’ Tert. Iud. 3.5—tr. Therwell)
Supplement:
With a correlative device: An quoniam agrestem detraxit ab ore figuram / Iuppiter,
idcirco facta superba dea es? (Prop. 2.33a.13–14); Obscurarum vero causarum et
naturalium actionum quaestionem ideo supervacuam esse contendunt, quoniam non
comprehensibilis natura sit. (Cels. 1.pr.27); Et idcirco veteres vineas mergis propagare
potius quam totas sternere idem ipse Atticus praecepit, quoniam mergi mox facile
radicentur . . . (Col. 4.2.2); Meminerimus idcirco te in istam provinciam missum, quon-
iam multa in ea emendanda adparuerint. (Tra. Plin. Ep. 10.32.1); Quodsi . . . idcirco
vobis quoque irascuntur, quoniam de nostra eradica<tione n>eglegitis, absolutum
est . . . (Tert. Nat. 1.9.10)
NB: Parallelism: Nam quoniam nec sublimiter potest nec per longa spatia volitare,
tum etiam quia furis et noxiorum animalium rapinae metus non est, sine custode
tuto vagatur . . . (Col. 8.11.1); Ne Tiberium quidem caritate aut rei publicae cura suc-
cessorem adscitum sed, quoniam adrogantiam saevitiamque eius introspexerit, com-
paratione deterrima sibi gloriam quaesivisse. (Tac. Ann. 1.10.7); Si recte imperat,
non, quia imperat, parendum, sed quoniam id fieri ius est, faciendum est. (Gel.
2.7.7); Et tormentum quidem appellatur ex eo quod omnis explicatio torquetur, scor-
pio autem, quoniam aculeum desuper habet erectum . . . (Amm. 23.4.7)
Appendix: The preposition pro can sometimes be interpreted in a causal sense, espe-
cially in Late Latin.97 The complex subordinator (on which see § 16.84) pro eo quod
‘for this reason that’ is used in Late Latin, especially in the Vulgate, as a causal subor-
dinator functioning more or less as quoniam. An example is (j).98
97 See TLL s.v. pro 1434.7ff.; for examples of pro eo quod, see 1435.35ff.
98 For quantitative data and discussion, see Baños (2014: 159–66).
Reason clauses 293
(j) Propterea haec dicit Dominus exercituum: pro eo quod non audistis verba
mea, / ecce ego mittam et adsumam universas cognationes aquilonis . . .
(‘Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, “Because you have not obeyed My
words, behold, I will send and take all the families of the north . . .” ’ Vulg. Jer.
25.8–9—NB: Gr. §.ptoi)
. Reason clauses with quando(quidem) (disjuncts)

Non-temporal use of quando (usually in combination with quidem)99 is found as early
as Plautus and Terence. Examples are (a)–(c). Here, the quando clauses function as
disjuncts: in (a), the decision to leave is definitely based upon Cappadox’ interpret-
ation of Aesculapius’ intentions, but the subordinator can also portray the two events
as contemporaneous: ‘when (or: ‘now that’) Aesculapius’ intentions are thus, I know
what to do’. Ex. (d) shows the use of a quando clause for the purpose of discourse
management. See also (e) and (f), which show that quando and quoniam, respectively,
are almost interchangeable (in Plautus). However, quando clauses follow their main
clauses more often than quoniam clauses and seem to play a more important role in
logical reasoning (at least in Lucretius). Note also the co-occurrence of quoniam and
quando in (g).100
(a) Migrare certum est iam nunc . . ., / quando Aesculapi ita sentio sententiam . . .
(‘I’m resolved to leave now . . . now that I feel that’s the decision of Aesculapius . . .’ Pl.
Cur. 216–17)
(b) Age sane igitur, quando aequom oras, quam mox incendo rogum?
(‘Go on then, since what you ask is fair, how soon shall I set fire to the pyre?’ Pl. Men.
153)
(c) Immo, quandoquidem ducenda’st, egomet habeo propemodum / quam volo.
(‘No. Since I’ve got to marry, I have one in mind whom I like pretty well.’ Ter. Hau.
1064–5)
(d) Quando enim me in hunc locum deduxit oratio, docebo meliora me didi-
cisse de colendis diis . . .
(‘For, seeing as my discourse has led me to this topic, I will show that I have received
sounder doctrine about the proper way of worshipping the gods . . .’ Cic. N.D. 3.43)
(e) Non loquar nisi pace facta, quando pugnis plus vales.
(‘I won’t speak unless peace has been made, since you have more strength in your
fists.’ Pl. Am. 390)
(f) Ut lubet, quid tibi lubet fac, quoniam pugnis plus vales.
(‘Do what you like as you like, since you have more strength in your fists.’ Pl. Am. 396)
99 See Solodow (1978: 135–6). The combination quippe quando occurs in Pl. Capt. 886.
100 For the differences between quando and quoniam, see Mellet (1994: 204–14; 1995: 212–20) and
Baños (2014: 65–7). For their distribution, see Baños (2014: 65). For the use of quando in Livy, see
Fatello (2016).
(g) Sed quoniam non possunt omnia simul dici, haec in praesentia nota esse
debebunt, voluptatem semovendam esse, quando ad maiora quaedam, ut
iam apparebit, nati sumus.
(‘But since not everything can be said at the same time, for the present it will have to
be noted that pleasure must be discarded on the ground that, as will become apparent
later, we were born for greater things.’ Cic. Fin. 5.21)
In Silver and Late Latin quando(quidem) is used more or less as an equivalent to a
causal adjunct. Examples are (h) and (i). In the jurists this use is quite common.
(h) Quidam omnium id ducum consilium fuisse, ostentare potius urbi bellum
quam inferre, quando validissimae cohortes a Vitellio descivissent.
(‘Some held that it was the advice of all the leaders to threaten Rome with war rather
than make war on her, since the strongest cohorts had already abandoned Vitellius.’
Tac. Hist. 3.78.2)
(i) Et illi mecum furti servi nomine agere possunt, quando et noxa caput sequitur.
(‘And they can bring theft against me on the slave’s account since delictual liability
attaches to the person.’ Afric. dig. 13.6.21.1)
. Reason clauses with quandoque (disjuncts)

Quandoque clauses are very rarely used as reason disjuncts. Cicero and Livy use this
subordinator in formal contexts, as in (a) and (b). There are also a few later instances.
(a) An illa (sc. praefatio): ‘Quandoque tu nulla umquam mihi in cupiditate ac
turpitudine defuisti . . . ob eas res te quoniam re locupletavi, hoc anulo aureo
dono’?
(‘Or perhaps the words were “Inasmuch as you have never failed me in any matter of
cupidity or filthiness . . . in recognition hereof, and having already enriched you with
substance, I now present you with this gold ring”?’ Cic. Ver. 3.187)
(b) ‘Quandoque’, inquit, ‘tu, T. Manli, neque imperium consulare neque
maiestatem patriam veritus adversus edictum nostrum extra ordinem in
hostem pugnasti . . . nos potius nostro delicto plectemur quam . . .’
(‘He said, “Inasmuch, Titus Manlius, as you have held in reverence neither consular
authority nor a father’s dignity, and despite our edict have quitted your place to fight
the enemy . . ., we will sooner be punished for our wrong-doing than . . .” ’ Liv. 8.7.15–17)
. Reason clauses with quatenus (disjuncts)

Lucretius is the first to use quatenus (also written as two words qua tenus) as a causal
disjunct, as in (a), probably because it is metrically convenient. Valerius Maximus is
the first prose author for whom it is attested. Quintilian has five instances, one of
Reason clauses 295
which is (b), where the clause is used for the purpose of discourse management. Later
authors, among them Tertullian, as in (c), continue to use it but only infrequently.101
(a) Tu fac utrumque uno subiungas nomine eorum / atque animam verbi causa
cum dicere pergam, / mortalem esse docens, animum quoque dicere credas, /
qua tenus est unum inter se coniunctaque res est.
((talking about anima and animus) ‘Be it yours to link both of these in a single name,
and when, to choose a case, I proceed to speak of the soul, proving that it is mortal,
suppose that I speak of the mind as well, inasmuch as they are one each with the other
and compose a single thing.’ Lucr. 3.421–4)
(b) Sed quatenus etiam forte quadam pervenimus ad difficilius narrationum
genus, iam de eis loquamur, in quibus res contra nos erit.
(‘Since we have now inadvertently arrived at the more difficult kind of narratives, let
us speak of those in which the facts are against us.’ Quint. Inst. 4.2.66)
(c) Quatenus ita scripturae docent, haec dicimus et in filium competisse et in his
filium venisse et in his semper egisse et sic ea in se hominibus manifestasse.
(‘In as much as the scriptures so teach, we say that these also have applied to the Son,
and that in these the Son came, and in these always acted, and thus in himself mani-
fested them to men.’ Tert. Prax. 17.2—tr. Evans)
. Reason clauses with quin (adjuncts)

Quin is used in reason clauses in which a specific reason is denied, that is in the com-
bination non quin, as in (a)—note corresponding sed quia. Quin itself is negative as
well. In the Classical and Silver Latin period it is an alternative of non quo non (see
§ 16.47). (Non quia/quod non are found from the first century onwards.102) Outside
this combination the use of quin as a reason subordinator is very rare. It can be used
with a correlative expression in the main clause, as in (b). The mood is the subjunct-
ive, as is common with hypothetical reasons (see § 7.146).
(a) Sed tamen maiores nostri in dominum quaeri noluerunt, non quin posset
verum inveniri, sed quia videbatur indignum . . .
(‘Still, the intention of our ancestors was that a slave should not be examined against
his master; not because it was impossible thus to discover truth, but because it was
felt to be unnatural . . .’ Cic. Mil. 59)
(b) Non eo haec dico, quin quae tu vis ego velim et faciam lubens.
(‘My saying this doesn’t mean that I don’t want what you want or that I wouldn’t do it
with pleasure.’ Pl. Trin. 341)
101 See Wölfflin (1888: 404–7) and Baños (2014: 80–1).

102 See Tableau 11 in Fleck (2008: 239). See also Baños (2014: 50–4).
. Reason clauses with quo (adjuncts)

Quo is used from Terence onwards in reason clauses in which a specific reason is
denied, that is in the combination non quo or, with a negated correlative reason
expression in the main clause, non eo . . . quo. Examples are (a)–(e). The quo clause
itself may be denied as well, as in (e). It is not always clear whether the quo clause is a
reason or a purpose clause (for which, see § 16.51). The mood is the subjunctive, as is
common with hypothetical reasons (see § 7.146).103
(a) Si id est peccatum, peccatum inprudentia’st / poetae, non quo furtum facere
studuerit.
(‘If that was an offence, the offence was due to the inadvertence of the poet, not
because he wanted to commit plagiarism.’ Ter. Eu. 27–8)
(b) Verum id feci, non quo vos hanc in hac causa defensionem desiderare
arbitrarer, sed ut omnes intellegerent nec ademptam cuiquam civitatem esse
neque adimi posse.
(‘But I have done so, not because I thought that in this case you would look for this
particular defence, but so that everyone might understand that citizenship has never
been and can never be taken away from any man.’ Cic. Caec. 101—NB: coordination
with purpose clause)
(c) Quin etiam mihi quidem laudabiliora videntur omnia, quae sine vendita-
tione et sine populo teste fiunt, non quo fugiendus sit—omnia enim bene
facta in luce se conlocari volunt—sed tamen nullum theatrum virtuti con-
scientia maius est.
(‘Nay more, to my mind all things seem more praiseworthy which are done without
glorification and without publicity, not that this is to be avoided—for all things done
well tend to be set in the light of day—but all the same there is no audience for virtue
of higher authority than the approval of conscience.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.64)
(d) Non quo multa parum simili sint praedita forma, / sed quia non volgo paria
omnibus omnia constant.
(‘Not that there are only a few endowed with similar shape, but because it is not com-
monly the case that all like all.’ Lucr. 2.336–7)
(e) Non eo dico, C. Aquili, quo mihi veniat in dubium tua fides et constantia aut
quo non in eis quos tibi advocavisti . . . spem summam habere P. Quinctius
debeat.
(‘I do not say this, Aquilius, because I have any doubt of your firmness and integrity,
or because I think Quinctius ought not to have the highest confidence in
those . . . whom you have summoned to be your assessors.’ Cic. Quinct. 5)
103 For the use of quo as a reason subordinator, see Torrego (1988: 324–7) and Baños (2014: 50–4).
Purpose and stipulative clauses 297
. Later developments

Christian authors use a number of expressions to indicate that a subordinate clause
contains the reason for the content of the main clause.104 Examples are (a) and (b).
A few instances are recorded of ut in a causal sense, as in (c), where the Greek text
has Ø~t and the Vulgate quia.
(a) Tument contra me mariti, quare dixerim: oro te, quale illud bonum est, quod
orare prohibet, quod corpus Christi accipere non permittit?
(‘Married men are passionately against me, because I have said: I ask you, what sort
of good is that for which the body of Christ forbids you to pray and which the body
of Christ does not allow you to receive?’ Hier. Ep. 49.15.2)
(b) Haec dicit dominus: quomodo occidisti Nabutheum et possedisti vineam
eius, propter hoc haec dicit dominus.
(‘The Lord says the following: since you have killed Naboth and have taken posses-
sion of his vineyard, because of this the Lord says the following.’ Vet. Lat. III Reg.
21.19 (= Lucif. Athan. 1.19))
(c) Ideo in parabolis loquor, ut videntes non vident et audientes non audiunt
neque intellegunt.
(‘For that reason I speak in parables, because seeing they do not see and hearing they
do not hear or understand.’ Vet. Lat. Mat. 13.13)
16.49 Purpose (final) clauses
Purpose (or: final) satellite clauses indicate for what purpose the event of the main
clause is, was, or will be undertaken. They are found both as adjuncts (stating the
purpose why an event takes place) and as attitudinal and illocutionary disjuncts (in
the latter case they may indicate the purpose for which a statement is made).105 The
final subordinators are ut(i) (negative ut(i) ne or ne), quo ‘so that thereby’ (exception-
ally made negative with ne in Horace—see below), and rarely (in Early Latin) qui
‘in order that by this means’.106 Of these only ut clauses function as disjuncts.107 (For
so-called relative clauses of purpose, see § 18.26 and § 21.15.)
Purpose adjuncts are typically only used when the main clause contains a control-
lable event.108 They are strongly integrated in their governing clauses, as appears from
the fact that the tense of the purpose clause is usually determined on the basis of the
104 See Blaise (1955: 159–60—not very reliable), Sz.: 647–8, and Baños (2014: 74–7).
105 See Vester (1994).
106 For subjunctive clauses without ut, see § 16.4 fin. Mss. vary at Vitr. 2.pr.1 (Ø S; ut HEG).
107 See Torrego (1988: 328).
108 For contextual factors that facilitate a purpose interpretation of an ut clause when the main clause
does not really contain a controllable verb, see Torrego (2001).
same reference point as the governing clause (the rules of the ‘sequence of tenses’
apply—see § 7.85) and from the fact that the reflexive pronoun is used to refer to the
‘source’ of the wished outcome, usually the subject of the governing clause, as in (e).
In (f), eius refers to Pompeius, the subject of the immediate superordinate clause and
not to necessarii, the real ‘source’ of the purpose clause, which explains why there is no
reflexive pronoun.109 Ut and (ut) ne purpose clauses occur as answer to questions
with cur ‘why’, quare ‘why’, quam ob rem ‘for what reason’, and other ‘why’ questions.
The same question words may also elicit reason clauses (see § 16.39).110 Examples
answering cur are (a)–(c). See also (d), answering quo? ‘what for?’
(a) Sed iube / . . . / . . . agnum afferri proprium pinguem. # Quor? # Ut sacrufices.
(‘But order . . . a suitable fat lamb to be brought here. # Why? # So you can sacrifice it.’
Pl. Capt. 860–2)
(b) Tene me, opsecro. # Quor? # Ne cadam.
(‘Hold me, please. # Why? # So that I won’t fall.’ Pl. Mil. 1260)
(c) Ad hunc legatos? Cur? An ut eorum reditu vehementius pertimescatis?
(‘Envoys to this man? Why? So that on the envoys’ return you may be in greater
panic?’ Cic. Phil. 8.20)
(d) Hoc quo? Ut si per dilationes iudicis effectum sit, ut actio eximatur, fiat
restitutio.
(‘What is the point of this? So that restitutio can be made, if through adjournments
made by a judge it comes about that an action is lost.’ Ulp. dig. 4.6.26.4)
(e) Nam erus meus me Eretriam misit, domitos boves uti sibi mercarer.
(‘You see, my master has sent me to Eretria to purchase some plough-broken oxen for
him.’ Pl. Per. 259)
(f) . . . cum eius necessarii fidem implorarent Pompei, praestaret quod proficiscenti
recepisset, ne per eius auctoritatem deceptus videretur . . .
(‘. . . while his friends implored Pompeius to keep his word and fulfil the promise he
made him at his departure, so that he would not seem to have been deceived through
the influence of Pompey’s authority . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.82.4)
The correlating expressions found with ut and (ut) ne purpose clauses are practically the
same as those with reason clauses: idcirco ‘for that reason’, ideo ‘for the reason (that)’,
ob eam causam ‘as a result of this’, eo consilio ‘for this purpose’, etc. Examples are (g)–(j).
(g) Legum ministri magistratus, legum interpretes iudices, legum denique idcirco
omnes servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus.
(‘The magistrates who administer the law, the jurors who interpret it—all of us in
short—are slaves to the law so that we can be free.’ Cic. Clu. 146)
109 For the aspect of control, and exceptions, see Torrego (2001), Bodelot (2002a), and Cabrillana (2011:
41–6). For the high degree of integration of purpose clauses, see Ros (2001) and Pieroni (2010: 439–43).
110 For the relationship between reason clauses and purpose clauses, see Torrego (1988: 319–21).
(h) Idcirco nemo superiorum attigit ut hic tolleret? Ideo C. Claudius Pulcher ret-
tulit ut C. Verres posset auferre?
(‘Was it for this reason that none of his predecessors ever touched these things, that
he might be able to carry them off? Was this the reason why Caius Claudius Pulcher
restored them, that Caius Verres might be able to steal them?’ Cic. Ver. 4.7)
(i) Qui ob eam causam natus videtur ne omnium mortalium turpissimus esset
M. Antonius.
(‘Who seems to have been born for this reason, that Marcus Antonius might not be
the basest of all living men.’ Cic. Phil. 10.22)
(j) Haec ego non eo consilio disputo ut homines eruditos redarguam.
(‘I do not treat these matters for the purpose of contradicting accomplished people.’
Purpose clauses functioning as attitudinal or illocutionary disjuncts (often called
‘pseudo-final clauses’) are not restricted to main clauses that refer to a controllable
event—see (n) and (o); are not used in answer to ‘why’ questions; and are not com-
bined with a correlating expression in the main clause. The verb of the ut clause is
usually in the present tense, but see the rare non-anterior use of the perfect form
dixerim in (q).111 Exx. (k)–(m) contain attitudinal disjuncts, (n)–(p) illocutionary
disjuncts. More examples are given in the section on ut below.112
(k) Atque ego quidem hercle ut verum tibi dicam, pater, / ea res me male habet.
(‘And to tell you the truth, father, that does make me feel down.’ Pl. As. 843–4)
(l) . . . in quibus inerat ille etiam annus qui nos hoc <non> defendente, ne dicam
gravius, adflixerat . . .
(‘. . . among which was also that year which ruined me, without his defending me (not
to put it more strongly) . . .’ Cic. Att. 9.5.2)
(m) Ut breviter finiam, morbus est iudicium in pravo pertinax, tamquam valde
expetenda sint quae leviter expetenda sunt.
(‘To give a brief definition: “disease” is a persistent perversion of the judgement,
so that things which are mildly desirable are thought to be highly desirable.’ Sen. Ep.
75.11)
(n) Nunc de Alcumena ut rem teneatis rectius, / utrimque est gravida, et ex viro
et ex summo Iove.
(‘Now as for Alcumena, so that you can understand the situation clearly: she’s preg-
nant from both, from her husband and from great Jupiter.’ Pl. Am. 110–11)
(o) Nunc adeo, ut tu scire possis, leno, meam sententiam, / libera haec est . . .
(‘And now, so you can know my opinion, pimp, this girl is free . . .’ Pl. Cur. 715–16)
111 Possibly influenced by expressions such as pace tua dixerim (§ 7.57) (Jeremy Brightbill, p.c.).
112 A good collection of what he calls ‘parenthetische Folgesätze’ and ‘Absichtssätze’ can be found in
Dahl (1882: 198–202; 225–8). For instances with the verb dico, see TLL s.v. 973.30ff. For discussion, see
Fedriani and Molinelli (2013).
(p) Quare ut ad id quod institui revertar, tolle mihi e causa nomen Catonis . . .
(‘Wherefore to return to the subject which I began to speak of, please take the name
of Cato out of the case . . .’ Cic. Mur. 67)
(q) Vetera maiestas quaedam et, ut sic dixerim, religio commendat.
(‘A certain majesty and religious awe, so to speak, commended antiquity to us.’ Quint.
Inst. 1.6.1)
. Purpose clauses with ut and (ut) ne

The most common subordinator in purpose clauses is ut(i). Negative purpose clauses
usually have ne, but ut ne or—rarely—ut. . . ne is more common in Early Latin (254 ut
ne, 24 ne purpose clauses;113 examples are (b) and (c)), and it is also common in Silver
Latin. Cicero has it as well, as in (d). Ut non is used instead of ne in contexts described
in § 16.54. An example is (e). A coordinated second (or following) negative clause
or phrase usually contains neve (neu) (for examples, see the Supplement; see also
§§ 8.38–40). Ut adjunct clauses usually follow the main clause, because they contain
focal information, but they may precede if they contain topical information, as in (a).
Ut disjunct clauses most often precede, as in the examples given in the preceding
section.
(a) Ut illud acceptum sit prius quod perdidi, hoc addam insuper.
(‘So as to make what I lost before acceptable, I’ll add this to boot.’ Pl. Truc. 894)
(b) Ego servi sumpsi Sosiae mi imaginem, / . . . / ut praeservire amanti meo
possem patri / atque ut ne qui essem familiares quaererent . . .
(‘I’ve taken on the slave Sosia’s image . . . so that I can be in attendance on my father
during his love affair and so that the family servants won’t ask who I am . . .’ Pl. Am.
124–7)
(c) Reperi, comminiscere, cedo calidum consilium cito, / quae hic sunt visa ut
visa ne sint, facta infecta ne sient.
(‘Hit on something, use your wits, come, produce some plan of campaign piping hot,
so that what’s been seen will be unseen, and what’s done undone.’ Pl. Mil. 226–7)
(d) Nam rex id celatum voluerat, non quo quicquam metueret aut suspicaretur,
sed ut ne multi illud ante praeciperent oculis quam populus Romanus.
(‘The prince had wished them to be kept secret, not because he had any fear or suspi-
cion, but in order that not many people might behold the gift before the people of
Rome.’ Cic. Ver. 4.64)
(e) Ferremus, etsi tolerabile non erat, sed quidvis patiendum fuit, ut hoc taeter-
rimum bellum non haberemus.
(‘We might bear with it, though it was intolerable; but anything was to be endured so
that we might not have this most hideous war.’ Cic. Phil. 11.12)
113 See Bennett: I.257–8.

Supplement:
Adjunct purpose clauses: Asta ut descendam nunciam in proclivi . . . (Pl. As.
710—NB: the ‘source’ of the purpose is the person who gives the order); Nunc amanti
ero filio senis, / . . . regias copias aureasque optuli, / ut domo sumeret neu foris quaer-
eret. (Pl. Bac. 645–8); Vis tibi ducentos nummos iam promittier, / ut ne clamorem hic
facias neu convicium? (Pl. Bac. 873–4); Conducta veni ut fidibus cantarem seni . . . (Pl.
Epid. 500); Gripe, animum advorte ac tace. / # Utin’ istic prius dicat? (Pl. Rud.
1062–3); Canes interdiu clausos esse oportet, ut noctu acriores et vigilantiores sint.
(Cato Agr. 124); Da veniam, Chremes. / Sine te exorem. # Egon’ mea bona ut dem
Bacchidi dono sciens? (Ter. Hau. 1049–50); Sed ut olim te ostendisti, eadem esse nil
cessavisti usque adhuc / ut filiam ab eo abduceres neu quod ego egissem esset ratum.
(Ter. Hec. 544–5); Quo animo? # Ut id fieret quod factum est. (Cic. Tul. 25); Maximam
autem partem ad iniuriam faciendam aggrediuntur, ut adipiscantur ea quae concu-
piverunt. (Cic. Off. 1.24); Tractatum est autem a nobis id genus aegritudinis . . . ut eo
sublato reliquorum remedia ne magnopere quaerenda arbitraremur. (Cic. Tusc. 3.81);
Cuius adventu cognito Pompeius ne duobus circumcluderetur exercitibus ex eo loco
discedit . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.30.7); Praeterea oppida incendi oportere . . ., ne (v.l. neu) suis
sint ad detractandam militiam receptacula neu Romanis proposita ad copiam
commeatus praedamque tollendam. (Caes. Gal. 7.14.9); . . . dispositis exploratoribus,
necubi effecto ponte Romani copias traducerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.35.1); . . . ne ducem
suum neve secretum imperium propriave signa haberent, miscuit manipulos ex
Latinis Romanisque . . . (Liv. 1.52.6); Meam culpam esse oportet ut mea poena sit.
(Sen. Con. 9.3.9—NB: control implied); . . . vetera novis et quieta turbidis antehabeo,
neque ob praemium sed ut me perfidia exsolvam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.58.3—NB: coordin-
ation with ob prepositional phrase)114
Attitudinal disjunct purpose clauses: Est ei quidam servos, qui in morbo cubat,
immo / hercle vero in lecto, ne quid mentiar; (Pl. Cas. 37–8); Quid? Illud quod supra
dixi, solere me cedere et, ut planius dicam, fugere ea, quae valde causam meam pre-
merent. . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.303); . . . si maxime verum sit ad corpus omnia referre sapi-
entem sive, ut honestius dicam, nihil facere nisi quod expediat . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.51); Si
non esse domi, quos des, causabere nummos, / littera poscetur—ne didicisse iuvet.
(Ov. Ars 1.427–8); ‘Quam mala’, dicebam, ‘nostrae sunt crura puellae!’ / Nec tamen,
ut vere confiteamur, erant. / ‘Bracchia quam non sunt nostrae formosa puellae!’ / Et
tamen, ut vere confiteamur, erant. (Ov. Rem. 317–20); Qui si ex habitu novae fortu-
nae novique, ut ita dicam, ingenii, quod sibi victor induerat, spectetur . . . (Liv.
9.18.2); . . . cuius (sc. lyrae) cum se imperitum Themistocles confessus esset, ut verbis
Ciceronis utar, ‘est habitus indoctior’. (Quint. Inst. 1.10.19); Rhodii quidam, plurimi
Athenienses oratores extiterunt, apud quos omnia populus, omnia imperiti, omnia,
ut sic dixerim, omnes poterant. (Tac. Dial. 40)
Illocutionary disjunct purpose clauses: Vix incedo inanis, ne ire posse cum onere
existimes. (Pl. Am. 330); Viri quoque armati idem istuc faciunt, / ne tu mirere eius
mulierem. (Pl. Mil. 1273–4);115 Quid est? # Huic, non tibi habeo, ne erres. (Ter. An. 704);
114 For more instances in Tacitus, see Martin (1953: 92–4).

115 Ne in these two examples is much discussed. Pascucci (1961: 128–30) and others take them as neg-
ators in prohibitions. De Melo translates the second as a result clause (see also § 16.54 fin.). In TLL s.v. ne
306.74ff. they are regarded as more or less equivalent to nedum clauses (on which see § 19.72).
Nunc adeo, ut tu sis sciens, / nisi puerum tolli’, iam ego hunc in mediam viam /
provolvam . . . (Ter. An. 775–7); Equidem ut de me confitear, iudices, . . . numquam . . .
tantum periculum mihi adire visus sum . . . (Cic. Ver. 3); . . . ut vetera exempla, quorum
est copia digna huius imperi gloria, relinquam neve eorum aliquem qui vivunt nomi-
nem . . . (Cic. Sest. 101); Ac ne plura complectar (sunt enim innumerabilia), bene
laudata virtus voluptatis aditus intercludat necesse est. (Cic. Fin. 2.118); . . . senectus
est natura loquacior, ne ab omnibus eam vitiis videar vindicare. (Cic. Sen. 55); Ne
longior sim, vale. (Cic. Fam. 15.19.4); Ut frontem ferias, sunt qui etiam Caesonium
putent. (Cic. Att. 1.1.1); Ne forte credas interitura quae / longe sonantem natus ad
Aufidum, / non ante vulgatas per artis / verba loquor socianda chordis. (Hor. Carm.
4.9.1–4);116 Neve haec commenta putetis, / admonitu quamquam renovetur luctus
amarus, / perpetiar memorare tamen. (Ov. Met. 14.464–6); Ne praedictum negetis,
patres conscripti, adest ingens seditio. (Liv. 2.29.1); . . . ‘ne nihil actum’, inquit, ‘hac
legatione censeatis, expiatum est quidquid ex foedere rupto irarum in nos caeles-
tium fuit.’ (Liv. 9.1.3); Ac, ne saepius dicendum sit, illud ignorari non oportet,
plurima ossa in cartilaginem desinere, nullum articulum non sic finiri. (Cels. 8.1.21);
Oportet autem comburi omnia eodem modo, ut semel dicamus, in vase fictili novo
argilla circumlito atque ita in furnum indito. (Plin. Nat. 29.98); Et, ne quid desit
ovorum gratiae, candidum ex iis admixtum calci vivae glutinat vitri fragmenta.
(Plin. Nat. 29.51);117 Sed ut illo revertar, unde decessi, et in eadem materia ostendam
supervacuam quorundam diligentiam. (Sen. Dial. 10.13.8)
Whereas with most purpose adjuncts with ut/ne the event in the main clause is con-
trollable, with a human agent who is responsible for that event, purpose clauses are
also found when some form of control over the event is implied in the context or is
suggested by the author, for example as the premeditated outcome of fate (‘voluntas
fati’). An instance in which control is implied in some way is (f): the presence of a
dictator is the consequence of decisions by the citizens. A typical instance of voluntas
fati from Livy is (g). A ‘sarcastic’ instance from Tacitus is (h). Some scholars take these
clauses as result clauses, with the negator ne equivalent to ut non. Others use the label
‘pseudo-final’ as it is used for the disjuncts described above.118 Finally, there are
instances like (i) and (j), where control seems to be entirely absent.119
(f) Dictatorem quoque hic annus habuit M. Fabium nullo terrore belli, sed ne
Licinia lex comitiis consularibus observaretur.
(‘There was a dictator in this year also, namely, Marcus Fabius, not because of any
threatened war, but in order that the Licinian law not be preserved in the consular
election.’ Liv. 7.22.10—NB: coordination of a reason adjunct and a purpose adjunct)
(g) Inde L. Genucio et Q. Servilio consulibus et ab seditione et a bello quietis
rebus, ne quando a metu ac periculis vacarent, pestilentia ingens orta.
116 For similar instances in Horace, see Brink (1969: 4–6).

117 Discussed by Tarriño (2004: 371–2).
118 The best collection of examples can be found in Nisbet (1923).
119 See Torrego (2001: 630–5) on the gradience of control with these clauses.
(‘Then, when Lucius Genucius and Quintus Servilius were consuls and affairs were at
rest from strife and war, in order that things never be free from fear and dangers, a
great pestilence broke out.’ Liv. 7.1.7)
(h) Isque illi finis inscitiae erga domum suam fuit. Haud multo post flagitia uxo-
ris noscere ac punire adactus, ut deinde ardesceret in nuptias incestas.
(‘And that was the end of his blindness toward his own house: not much later he was
driven to note and to avenge the excesses of his wife—only to burn afterwards for an
incestuous union.’ Tac. Ann. 11.25.5)
(i) . . . Raetiis quos loca ipsa efferarunt, ne quid ex antiquo praeter sonum lin-
guae, nec eum incorruptum, retinerent.
(‘. . . the Raetians, whom the very nature of the country rendered savage, so that they
might preserve nothing from ancient times except the sound of their speech, and not
even that in an uncorrupted form.’ Liv. 5.33.11)
(j) Decii corpus ne eo die inveniretur nox quaerentes oppressit.
(‘Night overtook those who were searching for the body of Decius so that it could not
be found on that day.’ Liv. 8.10.10)
Appendix: Ne and nedum ‘much less’, ‘still less’, ‘let alone’ clauses can be regarded as
attitudinal disjuncts in expressions like (k) and (l). But see also § 19.72 on quasi-
coordinators.
(k) Quippe secundae res sapientium animos fatigant: ne illi conruptis moribus
victoriae temperarent.
(‘In truth, prosperity tries the souls even of the wise; still less then could
men of depraved character like these make a moderate use of victory.’ Sal.
Cat. 11.8)
(l) Satrapa si siet / amator, numquam sufferre eius sumptus queat: / nedum tu
possis.
(‘If she had a satrap for a lover, he’d never be able to sustain her extravagance,
let alone you.’ Ter. Hau. 452–4)
From Terence onwards ut purpose clauses are used in combination with interrogative
expressions, as in (m), functioning as an independent sentence, and in (n), elliptic-
ally. In Late Latin ecclesiastical writers use it often, as in (o), probably under Greek
influence (Èxl ~j ).120
(m) Quid ex ea re tandem ut caperes commodi?
(‘What would you achieve by that, if I may ask?’ Ter. Eu. 573)
(n) ‘Depugna’, inquis, ‘potius quam servias.’ Ut quid? Si victus eris, proscribare,
si viceris, tamen servias?
(‘ “Fight rather than be a slave”, you say. For what? Proscription if you’re
beaten and if you win slavery just the same?’ Cic. Att. 7.7.7)
120 For references, see Sz.: 460. Ex. (o) might be taken as a result clause (David Williams p.c.).
(o) Et si ille dormierit, in quartum quintumque procedet, ut quo a meretricibus

differat?
(‘And if he too is called to his rest, shall she go on to a fourth and a fifth? In
doing so, how would she differ from the harlots?’ Hier. Ep. 123.9)
. Purpose clauses with quo (adjuncts)

Quo purpose clauses are a minor alternative to ut/ne clauses.121 Most instances can be
analysed as relative clauses with a final interpretation, and most occur in combination
with a comparative expression, as in (a) and (b), although—especially in Early Latin—
there are also instances without, as in (c) and (d)—note in the latter the parallelism
with uti. The combination with the comparative minus (or setius) functions as a nega-
tive purpose subordinator, as in (e). The use of ne in (f) is unique in Classical Latin.
There are also a couple of instances found in Late Latin.
(a) Id ea faciam gratia, / quo ille eam facilius ducat qui compresserat.
(‘My reason for so doing is that the man who wronged her may marry her the more
easily.’ Pl. Aul. 32–3)
(b) Subacto mihi ingenio opus est, ut agro non semel arato, sed novato et iterato,
quo meliores fetus possit et grandiores edere.
(‘I need someone with talent that has been well worked over, like a field that has been
ploughed not once, but a second and then a third time, so that it can bear crops that
are bigger and better.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.131—tr. May and Wisse)
(c) Hanc simulant parere, quo Chremetem absterreant.
(‘They’re pretending she’s having a baby to frighten Chremes off.’ Ter. An. 472)
(d) Sed ego vos, quo pauca monerem, advocavi, simul uti causam mei consili
aperirem.
(‘I have, however, called you together to offer a few words of advice, and at the same
time to explain the reason for my resolution.’ Sal. Cat. 58.3)
(e) Si sensero hodie quicquam in his te nuptiis / fallaciae conari quo fiant
minus . . .
(‘If I find you attempting any trick today during this marriage ceremony so as to
prevent it from coming about . . .’ Ter. An. 196–7)
(f) Nam Venusinus arat finem sub utrumque colonus, / missus ad hoc pulsis,
vetus est ut fama, Sabellis, / quo ne per vacuum Romano incurreret hostis . . .
(‘For the settlers in Venusia plough close to the borders of both lands. Thither they
were sent, as the old story goes, when the Sabellians were driven out, and to this end,
that an enemy might not assail the Romans through an open frontier . . .’ Hor.
S. 2.1.35–7)
121 For a historical survey, see Sz.: 679–80. For the use of quo by the historians, see Steele (1898: 272–4).
Supplement:
Corrupisse dicitur A. Cluentius iudicium pecunia, quo inimicum suum innocentem
Statium Albium condemnaret. (Cic. Clu.. 9); Eoque magis properaret ad urbem
adcedere, quo et ceterorum animos reficeret et illi facilius e periculo eriperentur.
(Sal. Cat. 48.4); . . . ob eam rem, quo populus Romanus scelere impio sit solutus, hosce
homines vobis dedo. (Liv. 9.10.9); Id ego mando remandata / quo is apud deos
inferos ut pereant/ et efficiantur quo ego heres sim. (AE 1975. 449 (Cremona,
end 1st cent. ad));122 Et Vologeses, quo bellum ex commodo pararet, an ut aemula-
tionis suspectos per nomen obsidum amoveret, tradit nobilissimos ex familia
Arsacidarum. (Tac. Ann. 13.9.4—NB: parallelism); (sc. Vitellius) . . . senatum et popu-
lum ante se agens, quo minus ut captam urbem ingrederetur . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.89.1)
With a comparative expression in the quo clause: Id amabo adiuta me, quo id fiat
facilius. (Ter. Eu. 150); . . . eo scripsi quo in suadendo plus auctoritatis haberem. (Cic.
Att. 8.9.1); (sc. Pompeius) . . . ignesque fieri prohibuit quo occultior esset eius adven-
tus. (Caes. Civ. 3.30.6); At non antiquos Macedonum reges <rem ita gessisse> sed acie
bellare solitos, urbibus parcere quantum possent, quo opulentius haberent impe-
rium. (Liv. 32.33.12)
Quo is the ablative singular neuter form of the relative pronoun qui functioning as a
manner/instrument adjunct in the relative clause. In quo clauses with a comparative
expression quo must not be confused with the ablative of comparison (for which see
§ 20.7).
. Purpose clauses with quī (adjuncts)

Even less frequent than quo purpose clauses are qui clauses, which are entirely
restricted to Early Latin. Examples are (a) and (b).123
(a) Magis qui credatis dicam.
(‘So that you’ll be more convinced, I’ll tell you.’ Pl. Poen. 1264)
(b) . . . haud facile’st defensu quine (quin edd. pler.) comburantur proximae
(sc. aedes).
(‘. . . it is not at all easy to put up a defence to prevent the nearest temples from being
burned.’ pall. 47)
Quī is an old ablative singular neuter form of the interrogative/relative pronoun quis
functioning as manner/instrument adjunct in the relative clause.
Appendix: In Late Latin some authors occasionally use quatenus to indicate purpose.
See (c) from Ulpian.124
122 The curse tablet is discussed by Solin (2004: 123–6). For more examples of quo clauses, see OLD s.v.
quo § 3 a,b.
123 For more examples, see OLD s.v. qui2 § 4a. For a negated argument clause with qui (negator ne), see
§ 15.88.
124 See Wölfflin (1888: 408–11).
(c) Tunc licentiam habeat vel curator furiosae, vel cognati adire iudicem com-
petentem, quatenus necessitas imponatur marito, omnem talem mulieris
sustentationem sufferre . . .
(‘Here the insane woman’s curator or her relatives can go to a competent
judge in order that a compulsion may be imposed on the husband to give all
this sort of support to the woman . . .’ Ulp. dig. 24.3.22.8)
16.53 Stipulative clauses
Stipulative clauses (also called ‘restrictive’ clauses or ‘clauses of proviso’) indicate

a proviso for the validity of the main clause. They are treated here as a separate class,
although conditional clauses with si (and nisi) are more or less equivalent (see § 16.56).
The subordinators used are ut (and ne), as in (a), dum and dummodo (also as two
words), as in (c)—negation by ne—and modo, as in (e) (see the first note below). Ut
(and ne) are also found in combination with the exclusive particles modo (modo ut,
modo ne) and rarely tantum (tantummodo, tantum ne). It is often difficult to distin-
guish stipulative ut clauses from purpose ut clauses. Similarly, there are borderline
cases where it is difficult to determine whether a dum clause is stipulative or temporal
‘as long as’ (see § 7.144). The stipulative has clearly developed from this temporal
use.125 The mood in stipulative clauses is the subjunctive (see § 7.152). The negator is
usually ne.126
The main clause, when combined with a stipulative ut clause, usually contains
one of the correlative adverbs ita and sic, which are also found with consecutive ut
clauses, as in (b). Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the two; however,
in restrictive clauses the negator is ne. Other correlative expressions are hac lege, as
in (d).
(a) Vis tibi ducentos nummos iam promittier, / ut ne clamorem hic facias neu
convicium?
(‘Do you want to be promised two hundred Philippics now on condition that you
won’t shout around or pick an argument?’ Pl. Bac. 873–4)
(b) Veniat quando volt atque ita ne mihi sit morae.
(‘Let him come when he wants to, but he mustn’t keep me waiting.’ Pl. Bac. 224)
(c) Dum interea sic sit, istuc ‘actutum’ sino.
(‘So long as it’s like this in the meantime, I don’t mind your “soon”.’ Pl. Mos. 71)
(d) Semper tibi promissum habeto hac lege, dum superes datis.
(‘You can always rely on this promise, on this condition, that you keep the upper
hand in your gifts.’ Pl. As. 166)
125 See Letoublon (1985: 543–5) and Sz.: 616–17.

126 Bodelot (2000: 228–32) explains the use of ne along the same lines as in purpose clauses. Differently
Orlandini (2002b: 176–7).
(e) Modo liceat vivere, est spes.

(‘Provided you’re alive, there’s hope.’ Ter. Hau. 981)
Supplement:
Rabonem habeto, ut mecum hanc noctem sies. (Pl. Truc. 688); Licet laudem
Fortunam, tamen ut ne Salutem culpem. (Pl. As. 718); Accusatores multos esse in
civitate utile est ut metu contineatur audacia. Verumtamen hoc ita est utile ut ne
plane illudamur ab accusatoribus. (Cic. S. Rosc. 55); De eis cum dubitatum in senatu
esset admitterentur in urbem necne, ita admissos esse, ne tamen iis senatus daretur.
(Liv. 22.61.5)
Scies, / modo ut tacere possis. (Ter. Ph. 58–9); Quod si alium ad ver mittit, non
laboro, nobis modo temporis ne quid prorogetur. (Cic. Att. 5.18.1)
NB: Independently used restrictive clauses: Tantum modo ut eum intercludamus ne
ad urbem possit accedere, quod sperabamus fieri posse. (Cic. Fam. 16.12.4); Tantum
modo Gnaeus noster ne, ut urbem vznj}~| reliquit, sic Italiam relinquat. (Cic. Att.
9.10.4); Tantum iudicio ne tuus obsit amor. (Ov. Rem. 714)
Pacisce ergo, obsecro, quid tibi lubet, / dum ne manifesto hominem opprimat neve
enicet. (Pl. Bac. 866–7); Usque adeo illi(u)s ferre possum ineptiam et magnifica
verba, / verba dum sint. (Ter. Eu. 741–2); oderint / dum metuant (Acc. trag. 203–4);
Dum arator ne plus decuma det, expedit ei decumam esse quam maximam. (Cic.
Ver. 3.147); Sin autem ieiunitatem et siccitatem et inopiam, dummodo sit polita,
dum urbana, dum elegans, in Attico genere ponit, hoc recte dumtaxat. (Cic. Brut.
285); Quarta pars manipuli sparsa per commeatus aut in ipsis castris vaga, dum mer-
cedem centurioni exsolveret . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.46.2); Sed de idololatria nihil differt apud
nos sub quo nomine et titulo, dum ad eosdem spiritus perveniat quibus renuntiamus.
(Tert. Spect. 6.4); ‘Iam vero ista condicione, dum mihi liceat negare posse quod non
potero et fateri nescire quod nesciam, licet’, inquit Crassus, ‘vestro arbitratu percon-
temini.’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.101); Si ei permissum esset, cum in senatu centum non minus
essent, ita id sacrum faceret dum ne plus quinque sacrificio interessent . . . (Liv.
39.18.9—senatus consultum); Omnia licet foris resonent, dum intus nihil tumultus
sit, dum inter se non rixentur cupiditas et timor, dum avaritia luxuriaque non dis-
sideant nec altera alteram vexet. (Sen. Ep. 56.5—NB: non)
Apsit dum modo laude parta / domum recipiat se. (Pl. Am. 644–5); Dicatur sane
eiectus esse a me, dum modo eat in exsilium. (Cic. Catil. 2.15); . . . recte genus hoc
numerorum, dummodo ne continui sint, in orationis laude ponetur. (Cic. de Orat.
3.185); Cibo quolibet utendum, dummodo concoctioni utique studeatur. (Cels.
3.27.3A); Viderit enim, si narrationum dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei
conveniat . . . (Tert. Marc. 4.2.2); Dummodo non nobis hoc Caesaris ira negarit, / for-
titer Euxinis inmoriemur aquis. (Ov. Pont. 3.7.39–40—NB: non)
Edepol convivi sat est,/ modo nostra huc amica accedat. Id abest, aliud nil abest.
(Pl. St. 710–11—NB: line bracketed by Langen); Si denique nitere testibus non dico
bonis viris ac probatis, noti sint modo, quem ad modum mihi cum quoque sit con-
fligendum considerabo. (Cic. Scaur. 18); Hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer
in animum. Iuvare enim in utroque dicitur, ex eoque iucundum, modo intellegas
inter illum, qui dicat . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.14); Brutum apud me fuisse gaudeo, modo et
libenter fuerit et sat diu. (Cic. Att. 15.3.2)
The use of modo as a subordinator derives from its use as an adverb ‘only’ in inde-
pendent imperative sentences. In some of the instances cited above one might opt for
another punctuation, making the modo sequences independent sentences. Its pos-
ition in the clause is more flexible than that of dum.
More or less equivalent to stipulative clauses are quod, ut, and ne clauses in combin-
ation with the prepositional expression cum eo tamen, as in (f).127
(f) . . . recte medicina ista tentatur, cum eo tamen ne praecordia dura sint neve
ea tumeant . . .
(‘. . . this treatment may properly be tried, so long as the parts below the ribs are
neither indurated nor swollen . . .’ Cels. 2.17.4)
In Late Latin si tamen can be used in a stipulative sense, as in (g).128
(g) Si vultis videre aquam . . . potestis videre, si tamen volueritis laborem vobis
imponere ut de via camsemus forsitan miliario sexto.
(‘If you would like to see the water . . . you can, on condition that you have the energy
to turn off the road at about the sixth milestone.’ Pereg. 10.8)
Appendix: In Early Latin, especially legal, texts quod is used as a subordinator in the
sense of ‘provided that’. An example from a legal text is (h); from Plautus, (i).129
(h) Seiquas · vias . . . IIIvir II vir aedilisve . . . / . . . munire · volet · intra /
eos · fineis · quei · eius · municipi · erun<t>, quod · eius · sine · iniuria
· . . . · id · ei · facere / · liceto.
(‘If a member of a Board of Four . . . or an aedile . . . shall be minded to pave
any roads within those boundaries which belong to the said borough, he
shall be allowed to do this, provided that it can be done without damage to
any person.’ CIL I2.590.39–42 (Taranto, 1st cent. bc (early)))
(i) Neu quisquam posthac prohibeto adulescentem filium / quin amet et scor-
tum ducat, quod bono fiat modo.
(‘And from now on let no one prevent his young son from being in love and
hiring a prostitute, so long as it happens in moderation.’ Pl. Mer. 1021–2)
16.54 Result (consecutive) clauses
Result (consecutive) clauses denote an event that is caused by or follows from the
event in the main clause. Two types of result clauses must be distinguished: an expan-
sion type and a non-expansion type.130 In the expansion (also called: correlative)
type, exemplified by (a) and (b), the main clause contains a manner (for example sic
127 For the material, see TLL s.v. cum 1367.16ff. See also § 14.6.
128 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2003: 459–61).
129 See Sz.: 572–3, Siegert (1939: 45), and D’Elia (1975).
130 For these two types of result clauses, see Heberlein (2001 and 2002). He uses the term ‘correlative’.
Touratier (1994: 639ff.) uses the term ‘expansion’. For correlating expressions, see Cabrillana (1998).
Result clauses 309
‘so’ or ita ‘so’)131 or degree adverb (tam ‘that much’), a manner or degree adjective (for
example, talis ‘such’ or tantus ‘so large’), or another expression of manner or degree.
As the examples show, ut clauses of the correlative type are triggered by a manner or
degree expression in the main clause and are in a sense obligatory. They can be
regarded as an ‘expansion’ of these manner and degree expressions which function as
manner or degree satellites in their own clause.132 These expressions are also com-
bined with so-called consecutive relative clauses (see § 18.19). Anaphoric and demon-
strative determiners can also be used with result clauses, as in (c) (they are then
usually paraphrased as talis or tantus).133
(a) Sin dormitet, ita dormitet servom sese ut cogitet.
(‘And if he sleeps, he should sleep in such a way that he doesn’t forget that he’s a slave.’
Pl. Aul. 591)
(b) Tanta . . . dulcedine me tenuit et traxit (sc. liber tuus) ut illum sine ulla
dilatione perlegerim.
(‘With such sweetness did your book possess and pull me that I finished it without
any postponement.’ Sen. Ep. 46.1)
(c) Itaque si vir bonus habeat hanc vim ut, si digitis concrepuerit, possit in
locupletium testamenta nomen eius inrepere, hac vi non utatur . . .
(‘And so if a good man were to possess such power that, if he snapped his fingers, his
name could steal into rich men’s wills, he would not avail himself of that power . . .’
Cic. Off. 3.75)
The other, non-expansion, type of result clause, illustrated by (d) and (e), is less
closely integrated into the main clause. This type of clause, which describes a simple
result or logical inference, is relatively rare and often difficult to distinguish from a
purpose clause.134 The main clause may contain any type of event (and thus is not, as
main clauses of purpose clauses are, restricted to controllable events). The event in the
result clause may follow the event of the main clause in time, but this is not necessar-
ily the case, as a comparison between (d) and (e) shows.
(d) Si quando non pluet, uti terra sitiat, aquam inrigato leniter in areas.
(‘Whenever there is no rain with the result that the ground dries out, water the beds
lightly.’ Cato Agr. 151.4)
(e) Fuit etiam disertus, ut nemo ei Thebanus par esset eloquentia . . .
(‘Epaminondas was also well-spoken, so that no Theban equalled him in eloquence . . .’
Nep. Ep. 5.1)
131 For the difference between ita . . . ut and sic . . . ut in a number of works of Cicero, see Mellet (1998).
132 For the development of talis ut from Latin to French, see Gallego (2012).
133 See TLL s.v. hic 2731.69ff.; ille 354.76ff.; is 478.80ff.; iste 508.29ff. See also Bodelot (2010: 177–8),
from whom ex. (e) is taken. See also § 14.16 on the use of these pronouns/determiners as preparative
devices with all sorts of subordinate clauses.
134 The category of ‘simple result’ or ‘logical inference’ is discussed by Krylová (1997). For a discussion
of the relationship between purpose and result clauses, see Vester (1994), Eckert (2003: 68–70), and
Cabrillana (2011).
For the use of the tenses in result clauses, see § 7.102. The regular mood is the sub-
junctive (see § 7.153). The label ‘consecutive clause’ is also used for ut clauses like (f),
which are in fact argument clauses and so are dealt with in § 15.27.135
(f) . . . mi / evenit ut ovans praeda onustus cederem.
(‘Just as it has become my lot to be marching along rejoicing and weighed down with
booty.’ Pl. Bac. 1068–9)
Supplement:
Expansion type (in alphabetical order by preparative expression): Sus usque adeo
pinguitudine crescere solet ut se ipsa stans sustinere non possit neque progredi
usquam. (Cato hist. 39=48C)
. . . neque sunt eius generis ut si optime tenerem digna essent ista tua sapientia ac
tuis auribus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.165)
Qui confitetur atque ita libenter confitetur ut non solum fateri sed etiam profiteri
videatur, recuperatores. (Cic. Caec. 24); Magistratuum autem nostrorum iniurias ita
multorum tulerunt ut numquam ante hoc tempus ad aram legum praesidiumque
vestrum publico consilio confugerint . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.8); Haec vos antea iudices
audistis, verum fortasse ita audistis ut auctorem rumorem haberetis sermonemque
hominum. (Cic. Ver. 3.49); Inclusum in curia senatum habuerunt Salaminum ita
multos dies ut interierint non nulli fame. (Cic. Att. 6.2.8)
Tales enim nos esse putamus ut iure laudemur . . . (Cic. Off. 1.91); Consuetudo
enim talis est ut ante pullorum cantum loca sancta non aperiantur. (Pereg. 24.8)
Tamen nemo tam sine oculis, tam sine mente vivit ut quid sit sementis ac messis,
quid arborum putatio ac vitium, quo tempore anni aut quo modo ea fiant omnino
nesciat. (Cic. de Orat. 1.249)
Quamquam nostra cura in tantum iam processit ut . . . a me rustici mercentur . . .
(Col. 3.3.13)
Sic census habitus est te praetore ut eo censu nullius civitatis res publica posset
administrari. (Cic. Ver. 2.138); Sic vivimus ut deprendi sit subito adspici. (Sen.
Ep. 43.4)
Haec erat studiorum in mea salute contentio ut ii qui a senatu de me rogabantur
eidem senatui pro me supplicarent. (Cic. Sest. 130); Sed illud os, illam impuritatem
caeni fuisse ut hos iudices legere auderet! (Cic. Phil. 5.16); Nunc vero ea vis est in
homine, ut ei multo rhetoricam citius quis ademerit, quam philosophiam conces-
serit. (Cic. Inv. 1.8); Sit mens ista quidem cunctis ut vestra recusent / fata, nec haec
alius committat proelia miles. (Luc. 3.324–5)
Non-expansion type: Mi istaec videtur praeda praedatum irier, / ut cum maiore dote
abeat quam advenerit. (Pl. Rud. 1242–3); Quaeso ut sat habeas id, pater, quod
Chrysalus / me obiurigavit plurumis verbis malis / et me meliorem fecit praeceptis
suis, / ut te ei habere gratiam aequom sit bonam. (Pl. Bac. 1019–22); Tum illa, ut
consuetum facile amorem cerneres, / reiecit se in eum flens quam familiariter!
(Ter. An. 135–6—NB: remarkable position of the ut clause); Omnes enim qui fuerunt,
aut sua pertinacia vitam amiserunt, aut tua misericordia retinuerunt, ut aut nulli
135 For a survey of the opinions on the relationship between these argument and satellite clauses, see
Heberlein (2001).
Result clauses 311
supersint de inimicis aut qui fuerunt sint amicissimi. (Cic. Marc. 21); Nudavit se in
sanctissimo templo, quoniam vita talis et civis et viri fidem non faciebat, ut eo tacente
res ipsa loqueretur. (Cic. Mil. 66—NB: remarkable quoniam clause in the result
clause?);136 Si quid acciderit, ut mutandum consilium sit, te certiorem faciam statim.
(Cic. Fam. 5.21.5); Unum (sc. iter) per Sequanos, angustum et difficile, inter montem
Iuram et flumen Rhodanum, vix qua singuli carri ducerentur, mons autem altissimus
inpendebat, ut facile perpauci prohibere possent. (Caes. Gal. 1.6.1); Haeret (sc.
emplastrum), ut fascia non sit opus. (Larg. 214); Possum pedes movere ut non cur-
ram: currere non possum ut pedes non moveam. (Sen. Dial. 2.7.5); Nam praeter
errantis barbariae aut adiectum aut deminutum clamorem miscebat Atellanicos
versus, ut tunc primum me etiam Vergilius offenderit. (Petr. 68.5); Forte tunc
Crassus genere divitiis dignitate florebat, ut vellet tamen auctioris opes. (Flor. Epit.
2.13.10)
The main subordinator used in result clauses is ut(i) ‘that’, as in the examples above.
The regular negator is non. However, when the content of the main clause is negative—
explicitly or by implication—quin ‘so that . . . not’ (equivalent to ut non) is regularly
used. Exx. (g) and (h) illustrate the use of quin without a manner or degree expression
in the main clause, (i) its expansion use.137 Ut non is also sometimes used after a
negative main clause, as is shown in (j), in parallel with ut in the preceding clause. For
relative clauses expanding expressions like tantus, see § 18.19.
(g) Iam hunc non ausim praeterire quin consistam et colloquar.
(‘Now I wouldn’t care to walk past him without stopping and accosting him.’ Pl.
Aul. 474)
(h) Quis umquam templum illud adspexit, quin avaritiae tuae, quin iniuriae,
quin audaciae testis esset?
(‘Who has ever looked at that temple without becoming a witness to your rapacity
and injustice and reckless wickedness?’ Cic. Ver. 1.154)
(i) Nec quisquam est tam ingenio duro nec tam firmo pectore, / quin, ubi
quicque occasionis sit, sibi faciat bene.
(‘Nobody has such a strong character or such a hard heart that he wouldn’t enjoy
himself when the occasion presents itself.’ Pl. As. 944–5)
(j) Nam neque tam est acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis, ut res tantas
quisquam nisi monstratas possit videre, neque tanta tamen in rebus obscuri-
tas, ut eas non penitus acri vir ingenio cernat, si modo aspexerit.
(‘For there is not such a keenness in the nature and character of men that anyone can
discern such great matters without having had them pointed out to him, and yet
there is not such obscurity in them that a man of keen intelligence cannot see to the
bottom of them, provided he has looked closely.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.124)
136 See Vester (1994: 272–3).

137 See Orlandini (2002b; 2003: 522–4), Fleck (2008: 231–6), and Ripoll (2012: 305–6).
Supplement:
Expansion type: . . . numquam erit tam avarus quin te gratiis emittat manu. (Pl. Capt.
408); Nulla’st tam facilis res quin difficilis siet, / quam invitu’ facias. (Ter. Hau.
805–6); Numquam tam male est Siculis quin aliquid facete et commode dicant . . . (Cic.
Ver. 4.95); Nemo est tam fortis quin rei novitate perturbetur. (Caes. Gal. 6.39.3)
Non-expansion type: . . . nec recedit loco quin statim rem gerat. (Pl. Am. 239); Si
cades, non cades quin cadam tecum. (Pl. Mos. 329); Numquam accedo quin abs te
abeam doctior. (Ter. Eu. 791); Quis enim fundum colit nostrum quin sues habeat, et
qui non audierit patres nostros dicere . . . (Var. R. 2.4.2—NB: coordinated with a rela-
tive clause); Quis a signo Vortumni in circum maximum venit quin is uno quoque
gradu de avaritia tua commoneretur? (Cic. Ver. 1.154); Nego in Sicilia tota . . . ullum
argenteum vas . . . fuisse . . . quin conquisierit, inspexerit, quod placitum sit abstulerit.
(Cic. Ver. 4.1); Nam curiosus nemo est quin sit malevolus. (Pl. St. 208); Nemo nos-
trum est, Eruci, quin sciat tibi inimicitias cum Sex. Roscio nullas esse. (Cic. S. Rosc.
55); Sed in castello nemo fuit omnino militum quin vulneraretur . . . (Caes. Civ.
3.53.3); Nihil est illorum quin ego illi dixerim. (Pl. Bac. 1012); Nihil est in hac provin-
cia, quod aut in oppidis aut in agris maiores nostri proprium nobis reliquerint, quin
id venire iubeat. (Cic. Agr. 2.48); Nullum enim patiebatur esse diem quin aut in foro
diceret aut meditaretur extra forum. (Cic. Brut. 302); Quorum nulli ex itinere
excedere licebat quin ab equitatu Caesaris exciperetur. (Caes. Civ. 1.79.5)
In result clauses with a non-negative main clause the negator is non (nemo, nullus,
etc.), as in (k) and (l). A coordinated negative clause has neque (nec), as in (m).
Whereas there is a clear distinction between the subordinators of negated purpose
and result clauses in Early and Classical Latin (ne and ut non, respectively), this dis-
tinction disappears in Silver Latin. A rare example from Cicero of ne in a result clause
is (n).138
(k) Non enim possunt una in civitate multi rem ac fortunas amittere, ut non
pluris secum in eandem trahant calamitatem.
(‘It is, indeed, impossible for many individuals in a single State to lose their property
and fortunes without involving still greater numbers in their own ruin.’ Cic. Man. 19)
(l) Tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae ducta
sit disciplina.
(‘So great a power of suggestion is present in places that it is not without reason that
the art of memory is derived from them.’ Cic. Fin. 5.2)
(m) Sed ita peragrat per animos, ita sensus hominum mentisque pertractat, ut
non desideret philosophorum descriptiones neque exquirat oratione, sum-
mum illud bonum in animone sit an in corpore . . .
(‘But in such way does he range over men’s souls, and explore their feelings and
thoughts, that he needs no philosophers’ definitions, and does not inquire in his dis-
course whether “the supreme good” is subjective or objective.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.222)
138 For negation in result clauses, see Mellet (1992) and Cabrillana (1997: 559–62).
Result clauses 313
(n) Qua re illa calamitas, si ita est appellanda, exussit hoc genus totum maledicti,
ne quisquam iam audeat reprehendere consulatum meum . . .
(‘Thus my misfortune, if misfortune it must be called, has burnt up all slander of
this kind, so that no one any more dares to cast aspersions on my consulship . . .’ Cic.
Dom. 76)
Supplement:
Non and other ‘normal’ negators: Num geometriam Euclide aut Archimede . . . num
ipsas litteras Aristophane aut Callimacho tractante tam discerptas fuisse ut nemo
genus universum complecteretur atque ut alius aliam sibi partem in qua elaboraret
seponeret? (Cic. de Orat. 3.132)
Ut neque . . . neque: Adeo’n’ ingenio esse duro te atque inexorabili / ut neque miseri-
cordia neque precibu’ molliri queas! (Ter. Ph. 497–8); Tamen tanta universae Galliae
consensio fuit libertatis vindicandae . . . ut neque beneficiis neque amicitiae memoria
moverentur . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.76.2)
Ut ne: . . . omnium instituta atque edicta praetorum fuerunt eiusmodi ut nequis cum
telo servus esset. (Cic. Ver. 5.7)
Ne: Philippum quoque satis implicatum bello finitimo ratus ne Italiam Poenosque et
pacta cum Hannibale posset respicere, Corcyram ipse se recepit. (Liv. 26.24.16);
Quae res avibus amorem loci sic conciliat ne umquam deserant. (Col. 8.8.7); Mox
libellos et auctores recitat Caesar, ita moderans ne lenire neve asperare crimina
videretur. (Tac. Ann. 2.29.2—NB: coordination); Sed illi malitia et furore caecantur,
ne videant . . . (Lact. Inst. 5.13.2)139
It is not always easy to decide between a purpose, a result, or a stipulative interpret-
ation of (ut) ne clauses in combination with ita, sic, tantus, or similar expressions in
the main clause.140 There are also situations in which both expressions are semantic-
ally possible. A debated example from Terence is (o), most likely a result clause.141
See also (p) from Caesar (most likely purpose: the position was intentionally
arranged) and (q) from Cicero (most likely stipulative). Several instances are cited
from didactic texts, where a purpose interpretation is more likely, such as (r). In com-
bination with the verb facio the ut clause expanding ita or sic resembles argument
clauses with verbs of causation (see § 15.75). An example is (s).142
(o) Hisce ego illam dictis ita tibi incensam dabo / ut ne restinguas lacrumis si
exstillaveris.
(‘I’ll incense her so much by what I’m going to tell her that you won’t be able
to put out the fire even if you dissolve into tears.’ Ter. Ph. 974–5)
(p) . . . tantumque a vallo eius prima acies aberat uti ne telum tormento adigi
posset.
(‘. . . and his front rank was only so far from the rampart to prevent a weapon
from being cast at it from a catapult.’ Caes. Civ. 3.55.1)
139 The fullest discussion of the choice between ne and ut non is in Kirk (1923: 267–8). See also Sz.:
641–2.
140 For further examples, especially of ita, see TLL s.v. 309.11ff.
141 Purpose according to Calboli (1995/6: 147). 142 Mazzanti (p.c.).
(q) Danda opera est omnino si possit utrisque nec minus ut etiam singulis con-
sulatur sed ita ut ea res aut prosit aut certe ne obsit rei publicae.
(‘We should by all means attend to both kinds of service, if possible; and no
less attention should be paid to protecting the interests of individuals, pro-
vided that what we do for them is beneficial, or at least not prejudicial, to the
state.’ Cic. Off. 2.72)
(r) Tabulata inter se ne minus ternis pedibus absint atque ita formentur, ne
superior ramus in eadem linea sit, qua inferior.
(‘The “stages” should be not less than three feet apart from one another and
so shaped that an upper branch may not be in the same line as a lower.’ Col.
5.6.12)
(s) Ut . . .erilem copem facerem filium / ita feci ut auri quantum vellet
sumeret . . .
(‘So as to make master’s son rich, I made sure he could take as much gold as
he wishes . . .’ Pl. Bac. 351–2)
The relative pronoun quo is rarely used in result clauses, but see (t) (for its use in
purpose clauses, see § 16.51; see also § 18.19). There are a few attestations in Late
Latin.143 For rare instances of quatenus in a consecutive sense in (very) Late Latin, see
Wölfflin (1888: 411–12).
(t) Num tibi nam, amabo, ianua est mordax mea, / quo intro ire metuas . . .?
(‘Please, you don’t think my door will bite you, do you, so that you should be
afraid to go in?’ Pl. Truc. 352–3)
There are rare instances of the use of the infinitive in ecclesiastical texts, which can
best be explained as influenced by Greek or else as simply incorrect.144
16.55 Conditional clauses
Conditional (or: ‘hypothetical’) clauses refer to a state of affairs which the speaker
expresses as an assumption or condition under which the state of affairs of the main
clause must be understood. That state of affairs may or may not correspond to
reality.145 The regular subordinator is si ‘if ’, ‘supposing that’, ‘in case that’ (sei in early
inscriptions and occasionally as an archaism elsewhere). The assumptive (or: hypo-
thetical) value of the si clause is nicely illustrated by (a) and (b), where it is contrasted
with a temporal cum clause.146
(a) Quae, si prodierit atque adeo cum prodierit—scio enim proditurum esse—
audiet.
(‘All these exploits of his, if, or rather when, he comes forward as a witness—for I
know that he will do so—he shall hear of from me.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 100)
143 See Sz.: 680. 144 See Sz.: 639 and Panchón (2007: 164, 170–4).
145 Lehmann (1977: 238) uses the term ‘disjunctive situation’ for what the si clause refers to.
146 Discussed inter alios by Núñez (1996: 261).
Conditional clauses 315
(b) Si damnatus eris, atque adeo cum damnatus eris—nam dubitatio damna-
tionis illis reciperatoribus quae poterat esse?—virgis te ad necem caedi
necesse erit.
(‘If you are found guilty, or rather when you are found guilty—for before those
assessors what doubt could there be of it?—you will have to be flogged to death.’ Cic.
Ver. 3.70)
The interpretation of a si clause as a strict condition (‘only if ’) depends on the rela-
tionship between the states of affairs in the two clauses, as is described by Cicero in
(c). (Here we are dealing with a logical deduction; see § 16.57.) A conditional inter-
pretation may also appear from the presence of particles or adverbs in the si clause
and/or in the main clause (see § 16.57).
(c) Nam hoc quidem: ‘Si spiritum ducit, vivit’, ‘si dies est, lucet’ eiusmodi est, ut
cum priore necessario posterius cohaerere videatur.
(‘For instance the sentences, “If he is breathing, he is alive,” “If it is daytime, it is light,”
are of such a nature that the conclusion seems to be necessarily connected with the
condition.’ Cic. Inv. 1.86—NB: cf. Cic. Luc. 143)
The subordinators formed with si (etsi, etiamsi, and tamenetsi) are described in
§ 16.76–16.80 (concessive clauses). For conditional dum, dummodo, and modo,
see § 16.53. For the conditional interpretation of adjacent independent sentences, see
§ 24.47. For the conditional interpretation of ablative absolute clauses and secondary
predicates, see § 16.89 and § 21.17, respectively.147
In the combination of the conditional and the main clause, the former is usually
called the protasis, the latter the apodosis (also ‘antecedent’ and ‘consequent’). The
combination of protasis and apodosis is called a conditional (or: hypothetical)
period. In this Syntax the terms ‘si clause’ and ‘main clause’ are the ones used
most often.
Si clauses can function as adjuncts and as attitudinal or illocutionary disjuncts.
These three types of conditional clause have different syntactic properties, especially
with regard to the position of the conditional clause, the use of correlative expressions
in the main clause, and the type of main clauses with which they occur.
The speaker is free to present the state of affairs in the conditional and in the main
clause as factive (‘realis’), as possible or not unlikely (‘potentialis’), or as counterfac-
tual (‘irrealis’). The indicative mood marks the realis, the subjunctive I (present or
perfect) the potentialis, the subjunctive II (imperfect or pluperfect) the irrealis (for
details see § 7.8). Examples of these three types are (d)–(f), respectively.
(d) Si Fabius oriente Canicula natus est, Fabius in mari non morietur.
(‘If Fabius was born at the rising of the dogstar, Fabius will not die at sea.’ Cic. Fat.
12—perfect and future indicatives)
147 The most detailed study of conditional clauses is Nutting (1925). The most recent discussion of the
literature can be found in Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011).
(e) Nam si sciat noster senex fidem non esse huic habitam, / suscenseat . . .
(‘For if our old man was to know you didn’t trust him, he’d be angry . . .’ Pl. As.
458–9—present subjunctives)
(f) Si venisses ad exercitum, a tribunis militaribus visus esses. Non es autem ab
his visus: non es igitur ad exercitum profectus.
(‘If you had come to the army you would have been seen by the military tribunes. But
you were not seen by them. Therefore you did not set out for the army.’ Cic. Inv.
1.87—pluperfect subjunctives)
Although statistically the moods (and tenses) are often the same in both clauses, this
is not a grammatical rule (details on the moods in §§ 7.154–7).
The term ‘hypothetical’ is used in many ways and is in certain conditional periods a
more precise term than ‘conditional’.148
Appendix: Alongside the various recognized uses of quod (see § 16.83) there are also
a few late instances of quod where si is expected. However, those few instances do not
constitute sufficient evidence to assume that quod ever functioned as a conditional
subordinator.149 For the use of the preposition absque (apsque) in a way that resem-
bles the use of a conditional subordinator, see § 4.15, Appendix. For alternative
conditional clauses with sive/seu, see § 16.65.
. Negation of conditional clauses

The three main forms of negation of a conditional clause are by ni ‘supposing that not’
or ‘except if ’, nisi ‘except if ’, ‘unless’, and si non ‘supposing that not’. They have different
origins and the contexts in which and the meanings with which they are used do not
(fully) overlap.150 They differ in frequency (nisi being the most, ni the least frequent—
a few details in the note below). Ni was apparently already disappearing in Plautus’
time. It is infrequent in Cicero, but underwent a revival in poetry and historiography
because of its archaic flavour and as a metrical commodity. Si non expanded its use
into the territory of nisi in poetry from Ovid onwards, and then took over entirely in
prose as well. Ni and nisi left no traces in the Romance languages.
In Plautus nisi is almost three times as frequent as ni (nisi 365—about one-third not
being the subordinator / ni 88—c.15 being non-conditional). (There are also c.60
instances of si non.) In the manuscripts ni is sometimes replaced by nisi or si non.151
In Terence the proportion is c.55/18. In Cicero ni is infrequent (nisi 1,804—roughly
half of the instances not being the subordinator / ni 46—favourites are nam/quod ni
ita; ni is not used with forte and vero). For poets it was a welcome variant of nisi
148 See Touratier (1998) on si as the marker of a ‘supposition’. See also Wakker’s definition (1994:
49–50). For discussion of the terminology, see Wakker (1994: 21–3) and Declerck and Reed (2001: 13–15).
They prefer the term ‘conditional’ as the overall term. See also Bertocchi and Orlandini (2002).
149 See Sz.: 580 and Svennung (1936: 508–9).
150 For these forms of negation, see Di Bene (1963: 7–52) and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 114–24).
151 See Ernout (1929).
(Virgil 5/25; Ovid 265/22). Livy, Tacitus, and Ammianus liked it (386/163; 198/71;
64/78). Columella (193/0), Pliny the Elder (459/50), and Petronius (48/5—three in
poetry, not in the Cena) avoided it. It is a rare archaism in Late Latin. There is much
variation in the manuscripts, possibly favouring nisi.152
Nisi is used as a conditional subordinator, but also as an adverb (see § 16.67 fin.). The
overall meaning of nisi clauses, based on nisi’s meaning ‘unless’, is ‘on condition that
something is not the case’. However, if the nisi clause follows the main clause, it often
means ‘making an exception for X’ or ‘setting aside X’. Negation of a conditional clause
with si by non means ‘on the assumption that something is not the case’. Ni is used in
both ways. There are situations in which both nisi and si non can be used, depending
on how the language user wants to present the state of affairs. This is illustrated by (a)
and (b). Sometimes the two forms of negation are used within the same sentence, as
in (c).153
(a) Quae nisi subest res ab oratore percepta et cognita, inanem quandam habet
elocutionem et paene puerilem.
(‘Unless there is such knowledge, well-grasped and comprehended by the speaker,
there must be something empty and almost childish in the utterance.’ Cic. de
Orat. 1.20)
(b) Haec autem oratio, si res non subest ab oratore percepta et cognita, aut nulla
sit necesse est aut omnium inrisione ludatur.
(‘Yet this style, if the underlying subject-matter is not comprehended and mastered
by the speaker, must inevitably be of no account or even become the sport of univer-
sal derision.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.50)
(c) . . . decem illi quos post Cannensem pugnam iuratos ad senatum misit
Hannibal se in castra redituros ea quorum erant potiti Poeni nisi de redi-
mendis captivis impetravissent, si non redierunt vituperandi.
(‘. . . those ten whom Hannibal sent to the senate on parole after the battle of Cannae,
who had taken an oath that they would return to the camp which the Carthaginians
captured if they did not succeed in negotiating an exchange of prisoners—if they did
not return, they ought to be reproved.’ Cic. Off. 3.113)
(i) Ni (for ni in quid ni and quidni, see § 8.4). There are a number of instances where
a ni clause is in contrast with a preceding si clause, as in (d). In those cases ni equals si
non. When there is no explicit contrast this is less obvious; the overwhelming major-
ity of ni clauses are in conditional periods where ni equals nisi. Frequent, especially in
comedy, is its use in threats, execrations, and other emotional statements, as is illus-
trated by (e). Ex. (f) illustrates its use in an open condition. It is also found with main
152 Counts based on BTL, with corrections on the basis of a few lexica. For the historical development,
see Sz.: 667–8, also for exceptional ni forte in Quint. Inst. 11.2.27. For the manuscripts of Statius, see
Hall (2008: 383–6).
153 Taken from K.-St.: II.412.
clauses referring to purely hypothetical states of affairs, such as the ‘almost situation’
in (g) (see § 16.62).154
(d) Si in ius vocat, <ito>. Ni it, antestamino.
(‘If plaintiff summons defendant to court, he shall go. If he does not go, plaintiff shall
call witness thereto.’ Lex XII I.1)
(e) Nunc quando ego sum, vapulabis, ni hinc abis, ignobilis.
(‘Now that I am him, you’ll get a thrashing unless you go away from here, you
unknown creature.’ Pl. Am. 440)
(f) Tace, tace, meus hic est homo, / ni omnes di . . . deserunt.
(‘Be quiet, be quiet, this chap is mine, unless all the gods . . . leave me in the lurch.’
Pl. Ps. 600–600a)
(g) Vide sis, ego ille doctus leno paene in foveam decidi, / ni hic adesses.
(‘Just look, I, that clever pimp, almost fell into a pit, if you hadn’t been present.’
Pl. Per. 594–5)
Supplement:
= si non: Si is homo qui devotus est moritur, probe factum videri. Ni moritur, tum
signum . . . in terram defodi . . . (Liv. 8.10.12); . . . legati Aurunci senatum adeunt ni
decedatur Volsco agro bellum indicentes. (Liv. 2.26.4—NB: or = nisi?)
= nisi: Nam nec Bellona mi umquam nec Mars creduat, / ni illum exanimalem faxo, si
convenero, / nive exheredem fecero vitae suae. (Pl. Bac. 847–9—NB: coordination); Ni
abeas, quamquam tu bella es, / malum tibi magnum dabo iam. (Pl. Bac. 1172a–3);
Moriar, ni, quae tua gloria est, puto te malle a Caesare consuli quam inaurari! (Cic.
Fam. 7.13.1)
Atque edepol mirum ni subolet iam hoc huic vicinae meae. (Pl. Cas. 554); Mirum
ni illa salva’st et ego perii. (Ter. Hau. 663)
Nam ni ita esset, tecum orarem ut ei quod posses mali / facere faceres. (Pl. Bac.
554–5); Animum inducam facile ut tibi istuc credam ni te noverim. (Pl. Poen. 877);
Ni / doleres tu, ego dolerem. (Pl. Ps. 1320–20a); . . . ni partem maxumam / existu-
marem scire vostrum, id dicerem. (Ter. Hau. 8–9); Haec ego iudices, non auderem
proferre, ni vererer ne forte plura de isto ab aliis in sermone quam a me in iudicio vos
audisse diceretis. (Cic. Ver. 4.55); Nam ni ita esset, quo iure equitatum a consule
abduceret? (Cic. Phil. 11.27); Quod ni Catilina maturasset pro curia signum sociis
dare, eo die post conditam urbem Romam pessumum facinus patratum foret. (Sal.
Cat. 18.8); Et ni / posces ante diem librum cum lumine, si non / intendes animum
studiis et rebus honestis, / invidia vel amore vigil torquebere. (Hor. Ep. 1.2.34–7);
Causticis namque curabatur, ni usque in ossa corpus exustum esset, rebellante taedio.
(Plin. Nat. 26.3); Vitellius litteras ad Titianum, fratrem Othonis, composuit, exitium
ipsi filioque eius minitans, ni incolumes sibi mater ac liberi servarentur. (Tac. Hist.
1.75.2); Arsissetque bello provincia, ni Quadratus, Syriae rector, subvenisset. (Tac.
Ann. 12.54.3–4)155
154 For a discussion of such ni instances, see Gratwick (2002: 54–5). He also supports Merula’s conjec-
ture ni instead of nisi in Cato Agr. pr. 1.
155 For Tacitus’ use of ni (not in Ann. 13–16), see Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.284).
Me non perdent. Illum ut perdant facere possum, si velim, / meum erum ut per-
dant, ni mihi metuam, Milphio. (Pl. Poen. 864–5); Multa me dehortantur a vobis,
Quirites, ni studium rei publicae omnia superet. (Sal. Jug. 31.1)
(ii) Si non. A si clause containing the negator non indicates the assumption that
something is not the case. Non may function either as a clause negator or as a local
negator (for this distinction, see § 8.1). Examples of the former are (h)–(j). The
scope (see § 8.2) may also be on a particular word, as in (k), where tangendi is in
contrast with videndi. A following main clause often contains an adversative coord-
inator (at, sed) and/or an adverb of certainty or contrast (certe, tamen) or a particu-
larizing particle (quidem, saltem), as in (l). A possible example of local negation
is (m).
(h) Quis ego sum saltem, si non sum Sosia?
(‘Then who am I, if I’m not Sosia?’ Pl. Am. 438)
(i) Si non nos materiarius remoratur, quod opu’s<t> qui det / —novi indolem
nostri ingeni—cito erit parata navis.
(‘If the supplier of timber, who should give us what we need, doesn’t delay us—I
know what sort of characters we have—the ship will be ready quickly.’ Pl. Mil.
920–1)
(j) Ludunt formosae. Casta’st quam nemo rogavit. / Aut, si rusticitas non vetat,
ipsa rogat.
(‘The beautiful keep holiday. Chaste is she whom no one has asked—or, if rusticity
does not prevent her, she herself asks first.’ Ov. Am. 1.8.43–4)
(k) Quid? Nil? Si non tangendi copia’st, / eho ne videndi quidem erit?
(‘How do you mean “nothing”? If I don’t have the opportunity to touch her, hey,
won’t I even get to see her?’ Ter. Eu. 638–9)
(l) Si illud non licet, / saltem hoc licebit.
(‘If that’s not permitted, at least this will be.’ Ter. Eu. 639–40)
(m) . . . acceptum face redditumque votum, / si non illepidum neque invenustum’st.
(‘. . . record the vow as received and duly paid, if it is not out of taste nor inelegant.’
Catul. 36.16–17)
Supplement:
Si affers, tum patent. Si non est quod des, aedes non patent. (Pl. As. 242); Nam si
mutuas non potero, certum est sumam faenore. (Pl. Aul. 248); Id si relinquo ac non
peto omnes ilico me suspicentur, credo, habere aurum domi. (Pl. Aul. 109); Si non
ubi sedeas locus est, est ubi ambules . . . (Pl. Capt. 12); Di illum perduint! / Quid, si
non veniet? Maneamne usque ad vesperum? (Ter. Hec. 441–2); O miserum te, si
haec intellegis, miseriorem, si non intellegis hoc litteris mandari, hoc memoriae
prodi . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.54); Quod si non ita est . . . cur tam repente pacis est facta men-
tio? (Cic. Phil. 12.3); Neque enim bonitas nec liberalitas nec comitas esse potest non
plus quam amicitia si haec non per se expetantur sed ad voluptatem utilitatemve
referantur. (Cic. Off. 3.33); Quia, si mala sunt, is qui erit in iis beatus non erit. Si
mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. (Cic. Fin. 5.86); Si id non feceris,
mirabor. Sed confido te esse facturum. (Cic. Att. 3.3); In eo enim totum est positum
id quod cogitamus. Quae cogitatio si non incidisset, mihi crede, istuc ut cetera non
laborarem. (Cic. Att. 13.32.1); Denique, si fuit magni animi non esse supplicem vic-
tori, vide ne . . . si re publica non possis frui, stulti sit nolle privata. (Cic. Fam. 4.9.4);
Solus eram, si non saevus adesset Amor. (Ov. Am. 1.6.34); Et peream, si non invitant
omnia culpam. (Ov. Ep. 7.183); . . . victi necessitate legatos mittunt, qui primum
pacem aequam peterent; si pacem non inpetrarent, uti provocarent ad pugnam.
(Liv. 9.4.2); Hoc tamen nuntia, melius me morituram fuisse si non in funere meo
nupsissem. (Liv. 30.15.7)
With particles or adverbs in the superordinate clause (in alphabetical order by
particle or adverb): Si non sum ex eo loco deiectus quo prohibitus sum accedere, at
ex eo sum deiectus quo accessi unde fugi. (Cic. Caec. 84); Sin hoc non licet per
Cratippum, at illud certe dabis quod honestum sit id esse maxime propter se expeten-
dum. (Cic. Off. 3.33); . . . tacente te, qui, si non plus ingenio valebas quam ego, certe
timebas minus. (Cic. Att. 3.15.7); Cum saepius mater et avia pueri postularent, uti si
non redderet pecuniam nec rationem daret, diceret saltem quantum pecuniae
Malleoli deportasset . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.92); Si non licuit, tamen illo mortuo non modo
filius sed quivis heres rectissime potuit auferre. (Cic. Flac. 59)
(iii) Nisi resembles English ‘unless’ or ‘except if ’.156 The nisi clause formulates
the state of affairs that will prevent the state of affairs in the main clause from com-
ing into effect. Nisi is used in threats and related statements, much like ni, as in (n),
which is very similar to the Plautine ni example (e) given above. In (o) the order of
the clauses is reversed, but the semantic relation is the same. Ex. (p) illustrates its
use in strong asseverations. Ex. (q) represents the most common use of nisi: here,
the fact that the speaker has another obligation excludes the possibility of inviting
the addressee (‘if not’). Ex. (r) has the reverse order. Nisi is also found in ‘almost
situations’, as in (s)—compare (g). For nisi ‘except that’ in clauses of exception, see
§ 16.67.
(n) Hercle vero vapulabis, nisi iam loquere aut hinc abis.
(‘Honestly, you’ll get a beating unless you tell me now or go away.’ Pl. Mer. 168)
(o) Nunc adeo nisi abis actutum . . . / . . . ego hic te, mulier . . . pedibus proteram.
(‘Now unless you leave this instant . . ., I’ll stamp you with my feet here, woman . . .’ Pl.
Truc. 267–8)
(p) Di deaeque omnes me . . . interficiant, / nisi ego illam anum interfecero
siti . . .
(‘May all the gods and goddesses kill me . . ., if I don’t kill that old woman with thirst . . .’
Pl. Mos. 192–3)
(q) Vocem te ad cenam, nisi egomet cenem foris.
156 See OLD s.v. nisi § 1. The etymology of nisi is not certain: ne + si (OLD) or ni (< nĕ + ī) + si (de Vaan
2008: 408; 561).
(‘I’d invite you to dinner, if I weren’t out myself.’ Pl. St. 190)
(r) Nisi te amarem plurumum, / non facerem.
(‘If I didn’t love you most, I wouldn’t have done it.’ Pl. Am. 525–6)
(s) Ego autem si mihi imposuisset aliquid, quod paene fecit nisi tua malitia
adfuisset, animo iniquo tulissem.
(‘If he had put something over on me, as he very nearly did but for your cunning on
my side, I should have been vexed.’ Cic. Att. 15.26.4)
Supplement:
Quid mi refert Chrysalo esse nomen nisi factis probo? (Pl. Bac. 704); Nisi sciero prius
ex te, tu ex me numquam hoc quod rogitas scies. (Pl. Per. 218); Quam ob rem, per
deos immortales, colligite vos, tribuni plebis, deserite eos a quibus, nisi prospicitis,
brevi tempore deseremini . . . (Cic. Agr. 1.26); Nisi me suspendo, occidi. (Pl. Rud.
1415); Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se
expetuntur. (Cic. Fin. 3.70); Vitis quidem quae natura caduca est et nisi fulta est,
fertur ad terram, eadem ut se erigat, claviculis suis quasi manibus quicquid est nacta,
complectitur. (Cic. Sen. 52); Negat Epicurus iucunde posse vivi, nisi cum virtute
vivatur . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.49)
Satis aps te accipiam, nisi videam mihi te amicum esse, Antipho. (Pl. St. 508); Nam
ita me Venus amoena amet, / ut ego huc iam dudum simitu exissem vobiscum foras, /
nisi me vobis exornarem. (Pl. St. 742–4); Quae fuisset igitur iusta causa restituendi
mei, nisi fuisset iniusta eiciendi? (Cic. Mil. 36); Quae quidem ego non ferrem nisi me
in philosophiae portum contulissem et nisi haberem socium studiorum meorum
Atticum nostrum. (Cic. Fam. 7.30.2); Ergo ego nisi peperissem, Roma non oppugna-
retur; nisi filium haberem, libera in libera patria mortua essem. (Liv. 2.40.8); Folia
erant plantaginis, nisi angustiora essent et magis laciniosa convexaque in ter-
ram . . . (Plin. Nat. 25.124)
Minus, originally used as a milder form of negation than non (see § 8.20), is occasion-
ally used by Plautus in conditional periods, as in (t), but it becomes more common
from the Classical period onwards, where it equals si non. Sometimes minus can
also be understood as a degree adverb.157 Condensed si(n) minus is more common
(see § 16.57 fin.).
(t) Redi modo huc intro: monebo, siquidem meministi minus.
(‘Just return in here: I’ll remind you if you don’t remember it well.’ Pl. Cas. 998)
(u) Si quid ad me scripseris, ita faciam ut te velle intellexero. Sin autem tu minus
scripseris, ego tamen omnia quae tibi utilia esse arbitrabor summo studio
diligenterque curabo.
(‘If you write to me, I shall act as I understand you want me to. But if you do not write,
I shall nonetheless pay most zealous and particular heed to everything that seems to
me for your advantage.’ Cic. Fam. 6.22.3)
157 Material in TLL s.v. parvus 580.77ff.

Supplement:
Ne et hic varientur virgis et loris domi, / si minus curassint, quom eri reveniant
domum. (Pl. Poen. 26–7); Quare si ipsa ratio minus perficiet, ut mortem neglegere
possimus, at vita acta perficiat, ut satis superque vixisse videamur. (Cic. Tusc.
1.109); . . . eo consilio, ut, si possent, castellum, cui praeerat Quintus Titurius legatus,
expugnarent pontemque interscinderent, si minus potuissent, agros Remorum popu-
larentur . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.9.4–5)
. Conditional clauses functioning as adjunct

Si clauses functioning as adjunct are the best known type of conditional clause, and
also the most frequent.158 The basic semantic relation is, as indicated above, one of
accepting for the time being the statement in the si clause as warranting the statement
in the main clause. The state of affairs of the si clause often entails the realization of the
state of affairs of the main clause. In that case the relation between the two clauses is
one of cause and effect. In (a), for example, lack of understanding on the part of the
addressee will lead to the speaker repeating his words. Often the event in the si clause
precedes the event in the main clause.
(a) Dixi equidem. Sed si parum intellexti, dicam denuo.
(‘I’ve told you, but if you didn’t understand it fully I’ll say it again.’ Pl. Rud. 1103)
Si adjunct clauses relatively often precede the main clause (hence the terms ‘protasis’
(lit. ‘putting forward’) and ‘apodosis’ (lit. ‘giving back’)). However, there is no fixed
linear order, and the si clause may precede or follow the main clause, or be inserted. If
it precedes, it usually refers to shared knowledge between the speaker and hearer, pos-
sibly even to an observable fact. The main clause will in that case more readily be
understood as the outcome or conclusion of the state of affairs in the si clause. Adverbs
like scilicet ‘naturally’ and videlicet ‘clearly’ may indicate the naturalness of such an
outcome or conclusion. If the order is the reverse, the following si clause will more
readily be interpreted as a condition or restriction for the state of affairs in the main
clause. Further examples of conditional adjuncts with si are (b)–(d). Note that in the
situation in (d) a temporal/causal cum clause would have been possible as well, of
course with its own—different—meaning (see § 16.61).159
(b) Si quando non pluet, uti terra sitiat, aquam inrigato leniter in areas.
(‘Whenever there is no rain with the result that the ground dries out, water the beds
lightly.’ Cato Agr. 151.4)
(c) Libertatem tibi ego et divitias dabo, / si impetras.
(‘I’ll give you freedom and wealth if you succeed.’ Pl. Mil. 1213–14)
158 Núñez (1998: 598, n. 6) observes that in his corpus non-adjunct conditional clauses are very infre-
quent (much less than 20%).
159 For differences in what may be expressed in conditional and time clauses in general, see
Wakker (1994: 123–5).
(d) Abi’n hinc a me, dignus domino servos? # Abeo si iubes.

(‘Will you go away from me, a slave worthy of his master? # I’m going if you tell me
to.’ Pl. Am. 857)
Supplement:
Sed si ambas videre in uno miles concilio volet, / quid agimus? (Pl. Mil. 249–50); Erus
si minatus est malum servo suo, / tametsi id futurum non est, ubi captum est flagrum, /
dum tunicas ponit, quanta afficitur miseria! (Pl. Per. 361–3);160 Si amabas, invenires
mutuom, / ad danistam devenires, adderes faenusculum, / surruperes patri. (Pl. Ps.
286–8); Nunc igitur primum quae ego sim et quae illaec siet, / huc quae abiit intro,
dicam, si animum advortitis. (Pl. Trin. 6–7); Redargue me, si mentior. (Cic. Clu. 62);
Si iniuriam tibi factam quereris, defendam et negabo. (Cic. Div. Caec. 58); Quod si
parentes carissimos habere debemus, quod ab iis nobis vita, patrimonium, libertas,
civitas tradita est, si deos immortalis, quorum beneficio et haec tenuimus et ceteris
rebus aucti sumus, si populum Romanum, cuius honoribus in amplissimo consilio et
in altissimo gradu dignitatis atque in hac omnium terrarum arce conlocati sumus, si
hunc ipsum ordinem, a quo saepe magnificentissimis decretis sumus honestati,
immensum quiddam et infinitum est quod vobis debeamus . . . (Cic. Red. Sen. 2);
Cum ea ita sint, tamen si obsides ab iis sibi dentur, uti ea quae polliceantur facturos
intellegat, et si Haeduis de iniuriis quas ipsis sociisque eorum intulerint, item si
Allobrogibus satisfaciant, sese cum iis pacem esse facturum. (Caes. Gal. 1.14.6); Me
si fata meis paterentur ducere vitam / auspiciis et sponte mea componere curas, /
urbem Troianam primum dulcisque meorum / reliquias colerem, Priami tecta alta
manerent, / et recidiva manu posuissem Pergama victis. (Verg. A. 4.340–4); Si nemo
est omnesque dei non posse fatentur, / ipse agat . . . (Ov. Met. 2.389–90); Peditum acies
inter perculsos inpavida sola erat videbaturque, si iusta ac [si] recta pugna esset,
haudquaquam inpar futura. (Liv. 22.28.13); At si incolumem servaveris, aeternum
exemplar clementiae ero. (Tac. Ann. 12.37.4)
The precise relationship between the si clause and the main clause may be specified by
the use of various particles and adverbs in the former. The conditional relation may be
made more restrictive by the particles modo and tantummodo ‘only’, as in (e) and (f).
The particle quidem in (g) has a similar function. In Late Latin tamen is used in a
comparable way; an early instance is (h). In (i) and (j) the particle iam, in its ‘polar’
use, indicates that the hypothetical situation described in the si clause is contrary to
what Cicero expects.161
(e) Id modo si mercedis / datur mi, ut meus victor vir belli clueat, / satis mi esse
ducam.
(‘Only if my reward is that my husband is renowned as victor in war, will I consider
this enough for me.’ Pl. Am. 646–8)
160 For discussion of this sequence of subordinate clauses preceding their main clause, see
Blänsdorf (1967: 11–13).
161 For this use of si tamen, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2003; 2011: 129–33). For iam, see Kroon and
Risselada (1998: 434–5; 2002: 71–2), from whom I take example (i). More examples in TLL s.v. iam
127.59ff. (‘vi concessiva’).
(f) Ac si tum P. Sestius, iudices, in templo Castoris animam quam vix retinuit
edidisset, non dubito quin, si modo esset in re publica senatus, si maiestas
populi Romani revixisset, aliquando statua huic ob rem publicam interfecto
in foro statueretur.
(‘And if, gentlemen, Publius Sestus had then in the Temple of Castor breathed out his
last breath, which he held on to with difficulty, I have no doubt, if only there were a
Senate in the State, if the majesty of the Roman People should come to life again, that
a statue would one day be set up to him in the Forum as having been slain in defence
of the State.’ Cic. Sest. 83)
(g) . . . vehes pol hodie me, si quidem hoc argentum ferre speres.
(. . . you’ll carry me on your back today, at least if you hope to get this money.’ Pl.
As. 699)
(h) . . . hoc prohibete nefas scelerique resistite nostro, / si tamen hoc scelus est.
(‘. . . keep this sin from me and fight off my crime, if indeed it is a crime.’ Ov. Met.
10.322–3)
(i) At si rogem iam quid est quod peccem aut quam ob rem hoc facias, nescias.
(‘If I were to ask you now what it is I am doing wrong or why you are doing this, you
wouldn’t have any idea.’ Ter. Hau. 1008)
(j) Nunc, si iam res placeat, agendi tamen viam non video.
(‘As it is, even if I were to approve in principle, I see no way of going to work.’ Cic.
Att. 5.4.1)
Adverbs may fulfil a similar function, as is illustrated by (k)–(o) (for subordinate
clauses in general, see § 14.18). The conditional interpretation of the si clause is
strengthened in this way.
(k) Ne quis concedat, quo olea legunda et facienda carius locetur, extra quam si
quem socium in praesentiarum dixerit.
(‘No one shall form a combination for the purpose of raising the contract price for
harvesting and milling olives, unless he names his associate at the time.’ Cato Agr.
144.4)
(l) De classe Carthaginiensibus remissum, praeterquam si quid navium ex
foedere deberent.
(‘The Carthaginians were released from their promise about the fleet, except if they
had a treaty obligation to provide ships.’ Liv. 36.4.9—NB: see Briscoe ad loc.)
(m) Quare . . . potius in seminariis surculos de ficeto quam grana de fico expedit
obruere, praeter si aliter nequeas . . .
(‘It is therefore better to plant in the nursery shoots from the fig tree than grains from
the fruit unless you are unable to do this for other reasons . . .’ Var. R. 1.41.5)
(n) . . . nec mi umbra hic usquam est, nisi si in puteo quaepiam est.
(‘. . . and I don’t have shade anywhere here, unless there’s some in the well.’ Pl.
Mos. 769)
(o) Si ea seposita, ut dicis, essent, tuque valde spectandi cupidus esses, non dubi-
tares rogare dominum, ut proferri iuberet, praesertim si esset familiaris.
(‘If these were laid aside, as you describe, and you had a strong desire to behold them,
you would not hesitate to ask the master of the house to order them to be brought
out, especially if you were his familiar friend.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.162)
Supplement:
Sed ne inornata [quae] sunt quidem, nisi cum sunt infra rei, de qua loquendum est,
dignitatem, excepto si obscena nudis nominibus enuntientur. (Quint. Inst. 8.3.38)
Illa autem exceptio cui probari tandem potest, quod negant sapientem susceptu-
rum ullam rei publicae partem, extra quam si eum tempus et necessitas coegerit?
(Cic. Rep. 1.10)
Sed etiam superioribus invidetur saepe vehementer et eo magis si intolerantius se
iactant et aequabilitatem communis iuris praestantia dignitatis aut fortunae suae
transeunt. (Cic. de Orat. 2.209)
Aliter ampla domus dedecori saepe domino est, si est in ea solitudo; et maxime si
aliquando alio domino solita est frequentari. (Cic. Off. 1.139)
Quin nos hinc domum / redimus, nisi si historiam scripturi sumus? (Pl. Men.
247–8); Sed ubi est is? # Advenit simul. # Ubi is ergo est? Nisi si in vidulo / aut si in
mellina attulisti. (Pl. Epid. 22–3); Dixisset etiam conlega meus, patruus tuus, nisi si tu
es solus Antonius. (Cic. Phil. 2.70); Hic noster, hic plebis nostrae habitus fuit eritque
semper, nisi si quando a vobis proque vobis arma acceperimus. (Liv. 6.26.5); In
socium nostrum praetor populi Romani animadvertit in privato, nocte, tumultuario
tribunali, ebrius fortasse, ne calceatus quidem—nisi si, ut omnia spectaret meretrix,
diligenter exegit. (Sen. Con. 9.2.24)
Habes causam opinionis meae: et tamen velim scire quid cogites in primisque si
quid etiam nunc novi est. (Cic. Att. 10.17.4)
Nec quotus annus eat, nec quo sit nata require / consule, quae rigidus munera
censor habet, / praecipue si flore caret . . . (Ov. Ars 2.663–5)
With conditional adjuncts a preceding main clause may contain various expressions
that strengthen the conditional relation between the clauses, notably the manner
adverbs sic and ita ‘in that case’, as in (p) and (q), or noun phrases with, for example,
condicio ‘condition’.
(p) Tu, quoniam necesse nihil est, sic scribes aliquid si vacabis.
(‘Seeing as there’s no real need, only write to me if you have time.’ Cic. Att. 12.38.2)
(q) . . . crebris nos litteris appellato, atque ita si idem fiet a nobis.
(‘. . . salute me with letters in plenty, on the understanding that the same shall be forth-
coming on my side.’ Cic. Fam. 15.20.2)
Supplement:
Nam hoc ipsum ita iustum est, quod recte fit, si est voluntarium. (Cic. Off. 1.28); Ita
enim senectus honesta est, si se ipsa defendit, si ius suum retinet, si nemini emanci-
pata est, si usque ad ultimum spiritum dominatur in suos. (Cic. Sen. 38); Cuius
ita aliqua spes est, si eam, quem ad modum ut victor fert Hannibal, sic vos ut victi
audietis . . . (Liv. 21.13.5); Erat mihi in animo etiam tum sic uti beneficio eius si tu
concessisses. (Cic. Att. 14.13a.2); Decreverunt enim, ut, cum populus regem iussisset,
id sic ratum esset, si patres auctores fierent. (Liv. 1.17.9)
Ea lege hoc adeo faciam, si facit / quod ego hunc aequom censeo. (Ter. Hau.
1054–5); Sed tamen ego filio dixeram librum tibi legeret et auferret, aut ea condicione
daret si reciperes te correcturum, hoc est, si totum alium faceres. (Caec. Fam. 6.7.4)
Another way of strengthening the conditional relation is to use a correlative adverb or

particle in the (following) main clause. Examples are causal/resultative adverbs like
ideo ‘for that reason’, the consecutive interactional particle ergo ‘then’, the consecutive
connector igitur ‘then’—both rare—the adversative connector at (or ast) ‘but’ (some-
times combined with certe ‘at least’, tamen ‘nevertheless’, or saltem ‘at least’, which can
also be used alone),162 and tum, used in its inferential sense ‘in that event’. Examples
are (r) and (s).163
(r) Si tibi est machaera, at nobis veruina est domi.
(‘If you have a sword, we have a spit at home.’ Pl. Bac. 887)
(s) Id ego si fallo, tum te, summe Iuppiter, / quaeso Amphitruoni ut semper
iratus sies.
(‘If I deceive you in this, then I ask you, great Jupiter, to be angry with Amphitruo for
ever.’ Pl. Am. 933–4)
Supplement:
. . . nec, si forte a me desciveris, idcirco te a se et a re publica et a tua dignitate deficere
patientur. (Cic. Sul. 35); Nec, si hoc Crassus non committit, ideo non multi et saepe
committunt. (Cic. de Orat. 2.302); Neque enim, quod quisque potest, id ei licet, nec,
si non obstatur, propterea etiam permittitur. (Cic. Phil. 13.14)
Quod si luna dea est, ergo etiam Lucifer ceteraeque errantes numerum deorum
optinebunt. (Cic. N.D. 3.51); Quodsi melius geruntur ea quae consilio quam quae
sine consilio administrantur, nihil autem omnium rerum melius administratur quam
omnis mundus, consilio igitur mundus administratur. (Cic. Inv. 1.59)
Si illi sunt virgae ruri, at mihi tergum domi est. (Pl. Bac. 365); . . . ei, si nequaquam
parem illius ingenio, at pro nostro tamen studio meritam gratiam debitamque refera-
mus. (Cic. de Orat. 3.14); Dicitur Appius in medio pugnae discrimine . . . ita precatus
esse: ‘Bellona, si hodie nobis victoriam duis, ast ego tibi templum voveo.’ (Liv.
10.19.17); Passurus autem a quo ero? Si a Creatore, qualia infligere ipsius est? Et quale
erit, ut peccatorem aemuli sui puniat magis quam e contrario foveat Deus zelotes? Si
ab illo Deo, atquin punire non novit. (Tert. Marc. 5.7.13)
Hoc si Romae fieri posset, certe aliqua ratione expugnasset iste ut . . . (Cic. Ver.
2.130); Nam si in ambitus iudiciis hoc eis obfuit, cum alia lege causam dicerent, certe,
si propria lege huius peccati adducti essent, multo plus obfuisset. (Cic. Clu. 114);
Nam si sic nihil impetrare potero, saltem sortiar. (Pl. Cas. 298); Si id nequeas, saltem
ut optumis sis proxumus. (Pl. Trin. 487); Si multum’st, tamen faciundum’st. (Ter. Ad.
162 For the ‘pseudo-apodotic’ use of at, see Kroon (1995: 344–8).
163 For correlative patterns of si, see Rosén (2011: 140–2).
950–1); Pecuniam si cuipiam fortuna ademit aut si alicuius eripuit iniuria, tamen,
dum existimatio est integra, facile consolatur honestas egestatem. (Cic. Quinct. 49)
Si ego minam non ultus fuero probe quam lenoni dedi, / tum profecto me sibi
habento scurrae ludificatui. (Pl. Poen. 1280–1); Si igitur rettulit falsum senatus con-
sultum, tum est rogatio. Si non rettulit, nulla est. (Cic. Dom. 50)
Preceding si clauses are often closely related to the preceding context and in that way
serve as a ‘bridge’ between what precedes and the apodosis. In relation to the preced-
ing context, they may resume or summarize, as in (t) and (u)—note the anaphoric
expression ita feceris in (u)—serve as a contrast, as in (v), provide an illustration, as
in (w), or contain one out of several alternative possibilities, as in (x). They have top-
ical features, which means that the apodosis usually contains salient information.164
Following si clauses often express a proviso or a correction, as in (y).
(t) Non licet donati opsoni me participem fieri? / # Si volebas participari,
auferres dimidium domum.
(‘May I not have my share of the provisions I gave as a gift? # If you wanted to have
your share, you should have taken half home.’ Pl. Truc. 747–8)
(u) Bubilia bona, bonas praesepis, Faliscas clatratas. Clatros interesse oportet
pede. Si ita feceris, pabulum boves non eicient.
(‘(sc. have) Good stalls, stout pens, and latticed feed-racks. The rack bars should be
a foot apart. If you make them in this way the cattle will not scatter their feed.’ Cato
Agr. 4)
(v) Si quid est quod doleat, dolet. Si autem non est, tamen hoc hic dolet.
(‘If I have anything to feel pain with, I feel pain; but if I don’t, I still feel it here.’
Pl. Cist. 67)
(w) (The discussion is about whether Zeno and other Stoics were excused in using
new expressions for their concepts.) Si enim Zenoni licuit, cum rem aliquam
invenisset inusitatam, inauditum quoque ei rei nomen imponere, cur non
liceat Catoni?
(‘If when Zeno invented some novel idea he was permitted to denote it by an equally
unheard-of word, why should not Cato be permitted to do so too?’ Cic. Fin. 3.15)
(x) (There are two possible hostes.) Si igitur Caesar hostis, cur consul nihil refert
(v.l. referat) ad senatum?
(‘If, then, Caesar was the enemy, why does the consul not refer to the senate?’ Cic.
Phil. 3.21—see Manuwald ad loc.)
(y) Meus quidem hercle numquam fiet. # Si sapies quidem.
(‘It’ll never become mine. # If you’re smart at least.’ Pl. Trin. 559)
164 For these forms of contextual dependency, see Wakker (1994: 61–4) with references. For the
pragmatic saliency of the apodosis in such cases, see Rosén (2007a). For a description of preceding si
clauses as themes, see Cabrillana (1999a). Orlandini (1993: 132–4, with reference to Maurel) uses the term
‘echo’ protasis.
A special type of conditional adjunct is illustrated by (z) and (aa). Here, the state of
affairs of the main clause is logically inferred from the state of affairs of the si clause.
This ‘predictive’165 use of the conditional period for logical reasoning is a subtype of
the regular conditional period in that the si clause conditions the validity of what is
stated in the main clause. This type continues to receive much attention in logic. The
main clause may contain one of the consecutive particles ergo ‘then’ and igitur ‘then’,
as in (ab) and (ac), respectively.166
(z) Necessarie demonstrantur ea, quae aliter ac dicuntur nec fieri nec probari
possunt, hoc modo: ‘Si peperit, cum viro concubuit’.
(‘Those things are proved irrefutably which cannot happen or be proved otherwise
than as stated, for example, “If she has borne a child, she has lain with a man.” ’ Cic.
Inv. 1.44—NB: compare: quoniam peperit, cum viro concubuit in Cic. Inv. 1.74)
(aa) Haec tum vera sunt, hoc pacto: ‘Quoniam cicatrix est, fuit vulnus.’ Tum veri
similia, hoc modo: ‘Si multus erat in calceis pulvis, ex itinere eum venire
oportebat.’
(‘Arguments of this kind are sometimes true—for example, “Since there is a scar,
there has been a wound”—sometimes they are only plausible, for instance: “If there
was much dust on his shoes, he must have been on a journey.” ’ Cic. Inv. 1.47)
(ab) Si neque emisti neque hereditate venit neque donatus est neque domi natus
est, necesse est ergo subripueris.
(‘If you did not buy it nor inherit it nor receive it as a present, and it was not foaled
on your farm, then you must have stolen it.’ Cic. Inv. 1.84)
(ac) Si neque inimicitiae fuerunt nec metus ullus nec spes [ex morte illius] ali-
cuius commodi neque ad amicum huius aliquem mors illius pertinebat,
relinquitur igitur, ut ab hoc non sit occisus.
(‘If there was no enmity, and no fear, and no hope of any advantages from his death
and his death was of no interest to any friend of the defendant, it therefore follows
that the defendant did not kill him.’ Cic. Inv. 1.45)
Supplement:
Nam si nemo hac praeter iit, postquam intro abii, / cistella hic iaceret. (Pl. Cist.
683–4); Si nil mali esset, iam hic adessent. (Ter. Hau. 238); Ergo, si his rationibus
locupletatus non est, sicut omnes videtis, aut isti domi nascitur aurum, aut, unde non
est licitum, pecunias cepit. (Rhet. Her. 4.33); Si conservator rei publicae Brutus, hos-
tis Antonius. (Cic. Phil. 4.8); Si, quo die ista caedes Romae facta est, ego Athenis eo
die fui, in caede interesse non potui. (Cic. Inv. 1.63); Narrare vero rem quod breviter
iubent, si brevitas est appellanda, cum verbum nullum redundat, brevis est L. Crassi
oratio. (Cic. de Orat. 2.326); Si pecunia signata argentum est, legata est mulieri. (Cic.
Top. 53); Quae si populo Romano iniuste imperanti accidere potuerunt, quid debent
165 See Bertocchi (2001a: 230–1). It is called ‘epistemic’ by Sweetser (1990) and Toledo (2016).
166 TLL s.v. ergo 767.1ff.; s.v. igitur 261.39ff. Igitur occurs also in non-inferential conditional clauses,
e.g. Pl. Am. 209–10. See Kroon (2004b: 73).
putare singuli? (Cic. Off. 2.29); Etenim, si ille tali ingenio exitum non reperiebat, quis
nunc reperiet? (Cic. Att. 14.1.1); Quod quoniam non est, illud quoque necesse est,
cum videamus esse dies inaequales, et solem alio loco hodie occasurum et alio heri
occidisse. Si igitur aliis locis occidit et oritur, necesse est eum moveri, non stare.
(Hyg. Astr. 4.13)
Both the protasis and the apodosis of a conditional period can be ‘condensed’167 or
reduced, and either of them may be entirely absent if the context is clear enough.
Ex. (ad) shows a condensed protasis, (ae) a condensed apodosis, (af) a brachylogi-
cal sentence containing a protasis without an apodosis,168 and (ag) an apodosis
without a protasis. A si clause without a main clause may be interpreted as a wish,
as in (ah).
(ad) Fiat, fiat tribunus plebis, si nihil aliud, ut eo citius tu ex Epiro revertare.
(‘Yes, let him become Tribune, so that, if nothing else, you can return sooner from
Epirus.’ Cic. Att. 2.15.2)
(ae) Quid nunc mi auctores estis? # Ut frugi sies. / # Quid si animus esse non sinit?
(‘What do you advise me to do now? # To be decent. # What if my mind doesn’t allow
it?’ Pl. Poen. 721–2)169
(af) Flexuosum iter habet (sc. auditus), ne quid intrare possit si simplex et direc-
tum pateret.
(‘The auditory passage is winding, to prevent anything from being able to enter, as it
might if the passage were clear and straight.’ Cic. N.D. 2.144—instead of: quod fieri
posset si . . . pateret)
(ag) Vix reprimor quin te manere iubeam. # Cave istuc feceris. / Dicant te men-
dacem nec verum esse . . .
(‘I can barely refrain from ordering you to stay. # Don’t do that. People would say that
you’re a liar and not truthful . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1368–9)
(ah) Quod male feci, crucior. Modo si infectum fieri possiet.
(‘I’m in agony because I treated him badly; if only it could be undone!’ Pl.
Capt. 996)
Both the protasis and the apodosis may be related to a specific constituent instead
of an entire clause, as in (ai) and (aj). In (ai) the secondary predicate neganti is
interpreted conditionally (i.e. si negasset) (see also § 21.7), whereas in (aj) the noun
mortem is interpreted as a future event (i.e. se mortem illaturum esse) that will take
place if what is expressed in the conditional clause does not happen.170
(ai) Nemo ei neganti non credidisset . . .
(‘No one would have refused to believe him if he denied it . . .’ Cic. Mil. 50)
167 The term is used by Nutting (1925: 5–34). 168 See Pease ad loc.
169 Many instances can be found in Lodge s.v. si 643B–644A.
170 See Pasoli (1966: 119; 125) with references.
(aj) Quorum utrique mortem est minitatus, nisi sibi hortorum possessione
cessissent . . .
(‘He threatened both of these with death if they did not vacate their
mansions in his favour . . .’ Cic. Mil. 75)
Conditional clauses expressing an alternative condition which are introduced by sīn
(< sī + ne) ‘if however’, ‘but if ’ usually contain a state of affairs that is in contrast with
that of a preceding conditional clause, as in (ak), but there are also instances where
this is not the case, as in (al). Sin is more common than combinations of si with adver-
sative connectors like autem, vero, and sed. It can itself be combined with autem
and—rarely, after the Classical period—with vero. (For si . . . sive, see § 19.5.)
(ak) Si domi sum, foris est animus, sin foris sum, animus domi est.
(‘If I’m at home, my mind is outside, but if I’m outside, my mind is at home.’ Pl. Mer. 589)
(al) Non licet colloqui te? / # At mihi non lubet. # Sin tuam est quippiam in rem?
(‘Can’t we speak to you? # But I don’t want to. # But what if it’s something in your
interest?’ Pl. Ps. 252–3)
Supplement:
With a preceding si clause: Si est pauper atque haud malus, nequam habetur, / sin
dives malu’st, is cliens frugi habetur. (Pl. Men. 577–9); Si malus aut nequam est, male
res vortunt quas agit, / sin autem frugi est, eveniunt frugaliter. (Pl. Per. 453–4); Ego
nullo possum remedio me evolvere ex his turbis / quin, si hoc celetur, in metu, sin
patefit, in probro sim. (Ter. Ph. 824–5); Haec nisi omnia perspexeritis in causa,
temere a nobis illam appellari putatote. Sin erunt et aperta et nefaria, Cluentio
ignoscere debebitis . . . (Cic. Clu. 18); Si id actum est, fateor me errasse qui hoc malu-
erim, fateor insanisse qui cum illis senserim; tametsi inermis, iudices, sensi. Sin
autem victoria nobilium ornamento atque emolumento rei publicae populoque
Romano debet esse, tum vero optimo et nobilissimo cuique meam orationem gratis-
simam esse oportet. (Cic. S. Rosc. 142); . . . si gemitus in dolore ad confirmandum
animum valebit, utemur. Sin erit ille gemitus elamentabilis, si inbecillus, si abiectus, si
flebilis, ei qui se dederit, vix eum virum dixerim. (Cic. Tusc. 2.57); Equidem ego vobis
regnum trado firmum, si boni eritis, sin mali, inbecillum. (Sal. Jug. 10.6); De admis-
surae temporibus inter auctores fere constitit, primum esse vernum Parilibus, si sit
ovis matura, sin vero feta circa Iulium mensem. (Col. 7.3.11)
Without a preceding si clause: Ne me attrecta, subigitatrix. # Sin te amo? (Pl. Per.
227); Qui ager frigidior et macrior erit, ibi oleam Licinianam seri oportet. Sin in loco
crasso aut calido severis, hostus nequam erit . . . (Cato Agr. 6.2); Quo utinam velis pas-
sis pervehi liceat! Sin reflantibus ventis reiciemur, tamen eodem paulo tardius refera-
mur necesse est. (Cic. Tusc. 1.119); Haec nisi vides expediri, quam in spem me vocas?
Sin autem spei nihil est, quae est mihi vita? (Cic. Att. 3.15.6)
A condensed form of an alternative condition with si(n) minus is illustrated by (am)

and (an). For other possibilities, see the Supplement.
(am) Mihi si spatium fuerit in Tusculanum ante Nonas veniendi, istic te videbo.
Si minus, persequar in Cumanum.
(‘If I have leisure for a visit to Tusculum before the Nones, I shall see you there. If not,
I shall follow you to Cumae.’ Cic. Fam. 9.5.3)
(an) In quibus si quae praeterea est ars, facile patitur, sin minus, virtute eorum et
innocentia contentus est.
(‘If they are masters of some accomplishment besides, the people have no objection,
but if not, they are content with their virtue and innocence.’ Cic. Planc. 62)
Supplement:
Quae potestas si mihi saepius sine meo vestroque periculo fiet, utar. Si minus, quan-
tum potero, non tam mihi me quam rei publicae reservabo. (Cic. Phil. 1.38); Omnis
cura mea solet in hoc versari semper—dicam enim saepius—si possim ut boni effi-
ciam aliquid dicendo. Si id minus, ut certe ne quid mali. (Cic. de Orat. 2.306—NB:
some editors read sin); Quae si eadem Romanae classi darent, revocaturum se a
populatione milites. Si minus, pro hostibus eos habiturum. (Liv. 37.28.2–3); Cf.: Educ
tecum etiam omnis tuos, si minus, quam plurimos. (Cic. Catil. 1.10)
Tu si quid .{lnwl~tuăx habes rescribe. Sin minus, populi §.t}rwl}jlx et mimo-
rum dicta perscribito. (Cic. Att. 14.3.2); Si tu is es cui nuptam esse me arbitror, et
virum et regem appello. Sin minus, eo nunc peius mutata res est quod istic cum
ignavia est scelus. (Liv. 1.47.3); Ego principes dico, vos firmate, si placet, sin minus,
meliores ostendite. (Hist. Aug. Maximin. 2.7)
Si uxorem velit, / lege id licere facere. Sin aliter, negat. (Ter. Ph. 115–16); Si id quod
oportet responderis, idem videare respondisse quod Servius. Sin aliter, etiam contro-
versum ius nosse et tractare videare. (Cic. Mur. 28)
Nunc autem, si haec civitas est, civem esse me, si non, exsulem esse non incom-
modiore loco quam si Rhodum <me> aut Mytilenas contulissem. (Cic. Fam. 7.3.5)
Qui si conservatus erit, vicimus. Sin, quod di omen avertant, omnis omnium
cursus est ad vos. (Cic. Fam. 12.6.2)
Sequences of alternative conditional periods can be introduced by repeated sive, as in

(ao). Another option consists of a conditional period with si followed by another with
sive, as in (ap).171
(ao) Ita, sive dissipantur, procul a terris id evenit, sive permanent et conservant
habitum suum, hoc etiam magis necesse est ferantur ad caelum . . .
(‘Consequently if souls are dispersed in space, this takes place at a distance from the
earth; if they survive and preserve their quality, all the more reason for their being
carried to heaven . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.42)
(ap) Nam si vis vivere, quid optas mori? Sive non vis, quid deos rogas quod tibi
nascenti dederunt?
(‘For if you wish to live, why do you pray for death? And if you do not wish to live,
why do you ask the gods for that which they gave you at birth?’ Sen. Ep. 117.22)
A main clause can be preceded by more than one conditional clause. An example is
(aq). Here the second si clause specifies the first more general one.172
171 For further examples, see OLD s.v. sive § 3.

172 For a discussion of such instances, see Blänsdorf (1967: 16–20; 23–5).
(aq) Nam si vir scortum duxit clam uxorem suam, / id si rescivit uxor, impune
est viro.
(‘If a man hires a prostitute behind his wife’s back and the wife finds out about it, the
husband goes unpunished.’ Pl. Mer. 819–20)
Supplement:
Si nox furtum faxsit, si im occisit, iure caesus esto. (Lex XII 8.12); Si quid scis me
fecisse inscite aut improbe, / si id non me accusas, tute ipse obiurgandus es. (Pl. Trin.
95–6); Sin autem is tu sis qui multam utilitatem rei publicae atque hominum soci-
etati, si in vita remaneas, adferre possis, si quid ob eam causam alteri detraxeris, non
sit reprehendendum. (Cic. Off. 3.30)
. ‘Abbreviated’ conditional periods
There is another type of conditional adjunct, illustrated by (a)–(f). In these instances

the state of affairs of the si clause does not entail the state of affairs of the main clause,
but rather a state of affairs that is not expressed as such. Thus in (a), the relation
between the si clause and the main clause could be made explicit in the following way:
‘in order to be available if . . .’ or ‘in order to be present if . . .’ Si may be translated with
‘in case’, ‘on the off-chance that’. This use of the si clause is sometimes called ‘elliptical’.
Unlike the ‘normal’ conditional adjuncts discussed above, elliptical si clauses more
often follow the main clause.173
(a) Mercurium iussi me continuo consequi, / si quid vellem imperare.
(‘I told Mercury to follow me immediately in case I wanted to give him any orders.’
Pl. Am. 880–1)
(b) Iamdudum, si des, porrexi manum.
(‘I had my hand out for a long time, in case you should give it.’ Pl. Ps. 1148)
(c) Nunc si ridiculum hominem quaerat quispiam, / venalis ego sum cum orna-
mentis omnibus.
(‘Now if anyone should be looking for a jester, I’m for sale with all my equipment.’
Pl. St. 171–2)
(d) Si infitias ibit, testi’ mecum est anulus quem miserat.
(‘In case he insists on denying it, I have in my possession as evidence the ring that he
sent.’ Ter. Ad. 347)
(e) Inde, praesidio relicto adversus Attalum, si forte interim traiecisset, profec-
tus ipse cum paucis equitum levisque armaturae Argos venit.
(‘And then, leaving a garrison against Attalus, in case he should cross over in the
meantime, he set out himself with a few horsemen and light-armed soldiers and
came to Argos.’ Liv. 27.30.8)
173 See Bodelot (1998).

(f) Reddendam pro intempestiva laetitia maestam et funebrem noctem, qua

sciat et sentiat vivere Vitellium et imperare et, si quid fato accidat, filium
habere.
(‘That a night of sorrow and doom must be rendered in payment for his unseasonable
joy, so that he may know and feel that Vitellius is alive and emperor and furthermore
that, if any misfortune happens to him, he still has a son.’ Tac. Hist. 3.38.4)
Supplement:
Si tu Sosia es, legiones quom pugnabant maxume, / quid in tabernaclo fecisti? (Pl.
Am. 427–8); Si quid te volam, / ubi eris? (Pl. As. 109–10); Sed istum quem quaeris
Periphanem Plothenium / ego sum, si quid vis. (Pl. Epid. 448–9); Quin percontatu’s
hominis quae facies foret / qui illam emisset. Eo si pacto posset indagarier / mulier?
(Pl. Merc. 622–4); Nam illum ecastor mittere ad portum volo, / si quae forte ex Asia
navis heri aut hodie venerit. (Pl. St. 151–2); Nunc prior adito tu, ego in insidiis hic ero /
succenturiatu’, siquid deficias. (Ter. Ph. 229–30); Et simul operam suam illis esse pol-
licitum, si posset inter eos aliquid convenire. (Cic. Leg. 1.53); Earum exemplum nobis
legit, si quid videretur. (Cic. Att. 16.4.1); Publice tamen scripsi, si uti vellet eis
Valerius. Aut mihi nomina mitteret. (Cic. Att. 16.11.7); Is eo tempore erat Ravennae
exspectabatque suis lenissimis postulatis responsa siqua hominum aequitate res ad
otium deduci posset. (Caes. Civ. 1.5.5); . . . qui se illi initio civilis belli obtulerant, si
sua opera in bello uti vellet . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.1.4—NB: indirect reflexive sua); Omnibus
deinceps diebus Caesar exercitum in aciem aequum in locum produxit, si Pompeius
proelio decertare vellet . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.55.1); . . . nutu vocibusque hostes, si introire
vellent, vocare coeperunt. (Caes. Gal. 5.43.6); L. Plancus interim legatus petit a
Caesare, uti sibi daret potestatem cum Considio agendi, si posset aliqua ratione per-
duci ad sanitatem. (B. Afr. 4.1); Munitiones non in urbem modo, sed in Etruriam
etiam spectantes, si qua inde auxilia veniant, opposuere. (Liv. 5.5.5—NB: present
tense veniant as a form of repraesentatio—see § 7.113); Te id prius scire volui, si forte
abesse, dum facinus patratur, malles. (Liv. 23.8.11); Isidorus ab Cenaeo Demetriadem,
si forte eo deferret fuga regem, traiecit. (Liv. 36.20.6); Postera die Sabinus exercitum
aequo loco ostendit, si barbari successu noctis alacres proelium auderent. (Tac. Ann.
4.49.1); . . . ad montem Taunum revertuntur, ubi Pomponius cum legionibus opperie-
batur, si Chatti cupidine ulciscendi casum pugnae praeberent. (Tac. Ann. 12.28.1);
Rapi ignes Antonius inferrique amoenissimis extra urbem aedificiis iubet, si damno
rerum suarum Cremonenses ad mutandam fidem traherentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.30.2)
The instances above are often treated as similar to the ‘purpose’ si clauses, for which
see § 16.59. Not so by Bodelot (2000: 177ff.), from whom I take (b) and a few of the
examples given in the Supplement. OLD s.v. si § 11 contains both examples of the
type illustrated above and of ‘purpose’ si clauses. Núñez (1998) also does not seem
to make a distinction. Although it is not always possible to assign instances unam-
biguously to one of these two types, the main difference is that in the instances
discussed above, substitution of si by ut is not possible, and that in many of the si
clauses, the state of affairs is not under the control of the subject of the main verb.
Sometimes these instances are treated in the same way as what in this Syntax are
described as illocutionary conditional clauses (see § 16.64), for instance, by van de
Griend (1989) and Núñez (1998). One famous English example, often quoted or
adapted in the literature, is: If you’re hungry there’s food in the fridge. Of course, the
food is there even if the addressee is not hungry. Illocutionary conditional clauses
represent the point of view of the speaker/author, which is not the case with the
‘abbreviated’ periods presented here.174
Another type of abbreviation is present in idiomatic expressions with pignus (do or
accipio), attested six times in the comedies of Plautus, and also attested once in
Gellius. A common translation for pignus do is ‘to make a bet’. The actual situation in
which the expression is used is one in which two persons X and Y disagree (more or
less explicitly) about a certain situation. The conditional clause reflects the position
taken by Y who is urged or invited by X to give a security if he (Y) thinks that the
situation is indeed (not) a fact. An outsider will decide on whether or not this is the
case. If not, Y will lose his pignus. Examples are (g) and (h).175 In (h), Y holds ‘she is
not my/a (the situation is ambiguous—on purpose) daughter’. X asks Y, if it is his
opinion that she is not, to deposit a security (which Y will lose if he is wrong). A
similar form of abbreviation is found in Pl. Rud. 1380–1 referring to the involvement
of a iudex + a ni clause. It is not entirely clear how expressions with sponsio (see the
Supplement) are related to this.
(g) Aio, vel da pignus, ni ea sit filia.
(‘I do say so. If you like, make a bet if she isn’t the daughter.’ Pl. Epid. 699—
NB: ea’st (i.e. ea est) cj. Brugmann)
(h) Sed contra librarius in quodvis pignus vocabat, si in una uspiam littera delic-
tum esset.
(‘But the bookseller for his part offered to wager any amount whatever that
there were not a mistake even in a single letter.’ Gel. 5.4.2)
Supplement:
Da hercle pignus ni omnia memini et scio / et quidem si scis tute quot hodie habeas
digitos in manu. (Pl. Per. 186–7); Pignus da ni ligneae haec sint (A, sunt P) quas
habes Victorias. (Pl. Truc. 275); Nunc si sponsionem fecissent Gellius cum Turio, ni
vir melior esset Gellius quam Turius, nemo, opinor, tam insanus esset, qui iudicaret
meliorem esse Gellium quam Turium. (Cato orat. 206); Cogere eum coepit, cum
ageret <nemo>, nemo postularet, sponsionem II milium nummum facere cum lictore
suo, NI FURTIS QUAESTUM FACERET. (Cic. Ver. 5.141)
. Purpose si clauses
Sometimes si clauses may be interpreted as denoting the purpose of the main clause,
in which case si may be translated with ‘in the hope that’ or ‘to see if ’.176 Often the
subjects of the two clauses or the object of the main clause and the subject of the si
174 So Spevak, p.c.

175 I thank Marijke Ottink and Nigel Holmes of the TLL for their comments on earlier versions of this
section.
176 I take this translation from Wakker (1994: 365ff.). See also Bodelot (1998; 2002a: 258–9).
Núñez (1998) calls this type of si clause ‘precausal’.
clause are the same. The si clause often contains the verb possum ‘to be able’. Examples
are (a)–(c). The state of affairs in the main clause is controllable, and the si clause fol-
lows the main clause. Often an alternative regular purpose clause with ut is possible as
well (though not semantically equivalent: in the si clause there is ‘doubt as to the
attainment of the goal’;177 in ut clauses possum is used less frequently). With move-
ment verbs relative clauses of purpose are another alternative (see § 18.26).
(a) Ibo hinc intro, perscrutabor fanum, si inveniam uspiam / aurum, dum hic est
occupatus.
(‘I’ll go inside and search the shrine, to see if I can find the gold anywhere while he’s
busy.’ Pl. Aul. 620–1)
(b) Quae res mihi non mediocrem consolationem attulit volo tibi commemorare,
si forte eadem res tibi dolorem minuere possit.
(‘I want to tell you of something which has brought me no slight comfort, in the hope
that perhaps it may have some power to lighten your sorrow too.’ Cic. Fam. 4.5.4)
(c) Circumfunduntur hostes ex reliquis partibus, si quem aditum reperire
possint.
(‘The enemy spread themselves on the other sides, to see if they could find an entry.’
Caes. Gal. 6.37.4)
Some scholars (for example, K.-St.: II.425) explain this use of the si clause by assum-
ing that in the context something like ‘trying’ or ‘waiting in expectation’ is under-
stood. Verbs with such a meaning govern a si argument clause (see § 15.40).
Supplement:
Intus illa te, si se arcessas, manet. (Pl. Cas. 542); Strabacem hic opperiar modo, / si
rure veniat. (Pl. Truc. 692–3); Ego hunc adibo, si quid me velit. (Ter. Hec. 429); . . .
Lucium Minucium Basil[i]um cum omni equitatu praemittit, si quid celeritate iti-
neris atque oportunitate temporis proficere possit. (Caes. Gal. 6.29.4–5); Aeneas
scopulum interea conscendit et omnem / prospectum late pelago petit, Anthea
siquem / iactatum vento videat . . . (Verg. A. 1.180–2); . . . pergit ad proximam spelun-
cam, si forte eo vestigia ferrent. (Liv. 1.7.6); . . . seu ita placuerat principibus
Gallorum . . . ostentari quaedam incendia terroris causa, si compelli ad deditionem
caritate sedum suarum obsessi possent . . . (Liv. 5.42.1); . . . quattuor collegis . . . ad
praesidium urbis et si qui ex Etruria novi motus nuntiarentur—omnia enim inde sus-
pecta erant—relictis. (Liv. 6.22.1—NB: coordination); Consul postquam profectum
Persea audivit, ad Gonnum castra movet, si potiri oppido posset. (Liv. 42.67.6);
Eoque intentius Vologaeses premere obsessos . . . propius incedens quam mos Parthis,
si ea temeritate hostem in proelium eliceret. (Tac. Ann. 15.13.1–2)
Note in (d) the use of the reflexive pronoun se and in (e) the use of the reflexive pos-
sessive adjective sua in the si clauses. This use resembles the use of the reflexive in
argument clauses and in purpose clauses with ut (see § 16.49).
177 Nutting (1925: 76).

(d) Intus illa te, si se arcessas, manet.

(‘She’s waiting inside for you to send for her.’ Pl. Cas. 542)
(e) . . . qui se illi initio civilis belli obtulerant, si sua opera in bello uti vellet . . .
(‘. . . who had offered themselves to him at the beginning of the civil war in
case he should wish to use their services in the war . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.1.4)
A remarkable pair of clauses in combination with eo/hoc consilio are (f), with an ut
clause, and (g), with a si clause. There are similar combinations with ea causa.
(f) . . . ad urbem quam primum cum exercitu accederet. Id autem eo consilio
ut . . . praesto esset . . .
(‘. . . and that he should march on Rome with his army as soon as possible.
That was to be done with the intention that . . . he should be ready in per-
son . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.8)
(g) . . . captos ante oppidum instructos constituit. Id hoc consilio si posset
Vergilius . . . a pertinacia deduci.
(‘. . . and these he now drew up in array in front of the town: his object in so
doing was to see if Vergilius . . . could be drawn out of his obstinate resist-
ance . . .’ B. Afr. 86.2)
For alternative purpose si clauses the correlative pair sive/seu . . . sive/seu can be used
as in (h) (see also § 16.65).
(h) . . . principesque earum civitatum . . . prima luce cotidie ad se convenire iube-
bat, seu quid communicandum seu quid administrandum videretur.
(‘. . . and the chiefs of those states . . . he would order to assemble at dawn daily at his
quarters in case there should seem to be anything to communicate or to arrange.’
Caes. Gal. 7.36.3)
. Adversative, concessive, and causal interpretations of conditional clauses
In some conditional periods the state of affairs of the main clause is or seems unex-
pected or contradictory with respect to the state of affairs of the si clause. This incom-
patibility may become more obvious if the contrast is emphasized by the wording of
the si clause and/or by the presence of adversative, concessive, or other expressions in
the main clause. Instances of conditional clauses that can be interpreted as adversative
are (a) and (b). Note the use of at in (b).178 In (c), the concessive interpretation of the
si clause is encouraged by the use of the particularizing particle maxume (see § 22.37).
In (d), the use of non in the si clause and tamen in the main clause has the same effect.
In (e), the contrast is between centum and parum. This use of si comes close to the use
of etiamsi and other concessive subordinators (see § 16.76).179
(a) Non omnes possunt olere unguenta exotica, / si tu oles . . .
(‘Not everybody can smell of exotic ointments even if you do . . .’ Pl. Mos. 42–3)
178 See Kroon (1994; 1995: Ch. 12). 179 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 164–5).
(b) Si me derides, at pol illum non potes, / patrem meum.

(‘Even if you’re laughing at me, you can’t laugh at that man, my father.’ Pl. Men. 746–7)
(c) Si maxume mi illum reddiderit vidulum, / non ego illic hodie debeo
tribolum.
(‘Even if he returns that trunk to me, I don’t owe him as little as three obols today.’
Pl. Rud. 1353–4)
(d) Siquid est quod doleat, dolet. Si autem non est, tamen hoc hic dolet.
(‘If I have anything to feel pain with, I feel pain; but if I don’t, I still feel it here.’
Pl. Cist. 67)
(e) Quamquam tibi suscensui, / miseria <una> uni quidem homini est affatim. #
Immo huic parum est. / Nam si pro peccatis centum ducat uxores, parum est.
(‘Even though I was angry with you, one affliction is enough for one man. # No, for
him it’s too little: even if he were to marry a hundred wives for his misbehaviour, it
would be too little.’ Pl. Trin. 1184–6)
Supplement:
Nam ego non laturus sum, si iubeas maxume. (Pl. Bac. 1003); Atque adeo, si facere
possim, pietas prohibet. (Pl. Ps. 291); Si umquam quemquam di immortales voluere
esse auxilio adiutum, / tum me et Calidorum servatum / volunt esse et lenonem
exstinctum /. . . (Pl. Ps. 905–6a); Non possum disposite istum accusare, si cupiam.
(Cic. Ver. 4.87); . . . si umquam in dicendo fuimus aliquid, aut etiam si <n>umquam
alias fuimus, tum profecto dolor et <rei> magnitudo vim quandam nobis dicendi
dedit. (Cic. Att. 4.2.2)
Si clauses bear a certain resemblance to reason clauses with quoniam; however,

whereas the former present a certain event as an assumption on which the content of
the main clause is based, the latter denote an event that is an established fact. This is
shown by sequences such as (f) and (g).180
(f) Libenter, inquam, confiterer, si vere possem aut etiam si mihi esset integrum,
C. Rabiri manu L. Saturninum esse occisum, et id facinus pulcherrimum esse
arbitrarer. Sed quoniam id facere non possum, confitebor id quod ad laudem
minus valebit, ad crimen non minus. Confiteor interficiendi Saturnini causa
C. Rabirium arma cepisse.
(‘Gladly, I say, would I admit—if I could do so with truth or even if I were opening
the defence anew—that L. Saturninus was killed at the hands of C. Rabirius, and
I should consider it a most glorious achievement; but since I cannot do so, I will
admit what is less relevant to his credit but equally relevant to the charge against him.
I admit that Gaius Rabirius took arms for the purpose of killing Saturninus.’ Cic. Rab.
Perd. 19)
(g) Nam si in hoc haberet cognitionis notam, eadem uteretur in ceteris. Quam
quoniam non habet, utitur probabilibus.
180 See Bertocchi (2001a: 227–30), Fugier (1989: 104–5), Lavency (1999: 378–80).
(‘For if he had a mark of knowledge in this case, he would employ the same mark in
all other cases, but since he has not got it, he employs probabilities.’ Cic. Luc. 110)
Si clauses can be combined with reason expressions in the main clause, such as the
adverbs idcirco and ideo and the prepositional phrase ob eam rem ‘therefore’ in the
main clause, as in (h), or by the connector igitur ‘then’, as in (i).
(h) An si in ipsa latione tua capta iam urbe lapides iacti, si manus conlata non
est, idcirco tu ad illam labem atque eluviem civitatis sine summa vi pervenire
potuisti?
(‘Or if at the actual voting, when the city was in your hands, there was throwing of
stones, but no actual fighting, could you on that account have brought about the ruin
and destruction of the state, without a resort to extreme violence?’ Cic. Dom. 53)
(i) Quodsi melius geruntur ea quae consilio quam quae sine consilio adminis-
trantur, nihil autem omnium rerum melius administratur quam omnis mun-
dus, consilio igitur mundus administratur.
(‘Therefore if those things are administered better which are governed by design than
those which are administered without design, and nothing is governed better than
the universe, then the universe is governed by design.’ Cic. Inv. 1.59)
Siquidem (and si quidem) is sometimes used even though the content of the clause is
an obvious fact. It then resembles the use of quoniam in attitudinal reason clauses
(and, like them, was originally followed by the indicative). There are instances from
Plautus onwards. The meaning of this so-called causal siquidem is approximately
‘assuming that’ or ‘seeing that’.181 Examples are (j) and (k). More straightforward
examples of causal use are found in Late Latin, as in (l), where it almost functions as
a connector, and (m)—note the subjunctive in the latter.182
(j) Patiundum est, siquidem me vivo mea uxor imperium exhibet.
(‘I have to bear it seeing that my wife is in command while I’m alive.’ Pl. Cas. 409)
(k) Iam explorata nobis sunt ea quae ad domos nostras quaeque ad rem publi-
cam pertinent, siquidem quid agatur in caelo quaerimus?
(‘Have we already acquired a perfect knowledge of those matters that relate to our
own homes and to the State, seeing that we are now seeking to learn what is going on
in the sky? Cic. Rep. 1.19)
(l) Siquidem unus ex passeribus duobus non cadit in terram sine Patris
voluntate.
(‘If, indeed, “one of two sparrows does not fall to the ground without the Father’s
will”.’ Tert. Mon. 9.1)
181 See OLD s.v. siquidem § 3, Solodow (1978: 130), Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 133–5), and
Baños (2014: 77–80).
182 For Tertullian, see Hoppe (1903: 83=1985: 159).
(m) Deus enim cum videret malitiam . . . ita valuisse, ut iam nomen eius ex homi-
num memoria fuisset paene sublatum—siquidem Iudaei quoque . . . aberras-
sent nec increpiti per prophetas reverti ad Deum vellent—filium suum
principem angelorum legavit ad homines . . .
(‘For God, when He saw that wickedness . . . had so prevailed, that His name had now
also been taken away from the memory of men (since even the Jews . . . had gone
astray and when rebuked by the prophets did not choose to return to God), He sent
His Son, the chief of angels, as an ambassador to men . . .’ Lact. Inst. 4.14.17)
Supplement:
Peccavit vero nihilo minus, siquidem est peccare tamquam transire lineas. (Cic.
Parad. 20); Nam loci laetitia plures, exilitas pauciores desiderat, siquidem luxuriosa
vitis, nisi fructu conpescitur, male deflorescit . . . (Col. 4.21.2); Magna differentia est et
in ipso genere motus, pluribus siquidem modis quatitur. (Plin. Nat. 2.198); Eamque
partem Britanniae quae Hiberniam aspicit copiis instruxit, in spem magis quam ob
formidinem, si quidem Hibernia, medio inter Britanniam atque Hispaniam sita et
Gallico quoque mari opportuna, valentissimam imperii partem magnis in vicem usi-
bus miscuerit. (Tac. Agr. 24.1); Siquidem ante paucos dies quam aedilitatem iniret,
venit in suspicionem conspirasse cum Marco Crasso . . . (Suet. Jul. 9.1); Fors fuat an
dies longa quandoque hebetet laxatum dolorem; siquidem malis omnibus finis de
tempore venit. (Symm. Ep. 3.6.1)
. So-called temporal si clauses
In many languages there is an overlap in the use of temporal and conditional adjuncts
in that there are situations in which both expressions are possible; of course, this does
not mean that they are synonymous. Early instances cited in the literature are (a) and
(b). With semel si in (a) one could compare temporal semel ut (see § 16.24). A tem-
poral interpretation is especially attractive when the state of affairs the period refers
to is repeated (iterative), as with siquando in (b). In (c), the si clause in the first sen-
tence is paralleled by a cum clause in the second. In (d), the main clause contains the
correlative adverb tum ‘then’.
(a) Saepe edunt (sc. aves). Semel si captae sunt, rem solvont aucupi.
(‘They eat often; but once they’re caught they give the fowler his reward.’ Pl. As. 218)
(b) Siquando ad eam accesserat / confabulatum, fugere e conspectu ilico, / videre
nolle.
(‘Whenever Sostrata went up to her for a chat, she would immediately disappear
from sight and refuse to see her.’ Ter. Hec. 181–3)
(c) Si mons erat ascendendus, facile ipsa loci natura periculum repellebat, quod
ex locis superioribus qui antecesserant, desuper ascendentis protegebant.
Cum vallis aut locus declivis suberat . . ., tum magno erat in periculo res.
(‘If a hill had to be climbed, the nature of the ground in itself averted peril, since from
the higher ground those who had gone in front protected their comrades who were
ascending; whenever a valley or slope lay before them . . . then indeed the position
was most critical.’ Caes. Civ. 1.79.2–3)
(d) Contende ergo uter sit tergo—verior. / Ni offerrumentas habebis pluris in
tergo tuo / quam ulla navis longa clavos, tum ego ero mendacissumus.
(‘Then compare which of us has a back that’s . . . truer: unless you have more scars on
your back than any warship has nails, I’ll be the biggest liar.’ Pl. Rud. 752–4)
Supplement:
Ad quem si accessit aut si a me discessit unquam . . . tum existimetur Caelius Catilinae
nimium familiaris fuisse. (Cic. Cael. 10); Sed tum id audirem, si tibi soli viveres aut si
tibi etiam soli natus esses. (Cic. Marc. 25)
In Early Latin such a si clause is in the indicative. However, the subjunctive came into
use from the Classical period onwards, as with cum (see § 7.142), and it became the
norm by the time of Suetonius. This use of the moods in iterative clauses has nothing
to do with the semantically based use of the moods in ‘normal’ si clauses. An early
example of an iterative si clause with a subjunctive cited in the literature is (e) from
Caesar; however, here the subjunctive can be explained as potential (see § 7.156). This
is less likely in (f) and (g). In some Late texts both moods are used indiscriminately in
such si clauses.
(e) Fugitivis omnibus nostris certus erat Alexandriae receptus certaque vitae
condicio . . . Quorum siquis a domino prehenderetur, consensu militum
eripiebatur . . .
(‘All our own fugitive slaves had a sure place of refuge at Alexandria and assurance of
their lives . . . And if any one of them was arrested by his owner, he would be rescued
by the common consent of the soldiery. . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.110.4)
(f) Ceterum ex omni multitudine non amplius quadraginta memores nominis
Romani grege facto locum cepere paulo quam alii editiorem, neque inde
maxuma vi depelli quiverunt, sed tela eminus missa remittere, pauci in pluri-
bus minus frustrari. Sin Numidae propius adcessissent, ibi vero virtutem
ostendere et eos maxuma vi caedere, fundere atque fugare.
(‘But out of the entire number not more than forty, who remembered that they were
Romans, gathered together and took a position a little higher than the rest, from
which they could not be dislodged by the greatest efforts of the enemy, but they
threw back the weapons which were thrown from a distance, and few against many
could hardly miss. But if the Numidians came nearer, they then showed their real
quality, slaughtering them with the greatest fury, routing and scattering them.’ Sal.
Jug. 58.3)
(g) Si quis collegam appellasset, ab eo ad quem venerat ita discedebat ut paeni-
teret non prioris decreto stetisse.
(‘If any person appealed to a colleague, he left the one to whom he had appealed in
such a manner as to regret that he had not abided by the sentence of the former.’ Liv.
3.36.8—tr. Spillan)
Supplement:
Caesaris interim non amplius III aut IIII milites veterani si se convertissent et pila
viribus contorta in Numidas infestos coniecissent amplius duum milium numero ad
unum terga vertebant ac rursus ad aciem passim conversis equis se colligebant atque
in spatio consequebantur et iacula in legionarios coiciebant. (B. Afr. 70.4); Si hastati
profligare hostem non possent, pede presso eos retro cedentes in intervalla ordinum
principes recipiebant. (Liv. 8.8.9); Famae nec incuriosus nec venditator; pecuniae
alienae non adpetens, suae parcus, publicae avarus; amicorum libertorumque, ubi
in bonos incidisset, sine reprehensione patiens, si mali forent, usque ad culpam
ignarus. (Tac. Hist. 1.49.3—NB: variation); Si flumina morarentur, nando traiciens
vel innixus inflatis utribus, ut persaepe nuntios de se praevenerit. (Suet. Jul. 57.1); Si
quis enim militarium vel honoratorum aut nobilis inter suos rumore tenus esset
insimulatus fovisse partes hostiles, iniecto onere catenarum in modum beluae trahe-
batur . . . (Amm. 14.5.3)
. Ni/Nisi ‘de rupture’
Ni/nisi clauses, with nisi or ni ‘if not’ and an imperfect or a pluperfect subjunctive verb
form, are used in combination with a main clause in the imperfect (and rarely the
pluperfect) indicative to mark the interruption (hence the French term ‘de rupture’)183
of the event in the main clause (see § 7.20, ex. (l)). Examples are (a) and (b). In (a), the
event in the imperfect labebar longius ‘I would have kept going on even further’ is
interrupted by the event of the subordinate clause; the main clause is understood as
‘I had almost wavered further’. The event that did not take place is expressed in the
indicative (as factive), whereas the event that did take place is expressed in the coun-
terfactual subjunctive. The stylistic effect is underlined by the order of the clauses,
with the ni/nisi following the main clause. Similarly, tenebam in (b) implies ‘I had
almost reached the shore’. (For examples of the pluperfect indicative used in a similar
way, see § 7.31, exx. (v) and (w).) In these periods the ni/nisi clause is certainly not a
condition for the main clause to take place.184
(a) Quin labebar longius, nisi me retinuissem.
(‘Indeed, I would have kept going on even further, if I had not prevented myself.’ Cic.
Leg. 1.52)
(b) Paulatim adnabam terrae. Iam tuta tenebam, / ni gens crudelis /. . . ferro
invasisset praedamque ignara putasset.
(‘Little by little I was swimming to shore: already I was grasping safe ground, if a
barbaric people . . . had not attacked me with a sword and, ignorant, deemed me a
prize.’ Verg. A. 6.358–61)
183 For interruption devices in the historians, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 543–648). For nisi, see
Orlandini (2001: 178–84). For Livy, see Pausch (2011: 200–2).
184 See Torrego (1999) for a number of characteristics of these clauses.
Supplement:
Iam fames quam pestilentia tristior erat, ni dimissis circa omnes populos legatis, qui
Etruscum mare quique Tiberim accolunt, ad frumentum mercandum annonae foret
subventum. (Liv. 4.52.5); At ille moriturum potius quam fidem exueret clamitans fer-
rum a latere diripuit elatumque deferebat in pectus, ni proximi prensam dextram vi
attinuissent. (Tac. Ann. 1.35.4); Trudebanturque in paludem gnaram vincentibus,
iniquam nesciis, ni Caesar productas legiones instruxisset. (Tac. Ann. 1.63.2); Caecina
dum sustentat aciem, suffosso equo delapsus circumveniebatur, ni prima legio sese
opposuisset. (Tac. Ann. 1.65.6); . . . ibaturque in eam sententiam ni durius contraque
morem suum palam pro accusatoribus Caesar inritas leges, rem publicam in prae-
cipiti conquestus esset. (Tac. Ann. 4.30.2); Nec multo post urbem ingredienti offere-
bantur communes liberi, nisi Narcissus amoveri eos iussisset. (Tac. Ann. 11.34.3);
Cumque pauciores utrubique fierent bellatores et Persae truderentur ad ultima, ni
potior ratio succurrisset, impensiore opera procursus temptabatur ex castris . . .
(Amm. 20.11.18)
Inclusam Danaen . . . / tristes excubiae munierant satis / nocturnis ab adulteris, / si
non Acrisium virginis abditae / custodem pavidum Iuppiter et Venus / risissent. (Hor.
Carm. 3.16.1–7)
A factor contributing to the special stylistic effect of the ni/nisi clauses is the absence
of a cause and effect relation between the events in the subordinate and main clause.
This distinguishes them from similar constellations of the same tense and mood
forms with preceding si and ni clauses, examples of which are (c) and (d).
(c) Si per L. Metellum licitum esset, iudices, matres illorum miserorum sororesque
veniebant.
(‘If Lucius Metellus had let them come, the mothers, gentlemen, and the
sisters of those hapless men were eager to come too.’ Cic. Ver. 5.129)
(d) Quod ni tam in tempore subvenisset, victoribus victisque pariter perniciosa
fames instabat.
(‘Had it not arrived so opportunely, a famine equally destructive to victors
and vanquished was impending.’ Liv. 25.31.14)
(e) . . . et si non servasset integram simulationem, periclitabatur totam paene
tragoediam evertere.
(‘. . . and if he could not keep up all his pretence he ran the risk of upsetting
the applecart.’ Petr. 140.6)
There are also a few cases cited in the literature of a perfect indicative in the main
clause of a ‘de rupture’ period. This is remarkable because the perfect lacks the feature
of the imperfect ‘was going on’. Examples cited in the literature are (f) and (g). Note,
however, in (f) conati sunt. In (g) the person saying nec veni has in fact arrived. Both
examples are strange conditionals, not instances of ‘de rupture’. Note also prope
‘almost’ in (h) and paene ‘almost’ in (i) in combination with a perfect tense.
(f) Non modo enim sequi recusarunt bene monentem, sed obsistere ac retinere
conati sunt, ni strictis gladiis viri fortissimi inertis summovissent.
(‘They not only refused to follow him who gave them good advice, but
endeavoured to oppose and hold him back, if some men of the greatest brav-
ery, with swords drawn, had not removed the cowards.’ Liv. 22.60.17)
(g) Nec veni, nisi fata locum sedemque dedissent, / nec bellum cum gente gero.
(‘I have not come, if fate had not assigned me here a place and a home, nor
do I wage war with your people.’ Verg. A. 11.112–13)
(h) Iurgia primum, mox rixa inter Batavos et legionarios, dum his aut illis studia
militum adgregantur, prope in proelium exarsere, ni Valens animadversione
paucorum oblitos iam Batavos imperii admonuisset.
(‘At first a quarrel arose between the Batavians and the legionaries, and then
a brawl. Finally, as the soldiers took sides with one or the other, they broke
out almost into open battle, had not Valens, by the punishment of a few
men, reminded the Batavians of the authority which they had forgotten.’
Tac. Hist. 1.64.2)
(i) Pons sublicius iter paene hostibus dedit, ni unus vir fuisset, Horatius Cocles.
(‘The bridge of piles almost afforded an entrance to the enemy, had it not
been for one man, Horatius Cocles.’ Liv. 2.10.2)
For an explicit form of the ‘almost’ effect of these sentences, one could compare
penetrassent in (j).
(j) Faces in prominentem porticum iecere et sequebantur ignem ambustasque
Capitolii fores penetrassent, ni Sabinus revolsas undique statuas, decora
maiorum, in ipso aditu vice muri obiecisset.
(‘They threw firebrands on a projecting colonnade and followed the fire, and
would have penetrated the burnt gates of the Capitol, if Sabinus had not torn
down all the statues, memorials to the glory of our ancestors, and piled them
up across the entrance as a barricade.’ Tac. Hist. 3.71.2)
. Conditional clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct

Unlike the conditional clauses that function as adjunct (see § 16.57), the si clauses dis-
cussed in this section and in § 16.64 do not entail the realization of the state of affairs of
the main clause, nor is the relation between the two clauses one of cause and effect.
Rather, si clauses that function as attitudinal disjunct indicate whether and to what
extent the speaker/writer takes responsibility for the truthfulness of the content of the
main clause, in other words, the si clause functions as a hedge for the content of the
main clause (see also § 10.98). These clauses are sometimes called ‘pseudo-conditionals’.185
Examples are (a)–(c); in (d), the si clause formulates a restriction (note modo)186 both
on the content of the main clause and on the use of the word iudicabo. Attitudinal
185 See van de Griend (1989) and Toledo (2016).

186 For si modo clauses, see Bertocchi (2001a) and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 127–8). For si tamen,
see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2003; 2011: 129–33).
conditional clauses are often found inserted in or following the main clause, as in (c).
Correlative expressions do not occur. Nisi is common, ni rare.
(a) Nam, nisi me animus fallit, hi sunt gemini germani duo.
(‘Yes, unless my mind deceives me, these two are twin brothers!’ Pl. Men. 1082)
(b) Sed, nisi fallor, citius te quam scribis videbo.
(‘But if I am not mistaken I shall see you sooner than you say.’ Cic. Att. 4.19.1)
(c) Haec est una, si vere cogitare volumus, in toto imperio tuo difficultas.
(‘If we want to look the facts in the face, this is your only really difficult administra-
tive problem.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.32)
(d) Nam quid in dicendo rectum sit aut pravum ego iudicabo, si modo is sum qui
id possim aut sciam iudicare.
(‘What is right or wrong in a man’s speaking I shall be able to judge, if only I have the
ability and knowledge to judge.’ Cic. Brut. 184)
Supplement:
Certe edepol, nisi me animu’ fallit aut parum prospiciunt oculi, / meae nutricem
gnatae video. (Ter. Ph. 735–6); Iam tum erat senex, senectus si verecundos facit.
(Ter. Ph. 1023); Adfuit is, si modo adfuit, quem tu impulisti, soror rogavit, mater
coegit. (Cic. Dom. 118–19); Deinde tui municipes sunt illi quidem splendidissimi
homines, sed tamen pauci, siquidem cum Atinatibus conferantur. (Cic. Planc. 21);
In agris erant tum senatores id est senes, siquidem aranti L. Quinctio Cincinnato
nuntiatum est eum dictatorem esse factum. (Cic. Sen. 56); Hoc quid intersit, si tuos
digitos novi, certe habes subductum. (Cic. Att. 5.21.13); Nisi me omnia fallunt,
deseret. (Cic. Att. 8.7.1); Sed Pansa furere videtur de Cloelio itemque Deiotaro et
loquitur severe, si velis credere. (Cic. Att. 14.19.2); Iamque dies, nisi fallor, adest,
quem semper acerbum, / semper honoratum (sic di voluistis) habebo. (Verg. A.
5.49–50); Sed tum, forte cava dum personat aequora concha, / demens, et cantu
vocat in certamina divos, / aemulus exceptum Triton, si credere dignum est, / inter
saxa virum spumosa immerserat unda. (Verg. A. 6.171–4);187 Prisco si credis,
Maecenas docte, Cratino, / nulla placere diu nec vivere carmina possunt / quae
scribuntur aquae potoribus. (Hor. Ep. 1.19.1–3); Hac quoque, ni fallor, populo
dignissima nostro / atria Libertas coepit habere sua. (Ov. Fast. 4.623–4); . . . hoc pro-
hibete nefas scelerique resistite nostro, / si tamen hoc scelus est. (Ov. Met. 10.322–3);
Quod si vera licet mihi dicere, quaeritur istis / quam mihi maior honos . . . (Ov. Met.
13.95–6); Si Valerio Antiati credas, nec classe adiutum ab eo praetorem esse, cum
saepe eum litteris accersisset, tradit, nec . . . (Liv. 44.13.12); Dies status inchoandae,
ut quadam lege naturae, si scire aut observare homines vellent, tricensimus ab
educto examine, fereque Maio mense includitur haec vindemia. (Plin. Nat. 11.35);
Spatium eius (sc. Hiberniae), si Britanniae comparetur, angustius, nostri maris insu-
las superat. (Tac. Agr. 24.2)
187 On this type of hedge and its function of drawing attention to the content of the main clause, see
Stinton (1976).
. Conditional clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct

Illocutionary conditional clauses specify the way speaker and addressee are involved
in their mutual interaction, specifying why the speaker utters his words, how he wants
them to be received, why a specific wording is used, and what the relationship of a
particular utterance is to the overall discourse, etc. (see also § 10.105). In this context
the term ‘interaction management’ is sometimes used.188 Typical examples of such
interactional illocutionary si clauses are (a) and (b). Some of these expressions became
idiomatic phrases used to express politeness, so for example sis (< si vis) from Plautus
onwards and si me diligis in Cicero’s correspondence, as in (c)–(d). Illocutionary dis-
juncts are often inserted in the main clause, as in (c) and (d). Correlative expressions
do not occur.
(a) Et, si quaeritis, is qui appellatur dicax, hoc genere maxime excellet.
(‘And, if you wish to know, the man who is called witty will chiefly shine in this kind
of thing.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.254)
(b) . . . ‘si licet’ inquit, ‘consules, de re publica dicere, errare ego populum in hac
causa non patiar’.
(‘ “. . . if I am permitted, consuls”, he said, “to speak concerning the nation’s interests,
I will not suffer the people to go wrong in this matter.” ’ Liv. 3.71.3)
(c) Cave sis malam rem.
(‘Please be careful of a bad situation.’ Pl. As. 43)
(d) Et facies, si me diligis, ut cottidie sit Acastus in portu.
(‘And, if you care for me, see that Acastus goes down to the harbour every day.’ Cic.
Fam. 16.5.2)
Supplement:
Etiam <iam> intro duce, si vis, vel gregem venalium. (Pl. Aul. 452); Nunc vos, si vobis
placet, / et si placuimus neque odio fuimus, signum hoc mittite. (Pl. Capt. 1034–5);
Multo hercle ille magis senex (sc. perit amore), si tu scias. (Pl. Merc. 445); Sed nisi
molestum est, paucis percontarier / volo ego ex te. (Pl. Rud. 120–1); Si horum quae
assunt paenitet / nihil est. (Pl. St. 713–14); Sed si haec res graviter cecidit stultitia
mea, / Philto, est ager sub urbe hic nobis. (Pl. Trin. 507–8); Si tu in legioni bellator
clues, at ego culina clueo. (Pl. Truc. 615); Ita salem istum, quo caret vestra natio, in
inridendis nobis nolitote consumere, et mercule si me audiatis ne experiamini qui-
dem. (Cic. N.D. 2.74); Verum statim fac ut sciam, si modo tibi est commodum. (Cic.
Att. 4.8a.1); His de rebus quid acturus sis, si tibi non est molestum, rescribas mihi
velim. (Cic. Fam. 5.12.10); Oramus, si forte non molestum est, / demonstres ubi sint
tuae tenebrae. (Catul. 55.1–2); At si forte roges fecundam Amathunta metallis, / an
genuisse velit Propoetidas, abnuat aeque / atque illos, gemino quondam quibus
aspera cornu / frons erat. (Ov. Met. 10.220–3); Non ille quidem, si quaeris, habebat /
adsuetos vultus nec, quo prius, ore nitebat. (Ov. Met. 11.689–90); Haec quoque, quae
188 See van de Griend (1989). For the use of conditional clauses in requests, see Barrios-Lech (2018).
legitis (si quid mihi, Maxime, credis), / scribimus invita vixque coacta manu. (Ov.
Pont. 1.5.9–10); Cuius adhuc nomen nostros tacuisse libellos, / si modo permittis
dicere vera, pudet. (Ov. Pont. 4.2.3–4); O genitor, cui Cocyti penetralia parent, / si
modo vera mihi fas est impune profari, / vota tibi cedent. (Petr. 121.1); Plane si mihi
proponas . . . dicendum erit . . . (Ulp. dig. 16.1.8.13)189
Another type of illocutionary si clause is shown in (e) and (f), where the si clause
contains a comment on or justification of the wording chosen in the main clause.
(e) Factum a vobis duriter / inmisericorditerque atque etiam, si est, pater, /
dicendum magis aperte, inliberaliter.
(‘You have acted cruelly, pitilessly, and, if it must be said even more candidly, father,
in a manner unworthy of a gentleman.’ Ter. Ad. 662–4)
(f) Atque haec cives, cives inquam, si eos hoc nomine appellari fas est, de patria
sua et cogitant et cogitaverunt.
(‘And citizens, citizens I say, if it is right to call them by that name, have planned and
are continuing to plan these crimes against their fatherland.’ Cic. Mur. 80)
Supplement:
Quid dicemus? Armatos, si Latine loqui volumus, quos appellare vere possumus?
(Cic. Caec. 60); Itaque posteaquam est nata haec vel circumscriptio vel compre-
hensio vel continuatio vel ambitus, si ita licet dicere, nemo, qui aliquo esset in
numero, scripsit orationem . . . (Cic. Orat. 208); Quo magis tum in summo otio
maximaque copia quasi helluari libris, si hoc verbo in tam clara re utendum est,
videbatur. (Cic. Fin. 3.7); Quod ad te antea atque adeo prius scripsi (sic enim
mavis), ad scribendum, <si licet> tibi vere dicere, fecisti me acriorem. (Cic. Att.
15.13.3); Non potes invitae Cereris gener esse. Roganda, / non rapienda fuit.
Quodsi conponere magnis / parva mihi fas est, et me dilexit Anapis . . . (Ov. Met.
5.415–17); Divus Augustus fuit mitis princeps, si quis illum a principatu suo aes-
timare incipiat. (Sen. Cl. 1.9.1); Eo denique discriminum ventum est ut foedus et
pax cum hoste—si modo hostis Pompei filius—tamen feriretur. (Flor. Epit.
4.8.3); . . . fecerunt magis desiderium imponendi mihi laboris, ut etiam usque ad
illa loca accederem, si tamen labor dici potest, ubi homo desiderium suum com-
pleri videt. (Pereg. 13.1)
. Alternative conditional clauses with sive/seu

In a conditional period that contains two (or more) coordinated conditional clauses
belonging to the same main clause, the second si clause is linked with aut, vel, or -ve
‘or’. These forms of coordination, especially with -ve, are discussed in §§ 19.45–7. In
these cases each of the two conditional clauses entails the content of the main clause.
The situation is different when both conditional clauses contain sive or seu (or com-
binations of them, see § 19.54), as in (a).190
189 For more instances, see Honoré (1982: 61). 190 Example taken from Woodcock (1959: 147).
(a) Qua re sive habes quid sive nil habes, scribe tamen aliquid teque cura.
(‘So whether you have anything to say or nothing, write something all the same, and
take good care of yourself.’ Cic. Att. 12.12.2)
In this case, too, there are two alternative conditions, but for the content of the main
clauses, or the apodosis in general, it does not matter which condition is fulfilled; in
(a) the addressee, Atticus, is encouraged to write whatever the circumstances (note
tamen). The correlative expression corresponds to English ‘whether . . . or’.
In the attested instances in Plautus and Terence the first sive/seu is usually emended
to si, as in (b).191 However, the correlative expressions are very common from the
Classical period onwards, as in (c) and (d). (For the use of these correlative expres-
sions as disjunctive coordinators, see § 19.54.)
(b) Seu (P, deest A; sei cj. Müller) tu Cylindrus seu Coriendru’s, perieris.
(‘Whether you’re Cylindrus or Coriendrus, go to hell.’ Pl. Men. 295)
(c) At, sive ille (sc. litteras) misit sive tu finxisti, certe consilium tuum de Catonis
honore illarum litterarum recitatione patefactum est.
(‘At all events, whether he sent them or whether you forged them, your intention with
respect to the honours conferred upon Cato was revealed by the reading of those
letters.’ Cic. Dom. 22)
(d) Veniet tempus, et quidem celeriter, sive retractabis sive properabis.
(‘The time will come and that quickly, whether you shrink back or are in a hurry.’ Cic.
Tusc. 1.76)
Supplement:
Seu (si cj. Bothe) canum seu istuc (sc. caput) rutilum sive atrum est, amo. (Pl. Mer.
306); . . . sive ego sive quis iussu meo fecerit, uti id recte factum siet (Cato Agr. 139.1—
NB: quotation from a prayer); Haec Andria, / si[ve] ista uxor sive amica’st, gravida e
Pamphilo’st. (Ter. An. 215–16); Si fatum tibi est ex hoc morbo convalescere, sive tu
medicum adhibueris sive non adhibueris, convalesces; item, si fatum tibi est ex hoc
morbo non convalescere, sive tu medicum adhibueris sive non adhibueris, non con-
valesces. (Cic. Fat. 28); Facilem esse rem, seu maneant seu proficiscantur, si modo
unum omnes sentiant ac probent. (Caes. Gal. 5.31.2); Nam sive aqua inter cutem
quem implevit, sive in magno abscessu multum puris coit, simul id omne effudisse
aeque mortiferum est ac si quis sani corporis vulnere factus exsanguis est. (Cels.
2.8.27); Sed sive recisa in dupundium et semissem talea sive tota prostrata depone[re]
tur, exstent earum cacumina, quae si obruta sunt, totae putrescunt. (Col. 4.32.2)
NB: with reduction of the verb and possibly other constituents: (sc. homines nobiles)
Seu recte seu perperam facere coeperunt, ita in utroque excellunt ut nemo nostro
loco natus adsequi possit. (Cic. Quinct. 31); Itaque sive Sulla sive Marius sive uterque
sive Octavius sive Cinna sive iterum Sulla sive alter Marius et Carbo sive qui alius
civile bellum optavit, eum detestabilem civem rei publicae natum iudico. (Cic. Phil.
13.1); Pacem cum Scipione Sulla sive faciebat sive simulabat, non erat desperandum,
191 ‘secundum morem Plautinum’ (Lindsay ad loc.). For a survey of emendations in Plautus and
Terence, see Enk ad Pl. Mer. 306. K.-St.: II.435 accepts (b), Sz.: 670 considers it incorrectly transmitted.
si convenisset, fore aliquem tolerabilem statum civitatis. (Cic. Phil. 13.2); Nunc, sive
illa defensione uti voluisses sive hac qua uteris, condemneris necesse est. (Cic. Tul.
32); Et, si causa est in argumentis, firmissima quaeque maxime tueor, sive plura sunt
sive aliquod unum. (Cic. de Orat. 2.292); . . . (sc. alvus) arcet . . . et continet sive illud
aridum est sive umidum quod recepit, ut id mutari et concoqui possit . . . (Cic. N.D.
2.136); <Vi>de quam turpi leto pereamus et dubita, si potes, quin ille, seu victus seu
victor redierit, caedem facturus sit. (Cic. Att. 10.10.5); . . . quo paratiores essent ad
insequendum omnes, sive noctu sive interdiu erumperent. (Caes. Civ. 1.81.2); Seu
pacem seu bella geram, tibi maxima rerum / verborumque fides. (Verg. A. 9.279–80); . . .
omnibus / quicumque terrae munere vescimur / enaviganda, sive reges / sive inopes
erimus coloni. (Hor. Carm. 2.14.5–8); Haec consternatio muliebris, sive sua sponte
sive auctoribus vobis, M. Fundani et L. Valeri, facta est, haud dubie ad culpam mag-
istratuum pertinens nescio vobis, tribuni, an consulibus magis sit deformis. (Liv.
34.2.7); Hi terram si non attigere, sanguinem sistunt adalligati, sive ex vulnere fluat
sive ore sive naribus sive haemorrhoidis. (Plin. Nat. 23.137); . . . sive praenomen eius
sive nomen dixisses sive cognomen, idem tamen ille esset. (Sen. Ben. 4.8.3); Sane
inter fratrem et sororem prohibitae sunt nuptiae, sive eodem patre eademque matre
nati fuerint sive alterutro eorum. (Gaius Inst. 1.61)
Instances of si . . . sive/seu indicating alternative conditions are almost limited to Early

Latin, as in (e) and (f).
(e) Ere, si ego taceam seu loquar, scio scire te / quam multas tecum miserias
mulcaverim.
(‘Master, whether I’m silent or whether I speak, I know that you know how many
hardships I’ve given a hard time to with you.’ Pl. St. 419–20—NB: A reads sive; the
reading seu of P is in accordance with Plautus’ use before consonants)192
(f) . . . tu nunc, si ego volo seu nolo, sola me ut vivam facis.
(‘. . . you alone now make me stay alive, whether I want to or not.’ Pl. Cist. 645)
Supplement:
Nunc est ille dies quom gloria maxima sese / nobis ostentat, si vivimus sive morimur
(Enn. Ann. 391–2V=382–3S); . . . sei is pup(illus) seive ea pu(pilla) erit tum quei
eius pup(illi) pu(pillae)ve tutor erit item eadem/que omnia in iisdem
diebus ad co(n)s(ulem) profitemino . . . (CIL I2.593.3–4 (Lex Iulia Municipalis,
Pisticci, 45 bc))
NB: with reduction of the verb: Si (A; seu P) recte seu pervorse facta sunt, / ego me
fecisse confiteor, Megaronides. (Pl. Trin. 183–4)
. Conditional comparative clauses

Conditional (or ‘unreal’) manner clauses compare the state of affairs in the main
clause with an imaginary state of affairs described in the subordinate clause.193 These
clauses are introduced by the subordinators quasi (< quam si) ‘as if ’ and tamquam
192 See Petersmann ad loc. 193 See Cabrillana (2002) on the use of quasi in Terence.
(< tam quam) ‘as though’, rarely by velut and sicut. The main clause often contains a
manner expression or an expression that indicates the degree of similarity, like ita and
sic ‘so’, perinde ‘in the same way’, proinde ‘in the same way or degree’, similiter ‘in a
similar manner’, aeque ‘to an equal degree’, pariter ‘equally’, and siremps(e) ‘in precisely
the same way’ (in the legal formula lex siremps(e) esto). Since the content of the man-
ner clauses is hypothetical, the mood in these clauses is the subjunctive (most of the
time a potential, but also when required a counterfactual subjunctive). Examples are
(a)–(g). Not infrequently there is no main clause, as in (g). The subordinate clause
usually follows the main clause, but the reverse order is also possible.
Combinations of these words with the conditional subordinator si ‘if ’ (quasi si—
rare; tamquam si, ut si, ceu si) are used with more or less the same meaning and for
that reason are dealt with in this section. Structurally they are combinations of a com-
parative item and a conditional clause in the same way as these comparative words are
found in combination with time clauses (see § 20.9). For the use of tamquam in argu-
ment clauses, see § 15.44.
(a) Quid est? Quid ridetis? Novi omnis, scio fures esse hic compluris, / qui ves-
titu et creta occultant sese atque sedent quasi sint frugi.
(‘What is it? What are you laughing for? I know you all; I know there are plenty of
thieves here who are hiding under smart clothes and make-up and sitting still as if
they were decent.’ Pl. Aul. 718–19)
(b) Tam a me pudica est quasi soror mea sit . . .
(‘From me she’s as chaste as if she were my sister . . .’ Pl. Cur. 51)
(c) . . . eiq. · omnium · rerum · siremps · lexs · esto, · quasei · sei · is · haace ·
lege <pequniam quae s.s.e. exigeret.>
(‘. . . and statute is to apply to him in all matters exactly as if he <were exacting the sum
which is written down above> according to this statute.’ CIL I2.582.12 (Lex Incerta,
Banzi, c.100 bc—tr. Crawford))
(d) Tamquam si claudus sim, cum fusti est ambulandum.
(‘As if I were lame I have to walk around with a cane.’ Pl. As. 427)
(e) Mater ubi accepit, coepit studiose omnia / docere, educere, ita ut si esset filia.
(‘When my mother received her, she set about teaching and educating her as
devotedly as if she were her own daughter.’ Ter. Eu. 116–17)
(f) Sed si eodem modo putant exercitu in foro et in omnibus templis, quae cir-
cum forum sunt, conlocato dici pro Milone decuisse, ut si de re privata ad
unum iudicem diceremus, vim eloquentiae sua facultate, non rei natura
metiuntur.
(‘But if they think that, when the army was stationed in the Forum and in all the
temples that surround it, it was fitting that my speech in defence of Milo be given in
the same way as if we were pleading a private case before a single referee, they meas-
ure the power of eloquence by their own limited ability, not by the nature of the art.’
Cic. Opt. Gen. 10)
(g) Nugae sunt istae magnae. Quasi tu nescias / repente ut emoriantur humani
Ioves.
(‘That’s a load of rubbish. As if you didn’t know how suddenly human Jupiters die.’ Pl.
Cas. 333–4)
Supplement:
Quoniam sentio / errare, extemplo, quasi res cum ea esset mihi, / coepi assentari. (Pl.
Men. 481–3); Proinde habet orationem quasi ipse sit frugi bonae . . . (Pl. Poen. 845);
Quodvis genus ibi hominum videas quasi Acheruntem veneris . . . (Pl. Poen. 831);
Atque ille homo . . . exposuit vasa Samia quasi vero esset Diogenes Cynicus mortuus
et non divini hominis Africani mors honestaretur . . . (Cic. Mur. 75); Lucius Lucullus
ferebatur quasi commodissime respondisset . . . duo se habere vicinos . . . (Cic. Leg.
3.30); Cuius sermone ita tum cupide fruebar, quasi iam divinarem id quod evenit,
illo extincto fore unde discerem neminem. (Cic. Sen. 12–13)
NB: pleonastic: Putem ego, quem videam aeque esse maestum ut quasi dies si dicta
sit? (Pl. As. 838)194
Sed quid hoc refert pendere (sc. terram) ipsam ac non cadere nobiscum, ceu spir-
itus vis, mundo praesertim inclusi, dubia sit . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.160); Fulgit item, nubes
ignis cum semina multa / excussere suo concursu, ceu lapidem si / percutiat lapis aut
ferrum. (Lucr. 6.160–2)
Postremo dissimulandi causa aut sui expurgandi, sicut iurgio lacessitus foret, in
senatum venit. (Sal. Cat. 31.5)
Facito tamquam faex fiat. (Cato Agr. 87); Parvi enim primo ortu sic iacent, tam-
quam omnino sine animo sint. (Cic. Fin. 5.42); Plancum . . . sic contemnit tamquam
si illi aqua et igni [in] interdictum sit. (Cic. Phil. 6.10)
Itidem ut cognata si sit, id quod lex iubet / dotis dare, abduce hanc, minas quinque
accipe. (Ter. Ph. 409–10)
At ille temeraria usus ratione non cessit maiorum natu auctoritati, velut in sua
manu esset fortuna. (Nep. Timoth. 3.4)
Appendix: Tamquam and quasi can sometimes be interpreted in a causal sense, as

in (h).
(h) Hannibal . . . Cononeum quendam Tarentinum . . . eiusmodi fallacia instruxit,
ut ille per causam venandi noctu procederet, quasi id per hostem interdiu
non liceret.
(‘Hannibal . . . concerted with a certain Cononeus of Tarentum a stratagem
whereby he was to go out at night for the purpose of hunting, on the ground
that the enemy rendered this impossible by day.’ Fron. Str. 3.3.6)
. Nisi clauses of exception

Nisi ‘unless it is the case that’, ‘except that’ clauses are used from Early Latin onwards
to indicate an event that constitutes an exception to the event indicated in the main
clause. It is most common after a main clause containing a negation word of some sort
194 See Sz.: 525–6.

or a question word with a negative implication. Sometimes a better English equivalent

may be ‘only that’ or ‘but’. Examples are (a)–(c).195
(a) Nequeo satis mirari neque conicere, / nisi, quidquid est, procul hinc lubet
prius quid sit sciscitari.
(‘I cannot sufficiently wonder or conjecture. But, whatever it is, I should like first at a
distance to try and find out what it is.’ Ter. Eu. 547–8)
(b) . . . nemo hunc M. Caelium in illo aetatis flore vidit nisi aut cum patre aut
mecum aut in M. Crassi castissuma domo cum artibus honestissumis
erudiretur.
(‘. . . no one ever saw this young Marcus Caelius, while he was in that early youth,
except either with his father or myself, or in the irreproachable household of Marcus
Crassus, while he was being trained in the most honourable pursuits.’ Cic. Cael. 9)
(c) Postremo quid aliud isti faciunt, cum te soli ex Sicilia laudant, nisi testimonio
nobis sunt omnia te sibi esse largitum, quae tu de re publica nostra detraxeris?
(‘Lastly, what else is it that these people do, when they are the only people in all Sicily
who praise you, beyond proving to us that you gave them everything of which you
robbed our republic?’ Cic. Ver. 5.58)
Supplement:
Heia autem, inimicos? # Sic est, vera praedico, / nisi etiam hoc falso dici insimulatu-
rus es. (Pl. Am. 901–2); Nam huic alterae quae patria sit profecto nescio. / Nisi scio
probiorem hanc esse quam te, impuratissume. (Pl. Rud. 750–1); . . . de hac re mihi
satis hau liquet; nisi hoc sic faciam, opinor, / ut . . . (Pl. Trin. 233–4); Nescio. # Ah. / #
Nisi Phaedria haud cessavit pro te eniti. (Ter. Ph. 474–5); Nescio, / nisi me dixisse
nemini certo scio. (Ter. Ph. 952–3); Si nihil aliud fecerunt nisi rem detulerunt, nonne
satis fuit iis gratias agi, denique, ut perliberaliter ageretur, honoris aliquid haberi?
(Cic. S. Rosc. 108); Quid miramur L. Sullam . . . aliqua animadvertere non potuisse?
Nisi hoc mirum est, quod vis divina adsequi non possit, si id mens humana adepta
non sit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 131–2); Tuas litteras exspectabam; nisi illud quidem mutari, si
aliter est et oportet, non video posse. (Cic. Att. 11.23.1—NB: main clause not
negated); De re nihil possum iudicare, nisi illud mihi persuadeo . . . (Cic. Fam.
13.73.2); Nos nihil de eo percontationibus rep[p]eriebamus, nisi certis ex aqua men-
suris breviores esse quam in continenti noctes videbamus. (Caes. Gal. 5.13.4); At vero
malum est liberos amittere. Malum, nisi hoc peius est, haec sufferre et perpeti. (Sulp.
Ruf. Fam. 4.5.3—NB: main clause not negated); Id misericordiane hospitis an pac-
tione aut casu ita evenerit, parum conperimus, nisi, quia illi in tanto malo turpis vita
integra fama potior fuit, inprobus intestabilisque videtur. (Sal. Jug. 67.3)
The nisi clause usually contains a state of affairs that is factual and is therefore in the
indicative. It normally follows the main clause and often functions as a sort of after-
thought. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether we are dealing with two clauses or
195 For the use of nisi as an ‘exception négativeʼ, see Orlandini (2001: 164–78; 2002a), Bertocchi (2002b),
Orlandini and Poccetti (2008: 190–1; 2019a), and Galdi (2016b; 2016d), with references. See also the
section vi adversativa in Lodge s.v. nisi 174B.
with two independent sentences the second of which constitutes an exception to the
content of the preceding sentence. Sometimes the nisi sentence is entirely independ-
ent, suggesting an absurd alternative line of argumentation, as in (d). Editors vary
in the way they punctuate such sequences. The likelihood that the exception will
come true may be made more explicit by the use of forte ‘perhaps’ and vero ‘really’—
in an ironical or sarcastic sense, popular with Cicero and Augustine—or tamen
‘nevertheless’.
(d) Nisi vero existimatis dementem P. Africanum fuisse, qui cum a C. Carbone,
tribuno pl., seditiose in contione interrogaretur, quid de Ti. Gracchi morte
sentiret, responderit iure caesum videri.
(‘Unless indeed you hold that Publius Africanus was mad when, on being maliciously
asked in a public meeting by Gaius Carbo, tribune of the plebs, what was his opinion
concerning the death of Tiberius Gracchus, he replied that he thought he had been
deservedly slain.’ Cic. Mil. 8)
(e) Nil ad me attinet? # Nisi forte factu’s praefectus novos.
(‘It has nothing to do with me? # Unless perhaps you’ve been made a new magistrate.’
Pl. Mos. 941)
(f) Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit . . .
(‘For almost no one dances while sober, unless, by chance, he is out of his mind . . .’
Cic. Mur. 13)
The status of nisi in these examples resembles that of quamquam, etsi, and tametsi
used as contrastive connectors (see § 16.68).
Supplement:
Nisi forte magis erit parricida, si qui consularem patrem quam si quis humilem
necarit . . . (Cic. Mil. 17); Quam ob rem, nisi forte es iam defessus et si tibi non graves
sumus, refer ad illa te, quae ad ipsius orationis laudem splendoremque pertinent.
(Cic. de Orat. 3.147—NB: difference between nisi and si . . . non); Immo octoginta
annis fuit, nisi forte sic vixisse eum dicis, quomodo dicuntur arbores vivere. (Sen. Ep.
93.4); Audi illam, et vide quia sic te alloquitur, nisi forte oblitus es quia pro nobis pas-
sus est Christus . . . (August. Serm. 163B.6)
Quod exspectavi, iam sum adsecutus, ut vos omnes factam esse aperte coniuratio-
nem contra rem publicam videretis; nisi vero si quis est qui Catilinae similis cum
Catilina sentire non putet. (Cic. Catil. 2.6); Et ego quaero unde orationem, unde
numeros, unde cantus; nisi vero loqui solem cum luna putamus cum propius acces-
serit, aut ad harmoniam canere mundum, ut Pythagoras existimat. (Cic. N.D. 3.27);
Quo magis miror, quod scribis fuisse quosdam qui reprehenderent quod orationes
omnino recitarem; nisi vero has solas non putant emendandas. (Plin. Ep. 7.17.2);
Prorsus etiam hic clamabo. Ipse fecit nos et non ipsi nos, nisi vero aliud apostolica
doctrina commendat . . . (August. Gest. Pelag. 14.34)
Nunc servom esse ubi dicam meum † Strolum † non reperio. Nisi etiam hic oppe-
riar tamen paullisper. (Pl. Aul. 804–5); Nihil mihi gratius facere potes; nisi tamen id
erit mihi gratissimum, si quae tibi mandavi confeceris . . . (Cic. Att. 5.14.3); Plura de
Iugurtha scribere dehortatur me fortuna mea, et iam antea expertus sum parum fidei
miseris esse; nisi tamen intellego illum supra quam ego sum petere neque simul
amicitiam vostram et regnum meum sperare. (Sal. Jug. 24.4–5); Quod multi per
ambitionem fieri aiebant: [quod] a pueritia consuetam duritiam et alia, quae ceteri
miserias vocant, voluptati habuisse; nisi tamen res publica pariter atque saevissumo
imperio bene atque decore gesta. (Sal. Jug. 100.5—NB: main clause not negated); . . .
aquae frigidae cyathi tres bibendi sunt, nisi tamen fauces vomitus exasperarint.
(Cels. 1.3.23)
The syntactic relationship between the nisi clause and the main clause is not like that
between a conditional clause and its main clause, but instead resembles the relation-
ship between two coordinate clauses with an adversative coordinator sed ‘but’. This is
suggested by the fact that in indirect discourse both clauses are in the accusative and
infinitive, as in (g).196
(g) Distinctos senatus et equitum census, non quia diversi natura, sed, ut locis
ordinibus dignationibus antistent, ita iis quae ad requiem animi aut salubri-
tatem corporum parentur, nisi forte clarissimo cuique plures curas, maiora
pericula subeunda, delenimentis curarum et periculorum carendum esse.
(‘Senators and knights had a special property qualification, not because they differed
in kind from their fellow-men, but in order that those who enjoyed precedence in
place, rank, and dignity should enjoy it also in the easements that make for mental
peace and physical well-being. And justly so—unless perhaps your distinguished
men, while saddled with more responsibilities and greater dangers, were to be
deprived of the relaxations compensating those responsibilities and those dangers.’
Tac. Ann. 2.33.3)
This ‘exceptive’ use of nisi is also very common in other configurations at or below the
level of the clause, with various phrases and finite and non-finite subordinate
clauses.197 In these cases nisi is an adverb. Examples are (h)–(k). Just as with the nisi
clauses discussed above, the clauses or sentences in which this nisi is used are usually
negative or negative by implication; (j) is an exception.
(h) Ut enim neminem alium nisi T. Patinam . . . rogasset, scire potuit . . .
(‘For even supposing that he had asked no one else save Titus Patina, he might have
known . . .’ Cic. Mil. 46)
(i) Quid est pietas nisi voluntas grata in parentes?
(‘What is filial affection, if not a benevolent gratitude to one’s parents?’ Cic. Planc. 80)
(j) Aulas calicesque omnes confregit nisi quae modiales erant.
(‘He smashed all pots and dishes to pieces, except those that were bucket-sized.’ Pl.
Capt. 916)
(k) . . . coepi . . . nihil aliud nisi de iudicio agere et cogitare.
(‘. . . I began . . . to devote my thoughts and energies to the trial alone.’ Cic. Ver. 26)
196 See Orlandini (1994). 197 See Orlandini (2001; 2002a) and Galdi (2016b; 2016d).
Supplement:
Scibam equidem nullum esse nobis nisi me servom Sosiam. (Pl. Am. 385); Neque ego
hanc superbiai / causa pepuli ad meretricium quaestum nisi ut ne esurirem. (Pl. Cist.
40–1);198 Hic nisi de opinione certum nil dico tibi. (Pl. Rud. 1092); Hic ego nunc de
praetore Macedoniae nihil dicam amplius nisi eum et civem optimum semper et
mihi amicum fuisse . . . (Cic. Planc. 99); Erat enim historia nihil aliud nisi annalium
confectio . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.52); Quae est enim alia fortitudo nisi animi adfectio . . .
(Cic. Tusc. 5.41); . . . in ea (sc. loca) non est potestas omnibus intro eundi nisi invita-
tis . . . (Vitr. 6.5.1); Congesta sunt adversus miseram debilitatem ferrum, cruor, vene-
num et quicquid non potest esse negligentiae nisi nescientis. ([Quint.] Decl. 2.2);199 . . .
id agens ne quis Romae deus nisi Heliogabalus coleretur. (Hist. Aug. Heliog. 3.4)
(For nisi quod clauses, see § 16.84; for the use with alius, see also § 20.20.)
16.68 Concessive clauses
The term concessive is used in this Syntax for what other grammars sometimes call
‘adversative’ or ‘adversative/concessive’. The relation between two states of affairs A
and B is called ‘concessive’ if in the communicative setting the speaker and the
addressee would normally on the basis of state of affairs A expect state of affairs B (in
other words: state of affairs A normally implies or entails state of affairs B), but this
expectation turns out to be wrong. In (a), a person would normally not visit some-
body who is annoyed with him, but the speaker does so nevertheless. It is this ‘con-
trary to expectation’ feature that distinguishes concessive clauses from conditional
and reason clauses, to which they are otherwise semantically close. The subordinator
quamquam ‘although’ marks this relation between the two states of affairs explicitly.
In (b), the concessive relation is marked by the subordinator quamquam in the subor-
dinate clause and the adversative adverb tamen ‘all the same’, ‘nevertheless’ in the
main clause. In (c), tamen marks the concessive relation between two independent
sentences. See also § 24.47, on sane.
(a) Nunc ibo intro ad hanc meretricem, quamquam suscenset mihi . . .
(‘Now I’ll go inside to that prostitute, although she is angry with me . . .’ Pl. Men. 1048)
(b) Quamquam ego sum sordidatus, / frugi tamen sum . . .
(‘Even though I look shabby I’m decent just the same. . .’ Pl. As. 497–8)
(c) At negabas daturum esse te mi: tamen das.
(‘But you said you wouldn’t give it to me: you’re giving it nevertheless.’ Pl. Ps. 1314)
In comparison with other types of satellite clauses, the number of subordinators
and the changes in their use over the history of Latin are striking. Of the concessive
198 For a discussion of this and related instances, see Galdi (2016d: 104–6).
199 For a discussion of this and a few other instances in the pseudo-Quintilian Declamationes, see
Galdi (2016d: 106–7). See also Krapinger and Stramaglia ad loc.
Concessive clauses 355
subordinators in use in the Classical period two are formed with quam: quamquam (it
was already established as concessive subordinator in Early Latin and its development
into it is situated in prehistory) and quamvis (which in Early Latin is almost only used
as a degree adverb with gradable words ‘however much you please’, formed with the
degree adverb quam ‘to what extent’ and vis ‘you wish’). There are four compounds of
the conditional subordinator si ‘if ’: etsi, etiamsi, tametsi, and (possibly) tamenetsi. Of
these etiamsi and to a lesser extent etsi are also used with their conditional meaning
(sometimes printed as two words). There are in the Classical period a few proofs of
the development of the use of the impersonal verb licet ‘it is permitted’ as a concessive
conditional and then as a plainly concessive subordinator. Details about the individ-
ual words are given below in §§ 16.76–80. The frequency with which these words are
used by individual authors and in individual works varies, due partly to the suitability
of the specific meaning of the concessive words in the specific type of text, partly to
metrical considerations, partly to individual preference. Caesar, for instance, has no
instance of quamquam, a very common concessive subordinator in Cicero (Caesar
prefers etsi), and the si compounds are avoided in poetry. There is also a diachronic
dimension to the variation in frequency (see below on the individual subordinators).
Tametsi becomes infrequent after the Classical period. In Late Latin licet in prose and
quamvis in poetry are the main concessive subordinators (with individual differences
between authors). The other Classical concessive subordinators are occasionally used
by authors aspiring to a more Classical style.200 None of these subordinators survived
in the Romance languages.
Table 16.3 shows the distribution of the concessive words in the four types of Cicero’s
prose. Included are the instances of so-called corrective use of quamquam, etsi, and
tametsi, as well as the adverbial use of quamvis. Information on licet is more difficult
to obtain.201
Table 16.3 Distribution of concessive words in Cicero’s prose works

etiamsi etsi tametsi tamenetsi quamquam quamvis licet
speeches 111 64 93 – 178 50 >3
rhet. works 52 64 6 1+1 (quot.) 82 24 ?
philos. works 112 87 – – 164 64 >12
letters 65 286 12 – 178 25 >6
The negation word in concessive clauses is non. The concessive clause more often
precedes the main clause, but it may also follow, or be inserted. As in other complex
200 Details can be found in Spevak (1998).

201 Quantitative data on the use of si compounds in the history of Latin can be found in a Table com-
piled by J.B. Hofmann in Burckhardt’s article in TLL s.v. etiamsi 964.59ff. The data in Martín Puente (2002)
are slightly different. I use her information on etiamsi and quamquam. The data on quamvis come from
the LLT. The data on licet are from Spevak (2001: 338).
sentences, the actual order depends on the distribution of topical and focal informa-
tion over main and subordinate clauses.
Main clauses that follow the subordinate clause often contain an adversative adverb
(especially tamen, also nihilominus and the connector at). Here, too, there is variation
from author to author, and the frequency of concessive or adversative expressions in
the main clause varies by concessive subordinator. Only 12 out of 255 instances of the
subordinator quamquam in Cicero’s prose are found without tamen in the main
clause; figures for etsi (17/307) and tametsi (1/65) show a similar proportion. By con-
trast, the scalar concessive quamvis and the concessive conditional etiamsi occur
without tamen much more frequently (quamvis 50/99; etiamsi 192/342).202 A few
examples with quamquam are (d)–(f).203 In (g), the first tamen connects the entire
complex sentence with the preceding sentence.204 More instances of such expressions
in the main clause can be found in the sections on the individual subordinators.
(d) . . . et quamquam hoc tibi aegre est, tamen fac accures.
(‘. . . and although this upsets you, make sure you prepare it nevertheless.’ Pl. Cas. 421)
(e) Quod ego quamquam quid sit nescio, tamen hoc statuo, hunc, si amicus
esset Pompeio, laudaturum illum non fuisse.
(‘Although I do not know what this means, nevertheless my conviction is that if
Clodius were a friend to Pompeius he would not have congratulated him.’ Cic.
Har. 52)
(f) Quamquam ego vinum bibo, at mandata / non consuevi simul bibere una.
(‘Even though I do drink wine, it isn’t my custom to drink down your commands at
the same time.’ Pl. Per. 170–70a)
(g) Sed tamen Lurconem quamquam pro sua dignitate moderatus est in testimo-
nio dicendo religio<se oratio>ni suae, tamen iratum Flacco esse vidistis.
(‘Nevertheless, you saw that, although Lurco with his usual dignity restrained himself
when giving evidence, he was nevertheless angry with Flaccus.’ Cic. Flac. 87)
Three of these words (quamquam, etsi, and tametsi) are also used as contrastive con-
nectors of sentences as in (h), where the connector etsi is followed by the subordinator
quamvis, and in (i), where quamquam is the connector and etsi the subordinator. The
relationship between such independent sentences and the preceding sentences is one
of comment, correction, or clarification. It therefore resembles the relationship
between attitudinal and illocutionary concessive clauses and their corresponding
main clauses. In Cicero roughly half of the instances of these words are sentence
202 See Martín Puente (2002: 50, 88, 103, 135), Eckert (2003: 226–37), and Spevak (2005c: 147–9;
2006c: 225, Table 2). There are sequences of tamen in a main clause and concessive subordinators in a
following concessive clause, but no real instances of correlation (see also Spevak 2005c: 154).
203 A survey of correlating expressions with etiamsi and etsi can be found in TLL s.v. 968.21ff. and
974.49ff.; 976.44ff.
204 The example is taken from Martín Puente (1998a: 314).
connectors (quamquam more than half, etsi less).205 Often it is difficult to decide
whether the sentences are really independent. Editors vary in the way they punctuate
before such concessive sequences. See also § 24.34.
(h) Etsi, quamvis non fueris suasor et impulsor profectionis meae, at probator
certe fuisti, dum modo Kal. Ian. Romae essem.
(‘All the same, although you did not recommend or instigate my trip, you certainly
did approve of it, provided I was back in Rome on the Kalends of January.’ Cic.
Att. 16.7.2)
(i) Quamquam haec quidem iam tolerabilia videbantur, etsi aequabiliter in
rem publicam, in privatos, in longinquos, in propinquos, in alienos, in
suos inruebat.
(‘Still, such acts as these came to be looked on as endurable, although he encroached
equally upon the state, upon individuals, upon those at hand, upon those at a dis-
tance, upon foreigners, upon his very own.’ Cic. Mil. 76)
Etsi, quamquam, and later licet are also used as concessive particles with constituents
below the clause level. This use is relatively rare in the Classical period, but it becomes
more frequent in later authors. The following examples show the types of constituent
modified by concessive particles (no chronology implied). In (j) and (k) etsi and
quamquam, respectively, modify attributive adjectives (note tamen in (k)). In (l)–(n)
etsi and quamquam are used with appositive adjectives (note tamen in (m) and the
position of quamquam in (n)). Ex. (o) shows the use of quamquam with an adverb
functioning as a satellite. Exx. (p) and (q) show a prepositional and a noun phrase
functioning as satellites.
(j) Nam etsi iustum dolorem pudor impediebat.
(‘For shame impeded his pain, even though it was just.’ Tac. Ann. 11.35.2)
(k) Et patres quamquam rem parvam, tamen . . . laeti accepere id . . .
(‘The senators, though it was a small matter, nevertheless gladly welcomed it . . .’ Liv.
4.8.5)
(l) . . . quaedam adferunt per se adiuvantia, etsi non necessaria . . .
(‘. . . and add certain things which themselves give aid, although they are not neces-
sary . . .’ Cic. Top. 59)
(m) . . . Metelloque Numidia evenerat, acri viro et, quamquam advorso populi
partium, fama tamen aequabili et inviolata.
(‘. . . Numidia had fallen to Metellus, a man of spirit and, although he was an opponent
of the popular party, of a nevertheless consistently unblemished reputation.’ Sal.
Jug. 43.1)
(n) Haec, mira quamquam, fidem ex eo trahebant . . .
(‘The tale, though remarkable, drew credibility from this . . .’ Tac. Ann. 6.30.4)
205 See the table in Martín Puente (2002: 143).

(o) . . . responsumque quamquam non inutiliter, fortuito tamen magis consensu

quam communi consilio esse.
(‘. . . and although a not useless answer had been returned, yet this had been due
rather to their happening to feel alike about the matter than to a concerted plan.’ Liv.
3.51.1)
(p) Nam et si dicatur, licet ex occasione materiae, suo tamen arbitrio bona protu-
lisse (sc. Deum) . . .
(‘Now, if it be also argued, that although matter may have afforded Him the oppor-
tunity, it was still His own will which led Him to the creation of good creatures . . .’
Tert. Hermog. 14.1—tr. Holmes)
(q) . . . C. Caesar . . . quamquam sua sponte eximiaque virtute, tamen approba-
tione auctoritatis meae colonias patrias adiit . . .
(‘. . . Gaius Caesar . . . although of his own accord and by his own rare virtue, yet with
the warranty of my authority, entered the colonies founded by his father . . .’ Cic.
Phil. 5.23)
Concession may be expressed in other ways besides subordination with specialized
subordinators. In (c) at the beginning of this section there are two independent sen-
tences. Tamen in the second sentence signals that the speaker expected another out-
come of the state of affairs described in the first sentence (for details about concessive
sentence connexion and how it differs from concessive subordination, see § 24.31).
For the concessive interpretation of cum, and ut clauses, see § 16.31 and § 16.82,
respectively. For the concessive interpretation of relative clauses, see § 18.24. For the
concessive interpretation of participial clauses and secondary predicates, see § 16.89
and § 21.17.206 For the concessive interpretation of generalizing autonomous relative
clauses, see § 18.33.
Concessive clauses (not with all concessive subordinators) are used as adjuncts and
as attitudinal and illocutionary disjuncts, as discussed below in §§ 16.70–2.207
. So-called concessive conditional clauses

Clauses introduced by etsi are normally understood as concessive clauses. However,
in a way comparable to what is shown for si clauses, the relation between the content
of the etsi clause and the main clause may be such that it is interpreted as conditional
rather than as concessive. This is illustrated by (a) and (b), where de Melo’s Loeb
translation has ‘even if ’. The use of et alone in the sense ‘even’ is Post-Classical and
poetic.208 This is different in the case of etiamsi (etiam si), because etiam is used in this
206 For the definition of ‘concession’ and the various forms in which this may be expressed, see
Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 139–43) and Spevak (2005b: Introduction), with references. Also—briefly—
Martín Puente (2002: 21–5).
207 Crevels (2000) distinguishes four types of concessive relations within the framework of Functional
Grammar: content, epistemic, speech-act, and textual (the latter concern sentence connexion). For
another, related, approach, see Spevak (2005b).
208 See TLL s.v. 908.22ff.
sense from Early Latin onwards (though for that period the combination of it with si
is not beyond doubt). From signalling an extreme condition etiamsi developed into a
concessive subordinator. In Cicero’s time it is used in both senses. The conditional
interpretation of etsi and etiamsi clauses is especially likely in cases like (b) and (e),
with the subjunctive mood.209 The scalar concessive subordinator quamvis resembles
etiamsi insofar as it may indicate that what its clause refers to is indeed the case to a
very high or extreme degree (for details, see below, § 16.75). However, it lacks the
conditional aspect of etiamsi.210 Additionally, strengthening of the conditional subor-
dinator (like etiamsi) and of free-choice indefinites (like quamvis) is a well-known
source for concessive expressions in many languages.211 For a conditional interpret-
ation of licet, see (f).
(a) Etsi pervivo usque ad summam aetatem, tamen / breve spatium est perfe-
rundi quae minitas mihi.
(‘Even if I live to a great age, it’s still only a short period for me to bear what you’re
threatening me with.’ Pl. Capt. 742–3)
(b) Pol etsi taceas, palam id quidem est. Res ipsa test’est.
(‘Even if you were to be silent it would be obvious: the facts speak for themselves.’
Pl. Aul. 421)
(c) Etiamsi dudum fuerat ambiguom hoc mihi, / nunc non est, quom eam
[con]sequitur alienus puer.
(‘Even if this had been in doubt for me for a long time, it’s not now, since someone
else’s child is following her.’ Ter. Hec. 648–9)
(d) Eundem igitur esse creditote, etiamsi nullum videbitis.
(‘Believe therefore that the same thing exists, even if you do not see it.’ Cic.
Sen. 79)
(e) Etiamsi propter amicitiam vellet illum ab inferis evocare, propter rem publi-
cam non fecisset.
(‘Even if he had been desirous for friendship’s sake of summoning him from the
dead, for the commonwealth’s sake he would have refrained from doing so.’ Cic.
Mil. 79)
(f) . . . nec tibi parsero, licet mehercules Iovem Olympium clames.
(‘. . . and I shall not spare you, even though by Hercules you cry out to Olympian Jove.’
Petr. 58.5 (Hermeros speaking))
209 For etsi, see TLL s.v. 974.10ff., Mellet (2002), and Spevak (2005b: 107, n. 91). The concessive condi-
tional interpretation of etsi is rejected by Martín Puente (2002) and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011:
148–50). For etiamsi, see TLL s.v. 965.78ff., Martín Puente (1998b), and Mellet (2002: 258–9).
210 For a different view, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2010a).
211 See König and Siemund (2000), Spevak (2005b: 11–25), Bertocchi and Maraldi (2010a; 2011:
140–2).
. Concessive and concessive conditional clauses

functioning as adjunct
The most common use of concessive and concessive conditional quamquam, quam-
vis, etsi, tametsi, etiamsi, and licet clauses is as adjuncts. Examples are (a)–(f). In all
these cases the natural cause and effect relationship between the states of affairs in the
subordinate and main clauses is in some way frustrated. Concessive adjunct clauses
usually precede their main clause, and tamen is quite frequent with the purely conces-
sive subordinators (for concessive conditionals, see § 16.69).
(a) Quamquam ego serva sum, / scio ego officium meum . . .
(‘Even though I’m a slave girl, I know my duty . . .’ Pl. Per. 615–16)
(b) . . . ut . . . quamvis civis Romanus esset, in crucem tolleretur.
(‘. . . that even if he were a Roman citizen, he might be put on the cross.’ Cic. Ver.
5.168)
(c) Nil habeo certi quid loquar. Non vidi eam, etsi vidi.
(‘I don’t have anything definite to say: I didn’t see her, even if I did.’ Pl. Mil. 407)
(d) Tam etsi fur mihi es, molestus non ero.
(‘Even though you are a thief in my eyes, I won’t make trouble.’ Pl. Aul. 768)
(e) . . . sed in animo revolvente iras, etiam si impetus offensionis languerat,
memoria valebat.
(‘. . . but in his heart, brooding over its grounds for wrath, even if the first transport of
resentment might have died down, memory lived.’ Tac. Ann. 4.21.1)
(f) Licet tibi, ut scribis, significarim ut ad me venires, id dono tamen et intellego
te istic prodesse, hic ne verbo quidem levare me posse.
(‘Although I may have suggested to you, as you say, that you should join me, never-
theless I give that up, and realize that you are helping me where you are, whereas you
could do nothing even verbally to lighten my load here.’ Cic. Att. 3.12.3—NB: an early
instance of licet as a subordinator in a reported statement)
Supplement:
Quid, impurate? Quamquam Volcano studes, / cenaene causa aut tuae mercedis gra-
tia / nos nostras aedis postulas comburere? (Pl. Aul. 359–61); Aetoli cives te saluta-
mus, Lyce, / quamquam hanc salutem ferimus inviti tibi . . . (Pl. Poen. 621–2);
Quamquam ad ignotum arbitrum me appellis, si adhibebit fidem, / etsi ignotu’st,
notu’s<t>. Si non, notus ignotissumu’st. (Pl. Rud. 1043–4); Quamquam estis nihili,
tam ecastor simul vobis consului. (Titin. com. 157); Quamquam enim adsunt
Kalendae Ianuariae, tamen breve tempus longum est imparatis. (Cic. Phil. 3.2); Quoi
quamquam virtus, gloria atque alia optanda bonis superabant, tamen inerat con-
temptor animus et superbia, commune nobilitatis malum. (Sal. Jug. 64.1); Gratum
primoribus civitatis etiam plebs adprobavit, quod reversis ab exilio iura libertorum
concessisset, quamquam id omni modo servilia ingenia corrumpebant . . . (Tac. Hist.
2.92.3); Quamquam autem distulerim congressionem . . ., non erit delibationi
transfunctoria expugnatio. (Tert. Val. 6.2); Quamquam sitierit te anima mea, tamen
multo te plus carnis meae labore quaesivi . . . (Hier. Ep. 122.1.13)
Quamvis sphaeram in scaenam, ut dicitur, attulerit Ennius, tamen in sphaera fornicis
similitudo inesse non potest. (Cic. de Orat. 3.162); Nam quamvis de mensura minus
auctoribus convenit, hanc tamen videri commodissimam docuit noster usus. (Col.
2.9.1); Palumbis et turtur plurimum terna nec plus quam bis vere pariunt, atque ita,
si prior fetus corruptus est et ut, quamvis III pepererint, numquam plus II educant.
(Plin. Nat. 10.158); Neque miseratus est posthac Tiberius, quamvis domus Hortensii
pudendam ad inopiam delaberetur. (Tac. Ann. 2.38.5); Nec ipsa mali relevatio fit per
communionem cladis sed per solatium caritatis, ut quamvis alii ferendo patiuntur
alii cognoscendo compatiuntur, communis sit tamen tribulatio . . . (August. Ep. 99.2)
Sed quod crebro videt, non miratur, etiamsi, cur fiat, nescit. (Cic. Div. 2.49); Nam
ista veritas, etiam si iucunda non est, mihi tamen grata est. (Cic. Att. 3.24.2); Apud
quem etiam si caritate a fratre maiore vincor, misericordia certe reus vinci non
debeo. (Liv. 40.15.15); In hac controversia, etiamsi coniecturalis est et habet quasi
certum tritumque iter, fuit tamen aliqua inter declamantis dissensio. (Sen. Con.
7.7.10); Etiamsi credideris, nego te velle. Etiamsi volueris, nego te posse. (Tert. Apol.
8.4); . . . semper tamen credidi et esse te et curam nostri gerere, etiamsi ignorabam vel
quid sentiendum esset de substantia tua vel quae via duceret aut reduceret ad te.
(August. Conf. 6.5.8)
Etsi mihi facta iniuria’st, verum tamen / . . . abduce hanc, minas quinque accipe.
(Ter. Ph. 407–10); Quam etsi spero falsam esse, numquam tamen extenuabo. (Cic.
Marc. 21); . . . Caesar . . . huc iam deduxerat rem, ut equites, etsi difficulter atque aegre
fiebat, possent tamen atque auderent flumen transire . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.62.1); Quae
singula etsi distrahebant rem publicam, exercebant tamen illorum temporum elo-
quentiam . . . (Tac. Dial. 36.4); Nam, etsi a Numa concepta est curiositas superstitiosa,
nondum tamen aut simulacris aut templis res divina apud Romanos constabat.
(Tert. Apol. 25.12); Qua iniquitate percitus qui audiebatur ‘etsi me,’ inquit, ‘despicit
imperator, negotii tamen est magnitudo, ut non nisi iudicio principis nosci possit et
vindicari.’ (Amm. 20.2.4)
Non eo genere sumus prognatae, tametsi sumus servae, soror, / ut deceat nos
facere quicquam quod homo quisquam irrideat. (Pl. Poen. 1201–2); Nolebat in
agendo discere, tametsi non provinciae rudis erat et tiro . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.17); Nostri
tametsi ab duce et a fortuna deserebantur, tamen omnem spem salutis in virtute
ponebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.34.2); At ille, tametsi omnia potiora fide Iugurthae rebatur,
tamen, quia penes eosdem, si advorsaretur, cogendi potestas erat, ita, uti censuerant
Italici, deditionem facit. (Sal. Jug. 26.2); Quae tametsi maestitiam sollicito incuterent
principi, residua tamen non contemnebat urgentia, dum pugnandi tempus ei veniret
optatum. (Amm. 22.14.1)
Quod bonum felix et faustum itaque, licet salutare non erit, Photis illa temptetur.
(Apul. Met. 2.6.8); Si furioso . . . rem tradideris, licet ille non erit adeptus possessio-
nem, tu possidere desinis. (Gaius dig. 41.2.18.1); Omnibus licet membris lavet quoti-
die Israel, numquam tamen mundus est. (Tert. Or. 14); Qui credit in me, licet moriatur,
vivet . . . (Cypr. Mort. 21); . . . et privatus licet dici velles, inhaesit tibi ingenita maiestas.
(Paneg. 7.12.4); . . . itaque quoniam episcopus, licet Siriste noverit, tamen semper
Grece loquitur et nunquam Siriste. (Pereg. 47.3); . . . si quis eum adisset . . . hoc non
impetrato ad eundem, quem metuebat, licet multa praetenderet iusta, remittebatur.

(Amm. 27.7.8)
When the concessive and the main clause (would) have the same verb, it is normally
expressed only once, as in (g) and (h). In (g) audiebat has to be understood in the
etiamsi clause, in (h) continentur has to be understood in the main clause.
(g) Erat surdaster M. Crassus, sed aliud molestius, quod male audiebat, etiamsi,
ut mihi videbatur, iniuria.
(‘Marcus Crassus was half-deaf; still he suffered another worse annoyance, in hearing
himself spoken ill of, even if, as I thought at the time, what he heard was unjust.’ Cic.
Tusc. 5.116)
(h) Coniuges autem et liberi et fratres et alii, quos usus familiaritasque coniunxit,
quamquam etiam caritate ipsa, tamen amore maxime continentur.
(‘Wives, however, and children and brothers and others, who become attached to us
by association and familiarity, although (they are bound to us) by actual esteem as
well, are bound to us chiefly by affection.’ Cic. Part. 88)
. Concessive clauses functioning as attitudinal disjunct

Concessive clauses are used as attitudinal disjuncts to mitigate, elaborate, or comment
on the content of the main clause, as in (a) and (b). Ex. (c) is an example of a conces-
sive disjunct commenting on the wording of the main clause.212 Concessive disjuncts
more often follow the main clause (in such instances the main clause does not contain
tamen or a related expression) and, when the concessive clause precedes, tamen is
much less common than in the adjunct type. Attitudinal concessive clauses may con-
tain disjuncts like the epistemic adverb fortasse ‘perhaps’, as in (b).
(a) Contentionis praecepta rhetorum sunt, nulla sermonis, quamquam haud
scio an possint haec quoque esse.
(‘There are rules for oratory laid down by rhetoricians; there are none for conversa-
tion, although perhaps these could exist as well.’ Cic. Off. 1.132)
(b) Mihi quoque, inquit Brutus, [et] exspectanda sunt ea quae Attico polliceris,
etsi fortasse ego a te huius voluntarius procurator petam, quod ipse, cui
debes, incommodo exacturum negat.
(‘The things which you promised Atticus, Brutus said, must also be awaited by me,
even though I, as his willing agent, shall perhaps demand that which he himself, to
whom you are a debtor, denies that he will exact at your inconvenience.’ Cic. Brut. 17)
(c) Erat enim inter eos dignitate regia, quamvis carebat nomine . . .
(‘As a matter of fact, he enjoyed the rank of king among them, although he didn’t hold
that title . . .’ Nep. Milt. 2.3—NB: the use of the indicative fits in with the type of
concessive clause: a factual comment)
212 K.-St.: II.444 use the term quamquam correctivum.

Supplement:
Nec refert de Graeco an de Latino loquar, quamquam Graecum esse priorem placet.
(Quint. Inst. 1.4.1); Non videt autem (sc. mens) quod minimum est, formam suam
(quamquam fortasse id quoque, sed relinquamus). (Cic. Tusc. 1.67); Haec si torrea-
tur aequa parte rubrica admixta, sandycem facit, quamquam animadverto Vergilium
existimasse herbam id esse illo versu. (Plin. Nat. 35.40)
Certe nisi sole adverso non fiunt nec umquam nisi dimidia circuli forma nec
noctu, quamvis Aristoteles prodat aliquando visum, quod tamen fatetur idem non
nisi XXX luna posse fieri. (Plin. Nat. 2.150); Impune erratur nisi delinquatur—quam-
vis et errare delinquere est—impune, inquam, vagatur qui nihil deserit. (Tert. Praescr.
11.1); Quem quidem Aurelianus idcirco dicitur occidisse, quod superbior illa epistula
ipsius diceretur dictata consilio, quamvis Syro esset sermone contexta. (Hist. Aug.
Aur. 30.3)213
Talia esse scripta eius non dubito, etiam si magis reminiscor quam teneo . . . (Sen.
Ep. 100.12); Levissimum autem longe genus ex verbo, etiam si est apud Ciceronem in
Clodiam . . . (Quint. Inst. 9.2.99)
Quam ob rem . . . etsi utile est etiam subito saepe dicere, tamen illud utilius, sumpto
spatio ad cogitandum, paratius atque accuratius dicere. (Cic. de Orat. 1.150); Etsi
hoc, inquit, fortasse non poterit sic abire, cum hic adsit—me autem dicebat, tamen
audebo te ab hac Academia nova ad veterem illam vocare . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.7); Ubi
etsi adiectum aliquid numero sit, magna certe caedes fuit. (Liv. 3.8.10); Terra etsi
aliquanto specie differt, in universum tamen aut silvis horrida aut paludibus
foeda . . . (Tac. Ger. 5.1)
Quorum tametsi utrumque convenit orationi, tamen possis illud grammaticum,
hoc rhetoricum magis dicere. (Quint. Inst. 9.3.2)
Et licet multa sunt eius laudanda in huiusmodi controversiis, unum tamen sufficiet
poni, ad cuius similitudinem acta vel dicta sunt. (Amm. 18.1.3); Septima decima
mansio, quam in ‘lateres’ possumus vertere, licet quidam Lebona transferentes male
‘candorem’ interpretati sunt. (Hier. Ep. 78.19)
The relationship between the attitudinal concessive clause and the main clause is often
one of contrast. The main clause may either contain generally acknowledged informa-
tion, as in (d), or refer to someone else’s words or actions, as in (e), which is repeated
from § 16.68. In these cases, the concessive clause almost always precedes. With such
contrastive concessive clauses, the main clause often contains tamen or a related
expression, as in (f), but also epistemic adverbs like certe ‘certainly’, utique ‘absolutely’,
and profecto ‘assuredly’, as in (g)–(h).214
(d) De futuris autem rebus etsi semper difficile est dicere, tamen interdum
coniectura possis propius accedere . . .
(‘Although it is always difficult to speak of things to come, nevertheless you can
sometimes come quite close to the mark by guessing.’ Cic. Fam. 6.4.1)
213 This example is discussed by Spevak (2005c: 155).

214 Spevak (2005b: 58–9) calls such concessive clauses ‘confrontatives’. Most examples are taken from
that source. For epistemic adverbs with etiamsi, see TLL s.v. 968.60ff.
(e) Etsi, quamvis non fueris suasor et impulsor profectionis meae, at probator
certe fuisti, dum modo Kal. Ian. Romae essem.
(‘All the same, although you did not recommend or instigate my trip, you certainly
did approve of it, provided I was back in Rome on the Kalends of January.’ Cic. Att.
16.7.2)
(f) . . . quamquam omnis virtus nos ad se allicit . . ., tamen iustitia et liberalitas id
maxime efficit.
(‘. . . although every virtue attracts us . . . still justice and generosity do so most of all.’
Cic. Off. 1.56)
(g) Et erat tam demens hic cui vos ingenium certe tribuitis, etiam si cetera ini-
mica oratione detrahitis, ut omnis suas fortunas alienis servis committeret?
(‘And this man, whom you certainly credit with some ability, although you deprive
him of other qualities with your hostile language—was so great a fool as to entrust all
his fortunes to another person’s slaves?’ Cic. Cael. 57)
(h) Vos, etiamsi tunc faciendum non fuerit, nunc utique faciendum putatis.
(‘You think that even if then it ought not to have been done, yet now at any rate it
ought.’ Liv. 5.53.3)
Supplement:
Sed omnis loquendi elegantia, quamquam expolitur scientia litterarum, tamen auge-
tur legendis oratoribus et poetis. (Cic. de Orat. 3.39); Qua quidem de re quamquam
assentior iis, qui haec omnia regi natura putant—quae si natura neglegat, ipsa esse non
possit—tamen concedo ut qui de hoc dissentiunt existiment quod velint . . . (Cic. Fin.
5.33); Ego valeo, quamvis animus aeger bonum sanitatis ignoret. (Symm. Ep. 4.74.2);
Quamquam voluntas non sit in crimine, error in culpa est. (Hier. Ep. 22.8.5); Victorino
martyri in libris suis, licet desit eruditio, tamen non deest eruditionis voluntas. (Hier.
Ep. 70.5.2)
. Concessive clauses functioning as illocutionary disjunct

Although it may be assumed that in Latin, as in other languages,215 concessive clauses
function as illocutionary disjuncts to specify the relationship between the speaker
and the addressee, to position the state of affairs of the main clause in a wider context,
or to indicate its position in the ongoing discourse, there are not many undisputed
instances.216
(a) Ex quo, quamquam hoc videbitur fortasse cuipiam durius, tamen audeamus
imitari Stoicos . . .
(‘Therefore, although this will seem perhaps too strict to some, still we may dare to
imitate the Stoics . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.23)
215 See Crevels (2000: 32). One of her examples is: The answer is on page 200, although I’m sure you
already know that.
216 For (a), see Spevak (2005b: 40).
(b) Sed ea tametsi vos parvi pendebatis, tamen res publica firma erat, opulentia
neglegentiam tolerabat.
(‘But although you were wont to give little weight to my words, yet the state was
unshaken; its prosperity put up with your neglect.’ Sal. Cat. 52.9)
Supplement:
Mihi quoque, inquit Brutus, [et] exspectanda sunt ea quae Attico polliceris, etsi for-
tasse ego a te huius voluntarius procurator petam, quod ipse, cui debes, incommodo
exacturum negat. (Cic. Brut. 17); . . . teque ad hoc studium religiosa exhortatione desti-
mulo, licet bona voluntas quae ex ingenio venit non sit agitanda calcaribus. (Symm.
Ep. 5.94)
. The individual concessive subordinators: quamquam,

quamvis, the si compounds, and licet
The following sections deal with the individual concessive subordinators. They differ
from each other in the frequency with which they are used and in the periods in
which they were used. Quamquam is the most common concessive subordinator,
used from Plautus onwards. Licet is Late and quamvis mainly Silver Latin. Etsi and
tametsi are also used from Early Latin onwards. There are also differences between the
subordinators in the use of the moods.
. Concessive clauses with quamquam
Quamquam is used as a concessive subordinator from Plautus onwards to express an

acknowledged fact.217 The indicative is the appropriate mood for such statements, as
in (a). However, the subjunctive is also used with its normal semantic justification, as
in (b), where we find a potential subjunctive.218 In addition it is found in certain well-
known syntactic configurations (see § 7.162 on ‘modal assimilation’), as in (c), where
it is embedded in the ut . . . doleremus clause. The use of it without one of these seman-
tic or syntactic justifications starts with Nepos, as in (d), and it becomes the prevalent
mood in Tacitus and Pliny the Younger and in later authors. The spread of the sub-
junctive was probably stimulated by its use with quamvis. However, in attitudinal and
illocutionary quamquam clauses the indicative is preferred for semantic reasons.219
Quamquam gradually becomes less common than quamvis.220
(a) Pol quamquam domum cupio, opperiar . . .
(‘Even though I long for home, I’ll wait . . .’ Pl. Trin. 842)
217 For the relationship between quamquam as a concessive subordinator and sed and other adversative
coordinators, see Maraldi (2001). For its use as a connector, see § 24.34.
218 See Wisse et al. ad loc.
219 So also in Tertullian and Cyprian. See Waszink ad Tert. An. 38.1.
220 Details and references in Sz.: 602–3. For Livy (no semantically unmotivated instances of the
subjunctive), see Ladouceur (1981).
(b) Quae (sc. eloquentia) quamquam (quamvis L) contemnatur ab eis, necesse est
tamen aliquem cumulum illorum artibus adferre videatur.
(‘Although it might be despised by them, still it must seem to add some embellish-
ment to their skills.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.143)
(c) Ita nobismet ipsis accidit ut, quamquam essent multo magis alia lugenda,
tamen hoc doleremus quod . . .
(‘So it befell me that, although other things were to be lamented much more, still I
grieved over the fact that . . .’ Cic. Brut. 8)
(d) Nec praeteribo, quamquam nonnullis leve visum iri putem . . . non amplius
quam terna milia peraeque in singulos menses ex ephemeride eum expen-
sum sumptui ferre solitum.
(‘I shall not pass over the fact, although I suppose that some will regard it as trivial,
that we know from the entries in his day-book that he consistently limited his
expenses to not more than three thousand sesterces each month.’ Nep. Att. 13.6)
Supplement:
Semantically justified subjunctives: Sed in versibus res est apertior, quamquam
etiam a modis quibusdam cantu remoto soluta esse videatur oratio . . . (Cic. Orat.
183); Quamquam enim sensus abierit, tamen suis et propriis bonis laudis et gloriae,
quamvis non sentiant, mortui non carent. (Cic. Tusc. 1.109); Nam vi quidem regere
patriam aut parentis, quamquam et possis et delicta corrigas, tamen inportunum
est . . . (Sal. Jug. 3.2); Nec vero Alciden me sum laetatus euntem / accepisse lacu, nec
Thesea Pirithoumque, / dis quamquam geniti atque invicti viribus essent. (Verg. A.
6.392–4—a reported statement ‘although, as they said . . .’); Quamquam expertum
exercitum adsuetumque imperio, qui in Volscis erat mallet, nihil recusavit.
(Liv. 6.9.6)
Semantically unmotivated subjunctives: Neve haec commenta putetis, / admonitu
quamquam renovetur luctus amarus, / perpetiar memorare tamen. (Ov. Met. 14.464–6);
Hae flexere virum voces, et, tempora quamquam / sint aliena toris iam fato in bella
vocante, / foedera sola tamen vanaque carentia pompa / iura placent sacrisque deos
admittere testes. (Luc. 2.350–3); At hercule Germanicum, Druso ortum, octo apud
Rhenum legionibus imposuit adscirique per adoptionem a Tiberio iussit, quam-
quam esset in domo Tiberii filius iuvenis . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.3.5); Quamquam autem et
retro praestruxerimus . . . pubertatem quoque animalem cum carnali dicimus conve-
nire . . . (Tert. An. 38.1)
. Concessive clauses with quamvis
Quamvis is a scalar adverb in Plautus—as in (a) below, where it modifies malam. It is

related to the free-choice indefinite determiner quivis (see § 11.115). It usually modi-
fies gradable adjectives and adverbs, but it is also used as an adverb of degree on the
clause level. The mood in the (independent) sentences in which it occurs is the sub-
junctive (called: ‘concessive’). As a (scalar) concessive subordinator in a subordinate
clause that is related to a main clause (often containing tamen) it is found from Varro
and Cicero onwards, although it continues to be used as a scalar adverb as well, for
which see (b), where it is found next to licet. A clear instance of its use as a subordina-
tor is (c), repeated from § 16.70: civis Romanus is not gradable (not all scholars agree
on this—see OLD s.v. quamvis § 3b). The regular mood in such quamvis clauses is the
subjunctive. The earliest undisputed instance of an indicative is (e), repeated from
§ 16.71, where the indicative fits in with the (attitudinal) type of concessive clause,
namely a factual comment (see also the examples in the Supplement). Usually the
indicative is explained on the analogy of quamquam. The use of both an indicative
and a subjunctive in the same quamvis clause in Ammianus (ex. (f)) can only be
understood as stylistic variation influenced by Greek.221
(a) Quamvis malam rem quaeras, illi reperias.
(‘However bad the thing you’re looking for, you could find it there.’ Pl. Trin. 554)
(b) Et praeter eos quamvis enumeres multos licet, quom deni creentur, non nul-
los in omni memoria reperies perniciosos tribunos . . .
(‘And beyond these, you could count as many as you like; for when a college of ten is
elected, you will find some tribunes in every period whose activities are harmful . . .’
Cic. Leg. 3.24)
(c) . . . ut . . . quamvis civis Romanus esset, in crucem tolleretur.
(‘. . . that even if he were a Roman citizen, he might be put on the cross.’ Cic. Ver.
5.168—NB: the imperfect subjunctive esset cannot depend on vis in quamvis)
(d) . . . constantiam . . . quam ego quamvis ipse probarem ut probo, tamen non
commemorarem nisi a te cognovissem in primis eam virtutem solere
laudari.
(‘. . . the constancy which, though I respected it myself, as I do respect it, I nevertheless
would not mention, unless I had known that that virtue in particular is accustomed
to be praised by you.’ Cic. Lig. 26)
(e) Erat enim inter eos dignitate regia, quamvis carebat nomine . . .
(‘As a matter of fact, he enjoyed the rank of king among them, although he didn’t hold
that title . . .’ Nep. Milt. 2.3)
(f) Et quamvis offundebatur oculis altitudo pulveris et aestus calescens officeret
alacritati membrorum, tamen velut exauctoratus amisso ductore sine parsi-
monia ruebat in ferrum.
(‘And although high clouds of dust blinded the eyes, and the burning heat weak-
ened the activity of their limbs, yet as though discharged by the loss of their leader
without sparing themselves, they rushed upon the swords of the enemy.’ Amm.
25.3.10)222
221 For the development of quamvis from a scalar adverb (see § 11.97) into a scalar concessive subordi-
nator, see Schaffner (1954), Bertocchi (2002a), Spevak (2005b: 74–81), Leuschner (2008), and Bertocchi
and Maraldi (2011: 156–60). For the use of the moods, see Sz.: 603–4.
222 See Ehrismann (1886: 45).
Supplement:
Subjunctive: Nunc quamvis sint homines qui mortuum Cn. Carbonem oderint,
tamen hi debent, non quid illi accidere voluerint, sed quid ipsis in tali re metuendum
sit cogitare. (Cic. Ver. 1.39); . . . et si tibi pro P. Rutilio non philosophorum more, sed
tuo licuisset dicere, quamvis scelerati illi fuissent, sicuti fuerunt . . . , tamen omnem
eorum importunitatem ex intimis mentibus evellisset vis orationis tuae. (Cic. de
Orat. 1.230); . . . quamvis sint sub aqua, sub aqua maledicere temptant. (Ov. Met.
6.376); Ad <ea> flumina cum pecora suis temporibus anni parantur ad conceptio-
nem partus, per id tempus adiguntur eo cotidie potum, ex eoque, quamvis sint alba,
procreant aliis locis leucophaea, aliis locis pulla, aliis coracino colore. (Vitr. 8.3.14);
Neronem enim transeo, quamvis sciam non corrumpi in deterius, quae aliquando
etiam a malis, sed honesta manere, quae saepius a bonis fiunt. (Plin. Ep. 5.3.6)
Indicative: Ut quisque duo verba in quattuor formis finxeri[n]t similiter, quamvis
haec nolemus (nolimus Spengel), tamen erunt sequenda, ut † Iuppiti, Marspitrem.
(Var. L. 8.33); Hoc ille natus, quamvis patrem numquam viderat, tamen . . . in pater-
nae vitae similitudinem deductus est. (Cic. Rab. Post. 4—NB: various emendations
for quamvis and for viderat); Nec bonus Eurytion praelato invidit honori, / quamvis
solus avem caelo deiecit ab alto. (Verg. A. 5.541–2); Non tibi quamvis infesto animo
et minaci perveneras (secl. Novák), ingredienti fines ira cecidit? (Liv. 2.40.7); Ex quo
casu, quamvis vita redditur, tamen id fere membrum debilitatur. (Cels. 2.4.7); Iam
scies patrem tuum mercedes perdidisse, quamvis et rhetoricam scis. (Petr. 58.8
(Hermeros speaking)); Quamvis non minus sudoris habuimus, etiam postquam ad
stabulum pervenimus. (Petr. 79.5); De vita tua aeterna certus eram, quamvis eam in
aenigmate et quasi per speculum videram. (August. Conf. 8.1)
The subjunctive is semantically justified in instances like (a) above, where quamvis
modifies malam (for this ‘concessive’ use of the subjunctive, see § 7.59).223 The sub-
junctive in (g) from Cicero may be explained along the same lines, although in other
cases this may seem artificial. On the other hand, the indicative is perfectly under-
standable in (h) and (i), cited as early instances of the use of this mood: the clauses
describe plain facts. (For the indicative in an attitudinal clause, see above, (e).)
(g) Quamvis sis molestus, numquam te esse confitebor malum.
(‘However distressing you might be, I shall never admit that you are an evil.’
Cic. Tusc. 2.61)
(h) Quamvis est circum caesis lacer undique membris / truncus, adempta anima
circum membrisque remota / vivit et aetherias vitalis suscipit auras.
(‘However much the trunk is mangled with the limbs hewn all around,
though the soul be rent from him all around and wrested from his body, he
lives and draws in the breath of heaven to give him life.’ Lucr. 3.403–5—quam-
vis modifies lacer; text and translation by Bailey)
(i) Neque aliud magis tempus pestilentiae patet, cuiuscumque ea generis est,
quamvis variis rationibus nocet.
(‘Nor is any other period of the year more exposed to pestilence, of whatever
sort it is and no matter how various the ways in which it is harmful.’ Cels.
2.1.9—NB: quamvis modifies variis)
223 See Woodcock (1959: 201–2).

Quamvis is a combination of the degree adverb quam ‘how’ and the second person
singular form vis of the verb volo. Other personal forms are also attested, as in (j) and
(k). Such expressions are also found as degree expressions with adjectives and
adverbs, as in (l).
(j) Quam volent in conviviis faceti, dicaces, non numquam etiam ad vinum
diserti sint, alia fori vis est . . .
(‘However humorous, witty, sometimes glib they may be at dinner parties
over drinks, the idea of court is one thing. . .’ Cic. Cael. 67—NB: the mss.
vary)
(k) Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, ipsi nos amemus, tamen . . . omnis
gentis nationesque superavimus.
(‘However good be our conceit of ourselves, conscript fathers, neverthe-
less . . . we have excelled every race and every nation.’ Cic. Har. 19—Note the
presence of licet)
(l) Quod commodum est, expectate facinus quam voltis improbum.
(‘As is convenient, expect a deed however immoral you wish.’ Cic. Ver. 5.11)
Quamlibet ‘in whatever degree one likes’ is used as a scalar degree modifier of adjec-
tives and adverbs (see § 11.97). It is relatively popular in Ovid and later in Augustine,
but infrequent in other authors; a rare example is (m). From Silver Latin onwards it
is also occasionally found on the clause level, resembling the use of quamvis as a
subordinator ‘however much’ (with a subjunctive), as in (n).
(m) . . . Curionem video se dupliciter iactaturum, primum ut aliquid Caesari
adimat, inde ut aliquid Pompeio tribuat, quodvis quamlibet tenue
munusculum.
(‘. . . I envisage that Curio will make his weight felt in two directions: first he’ll
try to take something away from Caesar, then give something to Pompey,
any little douceur, however trifling.’ Cael. Fam. 8.10.3)
(n) Nam certe quamlibet parvum sit, quod contulerit aetas prior, maiora tamen
aliqua discet puer ipso illo anno, quo minora didicisset.
(‘For though the knowledge contributed by the earlier years may be small,
still the boy will be learning some more important things in the year in
which he would otherwise have been learning more elementary matters.’
Quint. Inst. 1.1.18).
. Concessive clauses with etsi, etiamsi, tametsi, and tamenetsi
Concessive subordinators formed with si ‘if ’ are found from Early Latin onwards. As
with si clauses, these clauses may be in the indicative or in the subjunctive (potential
and counterfactual). The degree to which these subordinators are used varies by
author and text.224 In poetry they are avoided. Tamenetsi (or: tamen etsi) is very rare
in all periods of Latin. Etsi is the most common concessive subordinator in this group
224 See the reference in note 201.

in all periods of Latin (and so absent from Sallust). Tametsi is the most common con-
cessive subordinator in Rhet. Her. and in Sallust and is also relatively frequent in
Cicero’s orations and in the jurists, but it is rare in other authors and texts. Etiamsi (or:
etiam si) is the most frequent concessive subordinator in argumentative texts, Cicero’s
included. It is the only one used by Seneca the Elder and almost the only one used
by Seneca the Younger in his philosophical works. It is also predominant in Pliny
the Elder and in Petronius. Tertullian, however, strongly prefers etsi over etiamsi.
Augustine uses both, with a slight preference for etsi.
16.77 Concessive clauses with etsi

Etsi is found from Early Latin onwards, with varying popularity. It is rare in poetry.
The use of the moods is the same as in si clauses. Ex. (a) has the indicative, the normal
mood for presenting factual information; (b) has the potential subjunctive, (c) the
counterfactual subjunctive. An interesting example is (d) with the difference in mood
between the etsi and etiamsi clauses.225 The first attested semantically unmotivated
subjunctive seems to be found in (e).
(a) Equidem tam sum servos quam tu, etsi ego domi liber fui, / tu usque a puero
servitutem servivisti in Alide.
(‘Yes, I am a slave like you, even if I was free at home and you were a slave in Elis from
childhood.’ Pl. Capt. 543–4)
(b) Pol etsi taceas, palam id quidem est.
(‘Even if you were to be silent it would be obvious.’ Pl. Aul. 421)
(c) Sed me vera pro gratis loqui, etsi meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas
cogit.
(‘But even if my character did not warn me, necessity compels me to speak what is
true instead of what is agreeable.’ Liv. 3.68.9)
(d) Ut qui pila ludunt non utuntur in ipsa lusione artificio proprio palaestrae, sed
indicat ipse motus didicerintne palaestram an nesciant, et qui aliquid fin-
gunt, etsi tum pictura nihil utuntur, tamen utrum sciant pingere an nesciant
non obscurum est, sic in orationibus hisce ipsis iudiciorum contionum
senatus, etiam si proprie ceterae non adhibeantur (v.l. adhibentur) artes,
tamen facile declaratur utrum is, qui dicat, tantummodo in hoc declamato-
rio sit opere iactatus an ad dicendum omnibus ingenuis artibus instructus
accesserit.
(‘Just as ball-players do not in their game itself employ the characteristic dexterity of
the gymnasium, and yet their movements show whether they have had such training
or know nothing of their art and, just as, in the case of those who are portraying any-
thing, even though at the moment they are making no use of the painter’s art, there is
none the less no difficulty in seeing whether or not they know how to paint; even
so is it with these same speeches in the Courts, the popular assembly and the
225 For information about the use of etsi in various authors, see TLL s.v. etsi 973.62ff.
Senate-house—granting that the other arts may not be specially brought into play,
still it is made easily discernible whether the speaker has merely floundered about in
this declamatory business or whether he has come to the task of speaking with train-
ing in all the liberal arts.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.73)
(e) . . . ignes, quibus etsi propria desit (defit cj. Orelli) / forma, per appositi nos-
cuntur lumina signi.
(‘. . . stars, which, even though a constellation of their own may be lacking, are recog-
nized through the lights of a constellation nearby.’ Germ. Arat. 377–8)
16.78 Concessive clauses with tametsi (and tam etsi)

Tametsi (also written tam etsi, editors vary) is found from Early Latin onwards (though
less frequently than etsi), with both the indicative and the (potential and counterfac-
tual) subjunctive mood, as in si clauses. The first attested semantically unmotivated
subjunctive is in (e).
(a) Audis quae dico, tam etsi praesens non ades.
(‘You can hear what I’m saying, even if you’re not physically present.’ Pl. Am. 977)
(b) Memini, tam etsi nullu’ moneas.
(‘I have that in mind even without you prompting me.’ Ter. Eu. 216)
(c) Si veniret ab Statilio, tametsi artificio Roscium superaret, adspicere nemo
posset.
(‘If he had come from Statilius, although he might have surpassed Roscius in skill, no
one would have looked at him.’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 30)
(d) Quod tametsi non reprehendunt, tamen magno opere quod laudent non
habent.
(‘Even though they do not censure this, nevertheless they do not have much to praise.’
Cic. Ver. 46)
(e) Nunc mihi videtur, tametsi non sint Italicae consuetudinis palaestrarum aed-
ificationes, traditae tamen, explicare . . .
(‘Although the building of palaestrae is not of Italic custom, still, since it has been
handed down, it seems right for me now to explain . . .’ Vitr. 5.11.1)
16.79 Concessive clauses with etiamsi (and etiam si)

Etiamsi (also written etiam si, editors vary) is a compound of the scalar additive par-
ticle etiam ‘even’ (see § 22.22) and the conditional subordinator si ‘if ’. Clauses intro-
duced by etiamsi that can be regarded as regular conditional clauses, as in (a), can be
found in all periods of Latin. The fact that etiam and si can be separated by other
constituents—as in (b) and (c)—confirms that the two parts are still independent
words with their original meanings. After an isolated concessive etiam si in Terence,
instances of its concessive use are cited from Cicero onward, as illustrated by (d). In
Classical prose etiamsi far less frequently corresponds with tamen in the main clause
than the actual concessive subordinators. On the other hand, the epistemic adverbs
certe ‘certainly’ (ex. (e)) and profecto ‘assuredly’ are used more often with etiamsi.226
Convincing concessive instances in which the ‘contrary to expectation’ feature is pre-
sent are found from Seneca the Elder onwards, as in (f).227 The moods are the same as
in si clauses. The first attested semantically unmotivated subjunctives are found in the
freedmen’s passages in Petronius (ex. (g)).228
(a) Atque equidem filium / tum etiam si nolit, cogam ut cum illa una cubet.
(‘And indeed, I would force your son to sleep together with her, even if he were
unwilling.’ Ter. Ad. 850–1)
(b) Omniane bonis viris quae facere possunt facienda sunt, etiamne, si turpia, si
perniciosa erunt, si facere omnino non licebit?
(‘Are good men to do everything they have the power to do, even if those things
are base, if they are pernicious, if it will be altogether unlawful to do them?’ Cic.
Phil. 13.14)
(c) Si haec . . . non ad homines, verum ad bestias, aut etiam ut longius progrediar,
si . . . haec conqueri ac deplorare vellem, tamen omnia muta . . . commoverentur.
(‘If I were speaking . . . not even to human beings, but to brute beasts, or to go even
further, if I were minded to tell this tale of suffering and wrong . . . even all that is mute
and lifeless would be moved.’ Cic. Ver. 5.171)
(d) Hoc . . . ita vobis planum faciemus, ut hoc statuatis, etiamsi spatium ad dicen-
dum nostro commodo vacuosque dies habuissemus, tamen oratione longa
nihil opus fuisse.
(‘This fact . . . we will make so plain to you that you will conclude that, even we had
had days to spare and time to speak at leisure, there would still have been no need to
speak at any great length.’ Cic. Ver. 56)
(e) Nimirum enim inops ille, si bonus est vir, etiam si referre gratiam non potest,
habere certe potest.
(‘For presumably that poor man, if he is a good man, even if he is not able to return a
favour, can at least be grateful.’ Cic. Off. 2.69)
(f) Etiamsi multa contra expectationem accidunt, numquam tamen futurum
putavi, ut . . .
(‘Even though many things happen contrary to expectation, still I never thought it
would come about that . . .’ Sen. Con. 2.1.1)
(g) Diffusus hac contentione Trimalchio ‘Amici,’ inquit, ‘et servi homines sunt et
aeque unum lactem biberunt, etiam si illos malus fatus oppresserit (oppressit
cj. Buecheler).
226 See Martín Puente (1998a: 322–4).

227 For information about the development of etiamsi, see TLL s.v. etiamsi 964.75ff. Martín
Puente (2002: 126–8) has evidence for the purely conditional meaning of etiamsi clauses in her corpus
(Caesar, Cicero, Sallust). See also Martín Puente (1998b).
228 For critical discussion, see Petersmann (1977: 283).
(‘Trimalchio expanded at this dispute and said, “Ah, my friends, a slave is a man and
drank his mother’s milk like ourselves, even if a cruel fate has trodden him down.” ’
Petr. 71.1 (Trimalchio speaking))
16.80 Concessive clauses with tamenetsi (and tamen etsi)

In most of the twenty or so sequences of tamen etsi and tamenetsi in the LLT
(Antiquitas) database, both elements can be explained as separate words with their
own meaning (tamen sometimes connecting with the preceding context), and editors
vary in the way they punctuate the sentences in which this sequence is found. A few
more convincing items, where tamenetsi functions as a compound concessive subor-
dinating device, are (a)–(c).229 There are also attestations of tamen etsi in Christian
authors, including Augustine.
(a) Eumque si quam gloriam peperisse videatur, tamenetsi ea non sit iniqua
merces periculi, tamen ea non delectari . . .
(‘And that, if he seems to have won any glory, even though the price of the risk is
not unfair, still he does not enjoy these things.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.210—see Leeman et al.
ad loc.)
(b) Quae tamen etsi absunt, at mens sibi conscia factis / praemetuens adhibet
stimulos torretque flagellis . . .
(‘And even if these are absent, yet the guilty conscience, terrified before anything can
come to pass, applies the goad and scourges itself with whips . . .’ Lucr. 3.1018–19)
(c) Quibus tamenetsi deesse summam fatendum est, non est tamen maximae
calamitatis loco numeranda parum plena felicitas.
(‘Even if it must be admitted that the highest (awareness) is lacking from these, still
in a situation of the greatest disaster, happiness must not be counted small.’ [Quint.]
Decl. 6.16—NB: v.l. tametsi)
. Concessive clauses with licet
The impersonal deontic modal verb licet ‘it is permitted’, ‘one may’ is used with a finite
complement clause in the subjunctive from Plautus onwards, as in (a) (for more
examples and—in Plautus’ time much more frequent—alternative constructions, see
§ 4.14). Its use with an epistemic meaning is attested in the Classical period, for
instance in (b), where it signals a possible line of reasoning. Licet is also used with this
meaning in combination with an infinitive, as in (c). Note that in (b) the tense of eli-
gerent and probarent is imperfect: in its epistemic meaning there is no restriction on
the tense of the embedded clause with licet. It is difficult to determine when precisely
licet developed into a concessive subordinator. Concessive interpretations of the rela-
tion between a complex of licet (and also, in Classical and Silver Latin, other forms,
229 Example (a) is rejected as an example of the use of tamenetsi as a concessive subordinator by Martín
Puente (2002). For discussion, see also Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 151–2).
like the future licebit) and a subjunctive verb form, on the one hand, and a preceding
or following clause on the other can be found from the time of Cicero onwards, as in
(d). Clear contexts in which licet is not used as a modal verb are exemplified by (e)–
(g). In (e) esset gestum is a pluperfect tense form, a tense which is not normally
found in independent concessive sentences (see § 6.34) and which is also rare in
complement clauses with the modal licet.230 In (f) erit is an early instance of an
indicative form, semantically fully justified in its context. The indicative is common
in the Digests, although the subjunctive is predominant (many concessive clauses
are of the attitudinal type, but the indicatives may also be due to the Greek com-
pilers of the Digests).231 It is also relatively frequent in Ammianus, who also uses
the subjunctive. In (g) licet introduces an ablative absolute, in a way comparable
with other subordinators (see § 16.89). In Late Latin the order main clause / licet
clause became quite rare, except in attitudinal and illocutionary licet clauses (see
§§ 16.71–2). It is important to note that licet continued to be used as a modal verb
throughout Latinity.232
(a) Estne empta mi istis legibus? # Habeas licet.
(‘She is mine on those terms? # You can have her.’ Pl. Epid. 471)
(b) Licet enim eligerent et probarent quemlibet, qui sibi in omnes res subpedi-
taret exempla, vel poetam vel oratorem, cuius auctoritate niterentur.
(‘For they might choose and approve whom they would, poet or orator to supply
them with examples for all cases, one on whose authority they could rely.’ Rhet.
Her. 4.7)
(c) Crescere itemque dies licet et tabescere noctes, / et minui luces . . .
(‘Days may also increase and nights may wane, and days again may diminish . . .’ Lucr.
5.680–1)
(d) Licet iste dicat emisse, sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi iudices . . .
(‘Verres may say, as he usually does say, that he bought everything; but believe me,
gentlemen . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.133)
(e) Quod factum licet necopinantibus nostris esset gestum, tamen . . .
(‘But although this operation had come as a surprise to our men, yet . . .’ B. Hisp. 16.3)
(f) . . . licet salutare non erit, Photis illa temptetur.
(‘. . . even if it will not be salutary, let Photis be assailed.’ Apul. Met. 2.6.8)
(g) . . . ut diem suum sibi domus facia[n]t licet sole nolente.
(‘. . . so that the house creates its own sunlight even with the sun denying its rays.’
Apul. Met. 5.1.6)
230 For imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive forms with licet, see Purnelle (2001: 579–80).
231 So Kalb (1888: 66). Details in TLL s.v. licet 1365.81ff.
232 For the history of the development of licet, see Núñez (1991: 184–6), Maraldi and Orlandini (1998),
Martín Puente (1998a), Purnelle (1998; 2001), and Spevak (1998; 2005b: 82–92), as well as TLL s.v. licet
1364.1ff.
Supplement:
Past tense subjunctive in the licet clause: . . . neque multa ab eo (sc. verborum etyma
dici possent), quem non erunt in lucubratione litterae prosecutae, multum licet
legeret. (Var. L. 7.2); Croeso divitior licet fuissem, / Iro pauperior forem, Charine, / si
conchem totiens meam comesses. (Mart. 5.39.8–10); Ad cenam si me diversa vocaret
in astra / hinc invitator Caesaris, inde Iovis, / astra licet propius, Palatia longius
essent, / responsa ad superos haec referenda darem . . . (Mart. 9.91.1–4); Improbitas
illo fuit admirabilis aevo, / credebant quo grande nefas et morte piandum / si iuvenis
vetulo non assurrexerat et si / barbato cuicunque puer, licet ipse videret / plura domi
fraga et maiores glandis acervos. (Juv. 13.53–7)
Indicative mood in the licet clause: Respondi apparere id actum esse, ut id quoque
accederet, licet scriptura non continetur. (Labeo dig. 18.1.78 pr.); . . . valet transactio,
quia fructus habitationis praestatur, licet ruinae vel incendio subiecta transactio est.
(Ulp. dig. 2.15.8.25); Super quorum moribus licet in actibus principis Marci et postea
aliquotiens memini rettulisse, tamen nunc quoque pauca de isdem expediam carp-
tim. (Amm. 14.4.2)
There are a few instances of quamvis licet and licet quamvis in the same clause, as in
(h) and (i); quamvis in such cases has its normal scalar meaning. In Late Latin licet is
found with other concessive subordinators (and also with si) as well. These combin-
ations seem to function as reinforced equivalents of licet.233
(h) Proinde licet quamvis caelum terramque reantur / incorrupta fore aeternae
mandata saluti. / Et tamen . . .
(‘So let them think as much as they like that heaven and earth will be indes-
tructible, entrusted to some everlasting protection. And yet . . .’ Lucr.
6.601–3—following Bailey ad loc.)
(i) Quamvis licet insectemur istos, ut Carneades solebat, metuo ne soli philo-
sophi sint.
(‘However we may attack such men, as was the way of Carneades, I have a
misgiving they are the only true philosophers.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.53)
. The concessive interpretation of ut clauses

Subordinate clauses in the subjunctive with ut in combination with a main clause
containing some form of contrastive information can receive a concessive (condi-
tional) interpretation ‘even supposing’ or ‘even if ’. Ex. (a) is the only instance from
Early Latin, but Cicero has many. Concessive ut clauses usually precede the main
clause. The regular negation word is non. The main clause often contains the kind of
words that are also found with the concessive clauses discussed in § 16.68, e.g. tamen,
as in (b), and at, as in (c). The ut clause sometimes contains the particle iam (see
§ 16.57, with note 161), as in (d).234
233 See TLL s.v. licet 1367.63ff.; references in Sz.: 605. See also Schaffner (1954: 37).
234 For the concessive interpretation of ut clauses, see Iordache (1985), Maraldi (1998), Spevak (2005b:
112–14, 182), and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 170–2).
(a) Iam in hac re, ut taceam, quoivis facile scitu’st quam fuerim miser.
(‘And in such a situation, even if I were to remain silent, it must be obvious to anyone
how miserable I was.’ Ter. Hec. 296)
(b) Ut enim non efficias quod vis, tamen, mors ut malum non sit, efficies.
(‘For though you may not succeed in your wish, still you will succeed in showing that
death is not an evil.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.16)
(c) Et tamen hoc quoque uti concedam scire, at id ipsum / quaeram . . . / unde
sciat . . .
(‘And yet even if I grant that he knows that, still I will ask just this: . . . how he knows . . .’
Lucr. 4.473–5)
(d) . . . sed, ut iam nos hoc fallat, de Buthroto te non fallet.
(‘. . . but even supposing I am deceived in that, you shall not be disappointed over
Buthrotum.’ Cic. Att. 15.2.2)
Supplement:
Ut enim neminem alium nisi T. Patinam familiarissimum suum rogasset, scire potuit
illo ipso die Lanuvi a dictatore Milone prodi flaminem necesse esse. (Cic. Mil. 46);
Mihi porro, ut ego non dicam, quis omnium mortalium non intellegit quam longe
progredi sit necesse? (Cic. Ver. 5.179); Ut enim quaeras omnia, quomodo Graeci
ineptum appellent, non reperies. (Cic. de Orat. 2.18); Ut enim rationem Plato nullam
adferret—vide, quid homini tribuam—ipsa auctoritate me frangeret. (Cic. Tusc.
1.49); Verum ut hoc non sit, tamen, sive ruet <sive eri>get rem publicam, praeclarum
spectaculum mihi propono, modo te consessore spectare liceat. (Cic. Att. 2.15.2); In
iis autem rebus quae nihilo minus ut ego absim confici poterunt peto a te ut me ratio-
nem habere velis . . . (Cic. Fam. 10.2.2); Ac iam ut omnia contra opinionem acciderent,
tamen se plurimum navibus posse . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.9.6); Ut desint vires, tamen est
laudanda voluntas. (Ov. Pont. 3.4.79); Quod cum ita sit quae, malum, ratio est expertis
talia experiri, cum iam ut virtus vestra transire alio possit, fortuna certe loci huius
transferri non possit? (Liv. 5.54.6); Albucius in duas partes declamationem divisit.
Primum negavit ullam esse proditionem, deinde, ut esset, ad se non pertinere. (Sen.
Con. 7.7.10); Ecce hic dies ultimus est. Ut non sit, prope ab ultimo est. Vale. (Sen. Ep.
15.11); . . . utque familiae ipsae iam exstinctae sint, reperies, qui ob similitudinem
morum aliena malefacta sibi obiectari putent. (Tac. Ann. 4.33.4); Iam, ut (sc. Roma)
venalis fuisset, habuit emptorem. (Flor. Epit. 1.36.18)
Ut clause follows: Nihilominus tamen agi posse de compositione, ut haec non remit-
terentur, neque hanc rem illi esse impedimento. (Caes. Civ. 3.17.4); In eo nullum
periculum est, etiam ut (v.l. etiamsi) nulla curatio adhibeatur. Maturescit enim per
se, atque erumpit. (Cels. 5.28.8)
This concessive use of ut clauses is treated as a variant of the use of ut clauses func-
tioning as result satellite, the decisive reason being the use of the negator non. For a
survey of existing explanations and an explanation of her own, see Maraldi (1998).
The only example of ut ne mentioned in the literature is (e), but this may well be
explained differently, as a purpose disjunct (see § 16.50).
(e) Sin quaeris, qui sint Romae regnum occupare conati, ut ne replices anna-
lium memoriam, ex domesticis imaginibus invenies.
(‘But if you ask who have tried to establish tyrannies at Rome, I will tell you
so that you don’t have to search through historical records: you will find
them in your own family tree.’ Cic. Sul. 27)
16.83 Quod and quantum clauses of qualification (disjuncts)
Clauses of qualification introduced by the relative pronoun quod or the relative

adjective quantum contain a restriction on the applicability of what is asserted in the
main clause. Thus they function as attitudinal disjuncts (see § 10.98). They are found
from Early Latin onwards. The content of the main clause is usually negated, or neg-
ation is implied. The quod clause has a—potential—subjunctive (for which see
§ 7.104), as in the formula quod sciam ‘as far as I know’ in (a).235 Instances of non-first
person subjects and of tenses other than the present tense exist as well, as in (b) and
(c). Formally, the clause is a relative clause, with quod being the object of the verb.236
The clauses sometimes contain the emphasizer quidem (in Pliny the Elder also
equidem).237 For other types of relative clauses of qualification, see § 18.27. See also
§ 16.38.
(a) Mequidem praesente numquam factum est, quod sciam.
(‘This never happened when I was present, as far as I know.’ Pl. Am. 749)
(b) Dic mihi, enumquam intestina tibi crepant, quod sentias?
(‘Tell me, do your intestines ever rumble, as far as you observe?’ Pl. Men. 925)
(c) Nam numquam ante hunc diem meis oculis eam, quod nossem, videram.
(‘For up to today I had never seen her with my own eyes, so far as I knew.’ Ter.
Hec. 863)
Supplement:
Non me novisti? # Quod quidem nunc veniat in mentem mihi. (Pl. Epid. 638); Est tibi
Menaechmo nomen. # Tantum quod sciam. (Pl. Men. 297); Vigilo hercle quidem,
quod sciam. (Pl. Men. 503); Tune has pepulisti foras? . . . Non equidem istas, quod
sciam. (Ter. Ad. 638–41); Quaero autem, cur Alexandro tam inlustre somnium, tam
certum, nec huic eidem alias, nec multa ceteris. Mihi quidem praeter hoc Marianum
nihil sane, quod meminerim. (Cic. Div. 2.141); . . . qui se unus, quod sciam, sapi-
entem profiteri sit ausus. (Cic. Fin. 2.7); His addit—ut nihil, quod equidem noverim,
praeteream—Aristoteles nullum animal nisi aestu recedente expirare. (Plin. Nat.
2.220); Fortasse aliquis iubebit sepeliri. Certe, quod sciam, nemo prohibebit.
([Quint.] Decl. 6.24); Haec forma .l{lvpjp| nova nec ab ullo alio, quod ego sciam,
235 Hale (1891) accounts for the use of the subjunctive as being related to the fact that the main clauses
are usually negative.
236 For the development of these quod clauses, see Taylor (1951).
237 See TLL s.v. equidem 721.73ff.
usurpata est. (Fro. Ant. 1.2.12); Iam dudum, quod sciam, fidei atque parciloquio meo
perpendisti documenta, nec eo setius adprobabitur tibi nunc etiam firmitas animi
mei. (Apul. Met. 5.13.1); Totum, quod sciam, Vetus Testamentum omnis haereticus
inridet. (Tert. Marc. 5.5.10); Si frigus fuerit et brumales nives, ligna non coemam.
Calidius vigilabo vel dormiam, certe, quod sciam, vilius non algebo. (Hier. Ep. 43.3)
Quantum is used in the same context as quod, as in (d). However, unlike the clauses
with quod, those with quantum are found in the indicative as well, as in (e). Quantum
is also found with other verbs; an example is (f). Probably influenced by this expres-
sion is quanta ingenia in (g).238
(d) Usque in hunc diem, Iulia, quantum quidem ego sciam, adsiduus viri tui
comes . . . dedisti operam, ne quid . . .
(‘Up to this day, Julia, at least so far as I am aware, as the constant companion of your
husband . . . you have taken pains, that nothing . . .’ Sen. Dial. 6.4.3)
(e) . . . nemo adhuc correptus hoc malo, quantum ego scio, expeditus est.
(‘. . . no one who has been struck by this illness has ever been cured, as far as I know.’
Larg. 171)
(f) Ac te ipsum, quantum ego opinione auguror, . . . aetas mitigabit.
(‘And, so far as I can surmise, . . . age will mellow you.’ Cic. Mur. 65)
(g) Ego enim, quantum auguror coniectura quantaque ingenia in nostris
hominibus esse video, non despero fore aliquem aliquando . . .
(‘For personally, so far as I can form a prediction, and judging from the vast supply of
talent which I see existent among our fellow-citizens, I do not despair of its coming
to pass that some day some one . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.95)
Supplement:
Hic illam vidit osculantem, quantum hunc audivi loqui. (Pl. Mil. 275); Enimvero,
Dave, nil loci’ st segnitiae neque socordiae, / quantum intellexi modo senis senten-
tiam de nuptiis. (Ter. An. 206–7); Deficio, nostrisque, a corpore quantum / auguror,
accedent tempora parva malis. (Ov. Tr. 4.6.39–40); Romanorum primus, quantum
ego quidem sciam, condidit aliqua in hanc materiam M. Cato . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.1.19);
Saturnum itaque, quantum litterae, neque Diodorus Graecus . . . neque ullus com-
mentator eiusmodi antiquitatum aliud quam hominem promulgaverunt. (Tert.
Apol. 10.7)
16.84 Satellite clauses introduced by complex subordinators
A device that developed from the Classical period onwards is that of prepositional
phrases followed by quod, serving as a complex subordinating device.239 These expres-
sions superficially look like quod clauses with a preparative pronoun (discussed in
238 This is the explanation of Howard (1962: 311).

239 For quantitative data for the period from Lucretius to Gellius, see Baños (2014: 92).
Complex subordinators 379
§ 15.14), but they are different, because an expression like cum eo in (a) cannot be
omitted without making the resulting utterance ungrammatical. Some of them, like
(b), also look like preparative expressions with causal quod (see § 16.39), but here too
quod alone could hardly be interpreted as causal. This use of quod is part of its devel-
opment into an omnipurpose subordinator, parallels of which can be found outside
Latin/Romance. In Dutch, for example, dat ‘that’ has the same range of uses. Other
instances that illustrate this phenomenon for quod are (c)–(e). The subordinate clauses
connected in this way to the main clause are declarative. There are also a few instances
of quia used in this way. One example will suffice: (f), in which a causal interpretation
of quia seems not entirely excluded.240
(a) Sit sane . . ., sed tamen cum eo, credo, quod sine peccato meo fiat.
(‘So be it . . . but with the proviso surely that it be done without any fault on my part.’
Cic. Att. 6.1.7)
(b) . . . cum Hannibal Carthagine expulsus Ephesum ad Antiochum venisset exul
proque eo quod eius nomen erat magna apud omnis gloria, invitatus esset ab
hospitibus suis, ut eum quem dixi, si vellet, audiret . . .
(‘. . . when Hannibal, banished from Carthage, had come in exile to Antiochus at
Ephesus and, inasmuch as his name was highly honoured all the world over, had been
invited by his hosts to hear the philosopher in question, if he so pleased . . .’ Cic. de
Orat. 2.75)
(c) Prata dicta ab eo quod sine opere parata.
(‘Prata “meadows” are named from this, that they are parata “prepared” without
labour.’ Var. L. 5.40)
(d) . . . ex eo intellegi potest quod vos de <ea> re iudicare non debetis.
(‘. . . may be understood from the fact that you are not supposed to decide upon this
question.’ Cic. Caec. 102)
(e) Nec vero Aristoteles non laudandus in eo quod omnia quae moventur aut
natura moveri censuit aut vi aut voluntate.
(‘Aristotle is also to be commended for his view that all things that move do so by
nature, force, or will.’ Cic. N.D. 2.44)
(f) Sed (sc. Isocrates) cum ex eo quia quasi committeret contra legem ‘quo quis
iudicio circumveniretur’ saepe ipse in iudicium vocaretur, orationes aliis
destitisse scribere . . .
(‘But when it happened repeatedly that he was summoned as having violated a law
like ours “providing against circumvention or chicanery by judicial process,” he
ceased to write speeches for others . . .’ Cic. Brut. 48)
Supplement:
With is: Dilectuque decreto nemo nomen dedit, furente Appio et insectante ambitio-
nem collegae, qui populari silentio rem publicam proderet et ad id quod de credita
240 So TLL s.v. ex 1107.8ff.

pecunia ius non dixisset, adiceret ut ne dilectum quidem ex senatus consulto haberet.
(Liv. 2.27.10); Ad id quod sua quemque mala cogebant auctoritate publica evocati
omnia delubra inplent. (Liv. 3.7.8); Medium ferme diei erat, et ad id quod sua sponte
cedente in mare aestu trahebatur aqua acer etiam septentrio ortus inclinatum stag-
num eodem quo aestus ferebat . . . (Liv. 26.45.8)
Cum eo quidem quod vix ullus est tam communis locus, qui possit cohaerere cum
causa nisi aliquo propriae quaestionis vinculo copulatus . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.4.30); Nec
fortuiti sermonis contextum mirabor umquam, quem iurgantibus etiam mulierculis
videamus superfluere cum eo quod, si calor ac spiritus tulit, frequenter accidit ut suc-
cessum extemporalem consequi cura non possit. (Quint. Inst. 10.7.13)
Non enim tam multa dixit de rationibus non relatis quam de eo quod civis impro-
bus ut optimus laudatus esset. (Cic. Opt. 21—NB: parallelism)
Causa fortissimis optimisque consulibus Kalendis Ianuariis de re publica primum
referendi fuit ex eo quod <a. d.> XIII Kalendas Ianuarias senatus me auctore decre-
vit. (Cic. Phil. 6.1); At Caesar . . . et ex eventu navium suarum et ex eo quod obsides
dare intermiserant fore id quod accidit suspicabatur. (Caes. Gal. 4.31.1—NB:
parallelism)
Neque in eo solum offenderat quod patriae male consuluerat, sed etiam quod
amicitiae fidem non praestiterat. (Nep. Phoc. 2.2); In eo quoque plebs superior fuit
quod tenuit ne consules in proximum annum crearentur. (Liv. 4.30.16); Labdacismum
vitium in eo esse dicunt quod eadem littera vel subtilius a quibusdam vel pinguius
ecfertur. (Consent. V.394.22K.)
Nam praeter id quod his levissimi cuiusque animus facillime terretur, nescio an
etiam naturaliter apud plurimos plus valeat malorum timor quam spes bono-
rum . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.8.40)
Habitus cum se ab omni eius modi negotio removisset, tamen pro loco, pro anti-
quitate generis sui, pro eo quod se non suis commodis sed etiam suorum municipum
ceterorumque necessariorum natum esse arbitrabatur, tantae voluntati universorum
Larinatium deesse noluit. (Cic. Clu. 43—NB: parallelism); Sin autem pro magnitu-
dine iniuriae proque eo quod summa res publica in huius periculo temptatur haec
omnes vindicarent . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 148—NB: coordination); Quin pro eo quod pluri-
bus verbis vos . . . fatigavi veniam a vobis . . . velim . . . (Liv. 38.49.13)
Haec vulgo iactata super id quod nullo auctore certo firmantur prompte refuta-
veris. (Tac. Ann. 4.11.1)
. . . Marcellus etiam adverso rumore esse, superquam quod primo male pugnaverat,
quia vagante per Italiam Hannibale media aestate Venusiam in tecta milites abduxis-
set. (Liv. 27.20.10)241
Cf.: . . . si in eo crimen est quia suffragium tulit, quis non tulit publicanus? (Cic.
Planc. 35)
With hic: Prima atque praecipua opinionum circa hoc differentia quod alii malos
quoque viros posse oratores dici putant . . . (Quint. Inst. 2.15.1); . . . in hoc sumus sapi-
entes quod naturam optumam ducem tamquam deum sequimur eique paremus.
(Cic. Sen. 5); Quae non laudantur modo a plerisque, sed, quod est peius, propter hoc
ipsum quod sunt prava laudantur. (Quint. Inst. 2.5.10)
241 For superquam ‘in addition to the fact that’, see Iordache (2010: 10).
Complex subordinators 381
Instances of quod clauses directly governed by prepositions are of a (much) later

date.242 See below, however, for praeter.
A special subtype of these satellite clauses is formed by expressions meaning ‘except’
in combination with quod and—in Early Latin more often—quia, without a difference
in meaning.243 The most common combination is nisi quod, with the adverb nisi.244
Praeterquam (and praeter quam) and much less often praeter, tantum, and excepto are
used in the same way,245 as in (g)–(l).
(g) Nam equidem nisi quod custodem habeo liberum me esse arbitror.
(‘For really, except for the fact that I have a guard, I judge myself to be a free man.’
Pl. Capt. 394)
(h) . . . nec, nisi quia miser non eo pessum, / mihi ulla abest perdito permities.
(‘. . . and I’m destroyed and lack no ruin, except that I don’t sink to the bottom, wretch
that I am . . .’ Pl. Cist. 223–4)
(i) Nam dum abs te absum, omnes mihi labores fuere quos cepi leves, / praeter-
quam tui carendum quod erat.
(‘While I was parted from you, all the hardships I bore were light, except for the fact
of having to live without you.’ Ter. Hau. 399–400)
(j) Praeter quod non sum iurgiosus, etiam libenter te nuper usque albus an ater
esses ignoravi . . .
(‘Not being a contentious man myself, until quite recently I did not even know
whether you were dark or pale, and with pleasure too . . .’ Apul. Apol. 16.9—tr.
Hunink)
(k) Componit edictum iis verbis ut quivis intellegere possit unius hominis causa
conscriptum esse, tantum quod hominem non nominat.
(‘He composed a clause for his edict so worded that anyone can see how it was framed
to meet the case of one particular person, except for the fact that he does not name
the man.’ Cic. Ver. 1.116)
(l) Haec tibi dictabam post fanum putre Vacunae, / excepto quod non simul
esses, cetera laetus.
(‘These lines I am dictating to you behind Vacuna’s crumbling shrine, happy on all
counts save that you are not with me.’ Hor. Ep. 1.10.49–50)
Supplement:
Sed memento te, quae nos sentiamus, omnia probare, ni<si> quod verbis aliter uta-
mur, mihi autem vestrorum nihil probari. (Cic. Fin. 4.80); Cum de industria
omnia . . . proferrentur, silentium omnium rerum ac iustitio simile otium fuit, nisi
242 The precise category of these items is difficult to assess. They are sometimes called prepositions,
sometimes adverbs. See also § 14.6.
243 See Sz.: 589 for earlier postulations of an original difference in meaning.
245 For the development of excepto, see Löfstedt (1976: 136 (= 2000: 188–9)) and Molinelli (2001). See
also § 12.24 and TLL s.v. excipio 1249.26ff.
quod . . . verecundia inde inposita est senatui ex patribus iubendi aediles curules
creari. (Liv. 7.1.4–6); Vixeruntque mira concordia, per mutuam caritatem et in vicem
se anteponendo, nisi quod in bona uxore tanto maior laus, quanto in mala plus cul-
pae est. (Tac. Agr. 6.1); . . . infelix, qui huic uni rei vivit, ut altilia decenter secet, nisi
quod miserior est, qui hoc voluptatis causa docet quam qui necessitatis discit. (Sen.
Ep. 47.6); Nec ullum miserae reformationis video solacium, nisi quod mihi iam
nequ[e]eunti tenere Fotidem natura crescebat. (Apul. Met. 3.24.6); . . . arescunt omnia
siti perpetua, nisi quod in puteis aqua repperitur exilis, quid agerent . . . (Amm.
18.7.9); Quid est homo, nisi quod memor es eius? (August. Serm. 163.12)
Nam praeter quod246 diurnae quietis imagines falsae perhibentur, tunc etiam noc-
turnae visiones contrarios eventus nonnumquam pronuntiant. (Apul. Met. 4.27)
Ego me in Cumano et Pompeiano, praeter quam quod247 sine te, ceterum satis
commode oblectabam . . . (Cic. Q. fr. 2.13.1); Hoc autem loco tantum explicemus haec
honesta, quae dico, praeterquam quod nosmet ipsos diligamus, praeterea suapte
natura per se esse expetenda. (Cic. Fin. 5.61); Nam praeterquam quod in populo
nihil erat praesidii sublata provocatione, intercessionem quoque consensu sustule-
rant . . . (Liv. 3.36.6); Praeterquam quod nomina tantum ducum in Hispania Romani
habeant, exercitum quoque inde veterem deductum. (Liv. 29.1.21)
Intestinas meas noverat. Tantum quod mihi non dixerat quid pridie cenaveram.
(Petr. 76.11 (Trimalchio speaking))
Iter commode explicui, excepto quod quidam ex meis adversam valetudinem
ferventissimis aestibus contraxerunt. (Plin. Ep. 8.1.1); Nos autem, excepto quod
Christiani sumus, . . . sumus etiam praepositi . . . (August. Serm. 46.2)
Incedere inde agmen coepit primoribus, super quam quod dissenserant ab con-
silio, territis etiam duplici prodigio, milite in vulgus laeto ferocia ducis, cum spem
magis ipsam quam causam spei intueretur. (Liv. 22.3.14); Haec vulgo iactata super id
quod nullo auctore certo firmantur, prompte refutaveris. (Tac. Ann. 4.11.1)
. . . ad Dei filium pertinet iuxta quod Deus est. (Ambrosiast. in Rom. 1.1.3)248
De publicis scribenda non suppetunt absque eo quod in Traiani platea ruina unius
insulae pressit habitantes. (Symm. Ep. 6.37)249
The same phenomenon can be observed with ut clauses in the subjunctive, often
called result (consecutive) clauses. Thus one finds cum, in, and pro + eo + ut, as illus-
trated by (m) and (n).
(m) . . . debeo profecto, quantumcumque possum, in eo quoque elaborare ut sint
opera, studio, labore meo doctiores cives mei . . .
(‘. . . however much I am able, I assuredly must also work to make my fellow citizens
more educated through my zeal, enthusiasm, and labour . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.10)
(n) Lanuvinis civitas data sacraque sua reddita cum eo ut aedes lucusque Sospitae
Iunonis communis Lanuvinis municipibus cum populo Romano esset.
246 TLL s.v. praeter 1001.72 makes a distinction between ‘respectu admittendi’, as in the examples
provided here, and ‘respectu excludendi’ in later texts.
247 On praeterquam, see Iordache (2010: 8–12).
248 See TLL s.v. iuxta 754.6ff.
249 For the history of this use of absque, see Haverling (1988: 45–8).
(‘The Lanuvini were given citizenship, and their worship was restored to them, with
the stipulation that the temple and grove of Juno Sospita should be held in common
by the burghers of Lanuvium and the Roman people.’ Liv. 8.14.2)
Supplement:
Et Antium nova colonia missa, cum eo ut Antiatibus permitteretur, si et ipsi adscribi
coloni vellent. (Liv. 8.14.8); Si nihil reliqua proficiunt, sanguis mittendus est, sed
paulatim cotidieque pluribus diebus, cum eo ut cetera quoque eodem modo serven-
tur. (Cels. 3.22.7); Romae sicut plebis victoria fuit in eo ut quae mallent, comitia
haberent, ita eventu comitiorum patres vicere. (Liv. 4.56.1); Galli, quos praedae
populationumque conciverat spes, postquam pro eo ut ipsi ex alieno agro raperent
agerentque, suas terras sedem belli esse premique utriusque partis exercituum
hibernis videre, verterunt retro <in> Hannibalem ab Romanis odia. (Liv. 22.1.2)
Appendix: For an example of a comparable combination, but this time with a subor-
dinate interrogative clause (an indirect question), see (o).
(o) . . . in omnibus quae aguntur ex eo quomodo quisque natus est . . . quid deceat
exquirimus . . .
(‘. . . in all that is undertaken we try to find out what is proper for everyone on
the basis of how he was born . . . ’ Cic. Off. 1.119)
For comparable argument clauses, see § 15.1 fin.
16.85 Non-finite satellite clauses
. Infinitival satellite clauses

The present infinitive is used as a purpose adjunct from Early Latin onwards with
verbs of transferring (e.g. do ‘to give’) and movement (e.g. eo ‘to go’, mitto ‘to send’).
This usage is found from Early Latin onwards, but it is almost entirely absent from the
prose of Cicero and Caesar. The range of verbs in each of these groups widens grad-
ually, especially in poetry, where the infinitive had certain advantages over the com-
peting supine, gerund, and gerundive expressions.250 It is very common in Christian
writers, often copying or following the Greek model.251 Grammars call this use of the
infinitive its ‘final’ use.
An example of a ‘final’ infinitive with the verb do is (a). The object of da is unspeci-
fied, but mulsum can be understood from the preceding clause. In (b), quod is the
subject of passive dari. The drink distributed is also understood as the object of bibere.
The competing expression would be mulsum bibendum da, with a gerundival second-
ary predicate as discussed in § 21.9, as in (c). The gerundival expression is the one
preferred in Classical prose.
250 For Virgil’s extensive use of infinitives, see Görler (1985: 271–2). For a diachronic survey, see
Perrochat (1932b: 164–9).
251 See Burton (2000: 187–8).
(a) Age, circumfer mulsum, bibere da usque plenis cantharis.

(‘Go on, pass the honey-wine round, give it to us so that we can drink it from full
goblets.’ Pl. Per. 821)
(b) . . . quod iussi dari bibere et quantum imperavi, / date.
(‘. . . what I ordered to be given her to drink, and as much as I prescribed, give it to her.’
Ter. An. 484–5)
(c) . . . calefactamque aquam pueris bibendam dedit.
(‘. . . he heated the water and gave it to the children to drink.’ V. Max. 2.4.5)
Another non-finite competitor of the infinitive bibere in (a) would be an ad + gerund
expression, as in (d) (see also § 16.100). As the infinitive gradually replaces the gerund,
rare instances like (e), where the preposition ad governs the infinitive manducare, are
fully understandable (with, perhaps, some influence from Greek). This alternative
expression is relatively late and forms the basis for the Romance expressions like
French donner à manger.252
(d) . . . et exemplum ceteris ad imitandum dedit.
(‘. . . and he gave others an example to imitate.’ Enn. Euh. 10V=11FRL)
(e) Quomodo potest hic nobis carnem dare ad manducare?
(‘How can he give us meat to eat?’ Vet. Lat. (cod. Verc.) Joh. 6.52)
Supplement:
Active: Bis in die farciat et meridie bibere dato: ne plus aqua sita siet horam unam.
(Cato Agr. 89); Idem Cn. Flavius, Anni filius, dicitur ad collegam venisse visere
aegrotum. (Calp. hist. 27=29C); . . . nec Homerum audio, qui Ganymeden ab dis rap-
tum ait propter formam, ut Iovi bibere ministraret. (Cic. Tusc. 1.65); Ille (sc. Xerxes)
quoque ipse, viam qui quondam per mare magnum / stravit iterque dedit legionibus
ire per altum / ac pedibus salsas docuit super ire lacunas . . . (Lucr. 3.129–31); . . .
dederatque comam diffundere ventis . . . (Verg. A. 1.319); Musis amicus tristitiam et
metus / tradam protervis in mare Creticum / portare ventis . . . (Hor. Carm. 1.26.1–3);
Maxime regum, / di tibi dent capta classem redducere Troia. (Hor. S. 2.3.190–1); Et
quoniam in patria, fatis agitatus iniquis, / vivere non potui, da mihi posse mori. (Ov.
Ars. 2.27–8); . . . idcirco stolidam praebet tibi vellere barbam / Iuppiter? (Pers. 2.28–9);
Sic mirum, si a Deo data eadem canit quae Deus suis dedit nosse? (Tert. Test.
5.2); . . . unam atque eamdem nobis tribuens vitam habere cum Christo. (Hier. Ephes.
1.2.1); Esurivi enim et dedistis mihi manducare. (Vulg. Mat. 25.35)
Passive: Quae totiens rapta’st, praebuit ipsa rapi. (Ov. Her. 5.132); Nihil prius
petierunt a praetore quam ut bibere sibi iuberet dari. (Liv. 40.47.5); . . . licet sinus
lateraque dissuta relinquant flatibus agitari ventorum . . . (Amm. 23.6.84)
252 For a survey of the development of the infinitive in general (which she calls ‘prospective’), see
Fruyt (1996). For the Romance development, see Roegiest (1983). For instances with the verb do, see TLL
s.v. 1688.59ff. See also Norberg (1943: 216). For a discussion of the infinitive as one of the purpose expres-
sions, see Cabrillana (2011).
Further Late Latin examples and discussion can be found in Norberg (1943: 206–31),
also useful for the rest of this section. In certain text types (poetry, translations of
the Bible) the influence of Greek cannot be excluded, but the increase in the use of
the infinitive at the cost of the gerund and gerundive is mainly an internal Latin
development.
From Early Latin onwards the infinitive is also found with verbs of (implied) move-
ment.253 Examples are (f) and (g). The most common non-finite purpose expression
is the supine in -um, as in (h) (see also § 16.112). Hardly used in Early Latin is the
gerundival purpose adjunct expression (ibit ad aurum arcessendum), as in (i) (see also
§ 16.106), which is common in Classical prose. In Augustan poetry the range of verbs
with which the infinitive is used is widened, under Greek influence.254 The infinitive
is used in Bible translations and in quotations from the Bible, where the Greek koine
text has an infinitive and the agent of the infinitive is coreferential with the subject of
the governing verb. An example is (j).255 Christian authors rarely use infinitives in
their own texts. As with the verb do (see above), predecessors of a Romance expres-
sion can be found from the Vetus Latina onwards in the form of an ad + infinitive
expression, as in (k).
(f) Illa autem in arcem abiit aedem visere / Minervae.
(‘She has gone to the Acropolis to visit the temple of Minerva.’ Pl. Bac. 900–1)
(g) Senex in Ephesum ibit aurum arcessere.
(‘The old man will go to Ephesus to fetch the gold.’ Pl. Bac. 354)
(h) Tune es qui hau multo prius / abiisti hinc erum accersitum?
(‘Aren’t you the one who went away a little earlier to fetch his master?’ Pl. Rud.
1055–6)
(i) . . . legati ad arcessendum Hannibalem . . . venerunt.
(‘. . . legates came to invite Hannibal . . .’ Liv. 24.13.8)
(j) Paene universa civitas convenit audire verbum Domini.
(‘Almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God.’ Vulg. Act. 13.44)
(k) Cum veneris ad bibere, accede et illuminare.
(‘Since you have come to drink, come forward and be illuminated.’ August. Serm.
225.4)
Supplement:
Ecquis currit pollinctorem accersere? (Pl. As. 910); Militis parasitus modo / venerat
aurum petere hinc. (Pl. Bac. 631–31a); Ego hunc missa sum ludere. (Pl. Cas. 688);
Recipe te et recurre petere <re> recenti (Pl. Trin. 1015); . . . nunc ad amicam venis
253 For statistical information about Plautus and Terence and discussion, see Adams and Vincent (2016:
266–8).
254 See Penney (1999: 253–8) and Calboli (2009: 131–3). For the history of the infinitive with the verbs
eo and venio, see Adams and Vincent (2016).
255 See Burton (2000: 187–8).
querimonias referre. (Pl. Truc. 167); Nostra ilico / it visere ad eam. (Ter. Hec. 188–9);
Sempronius Lilybaeo celocem in Africam mittit visere locum, ubi exercitum exponat.
(Coel. hist. 12=9C); A quo est in Sota Enni: ‘Ibant malaci viere Veneriam corollam’.
(Var. L. 5.62); . . . cum . . . visere venissemus . . . (Var. R. 2.1.1); . . . nec dulces occurrent
oscula nati / praeripere . . . (Lucr. 3.895–6); Non nos aut ferro Libycos populare pena-
tis / venimus, aut raptas ad litora vertere praedas . . . (Verg. A. 1.527–8); . . . idem omnis
simul ardor agit nova quaerere tecta. (Verg. A. 7.393); Atqui non ego te tigris ut
aspera / Gaetulusve leo frangere persequor. (Hor. Carm. 1.23.9–10); An potius mari-
tum, qui tuo vulnere periclitatur, intervisere venisti? (Apul. Met. 6.9.2); Utriusque
nominis testes esse vel magi adsunt. (Tert. Apol. 22.2); Non venerant mori, ideo nec
nasci. (Tert. Carn. Chr. 6.5); . . . et iam unusquisque hiens ad domum suam festinat
manducare . . . (Pereg. 30.3); . . . statim unusquisque animosi vadent in Syon orare ad
columnam illam . . . (Pereg. 37.1); . . . venimus adorare eum. (Vulg. Mat. 2.2); . . . et ipse
salvator non venit iustos vocare, sed peccatores. (Hier. Ep. 11.2); Ergo quantum in
medico est, sanare venit aegrotum. (August. Tract. Io. 12.12); Ad tua, sanctae, limina
veni, nihil aliud quam parvitatis meae vota deferre. (Greg. Tur. Jul. 21)
NB: Ipsum elegit . . . ad offerre sacrificium Deo. (Vet. Lat. (cod. Tolet.) Sirach 45.20—
cf. Tob. 3.25 with later instances to follow in the 7th century).
In Late Latin the infinitive is also occasionally found as a purpose adjunct with other
verbs besides those mentioned above, for which Early or Classical examples are
lacking and where the Greek original is copied.256 An instance of this is (l).
(l) . . . et sedit populus comedere ac bibere et surrexerunt ludere.
(‘. . . and the people sat down to eat and drink, and they stood up to play.’ Vulg.
Ex. 32.6)
Supplement:
. . . non stabam frui Deo meo, sed rapiebar ad te . . . (August. Conf. 7.23); Et rursus
Esaias ait erit radix Iesse et qui exsurget regere gentes in eo gentes sperabunt. (Vulg.
Rom. 15.12)
From Cicero’s time onward, but especially in poetry, the infinitive is also found with
manipulation verbs such as rogo ‘to ask’, hortor ‘to urge on’, and moneo ‘to warn’.
Although these infinitival expressions are often called ‘final’, they are actually argu-
ments of the governing verbs and not satellites. See the discussion of this ‘prolative’
use of the infinitive in §§ 15.114ff.
. Participial satellite clauses

The most commonly known participial satellite clause is the ablative absolute clause.
An example is (a).
(a) Tum Cethegus . . . recitatis litteris (a me, sc. Cicerone) . . . repente conticuit.
256 For a discussion of possible Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 131–3).
Participial clauses 387
(‘Then Cethegus . . . when his letter was read out (by me) . . . suddenly fell silent.’ Cic.
Catil. 3.10)
Perfect passive participles are the most common form of participle used in participial
clauses, as in the example above. However, the present active, present and perfect
deponent, and future active participles are allowed as well, as illustrated by (b)–(e).
(b) Fugiens . . . Pompeius . . . homines movet.
(‘The picture of Pompey on the run affects men.’ Cic. Att. 7.11.4)
(c) . . . senatus consultum factum ut . . . is . . . potissimum consulibus ad bellum
profectis urbi praeesset.
(‘. . . the senate decreed that . . . he . . . should be in charge of the city when the consuls
took the field.’ Liv. 24.9.5)
(d) . . . qui non nascentibus Athenis sed iam adultis fuerunt . . .
(‘. . . who belonged to Athens not in her infancy but in her maturity . . .’ Cic. Brut. 27)
(e) Augebat metum . . . invasurus hostis.
(‘The enemy being about to invade heightened the alarm.’ Tac. Ann. 1.36.2)
For a discussion of the internal structure of participial clauses and their relation to
gerundival and non-verbal clauses, see § 14.14.257
. Participial ablative absolute clauses
Participial ablative absolute (ablativus absolutus) clauses are found in all periods
of Latin and in all types of texts and registers, although with varying distributions and
degrees of internal complexity.258 Perfect participles are relatively rare in the comedies
of Plautus and Terence, but seem to be fully exploited by the early historians of the
second century bc. Passive participles are much more common than deponent ones.
Present participles are used with much lower frequency than perfect participles. They
are relatively rare in Early Latin but become a normal part of the narrative technique
of the early historians. They are relatively frequent in Cicero’s works, where they serve
as an alternative for substantival ablative absolute clauses (see § 16.116) and are char-
acteristic of the narrative style of Caesar and the Caesarean corpus. Finally they are
fully integrated into the narrative techniques of Livy, Tacitus, and most other authors
with literary aspirations until Late Latin.259 In didactic texts, such as Pliny the Elder,
ablative absolute clauses were a convenient way to condense information.260 However,
257 For the development of absolute constructions from Latin to the Romance languages, see Müller-
Lancé (1994).
258 For the history of the analysis of this construction from Antiquity onwards, see Flinck-
Linkomies (1929: 7–27), Sluiter (2000), and Copeland and Sluiter (2009: 314–38). For the history of
the term ‘ablativus absolutus’ (found for the first time c.1050), see also Scaglione (1970) and Keydana
(1997: 6–7).
259 For the relative frequency of the present participle in participial satellite clauses in late (fifth- and
sixth-century) historians, see Galdi (2016c) and Gayno (2016: 38–9).
260 For Pliny the Elder’s use of the ablative absolute, see Cova (1986).
the present participle is rare in stylistically less elaborated texts, such as the Cena
Trimalchionis and the Vetus Latina translations of the Bible. Future participles are
very uncommon in all periods of Latin. The first attestation is from Asinius Pollio (see
§ 16.89), followed by several instances in Livy.
As for the stylistic register of ablative absolute clauses, Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 227–44;
250–6) shows, among other things, that in the Vetus Latina translations of the Bible
present participle ablative absolute clauses are avoided, whereas in the Vulgate trans-
lation they are used to translate Greek participial clauses. There is a similar difference
between the ‘vulgar’ version of the Epistula Alexandri ad Aristotelem and the more lit-
erary version by Leo Presbyter. To a lesser extent this also holds for the use of perfect
passive participles (ibid.: 250–6).
The development of the complex ablative absolute clauses of the Classical authors,
especially the historians, was influenced by ‘the syntactic models of classical Greek
literary prose’ (Coleman 1989: 364).
In the following sections attention will be paid to five different aspects of the parti-
cipial ablative absolute clause:
(i) The semantic relationship between the participial clause and the matrix
clause (§ 16.89);
(ii) The relationship between arguments of the participial and matrix clauses
(§ 16.90);
(iii) The internal complexity of the participial clause (§ 16.91);
(iv) Participial ablative absolute clauses without a corresponding noun (phrase)
(§ 16.92);
(v) The impersonal use of perfect passive participles (§ 16.93).
16.89 The semantic relationship between the participial ablative absolute clause and
the main clause
The most common use of the ablative absolute clause is as an adjunct, as (a), repeated
from § 16.87, and (b). The latter is an example of the ‘ablatif absolu de reprise’ (sum-
marizing absolute ablative) which is typical of Caesar’s narrative, but also found in
Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus.261
Catil. 3.10)
(b) . . . omnibus navibus ad unam incolumibus milites exposuit. . . . Expositis
militibus naves eadem nocte Brundisium a Caesare remittuntur . . .
(‘…he landed the soldiers from all of his ships without losing a single ship. . . . Once
the soldiers were on land, Caesar sent the ships back to Brundisium the same night . . .’
Caes. Civ. 3.6.3–8.1)
261 For an exhaustive discussion, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 109–20). For Tacitus, see Enghofer (1961:
114–20). See also § 23.67.
Although most ablative absolutes function as adjunct, they can also be used as dis-
juncts, as in (c), where viso . . . favo provides the evidence for a statement in the main
clause (it is an attitudinal disjunct).
(c) Aliubi enim favi cera spectabiles gignuntur, ut in Sicilia, Paelignis, aliubi
copia mellis, ut in Creta, Cypro, Africa, aliubi magnitudine, ut in septentri-
onalibus, viso iam in Germania octo pedum longitudinis favo in cava
parte nigro.
(‘In some places honeycombs distinguished for their wax are formed, as in Sicily and
the Abruzzi, in other places for quantity of honey, as in Crete, Cyprus, Africa, in
others for size, as in the northern countries, a comb having before now been seen in
Germany that was 8 ft. long, and black in its hollow part.’ Plin. Nat. 11.33)
Ablative absolute clauses cover a broad range of meanings (position in time, cause,
condition, concession, or manner, and especially—but more vaguely—circumstance).
However, unlike finite satellite clauses with a similar meaning, the semantic relation-
ship with the matrix clause is not marked by a subordinator;262 as a result, the precise
relationship between an ablative absolute and the main clause must be inferred.263 The
examples given below to exemplify the various semantic relations must therefore be
seen as groupings of more or less similar interpretations (argument and satellite constitu-
ents within the ablative absolute are marked in italics and bold italics, respectively).
Ablative absolute clauses in their ‘circumstance’ interpretation are often more or less
equated with cum clauses. Baños (1992, 1994) shows that the ablative absolute clauses
and cum clauses are more or less in complementary distribution: cum clauses are
required when there are structural limitations on the use of an ablative absolute, or
when the clause is structurally complex.264
Supplement:
Position in time:
Perfect participle: . . . patriam deseres, / cognatos, affinitatem, amicos factis nup-
tiis. (Pl. Trin. 701–2); Pallam ad phrygionem fert confecto prandio / vinoque expoto,
parasito excluso foras. (Pl. Men. 469–70); (sc. L. Mummius) Achaia · Capt(a) ·
Corinto / deleto · Romam · redieit / triumphans. (CIL I2.626.3–5 (Rome, 142 bc));
Custodibus discessis multi interficiuntur. (Coel. hist. 32=29C); His sic tractatis accu-
sator utetur loco communi . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.21); Nunc, absoluta a nobis difficillima
parte rhetoricae, hoc est inventione perpolita atque omne causae genus adcommo-
data, tempus est ad ceteras partes proficisci. (Rhet. Her. 3.8); Quam ob rem, quoniam
Dolabella hesterno die hoste decreto bellum gerendum est, imperator est deligen-
dus. (Cic. Phil. 11.16); Tamen ante Periclem, cuius scripta quaedam feruntur, et
262 Another difference between finite satellite clauses and participial ones is that the former locate the
state of affairs in time, whereas participial clauses only indicate relative time.
263 Krisch (1988) takes the temporal/circumstantial meaning as the basic meaning of the participial
clauses and explains the other interpretations as contextually determined.
264 See also Hoff (1989: 409–10). For Late Latin authors, including Ammianus Marcellinus, see
Gago (1998).
Thucydidem, qui non nascentibus Athenis sed iam adultis fuerunt, littera nulla est,
quae quidem ornatum aliquem habeat et oratoris esse videatur. (Cic. Brut. 27); Dein
Sulla omnia265 pollicito docti, quo modo apud Marium, item apud senatum verba
facerent, circiter dies quadraginta ibidem opperiuntur. (Sal. Jug. 103.7); . . . in quo uno
tantum esset, ut, quoad ille viveret, ipsi securi esse non possent, interfecto nihil habi-
turi negotii essent. (Nep. Eum. 12.1—NB: parallelism with quoad clause); P. et Cn.
Scipionibus inter se partitis copias . . . (Liv. 23.26.2); . . . misso Syphace et captivis,
ceteras urbes Numidiae quae praesidiis regiis tenebantur adiuvante Masinissa
recipit. (Liv. 30.12.22); . . . gratum elocuta consiliantibus / Iunone divis . . . (Hor. Carm.
3.3.17–18); Septentrionalis vero Oceanus maiore ex parte navigatus est, auspiciis Divi
Augusti Germaniam classe circumvecta ad Cimbrorum promunturium . . . (Plin. Nat.
2.167); Adde quod omne caput fluvii . . . / . . . ingresso vere tumescit / prima tabe nivis.
(Luc. 10.223–5); Ex · auctoritate / Imp(eratoris) · Caesaris / Vespasiani ·
Aug(usti) · / loca · publica · a privatis / possessa · T(itus) · Suedius · Clemens /
tribunus · causis · cognitis · et / mensuris · factis · rei / publicae Pompeianorum
/ restituit. (CIL X.1018 (Pompeii)); Occasione / inventa spero me celerius
aput te / venturum. (CEL 147.9–11 (Karanis, ad 100–25)); Conferti tantum et
pilis emissis post umbonibus et gladiis stragem caedemque continuarent, praedae
immemores. Parta victoria cuncta ipsis cessura. (Tac. Ann. 14.36.2); Quo mortuo
aut capite deminuto revertitur ad eum tutorem tutela, qui cessit. (Gaius Inst.
1.170); . . . Sticho statim libertatem consecuto . . . (Scaev. dig. 34.1.18.2); Contra illi, qui
nos oderunt, dolere, non gaudere debebant, consecutis nobis quod elegimus. (Tert.
Apol. 49.6); Nuncupato igitur Licinio imperatore Maximinus iratus nec Caesarem se
nec tertio loco nominari volebat. (Lact. Mort. 32.1); Lecto ergo eo loco et annuntiata
Pascha fit missa. (Pereg. 29.5)
Present participle: Interea prope iam occidente sole inhorrescit mare, / tenebrae
conduplicantur . . . (Pacuv. trag. 411–12); Piro florente dapem pro bubus facito. (Cato
Agr. 131, cf. Var. R. 1.37.5; Plin. Nat. 18.243); . . . queritur priore patrono causam
defendente numquam perorari potuisse . . . (Cic. Quinct. 34); Hanc opinionem dis-
cipulus eius Pythagoras maxime confirmavit, qui cum Superbo regnante in Italiam
venisset, tenuit Magnam illam Graeciam . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.38); Dubitante Caesare
atque eorum studio cupiditatique resistente sibique eruptione pugnari non placere
clamitante etiam atque etiam aciem sustentante subito dextro cornu iniussu Caesaris
tubicen a militibus coactus canere coepit. (B. Afr. 82.3); Fracti bello fatisque repulsi /
ductores Danaum, tot iam labentibus annis, / instar montis equum divina Palladis
arte / aedificant . . . (Verg. A. 2.13–16); Potantibus ergo nobis et accuratissime lautitias
mirantibus larvam argenteam attulit . . . (Petr. 34.8); Prius fuit a litore stadiis X—mari-
timum etiam Vipsania porticus habet—Iuba vero prodente <L> p. (Plin. Nat. 6.139);
Etiamsi albescente caelo exire voluero (Tab. Vindon. 46 (Windisch, between
ad 30 and 101)); Quo tenente regnum Aeneas ab Ilio Troia a Graecis expugnata in
Italiam venit statimque bello exceptus . . . (Justin. 43.1.10)
Future participle: (sc. Rex apum) procedit foris non nisi migraturo examine.
(Plin. Nat. 11.54)
265 Perfect deponent participles governing an argument are not attested until this example. A full list of
such instances can be found in Schmalz (1884).
Cause:
Perfect participle: . . . qui cursum rerum eventorumque consequentiam diuturni-
tate pertractata notaverunt . . . quid futurum sit, intellegunt. (Cic. Div. 1.128—NB: if
this is the correct interpretation; see Pease ad loc.); C. Flaminium Coelius religione
neglecta cecidisse apud Transumenum scribit cum magno rei publicae vulnere. (Cic.
N.D. 2.8); Nec dissolutio navigii sequebatur, turbatis omnibus et quod plerique
ignari etiam conscios impediebant. (Tac. Ann. 14.5.2—NB: coordination with a
quod clause)
Present participle: Ad quas adero, et omni ope atque opera enitar, adiuvante me
scilicet auctoritate tua et gratia et summa aequitate causae, ut de Buthrotiis senatus
consultum quale scribis fiat. (Cic. Att. 14.14.6); Cum duce adsumpto Alexandrini . . .
eludentibus . . . militibus regis aetatem atque infirmitatem magnum dolorem accipe-
rent . . . (B. Alex. 25.1); Honesta res est, sollemnitate publica exigente, induere domui
tuae habitum alicuius novi lupanaris! (Tert. Apol. 35.4); . . . ubi incensus est vitulus
ipse, iubente sancto Moyse . . . (Pereg. 5.6); . . . hos patri / inscripsi v<er> / sus
dictante / dolore . . . (CIL VIII.1359.15–18 (Testur (Africa Proconsularis), ad
408/21))
Future participle: Huius ergo viri tot tantisque operibus mansuris266 in omne
aevum praedicare de ingenio atque industria superva<cuum est>. (Asin. Pollio apud
Sen. Suas. 6.24); Parumper silentium et quies fuit nec Etruscis, nisi cogerentur,
pugnam inituris et dictatore arcem Romanam respectante . . . (Liv. 4.18.6);
Carthaginienses…prima luce oppugnaturis hostibus / castra saxis undique . . . con-
gestis augent vallum… (Liv. 28.15.12–3); Ceterum propalam conprehendi Dareus
non poterat tot Persarum milibus laturis opem regi. Graecorum quoque fides time-
batur. (Curt. 5.10.7); Exercitum Vitellii universum advenisse, nec multum virium a
tergo, quoniam Galliae tumeant et deserere Rheni ripam inrupturis tam infestis
nationibus non conducat. (Tac. Hist. 2.32.1)
Condition:
Perfect participle: Quae potest esse vitae iucunditas sublatis amicitiis? (Cic.
Planc. 80)
Present participle: . . . maximas vero virtutes iacere omnis necesse est voluptate
dominante. (Cic. Fin. 2.117); Denique nihil me sciente frustra voles. (Sal. Jug. 110.5)
Concession:
Perfect participle: Is me nunc renuntiare repudium iussit tibi. / # Repudium rebus
paratis, exornatis nuptiis? (Pl. Aul. 783–4)
Present participle: Conligavit? # Atque equidem orante ut ne id faceret Thaide.
(Ter. Eu. 956); Atque ex his horum contraria facile tacentibus nobis intellegentur.
(Cic. Inv. 2.157); Itaque acrius de integro coortum est bellum pluribusque partibus
vix accipientibus quibusdam opera locis vineae coeptae agi admoverique aries. (Liv.
21.8.2)
Manner/Circumstance:
Perfect participle: Qui (sc. rex apum) tamen et ipse spoliandus est alis, ubi saepius
cum examine suo conatur eruptione facta profugere. (Col. 9.10)
Present participle: Egone istuc dixi? # Tute istic, etiam astante hoc Sosia. (Pl. Am.
747); . . . resistam et aut concedente aut etiam adiuvante Milone eius conatum
266 There is a conjecture mansuri, adopted by many editors.

refutabo . . . (Cic. Har. 7); . . . . nullo hoste prohibente aut iter demorante inco-
lumem legionem in <N>antuates, inde in Allobroges perduxit ibique hiemavit.
(Caes. Gal. 3.6.5)
Instances of participial ablative absolute clauses that cannot be described in terms of

‘adjunct-like’ specifications are rare in Early Latin and in Cicero. From Sallust onward,
however, and especially in the historians Livy, Tacitus, and Ammianus Marcellinus,
and also in Pliny the Elder, the participial ablative absolute clause is found at the end
of the complex sentence, describing the circumstances or offering some form of com-
ment or an explanation, as in (d).267 Another form of loose attachment of a participial
ablative absolute clause is shown in (e), where the ablative absolute is attached to a
noun phrase.
(d) Arruns prior quam pater moritur uxore gravida relicta.
(‘Arruns died before his father, leaving his wife with child.’ Liv. 1.34.2)
(e) Ibique captivorum simulacra barbarico vestis ornatu superbia meritis con-
tumeliis punita sustinentia tectum conlocaverunt . . .
(‘There they placed statues of their captives in barbaric dress—punishing their pride
with deserved insults—to support the roof . . .’ Vitr. 1.1.6)
Supplement:
Dein Micipsa filius regnum solus obtinuit, Mastanabale et Gulussa fratribus morbo
absumptis. (Sal. Jug. 5.6); Hactenus de arboribus praecepisse abunde est reddituro
pecoris curam et remedia sequenti volumine. (Col. 5.12.5); . . . Dareus . . . cum magno
deinde exercitu mare traiecit, inlato Macedoniae et Graeciae bello. (Curt. 4.1.10);
Super omnia, quae umquam audita sunt, erit prodigium in nostro aevo Neronis prin-
cipis ruina factum in agro Marrucino, Vetti Marcelli e primis equestris ordinis
oliveto universo viam publicam transgresso arvisque inde e contrario in locum
oliveti profectis. (Plin. Nat. 17.245); Vis ei ad calfaciendum extenuandumque, efficax
contra suffusiones et caligines oculorum, suco eiusdem poto contra serpentes. (Plin.
Nat. 25.158); Nondum ea clades exoleverat, cum ignis violentia urbem ultra solitum
adfecit, deusto monte Caelio. (Tac. Ann. 4.64.1)
Hand in hand with the increasing use of elaborate and complex sentences, especially
(but not solely) in historical and didactic works, authors began to insert constituents
either in the matrix clause or in the ablative absolute clause to make the semantic
relationship between them more explicit, such as deinde ‘thereafter’ and tamen ‘nev-
ertheless’ in the main clause, and nisi ‘unless’ and quamvis ‘although’ in the ablative
absolute clause. (For the same development in participial secondary predicates, see
§ 21.18.) The ‘autonomous’ clausal character of ablative absolute clauses was in this
267 For this use of the ablative absolute (which he calls rallonge ‘extension’), see Chausserie-Laprée (1969:
318–27); Enghofer (1961: 130–8); Longrée (1995; 1996a). In their commentary on Tac. Ann. IV Martin
and Woodman (1989: 23–4) use the term ‘appendix’. For the frequent use of such ‘appended’ clauses in late
historical texts, see Galdi (2016c: 653–5).
way further enhanced. Examples are (f) and (g). However, semantically related finite
clauses still remained on the average more complex.
(f) (Dicaearchus) . . . qui collectis ceteris causis . . . deinde comparat . . .
(‘(Dicaearchus) . . . who, after gathering together all the other causes (of destruc-
tion) . . ., then proceeds to show by way of comparison . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.16)
(g) Etsi aliquo accepto detrimento tamen . . . locum . . . capi posse.
(‘Though some loss should be sustained, yet the place . . . can be captured.’ Caes. Civ.
1.67.5)
Supplement:
NB: for each adverb/subordinator only the earliest attestations are given. This
is not an exhaustive survey of all the particles/subordinators found.268
In the main clause: . . . castris positis populatur inde agrum Romanum . . . (Liv.
2.39.5); Conferti tantum et pilis emissis post umbonibus et gladiis stragem caedemque
continuarent, praedae immemores. (Tac. Ann. 14.36.2); Sed confecto proelio, tum
vero cerneres, quanta audacia quantaque animi vis fuisset in exercitu Catilinae. (Sal.
Cat. 61.1); Hisce omnibus rebus consideratis, tum denique id, quod primum est
dicendum, postremum soleo cogitare, quo utar exordio. (Cic. de Orat. 2.315)
Atque haec eo pertinet oratio ut perditis rebus omnibus tamen ipsa virtus se sus-
tentare posse videatur. (Cic. Fam. 6.1.4); . . . quo defendente nullo tamen armatis
ascendere esset difficile . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.33.1)
Caesar interim consilio hostium cognito iubet aciem in longitudinem quam maxi-
mam porrigi et alternis conversis cohortibus ut una post altera ante signa tenderet ita
coronam hostium dextro sinistroque cornu mediam dividit . . . (B. Afr. 17.1)
In the ablative absolute clause: Decemviri querentes se in ordinem cogi non ante
quam perlatis legibus, quarum causa creati essent, deposituros imperium se aiebant.
(Liv. 3.51.13); Postero die sub ortum solis instruxere ab alto naves velut ad iustum
proelium navale et tamquam exituris contra Romanis. (Liv. 30.10.11);269 Aetoli cam-
pos Thessaliae opimos ad praedam petiere, sequente quamquam non probante
Amynandro nec effusas populationes Aetolorum nec castra quo fors tulisset loco sine
ullo discrimine aut cura muniendi posita. (Liv. 31.41.7); . . . praesidens certamini
Neroneo cupientem inter citharoedos contendere nec quamvis flagitantibus cunctis
promittere audentem ideoque egressum theatro revocaverat . . . (Suet. Vit. 4); Non
loquar nisi pace facta . . . (Pl. Am. 390); Iste quasi praeda sibi advecta . . . eos in hostium
numero ducit. (Cic. Ver. 5.64); Me tueor ut oppressis omnibus non demisse,
ut tantis rebus gestis parum fortiter. (Cic. Att. 2.18.3); Ac venti velut agmine
facto / . . . ruunt . . . (Verg. A. 1.82–3); Parthi, penes quos velut divisione orbis cum
Romanis facta nunc Orientis imperium est, Scytharum exules fuere. (Justin. 41.1.1);
Simul et in hostis iam pavidos quippe fuso suae partis validiore cornu impetum facit.
(Liv. 3.63.2)
268 A very complete (but not always reliable) list of subordinators can be found in Lease (1928; 1931).
Livy has the most abundant and varied use.
269 For Livy’s use of ut and tamquam with participial clauses and secondary predicates, see
Traenkle (1968: 139–40).
The semantic relationship between the ablative absolute clause and the main clause
may also be specified by the incorporation of other types of constituents, such as the
adverb statim ‘at once’, as in (h).
(h) Opuntii quoque ab eadem ira increpiti quod, cum trahere obsidionem in
adventum suum potuissent, viso statim hoste prope in voluntariam deditio-
nem concessissent.
(‘The men of Opus also were no less angrily upbraided because, although they could
have dragged out the siege until his coming, at the first sight of the enemy they had
almost willingly surrendered.’ Liv. 28.7.9)
Supplement:
Sed a Caesare perfecto demum scelere magnitudo eius intellecta est. (Tac. Ann.
14.10.1); Candente itaque protinus die signo ad arma capienda . . . dato . . . (Amm.
31.7.10)270
16.90 The relationship between arguments of the participial ablative absolute and the
main clause
In (a), repeated from § 16.87 and § 16.89, the argument of the ablative absolute clause
(litteris), semantically the patient of recitatis, does not have the same referent as the
argument of the main clause (Cethegus), semantically the agent of conticuit.
Catil. 3.10)
The predominant situation, at least in Classical Latin, is that these constituents of the
two clauses are referentially distinct, as in (a), and this is often formulated as a rule
that the subject of the ablative absolute clause should not be a constituent of the main
clause. School books in particular tend to be very rigid about the need to use the abla-
tive absolute clause if the constituents are distinct and to use a participle as secondary
predicate (the so-called participium coniunctum) in the case of identity. However,
there are many exceptions to this generalizing statement, even in the ‘Classical
authors’.271 Examples of referential identity between constituents of the ablative abso-
lute clause and the main clause are (b) and (c). In the latter example the object of the
main clause has to be inferred from the ablative absolute clause. More examples can
be found in the Supplement.
(b) . . . non modo permittente patre, sed etiam suadente ab eo semigravit . . .
(‘. . . then not only with the permission of his father, but even with his advice, he
separated from him . . .’ Cic. Cael. 18)
270 The placement of protinus is ‘cursus causa’, according to den Boeft et al. ad loc.
271 For a discussion of deviations from the rules in Caesar, see Hoff (1989). For Sallust and Livy, see
Kruijer and la Roi (2018).
(c) (sc. Vercingetorix) . . . convocatis suis clientibus facile incendit (sc. eos).
(‘(Vercingetorix), having summoned his own dependents, easily fired their spirit.’
Caes. Gal. 7.4.1)
In (b) something like (b') (with a secondary predicate) may not seem an impossible
alternative (but see below). However, something like (c') sounds odd, because the
participle used in this way refers to a state the clientes are in, and less to a sequence of
actions of Vercingetorix.272 So there are cases where the two constructions are not
interchangeable, that is to say, they are not just two morphological variants for the
same message.
(b') A patre non modo permittente sed etiam suadente semigravit.
(c') Vercingetorix suos clientes convocatos facile incendit.
Moreover, as is sometimes stated in the literature, instances like (b) and (c) may have
had certain advantages: some ablative absolute clauses are more or less set phrases
(especially those with invito and absente, for which see § 16.117). Repeating two iden-
tical entities stresses this identity; the structure of the entire sentence is more trans-
parent and events are more clearly sequenced than when a secondary predicate is
used. Also, the ablative absolute clause usually contains topical information and
therefore precedes the main clause. Finally, it is sometimes the case that no gram-
matical alternative secondary predicate is available.
Supplement:
Quaeso tamen, tu meam partem, infortunium / si dividetur, me apsente accipito
tamen. (Pl. Mil. 865–6); In qua (sc. re publica) quidem nunc me restituto vivit mecum
simul exemplum fidei publicae. (Cic. Sest. 50); . . . praesertim cum eius essem civitatis
ex qua C. Mucius solus in castra Porsenae venisset eumque interficere proposita sibi
morte conatus esset. (Cic. Sest. 48); Qua re tibi nuntiata, ut constabat inter eos qui
una fuerunt, concidisti. (Cic. Phil. 2.107); Quibus (sc. navibus) effectis armatisque
diebus XXX a qua die materia caesa est adductisque Massiliam his D. Brutum
praeficit, C. Trebonium legatum ad oppugnationem Massiliae relinquit. (Caes. Gal.
1.36.5—NB: dative his immediately follows the ablative absolute); Turribus autem
excitatis tamen has altitudo puppium ex barbaris navibus superabat . . . (Caes. Gal.
3.14.4); Ubi se diutius duci intellexit . . . convocatis eorum principibus quorum mag-
nam copiam in castris habebat . . . graviter eos accusat quod, cum neque emi neque ex
agris sumi possit . . . ab iis non sublevetur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.16.5–6); Exinde duabus
admotis quadrigis in currus earum distentum inligat Mettium . . . (Liv. 1.28.10); Illo
loco aut cadendum esse aut stratis hostibus per corpora eorum evadendum. (Liv.
10.35.18); Cameris dispositis et intextis imum caelum earum trullissetur, deinde
harena dirigatur, postea autem creta aut marmore poliatur. (Vitr. 7.3.3); Sed a Caesare
perfecto demum scelere magnitudo eius intellecta est. (Tac. Ann. 14.10.1); Interim
cunctantibus prolatantibusque spem ac metum Epicharis quaedam, incertum
272 Helttula (1987: 17–19) does regard the ablative absolute in this case as a variant of a direct object
modified by a participle.
quonam modo sciscitata (neque illi ante ulla rerum honestarum cura fuerat), accen-
dere et arguere coniuratos . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.51.1)
Clam nuntiis ad Milonem missis . . . atque eo in Italiam evocato . . . sibi (sc. eum) con-
iunxit atque eum in Thurinum ad sollicitandos pastores praemisit. (Caes. Civ. 3.21.4).
In the initial example (a), repeated as (d), the implied agent of the passive participle in
the ablative absolute clause (Cicero) is distinct from the subject of the matrix clause
(Cethegus). Other examples are given in the Supplement.
(d) Tum Cethegus . . . recitatis litteris (a me) . . . repente conticuit.
Catil. 3.10)
Supplement:
Nihil prodest narratio tum, cum ab adversariis re exposita nostra nihil interest
iterum aut alio modo narrare. (Cic. Inv. 1.30); Post autem aliquanto, toto iam indicio
exposito atque edito, surrexit . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.11); . . . Belgas . . . solos . . . esse qui patrum
nostrorum memoria omni Gallia vexata (sc. a Teutonis Cimbrisque) Teutonos
Cimbrosque intra suos fines ingredi prohibuerint. (Caes. Gal. 2.4.2); . . . concilio prius
inter sese habito senatum adeunt factaque dicendi potestate equis se suis stipendia
facturos promittunt. (Liv. 5.7.5); Quae tibi virginum / sponso necato barbara serviet?
(Hor. Carm. 1.29.5–6); Tum Amyntas facta dicendi potestate ‘Si nihil’, inquit, ‘inter-
est regis, peto, ut, dum dico, vinculis liberer.’ (Curt. 7.1.18); Defuncto autem Herode
ecce apparuit angelus Domini in somnis Ioseph . . . (Vulg. Mat. 2.19)273
Much more often, however, and throughout the history of Latin, although there is
some fluctuation among authors, the agent of a passive ablative absolute clause and
the subject of the matrix clause are referentially identical, as in (e). The agent of the
passive ablative absolute clause may be explicitly specified, as in (f). Another possibil-
ity is to insert the subject of the main clause, which is also the agent of the participial
clause, into the participial clause, as in (g). Livy in particular274 sometimes underlines
the identity of agent and subject by the insertion of ipse ‘self ’ into the ablative absolute
clause, as in (h). However, sometimes such an inserted ipse seems only to stress the
personal involvement of the agent of the ablative absolute clause, as in (i) (see also
§ 14.18 and § 23.67). In (j), inserted Caesar is the recipient of the action in the ablative
absolute clause.
(e) Haec eadem locutus sum domi meae adhibito Quinto, fratre meo . . .
(‘I said these same things at my house, with Quintus, my brother, having been invited.’
Cic. Fam. 10.25.3)
(f) Quis enim potest aut deserta per se patria aut oppressa beatus esse?
(‘For who can be happy when he has either deserted his country or oppressed it?’ Cic.
Att. 10.4.4)
273 The Vetus Latina version has Cum autem mortuus esset (see also note 256).
274 Material in Riemann (1885: 259–61). For discussion, see Traenkle (1968: 140–2).
(g) Hac re statim Caesar per speculatores cognita insidias veritus . . . exerci-
tum . . . castris continuit.
(‘Caesar learnt this at once through his scouts; and fearing an ambush he kept the
army in camp.’ Caes. Gal. 2.11.2)
(h) Romani quoque imperatores . . . iunctis et ipsi exercitibus . . . ad sedem hos-
tium pervenere . . .
(‘The Roman commanders on their part . . . when they had united their armies . . . also
reached the place where their enemies had concentrated . . .’ Liv. 29.2.1)
(i) . . . causa ipse pro se dicta . . . damnatur.
(‘. . . having pleaded his own cause . . ., he was condemned.’ Liv. 4.44.10)
(j) Quibus litteris circiter media nocte Caesar adlatis suos facit certiores eosque
ad dimicandum animo confirmat.
(‘The dispatch was brought in about midnight; Caesar informed his troops thereof,
and encouraged them for the fight.’ Caes. Gal. 5.49.4)
Supplement:
‘Quid dubitas igitur’, inquam, ‘summo bono a te ita constituto, ut id totum in non
dolendo sit, id tenere unum, id tueri, id defendere?’ (Cic. Fin. 2.11); . . . concilio prius
inter sese habito senatum adeunt . . . (Liv. 5.7.5)
Quo tamen incommodo Domitius accepto reliquias exercitus dissipati collegit . . .
(B. Alex. 40.5); Recepta cocus tunica cultrum arripuit porcique ventrem hinc atque
illinc timida manu secuit. (Petr. 49.9)
16.91 The internal complexity of the participial ablative absolute clause

Authors vary in the degree of complexity of their participial ablative absolute clauses
and in the degree to which they strive after ‘integration’ of the participial and the main
clause (on the latter, see § 14.15). In the earliest texts we find a few short present par-
ticipial expressions such as me (in)sciente ‘with me (not) knowing’. There is only one
example in Terence of a participial ablative absolute clause containing an argument
clause (Eu. 956, quoted in § 16.89, Supplement). There are no instances in Plautus,
Terence, Cato, or Varro of participial ablative absolute clauses containing a noun
(phrase) in the case form required by the verb, and there are only a few attestations of
ablative absolute clauses containing a satellite, as in (a). The use of arguments with the
present participle is common in Cicero, as in (b), but not with the perfect deponent
participle, which is first attested in Sallust, as in (c).275 The use of satellites is well
attested in the early works of Cicero and in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, as shown by
(d). The use of participial ablative absolute clauses with more than one simple satellite
or argument is typical of educated writers of the Empire, especially in literary narra-
tive and in didactic texts, but see already (e) from Caesar with four adjuncts.276 Many
275 For further examples of perfect deponents with an argument, see K.-St.: I.783–4.
276 For historical accounts and data, see Flinck-Linkomies (1929), Serbat (1979), Coleman (1989), and
Keydana (1997: 239–57).
instances can be found in Ammianus Marcellinus.277 Such clauses are often loosely
integrated in their sentence.
(a) Pallam ad phrygionem fert confecto prandio / vinoque expoto, parasito
excluso foras.
(‘He’s taking the mantle to the embroiderer after the lunch is finished off, the wine
drunk out, and the hanger-on locked out.’ Pl. Men. 469–70)
(b) . . . concursus est ad templum Concordiae factus senatum illuc vocante
Metello consule.
(‘. . . the mob flocked to the temple of Concord, whither the consul Metellus was sum-
moning the senate.’ Cic. Dom. 11)
(c) Dein Sulla omnia pollicito docti . . . circiter dies quadraginta ibidem opperi-
untur.
(‘Then, after Sulla had promised to do all . . . they lingered there for about forty days.’
Sal. Jug. 103.7)
(d) Qua oratione habita graviter et sententiose maxime demittitur animus
hominum . . .
(‘When such a passage is delivered gravely and sententiously, the spirit of man is
greatly abased . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.106)
(e) At hostes . . . conlocatis insidiis bipertito in silvis opportuno atque occulto
loco a milibus passuum circiter duobus Romanorum adventum exspecta-
bant . . .
(‘But the enemy . . . posted a double ambush in the woods, in a convenient and covert
spot about two miles away; and there they awaited the coming of the Romans.’ Caes.
Gal. 5.32.1)
Supplement:
. . . me . . . absentem principe Cn. Pompeio referente et de corpore rei publicae tuorum
scelerum tela revellente revocarant. (Cic. Pis. 25); Me Cn. Pompeius multis obsisten-
tibus eius erga me studio atque amori semper dilexit . . . (Cic. Pis. 76); . . . Lusitanis a
Ser. Galba praetore contra interpositam, ut existumabatur, fidem interfectis
L. Libone tribuno plebis populum incitante et rogationem in Galbam privilegi simi-
lem ferente . . . M. Cato legem suadens in Galbam multa dixit. (Cic. Brut. 89)
Various other factors may contribute to the complexity of participial ablative abso-
lute clauses. One is to use autonomous relative clauses as subject (see § 18.16), as
in (f).
(f) . . . Hiberum copias traiecit praemissis qui . . . specularentur.
(‘. . . he led his troops across the Ebro, after sending agents ahead to explore . . .’ Liv.
21.23.1)
277 See Bitter (1976: 171–91).

Supplement:
Quo enim omnia iudicantur sublato reliqua se negant tollere. (Cic. Luc. 33); . . . ullis
ad signa redeuntibus et qui reliqui erant per summa flagitia detractantibus mili-
tiam . . . (Sal. Jug. frg. 10a); Deinde eos quoque ipsos exigua parte pontis relicta revo-
cantibus qui rescindebant cedere in tutum coegit. (Liv. 2.10.7); Rapto poculo
argenteo ex oppidani domo Plemini miles fugiens sequentibus quorum erat obvius
forte Sergio et Matieno tribunis militum fuit. (Liv. 29.9.2); Calas huic regioni prae-
positus est, ipse adsumptis qui ex Macedonia nuper advenerant Cappadociam petiit.
(Curt. 3.1.24); . . . qui penetratis omnibus Hispaniae gentibus ingenti vi hominum
urbiumque potitus numero aditis quae vix audita erant Gallaeci cognomen meruit.
(Vell. 2.5.1); . . . avulsa . . . . tamquam impedimento coniugii cum qua cubare solitus
eram . . . (Aug. Conf. 6.25)
Cf.: . . . cruenta fora templaque, passim trucidatis ut quemque fors obtulerat. (Tac.
Hist. 4.1.1)
Another factor that contributes to complexity is the use of a perfect passive participle
with an argument clause, the earliest example of which is (g).278 This becomes more
frequent from the Augustan period onward, mostly with verbs of thinking and saying.
(For such combinations functioning as subject, see § 15.133.)
(g) . . . impetrato prius a consulibus ut . . . permitterent progreditur . . .
(‘. . . with consent having first been obtained from the consuls, he proceeds . . .’ Quad.
hist. 12)
Supplement:
Sin vita ante acta ignorabitur, hoc loco praeterito et cur praetereatur demonstrato
argumentis accusationem statim confirmare oportebit. (Cic. Inv. 2.34); Perfecto enim
et concluso neque virtutibus neque amicitiis usquam locum esse . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.85);
At Lucullus audito Q. Marcium Regem pro consule per Lycaoniam cum tribus
legionibus in Ciliciam tendere . . . (Sal. Hist. 5.14); Haec tibi dictabam post fanum
putre Vacunae, / excepto quod non simul esses cetera laetus. (Hor. Ep. 1.10.48–9);279 . . .
lato . . ., ut solet, ad populum ut equum escendere liceret . . . (Liv. 23.14.2); Sed
Tiberius saepe apud se pensitato an coerceri tam profusae cupidines possent . . . postremo
litteras ad senatum composuit . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.52.3); . . . et miles nomine Calusidius
strictum obtulit gladium addito acutiorem esse (Tac. Ann. 1.35.5); . . . petito . . . ut
intrare illi urbem et deos eorum adorare liceret . . . (Justin. 43.5.6); . . . conperto quod
homines essent sine litteris et idiotae admirabantur et cognoscebant eos . . . (Vulg.
Act. 4.13)
The clausal character of the participial ablative absolute clause can be further exploited
by the expansion of the noun phrase with attributive participial constituents and the
addition of satellites, among which are other participial clauses including ablative
278 The source of the text is Gel. 9.11.6, where it belongs to what seems to be a quotation. It was attrib-
uted to Quadrigarius by Peter, but no longer so by Briscoe in Cornell’s edition. The literature on the sub-
ject is abundant. See e.g. Lebek (1970: 263–4) and Ambrosetti in her edition, Appendice, pp. 354–74.
279 For excepto developing into an adverb and preposition, see note 245. Compare also conpleto matu-
tinas ‘after the morning’ (Itin. Anton. Plac. 11, quoted by Väänänen (1981: 167)).
absolute clauses. An example of a participial clause is (h), where his rebus gestis is a
constituent of omni Gallia pacata.
(h) His rebus gestis omni Gallia pacata tanta huius belli ad barbaros opinio per-
lata est, uti . . .
(‘When Gaul had been pacified by the accomplishment of these things, so mighty a
report of this campaign was carried to the natives that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.35.1)
Supplement:
. . . prope iam desperata salute nonnullae eiusmodi sententiae dicebantur, ut impedi-
mentis relictis eruptione facta isdem itineribus, quibus eo pervenissent, ad salutem
contenderent. (Caes. Gal. 3.3.3); Servius . . . conciliata prius voluntate plebis agro capto
ex hostibus viritim diviso ausus est ferre ad populum, vellent iuberentne se regnare.
(Liv. 1.46.1); Ignara matre, dein frustra obnitente (sc. Acne) penitus inrepserat per
luxum et ambigua secreta ne senioribus quidem principis amicis adversantibus
muliercula (sc. Acne) nulla cuiusquam iniuria cupidines principis explente . . . (Tac.
Ann. 13.12.2)280
The instances given above in this section are all illustrations of the internal complexity
of ablative absolute clauses. Another form of complexity involves the use of more than
one ablative absolute clause in a sentence. An early example of this is (i) from Plautus,
possibly a parody of a commander’s military report.281 Caesar and Livy are very fond
of such strings of ablative absolutes.282
(i) Hostibus victis, civibus salvis, re placida, pacibus perfectis, / bello exstincto,
re bene gesta, integro exercitu et praesidiis, . . . eas vobis gratis habeo . . .
(‘Now that our foes are vanquished, the citizens safe, the state tranquil, peace treaties
concluded, war come to an end, the affair successfully concluded, the army and gar-
risons intact . . . I give thanks to you . . .’ Pl. Per. 753–6)
Supplement:
Confecta Britannia, obsidibus acceptis, nulla praeda, imperata tamen pecunia
exercitum ex Britannia reportabant. (Cic. Att. 4.18.5); Caesar ab decimae legionis
cohortatione ad dextrum cornu profectus, ubi suos urgeri signisque in unum locum
conlatis duodecimae legionis confertos milites sibi ipsos ad pugnam esse impedimento
vidit, quartae cohortis omnibus centurionibus occisis signiferoque interfecto, signo
amisso, reliquarum cohortium omnibus fere centurionibus aut vulneratis aut occi-
sis, in his primipilo P. Sextio Baculo fortissimo viro multis gravibusque vulneribus
confecto . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.25.1–2); Re publica felicissume gesta atque liberatis
<sociis,> vectigalibus restitutis, exercitum salvom atque incolumem plenissimum
praeda domum reportavit; iterum triumphans in urbem Romam redit. (Liv. 41.28.9)
16.92 Ablative participles without a subject noun (phrase)

Sometimes ablative participles are found without a noun (phrase) (or one of the sub-
stitutes discussed), which must be understood from the context, although this is not
280 For Tacitus’ usage, see Enghofer (1961). 281 So Leeman (1963: 176).
282 For Caesar, see Odelman (1972: 130–4).
always easy to do. Such instances must be seen as extremes of the general communica-
tive rule that known entities may be left out. The examples cited in the literature come
especially from Livy and later historians. An example is (a).
(a) Haec atque talia agitantibus gravescere valitudo Augusti . . .
(‘As men were churning over such things as these, there was a deterioration in
Augustus’ health . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.5.1)
In this example the ones who are agitantes are in general the people surrounding
Augustus. There are examples of this omission with present active, perfect passive
participles, and—less frequent—perfect deponent participles.
Supplement:
Present active participles: Eranam autem, quae fuit non vici instar sed urbis, quod
erat Amani caput, itemque Sepyram et Commorim, acriter et diu repugnantibus,
Pomptino illam partem Amani tenente, ex antelucano tempore usque ad horam diei
X magna multitudine hostium occisa cepimus castellaque vi capta complura incendi-
mus. (Cic. Fam. 15.4.9); Attalus quoque Pteleon nihil minus quam tale quicquam in
alterius oppugnatione urbis timentibus oppressit. (Liv. 31.46.13); Curatum ea scio
omnibus fere ossibus confractis prolapsum ex arbore alta putatorem, circumdata
universo corpori, aquam suam adspergentibus, quotiens inaresceret, raroque nec
nisi deficientem herbam mutationis causa resolventibus, convaluisse vix credibili
celeritate. (Plin. Nat. 27.69)
Perfect passive participles: Profectus dictator cum exercitu proelio uno Marsos fun-
dit. Conpulsis deinde in urbes munitas, Milioniam, Plestinam, Fresiliam intra dies
paucos cepit . . . (Liv. 10.3.5); . . . in Macedoniam rediit, missis ad accolas Histri flu-
minis barbaros ut in Italiam inrumperent sollicitandos. (Liv. 39.35.4); Biduo deinde ad
quietem dato militibus iussisque et classem et machinas pariter admovere, ut undique
territis instaret, ipse in altissimam turrem ascendit ingenti animo, periculo maiore.
(Curt. 4.4.10); Sed plurimum trepidationis in publico, ut quemque nuntium fama
attulisset, animum vultumque conversis, ne diffidere dubiis ac parum gaudere pros-
peris viderentur. (Tac. Hist. 1.85.2)
Perfect deponent participles: Caralitani, simul ad se Valerium mitti audierunt, non-
dum profecto ex Italia sua sponte Cottam ex oppido eiciunt. (Caes. Civ. 1.30.3)
Appendix: A much debated expression is pace et principe in (b). In agreement with

some scholars I take it as a position in time adjunct (as in § 10.28), but others take it
as an ablative absolute.283 Others again take it as the object of uteremur (instead of
quis = quibus).
(b) Sexto demum consulatu Caesar Augustus, potentiae securus, quae triumvi-
ratu iusserat abolevit deditque iura quis pace et principe uteremur.
(‘At last, in his sixth consulate, Augustus Caesar, feeling his power secure,
cancelled the behests of his triumvirate, and presented us with laws to serve
our needs in peace and under a prince.’ Tac. Ann. 3.28.2)
283 Woodman and Martin ad loc. prefer to take it as a position in time adjunct, pointing to triumviratu
in the preceding context, while Enghofer (1961: 73, 111) takes it ‘beyond doubt’ as an ablative absolute.
16.93 Ablative absolute clauses of one-place verbs

There are a few instances of the so-called impersonal use of the perfect passive parti-
ciple, the best-known of which is sortito ‘after drawing lots’. An example is (a). It is an
ablative absolute of the one-place verb sortio (or sortior). For two instances of present
participles used in this way, see § 4.90.
(a) Deos quaeso . . . / mi ut sortito eveniat— # —ut quidem hercle pedibus
pendeas.
(‘I pray to the gods that it falls to me through the lot— # —that you hang from your
feet.’ Pl. Cas. 389–90)
Supplement:
. . . quoieique de eo agro loco ex lege plebeive sc(ito) IIIvir sortito ceivi
Romano dedit adsignavit . . . (CIL I2.585.3 (Lex. Agr., 111 bc)).; Sin aliquando
tacent omnes, tunc sortito coguntur dicere. (Cic. Ver. 4.142); Nam et ipse, quod prin-
cipium rei publicae fuit, urbem condidit auspicato . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.16); . . . aliquantisper
pugnato nihil promovet Poenus. (Quad. hist. 60=61C)
. Participial absolute clauses in other case forms
In the course of time, participial ‘absolute’ clauses in cases other than the ablative
developed, with most examples dating from the Late Latin period. They have the same
general characteristics as the ablative absolute, but they do not have the same distribu-
tion. While some instances must be explained as due to Greek influence, such as the
genitive absolutes which are literal translations of Greek texts, others are simply
ungrammatical.284
16.95 Participial nominative absolute clauses

Nominative absolute constructions with a participle (usually active present) are not
found before Late Latin.285 Putative earlier examples (in Calpurnius Piso and in
Curtius Rufus, for example) have to be explained in a different way.286 An indisput-
able example is (a).
(a) . . . et benedicens nos episcopus profecti sumus.
(‘. . . and with the bishop blessing us we set out.’ Pereg. 16.7)
Supplement:
Qui iure familiaritatis admissi, dum alterum priorem dicentem intentus audit tyran-
nus, ab altero occupatur. (Justin. 16.5.15); Quod vulnus semper humores liquidi pro-
fluentes non desinet. (Mulom. Chir. 94); Quae opinio divulgata usque in hodiernum
a nescientibus armatorum tantus numerus aestimatur, cum sit nunc exiguus et
284 For absolute clauses in Gregory of Tours, see Tarriño (1991).

285 For the structure and the development, see Galdi (2017), with references.
286 See Keydana (1997: 328). Galdi (2017) accepts Calp. hist. 27.
infirmus. (Vict. Vit. 1.2); Mater autem . . . negata (i.e. necata), soror ipsius in monas-
terio . . . transmittitur . . . (Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.39)
The following example is sometimes taken as a nominative absolute,287 but it is better
to regard the si clause as lacking a finite verb form.
(b) Si ambo praesentes sol occasus suprema tempestas esto.
(‘If both be present, sunset shall be the time-limit.’ Lex XII 1.9 ap. Gel.
17.2.10)
Appendix: Due to the increasing similarity in use of the present participle and the
gerund, there are also a few examples of a ‘gerundial absolute clause’ instead of a
nominative participle, the first instance being in Epist. Alex. (p. 206.17–19K.):
Quorum (sc. elephantorum) equites caedendo poplites admodum nongentos con-
gregatos octoginta occidimus . . .288
16.96 Participial genitive absolute clauses

The first instances of a genitive absolute clause are found in the Bellum Hispaniense,
where they are usually regarded as Graecisms or (better) emended. The ecclesiastical
Late Latin examples are often literal translations of Greek biblical texts. There is no
reason to assume that the genitive absolute was ever a native Latin construction.289
(a) Eius praeteriti temporis Pompeius trans flumen Salsum castellum constituit . . .
(‘That time having gone past, Pompeius established a fort across the river Salsum . . .’
B. Hisp. 14.1)
Supplement:
† Huius concidentis temporis ad viri fortis insignia cum conplures adversariorum
concursum facerent . . . (B. Hisp. 23.5); . . . et inter se invicem cogitationum accusan-
tium aut etiam defendentium . . . (v.l. cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam defen-
dentibus) (Vulg. Rom. 2.15—NB: the Greek version has a genitive absolute)
NB: Difficult to assess is the genitive in: Aeris confessi rebusque <iure> iudicatis
XXX dies iusti sunto. (Lex XII 3.1 ap. Gel. 15.13.11 and 20.1.45)
16.97 Participial accusative absolute clauses

Reliable attestations of the accusative absolute date from the mid fourth century
ad.290 It became a relatively frequent construction in the sixth century in the works of
Jordanes and Gregory of Tours. Instances of present active participles are very rare.
Supplement:
Perfect passive participles: . . . cultores · Domus · Aug(ustae) · area pri / vatam
· emptam templum / cum · porticibus · a solo · sua / pecunia · fecerunt . . . (CIL
287 See Holland (1986: 169), referring to Schrijnen (1939) and Krisch (1988: 8).
288 See Aalto (1949: 80–2), Sz.: 144, and Kooreman (1989: 221).
289 See Sz.: 142, Murru (1977), and Maiocco (2005: 42–62). For the (dubious) instances in the Bellum
Hispaniense, see Gaertner (2010: 244–5).
290 Earlier and much disputed passages are discussed by Helttula (1987), who has written the most
comprehensive monograph on the topic. For Pelagonius, see Gitton (2003).
VIII.21825.4–7 (Mauretania, ad 158)); . . . reliquias recol / lectas tumu / lum

tibi consti / tui . . . (CIL VIII.4372.11–14 (Numidia)); Ac sic ergo visa loca sancta
omnia . . . visis etiam et sanctis viris qui ibi commorabantur in nomine Dei regressi
sumus in Faran (Pereg. 15.11); . . . seniles / annos inpletos Iuli / um Sarnianum
suum ma / ritum secuta est . . . (CIL VIII.7517.3–6 (Numidia)); (Iunoni cete-
risque diis immortalibus gratiam referens quod . . .) rebelles caesos, mul-
tos / etiam et vivos adpre / hensos, sed e praedas / actas . . . / . . .victorim
reportaverit . . . (CIL VIII.8924.9–14 (Mauretania, c. ad 400)); . . . qui impleta tem
/ pora cessit . . . (CIL VIII.4551.1–2 (Numidia)); Quem tumorem palpatum intelliges
carnem intus esse. (Mulom. Chir. 89); Halaricus . . . vastatam Italiam Romam ingressus
est. (Jord. Rom. 323); Ille vero porrectam dexteram iuravit . . . (Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.18)
Present active participles: Sed ad ista adolescentem non intendentem291 vocavit
matrem. (Vet. Lat. 2Macc. 7.25 ap. Lucif. Non Parc. 22.40); Similem dolorem
ingentem sine inflatione et in cursu se tollentem huic manu et depremes in
anum . . . (Mulom. Chir. 235)
16.98 Prepositional participial satellite clauses

Prepositional participial satellite clauses are another variant of the dominant parti-
ciple construction (see § 14.14. fin.), which are commonly called ab urbe condita
constructions.292 Examples are attested from Plautus onward. Among the attested
instances those with prepositions indicating time—of which there are many in his-
torical narrative texts—prevail, but more ‘abstract’ instances, for example with sine
‘without’, are found as well. Most instances are relatively short and non-complex, but
there are some that contain a satellite or comparable constituent (here marked in ital-
ics or bold italics). Participles other than the perfect are very rare.293 For an excep-
tional example of a neuter singular perfect passive participle of a one-place verb, see
(c) (see also § 15.133).
(a) Mox hercle vero post transactam fabulam, / argentum si quis dederit, ut ego
suspicor, / ultro ibit nuptum, non manebit auspices.
(‘But soon, after the play has reached its end, I suspect if anyone gives her money
she’ll marry him willingly and won’t wait for the augurs.’ Pl. Cas. 84–6)
(b) Illi regibus parere iam a condita urbe didicerant. Nos post reges exactos
servitutis oblivio ceperat.
(‘They had learned ever since the foundation of the city to obey kings; we after the
eviction of the kings had forgotten our servitude.’ Cic. Phil. 3.8)
(c) . . . invento carmine in libris Sibyllinis propter crebrius eo anno de caelo
lapidatum inspectis . . .
(‘. . . because in the Sibylline books, which were consulted on account of the frequent
showers of stone that year, an oracle was found . . .’ Liv. 29.10.4)
291 Editors emend to the ablative; see Helttula (1987: 36).

292 The term was introduced by Hahn (1928: 266). See also Spevak (2018; 2019).
293 Examples can be conveniently found in the TLL under the prepositions involved, for example s.v.
ante 134.24ff.; ob 32.77ff.; post 1066.26ff. A large collection of instances can be found in Heick (1936).
Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition):

Passive perfect participles: ab · colonia · deducta · anno · XC . . . (CIL I2.698.1
(Pozzuoli, 105 bc)); Nec cessabant Sabini, feroces ab re priore anno bene gesta,
lacessere . . . (Liv. 3.61.13); Ad haec visa auditaque clamor ingens oritur. (Liv. 2.23.7);
Annis fere CCCCCX post Romam conditam Livius fabulam dedit C. Claudio, Caeci
filio, M. Tuditano cos. anno ante natum Ennium. (Cic. Tusc. 1.3); Sed Laelius . . . neque
a proposito deterrebatur neque ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum . . . ex
portu insulaque expelli potuit. (Caes. Civ. 3.100.3); (sc. Pacem) Cuius impetratae, ab
insita animis levitate, ante deductum Cremera Romanum praesidium paenituit. (Liv.
2.49.12); . . . formaque eadem civitatis esset quae ante Sacrum montem occupatum
fuerat. (Liv. 3.15.3); Separatim toto tractatu sententia eius indicanda est, ut in omni
genere noscamus quae fuerint celeberrima anno DC urbis, circa captas Carthaginem
ac Corinthum, cum supremum is diem obiit . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.45); Maior itaque ex
civibus amissis dolor quam laetitia fusis hostibus fuit. (Liv.4.17.8); Antigonum igitur
appellat, cui et palam facti parricidii gratia obnoxius erat . . . (Liv. 40.56.3); Inter haec
parata atque decreta Cethegus semper querebatur de ignavia sociorum. (Sal. Cat.
43.3); Inde inter eruptionem temptatam compulso in urbem hoste occasio data
est Romanis inrumpendi . . . (Liv. 4.61.6); Ut populus . . . ob rem bene gestam corona-
tus supplicatum eat . . . (Cato Mil. 2(J)); ob hasce res · bene · gestas . . . hanc ·
aedem · . . . dedicat (CIL I2.626.5–10 (Rome, 145 bc)); . . . Volscos Aequosque ob
communitam Verruginem fremere. (Liv. 4.1.4); . . . agendum . . . ob mulum ruptum vel
debilitatum . . . (Ulp. dig. 9.2.27.34); . . . ob defensum negotium . . . accepisse merce-
dem. (Amm. 30.4.5); Deinde duoetvicesimo anno post dimissum bellum, quod quat-
tuor et viginti annos fuit, Karthaginiensis sextum de foedere decessere. (Cato hist.
84=77C); . . . post · hance · legem · rogatam . . . (CIL I2.582.23 (Lex incerta, Banzi,
c.100 bc)); Hi enim tres post civitatem a L. Bruto liberatam plus potuerunt quam
universa res publica. (Cic. Phil. 5.17); . . . eandem indolem militibus Romanis post
exactos decemviros esse . . . (Liv. 3.61.6); . . . post finitima cuncta vi vel aequitatis con-
sideratione vel metu subacta . . . (Amm. 23.6.4);294 . . . cum post pugnam agminaque
deleta Persarum licenter obambulans armillas aureas vidisset . . . (Amm. 30.8.8—NB:
coordination); . . . qui vel post administratam provinciam honorati auctoritate fulci-
tur . . . (Cod. Theod. 6.35.9); . . . et post facta missa vigiliarum in ecclesia maiore statim
cum ymnis venitur ad Anastase . . . (Pereg. 38.2);295 . . . post assertam a Manlio faciem
restitutamque a Camillo acrius vehementiusque in finitimos surrexit (Jord. Rom.
138); Sed praeter furta et rapinas et virgis caesos socios haec quoque fecit, ut ipse
gloriari solet, eadem quae C. Caesar. (Poll. Fam. 10.32.2); Nam praeter errantis bar-
bariae aut adiectum aut deminutum clamorem miscebat Atellanicos versus . . . (Petr.
68.5); Lustrum propter Capitolium captum, consulem occisum condi religiosum
fuit. (Liv. 3.22.1); . . . cum Messeniis propter stupratas virgines suas in sollemni
Messeniorum sacrificio bellum intulissent . . . (Justin. 3.4.1); . . . sciturosque296 sine
restituta potestate redigi in concordiam res nequeant . . . (Liv. 3.52.2); Sub haec tam
varia fortuna gesta L. Furius Purpurio alter consul per tribum Sapiniam in Boios
venit. (Liv. 33.37.1)
294 For Ammianus’ use of the construction, see Helttula (1985).

295 For the ‘indifferent’ form facta missa, see Väänänen (1987: 20, 89).
296 The text is uncertain, but this does not affect the sine phrase.
Present participles: Sequere hac, mea gnata, me, cum dis volentibus. (Pl. Pers. 332);
Describam nunc ego cruciatus et miseram corporis patientiam inter tyrannica tor-
menta saevientia. (Sen. Con. 2.5.6); . . . ob excedentia ripas suas . . . flumina . . . fertiles
(sc. sunt). (Mela 2.15); Secuti exemplum veterani haud multo post in Raetiam mit-
tuntur, specie defendendae provinciae ob imminentis Suebos, ceterum ut avelleren-
tur castris trucibus adhuc non minus asperitate remedii quam sceleris memoria.
(Tac. Ann. 1.44.4); . . . post Dauni stagnantia regna . . . (Sil. 12.43)
NB: . . . ante proelium in Thessalia factum cognitum . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.100.3)
. Gerundial satellite clauses

The gerund can be used in adjunct clauses of various forms, both bare cases and
prepositional expressions, which can fulfil a range of functions. The description given
here is based on the semantic functions gerundial clauses fulfil with respect to
the main clause.297 However, it should be noted that often this relationship has to
be inferred from the context. Accordingly, the description given below must not be
taken too rigidly. Second arguments are rare, but become more frequent in the Late
Latin period.
. Gerundial purpose adjunct clauses
There are a few gerundial clauses in the genitive that must be interpreted as purpose
adjuncts. Whether on the basis of this small number one wants to assume that there
ever existed a rule of Latin grammar in conformity with which these utterances
were produced depends on the importance one attaches to a very few genitive noun
phrases which seem to be meant as purpose adjuncts (see § 10.83) and to the corres-
ponding gerundival expressions (see § 16.106). Some examples are given below in the
Supplement.
The dative, as in (a), is much more common, although not frequent either. It is not
always easy to distinguish the gerundial satellites from the gerundial arguments pre-
sented in § 15.137.
(a) Utuntur (sc. scirpis) in vinea alligando fasces . . .
(‘They use (rushes) in the vineyard for tying up bundles of fuel . . .’ Var. L. 5.137)
Prepositional expressions with ad ‘to’, causa ‘for the purpose of, for the sake of ’, gratia
‘for the sake of ’, and a few others are more often used as purpose adjuncts than the
above types (those with ad are sometimes difficult to distinguish from gerundial argu-
ments). However, outside of Caesar and legal texts, finite clauses with ut are much
more common.298 When used with verbs of giving and receiving, this purpose expres-
sion is sometimes in competition with the much more common use of gerundives as
secondary predicates, as discussed in § 21.9. Examples with ad are (b) and (c). Clauses
297 On the satellite status of gerunds and gerundives, see Vester (1990).
298 Statistics in Steele (1898). See also Odelman (1972: 92ff.).
with causa are relatively frequent in Caesar299 and in legal or administrative texts.
Gratia is used much less often.
(b) Tribunus et quadringenti ad moriendum proficiscuntur.
(‘The tribune and his four hundred marched forth to death.’ Gel. 3.7.11)
(c) . . . propones illi exempla ad imitandum.
(‘. . . you will set before him examples for imitation.’ Cic. Phil. 10.5)
Supplement:
Genitive: . . . ne id adsentandi mage quam quo habeam gratum facere existumes.
(Ter. Ad. 270) (NB: parallelism with the quo purpose clause); porcas piaculares
duas luco coinquendi et operis faciendi immolavit (CIL VI.2065.II.19–20
(Rome, ad 87)); . . . posterior magis admonendi emptoris et liberandi se eandem
legem repetierit . . . (Paul. dig. 18.7.9—NB: Kuebler inserts causa)300
Variant readings in the manuscript tradition are an additional problem in the fol-
lowing passages: <Ratio est> quae causam facit et continet defensionem, hoc
modo, ut docendi causa in hac potissimum causa consistamus. (Rhet. Her. 1.26—NB:
some of the mss. omit causa, but cf. inter alia Cic. Inv. 1.18); Tum Scipio: ‘Sunt ista
ut dicis; sed audisse te credo Tubero, Platonem Socrate mortuo primum in
Aegyptum discendi causa, post in Italiam et in Siciliam contendisse, ut Pythagorae
inventa perdisceret . . .’ (Cic. Rep. 1.16—NB: causa is added on the basis of Nonius’
quotation).301
Dative: . . .vitandoque imbres et aestus (sc. casas) tegebant harundinibus et fronde.

(Vitr. 2.1.3); Scolymus carduorum generis ab his distat, quod radix eius vescendo est
decocta. (Plin. Nat. 21.96); . . . clementiam suam obstringens crebris orationibus, quas
Seneca testificando quam honesta praeciperet vel iactandi ingenii voce principis vul-
gabat. (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2—NB: parallelism with the genitive gerundival clause);
Adicit iure iurando Paeti cautum apud signa, adstantibus iis, quos testificando rex
misisset, neminem Romanum Armeniam ingressurum . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.16.2); . . . cum
primum Charite nubendo maturuisset . . . (Apul. Met. 8.2.1); Ego autem arbitror hoc
quoque ligni appellatione contineri, quod nondum minutatim fuit concisum, si iam
concidendo fuit destinatum. (Ulp. dig. 32.55.2—NB: or an argument?); Absolvendo
reos venis et me verbere torques. (Ven. Fort. Mart. 4.138)302
Prepositional phrases: . . . si analogia rerum dissimilitudines adsumat ad discernen-
dum vocis verbi figuras. (Var. L. 9.42); . . . pecudes, quod perspicuum sit, partim esse ad
usum hominum, partim ad fructum, partim ad vescendum procreatas. (Cic. Leg.
1.25); Ad consolandum autem . . . illa valent quae eleganter copioseque colle-
gisti . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.13.3); Nunc ades ad imperandum, vel ad parendum potius; sic
enim antiqui loquebantur. (Cic. Fam. 9.25.2); . . . ut spatium ad colligendum se homi-
nes haberent . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.3); . . . legati, quibus hae partes ad defendendum
obvenerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.81.6); Post scaenam porticus sunt constituendae, uti, cum
299 They are almost as frequent as ut subjunctive clauses. See Steele (1898).
300 Compare also the use of the genitive in Isidore of Seville, for which see Maltby (2002: 227–9).
301 For other debatable instances, see Aalto (1949: 60–1). See also Pasoli (1963; 1966: 40–2).
302 Aalto (1949: 76–7) takes this as a purpose adjunct in the ablative.
imbres repentini ludos interpellaverint, habeat populus quo se recipiat ex theatro,

choragiaque laxamentum habeant ad comparandum. (Vitr. 5.9.1—NB: parallelism
with the quo clause); Non ad exercendum verba diutius hoc idem tracto, sed ut cog-
nata esse ista et eiusdem notae ac naturae probem. (Sen. Nat. 2.21.4); Merum est
imperium habere gladii potestatem ad animadvertendum facinorosos homines . . .
(Ulp. dig. 2.1.3); . . . nonnullos ad vastandum Moesiam dirigit . . . (Jord. Get. 101); . . .
iussit rex ut . . . ad excolendum agros accipiatis . . . (Vict. Vit. 3.20); Quicumque eos ad
custodiendum accepit servus sibi ex his fecit. (Greg. Tur. Hist. 3.15)303
Quod si educitur in ambulandum . . . (Mulom. Chir. 115)
Noteworthy is the use of the preposition ad in combination with a gerund with

the verb habeo, as in (d), a parallel of cases of habeo + gerundive in which the
gerundive indicates purpose, as mentioned in § 21.9.304
(d) Oportet . . . facientem melius aliquid habere ad faciendum quam est id quod
facit.
(‘In order to make, the maker must possess something more valuable than
what he is making.’ August. Imm. 8.14)
sellae / curulis · locus · ipsi · . . . / ad · Murciae · spectandi · caussa · datus /

est (CIL XI.1826.11–14 (Arezzo, Rep.)); . . . cum illam iudicandi causa tabellam
sumpserit . . . (Cic. Clu. 159); (sc. pars) . . . quam supra commemoravi praedandi fru-
mentandique causa Mosam transisse . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.16.2); Afranius Petreiusque
terrendi causa atque operis impediendi copias suas ad infimas montis radices pro-
ducunt et proelio lacessunt. (Caes. Civ. 1.42.2)
. . . cum aut lavandi aut gestandi aut ludorum gratia prodierit praetor . . . (Gaius dig.
40.2.7—NB: coordination with ludorum); Hostium enim paucis spoliandi gratia
mortuos per ea loca diu versatis nullus fugatorum vel accolarum illuc adire est ausus.
(Amm. 31.13.12)
In (very) Late Latin bare accusative case forms of the gerund are found instead of
prepositional expressions with ad, especially with verbs of movement.305 This has its
parallel in gerundival clauses (see § 16.106) and is part of a more general confusion
between the functions of the present infinitive and the gerund (see § 15.138). The
disappearance of the supine in -um may also have played a role (see § 16.111). An
example of a bare accusative case form of the gerund in a purpose adjunct is (e).
(e) . . . alio die ambulandum ducere . . .
(‘. . . on another day (you should) take him for a walk . . .’ Mulom. Chir. 133)
A few late examples of a bare case accusative are cited by Aalto (1949: 86), for example
the gerundival clause in (f). Of course, the very use in this context of the term ‘bare
303 Textually uncertain or debatable instances of ad expressions can be found in Aalto (1949: 89–90).
304 For a discussion of combinations of ad + gerund with the verb habeo, see Norberg (1943: 216).
305 Odelstierna (1926: 32–42) has collected some thirty instances with verbs of movement and seven
with other verbs, most of them taken from Fredegar. An example of such a gerund with a verb that does
not indicate movement is Fredeg. Chron. 4.66: Spolia eorum Sarracini per legatus Heraclio recipiendum
offerunt. A survey in Sz.: 379.
accusative’ is questionable as it projects the Classical Latin case system onto the utter-
ances from this period. What is written as an accusative need not correspond with
what was actually spoken. It may also be the product of ignorance or a mistaken
display of learning (‘Hyperurbanismus’ according to Norberg (1943: 223)). Most
likely in such instances all these factors are in play.
(f) Censeo igitur ut adorandum me venias . . .
(‘I recommend therefore that you come to adore me.’ Jul. Valer.
I.42.51K.=I.1348 R.—NB: Rossellini now reads ut <ad>)
. Gerundial instrument/manner adjunct clauses
The most widespread use of the gerundial clause is that of describing the method used
in effecting something, the action leading up to a certain result, or the manner in
which something is obtained, as in (a), (c), and (d). Sometimes the semantic relation-
ship with respect to the main clause is even less specific, for example when the gerund
indicates the circumstances, as in (b). The appropriate case form for this semantic
relation is the ablative.306 Examples are found from a very early date until the end of
the period covered by this Syntax. The gerund may govern an argument in the case
required by the verb, as in (c); this becomes quite normal in Late Latin.307 There are
also instances of gerunds with a satellite. Gerundial clauses in the ablative became a
normal element in building periodic sentences in Livy and then in other historians, as
well as in didactic texts by authors striving for conciseness.
(a) . . . mendicum malim mendicando vincere.
(‘. . . I’d rather outdo a beggar in begging.’ Pl. Bac. 514)
(b) . . . mobilitatem . . . quae crescit eundo . . .
(‘. . . velocity which grows by moving . . .’ Lucr. 6.341)
(c) Quaeris quomodo illa tua facias? Dona dando.
(‘Do you ask how you can make them your own? By bestowing them as gifts!’ Sen.
Ben. 6.3.3)
(d) (sc. Hannibal) . . . qui senex vincendo factus Hispanias . . . monumentis ingen-
tium rerum complesset.
(‘(Hannibal) . . . who, grown old through victories, had filled the Spanish lands . . . with
the evidence of his mighty deeds.’ Liv. 30.28.5)
Supplement (arguments in italics, satellites in bold italics):
. . . Macel<amque opidom p>ucnandod · cepet. (CIL VI.1300.4–5 (Rome, 260 bc));
Male fidem servando illis quoque abrogant etiam fidem . . . (Pl. Trin. 1048); Ego
vapulando, ill’ verberando, usque ambo defessi sumus. (Ter. Ad 213); Sed haec
306 Gerundial adjuncts in the ablative are discussed by Vester (1983: 101–21) and, from a diachronic
perspective, by Kooreman (1989). For the wide range of semantic relations between the gerund and its
clause from Early Latin onwards, see Adams (2013: 725–40).
307 See Kooreman (1989: 224–5 + Table 3 on p. 229).
omittamus; augemus enim dolorem retractando. (Cic. Att. 8.9a.1); . . . sic ulcis-
car . . . malos civis rem publicam bene gerendo, perfidos amicos nihil credendo
atque omnia cavendo, invidos virtuti et gloriae serviendo . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 21);
Mucius . . . diceret omnem aquam oportere arceri quae pluendo crevisset. (Cic. Top.
38); Iam vero alia animalia gradiendo, alia serpendo ad pastum accedunt, alia
volando, alia nando, cibumque partim oris hiatu et dentibus ipsis capessunt, partim
unguium tenacitate arripiunt partim aduncitate rostrorum, alia sugunt, alia carpunt,
alia vorant, alia mandunt. (Cic. N.D. 2.122); Quodsi expectando et desiderando pen-
demus animis . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.96); Quis enim ad me non perscripsit te non solum
auctoritate, oratione, sententia tua, quibus ego a tali viro contentus eram, sed etiam
opera, consilio, domum veniendo, conveniendis meis nullum onus offici cuiquam
reliquum fecisse? (Cic. Fam. 3.13.1—NB: coordination with nouns and gerundival
clause); Tua nunc opera meae puellae / flendo turgiduli rubent ocelli. (Catul. 3.17–18);
Tu coniunx, tibi fas animum temptare precando. (Verg. A. 4.113); Omne tulit punc-
tum qui miscuit utile dulci, / lectorem delectando pariterque monendo. (Hor. Ars
343–4); Milanion nullos fugiendo, Tulle, labores / saevitiam durae contudit Iasidos.
(Prop. 1.1.9–10); Satis superque humilis est, qui iure aequo in civitate vivit, nec infe-
rendo iniuriam nec patiendo. (Liv. 3.53.9—NB: parallelism with iure aequo); Neutrum
faciam, patres conscripti, et si nulla alia re, modestia certe et temperando linguae
adulescens senem vicero. (Liv. 28.44.18—NB: coordination); . . . ut . . . auctorem . . . se
exhibendo ac velut visa, quae dubia erant, narrando concitaret iras hominum. (Liv.
24.31.14); Iis simul prudenter simul magnifice utendo effecit primum ut sibi deinde
ut aliis non indignus videretur regno. (Liv. 33.21.2); Ea lege male utendo alii sociis alii
populo Romano iniuriam faciebant. (Liv. 41.8.9); . . . triduum fere consumpsit incerta
consilia volvendo. (Curt. 10.8.7); Cum ergo fuerit hoc ita perstratum, supra nucleus
inducatur et virgis caedendo subigatur. (Vitr. 7.1.7); Deinde pilae manibus versando
efficiuntur . . . (Vitr. 7.11.1); . . . tenuitas eius minus valendo faciliter rumpitur . . . (Vitr.
7.3.8); Deinde cum aeris unda nitentes, cum perventum ad montes, ab eorum offensa
et procellis propter plenitatem et gravitatem liquescendo disparguntur (sc. nubes) et
ita diffunditur in terras. (Vitr. 8.2.2); . . . circumagendo rotundationem utrarumque
manuum et pedum digiti linea tangentur. (Vitr. 3.1.3); . . . Scipionis Aemiliani, quem
in adoptionem dando duarum familiarum ornamentum esse voluisti . . . (V. Max.
2.10.4); Nam quod invidiam facis nobis ingenuos honestosque clamando, vide ne
deteriorem facias confidentia causam. (Petr. 107.10); Sperando enim timebimus,
timendo cavebimus, cavendo salvi erimus. Contra si praesumamus, neque timendo
neque cavendo difficile salvi erimus. (Tert. Cult. 2.2.3); . . . pestem fugiendo
vitate . . . (Cypr. Ep. 43.5.3); Haec aliaque in eundem modum saepius replicando
maiorem exercitus partem primae barbarorum opposuit fronti . . . (Amm. 16.12.34);
Et licet potuit, quoad vixit, ingentia largiendo et intervallando potestates assid-
uas. . . (Amm. 27.11.2); . . . omnia loca quae filii Israhel tetigerant eundo vel redeundo
ad montem Dei . . . (Pereg. 5.11); . . . novum . . . testamentum cui prophetando scienter
utiles fuerunt, qualis David fuit. (August. c. Faust. 22.84)
There is one much discussed case at Cic. Dom. 1, where the manuscripts have: Cum
multa divinitus, pontifices, a maioribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil
praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae
rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene
gerendo religiones, religionibus sapienter interpretando rem publicam conservar-

ent. Edd. emend religionibus to religiones, but the manuscript reading is accepted by
Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.162–4) as an instance of contamination.
As in the above examples, the agent of the gerundial clause is almost always identical
with the subject of the matrix clause/sentence. This identity may be underlined by the
presence of ipse ‘himself ’ in the gerundial clause. Agent/subject identity is also typical
of the use of the present active participle as a secondary predicate. This explains the
structure in (e), where the participial phrase recipientes umorem is parallel with the
gerund siccescendo. See also § 21.14 for the development of the gerund.
(e) (sc. craticii parietes) . . . recipientes umorem turgescunt, deinde siccescendo
contrahuntur . . .
(‘(walls of wattlework) . . . taking up moisture they swell, then by drying they con-
tract . . .’ Vitr. 2.8.20)
Supplement:
. . . unus ex Romanis ex propinquo murum contemplans numerando lapides aesti-
mandoque ipse secum quid in fronte paterent singuli, altitudinem muri quantum
proxime coniectura poterat permensus . . . ad Marcellum rem defert. (Liv. 25.23.11);
Sed eos Ser. Sulpicius Galba . . . prensando ipse . . . stimulaverat ut frequentes ad suf-
fragium adessent. (Liv. 45.35.8); Ita et sua sponte irarum pleni et incitati domos inde
digressi sunt instigandoque suos quisque populos effecere, ut omne Volscum nomen
deficeret. (Liv. 2.38.6); Non dissimilem offensionem et Aemiliani subiit L. Hostilius
Mancinus, qui primus Carthaginem inruperat, situm eius oppugnationesque depic-
tas proponendo in foro et ipse adsistens populo spectanti singula enarrando, qua
comitate proximis comitiis consulatum adeptus est. (Plin. Nat. 35.23)
Vitex ignis et aeris habendo satietatem, umoris temperate, parum autem terreni
habens leviore temperatura comparata egregiam habere videtur in usu rigiditatem.
(Vitr. 2.9.9); Credo libero commeantes mari saepiusque adeundo ceteris incognitas
terras elegisse sedes iuventuti . . . (Curt. 4.4.20); . . . Piso . . . modo semet adflictando,
modo singulos nomine ciens, praemiis vocans seditionem coeptabat . . . (Tac. Ann.
2.81.1); Impetu pervagatum incendium plana primum, deinde in edita adsurgens et
rursus inferiora populando anteiit remedia velocitate mali . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.38.3)
As for parallelism, see Aalto (1949: 70), who refers to different versions of the same
message, for instance Vet. Lat. Luc. 18.18 quid faciendo vs. faciens in the Vulgate.
Exceptions to agent/subject identity are rare. An early instance is (f), where the
person hurt by walking is me (see also § 5.35 on the voice value of the gerund).
(f) . . . ut me ambulando rumperet.
(‘. . . he’d burst my guts with running errands.’ Ter. Hec. 435)
Supplement (arguments in italics, satellites in bold italics):
Lumbi sedendo, oculi spectando dolent, / manendo medicum, dum se ex opere
recipiat. (Pl. Men. 882–3); Id opprimi sustentando et prolatando nullo pacto
potest. (Cic. Catil. 4.6); Alitur vitium vivitque tegendo . . . (Verg. G. 3.454); Crescit
enim assidue spectando (spectandi N, spectanti cj. Müller) cura puellae. (Prop. 3.21.3);
Paulatim deinde recipiendo in civitatem qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant matu-
rius vires refectae sunt . . . (Vell. 2.16.4); Nec sine canendo tibicines dicti . . . (Var. L. 6.75)
. Gerundial temporal adjunct clauses
The gerund is used in various prepositional expressions to locate the state of affairs of
the main clause in time. Examples are (a) and (b).
(a) . . . in pariundo aliquot adfuerunt liberae.
(‘. . . there were several free women present at the birth.’ Ter. An. 771)
(b) . . . vociferari inter vapulandum incipit . . .
(‘. . . while the lashing still went on, he began to shout . . .’ Gel. 1.26.7)
Namque ante domandum / ingentis tollent animos . . . (Verg. G. 3.206–7); Pol magis
metuo ne defuerit mihi in monendo oratio. (Pl. Bac. 37); In supponendo ova obser-
vant ut sint numero imparia. (Var. R. 3.9.12); Iam istuc te quoque impediet in navi-
gando et in conserendo, in uxore ducenda in liberis procreandis, plurimisque in
rebus, in quibus nihil sequere praeter probabile. (Cic. Luc. 109); Quid praeterea ad te
scribam non habeo, et mehercule eram in scribendo conturbatior. (Cic. Att. 1.12.4);
Tum Apollinaris, ut mos eius in reprehendendo fuit, . . . (Gel. 13.20.5); . . . si erravit in
solvendo . . . (Ulp. dig. 15.3.3.1); . . . in retinendo iura rerum suarum singulare ius
est. (Jav. dig. 41.2.23.1): . . . in proscindendo duritiam soli . . . convellit armos. (Veg.
Mulom. 4.18); inter ponendum (Enn. fr. inc. 2); Tum inter laudandum hunc timi-
dum tremulis palpebris / percutere nictu. Hic gaudere et mirarier. (Caecil. Com.
193–4); Inter loquendum. (Afran. Com. 423); . . . inter agendum / occursare capro—
cornu ferit ille—caveto. (Verg. Ecl. 9.24–5); . . . suscepta obligatio inter dandum
accipiendumque. (Paul. dig. 13.6.17.3)
NB: Qui cum ad matrem confugissent, in gremio eius inter ipsa oscula trucidantur,
proclamante Arsinoë, quid tantum nefas aut nubendo aut post nuptias contraxisset.
(Justin. 24.3.7–8).
Appendix: There are some ungrammatical instances, resulting from literal transla-
tions from Greek, such as: In autem dormiendo homines venit inimicus (Vet. Lat. Mat.
13.25—NB: corresponding to a subject in a finite clause). See also Wistrand (1967:
71) for discussion.
. Gerundial reason adjunct clauses
Prepositional expressions with causa, gratia, and (in Early Latin) ergo ‘for the sake of ’
in combination with the genitive of the gerund are a very common way of expressing
a person’s motive for doing something. In rare instances, the preposition ob is also
used in this way.
(a) . . . omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut eas fruges atque fructus quos terra
gignit animantium causa, animantes autem hominum, ut ecum vehendi
causa, arandi bovem, venandi et custodiendi canem.
(‘. . . all things were created for the sake of some other thing: thus the corn and fruits
that the earth produces were created for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake
of man: for example the horse for riding, the ox for ploughing, the dog for hunting
and keeping guard.’ Cic. N.D. 2.37)
Supplement:
Eadem nunc nego. / Dicendi, non rem perdendi gratia haec nata est mihi. (Pl. Cur.
705–6); . . . quae (frequentia) convenit uno tempore undique comitiorum, ludorum
censendique causa. (Cic. Ver. 54—NB: coordination); Qui primum illud valde gra-
viter tulerunt, promulgatum ex senatus consulto fuisse ut de eis qui ob iudicandum
accepissent quaereretur. (Cic. Att. 1.17.8)
. Gerundial adjuncts in other semantic relations (ablative and

prepositional expressions)
The bare ablative of the gerund can function as an adjunct of respect (see § 10.90),
as in (a):
(a) . . . cum disserendo par esse non posset . . .
(‘. . . since he was not able to be his equal in discussion . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.240)
Supplement:
P. Scipio . . . Latine loquendo cuivis erat par . . . (Cic. Brut. 128); Sim digna merendo, /
cuius honoratis ossa vehantur avis. (Prop. 4.11.101–2—NB: avis is a conjecture for
mss. aquis)
NB: Textually uncertain: . . . ut neglegens <non> scribendo fuisse videar . . . (Cic. Fam.
3.9.3—so Shackleton Bailey; <in> Lambinus); Etenim quis est tam scribendo (v.l. in
scribendo) impiger quam ego? (Cic. Fam. 2.1.1)
Prepositional gerundial clauses fulfil a variety of semantic functions, depending on

the semantic value of the preposition. They are given here in alphabetical order by
preposition.
Source: Nam sicut a ‘ligando’ ‘lictor’ et a ‘legendo’ ‘lector’ et a ‘viendo’ ‘vitor’ et
‘tuendo’ ‘tutor’ et ‘struendo’ ‘structor’ productis, quae corripiebantur, vocalibus
dicta sunt. (Gel. 12.3.4); . . . quae virtus ex providendo est appellata prudentia . . . (Cic.
Leg. 1.60)
Subject matter: Tibi enim tantum de orationis genere quaerenti respondi etiam brev-
iter de inveniundo et conlocando. (Cic. Orat. 54); Haec ego, inquit, super irascendo
sentio. (Gel. 1.26.3)
Beneficiary: Heus, senex! Pro vapulando hercle ego aps te mercedem petam. (Pl.
Aul. 456)
Restriction: Septimius quoque Tertullianus fuit omni genere litterarum peritus, sed
in eloquendo parum facilis . . . (Lact. Inst. 5.1.23—NB: parallelism)
. Gerundival satellite clauses

Gerundival satellite clauses are either bare case forms or prepositional phrases. Bare
case-form gerundival satellite clauses can appear in the genitive, dative, or ablative.
Following the order of the section on gerundial satellites and bearing in mind that the
precise semantic function of a gerundival clause in its sentence is often a matter of
interpretation, one can recognize a number of different semantic functions, which are
discussed in §§ 16.106–10.
. Gerundival purpose adjunct clauses
The use of genitive gerundival clauses as purpose adjuncts (see also § 10.83) is a typ-
ically Tacitean extension of Latin grammar, although there are earlier instances (some
of them disputed).308 An example is (a). The dative is more common, as in (b), though
still not frequent. Very rare are instances of ablative gerundival clauses that seem to be
intended as purpose adjuncts, as in (c). Prepositional gerundival phrases, by contrast,
are quite common as purpose adjuncts, especially those with ad ‘to’, as in (d). Note
that in (e) it is difficult to find the feature ‘control’ in the main clause, which is usual
with purpose clauses (see also § 16.50).309
(a) . . . Germanicus Aegyptum proficiscitur cognoscendae antiquitatis.
(‘Germanicus set out for Egypt to view its antiquities.’ Tac. Ann. 2.59.1)
(b) Serviendae servituti ego servos instruxi mihi . . .
(‘I schooled my slaves to serve me . . .’ Pl. Mil. 745)
(c) . . . Nero . . . prosequitur abeuntem . . . sive explenda simulatione, seu . . .
(‘. . . Nero . . . escorted her on her way . . . either in order to consummate his hypocrisy,
or . . .’ Tac. Ann. 14.4.4)
(d) Ad aquam praebendam commodum adveni domum.
(‘I’ve come home in the nick of time, to fetch water.’ Pl. Am. 669)
(e) Flamen interim Quirinalis virginesque Vestales . . . quae sacrorum secum
ferenda, quae, quia vires ad omnia ferenda deerant, relinquenda essent
consultantes . . .
(‘Meanwhile the flamen of Quirinus and the Vestal virgins . . . were consulting which
of the sacred things they should carry with them, and which, because they were not
strong enough to carry them all, they must leave behind . . .’ Liv. 5.40.7)
Supplement:
Genitive: Cum dicat Orestes se patris ulciscendi matrem occidisse . . . (Rhet. Her.
1.26); . . . ut si arborum trunci sive naves (trabes cj. Schneider) deiciendi operis causa
308 For a discussion of Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 83–93). For the use of the genitive in Isidore
of Seville, see Maltby (2002: 227–9).
309 For this example, see Torrego (2001: 633).
essent a barbaris missae . . . (causa deest l) (Caes. Gal. 4.17.9);310 . . . arma civilia.
Quae ille adversum divina et humana omnia cepit non pro sua aut quorum simulat
iniuria sed legum ac libertatis subvertundae. (Sal. Hist. 1.77.11); Opus erat partibus
auctoritate gratia, cuius augendae (causa add. Laurent) C. Marium cum filio de exilio
revocavit quique cum iis pulsi erant. (Vell. 2.20.5); . . . clementiam suam obstringens
crebris orationibus, quas Seneca testificando, quam honesta praeciperet, vel iactandi
ingenii voce principis vulgabat. (Tac. Ann. 13.11.2—NB: parallelism with the dative
gerundial clause); Namque hoc genus orationis non capitis defendendi nec suaden-
dae legis nec exercitus adhortandi nec inflammandae contionis scribitur, sed face-
tiarum et voluptatis. (Fro. Laudes fumi et pulveris 3, p. 215.21 vdH—NB: coordination
with genitive nouns; gratia vel causa add. Novák); Quid enim si amicos adhibendos
debitor requirat vel expediendi debiti vel fideiussoribus rogandis? (Ulp. dig.
22.1.21.pr.)
Dative: Ius iurandum rei servandae, non perdendae conditum est. (Pl. Rud. 1374);
Ager oleto conserundo, qui in ventum Favonium spectabit et soli ostentus erit, alius
bonus nullus erit. (Cato Agr. 6.2); Quaeritur argentum puerisque beata creandis /
uxor . . . (Hor. Ep.1.2.44–5); Scipio . . . protinus causis regulorum civitatiumque
cognoscendis . . . Tarraconem rediit. (Liv. 28.16.9–10); . . . ea (sc. testa) non potest in
structura oneri ferendo esse firma. (Vitr. 2.8.19); Temporibusque Augusti dicendis
non defuere decora ingenia . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.1.2); Nec ad invidiam ista, sed concilian-
dae misericordiae refero. (Tac. Ann. 2.37.4—NB: coordination with the ad
phrase); . . . aliquid cibatus refovendo spiritu desidero. (Apul. Met. 1.18.7); Proinde
aurum, aes, argentum, ebur, lignum et quaecumque fabricandis idolis materia capia-
tur, quis in saeculo posuit nisi saeculi auctor Deus? (Tert. Spect. 2.9); (sc. Zenobia) . . . ut
ne virum suum quidem scierit nisi temptandis (cj. Cornelissen, temptatis P) concep-
tionibus. (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 30.12); (sc. Zenobia) . . . iterum potestatem quaerendis
liberis dabat. (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 30.12); Et quia nec arietibus admovendis nec ad
intentandas machinas vel, ut possint forari cuniculi, inveniebatur locus usquam habi-
lis disparatione brevi civitatem Natisone amni praeterlabente, commentum excogi-
tatum est cum veteribus admirandum. (Amm. 21.12.8—NB: parallelism)
NB: with the verb esse: Poenam illorum sibi oneri, inpunitatem perdundae rei pub-
licae fore credebat. (Sal. Cat. 46.2); . . . ea modo quae restinguendo igni forent por-
tantes in agmen Romanum ruebant. (Liv. 30.6.3)
Ablative: Iam qui ad muros differenda morte properaverant aut fossas cadaveribus
aequabant aut . . . (Paneg. 2.34.3)
Prepositional phrases (in alphabetical order by preposition): Hic in noxa’st. Ille ad
defendundam causam adest. (Ter. Ph. 266); Cum ad rem publicam liberandam
accessi . . . (Cic. Fam. 11.10.5); Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium
capiendum adferebat . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.10.1); Dimisso conventu decem legati . . . ad libe-
randas suae quisque regionis civitates discesserunt . . . (Liv. 33.35.1); Carcer enim ad
continendos homines, non ad puniendos haberi debet (Ulp. dig. 48.19.8.9); . . . si
arborum trunci sive trabes deiciendi operis causa essent a barbaris missae . . . (Caes.
Gal. 4.17.10—NB: causa is omitted in one part of the manuscript tradition); Qui
accepto oraculo carendi furoris causa . . . (Hyg. Fab. 261); Ex hoc tanto numero
310 Eden (1962: 92) considers causa ‘a quite usual instance of trivialization’.
deductus est nemo, et cum illam pecuniam nominatim Flacco datam referant,
maiorem aliam cum huic eidem darent in aedem sacram reficiendam se perscrip-
sisse dicunt, quod minime convenit. (Cic. Flac. 44); Qui in navem exstruendam
vel instruendam credidit vel etiam emendam . . . (Paul. dig. 42.5.26); Praeterea ad
Troiam cum misi ob defendendam Graeciam . . . (Enn. scen. 313V—see Jocelyn
p. 394); . . . eadem precor ab isdem dis immortalibus ob eiusdem hominis consula-
tum una cum salute obtinendum, et ut vestrae mentes atque sententiae cum populi
Romani voluntatibus suffragiisque consentiant eaque res vobis populoque Romano
pacem tranquillitatem otium concordiamque adferat. (Cic. Mur. 1—NB: parallelism
with ut clause); Ac primo mediocria gerebat, existumans Iugurtham ob suos tutandos
in manus venturum. (Sal. Jug. 89.2); Cum L. Papirius Cursor dictator reversus in
urbem ab exercitu esset propter auspicia repetenda, Q. Fabius, magister equitum,
occasione bene gerendae rei invitatus, contra edictum eius prospere adversus
Samnites pugnavit. (Liv. Per. 8); . . . propter terrendos miseros viatores in summo
atque edito sarcinarum cumulo ad instar exercitus sedulo composuerat. (Apul. Met.
10.1.2)
In (very) Late Latin bare accusative gerundival clauses occur as purpose adjuncts (in
place of prepositional expressions with ad), especially with verbs of movement. The
same occurs with gerundial clauses (see § 16.100). The earliest instance, which is
dubious, is (f).311
(f) Probabili argumento firmandam fidem (<ad> firmandam edd.) reperto . . .
(‘Having invented a plausible means for strengthening his confidence . . .’ Amm.
15.5.21)
Supplement:
. . . iste homo Dei, qui a Deo obiurgandum Hieroboam regem fuerit missus . . . (Lucif.
Cal. Non Conv. 3)
. Gerundival instrument/manner adjunct clauses
Bare ablative gerundival clauses functioning as instrument/manner adjuncts are not

very frequent. They are very rare in Early Latin, are not uncommon in Classical Latin,
but become infrequent once more soon after the Classical period. Most often the abla-
tive gerundival clause describes the method used in effecting something, the factors
leading up to a certain result, or the manner in which something is obtained. Further
distinctions are difficult to make and depend entirely on the context. Prepositional
gerundival expressions with these semantic functions are rare. Very often the agent of
the gerundival clause is identical with the subject of the matrix clause (or agent if the
verb is passive). Examples are (a) and (b).
(a) His enim ipsis legendis in memoriam redeo mortuorum.
(‘For by reading them I refresh my recollection of the dead.’ Cic. Sen. 21)
311 More instances, mainly from Fredegar, can be found in Odelstierna (1926: 32–42).
(b) Qui partis honoribus eosdem in foro gessi labores quos petendis.
(‘(I,) who, after my honours have been won, have spent the same labour in the forum
as when I was seeking them.’ Cic. Phil. 6.17)
Supplement:
Nisi patrem materno sanguine exanclando ulciscerem . . . (Enn. scen. 147V=144J);
Aggerundaque aqua sunt viri duo defessi. (Pl. Poen. 224); Iane pater, te hac strue
ommovenda bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi . . . (Cato Agr. 134.2);
Ancillas, servos, nisi eos qui opere rustico / faciundo facile sumptum exsercirent
suom, / omnis produxi ac vendidi. (Ter. Hau. 142–4); . . . ne dicendis sententiis
aliquem tribunum alienarem. (Cic. Att. 7.4.2); Qua cum ipsi Caesari nihil esset
utilius, gratiam quoque nos inire ab eo defendenda pace arbitrabamur. (Cic. Fam.
4.2.3); . . . tractandis condicionibus et simulatione deditionis extracto primo noctis
tempore . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.28.5); Tam felix vobis corrumpendis fuit, qui servitia non
commovit auctor? (Liv. 3.17.2); L. Trebonius . . . insectandis . . . patribus, unde Aspero
etiam inditum est cognomen, tribunatum gessit. (Liv. 3.65.3–4); Reliquum diei expe-
diendis armis et curatione corporum consumptum, et maior pars noctis quieti data
est. (Liv. 25.38.23—NB: coordination with a noun phrase); Inopiae quoque abietis
aut sappinorum vitabuntur utendo cupresso . . . (Vitr. 1.2.8); Omnibus quidem virtu-
tum generibus exercendis colendisque populus Romanus e parva origine ad tantae
amplitudinis instar emicuit . . . (Gel. 20.1.39)
Prepositional phrase: Efficeretur per exceptionem mihi opponendam . . . (Paul. dig.
2.14.27.5)
However, there are also instances in which the agent and the subject are not identical,
as in (c), and instances in which the state of affairs of the main clause is [–control], as
in (d). In such cases the semantic relationship between the gerundival and the matrix
clause is more difficult to describe. (See also § 16.101 on gerundial satellite clauses
with these semantic functions and § 5.37 on the voice value of the gerundive.)
(c) . . . <cum multitudo> . . . plausum meo nomine recitando dedisset, habui con-
tionem.
(‘. . . when the people had applauded at the reading out of my name, I addressed them.’
Cic. Att. 4.1.6)
(d) . . . Antonius coniectura movenda aut sedanda suspicione aut excitanda
incredibilem vim habebat . . .
(‘. . . Antonius possessed incredible skill in creating a presumption of probability, in
allaying or in provoking a suspicion . . .’ Cic. Brut. 144)
Supplement:
Ita te aggerunda curvom aqua faciam probe, / ut postilena possit ex te fieri. (Pl. Cas.
124–5); At puer Ascanius . . . triginta magnos volvendis mensibus orbis / imperio
explebit . . . (Verg. A. 1.267–70); . . . ut contra eo violentior potestas tribunicia inpedi-
endo dilectu esset . . . (Liv. 6.31.4); Prolatandis igitur comitiis cum dictator magistratu
abisset, res ad interregnum rediit. (Liv. 7.21.2); Rem per se popularem ita dextere
egit, ut medendis corporibus animi multo prius militum imperatori reconciliaren-
tur . . . (Liv. 8.36.7); Nam fruendis voluptatibus crescit carendi dolor. (Plin. Ep. 8.5.2)
Sometimes the semantic relationship is made explicit (see § 16.89 for this phenom-
enon in participial clauses) by the presence of a subordinator or an adverb, which
enables a wider range of semantic relations between the gerundival and matrix clauses.
Supplement:
Quam ob rem eas manibus ipsis agricolarum ingessit vertique iussit ipsa die folia et
esse confecti sideris signum, nec silvestrium arborum remotarumque, ut in saltus
devios montesque eundum esset quaerentibus signa, non rursus urbanarum quaeque
topiario tantum coluntur, quamquam his et in villa visendis. (Plin. Nat. 18.265—NB:
the clause seems to indicate a possibility); . . . pars Philippopolim exindeque Serdicam,
alia Macedoniam cum intemeratis opibus, quas vehebant, omni studio properandum
(<ad> properandum add. Lindenborg) excogitato currebant velut in regionibus illis
repperiendo Valente. (Amm. 31.16.2)
The gerundive developed into a form of future passive participle in Late Latin (see
§ 7.84). There are a few instances in Ammianus Marcellinus of a gerundival satellite in
which the gerundive is used in this way.
Supplement:
Pauca itaque super benevolo omnium flumine Nilo, quem Aegyptum Homerus
appellat, praestringi conveniet mox ostendendis aliis, quae sunt in his regionibus
admiranda. (Amm. 22.15.3); At in Galliis fervorum tenore gliscente diffusis per nos-
tra Germanis iamque Alpibus ad vastandam Italiam perrumpendis nihil multa et
nefanda perpessis hominibus praeter lacrimas supererat . . . (Amm. 25.4.25); Sex
milium enim annorum in sex diebus tempus ostenditur, quo circa mundum est ober-
ratum et quodam generationum circulo circumcursatum, eodem ipso mundo ad
tubae vocem in tempore septimo millesimo resolvendo, sola ecclesia . . . reservanda.
(Hil. Myst. 2.10)
. Gerundival temporal/circumstantial adjunct clauses
Clear-cut instances of bare case temporal gerundival clauses do not exist. There are a
few which may be labelled ‘circumstantial’. In any case, the distinction between these
instances and those in the preceding section is vague. Prepositional expressions (espe-
cially with in ‘at’) are not uncommon.
(a) . . . labores qui sint re publica (<in> re p. add. Schuetz) defendenda sus-
tinendi . . .
(‘. . . the labours that must be performed in the defence of the state . . .’ Cic. Rep. 1.4)
(b) . . . quod · in · incendio / restinguendo · interi<t>.
(‘. . . because he died while trying to put out a fire.’ CIL XIV.4494.6–7 (Ostia, time of
Augustus))
Supplement:
Ablative: Accitus, sicut Romulus augurato urbe condenda regnum adeptus est, de se
quoque deos consuli iussit. (Liv. 1.18.6); Ipse cum peditum agmine castris egreditur,
nec ex ordine solito quicquam acie instruenda (<in> acie instruenda edd., but see
Weissenborn ad loc.) mutat. (Liv. 28.14.11)
Prepositional phrase (in alphabetical order by preposition): . . . ante conditam
condendamve urbem . . . (Liv. praef. 6); Nam in prologis scribundis operam abuti-
tur . . . (Ter. An. 5); Magnum crimen vel in legatis insidiandis vel in servis ad hos-
pitem domini necandum sollicitandis, plenum sceleris consilium, plenum audaciae!
(Cic. Cael. 51); Sic in interpretando, in definiendo, in explicanda aequitate nihil
erat Crasso copiosius. (Cic. Brut. 144); Principia autem in sententiis dicendis brevia
esse debebunt. (Cic. Part. 97); Sed ego nulla in re malo quam in te amando constans
et esse et videri. (Cic. ad Brut. 1.15.13); . . . rei publicae, quae te in me restituendo
multum adiuvisset . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.9.4); Ex victoribus ducenti triginta septem milites
perierunt, plures in matutina fuga quam in recipiendis castris. (Liv. 41.4.8—NB:
coordination with a prepositional phrase); . . . et in versu faciendo / saepe caput sca-
beret . . . (Hor. S. 1.10.70–1); Puer ipse quem vult sequatur, ut sit illi saltem in eli-
gendo fratre [salva] libertas. (Petr. 80.5); Sed inter rem agendam istam erae huic
respondi quod rogabat. (Pl. Cist. 721); . . . et ille inter aurum accipiendum et in spem
pacis solutis animis Gallos adgressus sit . . . (Liv. 6.11.5); Comitiali quoque morbo bis
inter res agendas correptus est. (Suet. Jul. 45.1)
. Gerundival reason adjunct clauses
There are a few gerundival reason clauses, with ob and propter. It is not easy to distin-
guish them from purpose expressions (see § 16.106).
(a) Si erunt plures qui ob innocentem condemnandum pecuniam acceperint . . .
(‘Should there be several who have taken a bribe to condemn an innocent man . . .’
Cic. Clu. 129)
Supplement:
Ergo ut omittam tuos peculatus, ut ob ius dicendum pecunias acceptas, ut eiusmodi
cetera quae forsitan alii quoque etiam fecerint, illud in quo te gravissime accusavi,
quod ob iudicandam rem pecuniam accepisses, eadem ista ratione defendes, fecisse
alios? (Cic. Ver. 3.206); Propter litem inofficiosi testamenti ordinandam exheredato
filio . . . (Papin. dig. 26.2.26.2)
. Gerundival adjunct clauses in other semantic functions (mostly

prepositional phrases)
There are very few gerundival clauses that function as a respect adjunct. The gerund-
ive in (a) finds support in the use of an ablative noun with melior ‘better’ in Virgil (see
§ 11.92, Supplement).
(a) Ipse pugnae avidus et contemnendis quam cavendis hostibus melior . . .
(‘Himself eager for battle and better in despising than in guarding against enemies . . .’
Tac. Hist. 4.71.1)
Supplement:
. . . qualis excipiendo hoste, quam resistenti vehemens, quam facilis supplicanti.
(Paneg. 4.37.2)
Gerundival clauses are used in various other semantic functions, depending on the
meaning of the prepositions involved. Examples are (b) and (c).
(b) Qui de amittenda Bacchide aurum hic exiget.
(‘Who’ll demand money here for letting Bacchis go.’ Pl. Bac. 223)
(c) Consiliis tuis quae scribis de quattuor legionibus deque agris adsignandis ab
utroque vestrum vehementer adsentior.
(‘I emphatically agree with your advice in what you write about the four legions and
the assignment of lands by the two of you.’ Cic. Fam. 11.21.5—NB: explicit agent)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by preposition; arguments in italics):
Fuit (sc. Tubero) autem patricius et transit a causis agendis ad ius civile . . . (Pompon.
dig. 1.2.2.46); Atque hoc etiam Plato ibidem dicit non defugiendas esse neque
respuendas huiuscemodi exercitationes adversum propulsandam vini violen-
tiam . . . (Gel. 15.2.6); Inde illa veterum circa occultandam eloquentiam simulatio,
multum ab hac nostrorum temporum iactatione diversa. (Quint. Inst. 4.1.9); Circa
conlocandos quoque calices observari oportet ut ad lineam ordinentur . . . (Fron. Aq.
113.1); A. d. XIII Kal. Ian. senatus [aut] frequens mihi est adsensus cum de ceteris
rebus magnis et necessariis tum de provinciis ab iis qui obtinerent retinendis neque
cuiquam tradendis nisi qui ex senatus consulto successisset. (Cic. Fam. 12.22a.1—
NB: explicit agent); Alterum quod sine edicto satis commode transigi non potest, de
hereditatum possessionibus, de bonis possidendis, magistris faciendis, <bonis>
vendendis, quae ex edicto et postulari et fieri solent. (Cic. Att. 6.1.15—NB: coordin-
ation with abstract noun); De mercennariis testibus a suis civitatibus notandis,
nisi iam factum aliquid est per Flaccum, fiet a me cum per Asiam decedam. (Cic.
Fam. 3.11.3—NB: explicit agent); (sc. fama) erga haec explicanda, quae Romae
sunt, obsolescit . . . (Amm. 16.10.17); Leno te argentum poscit, solida servitus, /
pro liberanda amica . . . (Pl. Per. 425–6); Quod divo Marco pro libertatibus con-
servandis placuit . . . (Papin. dig. 40.4.50 pr.); Quae autem in testamento diximus
super prohibendis testimoniis . . . (Ulp. dig. 28.1.20.3); . . . missurum ad impera-
torem Romanum legatos super petenda Armenia et firmanda pace respondet . . .
(Tac. Ann. 15.5.4)
. Supine satellite clauses

The two so-called supines are usually described as (originally) accusative and ablative
singular forms of a deverbal noun in -us (see § 3.21). Whether this explanation is cor-
rect or not (see the individual sections), it does not explain why the first supine (in
-um) is active and—if the verb is two- or three-place—is found in combination with
arguments, and in Post-Classical authors also with satellites, whereas the second
supine (in -u) is passive and is not found with arguments or satellites. As their proper-
ties are different, so their histories are different. Both were restricted to a number of
Supine clauses 421
idiomatic expressions by the time of Cicero, but were to some extent revitalized in
poetry and literary prose, sometimes beyond the structural properties we know from
Early Latin. They did not survive in the Romance languages.
. The use of the first supine (in -um) as a purpose adjunct
The first supine (in -um) is found with one- or two-place verbs of movement (e.g. eo
‘to go’, venio ‘to come’, and mitto ‘to send’) and with verbs implying movement (e.g.
voco ‘to call’, do ‘to give’) to express the purpose of that action. By far the most com-
mon verb with which the first supine occurs is eo, both when physical movement is
involved, as in (a), and in a more abstract sense, as in (b). It is in the latter sense that
it is also used as a substitute for the future passive infinitive, as in (c) (further details
in § 7.72). The first supine, usually regarded as an accusative form (see § 3.21), is
sometimes explained as the goal of the movement, indicating ‘whither’, but the pres-
ence of two explicit goal constituents in (a) (huc and ad vicinam) shows that questum,
whatever its prehistory, is not a goal constituent (see also the first note below). The
subject of eo is animate, mostly human (with a very few Late exceptions).312 The sec-
ond and third argument of the supine can be expressed, like erum in (f). Satellites are
almost unattested except after the Classical authors. The supine in -um is relatively
common in Early Latin in a restricted number of combinations (partly due to the fact
that there is much coming and going in Latin comedy), but it gradually loses ground
to competing purpose expressions, especially the active infinitive and gerundi(v)al
clauses. However, poets and historians use it in varying degrees, expanding its clausal
possibilities. It is relatively popular in the archaizing authors Apuleius and Gellius.313
(a) Nunc huc meas fortunas eo questum ad vicinam.
(‘Now I’m going here to my neighbour to complain about my misfortunes.’ Pl.
Cas. 162)
(b) Mox hercle vero post transactam fabulam, / argentum si quis dederit, ut ego
suspicor, / ultro ibit nuptum, non manebit auspices.
(‘But soon, after the play has reached its end, I suspect if anyone gives her money
she’ll marry him willingly and won’t wait for the augurs.’ Pl. Cas. 84–6)
(c) . . . nisi se sciat vilico non datum iri.
(‘. . . unless she knows she won’t be given to the overseer.’ Pl. Cas. 699)
(d) Inde partem equitatus atque ferentarios praedatum misit.
(‘Then he sent out part of the cavalry and the light troops to go looting.’ Cato Mil. 6(J))
(e) . . . quo me in silvam venatum vocas?
(‘. . . where are you calling me to hunt in the woods?’ Pl. Men. 835)
312 See TLL s.v. eo 648.51ff.

313 For a survey of the first supine forms (although slightly out of date), see Draeger (1878: II.824–8).
For Caesar’s use of the first supine, see Carducci (2018).
(f) Tune es qui hau multo prius / abiisti hinc erum accersitum?
(‘Aren’t you the one who went away a little earlier to fetch his master?’ Pl. Rud. 1055–6)
Supplement:
Eam ero nunc renuntiatum est nuptum huic Megadoro dari. (Pl. Aul. 604); Vos in
aram abite sessum. (Pl. Rud. 707); Libii qui aquatum ut lignatum videntur ire
securim atque lorum ferunt . . . (Cato hist. 33=30C); Siquando illa dicet ‘Phaedriam /
intro mittamu’ comissatum’, Pamphilam / cantatum provocemu’. (Ter. Eu.
441–3); . . . illud videndum, ut satis sit verecundi etiam illam in eandem arenam
vocare pugnatum. (Var. L. 10.2.19); . . . et unde hospites atque amici gratulatum
Romam concurrerent repente exsistet ipse nuntius suae calamitatis! (Cic. Mur.
89); . . . senatoribus singulis spectatum e senatu redeuntibus. (Cic. Sest. 117); . . . tamen
quid potius faciam prius quam me dormitum conferam, non reperio. (Cic. Fam.
9.26.1); Proximo die praesidio in castris relicto universas ad aquam copias educunt.
Pabulatum emittitur nemo. (Caes. Civ. 1.81.5); . . . sororem ex matre et propinquas
suas nuptum in alias civitates collocasse. (Caes. Gal. 1.18.7); Bello Helvetiorum
confecto totius fere Galliae legati principes civitatum ad Caesarem gratulatum con-
venerunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.30.1); Remiges interim qui aquatum e navibus exierant . . .
(B. Afr. 7.5); Ipse in finitima regione Persidis hiematum copias divisit . . . (Nep. Eum.
8.1—NB: movement implied); Inde frumentatum duas exercitus partes mittebat.
(Liv. 22.23.9); Cum sole eunt cubitum (sc. galli gallinacei) . . . (Plin. Nat. 10.46);
Praeponam enim unum ex libertis sepulcro meo custodiae causa, ne in monumen-
tum meum populus cacatum currat. (Petr. 71.8 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . omnem
viciniam suppetiatum convocans . . . (Apul. Met. 7.7.2); . . . abeunt libidinatum ad
filias Moab . . . (Tert. Scorp. 3.4)
With arguments (and satellites) expressed (in italics and bold italics, respect-
ively): . . . nunc venis etiam ultro irrisum dominum. (Pl. Am. 587); Quid ego <de te
d>emerui, adulescens, mali, / quam ob rem ita faceres meque meosque perditum ires
liberos? (Pl. Aul. 735–6); . . . qui magis potueritis mi honorem ire habitum . . . (Pl. Cist.
4); Iam hercle ego per hortum ad amicam transibo meam / mi hanc occupatum
noctem. (Pl. St. 437–8); . . . tum venias. # Vae aetati tuae! / # Vasa lautum non ad
cenam dico. (Pl. St. 594–5); Ego . . . / prosilui amicum castigatum innoxium (Pl. Trin.
215–16); Atque equidem ipsus ultro venit Philto oratum filio. (Pl. Trin. 611); Alii di
isse ad villam aiebant servis depromptum cibum. (Pl. Trin. 944); . . . missa’st ancilla
ilico / obstetricem accersitum ad eam et puerum ut adferret simul. (Ter. An. 514–15—
NB: coordination with purpose ut clause); Idque adeo venio nuntiatum, Demipho, /
paratum me esse. (Ter. Ph. 906–7); Quid tum? ‘Inde ibi ego te ex iure manum conser-
tum voco’. (Cic. Mur. 26); Etsi admonitum venimus te, non flagitatum. (Cic. de Orat.
3.17); Quo ex oppido cum legati ad eum venissent oratum, ut sibi ignosceret suaeque
vitae consuleret . . . obsides dari iubet. (Caes. Gal. 7.12.3); . . . Nectenebin adiutum pro-
fectus regnum ei constituit. (Nep. Cha. 2.1); Nupta tu quoque quae tuus / vir petet
cave ne neges / ni petitum aliunde eat. (Catul. 61.151–3); . . . licentiam in vos auctum
atque adiutum properatis. Neque ego vos ultum iniurias hortor . . . (Sal. Hist. 3.48.
16–17—NB: remarkable use of hortor); Tamen interim transfugas et alios opportunos,
Iugurtha ubi gentium aut quid agitaret, cum paucisne esset an exercitum haberet, ut sese
victus gereret, exploratum misit (sc. Metellus). (Sal. Jug. 54.2); Si fortuna permittitis uti
/ quaesitum Aenean et moenia Pallantea, . . . (Verg. A. 9.240–1—NB: quaesitum is
Supine clauses 423
taken as a supine from Antiquity onwards, but it is very odd in its context; see Dingel
ad loc., who suggests it is a perfect passive participle); Hic sponsum vocat, hic audi-
tum scripta . . . (Hor. Ep. 2.2.67); . . . atque in me veniat mictum atque cacatum / Iulius
et fragilis Pediatia furque Voranus. (Hor. S. 1.8.38–9); In ea castra Q. Fabius,
P. Volumnius, A. Postumius legati ab Roma venerunt questum iniurias et ex foedere
res repetitum. (Liv. 3.25.6); . . . eamque iniuriam excidio ipsius ultum iturum. (Tac.
Ann. 12.45.1); Tradunt plerique eorum temporum scriptores crebris ante exitium
diebus inlusum isse pueritia<e> Britannici Neronem . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.17.2); . . . quin
omni sententiarum via servatum ire socios niteretur. (Gel. 6.3.44); Corvus et vulpis
unam offulam simul viderant eamque raptum festinabant . . . (Apul. Soc. Prol. 4)314
There is one instance of a supine in an answer to a question with quo ‘whither’, clearly
a joke:
(g) Quo nunc ibas? # Exulatum.
(‘Where were you going just now? # Into exile.’ Pl. Mer. 884)
There are a number of idiomatic expressions consisting of supine (-like) forms like
pessum and venum in combination with verbs like eo and do, which occur with actual
supines as well. Another idiom is herctum cieo. (See also § 10.8.)
. The so-called second supine in -u
The so-called second supine construction is found from Early Latin onwards. It is
not very frequent (some 600 instances reported); a large number of the supine forms
come from a limited number of verbs with a fairly general meaning, such as factu,
auditu, dictu. The regular construction consists of a combination of an adjective and
a second supine form which can function as subject or object complement at the
clause level, as in (a), where facilia factu is the subject complement in the passive
clause with facta haec sunt, or as an attribute at the noun phrase level, as in (b)—
repeated from § 3.21. In (c), factu optumum is combined with the copula.315
(a) . . . quorum opera mihi facilia factu facta haec sunt quae volui effieri.
(‘. . . through your hard work the things I wanted done became easy for me to do.’ Pl.
Per. 761)
(b) Bonam atque iustam rem oppido imperas et factu facilem.
(‘That’s an absolutely fine and reasonable suggestion—and easy enough to carry out.’
Ter. Hau. 704)
(c) Nunc hoc mihi factu est optumum, ut ted auferam, / aula, in Fidei fanum.
(‘Now this is the best thing for me to do, my pot: to carry you off into the shrine of
Good Faith.’ Pl. Aul. 582–3)
314 For the so-called Prologus, see Hunink (1995).

315 For a general discussion of the second supine, see Lambertz (1982: 542–4) and Kroon (1989a). The
most complete survey of instances is Sjöstrand (1891). For a survey of dictu combinations, see TLL s.v.
dico 969.58ff. See also s.v. dignus 1152.71ff; facilis 59.52ff. For the use of the construction by various
authors, see Sz.: 382–3.
In the above examples factu might be omitted without making the remaining expres-
sion ungrammatical or meaningless. The situation is different in (d) and (e).
(d) Virtus difficilis inventu est, rectorem ducemque desiderat.
(‘Virtue is difficult to find; it needs a director and guide.’ Sen. Nat. 3.30.8)
(e) In his igitur rebus cum bona sint, facile est intellectu quae sint contraria.
(‘As then there are good things in these departments, it is easy to understand what
things are the opposite of good.’ Cic. Part. 88)
In (d), inventu seems to be optional: virtus difficilis est is syntactically correct. However,
semantically, virtus is the patient of inventu. An alternative, more or less synonymous,
formulation would be: difficile est virtutem invenire ‘it is difficult to find virtue’, where
virtutem is the object of the infinitive invenire and the combination virtutem invenire
the subject of difficile est. In (e), the indirect question quae sint contraria is the subject
of facile est intellectu. Unlike in (d), leaving out intellectu would not result in a seman-
tically and syntactically acceptable formulation. Semantically, the indirect question is
the patient of intellectu. An alternative formulation would be facile est intellegere, with
a present infinitive instead of the supine. In that case the infinitive would be the sub-
ject of facile est and quae sint contraria the object of intellegere. On the basis of
instances like (d) and (e) the subjects in (a) and (c) can also be interpreted as seman-
tically related to factu. An analogous explanation can be given for rem in (b).
At the clause level various types of constituents may function as subject. In (a), it is
the autonomous relative clause haec . . . quae volui effieri; in (c), an ut clause with a
preparative pronoun hoc; in (e), an indirect question; accusative and infinitive clauses
are also not uncommon. These clauses more often follow the supine. For a noun, see
virtus in (d). The subject is rarely a human being or concrete entity.
The adjectives with which the second supine is used are evaluative, indicating the
feasibility or easiness of performing a certain action or the moral or physical quality
of the entity involved in such an action. Most of the adjectives involved are one-place,
as in (f) and (g). Noteworthy exceptions are dignus ‘worthy’ and indignus ‘unworthy’,
which govern an ablative, as in (h) (see § 4.101). Some adjectives with which the
supine is used also occur with dative arguments, for example, iucundus ‘pleasant’ (see
§ 4.100). See also facilis in (l) with a dative and a supine.
(f) Estne hoc miserum memoratu?
(‘Isn’t this a sorry tale?’ Pl. Cist. 229)
(g) . . . incredibile memoratu est quam facile coaluerint.
(‘. . . it is unbelievable to relate how easily they merged.’ Sal. Cat. 6.2)
(h) . . . nihil dignum memoratu actum.
(‘. . . nothing worthy of relation was accomplished.’ Liv. 4.43.2)
(i) Aut (sc. quid est) tam iucundum cognitu atque auditu quam sapientibus
sententiis gravibusque verbis ornata oratio et polita?
(‘Or what is so pleasing to the understanding and the ear as a speech adorned and
polished with wise reflections and dignified language?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.29)
Supine clauses 425
As to the supine forms that are used, authors like Cicero and Livy, who have many
instances of the second supine (due to the size of the preserved corpus), on average
use each supine form about four times. The supine has limited verbal properties:
satellites, as Latino sermone in (j), or argumentlike constituents, as in (k) and (l), are
very rare. Many instances are parenthetical, as is the well-known Virgilian expression
in (m).
(j) Ex his (sc. oppidis) digna memoratu aut Latino sermone dictu facilia, a flumine
Ana litore Oceani oppidum Ossonoba . . .
(‘Worthy of mention in this district, or easy to say in Latin, are: on the ocean coast
beginning at the river Guadiana, the town Ossonoba . . .’ Plin. Nat. 3.7)
(k) Quod scire vis qua quisque in te fide sit et voluntate, difficile dictu est de
singulis.
(‘As to your desire to know how this person and that has behaved and felt towards
you, it is difficult to speak of individuals.’ Cic. Fam. 1.7.2)
(l) Sed ea cuncta Romanis ex tenebris et editioribus locis facilia visu magnoque
hortamento erant.
(‘Now, all this was easy to see for the Romans from their higher position in the
darkness and encouraged them greatly.’ Sal. Jug. 98.7)
(m) Infert se saeptus nebula (mirabile dictu) / per medios miscetque viris, neque
cernitur ulli.
(‘Veiled in a cloud, he enters—wondrous to tell—through their midst, and mingles
with the people, seen by none.’ Verg. A. 1.439–40)
Supplement:
Clause level: Ita ridicula auditu iteratu ea (sc. facta) sunt, quae ego intus turbavi. (Pl.
Cas. 880); Simul flare sorbereque hau factu facile est. (Pl. Mos. 791); . . . difficile est
hoc genus exornationis inventu . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.39); Difficile est dictu, Quirites,
quanto in odio simus apud exteras nationes . . . (Cic. Man. 65); Nec hoc tam re est
quam dictu inopinatum atque mirabile. (Cic. Parad. 35—NB: parallelism); Incredibile
dictu est quam multi Graeci de harum valvarum pulchritudine scriptum reliquerint.
(Cic. Ver. 4.124); . . . nascenti cui tris animas Feronia mater / —horrendum dictu—
dederat . . . (Verg. A. 8.564–5); Sapiens, vitatu quidque petitu / sit melius, causas red-
det tibi. (Hor. S. 1.4.115–16); Id dictu quam re, ut pleraque, facilius erat. (Liv.
31.38.3—NB: parallelism); Ista dabunt formam, sed erunt deformia visu, / multaque,
dum fiunt, turpia, facta placent. (Ov. Ars 3.217–18); Nec proinde diiudicari potest
quid optimum factu fuerit quam pessimum fuisse quod factum est. (Tac. Hist. 2.39.2);
Tum magister comperto, quamobrem malum desideraret, non, uti iussus erat,
maiorem, sed quem esse magis idoneum aptioremque faciendo arieti facilioremque
portatu existimabat, minorem misit. (Gel. 1.13.12—NB: parallel gerundival clause);
Est enim paene supra humanum modum ne in cogitationem quidem admittere quod
sit vel factu malum vel inprobum dictu. (Lact. Inst. 6.13.8); . . . si quod inpossibile
nobis est factu, illi possibile atque ad modum obsecutionis paratum? (Arn. 2.35)
Noun phrase level: Tanta factu modo mira miris modis / intus vidi . . . (Pl. Cas.
625–6—NB: mira used substantivally); . . . hasce herbas huius modi in suom alvom
congerunt / formidulosas dictu, non esu modo. (Pl. Ps. 823–4); . . . quam levia genere
ipso, quam falsa re, quam brevia responsu! (Cic. Clu. 164—NB: parallelism); O rem
non modo visu foedam sed etiam auditu! (Cic. Phil. 2.63); O rem cum auditu
crudelem, tum visu nefariam! (Cic. Planc. 99); . . . cum paucis amicis et quaestore
nostro quasi obvius honoris causa procedit in tumulum facillumum visu insidianti-
bus. (Sal. Jug. 113.5); Ipse arduus altaque pulsat / sidera (di talem terris avertite pes-
tem!) / nec visu facilis nec dictu affabilis ulli. (Verg. A. 3.619–21); Sed si vera potius
quam dictu speciosa dicenda sunt, cupido imperii duos cognatos vicinosque populos
ad arma stimulat. (Liv. 1.23.7); . . . eximuntur grana piperis magnitudine, candida,
dulcia, facilia purgatu. (Plin. Nat. 27.95); Quaedam pudenda dictu tanta auctorum
adseveratione commendantur, ut praeterire fas non sit . . . (Plin. Nat. 29.61); Nescio quid
visu dubium incertumque moveri / corporaque ire videt. (Stat. Theb. 10.391–2); . . .
lagoena iuxta orificio caesim deasceato patescens facilis (facili cj. Luetjohann)
<h>auritu . . . (Apul. Met. 2.15.6)
The second supine can be used with the nouns fas and nefas in combination with the
verb sum ‘it is (not) permissible’, which has more or less the same meaning as the
adjectives mentioned above. In (n), an accusative and infinitive clause functions as
the subject; in (o), hoc. From the combination with gerundive forms like horrendus
‘terrible’ and pudendus ‘shameful’ the step to the combination of a finite verb form
with a supine seems to have been made by Tacitus in (p). There are a few continu-
ations of both constructions in Late Latin.
(n) Quia profecto videtis nefas esse dictu miseram fuisse talem senectutem.
(‘Because you surely realize now that it would be monstrous to call unhappy such an
old age as his.’ Cic. Sen. 13)
(o) Humanus . . . animus . . . cum alio nullo nisi cum ipso deo, si hoc fas est dictu,
comparari potest.
(‘The human mind . . . can be compared with nothing else, if it is right to say so, save
God alone.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.38)
(p) . . . nisi si Gallos et Germanos et—pudet dictu—Britannorum plerosque . . .
fide et adfectu teneri putatis.
(‘. . . unless you suppose that Gauls and Germans, and even—to their shame be it
spoken—many of the tribes of Britain . . . are attached to Rome by loyalty and liking.’
Tac. Agr. 32.1)
The second supine was clearly in decline in the Classical and Silver Latin periods. It is
absent from Petronius. The archaists Apuleius and Gellius have it relatively often.
Among the ecclesiastical authors Arnobius uses it often, Tertullian not at all.
Alternative expressions were gerundial and gerundival clauses (see §§ 17.32–3) and
the passive infinitive—especially in poetry—(see § 17.29).
It is sometimes difficult to make a distinction between a second supine and the abla-
tive form of a deverbal noun in -us functioning as respect adjunct (see § 10.91 and
§ 11.92), but sometimes the semantics helps, as in (q) and (r). Note in (r) and (s) the
parallelism with the other adjective phrases.
Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses 427
(q) . . . servos is habitu hau probu’st.316

(‘. . . well, he is a slave who isn’t worth keeping.’ Pl. St. 59)
(r) Non hodieque magna Scytharum pars tergis vulpium induitur ac murum,
quae tactu mollia et inpenetrabilia ventis sunt?
(‘Even at the present day does not a large portion of the Scythian tribe garb
itself in the skins of foxes and mice, soft to the touch and impervious to the
winds?’ Sen. Ep. 90.16—NB: ventis is dative)
(s) Alter, o di boni, quam taeter incedebat, quam truculentus, quam terribilis
aspectu!
(‘The other, O ye good gods! how horrible was his approach, how savage,
how terrible was he to look at!’ Cic. Sest. 19)
The origin of the construction and its relation to the first supine in -um have received
much attention in the literature. The second supine is normally regarded as an abla-
tive form, although some scholars regard it as a dative.317 Those who regard it as an
ablative form do not agree on how to explain it.
The second supine construction has (partial) parallels in other languages, for
example English John is easy to please. ~ It is easy to please John. See Kroon (1989a)
for discussion.
16.114 Nominal (verbless) satellite clauses

Nominal satellite clauses resemble participial clauses in many respects. Just as with
participial satellite clauses, there are two types of nominal satellite clauses: those that
occur as bare case forms (ablative absolute clauses) and those that appear in prepos-
itional phrases (just like ab urbe condita constructions).
16.115 Nominal ablative absolute clauses
Nominal ablative absolute clauses consist of a noun (phrase) or pronoun that forms
the subject of the clause and a subject complement (see § 14.14). This complement can
be a noun or an adjective (very rarely a pronoun); accordingly, a distinction is made
between substantival and adjectival ablative absolute clauses.
. Substantival ablative absolute clauses

The subject constituent in substantival ablative absolute clauses is most often a per-
sonal pronoun or a proper name. The nouns that serve as subject complement often
316 Some scholars take habitus as a noun. For discussion, see Petersmann (ad loc.).
317 Sihler (1995: 613), Meiser (1998: 225), and Fruyt (2019a: 197) take it as a dative.
indicate functions in society.318 An example of this is consulibus ‘consuls’ in (a),

which came to be used as a dating formula. Nouns denoting age do occur but are
not frequent (e.g. puero ‘boy’ in (c)). Especially in Early Latin and in Cicero there is
a much wider spectrum,319 including deverbal nouns, such as suasor ‘advisor’, as in
(b), emptor ‘buyer’, and adiutor ‘helper’, for which, starting in Cicero’s time, the pre-
sent participle became a competitor. In the first century ad this type of ablative
absolute clause became a marginal phenomenon, except for a few stereotyped
expressions and deliberately archaizing expressions that appear in some authors,
such as Apuleius. For an interrogative sentence, see (d). For relative expressions as
subject, see § 18.29.
(a) . . . (sc. Cato) qui L. Marcio M’. Manilio consulibus mortuus est.
(‘. . . (Cato,) who died in the consulship of Lucius Marcius and Manius Manilius.’ Cic.
Brut. 61)
(b) Me suasore atque impulsore id factum audacter dicito . . .
(‘You may boldly say that it was done on my advice and urging . . .’ Pl. Mos. 916)
(c) Puero me hic sermo inducitur, ut nullae esse possent partes meae.
(‘The conversation is supposed to have taken place when I was a boy, so that I could
not take any part.’ Cic. Att. 13.19.4)
(d) Unde ista erumpunt, quo auctore proferuntur? Si sunt falsa, cur probantur?
(‘Where do these handwritten documents spring from, on whose authority are they
produced? If they are forgeries, why are they approved?’ Cic. Phil. 2.100)
Expressions of the type consulatu Xgenitive or post consulatu Xgenitive become more fre-
quent from the mid fourth century ad onwards (examples are Amm. 20.1.1 and CIL
X.4712 (Cales, ad 306), resp.). Inscriptional material in Ruggiero (1956: II.709).
These nominal ablative absolute clauses are almost always non-complex. The range of
their semantic relations with their main clauses is smaller than that of participial
clauses (see § 16.89). Most of them are adjuncts, but there are also disjuncts, for
example with auctor ‘initiator’ and testis ‘witness’, as in (e) and (f).
(e) Potestne virtus, Crasse, servire istis auctoribus . . .
(‘Can Virtue be a slave, Crassus, according to those authorities of yours . . .’ Cic. de
Orat. 1.226)
(f) XV p. in longitudinem quas diximus fauces Oceani patent, V in latitudinem,
a vico Mellaria Hispaniae ad promunturium Africae Album, auctore Turranio
Gracile iuxta genito.
318 A list of nouns used in substantival ablative absolute clauses can be found in Flinck-Linkomies
(1929: 262–3). For information about the frequency with which they are used in Plautus and in Cicero’s
orations and philosophical works, see Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 72; 130–1, respectively).
319 Especially in Cicero’s orations and letters (Flinck-Linkomies 1929: 130–1).
(‘The ocean straits mentioned are fifteen miles long and five miles broad, from the
village of Mellaria in Spain to the White Cape in Africa, as given by Turranius
Gracilis, a native of the neighbourhood.’ Plin. Nat. 3.3)320
Supplement:
Atqui aut hoc emptore vendes pulchre aut alio non potis. (Pl. Per. 580); Impetrabit
te advocato atque arbitro. (Pl. Trin. 1161); Nam me puero venter erat . . . (Pl. ap.
Gel. 3.3.5); C. Licinio praetore remiges scribti cives Romani sub portisculum, sub
flagrum conscribti veniere passim. (Cato Orat. 190); ager publicus populi
Romanei quei in italia P(ublio) Mucio L(ucio) Calpurnio co(n)s(ulibus)
fuit, eius agri . . . (CIL I2.585.15 (Lex Agr., 111 bc)); <cur(atore)> viar(um) · T. ·
Vibio · . . . (CIL I2.808.6 (Rome, c.80 bc)); Et quidem licet adicias, inquam, pastorum
vitam esse incentivam, agricolarum succentivam, auctore doctissimo homine
Dicaearcho . . . (Var. R. 1.2.16); . . . L. Considio Sex. Saltio, quem ad modum ipsi
loquebantur, ‘praetoribus’ . . . (Cic. Agr. 2.92); Rectissime, et quidem ista (sc. natura)
duce errari nullo pacto potest. (Cic. Leg. 1.20); Est enim ius iurandum affirmatio
religiosa. Quod autem affirmate et quasi deo teste promiseris id tenendum est. (Cic.
Off. 3.104); . . . tenent nihilo minus illis mortuis senatus alteram partem, dissidentem
a vobis auctore Metello et P. Mucio . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.31); Omnia summa consecutus es
virtute duce, comite Fortuna . . . (Cic. Fam. 10.3.2); Postremo quid esse levius aut
turpius quam auctore hoste de summis rebus capere consilium? (Caes. Gal. 5.28.6);
Itaque magnifice Datamen donatum ad exercitum misit, qui tum contrahebatur duce
Pharnabazo et Tithrauste ad bellum Aegyptium . . . (Nep. Dat. 3.5); . . . quis adiutori-
bus regem adgressus inpellit, uti advorsus Romanos bellum incipiat. (Sal. Jug. 80.3);
Auctoribus qui aderant ut sequeretur, ad tribunal Appi perventum est. (Liv. 3.44.9—
NB: an autonomous relative clause as subject); Eo tribunorum militarium nulla
mentio his consulibus fuit. (Liv. 4.10.9); . . . bellum . . . parare Antiochum Hannibale
ministro . . . (Liv. 34.60.1); . . . laudator temporis acti / se puero . . . (Hor. Ars 173–4);
Custode rerum Caesare non furor / civilis aut vis exiget otium . . . (Hor. Carm.
4.15.17–18); Ovem rogabat cervus modium tritici / lupo sponsore. (Phaedr. 1.16.
3–4); Trinos soles et antiqui saepius videre, sicut Sp. Postumio Q. Mucio et
Q. Marcio M. Porcio et M. Antonio P. Dolabella et M. Lepido L. Planco cos., et
nostra aetas vidit Divo Claudio principe, consulatu eius Cornelio Orfito collega.
(Plin. Nat. 2.99); Antiquissimum in cibis hordeum, sicut Atheniensium ritu
Menandro auctore apparet et gladiatorum cognomine, qui hordearii vocabantur.
(Plin. Nat. 18.72); [Sed] memini Safinium. Tunc habitabat ad arcum veterem me
puero, piper, non homo. (Petr. 44.6); Caesar indicium haud aspernatus congressus
abnuit. Posse enim eodem Flacco internuntio sermone<s> commeare. (Tac. Ann.
2.28.2); Impuberes tutore auctore obligantur . . . (Iulian. dig. 26.8.13); Quid etiam est,
Aemiliane, quod non te iudice refutaverim? (Apul. Apol. 102); Bene autem quod
omnia tempus revelat, testibus etiam vestris proverbiis atque sententiis ex disposi-
tione naturae . . . (Tert. Apol. 7.13); . . . revertar ad te hoc eodem tempore vita comite
et habebit Sara filium. (Vulg. Gen. 18.14); . . . spes una salutis / nam mihi fit
chr<istu>s, quo duce mors moritur. (Inscr. Christ. 3420.5–6 (Rome)); . . . Palatina
cohors palinodiam in exitium concinens nostrum invenit tandem amplam nocendi
320 More instances in Tarriño (2004: 365).

fortissimo viro auctore et incitatore coetu spadonum . . . (Amm. 18.5.4) Propter hoc
nullis auribus credidi quod primum me censore damnaveram. (Sidon. 8.15.2)
NB: Non Bibulo quiddam nuper sed Caesare factum est. / Nam Bibulo fieri consule
nil memini. (Suet. Jul. 20.2—NB: a popular distichon: sc. consule)
. Adjectival ablative absolute clauses

Most adjectives that serve as subject complement in this construction denote a state
or condition of the head constituent, which most often refers to a person.321 An
example is (a). Much more uncommon is uno ‘alone’ in (b).322 Instances can be found
in all periods of Latin, but their distribution over the authors and inscriptions shows
that, apart from a few stereotyped expressions, their use began to decrease from the
first century ad onward. Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus, however, exploited the possibilities
of this construction more intensively and daringly. The expressions are usually short.
Note in (c) and (d) the referential identity between mihi and invito me and me libente,
respectively. Often adjectival ablative absolute clauses cannot easily be distinguished
from noun phrases in the ablative functioning as adjunct denoting the general cir-
cumstances under which an event takes place.323
(a) Non sino, neque equidem illum me vivo corrumpi sinam.
(‘No, I won’t allow it, and I won’t let him be corrupted while I’m alive.’ Pl. Bac. 419)
(b) Mihi quidem uno te plus etiam est quam volo . . .
(‘Even with you by yourself I have more than I want . . .’ Pl. Am. 610)
(c) . . . meas mihi ancillas invito me eripis.
(‘. . . you’re tearing my slave-girls away from me against my will.’ Pl. Rud. 712)
(d) . . . me libente eripies mihi hunc errorem.
(‘. . . you must correct my error to my own rejoicing.’ Cic. Att. 10.4.6)
Supplement:
. . . praesente<d hanibaled > dictatored (CIL I2.25.9–10 (Rome, 260 bc)); Hostibus
victis, civibus salvis, re placida, pacibus perfectis, / bello exstincto, re bene gesta,
integro exercitu et praesidiis, / quom bene nos, Iuppiter, iuvisti, dique alii omnes
caelipotentes, / eas vobis gratis habeo atque ago, quia probe sum ultus meum inimi-
cum. (Pl. Per.753–6); Sine dote uxorem? # Ita, / tua re salva: hoc pacto ab illo sum-
mam inibis gratiam . . . (Pl. Trin. 375–6); Perii miser, / quia pudicitiae huius vitium me
hinc apsente est additum. (Pl. Am. 810–11); Tum Valerius tribunus, ceteris inter
metum pudoremque ambiguis . . . progreditur . . . (Quad. hist. 12); praedia empto]ris
321 A list of adjectives found in the ablative absolute clause can be found in Flinck-Linkomies (1929:
263–4).
322 Uno te is explained as an ‘ablative of degree of difference’ by Christenson ad loc.
323 A useful list of what he does not regard as ablative absolute clauses but as ‘sociative’ ablatives can be
found in Flinck-Linkomies (1929: 265–6).
ter tanti invito eo quei dabit accipito (CIL I2.585.84 (Lex. Agr., 111 bc)); Haec
omnia, iudices, imprudente L. Sulla facta esse certe scio. (Cic. S. Rosc. 21); Mutari
etiam mores hominum saepe dicebat, alias adversis rebus, alias aetate ingravescente.
(Cic. Amic. 33); Cum iam amplius horis sex continenter pugnaretur ac . . . hostes acrius
instarent languidioribusque nostris vallum scindere et fossas complere coepis-
sent . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.5.1); At Varinius, dum haec aguntur a fugitivis, aegra parte mili-
tum autumni gravitate . . . quaestorem suum C. Thoranium . . . <Roma>m miserat.
(Sal. Hist. 3.96 A); . . . M. Scaurus . . . trepida etiam tum civitate . . . effecerat, uti ipse in
eo numero crearetur. (Sal. Jug. 40.4); Tum ad equites dictator advolat obtestans, ut
fesso iam pedite descendant ex equis et pugnam capessant. (Liv. 2.20.10); Dant tamen
arma, non volgo, tantum ut incerto hoste praesidium satis fidum ad omnia esset. (Liv.
3.15.8); . . . duae quinqueremes haud cuiquam dubio quin hostium essent opprimique
a pluribus . . . possent nihil aliud quam tumultum ac trepidationem simul militum ac
nautarum . . . fecerunt. (Liv. 28.17.14); Vivo patre et hoc parricidium est. (Sen. Con.
7.3.5); Imperator adulescens renuntiatus est omnibus laetis praeter patrem. (Sen.
Con. 7.7.1); Hoc multo fortius est, ebrio ac vomitante populo siccum ac sobrium
esse . . . (Sen. Ep. 18.4); Attonitis admiratione universis ‘salvo’ inquit ‘tuo sermone’
Trimalchio ‘si qua fides est . . .’ (Petr. 63.1); . . . Sallustius Crispus . . . metuens ne reus sub-
deretur iuxta periculoso ficta seu vera promeret monuit Liviam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.6.3);
Et cuncta ad rem publicam referri, qua tenui angustas civium domos, postquam eo
magnificentiae venerit, gliscere singulos. (Tac. Ann. 2.33.2); De Atimeto supplicium
sumptum, validiore apud libidines principis Paride, quam ut poena adficeretur. (Tac.
Ann. 13.22.2); Haud procul inde agebat Marius Maturus, Alpium maritimarum
procurator, fidus Vitellio, cuius sacramentum cunctis circa hostilibus nondum
exuerat. (Tac. Hist. 3.42.2); Sed et si credat aliquis invito domino se rem contrectare,
domino autem volente id fiat, dicitur furtum non fieri. (Gaius Inst. 3.198); Triumphum
ipse distulit maesta civitate clade Variana. (Suet. Tib. 17.2); Ne<c> mora, cum iam in
meridiem prono iubare rursum nos ac praecipue me longe gravius onustum produ-
cunt illi latrones stabulo. (Apul. Met. 4.4.1); Praevia igitur spe meliorum Romani
duces . . . Gothos, quidquid molirentur, sagaciter observabant . . . (Amm. 31.7.6);
. . . vibam (= vivam) te sospite semp<er> . . . (CIL VI.25128.14 (Rome))
Noun/pronoun in abl. abs. coreferential with an argument in the main clause:
Spectamen bono servo id est, qui rem erilem / procurat, videt, collocat cogitatque, /
ut apsente ero <tam> rem eri diligenter / tutetur, quam si ipse assit, aut rectius. (Pl.
Men. 966–9); . . . nequod iudicium . . . illo absente de existimatione eius constituere-
tur. (Cic. Ver. 2.60)
This form of coreferentiality is particularly frequent in inscriptions, as in (e) and (f),

below. Note also the mixed expression in (g).324
(e) . . . / momumentum / me vivo aedific / avi . . .
(‘I built the monument while I was alive.’ CIL I2.1251.3–5 (Rome, Rep.))325
324 See the index of CIL VI.6.fasc. 3: ‘passim’. 325 For vivo suo and the like, see Galdi (2000).
(f) lucia se / viva locum / sibi emit.

(‘Lucia bought the place for herself while she was alive.’ Inscr. Christ. Diehl
3739 E (Rome))
(g) c(aio) iulio primiceni / et iuliae irenetis / se bibi (= vivi) fecerunt /
liber(tis) libertabus(que) / suis.
(‘Gaius Iulius Primigenius and Iulia Irenetis built (this monument) for their
freedmen and freedwomen while they were alive.’ CIL X.2567 (Pozzuoli, 1st
cent. ad))
There are a few instances in Livy and Tacitus where the subject of the ablative absolute
clause is a clause itself, as in (h).
(h) . . . haud cuiquam dubio quin (sc. duae quinqueremes) hostium essent
opprimique a pluribus priusquam portum intrarent possent . . .
(‘. . . it being doubtful to no one that they belonged to the enemy and that they could
be surprised by superior numbers before they entered the harbour . . .’ Liv. 28.17.14)
Supplement:
Secundum hanc pugnam, nondum gnaris eius qui Messanae erant, Ti. Sempronius
consul Messanam venit. (Liv. 21.50.7); . . . trepidis et verba iuris iurandi per varias
artes mutantibus quis flagitii conscientia inerat. (Tac. Hist. 4.41.1)
In § 9.36 instances are given of adverbs functioning as subject complement. Tacitus
extends this use to the ablative absolute clause, as in (i) and (j).
(i) Inter quae nulla palam causa delapsum Camuloduni simulacrum Victoriae
ac retro conversum, quasi cederet hostibus.
(‘Meanwhile, for no apparent reason, the statue of Victory at Camulodunum
fell, with its back turned as if in retreat from the enemy.’ Tac. Ann. 14.32.1)
(j) Sed ubi diem ex die prolatabant, multis coram et adprobantibus Surena
patrio more Tirida<te>n insigni regio evinxit.
(‘However, as day after day found them still procrastinating, the Surena,
with a crowd being present and expressing its approval, fastened, in the
traditional style, the royal diadem upon the brows of Tiridates.’ Tac. Ann.
6.42.4)
As with participial ablative absolute clauses (cf. § 16.89 fin.), here too subordinators
are sometimes used to make the semantic relationship between the ablative absolute
clause and its matrix clause more explicit, as in (k)–(m).
(k) Qui si me audissent, quamvis iniqua pace honeste tamen viverent.
(‘Had they listened to me, they would at least be living honourably, however
harsh the terms of peace.’ Cic. Fam. 7.3.6)
(l) Nicias a Dolabella magno opere arcessitus (legi enim litteras) etsi invito me
tamen eodem me auctore profectus est.
(‘Nicias having been urgently summoned by Dolabella—for I read the letter—
has gone against my will, yet at the same time on my advice.’ Cic. Att. 13.28.3)
(m) Quid nos, quibus te vita si superstite / iucunda, si contra, gravis?

(‘What about me, to whom life will be a delight with you—if alive—but
otherwise a burden?’ Hor. Epod. 1.5–6)
16.118 Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative
Nominal absolute clauses in cases other than the ablative seem not to be recorded,
except in substandard inscriptions like (a), where it is difficult to define the case
at all.326
(a) Cucumio et Victoria / se vivos fecerunt.
(‘Cucumius and Victoria made this monument, while they were alive.’ CIL VI.
9232.1–2 (Rome))
16.119 Prepositional nominal absolute clauses
Prepositional nominal absolute clauses are not infrequent, especially those with
nouns referring to functions in society, such as praetor and consul.327 An example is
(a). There are also a few instances with adjectives, as in (b). The range of preposi-
tions is more restricted than with the participial ab urbe condita expressions
(§ 16.98). Most attested instances are time adjuncts. They can be found in all periods
of Latin.
(a) Anno ante me censorem mortuus est, novem annis post meum consulatum . . .
(‘He died in the year before I was censor, nine years after my consulship . . .’ Cic.
Sen. 19)
(b) Voltis a Romulo, voltis post liberam civitatem ab iis ipsis, qui liberaverunt?
(‘Will you start with Romulus, or will you start after the liberation of the state with
the liberators themselves?’ Cic. Parad. 11)

Qui ab A. Postumio, Q. Fulvio censoribus postve ea testamentum fecit fecerit. (Cic.
Ver. 1.106); A quo consule quintus annus erat, cum is ipse Lepidus . . . consul factus
esset. (Liv. 39.56.4); Ergo ille a Crasso consule et Scaevola usque ad Paulum et
Marcellum consules floruit, nos in eodem cursu fuimus a Sulla dictatore ad eosdem
fere consules. (Cic. Brut. 328); . . . mortuus est, annis LXXXVI ipsis ante me con-
sulem. (Cic. Brut. 61); . . . imbelle triennium ferme pestilentia inopiaque frugum circa
A. Cornelium consulem fuit . . . (Liv. 4.20.9); . . . post te praetorem multi in eadem
causa fuerunt. (Cic. Ver. 1.111); Igitur post Enthymesin extorrem et matrem eius
326 For variants of the se vivo expression in epigraphic texts, see Zelenai (2018).
327 See note 318.
Sophiam coniugi reducem . . . novam excludit copulationem. (Tert. Val. 11.1); Te

sequor. / Hic quidem pol certo nil ages sine med arbitro. (Pl. Cas. 142–3); Iudica
quod mulier sine tutore auctore promiserit, deberi. (Cic. Caec. 72)
Iam post laceros Pentheos artus / Thyades, oestro membra remissae, / velut igno-
tum videre nefas. (Sen. Oed. 442–4)
CHAPTER 17
Subordinate clauses with nouns,

adjectives, and adverbs
17.1 Introductory remarks

Subordinate clauses that function as argument or as satellite in their sentences are
discussed in Chapters 15 and 16, respectively. However, subordinate clauses can
also be used below the clause level as part of noun, adjective, and adverb phrases.
Many of these clauses are comparable with arguments in that they are required by the
meaning of the governing words. The nouns, adjectives, and adverbs involved mostly
belong to the same semantic classes as the verbs that can govern a subordinate clause
on the sentence level, and the classes of subordinate clause are also very similar.
Just as one can at the sentence level use an accusative and infinitive clause with a verb
of communication like nuntio ‘to report’, as in (a), one can use an AcI with the
noun nuntius ‘message’, as in (b), where (optatissimum) nuntium is itself the object
of accepissem. Nuntium is a third-order entity referring to the content of reporting
(see § 3.6).
(a) Eadem nocte transfuga nuntiavit Pompeium et Labienum de iugulatione
oppidanorum indignatos esse.
(‘That same night a deserter reported that Pompeius and Labienus had been filled
with indignation at the massacre of the townsfolk.’ B. Hisp. 18.9)
(b) Cum optatissimum nuntium accepissem te mihi quaestorem obtigisse . . .
(‘After I received the most welcome news of your appointment by lot as my
Quaestor . . .’ Cic. Fam. 2.19.1)
An example of a subordinate clause at the adjective phrase level (for adjective phrases,
see §§ 11.91ff.) is (c). Here, a gerundival clause depends on the two-place adjective
cupidos, which itself functions as attribute with homines in the prepositional phrase in
homines . . . cupidos. This use of a subordinate clause with cupidus can be compared
with the use of subordinate clauses with the related noun cupiditas in (d) and the
related verb cupio in (e).
(c) Atque utinam res publica stetisset quo coeperat statu nec in homines non
tam commutandarum quam evertendarum rerum cupidos incidisset!
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0017
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
(‘I would that the government had stood fast in the position it had begun to assume
and had not fallen into the hands of men desirous not so much of reforming as
abolishing the constitution.’ Cic. Off. 2.3)
(d) Ardeo cupiditate incredibili neque, ut ego arbitror, reprehendenda nomen ut
nostrum scriptis illustretur et celebretur tuis.
(‘I have a burning desire, of a strength you will hardly credit but ought not, I think, to
blame, that my name should gain lustre and celebrity through your works.’ Cic. Fam.
5.12.1)
(e) De quo ut quem optas quam primum nuntium accipias tua medius fidius
magis quam mea causa cupio.
(‘Upon my word, it’s for your sake rather than my own that I want you to get the news
you are praying for concerning him as soon as may be.’ Cael. Fam. 8.3.1)
As for subordinate clauses depending on adverbs, there is no attestation of cupide
with a dependent clause, but see (f), with a gerundial clause depending on apte.
(f) (sc. oratio) . . . qua praecepta salutis et laudis apte ad persuadendum edat suis
civibus . . .
(‘. . . by which he might publish precepts conducive to health and praise in a manner
suited to persuading his fellow-citizens . . .’ Cic. Leg. 1.62)
The preceding examples contain clauses that are comparable with arguments. Such
clauses occur commonly enough. By contrast, it is much less common to find subor-
dinate clauses below the clause level that are comparable with satellites. A few examples
are given in §§ 17.20; 29; 34.
17.2 Subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level

Subordinate clauses can be used as an obligatory (less often as optional) attribute with
a variety of nouns, many of which are, more or less overtly, related to verbs or adjec-
tives that (may) govern subordinate clauses as their arguments. Many of the internal
properties of subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level are therefore identical to or
resemble those at the clause level, and these internal properties are dealt with in detail
in Chapters 14 and 15. For subordinate clauses that function as subject or object in a
clause in which a noun functions as subject or object complement, see § 15.11 and
other sections of Chapter 15.
Although the subordinate clauses discussed in this chapter must be considered
attributes, they differ considerably from attributive (in this Syntax: adnominal) rela-
tive clauses. For example, unlike these, the subordinate clauses discussed in this
chapter cannot be coordinated with attributive adjectives (for examples of coordin-
ation of relative clauses, see § 18.25).¹
¹ Quirk et al. (1985: 1049) use the term ‘appositive’, but this covers only part of the instances discussed here.
Introductory remarks 
When a noun functions as subject or object of the verb in the superordinate clause, it
is sometimes difficult to decide whether a clause should be described as an attribute
of that noun alone or as an argument of a complex expression consisting of a verb
and the noun. When nouns are used with a support verb (see § 4.4), for example
potestatem do or facio ‘to give the power, a chance, opportunity, or right’ (OLD s.v.
potestas § 5), it may be more attractive to consider an ut clause like the one in (a), the
argument that depends on the combination of noun and verb.²
(a) . . . tibi potestatem dedi / cum hac annum ut esses . . .
(‘. . . I’ve given you the power to be with her for a year . . .’ Pl. As. 847–8)
The situation in (b), however, is different. Here the most convincing explanation for
the ne clause is that it is an (obligatory) argument of (hoc) praeceptum (officii): teneo
itself cannot govern an ut or ne clause, at least not in the meaning required here,³ but
the verb praecipio and hence praeceptum can. The determiner hoc has a preparative
function and serves to strengthen the relation between the noun and the attributive
clause.
(b) Atque etiam hoc praeceptum officii diligenter tenendum est ne quem umquam
innocentem iudicio capitis arcessas.
(‘Again, the following rule of duty is to be carefully observed: never bring a capital
charge against any person who may be innocent.’ Cic. Off. 2.51)
In other contexts the situation is more complicated, for example in the case of legem
promulgavit in (c), which could be paraphrased by: rogavit ‘he proposed’. However,
legem is found with a wide range of verbs in more or less the same sense,⁴ and pro-
mulgo is not found with an ut clause when it does not govern a noun such as legem.⁵
An ut clause is also possible when lex functions as a satellite, as in (d), or as an
attribute, as in (e). All this suggests that in (c) the ut clause is the attribute of legem
alone; it is a specification of the rights and duties for those who are subject to the
law. The clause is imperative and the use of ut (and not of declarative quod) is fully
understandable.
(c) . . . legem promulgavit ut sexenni die sine usuris . . . creditae pecuniae
solvantur.
(‘. . . he promulgated a law that the money owed shall be paid without accumulation of
interest six years from that day.’ Caes. Civ. 3.20.5)
² For a discussion of the status of these subordinate clauses, see Heine (1990: 5–6), with criticism of
their treatment in LSS. For argument clauses with the combination of a support verb and a noun, see
Hoffmann (2015). For criteria to decide whether a clause depends on the combination of support verb and
noun or the noun by itself, see also Hoffmann (2018b). He would deal with many of the examples in this
Chapter as having support verbs (p.c.).
³ For ut/ne clauses with teneo in its meaning ‘to make good one’s point (that)’, see OLD s.v. § 16c.
⁴ See TLL s.v. lex 1254.27ff. See also s.v. 1244.62ff. for combinations like ea lege ut/ne.
⁵ See TLL s.v. promulgo 1904.9. There is one attestation of promulgo with an accusative and infinitive
clause (Plin. Nat. 27.9 (v.l. provulg . . .)).
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
(d) . . . dilectu per omne Samnium habito nova lege ut qui iuniorum non convenisset
ad imperatorum edictum quique iniussu abisset caput Iovi sacraretur.
(‘. . . a levy having been held throughout Samnium under this new ordinance, that
whosoever of military age did not report in response to the proclamation of the gen-
erals, or departed without their orders, should forfeit his life to Jupiter.’ Liv. 10.38.3)
(e) Ferretne civitas ulla latorem istius modi legis ut condemnaretur filius aut
nepos, si pater aut avus deliquisset?
(‘Would any state tolerate the passer of a law dictating that a son or grandson be sen-
tenced if his father or grandfather had committed a crime?’ Cic. N.D. 3.90)
The status of lex in (f) is ambiguous. It is usually taken as the subject of existential est
(see the translation) and in that interpretation the ut clause is the argument of lex,
that is: at the noun phrase level. If, however, lex is taken as the subject complement
(i.e. it is a law at Rhodes that . . .), the ut clause is subject at the sentence level. In that
case it belongs in § 15.11.
(f) Lex est apud Rhodios ut, si qua rostrata in portu navis deprehensa sit, publicetur.
(‘There is a law at Rhodes that if any ship with a ram is caught in the harbour it
is confiscated.’ Cic. Inv. 2.98)
Still other relations between a noun (and verb) and an ut clause are illustrated by (g)
and (h). In (g), the ut clause can be explained on the basis of the valency not only of
facultatem,⁶ but also of assequi, as becomes clear if hanc facultatem is excised. The use
of hanc resembles that of hoc in (b). However, the need to win the sympathy of one’s
fellow-men has already been mentioned in Off. 2.17, and this may explain the use of
hanc: it is an anaphoric determiner. The word facultatem itself has not been used
before, so the ut clause seems to fulfil an ‘explanatory’ function.⁷ In (h), the ut clause
can neither be regarded as the argument of reperiebant nor as that of remedia alone.
Without preparative haec the ut clause would be impossible.
(g) Quibus autem rationibus hanc facultatem assequi possimus ut hominum stu-
dia complectamur eaque teneamus dicemus . . .
(‘I shall presently discuss the means by which we can gain the ability to win and hold
the affections of our fellow-men . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.19)
(h) Quibus rebus nostri usu docti haec reperiebant remedia ut alio loco ignes
facerent, <alio excubarent>.
(‘Our men, taught by experience, discovered the following remedies for these emer-
gencies, to light fires in one place, <and keep watch in another>.’ Caes. Civ. 3.50.2)
The nouns in the examples discussed so far belong to different categories. Praeceptum
is morphologically and semantically related to praecipio; it refers to the content of a
⁶ See TLL s.v. facultas 148.8ff.

⁷ See Bodelot (1995) for examples (f) and (g) and the analysis of attributive arguments in general. See
also Georgiewa (1993/4), Bodelot (2000; 2010), Lavency (2003: 115–25), and Spevak (2014a: 201–4).
Finite clauses at the noun phrase level 
command and as such is a third-order entity. Lex is not morphologically or semantic-

ally related to a verb, but its content and function can be specified, as is the case in (d)
and (e) and it also refers to the content of an order. Remedium is related to the verb
(re-)medeor and normally requires the expression either of what it is used for or what
it is used against. However, in (h) the ut clause does not express either of these two
relations; rather, it describes the content of the remedium. Facultas in (g) is different
again. It refers to an ability (a second-order entity), which clearly requires an entity to
which this property applies. Note that in (e) and (f) the sentences would be gram-
matically correct if the ut clauses were not there. In (h) this is excluded by the pres-
ence of the determiner haec, which can only be understood as preparative.
Further examples of what is described in this paragraph are (i)–(k). Such clauses
are sometimes called ‘explicative’.⁸
(i) . . . usus essem mea consuetudine ut diligenter et quid actum esse<t> et quid
ex eo futurum sperarem perscriberem.
(‘. . . I should follow my usual practice of describing in detail both what had happened
and what consequences I expected to follow.’ Cael. Fam. 8.5.3)
(j) . . . me ipse consolor, et maxime illo solacio quod eo errore careo quo amico-
rum decessu plerique angi solent.
(‘. . . I am consoling myself, and most of all with the comforting thought that I am free
from the delusion by which most men are distressed at the departure of their friends.’
Cic. Amic. 10)
(k) Cremutius Cordus postulatur novo ac tunc primum audito crimine quod
editis annalibus laudatoque M. Bruto C. Cassium Romanorum ultimum
dixisset.
(‘Cremutius Cordus was prosecuted upon the novel and till then unheard-of charge
that in the history he published, after eulogizing Brutus, he had called Cassius the last
of the Romans.’ Tac. Ann. 4.34.1)
Just as with verbs at the clause level, many nouns can be used with several of the sub-
ordinating devices. The first distinction in the sections that follow is between finite
and non-finite clauses. There is a change over time in the frequency with which these
types of subordinate clauses are used. There are also differences in the types of text in
which they occur, running partly parallel to the historical developments.
. Finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute

at the noun phrase level
For finite clauses a further distinction is made between three types that correspond to
the distinction ‘declarative’, ‘interrogative’, and ‘imperative’ in Chapter 15.
⁸ See, for example, Gerber and Greef s.v. quod 1343–4, where many instances can be found.
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
. Declarative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute

The following sections follow the order of treatment of these subordinate clauses in
Chapter 15. Only some of the subordinating devices mentioned in that chapter are
discussed here, as examples are sometimes lacking.
. Declarative clauses with quod and quia at the noun phrase level
The most common subordinator to mark declarative subordinate clauses at the clause
level is quod. One would therefore expect this subordinator to be used with nouns
that indicate emotion, praise, and blame, and in later periods perception, cognition,
and communication (for the verbs, see §§ 15.8–10), but such combinations turn out
to be relatively infrequent. Examples are (a)–(c). However, quod clauses are used with
other nouns as well, in a way that is often called ‘explicative’ (see also § 17.2), as
in (d).⁹
(a) Non enim tua ulla culpa est, si te aliqui timuerunt, contraque summa laus
quod minime timendum fuisse senserunt.
(‘For no blame is yours if some have feared you, but rather the greatest commenda-
tion, that they knew that you were to be feared so little.’ Cic. Marc. 20)
(b) In litteris veteribus memoria exstat quod par quondam fuit vigor et acritudo
amplitudoque populi Romani atque Poeni.
(‘In ancient records there is an account that the strength, the spirit and the numbers
of the Roman and the Carthaginian people were once equal.’ Gel. 10.27.1)
(c) Nunc . . . confiteare necesse est te opinionem multum fefellisse quod existimaris
me causam A. Cluenti non facto eius sed lege defensurum.
(‘Now . . . you must admit that you were greatly deceived by the opinion that I should
base my defence of my client’s case not upon its merits but upon its legal aspect.’ Cic.
Clu. 143)
(d) Additurque atrocior saevitia quod caput amputatum latumque in Urbem
Poppaea vidit.
(‘And there was the addition of a more frightful savagery, in that Poppaea saw the
head after it had been amputated and carried into the city.’ Tac. Ann. 14.64.2—tr.
Woodman (adapted))
Quid enim aliud ille dicebat, quam causam sui dementissimi consili et facti adfere-
bat, nisi quod intercessio neglecta, ius tribunicium sublatum, circumscriptus a sen-
atu esset Antonius? (Cic. Phil. 2.53); . . . (sc. se) licentiam arrogantiamque reprehendere
quod plus se quam imperatorem de victoria atque exitu rerum sentire existimarent.
(Caes. Gal. 7.52.3); Catilinam luxuria primum, tum hinc conflata egestas rei familiaris,
⁹ For examples in Cicero, see Merguet (Phil. and Reden) s.v. quod, §§ III and IV.
Finite clauses at the noun phrase level 
simul occasio quod in extremis finibus mundi arma Romana peregrinabantur, in

nefaria consilia opprimendae patriae suae conpulere. (Flor. Epit. 2.12.1); . . . cum
segnitiem Neronis incusares quod per singulas domos seque et delatores fatigaret.
(Tac. Hist. 4.42.4)
With a preparative determiner: Sed illa quanta (sc. est) benignitas naturae quod
tam multa ad vescendum tam varie tam iucunda gignit . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.131); Iam satis
hoc Graiae memorandum contigit urbi / aeternumque decus quod . . . / vincitur
una mora. (Luc. 3.388–92); Haec dispositio hanc habet difficultatem quod epistylia
propter intervallorum magnitudinem franguntur. (Vitr. 3.3.4); Sed tamen . . . hunc accepi
dolorem quod . . . discedis a nobis . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.21.1); Equidem ad reliquos labores . . .
hanc molestiam adsumo quod mihi non solum pro Cn. Plancio dicendum est . . . (Cic.
Planc. 3); Accessit etiam ista opinio fortasse quod homini homine pulchrius nihil
videatur. (Cic. N.D. 1.77); Terrebant haec. Sed ille maximus terror animos agitabat
quod saepius Quinctius dictitabat se consulum comitia non habiturum. (Liv. 3.20.8)
Clauses with quia at the noun phrase level are extremely rare.¹⁰ The best example is
(e). In (f) the quia clause is most likely a reason adjunct.
(e) Sed ego uno utor argumento quam ob rem me ex animo vereque arbitrer
diligi quia et nostra fortuna ea est et illorum ut simulandi causa non sit.
(‘But I only employ one proof to convince me that I am loved from the heart and in
sincerity—namely, that my fortune and theirs is of such a kind as to preclude any
motive on their part for pretending.’ Cic. Fam. 9.16.2)
(f) Quod eo errore dixisti, quia existumas ab is providentiam fingi quasi quan-
dam deam singularem . . .
(‘You said this in error, because you imagine that providence is fashioned by them as
a kind of special deity . . .’ Cic. N.D. 2.73)
. Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level
Declarative clauses with ut at the noun phrase level are difficult to distinguish from
imperative clauses, as is the case with declarative and imperative ut clauses at the
clause level (see § 15.25). Examples are (a)–(c) (ex. (a) is repeated from § 17.2). Ex. (b)
has a determiner, which may be anaphoric in its context.
(a) . . . usus essem mea consuetudine ut diligenter et quid actum esse<t> et quid
ex eo futurum sperarem perscriberem.
(‘. . . I should follow my usual practice of describing in detail both what had happened
and what consequences I expected to follow.’ Cael. Fam. 8.5.3)
(b) Ceterum si nihilo minus permaneret in eo vitio ut circa fana bacchari soleret
et quasi demens responsa daret . . . vitium tamen esse . . ..
(‘But if he persist in that bad habit of cavorting around the shrines and uttering virtu-
ally demented ravings . . . it is still a defect . . .’ Ulp. dig. 21.1.1.10)
¹⁰ See K.-St.: II.271, from whom ex. (e) is taken. Ex. (f) is taken from TLL s.v. is 477.66ff.
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
(c) Antiquum etiam re<t>tulit morem ut, quo mense fasces non haberet, accen-
sus ante eum iret, lictores pone sequerentur.
(‘He also revived a bygone custom, that during the months when he did not have
the fasces an orderly should walk before him, while the lictors followed him.’ Suet.
Jul. 20.1)

An vero non iusta causa est ut vos servem sedulo . . . (Pl. Capt. 257); Sunt . . . indicia
naturae, maxime scilicet in homine, sed in omni animali, ut appetat animus aliquid
agere semper . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.55); In vobis resident mores pristini, / ad denegandum ut
celeri lingua utamini. (Pl. Truc. 7–8); Cum mos a maioribus traditus sit ut monu-
menta maiorum ita suorum quisque defendat ut ea ne ornari quidem nomine alio-
rum sinat . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.79—NB: ut argument clause and an ut adjunct clause); . . . hac
opinione discessi ut mihi tua salus dubia non esset. (Cic. Fam. 6.14.2)¹¹
With a preparative determiner: Hic dies nostris longe gravissimus fuit. Sed tamen
hunc habuit eventum ut eo die maximus numerus hostium vulneraretur atque inter-
ficeretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.43.5); Sed haec eius diei praefertur opinio ut se utrique
superiores discessisse existimarent. (Caes. Civ. 1.47.1)
. Declarative clauses depending on nouns of fearing and worrying
Just as with the related verbs (see § 15.37), ne is the subordinator of argument clauses
with nouns of fearing, as in (a) and (b).
(a) Ergo iste metus me macerat, quod ille fastidiosu’st, / ne oculi eius sententiam
mutent, ubi viderit me . . .
(‘Well then, since he’s picky, the fear is wearing me out that his eyes might change his
decision when he’s seen me . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1233–4)
(b) Itaque metu ne per tantam gratiam solus rerum poteretur contra eam nisi sua
et ipsius consilia disturbaverunt.
(‘And out of fear that through such great influence he might gain sole mastery of
affairs, they strove against that influence, and thus upset their own planned course of
action and his as well.’ Sal. Rep. 2.6.5)

Causa praecipua ex formidine ne Germanicus . . . habere imperium quam exspectare
mallet. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.6); Convenere extemplo, alii iam ante ad hoc praeparati, alii
metu ne non venisse fraudi esset . . . (Liv. 1.47.9); Ecastor [nobis] periclum magnum
[et] familiae portenditur, / dum eius exspectamus mortem, ne nos moriamur fame.
(Pl. As. 530–1); Et tamen interdum praesens vis ipsa pericli / subdit et hunc stimulum
quadam de parte timoris / ne pedibus raptim tellus subtracta feratur / in bara-
thrum . . . (Lucr. 6.603–6)
¹¹ For further instances of opinio + ut clause, see TLL s.v. 718.55ff. (called ‘epexegeticum’).
Finite clauses at the noun phrase level 
With a preparative determiner: Ille quidem semper inpendebit timor ne rex, quod
plerumque evenit, exsistat iniustus. (Cic. Rep. 2.50)
. Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level
Declarative clauses with quin at the noun phrase level are infrequent; the nouns they
modify belong to the same semantic classes as the verbs with which they occur (see
§ 15.38). An example is dubitatio in (a).
(a) Cum igitur hic locus nihil habeat dubitationis quin homines plurimum
hominibus et prosint et obsint, proprium hoc statuo esse virtutis . . .
(‘Since, therefore, there can be no doubt that man is the source of both the greatest
help and the greatest harm to man, I set it down as the peculiar function of virtue . . .’
Cic. Off. 2.17)
Supplement:
. . . nulla dubitatio relinquetur quin honore mortui quam vivo iniuriam fecimus sar-
ciamus. (Cic. Phil. 9.8); Nulla enim nec disceptatio nec dubitatio fuit quin omnes
eosdem genti Achaeorum hostes et amicos quos populus Romanus censuisset iudi-
carent . . . (Liv. 35.50.2)
. The use of tamquam and quasi clauses with nouns of emotion, cognition,
and communication
Just as with the corresponding verbs (see § 15.44), nouns of emotion, cognition, and
communication can be combined with tamquam and quasi clauses, as in (a).¹²
(a) . . . famam diffudit tamquam ultro a Syphace accerseretur.
(‘. . . he spread abroad the report that he was expressly sent for by Syphax.’ Fron.
Str. 2.7.4)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by noun)

Hoc animo tibi hanc epistulam scribo, tamquam me cum maxime scribentem
mors evocatura sit. (Sen. Ep. 61.2); . . . quorum domini in invidiam venerant quasi
exceptos supprimerent non solum viatores . . . (Suet. Tib. 8.1—NB: perhaps to be
regarded as a support verb construction); Nam, cum omnia ad deum referant, in ea
opinione sunt tamquam non, quia facta sunt, significent, sed quia significatura
sunt, fiant. (Sen. Nat. 2.32.2); P. Claudius . . . sparsit rumorem quasi bellum iniussu
populi inceptum gerere non posset . . . (Fron. Str. 1.4.11); Pactumeio Magno occiso
et rumore perlato quasi filia quoque eius mortua mutavit testamentum . . . (Paul.
dig. 28.5.93.1)
¹² See Bennett (1900), Bodelot (2014a: 202–4), and Rosén and Shalev (2017).
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
. Interrogative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute

In § 15.46 four categories of verbs are distinguished that govern interrogative subor-
dinate clauses. Along the same lines four categories of nouns can be distinguished,
each illustrated by two examples, with a clausal question and a constituent question,
as in (a)–(h).
(i) nomina interrogandi
(a) Quibus (sc. legatis) longiorem exorsis orationem brevis interrogatio cessurusne
iis tribus urbibus esset sermonem incidit . . .
(‘When they had begun a lengthy argument, a terse question, whether he would
evacuate these three cities, cut short their speech . . .’ Liv. 32.37.5)
(b) Succlamationes frequentes erant interrogationesque cur scelere fratris oppres-

sos Ligures in libertatem non restituisset.
(‘There were frequent outcries and questions as to why he had not restored to free-
dom the Ligurians crushed by his brother’s injustice.’ Liv. 42.28.3)
(ii) nomina investigandi

(c) Ex homine remediorum primum maximae quaestionis et semper incertae est
polleantne aliquid verba et incantamenta carminum.
(‘Of the remedies derived from man, the first raises the very important and never
settled question of whether words and formulated incantations have any effect.’ Plin.
Nat. 28.10)
(d) Quid tibi, malum, me aut quid ego agam curatio est?
(‘Damn it, why do you have a care for me or what I do?’ Pl. Mos. 34—NB: disjunction
by aut; support verb construction?: see § 4.4)
(iii) nomina declarandi

(e) Absentibus secundum praesentes facillime dabat, nullo dilectu culpane quis
an aliqua necessitate cessasset.
(‘Whenever one party to a suit was absent, he was prone to decide in favour of the one
who was present, with no distinction whether his opponent had failed to appear
through his own fault or from a necessary cause.’ Suet. Cl. 15.2)
(f) Postquam domum venit et mater mentionem intulit quid eo die, quid dein-
ceps ceteris quae ad sacra pertinerent faciendum esset, negat . . .
(‘When he came home and his mother made mention of what he had to do that day
and on the following days in connexion with the rites, he denied . . .’ Liv. 39.11.1—NB:
support verb construction?)
Finite clauses at the noun phrase level 
(iv) nomina sciendi, sentiendi, etc.

(g) De quo alterum potest habere dubitationem adhibendumne fuerit hoc genus,
quod in divisione Panaetii tertium est an plane omittendum . . .
(‘But with regard to this assertion, the one point may admit of doubt as to whether
that question, which is third in Panaetius’ classification, ought to have been included
or omitted altogether . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.9—NB: support verb construction?)
(h) . . . scientiam quid agatur, memoriamque quid a quoque dictum sit, omnium
puto esse oportere.
(‘. . . so, I hold, it is for all men to be admitted to the knowledge of what shall here take
place, and to the memory of what shall be said by each speaker.’ Cic. Ver. 54)
However, apart from these verb-related nouns there are other nouns as well with
which interrogative clauses can function as attributes, such as causa in (i) and difficul-
tate in (j).
(i) An vero non iusta causa est quor curratur celeriter . . .
(‘Well, isn’t there a just cause for running quickly . . .?’ Pl. Poen. 533)
(j) Eo cum venisset, magna difficultate adficiebatur qua ratione ad exercitum
pervenire posset.
(‘When he arrived there he was confronted with a great difficulty, as to the means
whereby he could reach the army.’ Caes. Gal. 7.6.2)

Clausal questions: Quod itinerum meorum ratio te nonnullam in dubitationem
videtur adducere visurus ne me sis in provincia, ea res se sic habet. (Cic. Fam. 3.5.3); . . .
iudicatio nascitur: possintne eiusdem pecuniae plures dissimilibus generibus heredes
esse? (Cic. Inv. 2.64); Iudicatio est: cum is, qui potestatis nihil habuerit, iussu imperato-
ris in foedere et in tanta religione interfuerit, dedendusne sit hostibus necne? (Cic.
Inv. 2.92); Deinde (sc. utemur) percontatione scirentne adversarii id scriptum fuisse
in lege aut testamento . . . (Rhet. Her. 2.13—NB: following Achard’s Budé edition)
Constituent questions: . . . magnamque hominibus admirationem praebebat quam
ob rem id accidisset. (B. Alex. 6.2); Philosophorum vero exquisita quaedam argu-
menta cur esset vera divinatio collecta sunt. (Cic. Div. 1.5); Id testibus me pollicitus
sum planum facturum qui et scire deberent et causam cur mentirentur non haberent.
(Cic. Quinct. 86); Quapropter a natura mihi videtur potius quam ab indigentia orta
amicitia, adplicatione magis animi cum quodam sensu amandi quam cogitatione
quantum illa res utilitatis esset habitura. (Cic. Amic. 27); . . . sapientiam esse rerum
divinarum et humanarum scientiam cognitionemque quae cuiusque rei causa sit.
(Cic. Tusc. 4.57); Deinde (sc. utemur) conlatione quid scriptum sit, quid adversarii se
fecisse dicant, quid iudicem sequi conveniat. (Rhet. Her. 2.13); Utinam, Quirites, viro-
rum fortium atque innocentium copiam tantam haberetis ut haec vobis deliberatio
difficilis esset quemnam potissimum tantis rebus ac tanto bello praeficiendum puta-
retis. (Cic. Man. 27); Relinquetur desideratio . . . quid ita non etiam ibi nascitur
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
pulvis . . . (Vitr. 2.6.4); . . . regressus ad Dium est dubitatione omnibus exempta quid
intercluso ab Thessalia patiendum fuisset . . . (Liv. 44.7.7); . . . alteri (sc. hoc faciendum
est), si plane causam redarguendo explicarit, enumeratione ut quidque diluerit et
miseratione ad extremum. (Cic. Part. 122); Utendum etiam est excusatione adversus
eos, quos invitus offendas, quacumque possis, quare id, quod feceris, necesse fuerit
nec aliter facere potueris . . . (Cic. Off. 2.68); Sum in exspectatione omnium rerum,
quid in Gallia citeriore, quid in urbe mense Ianuario geratur. (Cic. Fam. 10.4.4); Ei
mihi, quom istaec blanda dicta quo evenant madeo metu. (Pl. Mos. 395); . . . omnisque
ille sermo ductus <est> a percontatione fili quid in senatu esset actum. (Cic. Brut.
218); Propositioque quid sis dicturus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.203)
NB: with a preparative pronoun: . . . cum id in controversiam venit qua quis lege
puniendus vel honorandus sit. (Quint. Inst. 7.4.41)
. Imperative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute

The common subordinator of imperative argument clauses at the noun phrase level is
ut, negated (ut) ne. Examples with deverbal nouns that correspond to the meaning
classes illustrated in §§ 15.65–80 are (a)–(d). Some nouns do not easily fit in with
these classes, for example the agent noun auctor in (e).¹³
(a) Quid quod a senatu dantur mandata legatis ut D. Brutum <milites>que eius
adeant . . .
(‘Add to this the fact that commands are given to the legates by the senate, that they
proceed to Decimus Brutus and his troops . . .’ Cic. Phil. 6.6)
(b) De voluntate tua ut simul simus, vel studio potius et cupiditate, non dubito.
(‘Of your desire for us to be together, or rather your eagerness and anxiety, I have no
doubt.’ Cic. Att. 12.26.1)
(c) . . . sese a suis civibus haec habere mandata ut ad Verrem adirent et eum simu-
lacrum Cereris et Victoriae reposcerent; . . . testimonium ne quod dicerent.
(‘. . . they had these commands from their fellow-citizens, that they approach Verres
and request him to restore the images of Ceres and Victory; . . . that they were to give
no official evidence against him.’ Cic. Ver. 4.113—NB: preparative determiner)
(d) Omnino omnium horum vitiorum atque incommodorum una cautio est
atque una provisio ut ne nimis cito diligere incipiant neve non dignos.
(‘In short: there is but one security and one provision against these ills and annoy-
ances, and that is, neither to enlist your love too quickly nor to fix it on unworthy
men.’ Cic. Amic. 78)
(e) Auctor est ut quam primum agere incipiant . . .
(‘He is the proposer that they set to work without delay . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.37)
¹³ For examples see Lodge s.v. ut II.938A; Merguet (Reden) s.v. ut 1044B–1045B; (Phil.) s.v. ut 893;
(Caesar) s.v. ut 1129A–1130A; TLL s.v. ne 29828ff.
Finite clauses at the noun phrase level 

. . . hoc animo fui semper ut invidiam virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam putarem.
(Cic. Catil. 1.29); Huic veri videndi cupiditati adiuncta est appetitio quaedam prin-
cipatus, ut nemini parere animus bene informatus a natura velit nisi praecipienti aut
docenti aut utilitatis causa iuste et legitime imperanti. (Cic. Off. 1.13); Quom ego
huius verba interpretor, mihi cautio est / ne nucifrangibula excussit ex malis meis.
(Pl. Bac. 597–8); Quibus cum condicionem ferret ut oppido excederent idque sibi
vacuum traderent . . . (B. Afr. 25.3); Ibi cognoscit de P. Clodii caede <de> senatusque
consulto certior factus ut omnes iuniores Italiae coniurarent, dilectum tota provincia
habere instituit. (Caes. Gal. 7.1.1); Atque haec non cupiditate aliqua scribit inductus
ut in alienam provinciam mittat litteras ante tempus, sed consilio ne, si tempus
sationis praeterisset, granum ex provincia Sicilia nullum haberemus. (Cic. Ver. 3.44);
Nam mihi summa curatio est ut amicitiam tuam boni haberent. (Symm. Ep. 1.43.2);
Novum in re publica introductum exemplum queritur ut tribunicia intercessio armis
votaretur (notaretur cj. Holder) atque opprimeretur . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.7.2); . . . exhorta-
tiones et preces miscebat ut spernerent sonores barbarorum et inanis minas. (Tac.
Ann. 14.36.1); Totas istas praesagias . . . Marcion illa intentione suscepit ne . . . nativitas
quoque eius defenderetur . . . (Tert. Marc. 3.11.1); Fit sermo inter eos et invitatio ut
Graeco more biberetur. (Cic. Ver. 1.66); Interim litteras accepit a Caesare ut in
Africam exercitum traiceret . . . (B. Alex. 51.1); . . . scio ego officium meum ut quae
rogiter vera, ut accepi, eloquar. (Pl. Per. 616); (sc. Orgetorigem) damnatum poenam
sequi oportebat ut igni cremaretur. (Caes. Gal. 1.4.1); Sin quaestiones habitae aut
postulatio ut habeantur causam adiuvabunt, confirmandum primum genus quaesti-
onum erit . . . (Cic. Part. 117); . . . prope iam desperata salute nonnullae huiusmodi
sententiae dicebantur ut impedimentis relictis eruptione facta isdem itineribus qui-
bus eo pervenissent ad salutem contenderent. (Caes. Gal. 3.3.3); . . . cum . . . vos et
omnes boni vota faceretis ut Miloni uti virtute sua liberet. (Cic. Mil. 41); Nam non
multo ante urbem captam exaudita vox est a luco Vestae . . . ut muri et portae refice-
rentur. (Cic. Div. 1.101)
With a preparative determiner: . . . huic amanti ac Philocomasio hanc ecficiamus
copiam / ut hic eam abducat habeatque. (Pl. Mil. 769–70); . . . in his autem tribus con-
tinetur cura etiam illa ut probemur iis quibuscum apud quosque vivamus . . . (Cic. Off.
1.126); Ibi super campos patentes duo duces Poeni ea mente ne detractarent certa-
men consederunt. (Liv. 28.12.15); . . . et di eam potestatem dabunt ut beneficium bene
merenti nostro merito muneres. (Pl. Capt. 934–5)
NB: Some of the examples cited above might be taken as manifesting a support verb
construction, for example those with copia and potestas.
Imperative clauses with quominus can be used with nouns that are semantically
related to the verbs discussed in § 15.72. An example is (f).
(f) Num quando tibi moram adtulerit quo minus concilium advocares legemque
ferres . . . ?
(‘Did it ever cause you a delay so that you could not summon a meeting and pass a
law…?’ Cic. Vat. 15)
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

Ex vobis audio nemini civi ullam quo minus adesset satis iustam excusationem esse
visam. (Cic. Pis. 36); . . . nullius periculi timorem multitudini fore impedimento
quominus se dederent. (B. Alex. 23.2); . . . quae religio C. Mario, clarissimo viro, non
fuerat quo minus C. Glauciam, de quo nihil nominatim erat decretum, praetorem
occideret . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.15)
. Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning as attribute

The non-finite verbal argument clauses will be discussed in the following sections in
the same order as in Chapter 15 (see § 15.90), according to the traditional morpho-
logical classification of infinitives (§§ 17.13–15), participles (§ 17.16), and gerunds
and gerundives (§§ 17.17–20).
. Infinitival subordinate clauses functioning as attribute

Just as in § 15.91, two classes of infinitival clauses are distinguished: accusative and
infinitive clauses and prolative infinitive clauses. The difference between the two
classes can be seen by comparing (a) and (b). It corresponds to the difference between
declarative and imperative clauses explained in Chapter 15. Note in (b) the parallel-
ism with the gerund clause.
(a) Cogitatio igitur diuturna nihil esse in re mali dolori medetur, non ipsa diu-
turnitas.
(‘Continued reflection therefore that there is no evil in the circumstances has a heal-
ing effect upon pain, not the continuance of time alone.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.74)
(b) Summa eludendi occasio’st mihi nunc senes / et Phaedriae curam adimere
argentariam . . .
(‘Now I have the perfect opportunity to fool the old men and relieve Phaedria’s finan-
cial worries . . .’ Ter. Ph. 885–6)
. Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning as attribute

Accusative and infinitive clauses can be used with nouns that are semantically related
to the verbs that can govern an accusative and infinitive clause, especially verbs of
cognition and emotion (see §§ 15.94–102).
(a) . . . ut illa opinio, quae semper fuisset, tolleretur alterum non doctissimum,
alterum plane indoctum fuisse.
(‘. . . in order that that notion, which had always prevailed, be dispelled, (namely) that
one of them had no great learning and the other none at all.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.7)
Infinitival clauses at the noun phrase level 
(b) . . . crebris nuntiis incitati oppidum ab Romanis teneri praemissis equitibus

magno cursu eo contenderunt.
(‘. . . incited by frequent messages that the town was held by the Romans, they sent the
horsemen in advance and hastened thither in a mighty stream.’ Caes. Gal. 7.48.1—
NB: the AcI was deleted by Pluygers, followed by Meusel, who says—wrongly—that
AcI clauses are ‘never’ found with nouns that do not form a complex expression with
a verb (p. 602 ad loc.))

Nihil est enim quod tam optundat elevetque aegritudinem quam perpetua in omni
vita cogitatio nihil esse quod non accidere possit . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.34); . . . ubi est illa
definitio effatum esse id quod aut verum aut falsum sit. (Cic. Luc. 95); Qua quidem
ex re magnum accipio dolorem homines amplissimis populi Romani beneficiis usos
L. Pisonem ducem optimae sententiae non secutos. (Cic. Phil. 1.14); Hinc enim illa et
apud Graecos exempla Miltiadem . . . vitam ex hostium telis servatam in civium vin-
clis profudisse . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.5); . . . principes quidam iuventutis inventi, manifesta
fides publica ope Volscos hostes adiutos. (Liv. 6.13.7); Haec autem opinatio est iudi-
catio se scire quod nesciat. (Cic. Tusc. 4.26); Descendit ad accusandum. Quis
umquam tam proprie rei publicae causa . . . nulla hominum postulatione aut etiam
opinione id eum umquam esse facturum? (Cic. Sest. 89);¹⁴. . . (sc. Tiberius) addictus
mathematicae plenusque persuasionis cuncta fato agi . . . (Suet. Tib. 69); Tum promissio,
si audierint, probaturos. (Cic. de Orat. 2.339); (sc. iustitia) . . . <affert> aliquid quid cum vi
sua atque natura . . . tum spe nihil earum rerum defuturum quas natura non depravata
desideret. (Cic. Fin. 1.50); . . . non patiar istam manere suspicionem nos rem iudicari nolle.
(Cic. Quinct. 34); Hoc vos mihi testes estis me verum loqui. (Pl. Capt. 3)
With a preparative determiner: Vetus est haec opinio, iudices, quae constat ex
antiquissimis Graecorum litteris ac monumentis, insulam Siciliam totam esse Cereri et
Liberae consecratam. (Cic. Ver. 4.106); Nunc mea mater irata est mihi, / quia non
redierim domum ad se, postquam hanc rem resciverim, / eum uxorem ducturum esse
aliam. (Pl. Cist. 101–3); Est haec res posita, quae ab adversario non negatur,
Caecinam . . . pulsum prohibitumque esse vi . . . (Cic. Caec. 32); . . . subest ille timor ea (sc.
utilitate) neglecta ne dignitatem quidem posse retineri. (Cic. de Orat. 2.334)
NB: . . . (sc. Scipio) qui hoc Stoicorum (‘this Stoic maxim’) verum esse declaravit,
numquam privatum esse sapientem . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.51); In quo facetum illud Bionis,
perinde stultissimum regem in luctu capillum sibi evellere, quasi calvitio maeror
levaretur. (Cic. Tusc. 3.62)
. Prolative infinitive clauses functioning as attribute at the

noun phrase level
In § 15.128 a discussion can be found of the use of the prolative infinitive with nouns
that function as subject or object complements. The infinitive is also common with
noun–verb combinations that in their meaning resemble simple verbs with which the
infinitive is regular. An example is consilium capio, which resembles the class of verbs
¹⁴ For more instances of opinio + AcI, see TLL s.v. 718.36ff.

 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
described in § 15.125, and which is indeed treated there as a support verb construc-
tion. An additional example is (a).¹⁵
(a) . . . eadem te hora consilium cepisse hominis propinqui fortunas funditus
evertere.
(‘. . . at the very same hour you formed the plan to ruin utterly the fortunes of one who
was your kinsman.’ Cic. Quinct. 53)
The use of the prolative infinitive with nouns in other functions is rare. Where such
instances do occur, some scholars assume Greek influence.¹⁶ The gerund or gerundive
is much more common.
(b) Quod plerique omnes faciunt adulescentuli / ut animum ad aliquod studium
adiungant, aut equos / alere aut canes ad venandum aut ad philosophos . . .
(‘He behaved as all young lads tend to do, involving themselves in some pursuit like
breeding horses or hunting-dogs or studying philosophy . . .’ Ter. An. 55–7)
(c) Magnam molestiam suscepit et minime necessariam primus Zeno, post
Cleanthes, deinde Chrysippus, commenticiarum fabularum reddere
rationem . . .
(‘First Zeno, then Cleanthes, then Chrysippus undertook the great and completely
unnecessary labour of rationalizing purely fanciful myths . . .’ Cic. N.D. 3.63)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by governing noun):

Omnibus idem animus scelerata excedere terra, / linqui pollutum hospitium et dare
classibus Austros. (Verg. A. 3.60–1—NB: variation between prolative infinitive
clauses and an AcI); . . . sed tamen saluberrimam consuetudinem tenebat ecclesia in
ipsis quoque schismaticis et haereticis corrigere quod pravum est, non iterare quod
datum est, sanare quod vulneratum est, non curare quod sanum est. (August. Bapt.
2.7.12); Cupido cepit miseram nunc me proloqui . . . (Enn. scen. 257V=222J); Iuvenes,
fortissima frustra / pectora, si vobis audentem extrema cupido / certa sequi, quae sit
rebus fortuna videtis. (Verg. A. 2.348–50); . . . iis IIviri<s> · . . . viatores · binos ·
librarium praeconem haruspicem tibicinem · habere · ius · potestas/que esto ·
. . . (CIL II.5.1022.LXII.11–15 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc);¹⁷ . . . di
monuere uti . . . nobis demeres acerbam necessitudinem pariter te errantem atque
illum sceleratissumum persequi. (Sal. Jug. 102.5); Nunc est illa occasio / inimicum
ulcisci. (Pl. Per. 725–6); Rape occasionem . . . non habere cui debitum solveres et a quo
exsolvereris. (Tert. Cast. 10.1); Sequitur ordo de lapidicinis explicare . . . (Vitr.
2.7.1); . . . trepidaque a mente recedit / vertere terga pudor . . . (Sil. 4.328–9); . . . nec vero
esse ullam rationem disputare cum is qui nihil probarent . . . (Cic. Luc. 17)
Appendix:
There are several interesting instances of coordination of a gerund and an infinitive,
as in (d); such coordination suggests that they were felt as equivalent. There is an
¹⁵ For further examples, see TLL s.v. consilium. See also the discussion in K.-St.: I.742–3.
¹⁶ Discussion in Sz.: 351. See also Skutsch ad Enn. Ann. 294V=255S and Binder (2019: I.352–3).
¹⁷ The actual document is from the Flavian period. See Crawford (1996: I.395).
Participial clauses at the noun phrase level 
interesting variation in Mat. 9.6, where the Vetus Latina version (cod. d) has the
infinitive dimittere while the Vulgate version has the gerund dimittendi, showing the
difference in register.
(d) . . . ut (sc. equites) haberent facultatem turmas Iulianas circumeundi et . . .
pugnare.
(‘. . . so they might have the ability to swarm round Caesar’s squadrons and fight.’
B. Afr. 78.4)
Supplement:
Summa eludendi occasio’st mihi nunc senes / et Phaedriae curam adimere argenta-
riam . . . (Ter. Ph. 885–6—NB: parallelism, see § 17.13); Et dedit ei potestatem con-
gregandi exercitum et fabricare arma. (Vulg. I Macc. 10.6)¹⁸
. Participial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level

There are two types of participial clauses (for a general introduction, see § 14.14) that
can be used as attribute at the noun phrase level. One type is relatively frequent and
consists of a clause containing a noun (phrase) and a perfect participle, both in the
genitive case, as in (a); the other is rare and consists of a prepositional phrase, as in
(b). In this example, with the first-order noun corona, the prepositional phrase is
optional.
(a) Sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium.
(‘He testifies to the Republic being well served by himself, but saved by me.’ Cic.
Att. 2.1.6)
(b) Nullum ornamentum . . . pulchrius . . . est quam illa corona ob cives servatos . . .
(‘No decoration is . . . more beautiful than that crown bestowed for saving the lives of
fellow-citizens . . .’ Sen. Cl. 1.26.5)
The clauses in the genitive are instances of the dominant participle construction; the
prepositional phrases are instances of the type of dominant participle construction
that is usually called ab urbe condita (see § 14.14 fin.). The clauses are usually short,
but they may contain satellites (here in italics).
Genitive: . . . in actionibus dementiae, malae tractationis, rei publicae laesae. (Quint.
Inst. 7.3.2); Certare socii civesque utri reciperatae arcis suum decus facerent (Liv.
3.18.7); . . . tactusque dolore / coniugis amissae lacrimis ita fatur obortis. (Ov. Met.
7.688–9); . . . fateri facinus insimulati falso crimine senatus . . . (Liv. 6.16.1); Cuius
fama haud procul iam ab Aricia visi tanto tumultu concivit Romanos, ut . . . (Liv.
2.26.5); Quippe minore exercitu insignes captivos, caedem ducis bellique confecti
famam deportarat. (Tac. Ann. 4.26.1); Gloriam captae nobilissimae pulcherrimaeque
¹⁸ For more examples and references, see Aalto (1949: 62).

 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
urbis Graecarum dei tibi dederunt, Marcelle. (Liv. 25.29.4);¹⁹ Huius patrati (sc. belli)
gloria penes M. Crassum fuit . . . (Vell. 2.30.6); Cum vero . . . provincia tibi ista manu-
pretium fuerit eversae per te et perditae civitatis . . . (Cic. Pis. 57); Syria et Macedonia
quas vobis invitis et oppressis pestiferi illi consules pro perversae rei publicae prae-
miis occupaverunt. (Cic. Prov. 3); Hoc pretium positae virginitatis habe. (Ov. Fast.
6.128); Ob hasce res gestas consul cum . . . videret . . . ad solacium aequatae repulsae
sibi quoque negare triumphum . . . (Liv. 10.37.6–7); . . . cum in [hanc] suspicionem
C. Flavi equitis Romani occisi venisset . . . (V. Max. 8.4.2); . . . iniuriam corporis et ultio-
nem violatae per vim pudicitiae confessa viro est . . . (Liv. 38.24.9)
Prepositional phrase: Nam quas ex itinere antequam ex Asia egressus es ad me lit-
teras misisti, unas de legatis a me prohibitis proficisci, alteras de Appi<an>orum
aedificatione impedita, legi perinvitus. (Cic. Fam. 3.9.1); Tamquam enim clausa sit
Asia, sic nihil perfertur ad nos praeter rumores de oppresso Dolabella . . . (Cic. Fam.
12.9.1)
. Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as attribute

Gerundial and gerundival subordinate clauses at the noun phrase level are found with
abstract nouns, such as copia ‘opportunity’ and occasio ‘occasion’, from the earliest
authors onward. They are also found with actor deverbal nouns such as auctor
‘instigator’ from Cicero onward. The nouns involved are semantically and often also
formally related to verbs or expressions that govern prolative infinitive clauses.
Another—much less frequent—class of nouns concerns properties and denotes the
manner of the state of affairs referred to by the gerundi(v)al clause, in the way manner
adverbs do on the sentence level. An example is (a). Ex. (b) shows the same verb in
combination with a corresponding adverb.
(a) Hoc unum (sc. inopia navium) Caesari ad celeritatem conficiendi belli defuit.
(‘This (lack of ships) alone hindered Caesar’s speedy conclusion of the war.’ Caes.
Civ. 3.2.2)
(b) . . . arbitratus id bellum celeriter confici posse . . .
(‘. . . believing that the campaign could be speedily completed . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.28.1)
Gerundial and gerundival clauses are most commonly used as arguments of the type
of nouns discussed sofar. However, they can also be used with other nouns in a spe-
cific context. For instance, the combination of a noun with a specific verb may give
this noun access to the combinatorial range of a closely related expression. Thus the
word dies ‘day’ seems, of its own meaning, not to require another entity it is related to,
but when it depends on postulo ‘to demand’ as an object, it may govern a gerundial
clause in the genitive, as in (c), with the meaning ‘day’s time’. In this example the
action of delibero is expressed as a defining property of dies. More or less the same
¹⁹ For instances of gloria with a dominant participle, see TLL s.v. 2071.82ff.
Gerundial and gerundival clauses at noun phrase level 
content can be conveyed with a prepositional purpose expression with ad, as in (d).
Similarly, the word deversorium ‘lodging’ is, at first sight, a clear example of a noun
that does not require another entity to complete its meaning (it is a first-order entity;
see § 3.6). However, in its non-literal meaning it is used by Cicero with a genitive of
the gerund, as in (e), as it is used figuratively with nouns implying certain actions, as
in (f).
(c) (sc. Simonides) . . . deliberandi sibi unum diem postulavit.
(‘(Simonides) . . . requested a day’s grace for consideration.’ Cic. N.D. 1.60)
(d) Noctem sibi ad deliberandum postulavit.
(‘He asked for a night to consider.’ Cic. Sest. 74)
(e) Commorandi enim natura deversorium nobis, non habitandi dedit.
(‘For nature gave us lodging for passing the time in, not for dwelling in.’ Cic.
Sen. 84)
(f) Studiorum enim suorum M. Varro voluit illud, non libidinum deversorium.
(‘For Varro wished that house to be a retreat for his own studies, not for his lusts.’ Cic.
Phil. 2.104)
There are, however, also instances that cannot be explained in this way: they are
clearly optional constituents (satellites). A humorous example from Plautus is (g),
repeated from § 14.16 and § 15.21. Historical authors, especially Tacitus, expand the
range of head constituents with which the genitive of the gerundive may occur to
non-relational nouns such as victima ‘sacrifice’²⁰—in Livy—and pecunia ‘money’—in
Tacitus. Such gerundival clauses are often called ‘final’, and they are indeed not always
easy to distinguish from gerundival purpose adjuncts (see § 16.106). This is a literary
development that did not affect the language system as a whole and left no trace in the
history of Latin. An early example is (h). A large step even further away from rela-
tional head nouns is Sallust’s use of a gerundival clause with the substantival plural
neuter quantifier omnia ‘everything’ in (i).
(g) Eheu, huic illud dolet, / quia nunc remissus est edendi exercitus.
(‘Oh, oh, oh, this one (points to his stomach) is in pain because the army for eating has
been dismissed now.’ Pl. Capt. 152–3)
(h) . . . M. Aemilius . . . exercitum opprimendae libertatis habet . . .
(‘. . . Marcus Aemilius . . . has an army for the purpose of overthrowing our liberties . . .’
Sal. Hist. 1.77.3)
(i) . . . ut . . . omnia retinendae dominationis honesta aestimet.
(‘. . . that . . . he regards every means of retaining his supremacy as honourable.’ Sal.
Hist. 1.55.8)
²⁰ Aalto (1949: 106–7) quotes instances like immolavit · porcas piaculares · duas · luco coin-
quiendo et / operis · faciundi (from the Acta Arv. of ad 120—CIL VI.2080.36–7) as parallels.
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
Supplement:
…placuit averruncandae deum irae victimas caedi . . . (Liv. 8.6.11); . . . sulcus desig-
nandi oppidi coeptus . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.24.1); . . . quia pecuniam a Vario Ligure omit-
tendae delationis ceperant . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.30.1); . . . cenam dabat amicis ac magistris
sub urbe in rusculo celebrandae lucis annuae . . . (Gel. 19.9.1)
After the Classical period there are also instances in which a gerundival clause defines
the content of a noun (phrase) (sometimes referred to as a genetivus explicativus), but
just as with the use of the genitive to mark nouns or noun phrases as the attribute of a
head constituent, the semantic range is very wide, and precise labelling makes no
sense. Examples to illustrate the wide semantic range are (j) and (k).
(j) . . . et proverbium inde natum suspendio arborem eligendi.
(‘. . . and from that was born the proverb of “choosing the tree for hanging oneself.”’
Plin. Nat. pr. 29)
(k) Unde ista tormenta cruciandae simplicitatis et suspendendae veritatis?
(‘Why adopt such excruciating means of torturing simple knowledge and crucifying
the truth?’ Tert. An. 18.7—tr. Holmes)
Finally there is (l), a passage from the Vulgate which tries to follow the Greek original
(which has an infinitive!).
(l) Qui habet aures audiendi . . .
(‘He that has ears to hear . . .’ Vulg. Marc. 4.9)
. Gerundial clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
There are several types of gerundial expressions found as argument with nouns: geni-
tive bare case gerunds and prepositional expressions, with ad ‘to’ being the most com-
mon preposition. Examples of a gerund in the genitive are (a) and (b). An example of
a prepositional gerundial expression is (c).
(a) Et meam partem loquendi et tuam trado tibi.
(‘I grant you both my share of speaking and yours.’ Pl. As. 517)
(b) In hunc me casum vos vivendi auctores impulistis.
(‘Such is the dilemma into which you advocates of living have pushed me.’ Cic.
Att. 3.9.1)
(c) . . . perfecistis ut . . . mihi summa facultas ad accusandum daretur . . .
(‘…You have brought it about that the greatest ability to accuse was granted to me. . .'
Cic. Ver. 2.178)
The gerund may govern an argument (in the case required by the verb—see below for
a few exceptions), and satellites are also used occasionally. An example of a gerund in
the genitive with an object constituent is (d), where tutores is in the accusative, the
Gerundial and gerundival clauses at noun phrase level 
regular case with do ‘to give’. Gerundival clauses are (much) more common for this in
all periods of Latin, certainly before Livy.²¹
(d) Ius dandi tutores datum est omnibus magistratibus municipialibus . . .
(‘The right of appointing tutors is granted to all municipal magistrates . . .’ Ulp. dig.
26.5.3)

Gerund with abstract nouns:
Genitive: Causa autem fuit huc veniendi ut quosdam hinc libros promerem. (Cic.
Fin. 3.8);²² . . . habent consuetudinem dandi his quos humane suscipiunt. (Pereg.
11.1); Nam ea res dedit tum existumandi copiam / cotidianae vitae consuetudi-
nem . . . (Ter. Hau. 282–3); Si reducimus exercitum, quis est qui dubitet illos non a
cupiditate solum ulciscendi, sed etiam necessitate inposita ex alieno praedandi, cum
sua amiserint, agrum nostrum invasuros? (Liv. 5.5.3); . . . complures tum ibi dies sum
propter navigandi difficultatem commoratus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.82); . . . si rei dignitas
adimet iocandi facultatem . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.25); Eisque · pontificib(us) · . . . togas ·
praetextas haben/ di ius · potestasq(ue) · esto. (CIL II...LXVI.– (Lex
coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc);²³ Ceterum prophetandi ius et illas habere
iam ostendit . . . (Tert. Marc. 5.8.11); Tanta lubido cum Mario eundi plerosque
invaserat. (Sal. Jug. 84.3); . . . normamque tenere canendi / primus . . . (CIL
XIII.2400.11–12 (Lyon, ad 575)); . . . hortaturque ne sui in perpetuum liberandi atque
ulciscendi Romanos pro iis, quas acceperint, iniuriis occasionem dimittant. (Caes.
Gal. 5.38.2); Merope postquam vidit occasionem sibi datam esse ab inimico se ulcis-
cendi, redit cum Polyphonte in gratiam. (Hyg. Fab. 137.6); . . . fuisse illi antehac tam
truculentum officium edendi homines demiratur. (Jul. Val. 1.17); Patres censuerunt
qui honorem quem sibi capere per leges liceret peteret, in eo populo creandi quem
velit potestatem fieri aequum esse. (Liv. 32.7.11); Parsimonia est scientia vitandi
sumptus supervacuos aut ars re familiari moderate utendi. (Sen. Ben. 2.34.4); Agros
rediens vastat ulciscendi magis quam praedae studio. (Liv. 1.15.4—NB: coordination
with the noun praedae); . . . speculatores omnia visendi et Scipio ad comparanda quae
in rem erant tempus habuit. (Liv. 30.4.6—NB: parallelism with a gerundival clause)²⁴
Prepositional phrase: Sed non senatui libertas ad paenitendum erat . . . (Tac. Ann.
3.51); Non est locus ad tergiversandum. (Cic. Att. 7.1.4); Ad loquendum atque ad
tacendum tute habeas portisculum. (Pl. As. 518); . . . (sc. civitates) eo processuras unde
receptum ad²⁵ paenitendum non haberent. (Liv. 42.13.3)
²¹ K.-St.: I.735 report that in Cicero there are 587 gerundival clauses in comparison with only 24 ger-
undial clauses in the genitive with an argument. Curtius, according to their report, is the only one who
prefers the gerundial clause.
²² For argument clauses with causa, see Spevak (2014b).
²³ See note 17.
²⁴ Ungrammatical, and possibly inspired by a Greek source, is a unique utterance in Macrobius
(1.8.8): . . . certo iam tempore finis factus est procedendi de caelo semina (NB: corresponding with a subject
in a finite clause) ad elementorum conceptionem . . . Discussion in Wistrand (1967: 70–1), with a critical
comment on putative instances of ‘subjects’ of gerundial clauses mentioned by Sz.: 376.
²⁵ For ad + gerundi(v)al clauses modifying nouns, see TLL s.v. ad 504.61ff.; 538.82ff.
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
Gerund with agent nouns:

Genitive: . . . Pyrrhus unicus pugnandi artifex . . . (Liv. frg. 1Jal); Auctor ego audendi.
(Verg. A. 12.159); Sacrum quoque, quod equidem dis minime cordi esse crediderim,
multis saeculis intermissum repetendi auctores quidam erant . . . (Curt. 4.3.23); Nihil
amplius quaesierunt quam an auctor esset sibi divinis honoribus colendi suum
regem. (Curt. 4.7.28); Non hic Atridae nec fandi fictor Ulixes. (Verg. A. 9.602); . . . ut
occidendi Attalum non alio ministro uti mallet. (Curt. 7.1.3); Nam et qui principes
inveniendi fuerunt quem ex quaque belua usum habere possemus . . . (Cic. Off. 2.14—
NB: indirect question as object); Et ideo nihil prohibet duos reos stipulandi constitui
vel promittendi . . . (Julian. dig. 45.2.5)
There are a number of instances of a noun governing a genitive of the gerund, with
another noun seemingly depending on the gerund—not, however, in its regular case,
but in the genitive. An example is (e). However, I would argue that tuendi is governed
by copiam, the combination of which is modified by lucis.²⁶
(e) Quia mi item ut parentes lucis das tuendi copiam.
(‘Because like parents you give me a chance of seeing the light.’ Pl. Capt. 1008)

Nominandi istorum tibi erit magis quam edundi copia / hic apud me, Ergasile. (Pl.
Capt. 852–3); Utinam ne . . . / neve inde navis inchoandi exordium / cepisset . . . (Enn.
scen. 246–8V=210–11J); Agitur utrum M. Antonio facultas detur opprimendae rei
publicae, caedis faciendae bonorum, urbis, [eruendorum] agrorum suis latronibus
condonandi, populi Romani servitute opprimendi, an horum ei facere nihil liceat.
(Cic. Phil. 5.6); . . . quibus ne reiciundi quidem amplius quam trium iudicum prae-
clarae leges Corneliae faciunt potestatem . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.77); . . . sive enim aliquod fuit
principium generandi animalium . . . (Var. R. 2.1.3); Quarum ego quid vobis aut
inveniendi rationem aut genera ponam? (Cic. de Orat. 3.156); Earum autem rerum
nullam sibi iste neque infitiandi rationem neque defendendi facultatem reliquit. (Cic.
Ver. 4.104); Nullas enim consequuntur voluptates, quarum potiendi spe inflammati
multos labores magnosque susceperant. (Cic. Fin. 1.60)
. Gerundival clauses functioning as attribute at the noun phrase level
Gerundival clauses are found with the same head constituents as the gerundial clauses,
which are discussed in the previous section. Typical examples, in the genitive, are (a)
and (b). Examples of gerundival clauses in the dative and in a prepositional phrase are
(c) and (d), respectively.
(a) . . . natura cupiditatem ingenuit homini veri videndi . . .
(‘. . . nature has engendered in mankind the desire of seeing truth . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.46)
²⁶ The precise relationship between governing noun, gerund, and depending genitive noun is much
debated. See Bolkestein (1989a: 7–9), who analyses the fifty-two known instances from the point of view
of word order.
Gerundial and gerundival clauses at noun phrase level 
(b) . . . te . . . auctorem fuisse . . . moderandae victoriae?

(‘. . . that you were the proponent in favour of moderating victory?’ Cic. Fam. 11.27.8)
(c) Nam cum dies venisset rogationi . . . ferendae . . .
(‘When the day came for putting the bill to the Assembly . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.14.5)
(d) . . . fui verum etiam ceteris auctor ad te adiuvandum . . .
(‘. . . but I also urged others to come to your assistance . . .’ Cic. Att. 9.11a.2)
The gerundival clause is in certain ways comparable to a proper deverbal noun and
sometimes gerundives and deverbal nouns derived from the same stem occur in simi-
lar contexts, as can be seen by comparing (e) and (f):
(e) Die constituta causae dictionis Orgetorix . . . familiam . . . coegit . . .
(‘On the day appointed for the presentation of his case Orgetorix gathered his
retainers . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.4.2)
(f) Haec agitata sermonibus, donec dies causae dicendae venit.
(‘Such was the current of talk until the day for speaking the case came.’ Liv. 38.50.10)
However, as is explained in § 3.16 about the gerund, in spite of certain similarities
there are also essential differences in distribution.
It is not always clear whether the dative and ad clauses are constituents at the noun
phrase level or whether they should rather be seen as depending on the combination
of the noun and the verb or should even be regarded as purpose adjuncts (for which
see § 16.106).
Gerundival clause with abstract nouns:
Genitive: . . . huius rei aut leniendae aut corrigendae nullam rem adiumento futuram.
(Rhet. Her. 2.48); Ea ignominia accepta . . . praebuit iustiorem causam resistendi col-
legae. (Liv. 4.53.4); Tamen tanta universae Galliae consensio fuit libertatis vindican-
dae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.76.2); Date, di, quaeso,
conveniundi mi eius celerem copiam. (Pl. Mer. 850); Inde natum initium dicitur fori
ornandi ab aedilibus, cum tensae ducerentur. (Liv. 9.40.16); . . . si rationum referen-
darum ius vetus et mos antiquus maneret . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.20.1); . . . restituendae
Romanis Capuae mora atque impedimentum es. (Liv. 23.9.11); . . . erit . . . carnifex cui
occidendorum hominum officia credantur . . . (Firm. Math. 8.17.1); Tunc nos in ancip-
iti periculo constituti vel opprimendi nostri vel deserendi socii remedium e re nata
validum eo volente comminiscimus. (Apul. Met. 4.11.1); . . . quia spei maioris aver-
tendae solacium obiectum censebant. (Liv. 5.24.5); Atqui si tempus est ullum iure
hominis necandi—quae multa sunt—certe illud est . . . (Cic. Mil. 9); Multi venisse
tempus premendae plebis putabant reciperandique iura quae extorta secessione ac vi
patribus essent. (Liv. 2.34.8—NB: coordination with a gerund); . . . sicut et collegii con-
cordia et colligendae fraternitatis ac medendi vulneris utilitas exigebat . . . (Cypr. Ep.
55.7.2)
Dative: Ego caput huic argento fui <tibi> hodie reperiundo. (Pl. As. 728); Comitia
consulibus rogandis fuere: creati P. Cornelius Lentulus M. Baebius Tamphilus. (Liv.
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
40.18.1); Nam cum dies venisset rogationi ex senatus consulto ferendae . . . (Cic. Att.
1.14.5); . . . vectigalibusve publiceis fruendeis locandeis vendundeis legem
deixerunt . . . (CIL I2.585.85 (Lex Agr., Rome, c.111 bc)); Fama est adpulsa nave
mercatorum nitri, cum sparsi per litus epulas pararent nec esset cortinis attollendis
lapidum occasio, glaebas nitri e nave subdidisse… (Plin. Nat. 36.191); Origo quaes-
toribus creandis antiquissima est . . . (Ulp. dig. 1.13.1)
Prepositional phrase: Actione de rationibus distrahendis nemo tenetur . . . (Paul.
dig. 27.3.2.pr.); . . . aut inpudentia et huic et ceteris magnam ad se defendendum facul-
tatem dabit. (Cic. Cael. 50); Eis ad ignoscendum (‘to obtain pardon’) nulla facultas est
data et a militibus nostris interfecti sunt. (B. Hisp. 12.2); . . . qui morae ad decernendum
bellum ad Naupactum [auctor] fuerat . . . (Liv. 31.40.9); Eam occasionem Polyxenidae
ad rem gerendam fore. (Liv. 37.26.7); . . . et speculatores omnia visendi et Scipio ad
comparanda quae in rem erant tempus habuit. (Liv. 30.4.6—NB: parallelism with a
gerund clause); Instructius deliberatiusque fore arbitramur theorematium hoc de
mandatis huiuscemodi obsequendis, si exemplum quoque P. Crassi Muciani, clari
atque incluti viri, apposuerimus. (Gel. 1.13.9)
Gerundival clause with agent nouns:
Genitive: . . . te et non suscipiendi belli civilis gravissimum auctorem fuisse et
moderandae victoriae? (Cic. Fam. 11.27.8); Multa illi opera opu’st ficturae qui se fic-
torem probum / vitae agundae esse expetit. (Pl. Trin. 365–6)
Dative: . . . ille legibus per vim et contra auspicia ferendis auctor . . . (Cic. Att. 8.3.3)
NB: agent nouns referring to magistrates: . . . Demosthenes curator muris reficiendis
fuit . . . (Cic. Opt. Gen. 19); . . . curator · vi(i)s · sternundis . . . (CIL VI.1283.b2 (Rome,
181 bc)); . . . curator · pecuniae· publicae · exi / gendae · et · attribuendae . . . (CIL
XIV.376.13–14 (Ostia Antica, c. ad 150)); . . . alterum triumvirum coloniis deducundis . . .
(Sal. Jug. 42.1)
. Optional gerundial and gerundival clauses at the noun phrase level
All sorts of nouns may be modified by optional gerundial and gerundival clauses with
various prepositions.
(a) . . . sed etiam commemorant sodalitatem in accusando . . .
(‘. . . but in accusing they even harp on their fraternity . . .’ Cic. Cael. 26)
(b) . . . si mihi libeat totius gentis in testimoniis dicendis explicare levitatem.
(‘. . . if I wanted to display the untrustworthiness of the whole nation in giving evi-
dence.’ Cic. Flac. 12)

Gerundial clauses: Atque hic parum a magistris institutus naturam habuit admira-
bilem ad dicendum. (Cic. Brut. 280); Nec bestiarum solum ad nocendum scelera sunt
sed interim aquarum quoque ac locorum. (Plin. Nat. 25.20)
Gerundival clauses: . . . otium / ab senibus ad potandum ut habeam. (Ter. Ph. 831–2); . . .
legionis Martiae quartaeque mirabilis consensus ad rem publicam recuperandam
laude et testimonio nostro confirmetur . . . (Cic. Phil. 3.7); Nunc propraetoris unius et
Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level 
parvi ad tuendam Nolam praesidii praeda sumus. (Liv. 23.42.10); Semper

illius . . . praestantem in re publica tuenda curam . . . celebrabit. (Cic. Phil. 9.10);²⁷ Quae
enim proposita fuerant nobis . . . dignitas in sententiis dicendis, libertas in re publica
capessenda, ea sublata tota sunt . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.8.3); . . . omnes quidem debitos
Domino spectat ut omnes salutis in promerendo Deo petitores . . . (Tert. Paen.
6.1); . . . decreta super iugandis / feminis . . . (Hor. Saec. 18–19)
17.21 Subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level

Two-place adjectives (see §§ 4.99–104) can be used with a subordinate clause as
their argument, both when they function as an attribute of a noun phrase, as in
(a)—relatively rare—and—much more common—when they function as a subject
or object complement, as in (b) and (c), respectively. In (a), dignam governs a
gerundival clause; in (b) and (c) dignus and dignos govern a finite ut clause; in (c)
indignos governs an autonomous relative clause. For these relative clauses, see
§ 18.19. Examples of adjectives that function as subject complement can be found
in the following sections.
(a) . . . adultum iam esse Britannicum, veram dignamque stirpem suscipiendo
patris imperio . . .
(‘. . . that Britannicus was now mature, the true and worthy stock for undertaking his
father’s command . . .’ Tac. Ann. 13.14.2—tr. Woodman)
(b) Quia enim non sum dignus prae te palum ut figam in parietem.
(‘Because compared with you I’m not worthy to pound a peg into a wall.’ Pl.
Mil. 1140)
(c) . . . si modo quos ut socios haberes dignos duxisti haud indignos iudicas quos
in fidem receptos tuearis.
(‘. . . if only men whom you have considered worthy to be your allies are not judged by
you unworthy to be taken under your protection and defended.’ Liv. 23.42.13)
The embedded clauses at the adjective phrase level have in principle the same struc-
tural possibilities as in independent sentences and main clauses, but here as elsewhere
these possibilities are rarely exploited, in order to avoid an overload of information.
Adjectives may be modified by various types of optional embedded clauses as well, for
example a clause indicating the cause of the state or the property denoted by the
adjective (see § 17.29).
Neuter singular adjectives that function as subject or object complement with a
clause as the subject or object are dealt with in Chapter 15.
²⁷ For in + gerundi(v)al clauses modifying nouns, see TLL s.v. in 785.9ff.

 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
. Finite subordinate clauses functioning

at the adjective phrase level
As with governing nouns in earlier sections of this Chapter three types of clauses are
distinguished that correspond more or less to declarative, interrogative, and impera-
tive subordinate clauses at the sentence level. However, this threefold distinction is
especially relevant for adjectives that denote cognition, as is shown in (a)–(c), with
the adjective memor ‘mindful’. Ex. (a) is a rare example of a declarative quod clause;
(b) of a not uncommon interrogative clause; (c) of an exceptional imperative clause
(note the coordination with diligens).²⁸
(a) Igitur Antiochus memor quod . . . frater propter segnitiam contemptus
fuisset . . . civitates . . . summa industria persequitur . . .
(‘Therefore Antiochus . . . remembering that his brother had been despised for his
indolence . . . proceeded to make war, with the utmost vigour, on the provinces . . .’
Justin. 36.1.9)
(b) (sc. Hortensius) Adtuleratque minime volgare genus dicendi . . . memor et
quae essent dicta contra quaeque ipse dixisset.
(‘And he brought to the Forum a style which was far from commonplace . . . summariz-
ing what had been said on the other side, and what he himself had said.’ Cic. Brut. 302)
(c) Et memor sum et diligens ut quae imperes compareant.
(‘I’m mindful and careful that what you order should appear.’ Pl. Am. 630—NB: par-
allelism)
With the idiom certiorem facio aliquem ‘to inform somebody’ all three types of clauses
are well attested.²⁹ An example of an imperative clause is (d).
(d) . . . Bibulus Pompeium fecerat certiorem ut caveret insidias, in quo ei Pompeius
gratias egerat.
(‘. . . Bibulus had sent information to Pompeius warning him of a plot, for which
Pompeius had thanked him.’ Cic. Att. 2.24.3)
. Declarative finite subordinate clauses functioning

Declarative finite subordinate clauses with quod, quia, and quoniam at the adjective
phrase level are very uncommon and mostly Late, as is the case at the clause level
(see § 15.113). An example is (a).³⁰ By contrast, accusative and infinitive clauses are
attested from Early Latin onwards (see § 17.28).
²⁸ For a very Late instance of memor ut, see TLL s.v. 661.46.
²⁹ See TLL s.v. certus 922.12ff.
³⁰ For such clauses with memor in translations of the Bible, see TLL s.v. 660.52ff.
Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level 
(a) (sc. rex) . . . ignarus quod . . . eorum animos ut ad opimam praedam

sollicitabat.
(‘. . . little thinking that . . . he was thus exciting their cupidity for what seemed to them
a plentiful loot.’ Justin. 25.1.7)
(sc. Severus) Sedit et in sella imperatoria temere a ministro posita ignarus quod non
liceret. (Hist. Aug. Sept. Sev. 1.9); . . . ordines civitatum et populi . . . detinebant paene
publicum defensorem memores quod . . . nihil amiserat per decennium . . . (Amm.
18.6.2)
Primo igitur certus esse debes quia nigri . . . oculi imbecillem . . . animum . . . indicant.
(Physiogn. 27)
Examples of a ne clause with an adjective of fearing and worrying are (b) and (c).
(b) Ego pol quoque etiam timida sum, quom venit mi in mentem quae sim, / ne
nomen mihi quaesti obsiet.
(‘I am also, by heaven, rather apprehensive, when I remember what I am, that the
reputation of my profession will count against me.’ Ter. Hec. 734–5)
(c) . . . ne qua seditio aut bellum oriretur anxius erat.
(‘. . . he worried that some rebellion or war might erupt.’ Sal. Jug. 6.3)

. . . ita gladiis portas caedebant, quas supra diximus obseratas, admodum anxii ne
urbe excisa ipsi quoque sine ullo specioso facinore deleantur . . . (Amm. 19.6.4); . . . (sc.
oppidani) pavidiquene iam subrutis muris facta in urbem via esset, fossam intra
murum . . . ducere instituunt. (Liv. 38.7.7)
An example of a quin clause with the adjective dubius is (d).

(d) Nec mihi mens dubia est quin te tua numina damnent.
(‘And my mind doubts not that you, too, are under condemnation of your gods.’
Ov. Ep. 7.87)
. Interrogative finite subordinate clauses functioning

Interrogative subordinate clauses at the adjective phrase level are not uncommon.
Examples are (a) and (b).
(a) Quod ubi est Philodamo nuntiatum, tametsi erat ignarus quantum sibi ac
liberis suis iam tum mali constitueretur, tamen ad istum venit.
(‘But when this is reported to Philodamus, although he was ignorant what great mis-
fortune was at that moment being contrived for him and for his children, still he
comes to him.’ Cic. Ver. 1.65)
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
(b) . . . Lacetani . . . memores quam saepe in agro eorum impune persultassent,

quotiens ipsos signis conlatis fudissent fugassentque, patefacta repente porta
universi in eos erumpunt.
(‘. . . the Lacetani . . . remembering how often they had roamed around this people’s
territory with impunity and on how many occasions they had beaten and routed
them in pitched battle, suddenly drew open the gate and burst forth in a body against
them.’ Liv. 34.20.6)
Sed Galba . . . anxius quonam exercituum vis erumperet . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.14.1); Hanc
tum regionem et totam infestam Masinissa et ex quadam parte dubiae possessionis sui
regni an Carthaginiensium esset effecerat. (Liv. 34.62.4); . . . dicit Callisthenem incidisse
in hominem summa potentia summaque fortuna sed ignarum quem ad modum
rebus secundis uti conveniret. (Cic. Tusc. 3.21); . . . vive memor quam sis aevi brevis.
(Hor. S. 2.6.97); Qua re non sum nescius quanto periculo vivam . . . (Cic. Sul. 28)
. Imperative finite subordinate clauses functioning

As is stated in § 17.22, true imperative subordinate clauses at the adjective level are
very rarely attested. The use of an ut clause with the adjective dignus is illustrated in
§ 17.21, exx. (b) and (c). These ut clauses are sometimes called ‘consecutive’. Another
example is (a) below. Relative clauses are more common with such adjectives than ut
clauses, and are normal in the Classical period (see § 18.19). Ex. (b) is an example of
what is sometimes called the ‘final’ use of an ut clause governed by an adjective.
(a) Digna res visa ut simulacrum celebrati eius diei Gracchus, postquam Romam
rediit, pingi iuberet . . .
(‘The affair seemed to merit (it,) that Gracchus, after he returned to Rome, ordered a
representation of that day of festivity to be painted . . .’ Liv. 24.16.19)
(b) . . . idonea esse causa debet ut post annum actio haec dari debeat.
(‘. . . there ought to be a satisfactory reason justifying the award of this action after a
year.’ Ulp. dig. 4.2.14.2)
Audivimus de te quod vir potens viribus et aptus es ut sis amicus noster. (Vulg. I
Macc. 10.19); Et respondens centurio ait: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub
tectum meum . . . (Vulg. Mat. 8.8—NB: non sum idoneus ut . . .Vet. Lat. (cod. k))
Ut clauses can also be used after a comparative expression + quam, as in (c) and (d).
For autonomous relative clauses after such expressions, see § 18.19.
(c) Quis enim . . . non intellegit Canachi signa rigidiora esse quam ut imitentur
veritatem?
(‘For who . . . does not recognize that the statues of Canachus are too rigid to repro-
duce the truth of nature?’ Cic. Brut. 70)
Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level 
(d) Hannibali nimis laeta res est visa maiorque quam ut eam statim capere animo
posset.
(‘To Hannibal the idea was too joyous and too vast for him to grasp it at once with his
mind.’ Liv. 22.51.3)
Supplement:
Sed si haec maior esse ratio videtur quam ut hominum possit sensu aut cogitatione
comprehendi . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.21); (sc. Isocrates) Maiore mihi ingenio videtur esse
quam ut cum orationibus Lysiae comparetur . . . (Cic. Orat. 41); . . . clarior res erat quam
ut tegi ac dissimulari posset . . . (Liv. 26.51.11); Vulva . . . in mulieribus vero, nisi ubi
gravidae sunt, non multo maior quam ut manu conprehendatur. (Cels. 4.1.12); Est
enim sapientis rustici reputare num maiore fructu vitis se induerit quam ut perferre
eum possit. (Col. 4.27.5); . . . in quis erant sagittarii, sicuti ante dictum est, gravioribus
telis quam ut apte excuti possent. (Curt. 8.13.6); Itaque nonnullos reperias qui sibi
eloquentiores videantur quam ut causas agant. (Quint. Inst. 12.6.6); . . . validiore apud
libidines principis Paride quam ut poena adficeretur. (Tac. Ann. 13.22)
. Non-finite subordinate clauses functioning

The following sections deal with infinitival, participial, and gerundial and gerundival
clauses functioning as argument or satellite at the adjective phrase level. For the
supine, see § 16.113.
. Infinitival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level

Just as in § 17.13 with infinitival clauses at the noun phrase level, two classes of infinitival
clauses are distinguished: accusative and infinitive clauses and prolative infinitive clauses.
. Accusative and infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective

phrase level
The adjectives with which accusative and infinitive clauses can be used as attribute
most often denote cognition or emotion, as in (a) and (b), respectively. Instances can
be found in all periods of Latin.
(a) Postquam mihi responsum est, abeo ab illo maestus ad forum / med illo
frustra advenisse.
(‘After receiving this answer, I went away from him to the market, sad that I’d gone
there for nothing.’ Pl. Cur. 336–7)
(b) Constituunt enim . . . duo genera causarum . . . ignari omnis controversias ad
universi generis vim et naturam referri.
(‘They posit two classes of cases—without realizing that all disputes can be related to one
about the essential nature of a general category.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.133—tr. May and Wisse)
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs

(sc. Tarquinius) Conscius deinde male quaerendi regni ab se ipso adversus se exem-
plum capi posse, armatis corpus circumsaepsit. (Liv. 1.49.2); (sc. Vitellius) Super insi-
tam [mortem] animo ignaviam conscius sibi instare donativum et deesse pecuniam
omnia alia militi largiebatur. (Tac. Hist. 2.94.2); . . . Ilioneus . . .‘di’ que ‘o communiter
omnes’, / dixerat ignarus non omnes esse rogandos / ‘parcite!’ (Ov. Met. 6.261–4);
Ceterum ab ignaris militibus omissam ab hoste pugnam et quid imperator vellet
impetus in eos est factus . . . (Liv. 33.10.5); Sed ut maestus est se hasce <aedis> vendi-
disse. (Pl. Mos. 796); Quid si me, Meleagre, tuam memor esse sororem / forte paro
facinus . . .? (Ov. Met. 9.149–50); Tum tu insiste audax hostium muris memor quam
per tot annos obsides urbem ex ea tibi his quae nunc panduntur fatis victoriam
datam. (Liv. 5.16.11); Nescius adsumptis Priamus pater Aesacon alis / vivere lugebat.
(Ov. Met. 12.1–2); Quis ille haud sane motus satisque prudens otii vitia negotio dis-
cuti edicit ut omnes in vestibulo regiae praesto sint. (Curt. 7.1.4)
. Prolative infinitive clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
Infinitival clauses are found with adjectives that are semantically, and sometimes for-
mally, related to verbs with which infinitival clauses are common, as in (a) and (b);³¹
however, in poetry and in poeticizing prose, infinitives are used with other adjectives
as well. This usage was certainly stimulated by the use of infinitival clauses in similar
contexts in Greek.³² In (Classical) prose other expressions are more common, such as
gerundival clauses, the supine in -u (for which, see § 16.113), and relative clauses with
a subjunctive.³³ The infinitive can refer to a state of affairs that is controlled by the
entity the adjective is related to, as in (a)–(d), but this is not necessary, as is shown by
(e) and (f).³⁴
(a) . . . nihili est autem suom qui officium facere immemor est, nisi est ammonitus.
(‘. . . but someone who is forgetful in doing his duty unless he’s reminded is worthless.’
Pl. Ps. 1104)
(b) Insignita fere tum milia militum octo / duxit delectos bellum tolerare
potentes.
(‘Then he led some eight thousand warriors, wearing badges, chosen men, strong to
bear war well.’ Enn. Ann. 10.332–3V=330–1S)
(c) Illa dolos dirumque nefas in pectore versat, / certa mori, variosque irarum
concitat aestus.
(‘She revolves in her heart wiles and dreadful crime, fixed on dying, and awakens the
swirling surge of anger.’ Verg. A. 4.563–4)
³¹ For the frequency of the use of the infinitive in Christian writers, see Perrochat (1932b: 188–91).
³² For possible Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 133–4).
³³ For further instances, see K.-St.: I.683–7; Sz: 350–1.
³⁴ For further instances of dignus, see TLL s.v. 1152.32ff.
Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level 
(d) Aut nihil aut paulo cui tum concedere digna / lux mea se nostrum contulit in
gremium . . .
(‘Either not at all or a little deserving to give place to that one, my bright one came
into my arms . . .’ Catul. 68.131–2)
(e) Et puer ipse fuit cantari dignus . . .
(‘The boy himself was worthy to be sung . . .’ Verg. Ecl. 5.54)
(f) Campus erat, campi claudebant ultima colles / silvaque montanas occulere
apta feras.
(‘There was a plain; hills and a forest suited for hiding mountain animals enclosed its
borders.’ Ov. Fast. 2.215–16)
. . . avidi committere pugnam . . . (Ov. Met. 5.75); Cur non, Mopse, boni quoniam con-
venimus ambo, / tu calamos inflare levis, ego dicere versus, / hic corylis mixtas inter
consedimus ulmos? (Verg. Ecl. 5.1–3); . . . amicum, / praesertim cautum dignos
adsumere . . . (Hor. S. 1.6.50–1); O celere<s> at mala vota dei / has audire ·
preces . . . (CIL X.7570.4–5 (Cagliari, 2nd cent. ad (first half))); . . . Caesar . . . certus
procul urbe degere. (Tac. Ann. 4.57.1); Cum diabolo temptante congreditur et inimi-
cum tantum vicisse contentus nihil ultra verba conatur. (Cypr. Pat. 6); (Iulianus dixit)
Verum non uno modo vicisse contentus argumenti tui, cuius impietatem prodidi,
coarguam falsitatem. (August. Jul. 5.39); . . . cupidus falsis attingere gaudia palmis . . .
(Prop. 1.19.9); . . . durus componere versus. (Hor. S. 1.4.8); Ah nimium faciles aurem
praebere puellae, / discite desertae non temere esse bonae! (Prop. 2.21.15–16); . . .
(materiam) spiritalem et penetrare et insidere facilem per substantiae suae subtili-
tatem. (Tert. Bapt. 4.1); Septima post decumam felix et ponere vitem / et prensos
domitare boves et licia telae / addere. (Verg. G. 1.284–6); . . . impiger hostium / vexare
turmas . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.14.22–3); Ingens ferre mala et Fortunae subdere colla /
nescius . . . (Sil. 10.215–16); . . . ademptus Hector / tradidit fessis leviora tolli /
Pergama Grais. (Hor. Carm. 2.4.10–12); . . . Creator omnium et multum potens for-
mare nostra deformia. (Aug. Conf. 9.6); Is recens praetura, modicus dignationis et
quoquo facinore properus clarescere . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.52.1); Nomentanus erat super
ipsum, Porcius infra, / ridiculus totas semel absorbere placentas. (Hor. S. 2.8.23–4); . . .
portu, quo non spatiosior alter / innumeras cepisse rates et claudere pontum . . . (Sil.
8.481–2)
Passive infinitive: . . . gens barbara, aspera et regi difficilis . . . (V. Max. 7.3.6); . . . ne
totiens falli digna fuisse puter. (Ov. Fast. 3.490); Necdum ora patent, dubiusque
notari / signa dabat magnae longe manifesta ruinae / planctuque et gemitu. (Stat.
Theb. 3.42–4); Quamquam ipse videri / exiguus, gravia ossa tamen nodisque
lacerti / difficiles. (Stat. Theb. 6.844–6); . . . et facilis spargi munda sine arte rosa . . .
(Prop. 4.8.40); unde et acetaria appellantur, facilia concoqui nec one<r>atura
sensu<s> cibo et quae minime accenderent desiderium panis. (Plin. Nat.
19.58); . . . urit grata protervitas / et vultus nimium lubricus adspici. (Hor. Carm.
1.19.7–8); . . . maiorque videri / nec mortale sonans adflata est numine quando /
iam propiore dei. (Verg. A. 6.49–51); (sc. vitulus) . . . niveus videri, / cetera fulvos.
(Hor. Carm. 4.2.59–60)
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
. Participial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level

Instances of participial clauses governed by adjectives are very rare. An example with
nescius is (a).
(a) Nescius interea capti ducis arma parabat / Magnus . . .
(‘Magnus meanwhile, unaware that the general had been made prisoner, was taking
the field . . .’ Luc. 2.526–7)
Supplement:
. . . nec tremis admissae conscia nequitiae? (Prop. 1.15.38)³⁵
. Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning

Gerundial and gerundival clauses with adjectival attributes and subject and object
complements are found in all periods of Latin, although in Early Latin only in very
small numbers. They are used especially with two-place adjectives that indicate vol-
ition, ability, and suitability, and they are marked by the cases or prepositions required
by the adjectives (see § 11.92). Examples with gerunds are (a), a genitive, and (b),
a dative.
(a) Qui neque in Oceano natare volueris, studiosissimus homo natandi . . .
(‘Though you are a person most fond of swimming you had no mind for a dip in the
ocean . . .’ Cic. Fam. 17.10.2)
(b) Semina limus habet virides generantia ranas, / et generat truncas pedibus,
mox apta natando / crura dat . . .
(‘Slimy mud contains seeds that produce green frogs, without legs at first, but soon it
gives them legs adapted to swimming . . .’ Ov. Met. 15.375–7)
The range of adjectives was gradually widened by poets and, following their example,
by certain prose authors, with Tacitus as a prominent representative. But some authors
went even further and used gerundial and gerundival clauses with adjectives that do
not belong to the semantic classes mentioned above. A typical example is (c), where a
property of the action or process denoted by the verb no ‘to swim’—which could well
be expressed by an adverb celeriter—is predicated of a person.
(c) Ille, celer nandi, iamiamque apprendere tuta / dum parat . . .
(‘He, swift in swimming, struggled for a safe hand-hold . . .’ Sil. 4.585–6)
This development is especially notable with respect to the genitive and fits in with the
general widening of the use of the genitive with adjectives (see § 11.92 and § 12.14,
Appendix).
³⁵ The example was suggested by Leon Wash (University of Chicago).

Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level 
Table . Adjectives governing gerundial and gerundival clauses

Early Latin Classical Latin Silver Latin Late Latin
late Republican period Augustan period
cupidus avidus aptus celer acutus
firmus idoneus contentus insolens dulcis
natus inops doctus potens inconstans
peritus insuetus impotens pravus nobilis
studiosus promptus liber primus
sciens memor pronus
utilis vetus
Table 17.1 gives a number of adjectives found with gerundial and gerundival clauses
with an indication of their first attestation in that construction. Gerundial and
gerundival clauses in this context rarely contain arguments or satellites. In the
examples given in the following sections, adjectives are included which are used as
head constituent (so-called substantival use) or which function as appositives.
. Gerundial clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
Examples with a gerund in the genitive and the dative are given in § 17.31, (a) and (b),
respectively. Prepositional expressions are illustrated by (a) below. An example of an
ablative gerundial clause is (b). Extension of the gerund to adjectives that do not
require another entity is shown in (c).
(a) . . . minime aptum ad dicendum genus.
(‘. . . a sort ill-suited to public speaking.’ Cic. Brut. 131)
(b) . . . culand<o> nihilum dignus, set dignus amari . . .
(‘. . . not at all worthy of blaming, but worthy to be loved . . .’ CIL III.9504.2–4 (=CLE
650.2, Salona, ad 360))
(c) . . . tenebatque animos nostros homo ille fandi dulcissimus . . .
(‘. . . and that man most sweet at speaking held our minds enthralled . . .’ Gel. 16.3.1)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective; some examples are rather
satellites):
Genitive: Thebis hebetes et brutos nasci relatum est, Athenis sapiendi dicendique
acutissimos . . . (Tert. An. 20.3);³⁶ . . . Dominum . . . percutiendi et saeviendi alienum . . .
(Tert. Marc. 5.12.8); Nam Tiberius cuncta per consules incipiebat, tamquam vetere re
publica et ambiguus imperandi. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.3); Aeneas celsa in puppi, iam certus
eundi, / carpebat somnos rebus iam rite paratis. (Verg. A. 4.554–5); Ut si quis apud
³⁶ For Tertullian’s frequent use of the genitive with adjectives, see Hoppe (1903: 21ff.=1985: 54ff.).
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
equites Romanos cupidos iudicandi Caepionis legem iudiciariam laudet. (Cic. Inv.
1.92); Qua ex parte homines bellandi cupidi magno dolore adficiebantur. (Caes.
Gal. 1.2.4); Secunda activa est quae tantum vitae commodis anxiata, ornatui petax,
habendi insatiata, rapiendi cauta, servandi sollicita geritur. (Fulg. Myth. 2.66); . . . (sc.
Hasdrubal) mercandi dextras largus belloque parata / prodigere in bellum facilis.
(Sil. 15.495–6); Orator est, Marce fili, vir bonus, dicendi peritus. (Cato Fil.
14(J)); . . . naves, piscatoriae pleraeque, conspectae peritis nandi dedissent effugium.
(Liv. 23.1.7)
Dative: . . . hominem non imperando habilem . . . (Paneg. 4(10)8.2); Nam emporitica
inutilis scribendo involucris chartarum segestriumque mercibus usum praebet, ideo
a mercatoribus cognominata. (Plin. Nat. 13.76); Quem ubi equites quoque tegendo
satis latebrosum locum circumvectus ipse oculis perlustravit . . . (Liv. 21.54.1)
Ablative: . . . lassos itinere ac proeliando milites ad oppugnanda castra succedere
noluit. (B. Alex. 30.2—NB: coordination)
Prepositional phrase: . . . in ipsius paterno genere fuit noster ille amicus, dignus huic
ad imitandum . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.30); (Nilus) . . . irrigat adeo efficacibus aquis ad gene-
randum alendumque ut . . . (Mela 1.9.52); . . . non unam aut facilem ad subigendum
frenat et domat <beluam> . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.67); Principium est, cum statim auditoris
animum nobis idoneum reddimus ad audiendum. (Rhet. Her. 1.6); Incidit per id tem-
pus ut tempestates ad navigandum idoneas non haberet. (B. Afr. 1.3); Oratorem
autem . . . eum puto esse, qui et verbis ad audiendum iucundis et sententiis ad proban-
dum accommodatis uti possit . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.213); Itaque ficus, malus Punica et
vitis propter femin<e>am mollitiam ad crescendum prona, contra palma et cupres-
sus et olea in crescendo tarda. (Var. R. 1.41.4–5)
. Gerundival clauses functioning at the adjective phrase level
Gerundival clauses with adjectival attributes and subject and object complements can
be found in all periods of Latin, in spite of their complexity. Examples of a genitive,
dative, ablative, and prepositional gerundival clause are (a)–(d), respectively. The
clauses are normally not complex in themselves.
(a) . . . qui perpessus est omnia potius quam conscios delendae tyrannidis
indicaret.
(‘. . . who endured every torment rather than be brought to divulge his accomplices in
the plot to overthrow tyranny.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.52)
(b) Referundae ego habeo linguam natam gratiae.
(‘I have a tongue that was made for returning thanks.’ Pl. Per. 428)
(c) . . . dum flumen gignendo sale fecundum et conterminum vi trahunt . . .
(‘. . . while they attempt to appropriate by force a river fertile in producing salt and one
which served as the frontier line between the tribes . . .’ Tac. Ann. 13.57.1)
(d) . . . magnum quoddam ornamentum orationis et aptum ad animos concilian-
dos vel maxime, saepe autem etiam ad commovendos.
(‘. . . a considerable ornament of style, and extremely effective in calming down an
audience and often also in exciting it.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.204)
Subordinate clauses at adjective/adverb phrase level 

Genitive: Avidus consul belli gerundi movere quam senescere omnia malebat. (Sal.
Jug. 35.3); . . . defensionem . . . quam Cremutius, relinquendae vitae certus, in hunc
modum exorsus est. (Tac. Ann. 4.34.2); . . . si sunt ad rem militarem apti et cupidi
bellorum gerendorum. (Cic. Off. 1.74); . . . neuter, dum hostem vulneraret, sui prote-
gendi corporis memor . . . (Liv. 2.6.9); Plato, veritatis homo amicissimus eiusque
omnibus exhibendae promptissimus . . . (Gel. 10.22.1); . . . dum a libertis et clientibus,
apiscendae potentiae properis, exstimulatur . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.59.3)
Dative: . . . frutecta atque virgulta simul omnia pomis frugibusque gignendis felicia
cum sentibus et rubis purificandi agri gratia convellit . . . (Gel. 19.12.9); Unde nisi a
diabolo maritum petant idoneum exhibendae sellae . . . (Tert. Ux. 2.8.3); . . . eadem
humus movendis inutilis turribus . . . tabulata turrium perfringebat . . . (Curt. 4.6.9);
M. vero Scaurus . . . vir regendae rei publicae scientissimus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.214)
Ablative: . . . testaretur adultum iam esse Britannicum, veram dignamque stirpem
suscipiendo patris imperio, quod insitus et adoptivus per iniurias matris exerceret.
(Tac. Ann. 13.14.2)
Prepositional phrases: Elapso die parum apto ad inchoandas rerum magni-
tudines . . . (Amm. 26.2.1); . . . in favorem Severi magistri tunc peditum ut apti ad hoc
impetrandum . . . (Amm. 27.6.3); (sc. Caesar) . . . loco pro castris ad aciem instruendam
natura oportuno atque idoneo . . . transversam fossam duxit . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.8.3);
Sin autem non naturalem locum neque idoneum ad tuendas ab tempestatibus naves
habuerimus . . . (Vitr. 5.12.2); . . . navigabilem amnem, opportunum ad comportanda
quae usui sint . . . (Liv. 38.3.11)
. Gerundial and gerundival clauses functioning as optional

constituents at the adjective phrase level
Gerundial and gerundival clauses can be used as optional constituents at the adjective
phrase level in various functions. In (a) orandis causis ‘by pleading cases’ indicates the
cause of Mamercus being insignis ‘distinguished’ (note the coordination with nobili-
tate). In (b) the in clause functions as a respect constituent.
(a) Mamercus dein Scaurus rursum postulatur, insignis nobilitate et orandis
causis, vita probrosus.
(‘Then came the second impeachment of Mamercus Scaurus, distinguished by birth
and by his pleading of cases, but in life a reprobate.’ Tac. Ann. 6.29.3)
(b) Dicit enim natio minime in testimoniis dicendis religiosa.
(‘For a people that is quite without scruples in what it says is giving evidence.’
Cic. Flac. 23)
17.35 Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level

Subordinate clauses at the adverb phrase level are rare, for understandable reasons:
there is a risk of an overload of information. Two examples are (a) and (b).
 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs
(a) . . . nequis iniussu vilici exierit neque vilicus iniussu domini longius quam ut
eodem die rediret . . .
(‘. . . no one shall leave the farm without the direction of the overseer, nor the overseer
without the direction of the master, for longer than so as to return on the same day . . .’
Var. R. 1.16.5)
(b) (sc. oratio) . . . qua praecepta salutis et laudis apte ad persuadendum edat suis
civibus . . .
(‘. . . by which he might publish precepts conducive to health and praise in a manner
suited to persuading his fellow-citizens . . .’ Cic. Leg. 1.62)
Supplement:
Nam et vera esse et apte ad repraesentandam iram deum ficta possunt. (Liv.
8.6.3); . . . sed is est orator qui de omni quaestione pulchre et ornate et ad persuaden-
dum apte dicere . . . possit. (Tac. Dial. 30.5); . . . gressum reciperavi, nondum quidem ad
innitendum idonee, sed . . . (Apul. Flor. 16.23–4)
CHAPTER 18
Relative clauses
18.1 Introduction
Relative clauses consist minimally of a relative expression and a finite verb form
(rarely a historic infinitive—see § 7.71, Appendix, and § 7.122—or an accusative and
infinitive clause—see § 15.107). There are two types of expressions involving relatives:
relative words and relative phrases. Latin has three classes of relative words: rela-
tive pronouns, relative adjectives, and relative adverbs. The most common relative
pronoun is qui, quae, quod ‘who’, ‘which’, illustrated by (a). Ex. (b) shows the use of the
relative adjective qualis, here used as a subject complement with es. Ex. (c) illustrates
the use of the relative adverb ubi.
(a) Nam improbus est homo qui beneficium scit accipere et reddere nescit.
(‘For a man who knows how to receive a good turn, but doesn’t know how to return
it, is worthless.’ Pl. Per. 762)
(b) Pariter suades qualis es.
(‘Your advice is of the same quality as you are.’ Pl. Rud. 875)
(c) Ubi se adiuvat, ibi me adiuvat.
(‘When she’s helping herself, she’s helping me.’ Pl. Per. 304)
Relative phrases consist of a head noun or noun phrase and a relative determiner
or a relative adjective that modifies that noun or noun phrase. An example of a rela-
tive determiner is quibus . . . dictis in (d); of a relative adjective, quale bellum in (e).
(d) Quibus est dictis dignus usque oneremus ambo.
(‘Let’s both burden him with the words he deserves.’ Pl. Mer. 978)
(e) In hoc . . . bello, quale bellum nulla umquam barbaria cum sua gente gessit . . .
(‘In this war, . . . a war such as no tribe of barbarians ever fought among its own
people . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.25)
As a comparison of (a) and (d) shows, qui, quae, quod can be used both as a pronoun
and as a determiner. Most scholars use the terms ‘substantival’ and ‘adjectival’ to
distinguish between these two uses (for determiners, see § 3.8 and §§ 11.25–8).
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0018
472 Relative clauses
Instances in Late Latin of utterances which look like a combination of a main clause
with a relative clause in which a relative pronoun is missing are mentioned by
Sz.: 532. Just as in other types of clauses and sentences a finite verb (and other con-
stituents) may be absent for various reasons.
Latin has a large number of relative words, some more common than others.
Many are built with qu-, of which the most frequent are cited in Table 18.1 (for
examples see the OLD). Not included are most of the indefinite relative pronouns
and adverbs. Latin has formations with -cumque ‘-ever’ as in quicumque ‘who-
ever’, ‘whatever’ (from Early Latin onwards), many of which are attested from
Cicero’s time onwards. Reduplicated forms of the type quantusquantus ‘however
great’ and ubiubi ‘wherever’ are also present from Early Latin onwards. In Silver
or Late Latin other formations are used as well, with -libet (such as quantuslibet
‘however great’ (from Quintilian onwards)) and with -vis (for instance, quivis
‘whoever’ (fourth century ad)).
Table 18.1 A survey of Latin relative words

pronoun/determinera qui ‘who’, ‘that’, quicumque ‘whoever’, ‘whatever’, quisque ‘whoever’,
‘whatever’ (rare), quisquis ‘whoever’, ‘whatever’ (all attested from
Early Latin onwards), uter ‘whichever (person) of the two’
adjective qualis ‘of which sort or quality’, quantus ‘of what size’ (both from
Early Latin onwards), quantulus ‘of what (small) size’ (from Cicero
onwards), quot ‘as many as’
adverb (all from Early Latin onwards, unless indicated) cum (quom) ‘when’,
cur (quor) ‘why’, ‘on account of which’, qua ‘by which route’, qualiter
‘in which manner’ (from Ovid onwards), quam ‘as much as’, quamdiu
‘as long as’ (from Cicero onwards), quamobrem ‘for which reason’,
quando ‘at which time’, quandoque ‘at whatever time’, quanto ‘by how
much’, quantopere ‘in what degree’ (from Cicero onwards), quantum
‘to what extent’, quapropter ‘wherefore’, quare ‘for which reason’ (from
c.170 bc onwards), quemadmodum ‘in the manner in which’, quo ‘to
which place’, quomodo ‘in the manner in which’, quotiens ‘as often as’,
quotiensque ‘as often as’ (from Columella onwards), ubi ‘where’,
‘when’, unde ‘from where’, ut ‘in the same way as’ and its compounds
such as sicut
The use of cum (quom) as relative adverb demands special attention
(see §18.38).
a
Only m. sg. forms are indicated.
As for the internal structure of relative clauses, there are no restrictions as far as argu-
ments and adjuncts are concerned. The relative pronoun may be expanded with a
secondary predicate, such as maesti in (f) and meorum . . . commotus in (g). Relative
clauses may contain other relative clauses, as is shown in (g). For sentence type and
Types of relative clauses 473
the illocutionary force of individual types of relative clauses, see § 18.6 fin. and
§§ 18.23–6.
(f) Pauci tamen boni inerant, quos reiectione fugare ille non potuerat, qui maesti
inter sui dissimilis et † maerentes † sedebant et contagione turpitudinis vehe-
menter permovebantur.
(‘Even so there were a few honest men whom the accused had not been able to drive
off at the challenge and who sat there, gloomy and shamefaced (?) in this incongru-
ous party, sadly uncomfortable to feel themselves exposed to the miasma of disrepu-
tability.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.3)
(g) An ego, qui meorum lacrimis me absente commotus simultates quas mecum
habebat deposuisset, meaeque salutis non modo non oppugnator, ut inimici
mei putarant, sed etiam defensor fuisset, huius in periculo non significarem
dolorem meum?
(‘Would you have me exhibit no symptoms of grief when danger threatened one who
had been so affected by the tears of my dear ones, when I myself was far away, that he
had waived his old differences with me, and, so far from standing forth, as my
enemies had anticipated, as the assailant of my well-being, had actually become its
champion?’ Cic. Planc. 76)
Relative adjectives and adverbs are treated separately in §§ 18.34–9. The sections that
follow are mainly about the pronoun/determiner qui and related relative words.1
18.2 Types of relative clauses

Relative clauses in Latin can function at three different levels: at the level of the noun
phrase, of the adjective phrase, or of the clause. In the first case they function as attri-
bute of a noun or noun phrase and can be compared with adjectives. In the second
case they function as argument of adjectives (for example, dignus). In the third case
they function among other things as argument or satellite and so are functionally
equivalent to nouns and noun phrases.2 The second type will be left out of account for
the moment. A detailed discussion can be found in § 18.19.
The first usage at the level of the noun and noun phrase is illustrated by (a) and (b).
(a) Eo praesente homini extemplo ostendit symbolum / quem tute dederas ad
eum ut ferret filio.
(‘In his presence he promptly showed him the token, the one you yourself had given
your son to bring to him.’ Pl. Bac. 263–4)
1 Relative clauses have received much attention, both in general linguistics and in studies of Latin.
Major contributions are Touratier (1980), Lehmann (1984), Lavency (1998a), and Pompei (2011c). For
indications of the relative frequency of relative clauses and participial constructions in various authors,
see Calboli (2006). For the frequency of use of relative clauses by various authors, see Meyers (2019: 280).
2 For these two types of relative clauses, see Touratier (2002), with references.
(b) Mercurius, Iovis qui nuntius perhibetur, numquam aeque patri / suo nun-
tium lepidum attulit quam . . .
(‘Mercury, who is said to be Jupiter’s messenger, never brought his father a message
as delightful as . . .’ Pl. St. 274–5)
In (a), the relative clause quem tute dederas ad eum ut ferret filio functions as attribute
of the noun symbolum, which in turn is the head of the relative clause. The relative
pronoun quem refers to the same entity as symbolum; in other words, it is coreferen-
tial with symbolum. In its clause, quem functions as the object, while symbolum is the
object of the main clause. A common label for the head of a relative clause is ante-
cedent, but in reality relative clauses do not always follow their heads. In this Syntax
the term ‘head’ is used in most cases. Ex. (b) resembles (a) in that qui is coreferential
with Mercurius, but the semantic relationship between the relative clause and its head
in (b) is less close than in (a): in (a), the relative clause is essential for a correct under-
standing of which token is meant, while in (b) it contains supplementary information;
Mercurius is well-known and omission of the relative clause does not result in an
incomprehensible or bizarre text. The relative clause in (a) will be called restrictive,
the one in (b) non-restrictive (often called appositive). In spoken Latin, the two
types of relative clauses were probably distinguished by intonation, with a pause
before the non-restrictive type. These two types of relative clauses, which both func-
tion as attribute at the noun phrase level, are called adnominal relative clauses
in this Syntax.
The term ‘adnominal’ is slightly misleading since it suggests that the relative clause
always modifies a noun. In reality an adnominal relative clause often modifies a
noun phrase. This can be seen in (c), where quae Caryatides dicuntur modifies the
entire phrase statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas and not statuas alone. Also, non-
restrictive relative clauses can be used with personal pronouns and with anaphoric
and anaphorically used pronouns (see § 18.6).
(c) . . . si quis statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas, quae Caryatides dicuntur,
pro columnis in opere statuerit . . .
(‘. . . if anyone in his work sets up, instead of columns, marble statues of long-
robed women, which are called caryatids. . .’ Vitr. 1.1.5)
The use of relative clauses at the clause level is illustrated by (d) and (e), the former
with a relative pronoun (qui), the latter with a relative phrase (qui homo). These
clauses differ from (a) and (b) in that there is no head constituent in the main clause:
they are ‘headless’ relative clauses. In this Syntax, they are called autonomous rela-
tive clauses. Other scholars use the term ‘nominal relative clause’,3 or ‘free relative
clause’. In (d), the clause qui amat functions as the subject of the main clause misera
affligitur aerumna. In English it could be translated as ‘a lover’. In his translation de
Melo has added he, which functions more or less as an antecedent of who. In contem-
porary English some form of antecedent is required with who, but in ‘archaic English’
3 So, for example, Quirk et al. (1985: 1056) and Lavency (1998a). Lehmann (1984: 45) has the term
‘substantivisch.’
one could say who holds the sea, perforce doth hold the land.4 With what an antecedent
is excluded, as in What happened upset him and I love what I do.5 Generally speaking,
there are more restrictions on this type of relativization in English than in Latin.
Likewise in (e), qui homo mature quaesivit pecuniam functions as the subject of the
main clause mature esurit. There is no possibility of translating this into English while
keeping the structure of the Latin. The difference between (e) and (f)—an adnominal
relative clause—is that qui in (f) has an ‘external’ head that belongs to another clause,
whereas qui in (e) has an ‘internal’ head within its own clause.6 But note that de Melo
uses the same translation: ‘a man who’.
(d) Edepol qui amat . . . misera affligitur aerumna.
(‘Truly, he who is in love . . . is struck by miserable sorrow.’ Pl. Cur. 142)
(e) Qui homo mature quaesivit pecuniam / . . . mature esurit.
(‘A man who has made money quickly . . . goes hungry quickly.’ Pl. Cur. 380–1)
(f) O Libane, uti miser est homo qui amat.
(‘Oh Libanus! How wretched is a man who’s in love.’ Pl. As. 616)
The essential difference between adnominal and autonomous relative clauses is that
the former function at the level of the noun phrase (as attribute), whereas the latter
function at the level of the clause, as subject, object, or in other functions (see § 18.16).
They can also function at the level of the adjective phrase (see § 18.19).
Autonomous relative clauses are often described as a variant of adnominal relative
clauses, that is, as relative clauses of which the head is ‘omitted’7 or is incorporated
into or ‘contained’8 in the relative clause. An objection to this analysis is that the fre-
quency of the autonomous type (see below) is such that there is no need to regard the
adnominal type as the original one from which the autonomous type is a deviation.
Also, the syntactic behaviour of autonomous relative clauses is very different from
that of adnominal relative clauses.9 In Dutch the adnominal relative pronoun (die,
dat) is formally distinct from the autonomous relative pronoun (wie, wat).
As to the frequency with which these types of relative clauses are used, this varies with
the type of text and the author involved. Table 18.2 gives an impression of the fre-
quency in a number of texts.10 Note that the percentage of autonomous relative clauses
is far from negligible. (For connective relative clauses, see § 18.28.)
4 Example taken from The New Oxford Dictionary of English s.v. who. The Dutch equivalent with wie
is fully acceptable.
5 See Quirk et al. (1985: 1056–9). Whoever relative clauses are also less restricted.
6 Some scholars use the term ‘internally headed relative clause’, e.g. Fabb (1999: 321).
7 So Allen and Greenough § 307 c. The idea that with autonomous relative clauses a head is missing is
already expressed by Priscian 17.128.8–14K.
8 As in Quirk et al. (1985: 1056).
9 See Serbat (1988b: 37–43) on the failure to describe all varieties of relative clauses in terms of ‘adjec-
tival clauses’. For the need to deal with the two types of relative clauses separately, see Taylor (1951: 238).
10 Frequency data can also be found in Addabbo (2001) and Fruyt (2019c), on Cato Agr.; Serbat (1988b:
37–43), on Ter., Pl. Aul., Cic. Off. 1, Apul. Met. 11; Fruyt (2019d), on Sen. Nat. See also Pompei (2011c:
529–39) for diachronic considerations. The research for Table 18.2 was done by Jeremy Brightbill.
Table 18.2 Relative frequency (in %) of types of relative clauses (50 clauses per text)
Pl. Cic. Cic. Caes. Liv. Plin. Tac. Lucr. Verg. Ov.
Rud. Att. Catil. Civ. 3 9 Nat. 2 Ann. 1 3 A.1 Met.1
Autonomous 40 54 48 24 50 40 32 28 26 26
Adnominal 58 38 34 58 42 52 54 54 66 56
Restrictive 18 16 18 18 16 12 18 10 20 12
Non-restrictive 40 22 16 40 26 40 36 44 46 44
Connective 2 8 18 18 8 8 14 18 8 18
A notable feature of Latin, which proves that there is a fundamental difference

between the two types of relative clauses, is the co-occurrence of an adnominal
relative expression and an autonomous one within the same complex sentence, a
form of ‘interlacing’ as discussed in § 14.20. Examples are (g)–(i). In (g), there is an
adnominal relative clause quam . . . indicabunt. The pronoun quam, which is corefer-
ential with conscientiae, fulfils no function in relation to indicabunt, but is the object
in the autonomous relative clause quam qui neglegunt, which itself is the subject of
indicabunt. Ex. (h) is comparable.
(g) . . . magna vis conscientiae, quam qui neglegunt, cum me violare volent, se
ipsi indicabunt.
(‘. . . there is great power in conscience and those who ignore it will give themselves
away when they want to do me violence.’ Cic. Catil. 3.27)
(h) . . . quis est qui eum hostem non existimet quem qui armis persequantur
conservatores rei publicae iudicentur?
(‘. . . who is there who does not regard him as an enemy, when those who pursue him
with arms are considered the saviours of the State?’ Cic. Phil. 3.14)
A more complicated example is (i). It contains an adnominal relative clause with the
pronoun quo and necesse est as the main verb; the pronoun is coreferential with
bonum. It is the object of potiatur and displays the corresponding case marking (abla-
tive); qui is the subject of the clause. Quo qui potiatur is an autonomous relative clause
which is the subject of beatus sit; the clause quo qui potiatur . . . beatus sit is the subject
of necesse est (ut): it is necessarily the case that the possessor of this good is happy. In
( j), an instance of relative connexion (see § 18.28), quod refers to the preceding text.
(i) (cum) id . . . bonum solum sit quo qui potiatur necesse est beatus sit . . .
(‘since that alone is good which necessarily makes him who possesses it happy . . .’
Cic. Fin. 5.83)
( j) Ergo et hi numeri sint cogniti et genus illud tertium explicetur quale sit,
numerosae et aptae orationis. Quod qui non sentiunt quas auris habeant aut
quid in his hominis simile sit nescio.
(‘Now that we have learned the nature of this kind of rhythm, let us proceed to
explain the third topic—the well-knit rhythm of prose. There are some people who
do not feel this, but I do not know what sort of ears they have, nor whether they are
human at all.’ Cic. Orat. 168)
In all these examples the first pronoun is coreferential with a constituent in the pre-
ceding clause (or with the clause as a whole or a more extended text). Thus, the pro-
noun is ‘adnominal’. The second relative pronoun belongs to an autonomous relative
clause that has its own function in a superordinate clause.11
The use of an adnominal relative expression within an autonomous relative clause
is a common feature of the Classical prose of Caesar and Cicero, but is less frequent in
other authors.
Supplement:12
Quae (sc. arma) qui non habuerint, eos inermos fuisse vinces. (Cic. Caec. 61); Non
enim eloquentem quaero neque quicquam mortale et caducum sed illud ipsum,
cuius qui sit compos, sit eloquens. (Cic. Or. 101); (sc. Epicurus) Est enim, quod tibi
ita videri necesse est, non satis politus iis artibus quas qui tenent eruditi appellantur.
(Cic. Fin. 1.26); Nihil est enim virtute amabilius, quam qui adeptus erit ubicumque
erit gentium a nobis diligetur. (Cic. N.D. 1.121); Qualia igitur ista bona sunt quae qui
habeat miserrimus esse possit? (Cic. Tusc. 5.45); Aequiculis autem in Italia et in
Alpibus natione Medullorum est genus aquae, quam qui bibunt efficiuntur turgidis
gutturibus. (Vitr. 8.3.20); Susis autem, in qua civitate est regnum Persarum, fonticu-
lus est, ex quo qui biberint, amittunt dentes. (Vitr. 8.3.23); Spiracula vocant, alii
Charonea, scrobes mortiferum spiritum exhalantes, item in Hirpinis Ampsancti
ad Mephitis aedem locum, quem qui intravere moriuntur. (Plin. Nat. 2.208); Nam
sunt quaedam cognata, ut dicunt, id est eiusdem generis, in quibus qui alia specie
quam oportet utetur, non minus quam ipso genere permutato deliquerit. (Quint.
Inst. 1.5.49)
The examples above should not be confused with other complex formations involv-
ing relative pronouns, such as those in which an adnominal relative clause contains
another subordinate clause (e.g. a satellite clause), as in (k), or an autonomous rela-
tive clause, as qui audiunt ‘the listeners’ in (l)—quem is not object of audiunt, but
subject of the accusative and infinitive clause, which in turn is the object of
arbitrantur—or where an adnominal relative clause modifies an autonomous relative
clause, as in (m), or where the entire utterance is anacoluthic, as in (n).
(k) (M. Horatius ille Pulvillus), qui, cum eum multi propter invidiam fictis reli-
gionibus impedirent, restitit . . .
(‘. . . Horatius Pulvillus, who, when many men were moved by jealousy to
interfere with his actions on false pleas of religious hindrances, still stood his
ground . . .’ Cic. Dom. 139)
11 A generative explanation is given by Maurel (1989) and Danckaert (2012). For examples, see also
Ambrosini (1992: 174–8).
12 Most of the examples are taken from K.-St.: II.315–19.
(l) Magna est enim admiratio copiose sapienterque dicentis quem qui audiunt
intellegere etiam et sapere plus quam ceteros arbitrantur.
(‘For there is great admiration for the eloquent and judicious speaker, and
those who hear him judge him to have greater understanding and wisdom
than all others.’ Cic. Off. 2.48)
(m) Quicquid eiusdem generis habebis dignum Academia tibi quod videbitur,
ne dubitaris mittere et arcae nostrae confidito.
(‘Anything you may have of the same sort which you think suitable for the
Academy, don’t hesitate to send it and trust my purse.’ Cic. Att. 1.9.2)
(n) Edepol ne me eius patris misere miseret, qui quom istaec sciet / facta ita,
amburet ei misero corculum carbunculus.
(‘Honestly, I feel terribly sorry for his father; once he knows what’s been
done, a coal will burn this wretched man’s poor heart.’ Pl. Mos. 985–6)
Supplement:
Non laudandu’st quoi plus credit qui audit quam <ille> qui videt. (Pl. Truc. 487); Mihi
autem aequius videbatur Zenonem cum Polemone disceptantem, a quo quae essent
principia naturae acceperat . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.45); Est autem infima condicio et fortuna
servorum, quibus non male praecipiunt qui ita iubent uti ut mercennariis: operam
exigendam, iusta praebenda. (Cic. Off. 1.41); Propositum hoc est de quo qui rerum
potiuntur sunt dimicaturi . . . (Cael. Fam. 8.14.2); Decessit filius tuus, id est, decucur-
rit ad hunc finem, ad quem quae feliciora partu tuo putas properant. (Sen. Dial.
6.11.2); Simile est regnum caelorum thesauro abscondito in agro quem qui invenit
homo abscondit . . . (Vulg. Mat. 13.44)
Also with other types of subordinate clauses: Itaque illud indecorum, quod quale
sit ex decoro debet intellegi, hic quoque apparet . . . (Cic. Orat. 82); Errare mehercule
malo cum Platone, quem tu quanti facias scio . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.39); De decumis, de
civium Romanorum condicione in arationibus disputo, qui quem ad modum
essent accepti, iudices, audistis ex ipsis. (Cic. Ver. 3.59); Sed eo vidisti multum,
quod praefinisti quo ne pluris emerem. (Cic. Fam. 7.2.1—NB: quo is an ablativus
comparationis)13
18.3 Adnominal relative clauses
18.4 Semantic types of adnominal relative clauses

Adnominal relative clauses are sometimes called ‘adjective clauses’.14 For adnominal
relative clauses, the relationship between the relative and its head does indeed resem-
ble that between an adjective and its head noun. Their function can therefore be said
to be that of an attribute. In § 18.2 two types of adnominal clauses are distinguished:
restrictive and non-restrictive. The following sections deal with these two types.
13 See K.-St.: II.210. 14 ‘Adjektivsätze’ in German. For discussion, see Touratier (2011).
Adnominal relative clauses 479
18.5 Restrictive relative clauses
Several subtypes of restrictive relative clauses can be distinguished. In (a), the relative
clause serves to identify which symbolum is meant: it is thus an identifying relative
clause. In (b), the relative clause specifies what kind of slave is useful: this type is called
descriptive. The modifiers in both examples reduce the number of possible referents
of the heads. However, the distinction between the two types is not always obvious.
(a) Eo praesente homini extemplo ostendit symbolum / quem tute dederas ad
eum ut ferret filio.
(‘In his presence he promptly showed him the token, the one you yourself had given
your son to bring to him.’ Pl. Bac. 263–4)
(b) Servi qui, quom culpa carent, tamen malum metuont, / i solent esse eris
utibiles.
(‘Those slaves who fear a thrashing even when they’re free from guilt are generally
useful to their masters.’ Pl. Mos. 858–9)
Just like noun phrases in general (see §§ 11.100–8), a noun phrase consisting of a head
and its relative clause may be definite, as in (a), or indefinite, as in (c). Ex. (b) illus-
trates a generic noun phrase containing a relative clause. Note that in (b) the constitu-
ent servi qui . . . metuont as a whole is resumed by the anaphoric pronoun i.
(c) Adulescens venit modo qui id argentum attulit.
(‘A young man’s just come who has brought this money with him.’ Pl. As. 337)
Supplement:
Identifying relative clauses: . . . ut ego tua magnufica verba neque istas tuas magnas
minas / non pluris facio quam ancillam meam quae latrinam lavat. (Pl. Cur. 579–80);
Cum factum tuum gratum omnibus debet esse, tum vero oratio qua recitatis litteris
usus es. (Cic. Phil. 10.1); Miraculo primo esse Romanis qui proximi steterant, ut
nudari latera sua sociorum digressu senserunt. (Liv. 1.27.7); Nervus ex quo testiculus
dependet plenior fit, simulque indurescit. (Cels. 7.18.11); Oppida Aegae, in quo sepe-
liri mos reges, Beroea et in regione quae Pieria appellatur a nemore, Aeginium. (Plin.
Nat. 4.33)
Descriptive relative clauses: Habe’n tu amicum aut familiarem quempiam / quoi
pectus sapiat? (Pl. Trin. 89–90); Sunt enim certa vitia quae nemo est quin effugere
cupiat. (Cic. de Orat. 3.41); Utrisque ad animum occurrit unum esse illud tempus
quo maxime contendi conveniat. (Caes. Gal. 7.85.2); Mali etiam morbi signum
est . . . habere sudores non per totum corpus aequales quique febrem non finiant; et
eas febres quae quotidie tempore eodem revertantur; quaeve semper pares acces-
siones habeant, neque tertio quoque die leventur; quaeve sic continuent, ut . . . (Cels.
2.4.4–5); Obiecisti mihi ultimum nefas et quod qui tantum suspicatus est noluit
vivere. (Sen. Con. 8.3.fin.)
Descriptive adnominal relative clauses are traditionally called ‘consecutive’, ‘generic’,

or ‘generalizing’, just like the autonomous relative clauses discussed in § 18.26.
Likewise, the subjunctive in these clauses is sometimes called ‘generic’ or

‘consecutive’.15
In many instances, as in (a)–(c) at the beginning of this section, it is the context or the
situation that provides the information necessary to decide whether a noun phrase
containing a restrictive relative clause is definite or indefinite. However, the definite-
ness or indefiniteness of a noun phrase may also be explicitly indicated. Definiteness
may be expressed by one of the demonstrative determiners (hic, ille, iste, as in (d) and
(e)). Indefinite noun phrases may be marked explicitly as specifying by quidam (see
§ 11.114) or as just indefinite by aliqui (see § 11.111), as in (f) and (g), respectively.
(d) Et hic qui poscet eam sibi uxorem senex, / is adulescentis est illius avunculus /
qui illam stupravit noctu, Cereris vigiliis.
(‘And this old man who’s going to ask for her hand, he’s the uncle of that young fellow
who violated her chastity by night during the vigil held in honour of Ceres.’ Pl. Aul.
34–6)
(e) Ubi sunt isti scortatores qui soli inviti cubant?
(‘Where are those lechers who are lying alone against their will?’ Pl. Am. 287)
(f) Illam minorem in concubinatum sibi / volt emere miles quidam qui illam
deperit.
(‘A certain soldier, who is passionately in love with that younger one, wants to buy her
to become his concubine.’ Pl. Poen. 102–3)
(g) Nam pater exspectat aut me aut aliquem nuntium / qui hinc ad se veniat.
(‘Your father is expecting either me or some other messenger who is coming to him
from here.’ Pl. Capt. 382–3)
Supplement:
Postea L. Sulla homo . . . cum eius rei quaestionem hac ipsa lege constitueret qua vos
hoc tempore iudicatis, populum Romanum . . . adligare novo quaestionis genere ausus
non est. (Cic. Clu. 151); Argumentum evidens, quod omnia superiora e caelo
decidentia (sc. fulmina) obliquos habent ictus, haec autem quae vocant terrena
rectos. (Plin. Nat. 2.138)
Numquam edepol fuit neque fiet ill’ senex insanior / ex amore quam ille adulescens
quoi ego do hanc operam, pater. (Pl. Mer. 446–7); Ego cum illo quocum tum uno rem
habebam hospite / abii huc. (Ter. Eu. 119–20); . . . si Philonem, illum architectum qui
Atheniensibus armamentarium fecit, constat perdiserte populo rationem operis sui
reddidisse . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.62); . . . Eandem hanc aliqui esse dicunt, alii similem illi
(sc. herba) quam militarem vocant . . . (Plin. Nat. 24.168)
Qua re istam orationem qua es usus omittas licet, post illam sententiam quam
dixeram de annona pontificum animos esse mutatos. (Cic. Dom. 31)
Etiam opilio qui pascit, mater, alienas ovis / aliquam habet peculiarem qui spem
soletur suam. (Pl. As. 539–40); si . . . neque aliquod negotium exstiterit quod honeste
subterfugere non possit . . . (Cic. Agr. 1.26); Quod si te, Cotta, arbitrarer aut te, Sulpici,
15 ‘Generic’, for example, Woodcock (1959: 114–19); ‘consecutive’, Roby (1882: 294).
de iis rebus audire velle, adduxissem huc Graecum aliquem qui nos istius modi dis-
putationibus delectaret. (Cic. de Orat. 1.104); Esse aliquam in terris gentem quae sua
impensa . . . bella gerat . . . (Liv. 33.33.5)
Est ei quidam servos qui in morbo cubat . . . (Pl. Cas. 37); Hic quandam noram
quoi(u)s vir uxorem . . . (Ter. Ph. 941); Ennium esse quendam cuius bona teneat
Habitus. (Cic. Clu. 163); Appositus erat Venuleius quidam qui emeret. (Cic. Ver.
3.99); Quod non tam interfuit mea . . . quam rei publicae, quod erant quidam improbi
qui contentionem fore aliquam mihi cum Pompeio ex rerum illarum dissensione
arbitrarentur. (Cic. Att. 1.19.7)
Is is not infrequently used as a determiner of noun phrases with a restrictive relative

clause.16 A head noun may also be understood from the context, as with iis (digitis) in
( j). If the restrictive clause is identifying, the regular mood is the indicative, as in
(h)–( j); if the clause is descriptive, the mood is the subjunctive, as in (k) and (l). Is
indicates that not just any person or thing will do, but only ‘the very one’ with the
specifics mentioned.17
(h) Coquos equidem nimis demiror, qui utuntur condimentis, / eos eo condimento
uno non utier omnibus quod praestat.
(‘I’m highly surprised that cooks, who use spices, don’t use this one spice which
surpasses all others.’ Pl. Cas. 219–20)
(i) Meruisse vero stipendia in eo bello quod tum populus Romanus non modo
maximum sed etiam solum gerebat virtutis . . . fuit.
(‘However, by serving in the war which was the most important—in fact the only—
war then being fought by the Roman people he gave proof of his bravery.’ Cic.
Mur. 12)
( j) In digitis nihil ultra fieri debet, quam quod in iis qui sunt in manu posi-
tum est.
(‘For the toes nothing else is required than what was laid down for the fingers.’
Cels. 6.24)
(k) Cape, opsecro hercle, cum eo <tu> una iudicem / —sed eum videto ut capias
qui credat mihi.
(‘Please, choose an arbitrator together with him (but make sure that you choose one
who believes me).’ Pl. Mos. 557–8)
(l) Non sum autem ego is consul qui, ut plerique, nefas esse arbitrer Gracchos
laudare . . .
(‘I am not one of those consuls who, like the majority, think it a crime to praise the
Gracchi . . .’ Cic. Agr. 2.10)
16 For the instances of is . . . qui in Caesar, see Lavency (1996a). See also Vester (1989: 342),
Lavency (1998a: 30–1), and Pompei (2011b: 71–2).
17 See Lehmann (1984: 290) and his example: ‘Ich suche den Regenschirm, der unter zwanzig Mark
kostet.’
Supplement:
Indicative mood: Ubi is homo est quem dicis? (Pl. Truc. 826); Nam impediebantur,
verum ea lege quam idem iste de Macedonia Syriaque tulerat. (Cic. Dom. 70); At
Sugambri ex eo tempore quo pons institui coeptus est . . . finibus suis excesserant . . .
(Caes. Gal. 4.18.4); . . . tertiae cohortis centuriones ex eo quo stabant loco recesse-
runt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.43.6); . . . in eo volumine quod scripsit Nicodoro Atheniensium
magistratu, qui fuit urbis nostrae CCCCXL anno. (Plin. Nat. 3.58)
Subjunctive mood: Non enim latroni, sed regi credidit, nec regi inimico populi
Romani, sed ei cuius reditum consuli commendatum <a> senatu videbat, nec ei regi
([ei] Olechowska) qui alienus ab hoc imperio esset, sed ei quicum foedus feriri in
Capitolio viderat. (Cic. Rab. Post. 6); Nam et legem ullam omnino abrogari est indig-
natus, et eam praecipue legem quae luxuriae muliebris coercendae causa lata esset.
(Liv. 34.6.1); Idem tradit in Paphlagonia effodi pisces . . . in iis locis in quibus nullae
restagnent aquae . . . (Plin. Nat. 9.178—NB: the subjunctive may be oblique)
Is in the examples above does not have its regular anaphoric function. Combinations
of is + noun + relative where is is indeed anaphoric are extremely rare. In such
instances the relative clause is of course non-restrictive.18
Noun phrases that consist of a head noun and a restrictive relative clause may be
modified in various other ways, for example by quantifiers like nonnulli, omnes, or
pauci. This is shown by (m)–(o). In general, there are no restrictions on the type of
determiner allowed.
(m) Adhuc neminem cognovi poetam . . . qui sibi non optumus videretur.
(‘So far I have known no poet . . . who did not think himself the best.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.63)
(n) H[u]ic quoque accidit—quod fuit necesse—ut nonnulli milites qui ligna-
tionis munitionisque causa in silvas discessissent repentino equitum adventu
interciperentur.
(‘In his case also it happened—as was inevitable—that some soldiers who had gone
off into the woods to get timber for entrenching were cut off by the sudden arrival of
the enemy’s horsemen.’ Caes. Gal. 5.39.2)
(o) Huc omnes mulieres quibuscum iste consuerat conveniebant . . .
(‘All the women with whom he had associated came together here.’ Cic. Ver. 5.30)
(p) . . . ut intellegatis, quantam locus ipse adferat superbiam, quae paucis diebus
quibus illo colonia deducta est perspici atque intellegi potuit.
(‘. . . so you may understand what pride the very place inspires, as could be clearly
seen and understood within the first few days during which the colony was estab-
lished.’ Cic. Agr. 2.92)
As is shown above, a noun phrase that consists of a head noun and a restrictive rela-
tive clause can contain determiners like hic or ille. This combination may be referred
to with a resumptive pronoun which indicates the function of the preceding noun
phrase in the main clause, usually the anaphoric pronoun is. A resumptive pronoun
18 See TLL s.v. is 474.63ff. Vester (1989: 342) denies the existence of such instances.
seems to be preferred if the entity to which it refers continues to be the topic of the
following sentence.19 Examples from Plautus are (q) (repeated from (d) above)–(s).
Note that in (q) and (r) hic . . . senex and pallam illam have the same case form as the
resumptive pronouns, which is the case required in their clause. In (s), by contrast,
the cases are different and, moreover, hunc chlamydatum has the same case as the
relative pronoun quem, an instance of attractio inversa (see § 18.8). The combination
of head noun + adnominal relative clause followed by a resumptive pronoun resem-
bles some of the theme constituents discussed in § 22.14.20
(q) Et hic qui poscet eam sibi uxorem senex, / is adulescentis est illius avunculus /
qui illam stupravit noctu, Cereris vigiliis.
(‘And this old man who’s going to ask for her hand, he’s the uncle of that young fellow
who violated her chastity by night during the vigil held in honour of Ceres.’ Pl.
Aul. 34–6)
(r) Immo edepol pallam illam, amabo te, quam tibi dudum dedi, / mihi eam
redde.
(‘No by Pollux, please return that mantle I gave you a while ago.’ Pl. Men. 678–9)
(s) Hunc chlamydatum quem vides, / ei Mars iratu’st.
(‘This man in a cloak you can see, Mars is angry with him.’ Pl. Poen. 644–5)
The various possibilities for head nouns + restrictive relative clauses are expressed in
Table 18.3. The brackets () mark optional elements.
Table 18.3 The structure of head nouns and restrictive

relative clauses
(Determiner) Noun + Relative clause (Resumptive pronoun)
(hic) vir qui . . . (is)
Restrictive relative clauses are not excluded in the case of proper names. Consider
for instance the phrase the young Cicero (as opposed to Cicero when he was old) in
English. Examples are (t)–(v).
(t) Qui Phormio? # Is (sc. Phormio) qui istanc—
(‘Which Phormio? # The one who got the girl.’ Ter. Ph. 618)
(u) Ei mihi qualis erat, quantum mutatus ab illo / Hectore qui redit exuvias
indutus Achilli . . .
(‘Ah me, what aspect was his! How changed he was from that Hector who
returns after donning the spoils of Achilles . . .’ Verg. A. 2.274–5)
19 See Halla-aho (2018: 138–45).

20 A few more instances can be found in Lodge s.v. is 845A.§ 9; TLL s.v. ille 349.13ff. For a more com-
plete survey, see Halla-aho (2018).
(v) Se quoque eundem dictatorem Mam. Aemilium esse qui antea Veientium
Fidenatiumque adiunctis Faliscis ad Nomentum exercitus fuderit . . .
(‘That he was himself the same dictator Mamercus Aemilius who had for-
merly put to flight the armies of the Veientes and the Fidenates, with the
Faliscans added, before Nomentum . . .’ Liv. 4.32.3)
Restrictive adnominal relative clauses cannot be interrogative or imperative, unlike
non-restrictive ones (for which, see § 18.6, (h)–( j)). Modern languages are said not to
allow attitudinal or illocutionary disjuncts in such cases, but there is no evidence to
prove or disprove this claim for Latin.21
18.6 Non-restrictive relative clauses
Non-restrictive (or appositive) adnominal relative clauses differ from the

restrictive ones discussed above in two essential ways. In the first place, their head is
(presented as) known to the speaker and hearer. Since the head is definite itself, the
relative expression does not serve to restrict the number of possible referents, but
instead provides supplementary information. The second essential difference is
clause-internal: non-restrictive relative clauses have their own sentence type. In this
respect, they resemble independent sentences.
Examples of definite heads are (a)–(g). In (a) and (b), the heads are proper names.
In (c) and (d), they are personal pronouns. In (d), the demonstrative pronoun illa
functions similarly. In (e), there is an unexpressed (but known) addressee. Ex. (f)
illustrates a non-restrictive adnominal relative clause with anaphoric eos, which refers
to Brutis in the preceding sentence.22 Frequently the head is introduced in the preced-
ing context, as in (f), or it is known by common knowledge, as in (g). It is sometimes
possible to replace the relative clause by a parenthetical independent clause such as
eam vir insontem probri Amphitruo accusat in (a).
(a) Simul Alcumenae, quam vir insontem probri / Amphitruo accusat, veni ut
auxilium feram.
(‘At the same time I’ve come to bring help to Alcumena, whom her husband
Amphitruo is accusing of adultery, even though she’s innocent.’ Pl. Am. 869–70)
(b) Si erum vis Demaenetum, / quem ego novi, adduce.
(‘Bring along your master Demaenetus, whom I do know, if you please.’ Pl. As. 354–5)
(c) Io, / io, te, te tyranne, te ego, qui imperitas Pseudolo, quaero . . .
(‘Io, Io! You, you, ruler, you, who command Pseudolus, you I seek . . .’ Pl. Ps. 702–3)
(d) Id duae nos solae scimus: ego, quae illi dedi, / et illa, quae a me accepit . . .
(‘This we two alone know: I who gave the girl to her and she who took her from me.’
Pl. Cist. 145–6)
21 For discussion, see Touratier (1980: 284–9).

22 For discussion of this example, see Pompei (2011c: 449–50).
(e) Salve, qui me interfecisti paene vita et lumine . . .

(‘And my greetings to you, who have almost deprived me of life and light . . .’ Pl.
Truc. 518)
(f) Quod est tibi cum Brutis bellum? Cur eos, quos omnes paene venerari
debemus, solus oppugnas?
(‘What war you have with the Bruti? Why do you alone attack those men, whom we
are all bound almost to worship?’ Cic. Phil. 10.4)
(g) In lege autem, quam attingere noluerit, praesidii nihil fuisse.
(‘But that the statute, on which he declined to dwell, afforded him no protection.’ Cic.
Clu. 156)
Supplement:
Quis tu homo es? / # Libertus illius, quem omnes Summanum vocant. (Pl. Cur.
412–13); . . . melanthi acetabulum, quod medici vocant zmurnaeum, conterito . . . (Cato
Agr. 102.1); Nunc te patria, quae communis est parens omnium nostrum, odit ac
metuit . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.17); C. Marius . . . Q. Metellum, cuius legatus erat, summum
virum et civem, . . . criminatus est . . . (Cic. Off. 3.79); Haec duo Graeci illi, quorum
copiosior est lingua quam nostra, uno nomine appellant. (Cic. Tusc. 2.35); Erat aeger
in praesidio relictus Publius Sextius Baculus, qui primum pilum apud Caesarem dux-
erat, cuius mentionem superioribus proeliis fecimus, ac diem iam quintum cibo caru-
erat. (Caes. Gal. 6.38.1); Bellovaci autem defectione Haeduorum cognita, qui ante
erant per se infideles, manus cogere atque aperte bellum parare coeperunt. (Caes.
Gal. 7.59.2); . . . Larisamque—non illam in Thessalia nobilem urbem, sed alteram,
quam Cremasten vocant—subito adventu praeter arcem cepit. (Liv. 31.46.12);
Militavi senex, militavi exsanguis, militavi qui iam vicarium dederam. (Sen. Con.
8.5.med.—NB: parallelism with secondary predicates); . . . in eo volumine, quod
scripsit Nicodoro Atheniensium magistratu, qui fuit urbis nostrae CCCCXL anno.
(Plin. Nat. 3.58); In hoc tractu interierunt Boi, quorum tribus CXII fuisse auctor est
Cato, item Senones, qui ceperunt Romam. (Plin. Nat. 3.116); Oro te, Romule Arpinas,
qui egregia tua virtute omnis Paulos Fabios Scipiones superasti, quem tandem locum
in hac civitate obtines? ([Sal.] Cic. 7)
Non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses share certain properties with independent
sentences with relative connexion, to such an extent that the two types often cannot
be distinguished. This is especially the case when the relative clause follows the clause
that contains its head noun. Frequency counts of relative connexion in the same text
show different results and the punctuation of texts varies considerably.23 There are
three distinctive properties that non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses and sen-
tences with relative connexion have in common. The first regards sentence type. Most
relative clauses are declarative, but they can also be interrogative or imperative.
Examples are (h)–( j). In (h) and (i) the relative clauses have imperative verb forms. In
( j) note the interrogative adverb quid.24
23 See Bolkestein (1996a: 554–6).

24 See Lehmann (1984: 271); Touratier (1980: 428); Suárez (2012: 169–76).
(h) Hic ille iam vertetur orbis, cuius naturalem motum atque circuitum a primo
discite adgnoscere.
(‘At this point that orbit will turn, with whose natural motion and circular course you
must become acquainted from its beginning.’ Cic. Rep. 2.45)
(i) Multas ad res perutiles Xenophontis libri sunt, quos legite quaeso studiose,
ut facitis.
(‘Xenophon’s writings are very instructive on many subjects, and I beg you to keep
reading them studiously as you have been doing.’ Cic. Sen. 59)
( j) Navigabit igitur, cum erit tempus, maximis classibus et ad Italiam accedet, in
qua nos sedentes quid erimus?
(‘He will take to the sea, therefore, as soon as the season permits, with an enormous
fleet, and will approach the shores of Italy: and what then will be our position who
remain there doing nothing?’ Cic. Att. 10.8.4)
Supplement:
Itaque haesitantem te . . . ad communem ambitus causam contulisti, in qua desinamus
aliquando, si videtur, vulgari et pervagata declamatione contendere. (Cic. Planc. 47); . . .
primum M. Metellum amicissimum, deinde Hortensium consulem non solum, sed
etiam Q. Metellum, qui quam isti sit amicus attendite. (Cic. Ver. 26); Hic · tumulus ·
Fructi sacer · est ·, quem · laedere · noli, / hospes. (CIL VI.5767.2–3 (Rome))
Capitalis oratio est ad aequationem bonorum pertinens, qua peste quae potest esse
maior? (Cic. Off. 2.73)
The second property is that non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses and sentences
with relative connexion may have the form of an accusative and infinitive construc-
tion. An example is (k). Further examples can be found in § 15.107.
(k) Intellegitur enim a beata inmortalique natura et iram et gratiam segregari;
quibus remotis nullos a superis inpendere metus.
(‘For it is understood that from the nature of a blessed and immortal being both
anger and favour are excluded and that, with these removed, no terrors hang over us
from the gods above.’ Cic. N.D. 1.45)
The third common property is the acceptability of the particle quidem, of the adverb
tamen, and of attitudinal disjuncts such as profecto and peropportune, in (l)–(o),
respectively. See also § 18.24 fin. for quin, ut, and utpote.25
(l) Reliqua vero multitudo, quae quidem est civium, tota nostra est . . .
(‘However, the rest of this throng, so far as it consists of citizens, is entirely ours . . .’
Cic. Mil. 3)
(m) Causam tibi exposuimus Ephesi; quam tu tamen coram facilius meliusque
cognosces.
(‘I explained the case to you in Ephesus, but you will acquaint yourself with it more
easily and accurately face to face.’ Cic. Fam. 13.55.1)
25 For quidem, see Danckaert (2014: 100).

(n) . . . commendo vobis parvum meum filium, cui profecto satis erit
praesidi . . .
(‘. . . I entrust to you my little son, who will surely receive protection enough . . .’ Cic.
Catil. 4.23)
(o) Tandem relatum responsum quibusdam, quia nimis cupere Romanus pacem
videbatur, iniquis per occasionem adiectis, quae peropportune cupienti
tollere indutias Scipioni causam praebuere.
(‘At last the answer was returned. Because the Roman seemed extremely desirous of
peace, certain unreasonable terms were adroitly added, which most opportunely
offered a pretext to Scipio, who desired to denounce the truce.’ Liv. 30.4.8)
18.7 The function of the relative expression in the relative clause

Relative words and phrases fulfil various functions within their own clauses (both
adnominal and autonomous). This is demonstrated in the examples below with the
relative pronoun qui. In (a)—autonomous—and (b)—adnominal—qui functions as
the subject; in (c)—autonomous—quod is the object of amat. In qua and a quibus in
(d) and (e), respectively, are place satellites. In (f), qua functions as the basis of com-
parison with pulchrior (for more examples, see § 20.7). In (g), quoius functions at the
noun phrase level and modifies imaginem. The case form of the relative pronoun is
the normal one required by the structure of its clause, with rare exceptions (see
§ 18.8). Relative words and phrases also function in non-finite clauses, notably the
ablative absolute construction. Examples are (h) and (i).
(a) Sat habet favitorum semper qui recte facit, / si illis fides est quibus est ea res
in manu.
(‘A man who always acts correctly has enough supporters, if those can be trusted in
whose hands this is.’ Pl. Am. 79–80)
(b) O Libane, uti miser est homo qui amat.
(‘Oh Libanus! How wretched is a man who’s in love.’ Pl. As. 616)
(c) Ipsus se excruciat qui homo quod amat videt nec potitur, dum licet.
(‘He who sees what he loves and doesn’t take advantage while he may merely tortures
himself.’ Pl. Cur. 170)
(d) Videsne igitur vel in ea ipsa urbe, in qua et nata et alta sit eloquentia, quam
ea sero prodierit in lucem?
(‘You see thus even in that city in which eloquence was born and grew to maturity,
how late it stepped forth into the light of day?’ Cic. Brut. 39)
(e) Inde iam duxit ad Alcen urbem, ubi castra Celtiberorum erant, a quibus
venerant nuper legati.
(‘From there he next led his troops to the town of Alce, where the camp of the
Celtiberians lay from which the ambassadors had recently come.’ Liv. 40.48.1)
(f) . . . ecce ad me advenit / mulier, qua mulier alia nulla est pulchrior.
(‘. . . lo and behold, a woman came to me, than whom no other woman is more beauti-
ful.’ Pl. Mer. 100–1)
(g) Nunc hodie Amphitruo veniet huc ab exercitu / et servos, quoius ego hanc
fero imaginem.
(‘Now today Amphitruo will come here from the army, and also his slave, whose
likeness I bear.’ Pl. Am. 140–1)
(h) Quarum prima pars est quae ducitur ab ea ratione quae docet esse deos. Quo
concesso confitendum est eorum consilio mundum administrari.
(‘Of these parts, the first issues from the principle that propounds that the gods do
exist; if this is granted, it must be admitted that the world is governed by their wis-
dom.’ Cic. N.D. 2.75)
(i) Nam Cassiae legis culpam Scipio tuus sustinet, quo auctore lata esse dicitur.
(‘Your beloved Scipio received the blame for the Cassian Law, since his support is said
to have made its enactment possible.’ Cic. Leg. 3.37)
The grammatical gender of a relative pronoun in an adnominal relative clause is
determined by agreement with the head constituent. For discussion, see the sec-
tions on cross-clausal agreement (§ 13.27, § 13.28, and § 13.33). Occasionally, the
pronoun agrees with something that is implied by a modifier of the head constitu-
ent, that is there is some form of notional agreement, as in ( j), where plural quos
can be explained by the fact that the head servili tumultu implies a plurality of
slaves.26 The instances cited in the literature only concern non-restrictive relative
clauses.
( j) Factum etiam nuper in Italia servili tumultu, quos tamen aliquid usus ac
disciplina quam a nobis accepissent sublevarent.
(‘Danger also came about recently in Italy, during the rebellion of the slaves, whom,
however, the experience and training which they had received from us assisted to
some degree.’ Caes. Gal. 1.40.5)
Supplement:
Hoc dicendi genus ad patrocinia mediocriter aptum videbatur, ad senatoriam vero
sententiam, cuius erat ille princeps, vel maxume. (Cic. Brut. 112); Certamina domi
finita. Veiens bellum exortum, quibus Sabini arma coniunxerant. (Liv. 2.53.1);
† regis † haec Romana esse, non versutiarum Punicarum neque calliditatis Graecae,
apud <quos> fallere hostem quam vi superare gloriosius fuerit. (Liv. 42.47.7); Tu
vero, cui numerati sunt capilli nostri, errore omnium qui mihi instabant ut discerem
utebaris ad utilitatem meam, meo autem, qui discere nolebam, utebaris ad poenam
meam, qua plecti non eram indignus tantillus puer et tantus peccator. (August.
Conf. 1.19)
26 For references, see Pompei (2011c: 467) and Sz.: 439.

18.8 Exceptional case marking of relative expressions
As is stated and shown in § 18.7, the case form of a relative expression is normally
determined by its function within the relative clause. There are, however, exceptions
to this general rule in which the case form of the relative expression is the same as that
of its head in the main clause.27 The term used for this phenomenon is attraction
(attractio relativi). Examples are (a) and (b), with quo instead of expected quod in (a)
and quibus instead of expected quos in (b). The only Latin author with a considerable
number of instances (thirteen) is Gellius. There are relatively many instances of this
phenomenon in the Bible translations, following the Greek original.28
(a) . . . notante / iudice quo nosti, populo, qui stultus honores / saepe dat
indignis . . .
(‘. . . even when rated by the people—the judge you know so well, who in folly often
gives office to the unworthy . . .’ Hor. S. 1.6.14–16)
(b) . . . quibus poterat sauciis ductis secum . . . ad urbem proximis itineribus
pergit.
(‘. . . he carried with him such of the wounded as he was able and took the nearest road
to the City.’ Liv. 4.39.9)
Supplement:
Si solitudine delectare, cum scribas et aliquid agas eorum quorum consuesti, gaudeo
neque reprehendo tuum consilium. (Lucc. Fam. 5.14.1); (sc. Hostius Quadra) fecit . . .
specula huius notae cuius modo rettuli imagines longe maiores reddentia . . . (Sen.
Nat. 1.16.2); Atque haec quidem in his quibus dixi libris pervulgata sunt. (Gel.
10.23.1); ‘Suprema’ multa est eius numeri cuius diximus ultra quem multam dicere in
dies singulos ius non est . . . (Gel. 11.1.3); . . . ex necessitate qua diximus . . . (Tert. Mon.
3.5); . . . vel si . . . una de duabus . . . aliam tali quali diximus radiatione respexerit. (Firm.
Mat. 3.6.31); Et reversi sunt pastores . . . laudantes Deum in omnibus quibus audierunt
et viderunt (Vet. Lat. Luc. 2.20—copying Greek §.ā .ľ}tx zÊ| ·uz}lx; cf. in omnibus
quae . . . Vulg.); Conprehenduntur in consiliis quibus cogitant. (Vulg. Ps. 9.23)
Cf.: Ut vero iam equitum clamor exire iubentium instabat . . . raptim quibus quisque
poterat elatis cum larem ac penates tectaque . . . relinquentes exirent, iam continens
agmen migrantium inpleverat vias . . . (Liv. 1.29.4–5)
In the following instance from Ovid, Hall and other editors read quod instead of
quo, which is found in some of the manuscripts. In this way, they also eliminate a
clearly unexplainable form of attraction: Elige nostrorum minimum quodcumque
malorum. / Isto, quod reris, grandius illud erit. (Ov. Tr. 5.6.35–6).
27 See K.-St.: II.287ff.; 289ff.; Sz.: 566ff. According to Kurzová (1981: 48), ‘attractio’ is much more
frequent in Greek, whereas in Latin ‘attractio inversa’ occurs more often. See also Comrie (1989: 146–8)
and Lehmann (1984: 306–8) on other languages. For possible Greek influence, see Calboli (2009: 168–9),
with references.
28 The material is collected by Foerster (1902). Discussion in Thomas (1956: 317–19).
A very exceptional case is the following, where in quo is equivalent to quem (some
mss. read quo without a preposition, as in the Greek original): . . . in viro in quo statuit
fidem praebens omnibus . . . (Vulg. Act. 17.31).29
Some of the instances given above resemble instances like (c) at first sight. The differ-
ence is that in (c) it is not difficult to supply from the context a verb form with which
the case of the relative pronoun is fully understandable. There are, of course, also
instances where it is difficult to decide whether a verb should be supplied.30
(c) Scire hoc vis? # Hac quidem causa qua dixi tibi.
(‘Do you really want to know? # Yes, for the reason I’ve already told you.’ Ter. Hau.
87—sc. Hac causa scire volo, qua me scire velle tibi dixi.)
Supplement:
. . . nulla beatior possit esse . . . et delectatione qua (v.l. quam; de qua cj. Opitz) dixi et
saturitate (Cic. Sen. 56); Nos tamen hoc confirmamus illo augurio quo diximus . . .
(Cic. Att. 10.8.7)
NB: Ibi Cn. Scipio cum quibus ante dictum est copiis substitit. (Liv. 25.32.10); Singilis
fluvius in Baetim quo dictum est ordine inrumpens Astigitanam coloniam adluit . . .
(Plin. Nat. 3.12)
Attraction is also found in the idiomatic expression qui et (vocatur), as in (d).31
(d) Cyprianus qui et Thascius Florentio cui et Puppiano fratri s(alutem).
(‘Cyprian, who is also called Thascius, sends greetings to his brother
Florentius, who is also called Puppianus.’ Cypr. Ep. 66—NB: parallelism)
Less infrequent than attraction is the reverse phenomenon inverse attraction
(attractio inversa): in these cases the head has the case form of the relative expression.
There are a significant number of instances in Plautus, but it is rare in later texts and
is not found in high literature. Examples are (e)–(h). In (e), Naucratem is the subject
of the main clause and therefore the nominative would be appropriate. A similar case
presents itself in (f), unless we take quem as determiner of eunuchum (see § 18.15). In
(g), illis is picked up by i, which has the expected nominative form. In (h), ill’ is picked
up by the resumptive eum. See also § 22.14 on theme constituents.32
(e) Naucratem, quem convenire volui, in navi non erat . . .
(‘Naucrates, whom I wanted to get hold of, wasn’t on the ship . . .’ Pl. Am. 1009)
(f) Eunuchum quem dedisti nobis quas turbas dedit!
(‘That eunuch you gave us, what trouble he’s caused!’ Ter. Eu. 653)
29 A few cases of attraction are discussed by Löfstedt (1985: 79).

30 Full discussion in Touratier (1980: 213–33). See also Powell ad Cic. Sen. 56. More elliptical instances
can be found in Roby (1882: § 1066) and K.-St.: II.288.
31 See Löfstedt (1911: 228) and Sz.: 413.
32 The material can be found in Bach (1888) and—Post-Classical and Late examples—Halla-aho (2016:
384–7). For discussion, see Vonlaufen (1974), Touratier (1980: 197–211), Lavency (1998a: 93–6), Álvarez
Huerta (2005a; 2005b), Calboli (2014: 744–51), and Halla-aho (2018: 52–6). Touratier and Álvarez Huerta
regard such cases as ‘extraposition’. See also Adams (2016: 15–17).
(g) Qui invident egent. Illis quibus invidetur, i rem habent.

(‘Those who envy are in need. Those who are envied have money.’ Pl. Truc. 746)
(h) . . . ill’ qui mandavit, eum exturbasti ex aedibus?
(‘. . . the man who entrusted him to you—you drove him out of his home, didn’t you?’
Pl. Trin. 137)
Supplement:
Patronus qui vobis fuit futurus, perdidistis. (Pl. As. 621—NB: unless patronus is taken
as subject complement in the relative clause, which then functions as a whole as
object);33 Ego te hodie reddam madidum, si vivo, probe, / tibi, quoi decretum est
bibere aquam. (Pl. Aul. 573–4); Quasi pueri qui nare discunt scirpea induitur ratis, /
qui laborent minus . . . (Pl. Aul. 595–6); Nam ego has tabellas opsignatas consignatas
quas fero, / non sunt tabellae . . . (Pl. Bac. 935–6); Hos quos videtis stare hic captivos
duos, / illi quia astant, hi stant ambo, non sedent. (Pl. Bac. 1–2); Istos captivos duos /
heri quos emi de praeda a quaestoribus, / eis indito catenas singularias . . . (Pl. Capt.
110–12); Sed istum quem quaeris ego sum. (Pl. Cur. 419); Hi qui illum dudum con-
ciliaverunt mihi / peregrinum Spartanum, id nunc his cerebrum uritur . . . (Pl. Poen.
769–70); . . . tibicinam illam tuos quam gnatus deperit / ea circumducam lepide leno-
nem . . . (Pl. Ps. 528–9); Istic scelestus liber est. Ego qui in mari prehendi / rete atque
excepi vidulum, ei darei negatis quicquam. (Pl. Rud. 1291–2); In creta et uligine
et rubrica et ager qui aquosus erit semen adoreum potissimum serito. (Cato Agr.
34.2);34 Sin illud quod significatur debet esse simile, Diona et Theona quos dicunt
esse p<a>ene ipsi geminos, inveniuntur esse dissimiles . . . (Var. L. 8.41); . . . cognosce ·
amicum · hunc · quem / speraveram · mi · esse · ab · eo · mihi · accusato / res ·
subiecti · et · iudicia · instaurata . . . (AE 1964.160.3–5 (Pompei)—NB: the accusa-
tive in amicum hunc may be due to preceding cognosce as a false start of an accusative
and infinitive clause); . . . hunc adulescentem quem vides malo astro natus est. (Petr.
134.8); Illum quem despicis pauperem largus et dives est. (Firm. Err. 18.6); In sum-
mitatem ipsius fabricam quam vides ecclesia est. (Pereg. 13.4); . . . et sermonem quem
audistis non est meus sed eius qui misit me Patris. (Vulg. Jo. 14.24—NB: the Greek
text has Ô vnz| Öx)
A similar form of attraction is found with adverbs, as in (i)–( j).35

(i) Quia illim unde huc advecta sum malis bene esse solitum est.
(‘Because in the place where I was brought from it’s usually the bad girls who have a
good time.’ Pl. Mer. 511)
( j) Indidem unde oritur facito ut facias stultitiam sepelibilem.
(‘Mind that you make your silliness ready for burial in the place from which it origin-
ates.’ Pl. Cist. 62)
33 As Halla-aho (2018: 51–2) takes it.

34 Lehmann (1984: 350) regards ager as not governed by the preposition in and as a theme (in my ter-
minology, see § 22.14). See also Adams (2016: 74–5).
35 As noted by Löfstedt (1911: 216). See also Sz.: 567.
18.9 The syntactic functions of heads with an adnominal relative clause

Adnominal relative clauses can be combined with heads that belong to various cat-
egories and have various syntactic functions. As is shown above, the heads may be
nouns and noun phrases (including proper names) as well as pronouns (especially
personal, demonstrative, and anaphoric pronouns). In Latin, there are no restrictions
on the syntactic function of these heads in their main clause.36 This is shown by the
following examples of relative clauses with the head adulescens in Plautus. Statistically,
relative clauses are most common with subject constituents.37
(a) Adulescens venit modo qui id argentum attulit. subject
(‘A young man’s just come who has brought this money with him.’ Pl. As. 337)
(b) Adulescenti qui puellam ab eo emerat / ait . . . indirect object
(‘To the young man who had bought the girl from him he said . . .’ Pl. Rud. 59–60)
(c) . . . pro illo adulescente quem tu esse aibas divitem. satellite
(‘For the sake of that young fellow who you used to say was rich.’ Pl. Trin. 428)
(d) . . . is adulescentis est illius avunculus / qui illam stupravit . . . attribute
(‘. . . he is the uncle of that young fellow who violated her chastity . . .’ Pl.
Aul. 35–6)
18.10 Interlacing of adnominal clauses with other subordinate clauses

In comparison with what is possible in English, it is remarkable that adnominal rela-
tive clauses can be used inside other subordinate clauses, both finite (relative, argu-
ment (including interrogative), and satellite clauses) and non-finite (infinitival and
participial clauses), in various functions. English grammars have no special term for
this phenomenon. In this Syntax the term interlacing will be used.38 This phenom-
enon is quite common in Classical prose, but Plautus already has instances of relative
connexion that exhibit such interlacing (see § 18.28). Instances of interlacing of
adnominal and autonomous relative clauses have been treated in § 18.2. In (a), quae
is coreferential with omnia; it is the subject of ne fieri possent. This clause, in turn, is
the object in the superordinate clause senatus perfecerat. In (b), the second quod refers
to ‘what cannot be refused’ in the preceding text and is the object of the conditional
clause. In (c), the relative quarum is governed by potiendi (spe), a force adjunct with
36 Lehmann (1984: 213–14) and Pompei (2011b: 80; 2011c: 482) observe that there are no instances of
relative clauses attached to an adnominal prepositional phrase, but this may well be due to chance.
37 For a typological study of the constituents with which relative clauses can be combined, see
Lehmann (1986). For Latin relative clauses in a typological perspective based on Caes. Gal., see
Pompei (2011a; 2011b: 78–88).
38 The German term is ‘relative Verschränkung und Verschmelzung’ (‘crossing and merging’) (K.-St.:
II.315); cf. Sz.: 568–9. Rosén (1999: 165–73) uses the term ‘interlacing’. Mihaileanu (1907) has a complete
survey of Cicero’s usage. I have not been able to consult Kunst (1908). For a generative approach, see
Maurel (1989). Bortolussi (2005: 490) has a table on Cicero’s use of the various types of clauses with which
interlacing occurs. Danckaert (2012) discusses relative clauses in a broader context of expressions that
may precede a subordinator.
the passive participle inflammati, which functions as secondary predicate in its clause.
In (d), qua is governed by usum, which is a secondary predicate with the object eum
with Plato facit (see § 21.7). When the relative clause is interlaced with a finite subor-
dinate clause the relative expression precedes the subordinator, as in (a), (b), and (e).39
(a) Omnia perfecit quae senatus salva republica ne fieri possent perfecerat.
(‘He accomplished all that the senate had managed to prevent from being done so
long as the Republic survived.’ Cic. Phil. 2.55)
(b) O rem miseram! Si quidem id ipsum deterrimum est quod recusari non
potest, et quod ille si faciat, iam a bonis omnibus summam ineat gratiam.
(‘A wretched situation indeed if the worst of all contingencies is something which
cannot be refused and which, should he accept it, would make all the honest men
immediately and heartily grateful to him!’ Cic. Att. 7.9.3)
(c) Nullas enim consequuntur voluptates, quarum potiendi spe inflammati
multos labores magnosque susceperant.
(‘For they never attain any of the pleasures, inflamed by the hope of acquiring which
they undertook many great labours.’ Cic. Fin. 1.60)
(d) Quae est igitur eius oratio, qua facit eum Plato usum apud iudices iam morte
multatum?
(‘What then is the speech which Plato represents him as having given before his
judges when condemned to death?’ Cic. Tusc. 1.97)
(e) Auctore utar Simonide, de quo cum quaesivisset hoc idem tyrannus Hiero,
deliberandi sibi unum diem postulavit.
(‘I shall follow the example of Simonides, who having the same question put to him
by the great Hiero, requested a day’s grace for consideration.’ Cic. N.D. 1.60)
Supplement:40
. . . permansit hoc ius terra humandi. Quam41 quom proxumi fecerant obductaque
terra erat . . . (Cic. Leg. 2.63); Is enim fueram, cui cum liceret aut maiores ex otio fruc-
tus capere quam . . . non dubitaverim . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.7); Cum quibus cum discubuisset
rex, paulisper epulatus convivio egreditur. (Curt. 8.5.9); . . . nec Alpes aliae sunt, quas
dum superant comparari nova possint praesidia. (Liv. 21.41.15); Odio enim tui, in
quo etsi omnis propter tuum in me scelus superare debeo, tamen ab omnibus paene
vincor, sic sum incitatus ut . . . (Cic. Vat. 1); ‘Noli, oro te’, inquit Pomponius, ‘adversum
eos me velle ducere, cum quibus ne contra te arma ferrem, Italiam reliqui.’ (Nep.
Att. 4.2); At ego basilicus sum, quem nisi oras, guttam non feres. (Pl. Rud. 431);
Nonnumquam etiam in olea unus ramus ceteris aliquanto est laetior, quem nisi
recideris, tota arbor contristabitur. (Col. 5.9.18); Ex quo exsistit et illud, multa esse
probabilia, quae quamquam non perciperentur, tamen . . . his sapientis vita regeretur.
(Cic. N.D. 1.12—NB: resumptive his); . . . Arcadas insuetos acies inferre pedestris / ut
39 For quantitative data concerning the preposing of relative pronouns and phrases and other constitu-
ents, see Danckaert (2012: 121).
40 Most of the examples in the Supplement are taken from K.-St.: II.315–19.
41 Editors read quod, but see Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.146). Further references in Dyck (2004) ad loc.
vidit Pallas Latio dare terga sequaci, / aspera quis (= quibus) natura loci dimittere
quando / suasit equos . . . / nunc prece, nunc dictis virtutem accendit amaris. (Verg. A.
10.364–8);42 . . . corona a populo data est . . . quam quod amor civium et non vis
expresserat, nullam habuit invidiam magnaque fuit gloria. (Nep. Thr. 4.1); Atque ede-
pol in eas plerumque esca imponitur, / quam si quis avidus poscit escam avariter, /
decipitur in trasenna avaritia sua. (Pl. Rud. 1237–9); Fuit . . . talis, quales si omnes
semper fuissent, numquam desideratus vehemens esset tribunus. (Cic. Planc. 28);
Aberat omnis dolor, qui si adesset, nec molliter ferret et tamen medicis plus quam
philosophis uteretur. (Cic. Fin. 2.64); ‘Video equidem’ inquam, ‘sed tamen iam infici
debet iis artibus, quas si, dum est tener, combiberit, ad maiora veniet paratior.’ (Cic.
Fin. 3.9); Nolo enim hunc de me optime meritum existimare ea me suasisse Pompeio
quibus ille si paruisset esset hic quidem clarus in toga et princeps . . . (Cic. Fam. 6.6.5);
Quod si factum esset, votum rite solvi non posse. (Liv. 31.9.7); Dedit gladiatores ses-
tertiarios iam decrepitos, quos si sufflasses cecidissent. (Petr. 45.11 (Echion speak-
ing)); Ceterum, dum ea res geritur, L. Sulla quaestor cum magno equitatu in castra
venit, quos uti ex Latio et a sociis cogeret, Romae relictus erat. (Sal. Jug. 95.1)
Indirect questions: Itaque illud indecorum, quod quale sit ex decoro debet intellegi,
hic quoque apparet . . . (Cic. Orat. 82); Errare mehercule malo cum Platone, quem tu
quanti facias scio et quem ex tuo ore admiror, quam cum istis vera sentire. (Cic. Tusc.
1.39); Omnia enim erant suspensa propter exspectationem legatorum, qui quid egis-
sent nihildum nuntiabatur. (Cic. Fam. 11.8.1); Quibus omnibus ita demum similis
adolescet, si imbutus honestis artibus fuerit, quas plurimum refert a quo potissimum
accipiat. (Plin. Ep. 3.3.2)
NB: with connecting relatives: De quo, iudices, neque quomodo dicam neque quo-
modo taceam reperire possum. (Cic. S. Rosc. 124); . . . ipse opinione celerius venturus
esse dicitur. Cui utrum obviam procedam an hic eum exspectem cum constituero,
faciam te certiorem. (Cic. Fam. 14.23)
Participial secondary predicates: Illa tamquam cycnea fuit divini hominis vox et
oratio, quam quasi expectantes post eius interitum veniebamus in curiam . . . (Cic. de
Orat. 3.6); . . . ipsius in mente insidebat species pulchritudinis eximia quaedam, quam
intuens in eaque defixus ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat. (Cic.
Orat. 9); Non sunt igitur ea bona dicenda nec habenda, quibus abundantem licet esse
miserrimum. (Cic. Tusc. 5.44); Quorum oratione permotus Varus praesidium quod
introduxerat ex oppido educit ac profugit. (Caes. Civ. 1.13.2); . . . accepit trecentos
milites, quos adhortatus ut virtute sua exercitum servarent in mediam vallem decu-
currit. (Fron. Str. 1.5.15)
Accusative and infinitive with connecting relative ablative absolute clause: Dixi
apud pontifices istam adoptionem . . . pro nihilo esse habendam. Qua sublata intelle-
gis totum tribunatum tuum concidisse. (Cic. Dom. 38)
18.11 Reduction of inferrable elements in adnominal relative clauses

When the head of a relative pronoun is a prepositional phrase and the relative pro-
noun has more or less the same function in its clause as its head, a preposition that
42 For the text, usually emended, see Conte (2016: 51–2).

would be expected may be omitted. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), fuisse in the
subordinate clause corresponds with sum in the main clause. In (b), in quibus sunt
can be supplied for quibus. In (c), the verbs in the two clauses are semantically
similar. The preposition is normally expressed in the relative clause if the function
of the relative would become unclear, as in (d), where quos agebatur would be
incomprehensible.
(a) Nam ego in ista sum sententia, qua te fuisse semper scio . . .
(‘I am of the same opinion as I know you have always been.’ Cic. Leg. 3.33)
(b) Quae sunt isdem in erratis fere quibus ea quae de Platone dicimus.
(‘Utterances that involve almost the same mistakes as those which we quoted from
Plato.’ Cic. N.D. 1.31)
(c) . . . si bellatum prospere esset resque publica in eodem, quo ante bellum fuis-
set, statu permansisset.
(‘. . . if they proved victorious and the Republic remained in the same state in which it
had been before the war.’ Liv. 22.9.10)
(d) Res agitur per eosdem creditores per quos, cum tu aderas, agebatur.
(‘The business is being managed with the aid of the same creditors by whom it was
managed when you were here.’ Cic. Fam. 1.1.1)
Supplement:
Quicum litigas, Olympio? / # Cum eadem qua tu semper. # Cum uxore’n mea?
(Pl. Cas. 317–18); In eadem propemodum brevitate qua illae bestiolae reperiemur.
(Cic. Tusc. 1.94); Nunc quoniam in eadem inopia egestate patientia, qua Germani,
permanent, eodem victu et cultu corporis utuntur. (Caes. Gal. 6.24.4); Romanus
imperator . . . urbem magnam et in ea parte, qua sita erat, arcem regni nomine Zamam
statuit oppugnare . . . (Sal. Jug. 56.1); Quibus rebus cum unus in civitate maxime flo-
reret, incidit in eandem invidiam quam pater suus ceterique Atheniensium principes.
(Nep. Cim. 3.1); Prorogatum et L. Veturio Philoni est ut pro praetore Galliam eandem
provinciam cum iisdem duabus legionibus obtineret quibus praetor obtinuisset. (Liv.
27.22.5); . . . cum hoc Dominus propter humilitatis formam quam docendam venerat
commendaverit . . . (August. Ep. 55.33)
Rerum autem amplificatio sumitur eisdem ex locis omnibus e quibus illa quae dicta
sunt ad fidem. (Cic. Part. 55); Fecimus hoc in eo libro in quo nosmet ipsos, quantum
potuimus, consolati sumus. (Cic. Tusc. 1.83)
When the verb of an adnominal relative clause would be the same as in the governing
clause it may be omitted. Examples are (e) and (f).
(e) . . . ut haberet in consilio . . . omnis Metellos . . ., in quibus Numidicum illum . . .
(‘. . . that he had as his councillors . . . all the Metelli, among whom the hero of
Numidia . . .’ Cic. Red. Sen. 25)43
43 For parallels of in quibus, see Draeger (1878: I.211) and TLL s.v. in 776.84ff.
(f) . . . eius soceri L. Pisonis avum, L. Pisonem legatum, Tigurini eodem proelio
quo Cassium interfecerant.
(‘. . . the Tigurini had slain Lucius Piso the lieutenant (of Cassius), the grandfather of
Lucius Calpurnius Piso, his (Caesar’s) father-in-law, in the same battle as the one in
which they killed Cassius.’ Caes. Gal. 1.12.7)
Supplement:
. . . deceperat omnes, / in quibus Aiacem, sumptae fallacia vestis. (Ov. Met. 13.163–4);
Et pars equitum . . . nobilissimos Belgarum, in quis ducem Valentinum, cepit. (Tac.
Hist. 4.71.5)
NB: reduction in the main clause: . . . quae nullis sunt partibus aucta, / non possunt
ea quae debet genitalis habere / materies . . . (Lucr. 1.631–3)
These instances of reduction of verbs are often described as ellipse, but the pattern is
so common that it is better to deal with these as with other forms of reduction.
See § 19.3.
18.12 The relative order of the adnominal relative clause and its head
The normal position of an adnominal relative clause is after its head. Instances of this
order can be found passim above. There are a few instances in which the relative clause
belonging to a specific head constituent is positioned farther away in the sentence, as
in (a)–(c).44 Note that in (b) and (c) there is the risk of ambiguity.
(a) . . . materies illa fuit physici de qua dixit, ornatus vero ipse verborum oratoris
putandus est.
(‘. . . the material he spoke about belonged to the province of the natural philosopher,
but the actual distinction of his language must be considered the property of the ora-
tor.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.49—tr. May and Wisse)
(b) Sed me, iudices, non minus . . . Ser. Sulpici conquestio quam Catonis accusa-
tio commovebat, qui gravissime et acerbissime <se> ferre dixit me . . .
(‘But, gentlemen, the complaint of Servius Sulpicius affected me no less than the
accusation made by Cato, who said that he was deeply and bitterly hurt that I . . .’
Cic. Mur. 7)
(c) Bellovaci autem defectione Haeduorum cognita, qui ante erant per se infide-
les, manus cogere atque aperte bellum parare coeperunt.
(‘But when they learned of the revolt of the Aedui, the Bellovaci, who had previously
been treacherous to one another, began to assemble forces and openly to prepare for
war.’ Caes. Gal. 7.59.2)
Supplement:
Cavendum vero ne etiam in graves inimicitias convertant se amicitiae, ex quibus
iurgia maledicta contumeliae gignuntur. (Cic. Amic. 78); Quod huic officium, quae
44 See K.-St.: II.286 and Lundström (1964: 52). For instances in Livy, see Pettersson (1930: 39, n. 2).
More references in Sz.: 692.
laus, quod decus erit tanti, quod adipisci cum dolore corporis velit, qui dolorem
summum malum sibi esse persuaserit? (Cic. Tusc. 2.16)
The relative clause may also be enclosed between a determiner and its head. Examples
are (d)–(g). Note that in theory quem in (f) could be taken as the determiner of
numerum, the whole clause (and in that analysis, autonomous) being determined by
eum, as in the second relative construction of (g). For more examples of this construc-
tion, see § 18.16.
(d) . . . exponit ea quibus abundabat plurima et pulcherrima vasa argentea . . .
(‘. . . he set out those most lovely and numerous silver vessels, of which he had an
ample stock.’ Cic. Ver. 4.62)
(e) Discessu Liburnarum ex Illyrico M. Octavius cum iis quas habebat navibus
Salonas pervenit.
(‘At the departure of the Liburnian ships from Illyricum, Marcus Octavius went to
Salonae with the ships he had available.’ Caes. Civ. 3.9.1)
(f) . . . atque eum quem supra demonstravimus numerum expleverat.
(‘. . . and had thus filled up the number I stated above.’ Caes. Civ. 3.4.6)
(g) At ii qui in iugo constiterant . . . neque in eo quod probaverant consilio perma-
nere, ut se loco superiore defenderent, neque eam quam profuisse aliis vim
celeritatemque viderant imitari potuerunt . . .
(‘But the part which had taken post on the ridge . . . could neither abide by the plan
that they had approved, namely that they would defend themselves on higher ground,
nor could they imitate the vigour and the speed which they had seen to be of
assistance to others . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.40.6)
Supplement:
. . . pro meis in vos singularibus studiis proque hac quam perspicitis ad conservandam
rem publicam diligentia . . . (Cic. Catil. 4.23); . . . ea ipsa de qua disputare ordimur elo-
quentia obmutuit. (Cic. Brut. 22); . . . celeriter ad eas quas diximus munitiones per-
venerunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.26.2); Ea quae secuta est hieme . . . Usipetes Germani et item
Tenctheri magna multitudine hominum flumen Rhenum transierunt . . . (Caes. Gal.
4.1.1); En illa, illa quam saepe optastis libertas . . . (Sal. Cat. 20.14); . . . illa quae iniuria
depulsa fuerat ancilla totam faciem eius fuligine larga perfricuit . . . (Petr. 22.1)
NB: between adjective and head: Igitur Romanus qui aderat exercitus sextum post
cladis annum trium legionum ossa . . . condebant. (Tac. Ann. 1.62.1)45
In prose it is uncommon for adnominal relative clauses to precede their head, but in
poetry this order is not at all rare, as for instance in Ovid. Examples are (h) and (i).
(h) . . . quaeque diu steterant in montibus altis, / fluctibus ignotis insultavere
carinae . . .
(‘. . . and keels of pine, which long had stood upon high mountainsides, now leapt
insolently over unknown waves . . .’ Ov. Met. 1.133–4)
45 For a discussion on the appropriateness of Romanus (he suggests omnis), see Goodyear ad loc.
(i) Citati inde retro qua venerant pergunt repetere viam.

(‘They thereupon hastened back to regain the road by which they had come.’ Liv.
9.2.10)
Supplement:
Marmora invehi, maria huius rei causa transiri quae vetaret lex nulla lata est. (Plin.
Nat. 36.4)
18.13 Multiple adnominal relative clauses

A complex sentence may contain more than one adnominal relative clause attached in
some way to the same head constituent. Two different situations must be distin-
guished: (i) the same head constituent is modified by two (or more) relative clauses
that have similar semantic relationships to the head constituent (both are restrictive
or non-restrictive); (ii) there is a difference in hierarchical position of the relative
clauses, one modifying the head constituent, the other modifying the combination of
the head constituent and relative clause (see § 11.75). For the latter construction the
term nesting is sometimes used. Only in the first situation is coordination possible
by means of one of the coordinators ac, atque, et, que, or by zero-coordination (also
called asyndetic coordination—for details see § 19.1). Examples of the first type with
coordination are (a) and (b). In these examples the relative pronoun is repeated.
Examples of coordination of relative clauses without repetition of the pronoun are
discussed in § 18.30.46
(a) Nolim enim mihi fingere asotos, ut soletis, qui in mensam vomant et qui de
conviviis auferantur crudique postridie se rursus ingurgitent . . .
(‘For I should be sorry to picture to myself, as you are so fond of doing, debauchees
who vomit onto the table and who have to be carried home from dinner-parties and
next day gorge themselves again when they still have indigestion . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.23—
NB: further coordination by -que)
(b) Nos enim, qui ipsi sermoni non interfuissemus et quibus C. Cotta tantum-
modo locos ac sententias huius disputationis tradidisset, quo in genere ora-
tionis utrumque oratorem cognoveramus, id ipsum sumus in eorum sermone
adumbrare conati.
(‘For I was not present at the actual conversation, and have learned from Gaius Cotta
only the general lines of the argument and the ideas brought forward in this discus-
sion. So in reporting their conversation, I have tried to sketch exactly the type of
speech that each of the two orators used, as I had come to know it.’ Cic. de Orat.
3.16—tr. May and Wisse)
Supplement:
Tum piscatores qui praebent populo piscis foetidos, / qui advehuntur quadrupedanti
crucianti cantherio, / quorum odos subbasilicanos omnis abigit in forum, / eis ego
46 For further instances of repeated relative pronouns in Cicero, see Lebreton (1901b: 103–5).
ora verberabo . . . (Pl. Capt. 813–16); Quin mihi ancillulam ingratiis postulat, / quae
mea est, quae meo educta sumptu siet, / vilico suo se dare. (Pl. Cas. 193–5); Quin
etiam leges latronum esse dicuntur quibus pareant, quas observent. (Cic. Off.
2.40); . . . (sc. Belgae) proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibus-
cum continenter bellum gerunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.1.3); Confidentes garrulique et malevoli
supra lacum, / qui alteri de nihilo audacter dicunt contumeliam / et qui ipsi sat
habent quod in se possit vere dicier. (Pl. Cur. 477–9); Homines qui gestant quique
auscultant crimina, / si meo arbitratu liceat, omnes pendeant . . . (Pl. Ps. 427–8); . . . cum
iis una Commium, quem ipse Atrebatibus superatis regem ibi constituerat, cuius et
virtutem et consilium probabat, et quem sibi fidelem esse arbitrabatur, cuiusque auc-
toritas in his regionibus magni habebatur, mittit. (Caes. Gal. 4.21.6–7); . . . ex adverso
terrebat tanta vis navium cum ingenti sono fluminis et clamore vario nautarum
militum<que>, et qui nitebantur perrumpere impetum fluminis et qui ex altera ripa
traicientes suos hortabantur. (Liv. 21.28.1–2)
Examples of nesting are (c)–(e). In these cases the first relative clause is restrictive, the
second non-restrictive. Note in (c) the subjunctive in the first, restrictive, clause; the
indicative in the second, non-restrictive clause. The difference in grammatical rela-
tion between the two clauses was probably also reflected in intonation. Editors some-
times use a comma to mark the difference, as in the examples below, but there is both
individual and national variation.
(c) Histriones eos vidimus quibus nihil posset in suo genere esse praestantius,
qui non solum in dissimillimis personis satis faciebant, cum tamen in suis
versarentur, sed . . .
(‘We have seen actors whose superiors in their own class cannot be found, who not
only gained approval in utterly different parts while confining themselves to their
own proper spheres of tragedy and comedy, but . . .’ Cic. Orat. 109)
(d) Quam copiose ab eo agri cultura laudatur in eo libro qui est de tuenda re
familiari, qui Oeconomicus inscribitur!
(‘With what copious eloquence is agriculture lauded in his book that treats of the
management of estates, which is entitled The Householder!’ Cic. Sen. 59)
(e) Quid? Illa vis quae tandem est quae investigat occulta, quae inventio atque
excogitatio dicitur?
(‘Again, what, I ask, is the power which investigates hidden secrets, which is known
as discovery and contrivance?’ Cic. Tusc. 1.62)
Supplement:
Affatim est hominum in dies qui singulas escas edint, / quibus negoti nihil est, qui
esum nec vocantur nec vocant. (Pl. Men. 457–8); Habet enim certos sui studiosos qui
non tam habitus corporis opimos quam gracilitates consectentur, quos, valetudo
modo bona sit, tenuitas ipsa delectat . . . (Cic. Brut. 64—NB: variation of mood); Sed
omnium oratorum sive rabularum qui et plane indocti et inurbani aut rustici etiam
fuerunt, quos quidem ego cognoverim, solutissimum in dicendo et acutissimum
iudico nostri ordinis Q. Sertorium, equestris C. Gargonium. (Cic. Brut. 180); Quae
lex hanc sententiam continet, ut omnes leges tollat quae postea latae sunt, quae
tegunt omni ratione suffragium, ne quis inspiciat tabellam, ne roget, ne appellet. (Cic.
Leg. 3.38); Tenebam enim quosdam senariolos quos in eius monumento esse inscrip-
tos acceperam, qui declarabant in summo sepulcro sphaeram esse positam cum
cylindro. (Cic. Tusc. 5.64)
18.14 Adjectives and other constituents related to the

relative expression instead of to the head
Cicero in particular tends to use adjectives and exceptionally other words seemingly
as secondary predicates in relation to the relative pronoun, where an expression with
the adjective as attribute of the head in the superordinate clause is a viable alternative.
Examples are (a)–(d). What is noteworthy about many of these cases is that the adjec-
tives in question are not normally used as secondary predicates, since they do not
refer to temporary states of the entity to which they are related (see § 21.3).
Florentissima ‘when it was extremely flourishing’ in (c) comes closest to the regular
use of secondary predicates.47
(a) Nemini credo qui large blandu’st dives pauperi.
(‘I don’t trust any rich man who is over-polite to a poor one.’ Pl. Aul. 196)
(b) Mittit rogatum vasa ea quae pulcherrima apud eum viderat . . .
(‘He sent to ask for the loan of the most beautiful vessels he had seen at his house . . .’
Cic. Ver. 4.63)
(c) . . . eam civitatem in qua ipse florentissima multum omnibus gloria praestitisset.
(‘. . . the community in which even at its most flourishing he himself far excelled all
others in glory.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.8)
(d) Sed tum umido die et soluto gelu neque conti neque gladii quos praelongos
utraque manu regunt usui . . .
(‘On this occasion, however, the day was wet and the snow melting: they could not
use their pikes or the long swords which they wield with both hands . . .’ Tac. Hist.
1.79.3)
Supplement:
In is (sc. fabulis) quas primum Caecili didici novas / partim sum earum exactu’ . . . (Ter.
Hec. 14–15); Iam misericordia movetur, si is qui audit adduci potest, ut illa quae de
altero deplorentur, ad suas res revocet quas aut tulerit acerbas aut timeat, ut intuens
alium crebro ad se ipsum revertatur. (Cic. de Orat. 2.211); Hoc vere tamen licet dicere
P. Scipioni ex multis diebus quos in vita celeberrimos laetissimosque viderit, illum
diem clarissimum fuisse, quom . . . (Cic. Amic. 12); Veniat Caesar cum copiis quas
habet firmissimas . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.6); . . . consiliis pare, quae nunc pulcherrima
Nautes / dat senior. (Verg. A. 5.728–9); . . . exaugurare fana sacellaque statuit, quae
aliquot ibi, a Tatio rege primum in ipso discrimine adversus Romulum pugnae
vota, consecrata inaugurataque postea fuerant. (Liv. 1.55.2—NB: the use of aliquot,
47 See Touratier (1980: 400–8).

Autonomous relative clauses 501
a quantifier, is remarkable); Id unum dignum tanto apparatu consiliorum et cer-

tamine quod ingens exsudandum esset praemium fore. (Liv. 4.13.4); Masinissa fidu-
cia maxime loci confisus quo multo aequiore pugnaturus erat et ipse dirigit suos. (Liv.
29.33.4); Ex virginibus autem quae speciosae sunt captae, ut in Perside, ubi femi-
narum pulchritudo excellit, nec contrectare aliquam voluit nec videre . . . (Amm.
24.4.27); . . . de vinculo quidem desiderii concubitus, quo artissimo tenebar, et saecu-
larium negotiorum servitute quemadmodum me exemeris, narrabo . . . (August.
Conf. 8.13)
NB: Also with a so-called partitive genitive: Mittuntur etiam ad eas civitates legati
quae sunt Citerioris Hispaniae finitimae Aquitaniae. (Caes. Gal. 3.23.3)
18.15 Autonomous relative clauses
Autonomous relative clauses function as argument or satellite at the sentence or clause

level (for details, see § 18.16).48 They fulfil the same functions as nouns and noun
phrases. For this reason they are sometimes called ‘substantival’, ‘nominal’, or ‘nomi-
nalized’ relative clauses. They are also called ‘free’ or ‘independent’ relative clauses. In
this Syntax they are called autonomous relative clauses, as opposed to the
‘adnominal’ ones of §§ 18.3–14. Latin has two types of autonomous relative clauses.
The first type contains a relative pronoun, relative adjective, or relative adverb; the
second consists of a relative determiner and a head noun or noun phrase.
Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate autonomous relative clauses of the first type, with a relative
pronoun. Supplex in (a) is the subject complement, which for number and gender
agrees with the person referred to by qui deliquit. Its case (nominative) is in agree-
ment with the function the relative clause fulfils (subject). In (b), the relative clause
qui vidit is the object of invenio. In (c), the relative clause qui . . . epistulam is at the
same level as erum and lenonem. Together they function in apposition to tris, the
object in the main clause. In (a)–(c), the case form of the relative pronoun is deter-
mined by its function in the relative clause (as with adnominal relative clauses).
Number and gender are determined by the referent of the relative clause.
(a) Ut qui deliquit supplex est ultro omnibus!
(‘How the delinquent is willing to fawn on everyone!’ Pl. Bac. 1024)
(b) Si invenio qui vidit, ad eum vineam pluteosque agam.
(‘If I find the one who’s seen her, I’ll move all my siege equipment against him.’
Pl. Mil. 266)
(c) Nunc ego hac epistula / tris deludam, erum et lenonem et qui hanc dedit mi
epistulam.
(‘With this letter I’ll now deceive three people, my master and the pimp and the man
who gave me this letter.’ Pl. Ps. 690–1)
48 For other views on the role of these relative clauses, see Pompei (2011c: 460–2), with references. For
Greek, see Probert (2015: 71–3) on ‘relative clauses of the third kind’.
Autonomous relative clauses of this type can be used as a substitute for deverbal
nouns (abstract and concrete) and are therefore relatively common in technical
prose, especially as paraphrases or translations of Greek terminology, for example qui
laborat = ‘the patient’.49
Supplement:
Instances of coordination: Eo die feriae bubus et bubulcis et qui dapem facient.
(Cato Agr. 132.1); Hae rei materiam et quae opus sunt dominus praebebit. (Cato Agr.
14.3); In hac discordia video Cn. Pompeium senatum quique res iudicant secum
habiturum . . . (Cael. Fam. 8.14.3); Horum vocibus . . . milites centurionesque quique
equitatui praeerant perturbabantur. (Caes. Gal. 1.39.5); Quod postquam Scipio
quique cum eo erant cognoverunt . . . (B. Afr. 57.1); Inde ruunt alii . . . et acutae
vocis Hylactor / quosque referre mora est. (Ov. Met. 3.209–25); L. Atilio, praefecto
praesidii, quique cum eo milites Romani erant clam in portum deductis . . . (Liv.
24.1.9); . . . Tiberiumque ipsum victoriarum suarum quaeque in toga per tot annos
egregie fecisset admonuit. (Tac. Ann. 1.12.3)
Exx. (d)–(f) are instances of autonomous relative clauses with a relative phrase con-
sisting of a relative determiner and a head noun. In (d), the relative clause quam . . . vir-
ginem is the subject of the clause ut ei detur. In (e), qui . . . dubiis is the subject of nauci
non erit. In (f), quae . . . oblata is the object of suscepi. The number, gender, and case of
the relative determiners are determined by their respective head nouns. The deter-
miner normally precedes its head. Exx. (g) and (h) are different in that the relative
phrase consists of a relative pronoun and a noun or noun phrase in the genitive (a
so-called genetivus partitivus). Note that in (h) the relative clause is coordinated with
sua omnia by praeterquam.
(d) . . . ut ei detur quam istic emi virginem . . .
(‘. . . that the girl whom I purchased there be given to him . . .’ Pl. Cur. 433)
(e) Qui homo timidus erit in rebus dubiis nauci non erit.
(‘Someone who is timid in emergencies won’t be worth a farthing.’ Pl. Mos. 1041)
(f) . . . quae prima innocentis mihi defensio est oblata suscepi . . .
(‘. . . I undertook the first defence of an innocent man that was offered me . . .’ Cic. Sul. 92)
(g) . . . navium quod ubique fuerat unum in locum coegerant.
(‘. . . they had collected in one place every single ship they had anywhere.’ Caes. Gal.
3.16.2)
(h) Integraque sua omnia, praeterquam quod vini cibique absumptum erat,
receperunt.
(‘And they recovered all their possessions in their entirety, except for the wine and
food that had been consumed.’ Liv. 41.4.4)
49 See Nägelsbach and Müller (1905: 168–72). For instances in medical prose, see Langslow (2000:
396–408; 418–30). For Cicero’s use of relative clauses in his translation of Plato’s Timaeus to render Greek
definite expressions, see Meyers (2011). For the use of autonomous relative clauses in the Vulgate transla-
tion of the Bible and in Augustine, see Bortolussi and Sznajder (2017).
Supplement:
L. · Aemilius · L. · f. · inpeirator · decreivit / utei · quei · hastiensium · servei /
in · turri · Lascutana · habitarent / leiberei · essent. (CIL I2.614.1–4 (Gades,
189 bc)); Scyphos quos utendos dedi Philodamo, rettulitne? (Pl. As. 444); Quod tibi
nomen est fecit mihi. (Pl. Men. 1128); Agrum quem Volsci habuerunt campestris
plerus Aboriginum fuit. (Cato hist. 7=24C);50 Agrum quem vir habet tollitur. (Cato
orat. 159—NB: determiner follows); Quo cum venerit, quae primum navigandi
nobis facultas data erit, utemur. (Cic. Fam. 3.3.2); Ex hac fuga protinus quae undique
convenerant auxilia discesserunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.17.5); Qua vehimur navi fertur,
cum stare videtur. (Lucr. 4.387); Urbem quam statuo vestra est. (Verg. A. 1.573—NB:
usually taken as an instance of attractio inversa);51 Hannibal, ab Nola remisso in
Bruttios Hannone cum quibus venerat copiis, ipse Apuliae hiberna petit circaque
Arpos consedit. (Liv. 23.46.8); At quae aliae segetes vel umidae moveri possunt
melius tamen siccae sariuntur . . . (Col. 2.11.5); Singilis fluvius, in Baetim quo dictum
est ordine inrumpens, Astigitanam coloniam adluit . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.12); Reliqua Iudaea
dividitur in toparchias decem quo dicemus ordine: Hiericuntem palmetis consitam,
fontibus riguam, Emmaum, Lyddam, Iopicam, Acrabatenam, Gophaniticam,
Thamniticam . . . (Plin. Nat. 5.70); . . . Germanicus Caesar a. d. VII. Kal. Iunias trium-
phavit de Cheruscis C(h)attisque et Angrivariis quaeque aliae nationes usque ad
Albim colunt. (Tac. Ann. 2.41.2)52
The noun of a relative phrase may be modified by an adjective, as in (i). In ( j) the
noun of the relative phrase is modified by alio.53
(i) Quibus iniuriis gravissimis tamen illud erat misero solacium, quod id
perdere videbatur, quod alio praetore eodem ex agro reparare posset.
(‘Yet while suffering these terrible wrongs, he had at least this consolation in
his misery, that he saw himself losing what, under some other governor, he
would be able to regain from that same land.’ Cic. Ver. 3.199)
( j) . . . eique statuam equestrem inauratam in rostris aut quo alio loco in foro
vellet ex huius ordinis sententia statui placere.
(‘. . . and that it pleases the senate that by the decision of this body a gilt
equestrian statue to him be placed on the Rostra or in any other position in
the Forum which he may choose.’ Cic. Phil. 5.41—a proposal for a senatus
consultum)
Autonomous relative clauses of this type are a relatively infrequent relativization
device, used in Cicero especially in cases of relative connexion. In Plautus they
cover c. three columns in Lodge’s lexicon of a total of c. sixty-three columns for all
relative clauses. In Cicero’s orations they cover 14 of 182 columns in Merguet’s
Lexikon.
50 On this example, see Briscoe (2010: 155–6).

51 For its placement in this section, see Fraenkel (1954), Vonlaufen (1974: 29), and the discussion of ex.
(n) below. For the other view, see Halla-aho (2016: 384; 2018: 52–6).
52 For further instances in Tacitus, see Sörbom (1935: 119).
53 For instances in Tacitus, see TLL s.v. alius 1629.43ff.
Both types of autonomous relative clauses can be combined with resumptive pro-
nouns from Early Latin onwards (especially is, much less often hic,54 ille—rarely, in
Varro, Lucretius, and later poets—and rarely idem). Examples are (k)–(m). These
resumptive pronouns have the case form that is appropriate in their clause: eum in (k)
is the object of optruncabo, ibus in (l) is the indirect object with denumerem. The
number and gender of the resumptive pronoun agree with the preceding relative
clause. In (m), eandem is the object of vis. In instances like (n), with mulier in initial
position in the sentence, one may debate whether it is an instance of attractio inversa
(see § 18.8) or, preferably, the preposed head of the relative phrase quae mulier.55
When preposed, these relative clauses are usually at the beginning of the sentence to
which they belong, but see (l). These preposed relative clauses resemble theme con-
stituents (see § 22.14).56 (For resumptive phrases with a determiner, see § 18.18.)
(k) Quemque hic intus videro / cum Philocomasio osculantem, eum ego optrun-
cabo extempulo.
(‘Whomever I see here inside kissing Philocomasium, I’ll slaughter him on the spot.’
Pl. Mil. 460–1)
(l) Videtur tempus esse ut eamus in forum, / ut in tabellis quos consignavi hic
heri / latrones ibus denumerem stipendium.
(‘It seems to be time for us to go to the forum so that I can count out the pay to the
soldiers that I enlisted in my tablets here yesterday.’ Pl. Mil. 72–4)
(m) . . . quae te volt eandem tu vis.
(‘. . . you want the same woman who wants you.’ Pl. Mil. 1071)
(n) Mulier quae se suamque aetatem spernit, speculo ei usus est.
(‘A woman who is dissatisfied with herself and her age needs a mirror.’ Pl. Mos. 250)
These combinations of a relative clause with a resumptive pronoun or phrase (some-
times called ‘diptychs’) have received much attention in studies on the origin of the
relative pronouns. The order of the clauses is considered to reflect an older stage with
indefinite pronouns, from which relative pronouns developed later on.57
Some scholars regard the combination of a relative with a resumptive pronoun as
a special type of clause combining, called correlation.58 However, this distinction
seems unnecessary.
54 TLL s.v. hic 2711.36ff.; ille 349.29ff. For Plautus’ usage, see Blänsdorf (1967: 98); for Caesar’s,
Lavency (1996a).
55 For further instances, see Havers (1925: 245–6). For a discussion of attractio inversa and postposed
relative determiners, see Vonlaufen (1974: 25–30) and Lehmann (1984: 350). There is even a third
possibility, a variant of attractio inversa, which is to take mulier as a theme constituent (‘nominativus
pendens’) modified by an adnominal relative clause. So Halla-aho (2016: 370–2). See also Probert
and Dickey (2016: 393) and § 22.14. For the material in Plautus, Terence, and Cicero Att., see
Bertelsmann (1885).
56 See Lehmann (1984: 350–2), Halla-aho (2016), and Probert and Dickey (2016).
57 See Lehmann (1984: 368–75; 2008: 216–21) and Pompei (2011c: 518–29).
58 For discussion, see Touratier (1994: 696–700), Bodelot (2004), Fruyt (2004; 2005b), and Probert and
Dickey (2016)—also for diachronic observations.
Supplement:
Relative pronouns: Vi’n qui in hac villa habitat eius arbitratu fieri? (Pl. Rud. 1035);
Olim quos abiens affeci aegrimonia, / eos nunc laetantis faciam adventu meo. (Pl. St.
406–7); . . . et quos ferro trucidari oportebat, eos nondum voce volnero! (Cic. Catil.
1.9); . . . Qui inter tot annos ne appellarit quidem Quinctium cum potestas esset
agendi cotidie, qui quo tempore primum male agere coepit in vadimoniis differendis
tempus omne consumpserit, qui postea vadimonium quoque missum fecerit, hunc
per insidias vi de agro communi deiecerit, qui cum de re agendi nullo recusante
potestas fuisset sponsionem de probro facere maluerit, qui cum revocetur ad id iudi-
cium unde haec nata sunt omnia condicionem aequissimam repudiet, fateatur se non
pecuniam sed vitam et sanguinem petere, is non hoc palam dicit? . . . (Cic. Quinct.
46); Quibuscum vivi bona nostra partimur, iis praetor adimere nobis mortuis bona
fortunasque poterit? (Cic. Ver. 1.113); Quae in quem cadunt, in eundem cadit ut
serviat . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.14); qui · nostrum · mentitur · / eum · nec · di · penates ·
nec · inferi · recipiant. (AE 1964, 160 (Pompeii, 1st cent. ad (early)))
Relative phrases: Tum Saturno filius qui primus natus est, eum necaverunt. (Enn.
var. 72—NB: relative determiner follows); Nunc ibo ut pro praefectura mea ius dicam
larido / et quae pendent indemnatae pernae, is auxilium ut feram. (Pl. Capt. 907–8);
Qui ager frigidior et macrior erit, ibi oleam Licinianam seri oportet. (Cato Agr. 6.2—
NB: resumptive adverb); Arbores crassiores digitis quinque quae erunt, eas praeci-
sas serito oblinitoque fimo summas et foliis alligato. (Cato Agr. 28.2); Ab arbore abs
terra pulli qui nascentur, eos in terram deprimito . . . (Cato Agr. 51.1—NB: relative
determiner follows);59 Sed vina quae heri vendidi vinario Exaerambo, / iam pro eis
satis fecit Sticho? (Pl. As. 436–7—NB: relative determiner follows); Himera deleta
quos civis belli calamitas reliquos fecerat, ii se Thermis conlocarant in iisdem agri
finibus nec longe ab oppido antiquo. (Cic. Ver. 2.86); Quae hic rei publicae vulnera
imponebat, eadem ille sanabat. (Cic. Fin. 4.66); Signa quae nobis curasti, ea sunt ad
Caietam exposita. (Cic. Att. 1.3.2—NB: relative determiner follows); Quas Numestio
litteras dedi, sic te iis evocabam ut nihil acrius neque incitatius fieri posset. (Cic. Att.
2.24.1); Nam ad senatum quas Bibulus litteras misit, in iis quod mihi cum illo erat
commune sibi soli attribuit. (Cic. Fam. 2.17.7); . . . et, quae gravissime adflictae erant
naves, earum materia atque aere ad reliquas reficiendas utebatur et, quae ad eas
res erant usui, ex continenti comparari iubebat. (Caes. Gal. 4.31.2); Nam quae ab
reliquis Gallis civitates dissentirent, has sua diligentia adiuncturum . . . (Caes. Gal.
7.29.6); . . . (sc. milites) quam · fidem · pietatemq · domui · aug · parerent · eam ·
sperare / perpetuo · praestaturos. (S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre Copy A.161–2
(ad 20))
Just like nouns and noun phrases, autonomous relative clauses may be definite or
indefinite, and when indefinite either specified or not. They may also be generic. The
normal situation, certainly when the relative clause is sentence-initial, is that it is
indefinite. Explicit means to mark an autonomous relative clause as definite are
the demonstrative determiners hic, ille, and iste (discussed immediately below) and
the anaphoric determiner is (discussed further on). These determiners normally
59 For further examples, see Havers (1925: 243).

immediately precede the relative pronoun.60 This usage is common with relative pro-
nouns, as in (o) and (p), but rare with relative determiners. There are only a few,
mainly poetic, instances of a determiner modifying a relative phrase, as in (q).61
Occasionally, a determined autonomous relative clause is picked up by a resumptive
expression, as in (r). The various possibilities are shown in Table 18.4. The brackets ( )
indicate optional elements.
Table 18.4 The structure of autonomous relative clauses

(Determiner) Relative clause (Resumptive pronoun)
(hic, iste, ille, is) qui . . . (is)
qui leno . . . (ex. (q))
(o) Sed hunc quem quaero commonstrare si potes, / inibis a me . . . grandem . . .

gratiam.
(‘But if you can show me the man I’m looking for, you’ll earn my . . . great . . . gratitude.’
Pl. Cur. 404–5)
(p) Eripe oculum istic ab umero qui tenet, ere, te opsecro.
(‘Master, I beg you, tear out the eye of the man who is holding you at the shoulder.’ Pl.
Men. 1011)
(q) Di illum infelicent omnes qui post hunc diem / leno ullam Veneri umquam
immolarit hostiam, / quive ullum turis granum sacruficaverit.
(‘May all the powers above confound the pimp who after this day ever sacrifices a
single victim to Venus or offers her a single grain of incense.’ Pl. Poen. 449–51)
(r) Ille qui adoptavit hunc sibi pro filio / is illi Poeno, huius patruo, hospes fuit.
(‘That gentleman, who adopted this lad as his son—he was once the family friend of
the boy’s Carthaginian uncle.’ Pl. Poen. 119–20)
Supplement:
Relative pronouns: Cum hoc quem novi fabulor. (Pl. Men. 324); Hoc quod te rogo
responde, <quaeso>. (Pl. Mer. 214)
. . . illis quibus (sc. bene) est invides. (Pl. Ps. 1135); Multo illi potius bene erit quae
bene volt mihi . . . (Pl. Truc. 446)
‘Istanc quam quaeris’, inquit, ‘ego amicae meae / dedi . . .’ (Pl. Cist. 570–1); Sed
istum quem quaeris ego sum. (Pl. Cur. 419); Operam atque hospitium ego isti prae-
hiberi volo / qui tibi tabellas affert. (Pl. Per. 510–11); Ubi isti sunt quibus vos oculi
estis . . . (Pl. Ps. 179)
Serva erum, cave tu idem faxis alii quod servi solent . . . (Pl. As. 256)
Relative phrases: . . . unde hic cognitus est ipsi quem nominat ignem. (Lucr. 1.695)
60 For further examples, see Eckert (1992: 70–2; 2003: 172–82). In the 1992 sample of object clauses
with verbs of communication from Cicero there are forty-seven instances without and twenty-five with
a determiner.
61 Munro in his commentary on Lucretius has a collection of examples (ad 1.15).
. . . cum illud quo iam semel est imbuta veneno . . . (Enn. Ann. 535V=476S—NB:
fragmentary text); . . . confluere ex ipso possunt elementa vaporis / et simul ex illa
quae tum res excipit ictum. (Lucr. 6.312–13); Illi scripta quibus comoedia prisca viris
est / hoc stabant, hoc sunt imitandi. (Hor. S. 1.10.16–17)
Idem de istis licet omnibus dicas quos supra capita hominum . . . delicatos lectica
suspendit. (Sen. Ep. 80.8)
With a resumptive pronoun: Haec quae possum, ea mi profecto cuncta vehementer
placent. (Pl. Mos. 841); Quid? Istanc quam emit, quanti eam emit? (Pl. Epid. 51)
The most common determiner of autonomous relative clauses is the anaphoric deter-
miner is (see §§ 11.105–6).62 Two situations must be distinguished. On the one hand
there are instances of a form of is in combination with an autonomous relative clause
where is has its regular anaphoric meaning: it adds the element ‘already mentioned or
referred to in the preceding context’ even in more or less set phrases such as id quod
in (s). The same goes for (t) and (u). In (v) we see an example of a non-restrictive
adnominal relative clause with anaphoric eos, which refers to Brutis in the preceding
sentence (repeated from § 18.6).63
(s) Nam primum, id quod dixi, cum ceteris in coloniis duumviri appellentur, hi
se praetores appellari volebant.
(‘In the first place, as I have said, whereas in all the other colonies the magistrates are
called duumviri, those of Capua desired that they should be called praetors.’ Cic. Agr.
2.93)
(t) Quid id quod vidisti? Ut munitum muro tibi visum oppidum est?
(‘How about that which you have observed? How did the city appear to be fortified
with its wall?’ Pl. Per. 553—Cf. 550: urbis speciem vidi)
(u) Dic mihi, si audes, quis ea est quam vis ducere uxorem?
(‘Tell me, if you please, who is she whom you want to marry?’ Pl. Aul. 170—NB: there
has been some talking going on about marriage)
(v) Quod est tibi cum Brutis bellum? Cur eos, quos omnes paene venerari
debemus, solus oppugnas?
(‘What war you have with the Bruti? Why do you alone attack those men, whom we
are all bound almost to worship?’ Cic. Phil. 10.4)
That is in cases like (s)–(v) has a clear semantic value is confirmed by instances like
(w) and (x). In (w), is is followed by quidem, which normally serves to emphasize a
constituent in its sentence (see § 22.26). Note also the distance between is and qui. Ex.
(x) is cited as an example of ‘emphatic’ use of is, more or less like talis ‘such’.
(w) Certo is quidem nihili est / qui nil amat.
(‘But surely the man who doesn’t love at all is worthless.’ Pl. Per. 179–80)
62 The use of is is very common in legal texts and in the jurists. See Selig (1992: 34–40) and Reggio (2005).
For the use of ille in this function in Late Latin, see Fruyt (2005a). For Caesar’s usage of is qui, see
Lavency (1996a).
63 See also TLL s.v. 474.60ff.
(x) Itaque ego is qui sum, quantuscumque sum ad iudicandum, omnibus auditis
oratoribus, sine ulla dubitatione sic statuo et iudico . . .
(‘And I, being what I am, and so far as I am competent to judge, after hearing all the
orators, do unhesitatingly decree and pronounce as follows . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.122)
There are, on the other hand, definitely instances of is for which no semantic justifica-
tion can be given. The sole function of is in these instances is to serve as a bearer of
case information for the relative clause: is is a ‘semantically empty preparative’ deter-
miner.64 Latin, like other languages,65 has no means to mark autonomous relative
clauses for the syntactic function they fulfil in their superordinate clause. In the case
of clauses functioning as argument their status will as a rule be clear on the basis of
the meaning of the verb to which they belong. However, for clauses that function as
satellite or as attribute at the noun phrase level there is no such contextual support.
Exx. (y) and (z) will serve as illustrations. In (y), the autonomous relative clause
eorum . . . contra quos diceret is governed by the preposition causa. In Latin it is impos-
sible to combine this type of clause with a preposition, so in this case eorum serves as
a linking device, that is, it makes no semantic contribution of its own (see also § 14.6
for other types of subordinate clauses). In (z), the relative clause eorum . . . senati qui
columen cluent functions as attribute of sanguinem. Here too, eorum cannot be
explained by its meaning, but rather it serves as marker of the syntactic relation
between the head noun and the clause. See also § 18.16. The use of this ‘semantically
empty’ is is most common with autonomous relative clauses in the indicative.66
(y) Consecutus itaque est, ut aliquid eorum quoque causa videretur facere contra
quos diceret.
(‘He thus succeeded in seeming to do something even for the sake of those against
whom he was speaking.’ Quint. Inst. 11.1.85)
(z) Iam ego me convortam in hirudinem atque eorum exsugebo sanguinem /
senati qui columen cluent.
(‘Now I’ll turn myself into a leech and suck out the blood of these so-called pillars of
the senate.’ Pl. Epid. 188–9)
Supplement:
Determiner + relative pronoun: Bene ei qui invidet mi / et ei qui hoc gaudet. (Pl.
Per. 776–6a); Di faciant ut id bibatis quod vos numquam transeat. (Pl. Per. 823); Sed
ea quae demissurus eris sumito paulo acerbiora. (Cato Agr. 101); Destiti stomachari
et me unum ex iis feci qui ad aquas venissent. (Cic. Planc. 65); Sed iam forma ipsa
restat et l{lu~ÿ{ ille qui dicitur. (Cic. Orat. 134);67 Quare si potest esse beatus is qui
est in asperis reiciendisque rebus, potest is quoque esse qui est in parvis malis. (Cic.
Fin. 5.78); Obtrectatio autem est, ea quam intellegi qrvz~.jlx volo, aegritudo ex eo
64 The description is Lehmann’s (1984: 308). See also Touratier (1980: 139–46). Lavency (1998a: 59),
Serbat (1988b: 37–43), and Meyers (2011: 228) are more or less along the same lines.
65 See Lehmann (1984: 308). Icelandic has only pronominally headed autonomous relative clauses
(Andrews 2007: 214).
66 See Lavency (2005).
67 For the use of determiners with this type of relative clauses, see Nicolas (1999: 55–6).
quod alter quoque potiatur eo quod ipse concupiverit. (Cic. Tusc. 4.17); Neque enim
tu is es qui quid sis nescias . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.12.6); Est autem non modo eius qui sociis
et civibus sed etiam eius qui servis, qui mutis pecudibus praesit eorum quibus praesit
commodis utilitatique servire. (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.24); At Sugambri ex . . . fuga comparata
hortantibus iis quos ex Tenctheris atque Usipetibus apud se habebant finibus suis
excesserant. (Caes. Gal. 4.18.4); Neque inmemor eius quod initio consulatus
inbiberat reconciliandi animos plebis, saucios milites curandos dividit patribus. (Liv.
2.47.12); Addunt pavorem mota e castris signa eorum qui in praesidio relicti fuerant.
(Liv. 1.14.9); Iis quorum agros urbesque populatus esset redderet res quae compa-
rerent. (Liv. 32.10.3); Quidam eos qui hoc e thynnis faciant pompilos vocant. (Plin.
Nat. 9.51)
Determiner + relative phrase: Pignus da ni ligneae haec sunt quas habes Victorias.
(Pl. Truc. 275); Quem oportebat omnium eorum quos antehac habui liberos par-
tis eorum tolerare atque curare . . . (Cornelia Nep. fr. 2); Hic .{zŵuzxzwr}gwrx
quid<d>am pßulj{| de iis quae in Sestium apparabantur crimina . . . (Cic. Q. fr.
2.3.6); . . . neque eam quam profuisse aliis vim celeritatemque viderant imitari
potuerunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.40.6); Quare illud satis est si nobis is datur unis / quem
lapide illa dies (diem ed. 1473)68 candidiore notat. (Catul. 68.147–8); Ipse cum admo-
dum exiguis copiis Genuam repetit, eo qui circa Padum erat exercitus Italiam defen-
surus. (Liv. 21.32.5); . . . duo legati venerunt, Philocles et Apelles . . . speculatum magis
inquisitumque missi de iis quorum Perseus Demetrium insimulasset sermonum . . .
habitorum. (Liv. 40.20.3); . . . ut eas quae in Sicilia naves essent reficeret atque
expediret . . . (Liv. 42.27.2); At . . . transcendere ad ea quis maxime fidebant in populum
Romanum officiis . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.56.1)
With a resumptive pronoun: Id quod in rem tuam optumum esse arbitror, / ted id
monitum advento. (Pl. Aul. 144–5); Igitur id quod agitur, <ei> hic primum praevorti
decet. (Pl. Mil. 765); Ergo id quod natura ipsa et quaedam generosa virtus statim
respuit . . ., in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet. (Cic. Tusc. 2.16)69
NB: Id quod providet, illius rei constat imago. (Lucr. 4.885)70
With inanimate entities the combination of is and res functions more or less in the
same way as is alone. Compare (aa) and (ab).
(aa) Cuius hoc dicto admoneor, ut aliquid etiam de humatione et sepultura
dicendum existimem, rem non difficilem, is praesertim cognitis quae de
nihil sentiendo paulo ante dicta sunt.
(‘And I am reminded by this saying of his that I think something should also
be said about interment and burial—no difficult matter, especially when
those things have been understood which were said a little while back about
absence of sensation.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.102)
68 For parallels for the remarkable word order, see Schuster (1950/1: 51–2).
69 The interpretation of this passage is disputed. See Giusta (1991: 198–200).
70 For Lucretius’ ‘remarkable idiom . . . of using res and the neuter as interchangeable’, see Bailey (1949:
I.94–5). The example can also be regarded as an instance of attractio inversa (see § 18.8 and Vonlaufen
1974: 132).
(ab) Pompeius his rebus cognitis quae erant ad Corfinium gestae Luceria profi-
ciscitur Canusium atque inde Brundisium.
(‘After learning what had happened at Corfinium, Pompey set out from
Luceria for Canusium and from there for Brundisium.’ Caes. Civ. 1.24.1)
Often relative clauses in combination with demonstrative and anaphoric pronouns

are regarded as modifiers of the pronouns which in turn are regarded as heads, in the
same way as an adjective modifies its head noun.71 However, in an expression like hic
bonus, bonus cannot be regarded as the modifier of hic. Rather, hic must be con-
sidered the determiner of substantival bonus ‘this good person’. Likewise, hic in (ac)
can be described as determining the autonomous relative clause quem astantem
video, which functions as its head. If hic is omitted, the sentence remains grammatical.
This is also illustrated by the parallelism of illos qui dant and qui deludunt in (ad).
Note also resumptive eos, referring to the combination illos qui dant.72
(ac) Sed quis hic est quem astantem video ante ostium?
(‘But who’s this whom I see standing in front of the door?’ Pl. Bac. 451)
(ad) Illos qui dant, eos derides. Qui deludunt deperis.
(‘Men that give you things—them you treat with contempt; those that trifle
with you you dote on.’ Pl. As. 527)
There is a great variety of relative expressions determined by idem which are usually
taken to mean ‘the same as’, comparable with idem atque (see § 20.15).73 We find
idem + noun . . . qui, idem . . . qui + noun, and idem + noun . . . qui + noun (for which
see also § 18.18). Ex. (ae) illustrates the most common type. Exx. (af) and (ag) are
exceptional. Then there is also idem . . . qui, as in (ah). (For less common idem atque,
see § 20.15.)
(ae) Qui minus / eadem histrioni sit lex quae summo viro?
(‘Why shouldn’t the same law apply to an actor as to a man of high rank?’ Pl. Am.
76–7)
(af) Mala es atque eadem quae soles illecebra.
(‘You’re sly and the same temptress as usual.’ Pl. Truc. 184)
(ag) Quaero quae tanta in te vanitas . . . ut in hoc iudicio T. Annium isdem verbis
laudares, quibus eum verbis laudare et boni viri et boni cives consuerunt . . .
(‘I ask you what is the meaning of all this levity of yours, that in this trial you extolled
Titus Annius in the very same words in which good men and good citizens have been
in the habit of extolling him . . .’ Cic. Vat. 40)
71 Very clearly stated in K.-St.: II.279 Hostes, qui fugiunt, non sunt timendi; Ea, quae vera sunt, dicam.
For the view that we are dealing with determiners that mark the function of the relative clause, see
Vester (1989: 342), Eckert (1992: 152), Touratier (1994: 628–9), Addabbo (2001: 163–4). For discussion,
see also Pompei (2011b: 69) and Halla-aho (2018: 48–51).
72 For discussion of the status of is, see especially Lehmann (1979: 9); Serbat (1984), Longrée (1991:
95–8), and Lavency (1998a: 57).
73 See TLL s.v. idem 194.67ff. and Gibert (2011).
(ah) Apud bonos iidem sumus quos reliquisti, apud sordem urbis et faecem multo
melius quam reliquisti.
(‘With the honest men I stand as I did when you left, with the dregs of the city popu-
lace much better than when you left.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.11)
Autonomous relative clauses marked as indefinite by the pronouns quidam (specify-
ing indefinite) and aliqui (indefinite) are relatively rare. Examples are (ai) and (aj). On
the one hand these pronouns can be left out without causing the remaining construc-
tion to become ungrammatical (which suggests they are the modifiers). On the other
hand they can also function independently, in which case the relative clauses are
modifiers.
(ai) Iam quidam qui nos absentis defenderunt incipiunt praesentibus occulte
irasci, aperte invidere.
(‘Already, now that I am here, certain men who championed me when I was away
are beginning to resent me secretly and to express their jealousy of me openly.’ Cic.
Att. 4.1.8)
(aj) Quem ament igitur? # Aliquem id dignus qui siet. / Nam nostrorum nemo
dignu’st.
(‘Then whom should they love? # Someone who deserves it: none of us does.’ Pl.
Poen. 860–1)
Supplement:
Video enim esse hic in senatu quosdam qui tecum una fuerunt. (Cic. Catil.
1.8); . . . raros esse quosdam qui ceteris omnibus pro nihilo habitis rerum naturam
studiose intuerentur. (Cic. Tusc. 5.9); Sunt quidam qui nolint nisi secreto accipere.
(Sen. Ben. 2.23.1)
Saltem aliquem velim qui mihi ex his locis / aut viam aut semitam monstret. (Pl.
Rud. 211–12); Fuisse credo tum quoque aliquos qui discerptum regem patrum mani-
bus taciti arguerent . . . (Liv. 1.16.4); In Cn. Pompeium terra marique victorem fuit qui
carmen componeret, uno, ut ait, digito caput scalpentem. Fuit aliquis qui licentia
carminis tres auratos currus contemneret! (Sen. Con. 10.1.8)
Examples of generic autonomous relative clauses are (ak) and (al). Qui laborat in (ak)
means ‘the patient’ in general—that is, not a specific patient. Note the coordination of
the relative clause with the likewise generic nouns polypi et murenae in (al).
(ak) Sed si nullum tamen appareat aliud auxilium, periturusque sit qui laborat,
nisi temeraria quoque via fuerit adiutus.
(‘If, however, there appears to be no other remedy, and if the patient is likely to die
unless he be helped even at some risk . . .’ Cels. 2.10.7)
(al) Exeunt in terram et qui marini mures vocantur et polypi et murenae, quin et
in Indiae fluminibus certum genus piscium ac deinde resilit.
(‘The fish which are called the sea-mouse also come out onto the land, as do the poly-
pus and the moray; so also does a certain kind of fish in the rivers of India and then
jumps back again.’ Plin. Nat. 9.71)
Autonomous relative clauses may be modified in various ways other than by the
determiners dealt with above. Exx. (am) and (an) illustrate the use of the quantifiers
omnes and pauci.
(am) Omnes qui amant graviter sibi dari uxorem ferunt.
(‘All lovers resent being given a wife.’ Ter. An. 191)
(an) . . . donec pauci qui proelio superfuerant paludibus abderentur.
( ‘. . . until the few who escaped battle could hide themselves in the swamp.’ Tac. Hist.
1.79.4)
Supplement:
Cum vero is quem nemo vestrum vidit umquam, nemo qui mortalis esset audivit,
tantum dicit . . . (Cic. Flac. 40); Neminem qui aut libertate dignus esset aut vellet omnino
liber esse, sibi amicum arbitrabatur. (Cic. Tusc. 5.63); . . . ut in hac confusa atque uni-
versa defensione nihil a me quod ad vestram quaestionem, nihil quod ad reum, nihil
quod ad rem publicam pertineat praetermissum esse videatur. (Cic. Sest. 5)74
. . . ex quo sunt nonnulli qui tuam legem de civitate natam, Crasse, dicant . . . (Cic. de
Orat. 2.257)
Hac oratione ab Diviciaco habita omnes qui aderant magno fletu auxilium a
Caesare petere coeperunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.32.1); . . . Iugurtha, homo omnium quos terra
sustinet sceleratissumus . . . (Sal. Jug. 14.2); (sc. vomitus necessarius est) Ergo omnibus
qui ante febres horrore et tremore vexantur. Omnibus qui cholera laborant. (Cels.
2.13.1); Nam ex omnibus qui nunc se philosophos vocant vix unum aut alterum
invenies tanta sinceritate, tanta veritate. (Plin. Ep. 3.11.6)
Sunt autem multi . . . qui eripiunt aliis quod aliis largiantur . . . (Cic. Off. 1.43); . . . a
multis qui e Samnio Apuliaque veniebant admoniti sumus . . . (Cic. Att. 8.11d.3); . . . foe-
diore multorum qui perpeti medicinam toleraverant cicatrice quam morbo. (Plin.
Nat. 26.3); . . . multa in terris fieri caeloque tuentur, / quorum operum causas nulla
ratione videre / possunt . . . (Lucr. 1.152–4); Huc addent divi quam plurima quae
Themis olim / antiquis solita est munera ferre piis. (Catul. 68. 153–4)
Notice also the use of aliarum in (ao), ceterorum in (ap), and omnibus in (aq) in com-
bination with relative phrases.75
(ao) Is illius laudare infit formam virginis / et aliarum itidem quae eius erant
mulierculae.
(‘This fellow begins to praise that girl’s figure and those of the other girls who are in
his keeping.’ Pl. Rud. 51–2)
(ap) . . . qu<a>eram, cur idem nostra nomina et Persarum et ceterorum quos
vocant barbaros cum casibus dica<n>t.
(‘. . . then I shall ask why the same persons use a full set of case forms not only for our
own personal names, but also for those of the Persians and of the others whom they
call barbarians.’ Var. L. 8.64)
74 For the zero-quantifiers nemo and nihil, see also § 11.27.

75 For (aq), see Deufert (2018: 117).
(aq) Illud in his igitur rebus meminisse decebit, / non ex omnibus omnino quae-
cumque creant res / sensilia extemplo me gigni dicere sensus . . .
(‘Herein it will be right to remember this, that I do not say that sensations are begot-
ten at once from all and every of the things which give birth to sensible things . . .’
Lucr. 2.891–3)
In addition to examples such as (q) (page 506 above) which illustrate demonstra-
tive pronouns (all poetic) and is (also in prose) modifying an autonomous relative
clause with a relative phrase, there are a few remarkable instances in which a word
of another category modifies such a clause, such as alii in (ar). Even more striking
is the use of a normal adjective in (as), where meliorem goes with condicio. This
form of anticipation can probably be attributed in part to the influence of Greek
examples.76
(ar) Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae / atque alii quorum comoe-
dia prisca virorum est . . .
(‘Eupolis and Cratinus and Aristophanes the poets, and the other men to
whom Old Comedy belongs . . .’ Hor. S. 1.4.1–2)
(as) ‘Nisi qui meliorem afferet / quae mi atque amicis placeat condicio magis,’ /
quasi fundum vendam . . .
(‘ “It’s settled unless anyone offers a better deal, which I and my associates
like more.” As if I were selling a plot by auction . . .’ Pl. Capt. 179–81)
Supplement:
Quis non malarum amor quas curas habet / haec inter obliviscitur? (Hor. Ep.
2.37–8—NB: all sorts of emendations have been proposed, see Watson ad loc.)
Appendix: Autonomous relative clauses may also be combined with ipse, either pre-
ceding, or following. Examples are (at)–(au)—‘pregnant’ ipse—and (av)—‘discretive’
ipse (for the terminology, see § 11.144).77 In these examples ipse is functioning as
some sort of secondary predicate (see § 21.3). It is incorrect to consider the relative
clauses as adnominally related to ipse, which is often regarded as the head of the
combination.
(at) Sed tamen, tu nempe eos asinos praedicas / vetulos, claudos, quibus suptri-
tae ad femina iam erant ungulae? / # Ipsos qui tibi subvectabant rure huc
virgas ulmeas.
(‘But are you talking about those old, lame donkeys whose hooves had been
worn away up to the thighs? # Exactly, the ones which used to carry elm-
rods from the country here for you.’ Pl. As. 339–41)
(au) Septimus (sc. locus), per quem ad ipsos qui audiunt [similem in causam]
convertimus . . .
(‘The seventh (sc. topic), in which we turn to the audience . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.108)
76 For more instances, see Munro ad Lucr. 1.15. See also Bailey (1949: I.105).
77 For more examples, see TLL s.v. ipse 306.27ff.
(av) Quo qui intraverant se ipsi acutissimis vallis induebant.

(‘Any men who entered within them were likely to impale themselves on
very sharp stakes.’ Caes. Gal. 7.73.4)
Autonomous relative clauses that open a sentence can contain a connector (unlike
connective relatives). In that case the connector connects the whole sentence with
what precedes. Examples are (aw) and (ax).
(aw) Nam qui amat quod amat si habet, id habet pro cibo.
(‘For if a lovesick man has the object of his love, he regards it as food . . .’ Pl. Mer. 744)
(ax) Qui autem auscultare nolet exsurgat foras . . .
(‘But if anyone doesn’t want to listen, let him get up and get out.’ Pl. Mil. 81)
18.16 The syntactic functions of autonomous relative clauses

and their formal expression
The most common syntactic function of autonomous relative clauses is that of sub-
ject, but they are also found in object and—much more rarely—other functions at the
sentence level, as well. Exx. (a)–(f) illustrate relative clauses that function as arguments,
satellites, (subject/object) complements, or secondary predicates. The functions are
the same as those of noun phrases at the sentence or clause level.78 In (a)–(c), we see
the relative clause function as an argument in the main clause: in (a), qui recte facit . . .
functions as the subject, whereas in (b) the relative clause functions as the object. In
(c), it functions as an indirect object, in (d), as an adjunct expressing direction (or is
it an argument?). The relative clause of (e) is the subject complement with the verb
sum.79 In (f), qui nobiscum prandeat functions as a secondary predicate (traditionally
called a ‘relative clause of purpose’—for details, see § 21.15). Autonomous relative
clauses also function below the clause or sentence level, for example as an apposition, as
in (g), or as an attribute, as in (h).80 Details follow below. Autonomous relative clauses
may also appear at the adjective phrase level, for instance, qui sies in (i), which functions
as an argument of the bivalent adjective dignus. For details, see § 18.19. For autonomous
relative clauses functioning as degree clauses, see § 16.37; for those functioning as
clausal appositives, see § 18.27. For disjunct-like uses, see the end of that section.
(a) Sat habet favitorum semper qui recte facit . . .
(‘A man who always acts correctly has enough supporters . . .’ Pl. Am. 79)
(b) Diespiter te dique, Ergasile, perdant et . . . / . . . qui posthac cenam parasitis dabit.
(‘May Jupiter and the gods destroy you, Ergasilus and . . . anyone who gives a dinner
to hangers-on hereafter.’ Pl. Capt. 909–10—NB: coordination of relative clause with
other nominal constituents)
78 See also the survey in Mellado (2011: 41–4).

79 For more instances, see § 22.12 on cleft sentences.
80 See Dik (1997: II.366–76) for data on other languages. A sample of twenty-seven languages and their
relativization rules can be found in Bakker and Hengeveld (1999). Lavency (1998a) gives a detailed clas-
sification of Latin relative clauses.
(c) Perdormisco, si resolvi argentum quoi debeo.

(‘I sleep through if I’ve paid everyone I owe money to.’ Pl. Men. 929)
(d) Ego eo quo me ipsa misit.
(‘I’m going where my mistress sent me.’ Pl. Cas. 790)
(e) Pro Iuppiter, / hic est quem ego tibi misi natali die.
(‘O Jupiter! This is the one I sent you on your birthday.’ Pl. Cur. 655–6)
(f) . . . Blepharonem arcessat qui nobiscum prandeat.
(‘. . . he is to fetch Blepharo so that he can have lunch with us.’ Pl. Am. 951)
(g) Nec audiendus eius auditor Strato, is qui physicus appellatur, qui omnem
vim divinam in natura sitam esse censet . . .
(‘Nor should one heed Strato, his pupil, the man who is called a natural philosopher;
he deems that all divine power lies in nature.’ Cic. N.D. 1.35)
(h) Hic . . . quam invisa sit singularis potentia et miseranda vita, qui se metui
quam amari malunt, cuivis facile intellectu fuit.
(‘In this instance too . . . it was readily apparent to all how detestable and wretched the
life is of those who prefer to be feared rather than loved.’ Nep. Di. 9.5)
(i) Ego multo tanta miserior quam tu, Labrax. # Qui? # Quia ego indignus sum,
tu dignu’s qui sies (sc. miser).
(‘I am much more miserable than you, Labrax. # How so? # Because I don’t deserve
it, but you do.’ Pl. Rud. 521–2)
The function of a relative clause can be revealed by the presence of a determiner or
another constituent that marks the syntactic function by its case form. Examples of
determiners, quantifiers, and other words that offer this kind of information are given
in § 18.15, for example (aa) and (ak); another example is ( j). The syntactic function of
a relative clause is also obvious when it is followed by a resumptive expression (see
earlier examples and the examples in the Supplement), or when there is a secondary
predicate, as is the case with omnibus in (k). However, overt marking may be absent.
This is quite normal in the case of relative clauses that function as subject or object, as
is shown in (l) and (m), but marking may be absent in the case of clauses that function
as third arguments, an example of which is (n). Here the relative clause homines
qui . . . aedis is the third argument with erupui, which requires a dative. In all these
cases the semantic relationship of the relative clauses follows from the meaning of the
governing verb. Note that the relative determiner qui follows its head homines.
( j) Esne tu an non es ab illo militi Macedonio, / servos eius qui hinc a nobis est
mercatus mulierem . . .
(‘Are you or aren’t you the slave of that Macedonian soldier who bought a woman
from us here . . .?’ Pl. Ps. 616–17)
(k) Qui sunt qui erunt quique fuerunt quique futuri sunt posthac, / solus ego
omnibus antideo facile miserrumus hominum ut vivam.
(‘In living as the most wretched man I alone easily surpass all those who live, who will
live, who have lived, and who are going to live hereafter.’ Pl. Per. 777–8)
(l) Quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur . . .

(‘He whom the gods love dies young . . .’ Pl. Bac. 816–17)
(m) Ibo, adducam qui hunc hinc tollant et domi devinciant . . .
(‘I’ll go and fetch some who might carry him away from here and tie him up at
home . . .’ Pl. Men. 845)
(n) Quin modo / erupui homines qui ferebant te sublimem quattuor, / apud
hasce aedis.
(‘But just now, at this house, I rescued you from four men who had lifted you up and
were carrying you off.’ Pl. Men. 1051–3)
Supplement:
Relative pronoun:
Without a resumptive expression:
Subject: Postidea loci / qui deliquit vapulabit, qui non deliquit bibet. (Pl. Cist.
784–5); . . . facio idem quod plurumi alii quibus res timida aut turbida est. (Pl. Mos.
1052); . . . coepti sunt a praecone recini[i], quem quaeque tribus feceri[n]t aedilem.
(Var. R. 3.17.1); Quod igitur est eius modi crimen ut qui commisit non neget, qui
negavit absolutus sit, id hic pertimescat qui non modo a facto, verum etiam a consci-
entiae suspicione afuit? (Cic. Cael. 23); Quinque omnino fuerunt qui illum vestrum
innocentem Oppianicum . . . absolverent (v.l. absolverunt). (Cic. Clu. 76); Cui placet
obliviscitur, cui dolet meminit. (Cic. Mur. 42); Sed si parum multi sunt qui nobili-
tatem ament, num ista est nostra culpa? (Cic. Planc. 18); Nam qui audiunt haec duo
animadvertunt et iucunda sibi censent, verba dico et sententias. (Cic. Orat. 197); . . . si
in eo sit errore civitas, ut bonum illum virum sceleratum, facinerosum, nefarium
putet, contra autem (ed. <eum>) qui sit inprobissimus existimet esse summa probi-
tate ac fide . . . (Cic. Rep. 3.27); Quid est quod semper sit . . . (Cic. Tim. 3—NB: trans-
lates Greek ~ă Õx pj); Quod ad me de Hermathena scribis per mihi gratum est. (Cic.
Att. 1.4.3); Tum vero ex omnibus urbis partibus orto clamore qui longius aberant
repentino tumultu perterriti, cum hostem intra portas esse existimarent, sese ex
oppido eiecerunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.47.4); Itaque interfectis Novioduni custodibus,
quique eo negotiandi aut itineris causa convenerant, pecuniam atque equos inter se
partiti sunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.55.5—NB: coordination); ‘O terque quaterque beati / quis
ante ora patrum Troiae sub moenibus altis / contigit oppetere . . .’ (Verg. A. 1.94–6);
Proximi ibant quos Persae Inmortales vocant, ad decem milia. (Curt. 3.3.13)
Object: Neque <eum> scis qui apstulerit? # Istuc quoque bona (sc. fide dico). # Atque
id si scies, / qui apstulerit mihi indicabis? (Pl. Aul. 773–4); Quia mos est oblivisci
hominibus / nec novisse quoius nihili sit faciunda gratia. (Pl. Capt. 985–6); Non ego
possum quae ipsa sese venditat tutarier. (Pl. Mil. 312); Furtum ego vidi qui faciebat.
(Pl. Rud. 956); qui · semel · occubuit · nulla · querella · iuvat (CIL IX.3071.16
(San Valentino in Abruzzo Citeriore, bc)); . . . qui debilis erit haec res sanum facere
potest. (Cato Agr. 157.10); Meminero me non sumpsisse quem accusarem, sed
recepisse quos defenderem . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.179); Mercatoribus est aditus magis eo, ut
quae bello ceperint, quibus vendant habeant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.2.1—NB: object clause
in object clause); Redeuntes equites quos possunt consectantur atque occidunt.
(Caes. Gal. 5.58.6); Celeriter sibi Senones, Parisios . . . reliquosque omnes qui Oceanum
attingunt adiungit. (Caes. Gal. 7.4.6); . . . ipse in Haeduos proficisci statuit senatumque
omnem et quos inter controversia esset ad se Decetiam evocavit. (Caes. Gal. 7.33.2—
NB: coordination); Hoc se quisque modo fugit, at quem scilicet, ut fit, / effugere haut
potis est, ingratius haeret et odit / propterea, morbi quia causam non tenet aeger.
(Lucr. 3.1068–70); . . . mediam in toto esse terram, eandemque universo cardine stare
pendentem, librantem per quae pendeat, ita solam inmobilem circa eam volubili uni-
versitate. (Plin. Nat. 2.11); Epileum Graeci vocant qui solus omni tempore apparet.
(Plin. Nat. 10.21)
Subject complement: Quis est quem vides? # Vir / eccum it. (Pl. Cas. 213–14);
Non ego sum qui te dudum conduxi. (Pl. Mer. 758); Quis enim est qui de hac officina,
qui de vasis aureis, qui de istius pallio non audierit? (Cic. Ver. 4.55); Is autem est qui
<consul> cum <L.> Lucullo fuit. (Cic. Att. 13.32.3); Nemo erit, mihi crede, in quo
modo aliquid sit, qui hoc tempus sibi oblatum amicitiae tecum constituendae
praetermittat . . . (Q. Cic. Pet. 27—NB: nemo in quo . . . sit is the subject of the clause);
Ecquis erit mecum, iuvenes, qui primus in hostem? (Verg. A. 9.51); Hispo Romanius
erat natura qui asperiorem dicendi viam sequeretur. (Sen. Con. 9.3.11); Ager est
arcifinius qui nulla mensura continetur. (Fron. agrim. p. 2, l. 8)81
Third argument and other obligatory constituents: Ego illam reddidi qui argen-
tum a te attulit. (Pl. Cur. 581); Etiam qui it lavatum / in balineas, quom ibi sedulo sua
vestimenta servat, / tamen surrupiuntur. (Pl. Rud. 382–4); Nam hoc assimile est quasi
de fluvio qui aquam derivat sibi. (Pl. Truc. 563); Lepus multum somni adfert qui
illum edit. (Cato Fil. 3(J)); De · Bacanalibus · quei · foideratei / esent · ita ·
exdeicendum · censuere ·. (CIL I2.581.2–3 (SC Bac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); Poena est qui
receperit . . . (Cic. Dom. 51); Ut agerentur gratiae qui e municipiis venissent? (Cic.
Red. Sen. 27); Nam Xerxes . . . praemium proposuit qui invenisset novam voluptatem.
(Cic. Tusc. 5.20); Namque versibus qui honore rerumque gestarum amplitudine cet-
eros Romani populi praestiterunt, exposuit ita, ut . . . (Nep. Att. 18.5); Dies deinde
praestituta capitalisque poena qui non remigrasset Romam . . . (Liv. 6.4.5); Ad haec
respondeo: et qui in summo est calore, opus est calore adiecto, ut summum teneat.
(Sen. Ep. 109.9); L. etiam Cinnae, uxoris fratri, et qui cum eo . . . ad Sertorium con-
fugerant reditum in civitatem rogatione Plotia confecit . . . (Suet. Jul. 5—NB: coordin-
ation); Is saltatorie procurrens malumque bracteis inauratum dextra gerens qui
(<ei>, qui v.; <adulescenti> qui suppl. Castiglioni) Paris videbatur, porrigit quid
mandaret Iuppiter. . . (Apul. Met. 10.30.5)
With a resumptive pronoun: Qui est imperator divom atque hominum Iuppiter, / is
nos per gentis alios alia disparat . . . (Pl. Rud. 9–10); Quem vides, eum ignoras. Illum
nominas, quem non vides. (Pl. Capt. 566); Itaque quibus res erat in controversia, ea
vocabatur lis. (Var. L. 7.93—NB: ea in agreement with lis); . . . et sine dubio quoniam
salubrior pars septemtrionalis est quam meridiana, et quae salubriora, illa fructuo-
siora, dicendum utique Italiam magis e<ti>am fuisse oportunam ad colendum
quam Asiam . . . (Var. R. 1.2.3); Quae (sc. arma) qui non habuerint, eos inermos fuisse
vinces. (Cic. Caec. 60); Nam qui pro re publica vitam ediderunt—licet me desipere
dicatis—numquam me hercule eos mortem potius quam inmortalitatem adsecutos
putavi. (Cic. Planc. 90); Nam qui semel a veritate deflexit, hic non maiore religione ad
81 For this form of definition, see Conso (2006: 287–8).

periurium quam ad mendacium perduci consuevit. (Cic. Q. Rosc. 46); Quod ubi
Caesar resciit, quorum per fines ierant, his uti conquirerent et reducerent, si sibi
purgati esse vellent, imperavit. (Caes. Gal. 1.28.1); Quibus autem longae febres sunt,
his aut abscessus aliqui, aut articulorum dolores erunt. (Cels. 2.7.27); Num alias
natura sic est, ut qui melius dixerit, hic ver<ius di>xisse videatur? Non qui verius, is
melius? (Tert. Nat. 2.6.5); Qui disposuit demutationem, iste instituit et diversitatem.
(Tert. Marc. 4.1.9)
Relative phrase:
Subject: Quae materies semen non habet, cum glubebit, tum tempestiva est. (Cato
Agr. 17.1); Favete, adeste aequo animo et rem cognoscite, / ut pernoscatis, ecquid spei
sit relicuom, / posthac quas faciet de integro comoedias, / spectandae an exigendae
sint vobis prius. (Ter. An. 24–7); Urbem quam statuo vestra est. (Verg. A. 1.573); Et
in quem primum egressi sunt locum Troia vocatur. (Liv. 1.1.3); Cecidere manu quas
legerat herbas (v.l. herbae) . . . (Ov. Met. 14.350)
Object: Heus foras educite, / quam introduxistis fidicinam. (Pl. Epid. 472–3);
Quae hic monstra fiunt, anno vix possum eloqui. (Pl. Mos. 505); Habeo quas ad
eundem litteras misisti. (Cic. Ver. 1.78); Oblata spe Germani quam nacti erant prae-
dam in occulto relinquunt. (Caes. Gal. 6.35.10); Pallas quas condidit arces / ipsa
colat. (Verg. E. 2.61–2)
Third argument and other obligatory constituents: Quid fecisti scipione aut
quod habuisti pallium? (Pl. Cas. 975); Sinite me prius perspectare, ne uspiam insid-
iae sient / concilium quod habere volumus. (Pl. Mil. 597–8); At quibus bestiis erat is
cibus ut aliis generis escis vescerentur, aut vires natura dedit aut celeritatem. (Cic.
N.D. 2.123)
With a resumptive pronoun:
Subject: Mane quod tu occeperis / negotium agere, id totum procedit diem. (Pl.
Pers. 114–15); Quas enim leges sociis amicisque dat is qui habet imperium a populo
Romano, auctoritatem legum dandarum ab senatu, eae debent et populi Romani et
senatus existimari. (Cic. Ver. 2.121); . . . quae pars civitatis Helvetiae insignem calami-
tatem p. R. intulerat, ea princeps poenas persolvit. (Caes. Gal. 1.12.6); Quae gratia
currum / armorumque fuit vivis, quae cura nitentis / pascere equos, eadem sequitur
tellure repostos. (Verg. A. 6.653–5)
Object: Qui antehac / invicti fuere viri, pater optime Olympi, / hos ego in pugna
vici victusque sum ab isdem. (Enn. Ann. 192–4V=180–2S); Ab arbore abs terra pulli
qui nascentur, eos in terram deprimito . . . (Cato Agr. 51); Quia enim qui eos gubernat
animus, eum infirmum gerunt. (Ter. Hec. 311); Praeterea quae arbores in ordinem
satae sunt, eas aequabiliter ex omnibus partibus sol ac luna coquunt. (Var. R.
1.7.4); . . . si, quod ius in parentis, deos, patriam natura conparavit, id religiose colen-
dum demonstrabimus. (Rhet. Her. 3.4); Sed hoc non concedo ut quibus rebus glo-
riemini in vobis, easdem in aliis reprehendatis. (Cic. Lig. 20); . . . ut, quemcumque
casum fortuna invexerit, hunc apte et quiete ferat. (Cic. Tusc. 4.38); Tamen tanti regis
ac ducis mentio, quibus saepe tacitis cogitationibus volutavi animum, eas evocat in
medium . . . (Liv. 9.17.1)
Other: Quae enim cupiditates a natura proficiscuntur facile explentur sine ulla
iniuria, quae autem inanes sunt, iis parendum non est. (Cic. Fin. 1.53); Qui fit, Maecenas,
ut nemo, quam sibi sortem / seu ratio dederit seu fors obiecerit, illa / contentus vivat,
laudet diversa sequentis? (Hor. S. 1.1.1–3)
NB: Cuius modo rei nomen reperiri poterat, hoc satis esse ad cogendas pecunias
videbatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.32.2)82
Explicit marking may be absent for non-argument clauses as well, although this is
rare. In (o) the two relative clauses are satellites functioning as disjunct of qualified
truth. The dative is the usual case for this function (the so-called dativus iudicantis—
see § 10.102). In (p), qui . . . cepisset is a beneficiary satellite. In (q) the relative clause is
a modifier of vestigia. There are a few poetic instances of autonomous relative clauses
functioning as address (see the Supplement).
(o) Eugae, litteras minutas. # Qui quidem videat parum. / Verum qui satis videat,
grandes satis sunt.
(‘Goodness, such tiny letters! # Tiny for someone who doesn’t see well enough. But
for someone who does see well enough they’re big enough.’ Pl. Bac. 991–2)
(p) . . . alteram insulae partem . . . adgreditur praemiis magnis propositis qui
primus insulam cepisset.
(‘. . . he launched an attack . . . upon the other side of the island, offering large rewards
to the first man who could capture it.’ B. Alex. 17.3)
(q) . . . nec ad quos pertineat facinus vestigia ulla exstare.
(‘. . . nor were there any traces of those who committed the crime.’ Liv. 31.12.1)
Supplement:
Relative pronoun:
Without a resumptive expression: Ea libertas est, qui pectus purum et firmum
gestitat. (Enn. scen. 302V = 256J); . . . (sc. Xerxes) praemium proposuit qui invenisset
novam voluptatem . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.20); Pactum est, quod inter quos convenit ita ius-
tum putatur, ut . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.68); Semper in proelio iis (edd. pler. with the majority
of the manuscripts) maxumum est periculum qui maxume timent. (Sal. Cat.
58.17); . . . eiusque · pecuniae · cui (sic!) · volet · petitio · persecutio ex <h>ac
lege · esto. (CIL II2.5.1022.LXXIII.8 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44
bc));83 Qui domos redire mallent, daturum se operam ne cuius suorum popularium
mutatam secum fortunam esse vellent. (Liv. 21.45.6); Quibus iuvenibus fluxit alvus
plerumque in senectute contrahitur. (Cels. 1.3.33); Noli pigere laudem voce red-
dere / veram qui voluit esse te sanum tibi . . . (Courtney ML 40, 16–17 (Bu
Njem, ad 203))84
NB: Address: Atque illum (sc. Iovem) talis iactantem pectore curas / . . . / adloquitur
Venus: ‘O qui res hominumque deumque / aeternis regis imperiis et fulmine terres, /
quid meus Aeneas in te committere tantum, / quid Troes potuere . . .’ (Verg. A. 1.227–32)
With a resumptive pronoun: Quam ob rem quis hoc non iure miretur summeque
in eo elaborandum esse arbitretur, ut quo uno homines maxime bestiis praestent in hoc
82 For a discussion of this and related examples, see Bodelot (2005: 468–9).
83 For this and other instances instead of normal qui volet, see Boegel (1902: 99–100).
84 For discussion, see Adams (1999b: 125).
hominibus ipsis antecellat? (Cic. de Orat. 1.33); . . . dilectu per omne Samnium habito
nova lege, ut qui iuniorum non convenisset ad imperatorum edictum quique
iniussu abisset, eius caput Iovi sacraretur. (Liv. 10.38.3)
Relative phrase:
Vere s[t]ationes quae fiunt terram rudem proscindere oportet . . . (Var. R. 1.27.2);
Nam quem fundum in Tusculano emit hic Varro a M. Pupio Pisone, vidisti ad buci-
nam inflatam certo tempore apros et capreas convenire ad pabulum . . . (Var. R.
3.13.1); . . . insidias equitum conlocavit quo in loco superioribus fere diebus nostri
pabulari consueverant . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.37.5); Ubi prima impedimenta nostri exercitus
ab iis qui in silva abditi latebant visa sunt, quod tempus inter eos committendi proe-
lii convenerat, . . . subito omnibus copiis provolaverunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.19.6); Magna
pars forte, in quem quaeque inciderat, raptae. (Liv. 1.9.11)
With a resumptive pronoun: Quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat.
(Cic. Tusc. 1.41); . . . querens tantum se opinionem fefellisse ut a quo genere hominum
victoriam sperasset, ab eo initio fugae facto paene proditus videretur. (Caes. Civ.
3.96.4); Nam quibus difficultatibus locorum Romanos claudere voluerant, his ipsi
tenebantur. (Hirt. Gal. 8.19.6); . . . et qua modo pocula parte / sumpta mihi fuerant,
illa vestigia feci. (Ov. Met. 14.283–4)
When the function of an autonomous relative clause in its superordinate clause is
marked by a preposition, this preposition is almost never simply combined with the
relative clause. Examples are (r) and (s). In (r), Langen proposed to read prae <eo>
quod. Prae marks the clause as a disjunct of qualified truth (see § 10.103); quod is the
object of velis. In (s), editors used to read cum <illis> quos.85 Cum marks the relative
clause as a sociative adjunct in the sentence and quos is in the case form required
by nominavi. The normal strategy is to use a determiner, most often a form of is, in
combination with the relative clause, as in (t)–(v).
(r) Immo res omnis relictas habeo prae quod tu velis.
(‘On the contrary, I regard everything as of no account by comparison with what you
want.’ Pl. St. 362)
(s) . . . ibique Scipio cum quos paulo ante nominavi interiit.
(‘. . . and Scipio together with those I have just named perished aboard them.’ B. Afr.
96.2)
(t) Matronae magis conducibile est istuc, mea Selenium, / unum amare et cum
eo aetatem exigere quoi nupta est semel.
(‘It’s more advisable for a matron, my dear Selenium, to love only one man and to
spend her life with the man she has once been married to.’ Pl. Cist. 78–9)
(u) . . . aut num iam satis pro eo quod fecerit, honos habitus sit.
(‘. . . whether he has already received sufficient honour for what he did.’ Cic. Inv. 2.113)
85 Instances of what he calls ‘Ellipse des Demonstrativums’ are discussed by Baehrens (1912: 324–9);
for instances in Livy, see Pettersson (1930: 30–40).
(v) Qua re tibi nuntiata, ut constabat inter eos qui una fuerunt, concidisti.
(‘When this was reported to you—as was evident to those with you—you collapsed.’
Cic. Phil. 2.107)
Supplement:
Without is: Nunc redeo ad ea quae (v.l. ad quae) mihi mandas. (Cic. Att. 5.11.6); Si
suppuratio vicerit, neque per quae supra scripta sunt discuti potuerit, omnis mora
vitanda erit . . . (Cels. 8.9.1g); At hic qui se ad quod (edd. ad <id> quod) exigit natura,
composuit non tantum extra sensum est paupertatis, sed extra metum. (Sen. Ep.
119.10)
With is: (see also § 18.15 for further examples) Id volo vos scire, quo modo ad hunc
devenerim / in servitutem ab eo quoi servivi prius. (Pl. Mil. 96–7); Ubi comperi ex
is qui ei fuere conscii, / domum revortor maestus . . . (Ter. Hau. 121–2); Sed in eis qui
fortunati sunt magis id apparet. (Cic. Phil. 13.16); Quantum igitur quaestum puta-
mus factum esse per eum cui quidvis licitum sit . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.150); . . . intellegi
volui, in eo cuius omnes cupidissimi essent quam pauci digni nomine evaderent.
(Cic. Brut. 299); Simplex autem conclusio reprehenditur, si hoc quod sequitur non
videatur necessario cum eo quod antecessit cohaerere. (Cic. Inv. 1.86); Obtrectatio
autem est . . . aegritudo ex eo quod alter quoque potiatur eo quod ipse concupiverit.
(Cic. Tusc. 4.17); Qui sim, ex eo quem ad te misi cognosces. (Sal. Cat. 44.5); . . . prodi-
tus deinde ab eis qui in Insula erant, circumsessus ab universa civitate . . . (Liv.
24.25.3)
There is no overt marking by a determiner for relative clauses functioning as space or
time adjunct if the relative (phrase) itself denotes space or time, as in (w)–(y). In (w),
apud in apud quos marks the clause as a position in space adjunct, in the same way as
ubi ‘where’ would. Note that the other autonomous relative clause qui hanc petessunt
functions as the subject of the sentence. Exx. (x) and (y) have a relative phrase with a
noun indicating time and (figurative) place, respectively (quo tempore in (x) can be
compared with cum ‘when’).
(w) Apud quos autem venandi et equitandi laus viget, qui hanc petessunt, nullum
fugiunt dolorem.
(‘Those among whom honour in hunting and horsemanship is valued shrink from no
pain in their quest for this.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.62)
(x) . . . qui quo tempore primum agere coepit in vadimoniis differendis tempus
omne consumpserit . . .
(‘. . . who, from the moment he began to act fraudulently, wasted all the time in a num-
ber of adjournments . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 46)
(y) Sed cum essent in quibus demonstravi angustiis ac se Libo cum Bibulo
coniunxisset loquuntur ambo ex navibus cum . . .
(‘But when they were in the difficulties which we explained above, and Libo had
joined Bibulus, the two of them aboard ship addressed . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.15.6)
Different from the cases illustrated above are those (infrequent) instances in which
there is one prepositional phrase where two could be present, as in (z). Here we
understand cadere possunt in eos in quos cadere nolis. In quos is required by under-
stood cadere in the relative clause.
(z) Ergo haec quae cadere possunt in quos nolis, quamvis sint bella, sunt tamen
ipso genere scurrilia.
(‘Such jokes, therefore, which can be applied to the wrong people, neat as they
may be, are still by nature buffoonish.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.245—tr. May and Wisse)
Supplement:
Nunc video illum circumventum, me desertum, a quibus minime conveniebat. (Met.
Cel. Fam. 5.1.1)
Autonomous relative clauses can be used as secondary predicates (see also § 21.15).86
Since the verbs in the superordinate clause are action verbs and the subject of the
relative clause is coreferential with one of the arguments in the superordinate clause,
the actions referred to in the relative clause are often taken as signalling the purpose
of the action in the superordinate clause, as in (aa)–(ad) (such clauses are usually
called ‘final relative clauses’ or ‘relative clauses of purpose’). For the use of the sub-
junctive in these clauses, see § 18.26.
(aa) I, Palaestrio, / aurum, ornamenta, vestem, pretiosa omnia / duc adiutores
tecum ad navim qui ferant.
(‘Go, Palaestrio, and take helpers with you to take the gold, jewellery, clothing, and all
the valuables to the ship.’ Pl. Mil. 1301–3)
(ab) Foribus dat aquam quam bibant.
(‘To the door she gives water to drink.’ Pl. Cur. 161)
(ac) Quae cum omnia facta sint, tamen unam solam scitote esse civitatem
Mamertinam quae publice legatos qui istum laudarent miserit.
(‘When all these things were done, nevertheless let me tell you that there was only
one single city, that of the Mamertines, which sent official envoys to speak in this
man’s support.’ Cic. Ver. 2.13)
(ad) . . . D. Laelium ab Asiatica classe abductum reliquit qui commeatus Byllide
atque Amantia inportari in oppidum prohiberet.
(‘. . . he left behind D. Laelius, whom he had taken from the Asiatic fleet, so that he
could prevent stores from being imported into the town from Byllis and Amantia.’
Caes. Civ. 3.40.4)
Supplement:
Dedi ei meam gnatam quicum <una> aetatem exigat. (Pl. Trin. 15); . . . viatorem ·
unum · legunto · quei · in / ea · decuria · viator · appareat . . . (CIL I2.587.8–9
(Lex Corn., 81 bc)); Venerat ipse qui esset in consilio et primus sententiam diceret.
(Cic. Ver. 1.73—NB: qui is coreferential with the subject of venerat); Neque erat uxor
quae consolari hominem in malis posset. (Cic. Ver. 5.92); His rebus cognitis explora-
tores centurionesque praemittit qui locum castris idoneum deligant. (Caes. Gal.
86 See Vester (1989) and Lavency (1998a: 24–5).

2.17.2); . . . Caesar duas legiones in citeriore Gallia novas conscripsit et inita aestate
in interiorem Galliam qui deduceret, Q. Pedium legatum misit. (Caes. Gal. 2.2.1—
NB: relative clause precedes); Ea qui conficeret C. Trebonium legatum relinquit.
(Caes. Gal. 7.11.2—NB: relative clause precedes); Itaque missi sunt delecti cum
Leonida, Lacedaemoniorum rege, qui Thermopylas occuparent longiusque barbaros
progredi non paterentur. (Nep. Them. 3.1); Tum ex consilio patrum Romulus
legatos circa vicinas gentes misit qui societatem conubiumque novo populo peterent.
(Liv. 1.9.2)
Also with relative adverbs: Locum in foro destinant quo pretiosissima rerum suarum
congererent. (Liv. 28.22.6)
In (ae) the qui clause is adnominal and restrictive with legati, which itself is a second-
ary predicate (for the subjunctive, see § 18.25).
(ae) Ad D. Brutum liberandum legati missi principes civitatis qui illi hosti ac
parricidae denuntiarent ut a Mutina discederet.
(‘To liberate Decimus Brutus, leaders of the community were sent as envoys
to order that enemy and traitor to withdraw from Mutina.’ Cic. Phil. 14.4)
Autonomous relative clauses also occur at the noun phrase level. Examples are (af)
and (ag). In (af), qui servos est has the same referent as the genitive huius in the pre-
ceding sentence. However, it may also be regarded as an adnominal non-restrictive
relative clause with huius understood from the preceding context. Ex. (ag) is unam-
biguous—note the coordination of the relative clause with the genitive Scipionis. In
(ah), the function of the qui clause is obvious due to the determiner eorum in the
genitive. Obviously, genitive forms of is are also found as resumptive pronouns, as in
(ai) and (aj).
(af) Nam ille quidem, quem tu hunc memoras esse, hodie hinc abiit Alidem / ad
patrem huius. # Quem patrem, qui servos est?
(‘Well, the one who you say this one here is went to Elis today to this one’s father. #
What father? Of this one who’s a slave?’ Pl. Capt. 573–4)
(ag) Ipse interea ex perfugis et incolis cognitis condicionibus Scipionis et qui cum
eo bellum contra se gerebant mirari . . .
(‘Meanwhile when he learned from deserters and the local inhabitants of the terms
entered into by Scipio and his supporters who were engaged in hostilities against him
he was surprised . . .’ B. Afr. 8.5)
(ah) . . . eorum qui absolverunt misericordiam non reprehendo, eorum qui in iudi-
cando superiora iudicia secuti sunt . . . constantiam comprobo . . .
(‘. . . while I find no fault with the clemency of those who voted for acquittal, I approve
the constancy of those who . . . in passing judgement stood by the judgements they
had passed already.’ Cic. Clu. 106)
(ai) Qui gentis omnis mariaque et terras movet, / eius sum civis civitate caelitum.
(‘In the city of the celestials I am a fellow-citizen of him who wields sway over all
peoples, seas, and lands.’ Pl. Rud. 1–2)
(aj) Qui falsas litis falsis testimoniis / petunt quique in iure abiurant pecuniam, /
eorum referimus nomina exscripta ad Iovem.
(‘Of those who bring fraudulent cases to court, supported by fraudulent evidence,
and of those who deny the receipt of money before a magistrate on oath, we write
down the names and bring them back to Jupiter.’ Pl. Rud. 13–15)
Supplement:
Oleam cogito recte omnem arbitratu domini, aut quem custodem fecerit, aut cui olea
venierit. (Cato Agr. 144.1); In hoc libro dicam de vocabulis locorum et quae in his
sunt, in secundo de temporum et quae in his fiunt . . . (Var. L. 5.1.10); . . . gentibus
cognationibusque hominum quique una coierunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.22.2); . . . quam invisa
sit singularis potentia et miseranda vita qui se metui quam amari malunt, cuivis facile
intellectu fuit. (Nep. Di. 9.5); Conveniebat enim fruges . . . mittere signum / sanguinis
aut aliquid nostro quae corpore aluntur . . . (Lucr. 1.881–3); En dextra fidesque / quem
secum patrios aiunt portare penates . . . (Verg. A. 4.597–8);87 Hoc in sativis rumix
vocatur, omnium quae seruntur nascunturque fortissimum. (Plin. Nat. 19.184—NB:
textually uncertain); Ut satis testium et qui servi eadem noscerent repperit, aditum
ad principem postulat . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.28.1); . . . libertas hominis recogitata se potius
ream ostendet quod (<eius> quod cj. Engelbrecht) ipsa commisit. (Tert. Marc. 2.6.8)
With a determiner in the genitive: Certe modo / huius quae locuta est quaerere
aibas filiam. (Pl. Cist. 606–7); . . . illorum verbis falsis acceptor fui, / qui omnia se
simulant scire nec quicquam sciunt. (Pl. Trin. 204–5); Servos eius qui hinc a nobis est
mercatus mulierem . . . (Pl. Ps. 617); Non aetas eius qui adoptabat est quaesita . . .
(Cic. Dom. 35); Vult enim magnitudine rei sic occupare animos eorum qui audiunt ut
difficilis aditus veritati relinquatur. (Cic. Font. 20); Est enim quoddam genus eorum
qui se philosophos appellari volunt, quorum dicuntur esse Latini sane multi libri.
(Cic. Tusc. 2.7); Supplicia eorum qui in furto aut latrocinio aut aliqua noxia sint
comprehensi gratiora dis inmortalibus esse arbitrantur. (Caes. Gal. 6.16.5); Constat
fugisse ex castris regem ipsum receptumque in navem multitudine eorum qui ad
proximas naves adnatabant demerso navigio perisse. (B. Alex. 31.6)
Autonomous relative clauses can function in apposition to a noun phrase. Such
relative clauses are often marked as definite by the pronoun is, as in (ak)–(am). The
presence and absence of such marking can be seen together in relation to the same
noun phrase A. Albinus in (am). Such an appositional clause may be modified by a
constituent that specifies the relationship between the head and the apposition, as
videlicet ‘evidently’ in (an). It is not always easy to distinguish autonomous relative
clauses functioning in apposition to a noun phrase from adnominal non-restrictive
relative clauses.88
(ak) Quis te prohibuit? / # Sosia ille, quem iam dudum dico, is qui me contudit.
(‘Who forbade you? # That Sosia I’ve been talking about all this time, the one who
beat me up.’ Pl. Am. 617–18)
87 See Pease ad loc.: ‘with ellipsis of eius’, with parallels from Virgil.
88 See Lavency (1998a: 28–30, 101–3) for discussion.
(al) Neque vero Asclepiades, is quo nos medico amicoque usi sumus, . . . medici-
nae facultate utebatur . . .
(‘Asclepiades also, he with whom we have been familiar both as physician and as
friend, was not exhibiting the skill of a physician . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.62)
(am) Nam et A. Albinus, is qui Graece scripsit historiam, qui consul cum L. Lucullo
fuit, et litteratus et disertus fuit.
(‘Thus Aulus Albanus, the man who wrote a history in Greek and who was consul
with Lucius Lucullus, was both a man of letters and a good speaker.’ Cic. Brut. 81)
(an) Copo autem . . . cum illum alterum, videlicet qui nummos haberet, animum
advertisset, noctu postquam illos artius iam ut ex lassitudine dormire sensit,
accessit . . .
(‘Then the innkeeper . . . who had taken note of one of the travellers, that is the one
with the money, came in the dead of night when he knew that they were sleeping
heavily as people do when tired . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.14)
Supplement:
L. Opimius eiectus est patria, is qui et praetor et consul maximis rem publicam
periculis liberarat. (Cic. Pis. 95); Ego Q. Maximum, eum qui Tarentum recepit, senem
adulescens ita dilexi ut aequalem. (Cic. Sen. 10); At Diagoras cum Samothracam
venisset, Atheus ille qui dicitur, atque ei quidam amicus ‘Tu . . .’ (Cic. N.D. 3.89); Sed
demus tibi istas duas sumptiones (ea quae viwwl~l appellant dialectici . . .) . . . (Cic.
Div. 2.108—NB: ea in agreement with quae); . . . fateor me communium malorum
consolationem nullam invenire praeter illam, quae tamen, si possis eam suscipere,
maxima est quaque ego cottidie magis utor, conscientiam rectae voluntatis maximam
consolationem esse rerum incommodarum . . . (Cic. Fam. 6.4.2)
In the above examples of apposition the relative expression is formed by a pronoun. It
may also be formed by a relative phrase, as in (ao)–(ar). Such cases are sometimes
difficult to distinguish from connecting relatives.
(ao) Agonis quaedam est Lilybitana, liberta Veneris Erycinae, quae mulier ante
hunc quaestorem copiosa plane et locuples fuit.
(‘There is a certain woman from Lilybaeum, named Agonis, formerly a slave of Venus
of Eryx. This woman, in the days before Caecilius was quaestor, had very considerable
wealth and property.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 55)
(ap) . . . id iure laudabitur ut in astrologia C. Sulpicium audimus, in geometria Sex.
Pompeium ipsi cognovimus, multos in dialecticis plures in iure civili, quae
omnes artes in veri investigatione versantur . . .
(‘. . . that work will be justly praised, as we hear Gaius Sulpicius was praised for his work
in astronomy and as I personally know Sextus Pompey was in the field of geometry;
further, many have received praise for their work in dialectics and even more for civil
law. All these professions are occupied with the search after truth . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.19)
(aq) . . . iter in Santonum fines facere, qui non longe a Tolosatium finibus absunt,
quae civitas est in provincia.
(‘. . . to march into the territory of the Santones, who are not far removed from the
territory of the Tolosates, which is a state in the Province.’ Caes. Gal. 1.10.1)
(ar) Eodem anno a Campanis Cumae, quam Graeci tum urbem tenebant, capiuntur.
(‘In this same year Cumae, a city which the Greeks then held, was captured by the
Campanians.’ Liv. 4.44.12)
Supplement:
Idemque Servium Galbam, quem hominem probe commeminisse se aiebat, pergra-
viter reprehendere solebat, quod . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.227); Eum tibi unice commendo
eoque magis quod cum ipsum diligo, tum quod negotia procurat L. Egnati Rufi, quo
ego uno equite Romano familiarissime utor et qui cum consuetudine cottidiana tum
officiis plurimis maximisque mihi coniunctus est. (Cic. Fam. 13.43.1—NB: coordin-
ation); Etiam Cingulo, quod oppidum Labienus constituerat suaque pecunia exaedi-
ficaverat, ad eum legati veniunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.15.2)
The appositions with a relative phrase above differ from various expressions that bear
some vague resemblance, like (as)–(au). Ex. (as) admits of two analyses: either virum
optimum and the qui clause both modify M. Laenium Flaccum, or—preferably—the
qui clause is a non-restrictive adnominal clause with virum, which itself is an apposition
with M. Laenium Flaccum. In (at), the quod clause is a restrictive adnominal clause
with flumine (maximo), which serves as an apposition with Isara (and is probably
meant to identify it for Cicero). In (au), the cuius clause is a restrictive clause with vir.
Together vir and cuius function as an apposition of Q. Servilius Priscus. Examples like
(au) are not attested before Livy, but that may be the result of chance.
(as) Nos Brundisi apud M. Laenium Flaccum dies XIII fuimus, virum optimum,
qui periculum fortunarum et capitis sui prae mea salute neglexit . . .
(‘I have stayed in Brundisium for thirteen days with M. Laenius Flaccus, a
very worthy gentleman, who has disregarded the danger to his property and
status in his concern for my safety . . .’ Cic. Fam. 14.4.2)
(at) Itaque in Isara, flumine maximo quod in finibus est Allobrogum, ponte uno
die facto exercitum a. d. VII Id. Mai. traduxi.
(‘I therefore constructed in one day a bridge across the Isara, the largest river
on the border of the Allobrogian territory, and led my army across on 9 May.’
Planc. Fam. 10.15.3)
(au) . . . dictator ex senatus consulto dictus Q. Servilius Priscus, vir cuius provi-
dentiam in republica cum multis aliis tempestatibus ante experta civitas
erat tum . . .
(‘. . . Quintus Servilius Priscus was in consequence of a senatorial decree
named dictator—a man whose clear vision in public affairs the state had
proved on many previous occasions . . .’ Liv. 4.46.10)
An autonomous relative clause can also function as the subject of an ablative absolute
construction (see § 16.91, (f)). Examples are (av)–(ax).89
89 For Tacitus, see Enghofer (1961: 64–5).

(av) Iam . . . turba . . . refracturosque carcerem minabantur, cum remisso quod erep-
turi erant ex senatus consulto Manlius vinclis liberatur.
(‘By this time the crowd . . . were threatening to break open the prison, when, with
that which they were going to extort by violence having been conceded, Manlius was
released from his bonds by decree of the Senate.’ Liv. 6.17.6—NB: the printed text is
the reading of the OCT; most of the mss. have id quod; other editors read eo quod
with some inferior mss.)
(aw) . . . hoc genus solum, ut ea quae cete appellant, animal parit, excepta quam
ranam vocant.
(‘. . . this kind alone, like the creatures termed cetaceans, is viviparous, with the excep-
tion of the species called the fishing-frog.’ Plin. Nat. 9.78)
(ax) Flaccus interim cognito castrorum obsidio et missis per Gallias qui auxilia
concirent, lectos e legionibus Dillio Voculae . . . tradit . . .
(‘Flaccus, meanwhile, after he had heard that the camp was besieged and had sent
emissaries through the Gallic provinces to call out auxiliary forces, entrusted troops
picked from his legions to Dillius Vocula . . .’ Tac. Hist. 4.24.1)
NB: coordination: Itaque interfectis Novioduni custodibus quique eo negotiandi aut
itineris causa convenerant pecuniam atque equos inter se partiti sunt . . . (Caes. Gal.
7.55.5).
18.17 Complex autonomous relative clauses

Autonomous relative clauses may be modified by adnominal non-restrictive relative
clauses. In (a), the coordinated relative clauses qui . . . invenerunt are the subject of
superiores (sc. sunt). The subject is modified by the relative clause a quibus . . .
defluximus.
(a) Etiam superiores, qui fruges, qui vestitum, qui tecta, qui cultum vitae, qui
praesidia contra feras invenerunt, a quibus mansuefacti et exculti a neces-
sariis artificiis ad elegantiora defluximus.
(‘Earlier still the men who discovered the fruits of the earth, clothing, dwellings, an
ordered way of life, protection against wild creatures—men under whose civilizing
and refining guidance we have gradually passed on from the indispensable handi-
crafts to the finer arts.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.62)
Supplement:
Haec sunt enim tria, ea vero quem ad modum inlustrentur praesto est qui omnes
docere possit, qui hoc primum in nostros mores induxit, qui maxime auxit, qui solus
effecit. (Cic. de Orat. 2.121); Is solis consuluit quos bona ratione donavit, quos vide-
mus si modo ulli sint esse perpaucos. (Cic. N.D. 3.70); . . . quod et eos quos ipse res-
tituerat, quorum bona alii possederant, egere iniquissimum esse arbitrabatur . . . (Cic.
Off. 2.81); Est enim quoddam genus eorum qui se philosophos appellari volunt,
quorum dicuntur esse Latini sane multi libri. (Cic. Tusc. 2.7); . . . earumque factionum
sunt principes qui summam auctoritatem eorum iudicio habere existimantur,
quorum ad arbitrium iudiciumque summa omnium rerum consiliorumque redeat.

(Caes. Gal. 6.11.2–3)
An autonomous clause can be embedded in a superordinate autonomous clause (or a
sentence with relative connexion), as in (b). The qui capitalem . . . essent clause is the
attribute of the qui . . . fierent clause, its function being marked by the resumptive pro-
noun eorum, just as the function of the qui . . . fierent clause (subject of the accusative
and infinitive clause) is resumed by eos. Different again is (c). Here the qui . . . tyran-
num clause is the subject complement with quis est omnium (for such questions,
see § 22.12). The qui modo . . . commercium clause is a parenthetical autonomous
relative clause.
(b) . . . edixitque, qui capitalem fraudem ausi quique pecunia<e> iudicati in
vinculis essent, qui eorum apud se milites fierent, eos noxa pecuniaque sese
exsolvi iussurum.
(‘. . . and he issued an edict that of those who had committed a capital offence or were
in chains as judgement debtors, any who would become soldiers under him he would
order to be released from punishment or debt.’ Liv. 23.14.3)
(c) Quis est omnium, qui modo cum Musis, id est cum humanitate et cum
doctrina, habeat aliquod commercium, qui se non hunc mathematicum
malit quam illum tyrannum?
(‘Who in all the world, who enjoys merely some degree of communion with the
Muses, that is to say with liberal education and refinement, is there who would not
choose to be this mathematician rather than that tyrant?’ Cic. Tusc. 5.66)
18.18 The presence of the same noun (phrase) in the relative

and superordinate clause
In addition to the regular pattern in which adnominal relative clauses are used (essen-
tially: a noun, with or without a determiner, and a relative pronoun), instances are
found from Early Latin onwards of the repetition of the same noun or a near synonym
in the relative, as in ex. (a). This form of repetition is also possible with autonomous
relative clauses. The various possibilities are shown in Table 18.5. These combinations
are discussed throughout this section.
Table 18.5 Repetition of the noun (phrase) in the relative clause

a. adnominal noun relative determiner noun
b. adnominal preparative determiner noun relative determiner noun
c. autonomous relative determiner noun resumptive determiner noun
The effect of repetition is, on the one hand, more clarity and less ambiguity, which
explains why it is relatively common in legal texts, especially of the Republican period
(see (a)).90 On the other hand, this form of repetition makes sentences longer and more
complex. Another example is (b), with the anaphoric determiner eo + agro.91 In the
Rhetorica ad Herennium it belongs to the text illustrating the middle style (ex. (c)).92
(a) Cos. · quei · nunc · sunt, · iei · ante · K. · Decembreis · primas · de · eis, ·
quei / cives · Romanei · sunt, · viatorem · unum · legunto, · quei ·
in / ea · decuria · viator · appareat, · quam · decuriam · viatorum /
ex · noneis · Decembribus · primeis · quaestoribus · ad · aerarium /
apparere · oportet · oportebit.
(‘The consuls now in office shall, before the first day of December next, choose, from
those who are Roman citizens, one messenger who shall attend as messenger in that
department of messengers which is or shall be required to attend the quaestors at the
treasury on and after the fifth day of December next.’ CIL I2.587.7–11 (Lex Cornelia,
Rome, 81 bc))
(b) Si totus ager itineri aut actui servit, dominus in eo agro nihil facere potest
quo servitus impediatur . . .
(‘If an entire estate is subject to a servitude of iter or actus, the owner of that estate is
not entitled to do anything on the land that would hinder the exercise of servitude . . .’
Javol. dig. 8.3.13.1—tr. Birks)
(c) . . . cum . . . non . . . viderent . . . ullam rem quae res pertinet ad bellum adminis-
trandum? . . . Nedum illi imperium orbis terrae, cui imperio omnes gentes . . .
consenserunt . . ., ad se transferre tantulis viribus conarentur.
(‘. . . when they saw none of the things needful for carrying on the war? . . . It is still less
credible that with such meagre forces they would attempt to usurp that sovereignty
over the whole world which all the peoples have accepted.’ Rhet. Her. 4.13)
Although this repetition has received much scholarly attention, it is, in reality, a minor
phenomenon and one which is more stylistic than syntactic. Relatively frequent are
nouns such as dies ‘day’, lex ‘law’, locus ‘place’, pars ‘part’, and res ‘thing’.
Grammars note that authors vary in the degree to which they use these construc-
tions. They are said to be relatively frequent in Caesar (Parzinger (1910: 83–4) calcu-
lates twenty-six instances, others somewhat fewer), not infrequent in Cicero (about
fifty instances, especially in his early writings, but decreasing afterwards), rare in
Livy, but more common again in Vitruvius, archaizing authors like Fronto, and the
jurists. These constructions are also not uncommon in Late Latin.93 The most fre-
quent types are the adnominal (paras. a. and b. below). The number of illustrations
provided below is overproportionate to the general frequency.
90 For a discussion of such instances, see Pascucci (1968: 12–17), de Meo (2005: 87–90), and Halla-
aho (2018: 161–5).
91 Instances can be found in Kalb (1888: 41–3); Lebreton (1901b: 19–20); Merguet (1905/6: 592B, § II);
Parzinger (1910: 83–4); Eden (1962: 87–9); Odelman (1972: 148–52). For the complexity of relative
clauses in legal inscriptions, see Amacker (2011).
92 See Calboli (2006: 235–6).
93 For a historical survey, see Sz.: 535–6; for the jurists, see also Pascucci (1968: 12–17), Calboli (2006),
and Reggio (2005; 2006).
a. Adnominal pattern (i): (N)rN: head noun modified by a relative determiner

+ noun
The pattern with the head noun repeated in the relative clause is found from Plautus
onwards. This is the pattern that is most common in Caesar’s Commentarii de bello
Gallico.94 Most of the relative clauses are restrictive, like those in (d) and (e), but in (f)
the context suggests interpreting bonorum exemplum as definite—‘the example set by
good poets’—and the relative clause as non-restrictive.95
(d) Immo dicamus senibus legem censeo / prius quam abeamus qua se lege
teneant contentique sint.
(‘No, I think we should tell the old men our law before we leave, the law which they
should follow and be content with.’ Pl. Mer. 1015–16)
(e) Omnibus rebus ad profectionem comparatis diem dicunt qua die ad ripam
Rhodani omnes conveniant.
(‘Having therefore provided all things for their departure, they named a day by which
all should assemble upon the bank of the Rhone.’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.4)
(f) Habet bonorum exemplum, quo exemplo sibi / licere [id] facere quod illi
fecerunt putat.
(‘He has the example of good writers, in accordance with which example he supposes
he is permitted to do what they did.’ Ter. Hau. 20–1)
Supplement:
Est causa qua causa simul mecum ire veritu’st. (Pl. Epid. 41); Interea dies advenit quo die
sese ex instituto ac lege Rupilia dicas sortiturum Syracusis iste edixerat. (Cic. Ver.
2.37); . . . statua est in Ceramico Chrysippi sedentis porrecta manu, quae manus signifi-
cet illum in hac esse rogatiuncula delectatum. (Cic. Fin. 1.39); . . . (sc. Romulus) popu-
lum . . . in tribus tris curiasque triginta discripserat (quas curias earum nominibus
nuncupavit, quae ex Sabinis virgines raptae postea fuerant oratrices pacis et foederis) . . .
(Cic. Rep. 2.14); A M. Laberio C. Albanius praedia in aestimationem accepit quae
praedia Laberius emerat a Caesare de bonis Plotianis. (Cic. Fam. 13.8.2); Erant omnino
itinera duo, quibus itineribus domo exire possent. (Caes. Gal. 1.6.1); Loci natura erat
haec, quem locum nostri castris delegerant. (Caes. Gal. 2.18.1); . . . naves iubet post
hostium tergum quam maxime ad litus adpelli signumque suum observare, quo signo
dato . . . hostibus aversis incuterent terrorem . . . (B. Afr. 80.5); . . . lex Porcia aliaeque leges
paratae sunt, quibus legibus exilium damnatis permissum est. (Sal. Cat. 51.40 (Caesar’s
oration)); ‘Item senatui placere de militibus qui in exercitu C. Caesaris sunt, qui eorum
stipendia emerita aut causas, quibus de causis missi fieri debeant habeant, ad hunc ordi-
nem referri, ut eorum ratio habeatur causaeque cognoscantur.’ (Cael. Fam. 8.8.7—NB:
quotation of a senatus consultum); . . . murum ab imo ad summum crebris cubitalibus fere
cavis aperuit, per quae cava pars sagittis pars scorpionibus modicis ex occulto petebant
hostem. (Liv. 24.34.8); Item in Thessalia fons est profluens, ex quo fonte nec pecus
ullum gustat nec . . . (Vitr. 8.3.15); Eaque columna versatilis perficiatur, uti ad sigillum
94 Fifteen instances from Caesar are collected by Odelman (1972: 148–9), alongside four or five of type b.
95 Pace Pompei (2011b: 77), who holds that most clauses of this type are non-restrictive.
virgulamque, qua virgula egrediens sigillum ostendit horas, columna versando conti-
nenter suis cuiusque mensibus brevitates et crescentias faciat horarum. (Vitr. 9.8.7);
Diem, qui dies ex ista nocte nascetur, aeterna mihi nuncupavit religio . . . (Apul. Met.
11.5.5); Praeter has leges Aemiliam quoque legem invenimus, qua lege non sumptus
cenarum, sed ciborum genus et modus praefinitus est. (Gel. 2.24.12); Lucius
Titius . . . fundum Cornelianum locavit Sempronio, qui Sempronius reliqua traxit.
(Paul. dig. 26.7.46.pr.);96 . . . cepimus ascendere montes singulos, qui montes cum infinito
labore ascenduntur, quoniam . . . (Pereg. 3.1); ‘Dicimus’ inquit ‘iudicium futurum, in quo
iudicio . . .’ et cetera . . . Dixerat ‘iudicium futurum’ sed, homo cautus, timuit solum dicere
‘in quo’ et posuit ‘in quo iudicio’ ne, si non secundo repetisset ‘iudicium’ nos, obliti
superiorum, pro ‘iudicio’ ‘asinum’ putaremus! (Hier. Ruf. 2.6); . . . cervicem illius loro
cinges, quod lorum strictius teneatur super scapulas ab aliquo . . . (Mulom. Chir. 6)
NB: Ubi de eius adventu Helvetii certiores facti sunt, legatos ad eum mittunt nobilis-
simos civitatis, cuius legationis Nammeius et Verucloetius principem locum obtine-
bant . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.7.3)
b. Adnominal pattern (ii): p[(N)rN]: preparative determiner + head noun

modified by a relative determiner + noun
This pattern is the most common among the three types mentioned.
(g) Sinite exorator sim, eodem ut iure uti senem / liceat quo iure sum usus
adulescentior . . .
(‘Allow me to succeed in my advocacy; let me enjoy as an old man the same privilege
as I did in my younger days . . .’ Ter. Hec. 10–11—see also § 18.15 on idem)
(h) Ubi eum castris se tenere Caesar intellexit . . . ultra eum locum quo in loco
Germani consederant . . . castris idoneum locum delegit . . .
(‘When Caesar observed that he kept to his camp . . . he chose a suitable spot for the
camp beyond the place in which the Germans had pitched theirs.’ Caes. Gal. 1.49.1)
(i) Ego tibi illam Aciliam legem restituo, qua lege multi . . . condemnati sunt . . .
(‘I am restoring the old Acilian law for you—a law under which many a man . . . has
been found guilty . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.26)
Supplement:
Cn. Flavius . . . scriptum faciebat isque in eo tempore aedili curuli apparebat quo tem-
pore aediles subrogantur . . . (Calp. hist. 27=29C); Quei ager publicus populi
Romanei in terra italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio cos. fuit, ex<t>ra eum agrum
quei ager ex / lege . . . (CIL I2.585.4 (Lex Agr., 111 bc)); Oratoris officium est de
iis rebus posse dicere quae res ad usum civilem moribus et legibus constitutae
sunt . . . (Rhet. Her. 1.2); A. Cluentius causam dicit eques Romanus ea lege qua lege
senatores et ii qui magistratum habuerunt soli tenentur. (Cic. Clu. 156); Deinde illud,
cuius confirmandi causa fiet inductio, videndum est, ut simile iis rebus sit quas res
quasi non dubias ante induxerimus . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.53); Quintus hic dies, Brute, finem
faciet Tusculanarum disputationum, quo die est a nobis ea de re quam tu ex omnibus
maxime probas disputatum. (Cic. Tusc. 5.1); Lege itaque Aelia Sentia cavetur, ut, qui
96 See also OLD s.v. qui § 8.

servi a dominis poenae nomine vincti sunt . . . eiusdem condicionis liberi fiant cuius
condicionis sunt peregrini dediticii. (Gaius Inst. 1.13); Cuperemus profecto, mi
Naucelli carissime, eo nos fato praeditos, ut, si mihi liberi etiam virilis sexus nati
fuissent eorumque aetas hoc potissimum tempore ad munia militiae fungenda ado-
lesceret quo tempore tu provinciam cum exercitu administrares, uti sub te mei liberi
stipendia mererent. (Fro. Amic. 1.5.1)
c. Autonomous pattern: relative determiner + noun followed by a resumptive

determiner + noun
( j) I ergo intro, et quoi rei’st, ei rei [hilarum] hunc sumamus diem.
(‘Go indoors, then, and let’s devote this day to the object to which it belongs.’ Ter. Ad.
854)
(k) Quam rem pr(aetor) ex h(ac) l(ege) egerit, sei eam rem proferet,
quoi . . .
(‘With regard to the action which shall have been taken under this law by the praetor,
to wit, should he postpone the case . . .’ CIL I2.583.39 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))
Supplement:
Si communiter pisunt, qua ex parte politori pars est, eam partem in pistrinum politor.
(Cato Agr. 136); . . . <q>uae · pequnia · publica · sacra · religiosa · eius · municipi
/ <ad> quemque · eorum · in · eo · magistratu · pervenerit, · eam · pequniam ·
municipio / Tarentino · salvam · rec<te> ess<e futu>ra<m . . . (CIL I2.590.17– 19
(Lex Iulia, Tarentum, 90 bc)); viatores · praecones · quei · ex · hac lege · lectei ·
sublectei · erunt, / eis · viatoribus · praeconibus · magistratus · pro · ve ·
mag(istratu) / mercedis · item · tantundem · dato . . . (CIL I2.587.II.31–3 (Lex
Cornelia, Rome, 81 bc)); . . . vereor ne, qua in re laudem modestiae venentur, in ea
ipsa re sint inpudentes. (Rhet. Her. 4.5); Quo enim ille die, populo Romano inspec-
tante, nudus, unctus, ebrius est contionatus . . ., eo die se non modo consulatu sed
etiam libertate abdicavit. (Cic. Phil. 3.12); Sed hoc mementote, quoscumque locos
attingam unde ridicula ducantur, ex isdem locis fere etiam gravis sententias posse
duci. (Cic. de Orat. 2.248); Quare praeclarum mihi quiddam videtur adeptus is, qui,
qua re homines bestiis praestent, ea in re hominibus ipsis antecellat. (Cic. Inv. 1.5);
Mysus et Haemonia iuvenis qua cuspide vulnus / senserat, hac ipsa cuspide sensit
opem. (Prop. 2.1.63–4—NB: rare instance in poetry); Quibus diebus Cumae liberatae
sunt obsidione, isdem diebus et in Lucanis ad Grumentum Ti. Sempronius . . . cum
Hannone Poeno prospere pugnat. (Liv. 23.37.10); Quamta pecunia eam / viam
locaverit, tamtae pecuniae eum . . . intabula<s> / publicas . . . referundum
curato. (CIL I2.593.37–40 (Lex Iulia Munic., Luce, 45 bc)); Quibus autem modis
usus fructus et constitit et finitur, isdem modis etiam nudus usus solet et constitui et
finiri. (Gaius dig. 7.1.3.3)
18.19 Autonomous relative clauses at the adjective phrase level
Autonomous relative clauses are found as arguments of a few two-place adjectives.

Only relative clauses with a pronoun are used in this way. Exx. (a)–(c) have relative
clauses required by the meaning of the adjective dignus ‘worthy’. In (b), there are
two parallel adjective phrases, one with the ablative noun phrase ceteris praemiis,
one with the relative clause qui . . . donentur. In (c) the entire relative clause is in the
scope of ne . . . quidem. In most instances, the governing adjective is the subject or
object complement in its clause, but it may be an attribute as well, as in (d). There
are no restrictions on the function that the relative word may have in its clause. The
mood is almost always the subjunctive (see also § 18.25). These clauses are often
called ‘consecutive’ relative clauses and regarded as more or less synonymous
with the so-called result ut clauses with which these adjectives are also found,
though less frequently (for details on the constructions found with dignus, see
§§ 17.21; 25; 29; 32; 33). Other adjectives with which autonomous relative clauses
are used are aptus ‘fitted’, ‘able’; idoneus ‘suitable’, ‘able’; and indignus ‘not deserv-
ing’. Autonomous relative clauses with a relative adverb also occur with these
adjectives, as in (e).97
(a) Praesertim quom is me dignum quoi concrederet / habuit . . .
(‘Especially since he has regarded me as worthy for him to trust . . .’ Pl. As. 80–1)
(b) Etenim cum ceteris praemiis digni sunt . . ., tum certe dignissimi sunt qui
civitate ea donentur . . .
(‘In fact, if those . . . are worthy of other rewards, then assuredly are they most worthy
to be presented with that citizenship . . .’ Cic. Balb. 51)
(c) Postea quam illum ne cui satisfacere<t> quidem me dignum habere sensi . . .
(‘When I perceived that he did not think me even worth satisfying . . .’ Cael. Fam.
8.12.2)
(d) Nec digniorem censeo vidisse anum me quemquam / quoi deos atque
homines censeam bene facere magis decere.
(‘I don’t think I’ve ever seen any more deserving old woman, anyone to whom I’d
think gods and men ought to do more good turns.’ Pl. Rud. 406–7)
(e) . . . ut nos dicamur duo / omnium dignissumi esse quo cruciatus confluant.
(‘. . . that we two will be called the worthiest men alive—to be where the torture’s
thickest.’ Pl. As. 313–14)
Supplement:
. . . Catonem induxi senem disputantem, quia nulla videbatur aptior persona quae de
illa aetate loqueretur quam eius, qui et diutissime senex fuisset . . . (Cic. Amic. 4); . . . me
profiteor suscepisse . . . onus . . . dignum in quo omnes nervos aetatis . . . contenderem.
(Cic. Ver. 35); . . . modo illud adtendatur dignane causa videatur ea . . . quare de
magnificentia . . . quiddam derogetur. (Cic. Inv. 2.175); . . . remque commovisti nova
disputatione dignam quam in aliud tempus differamus. (Cic. Brut. 297); Nam et qui
bene imperat, paruerit aliquando necesse est, et qui modeste paret, videtur qui ali-
quando imperet dignus esse. (Cic. Leg. 3.5); Litteras tuas legimus . . . minime dignas
quae a te nobis mitterentur. (Brut. Cas. Fam. 11.3.1); (Lausus) . . . dignus patriis qui
97 For the use of relative clauses at the adjective level, see Mellado (1998).
laetior esset / imperiis . . . (Verg. A. 7.653–4); Video hercle ego te me arbitrari, Euclio,
hominem idoneum / quem . . . ludos facias . . . (Pl. Aul. 252–3); . . . si tutor erit idoneus
a quo servari possit id quod . . . (Pomp. dig. 26.7.61)
Instances like (f) are entirely different. Here, the second argument of digni is obiurga-
tione and the relative clause modifies parentes. The indicative nolunt is not some sort
of violation of the classical rule that dignus requires a subjunctive but is perfectly
understandable.
(f) Quid ergo est? Parentes obiurgatione digni sunt qui nolunt liberos suos
severa lege proficere.
(‘Then what is to be done? Parents deserve criticism who are not willing to
let their children profit by stern discipline.’ Petr. 4.1)
Autonomous relative clauses are also found in combination with adjectives modi-
fied by tam ‘to such a degree’ and with tantus ‘so great’, especially when the main
clause contains a negative word such as nemo ‘no one’, nullus ‘not any’, numquam
‘never’, or nusquam ‘nowhere’ or when the main sentence is interrogative with a
negation implied, as in (m). The mood of the clause is the subjunctive (for the
mood, see also § 18.25). Here too, as with the instances of dignus above, there is an
ut and a quin clause alternative (see § 16.54—both are labelled ‘consecutive’, of the
‘expansion’ type). Tantus and tam + adjective may be the subject complements in
their clauses, as in (g)–(i), or attributes, as in ( j). More exceptional is the substan-
tival use of tanti in (k). Examples with relative adverbs are (l) and (m). In (m),
mordax seems to imply a high degree of inaccessibility. The use of the relative pro-
noun quo can be compared with the use of quo in purpose clauses (see § 16.51 and
§ 16.54).
(g) Ut porro firmissimum hoc adferri videtur cur deos esse credamus, quod
nulla gens tam fera, nemo omnium tam sit inmanis, cuius mentem non
imbuerit deorum opinio . . .
(‘Furthermore, as this seems to be advanced as the surest basis for our belief in the
existence of gods, that there is no race so uncivilized, no one in the world so barbarous
that his mind has no inkling of a belief in gods.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.30)
(h) An ille tam esset stultus qui mi mille nummum crederet / Philippum . . .
(‘Would he be so stupid as to entrust one thousand Philippics to me . . .?’ Pl. Trin.
954–5)
(i) Latent ista omnia, Luculle, crassis occultata et circumfusa tenebris, ut
nulla acies humani ingenii tanta sit quae penetrare in caelum, terram intrare
possit.
(‘All these things are hidden, Lucullus, closely concealed and enfolded in thick clouds
of darkness, so that no human intellect has a sufficiently powerful sight to be able to
penetrate the heaven and get inside the earth.’ Cic. Luc. 122)
( j) Quis homo est tanta confidentia / qui sacerdotem audeat violare?
(‘Who’s the man reckless enough to dare lay hands on the priestess?’ Pl. Rud. 645–6)
(k) . . . quod decus erit tanti quod adipisci cum dolore corporis velit qui . . .
(‘. . . what glory will be of such value that a man will wish to obtain it at the cost of
bodily pain?’ Cic. Tusc. 2.16)
(l) . . . quoniam non habent roboris tantum unde vitia mentium vincant,
plerumque facinus infirmitate fecerunt.
(‘. . . since they do not have such strength from which they can overcome their mental
defects, they usually commit their crime through weakness.’ [Quint.] Decl. 2.8)
(m) Num tibi nam, amabo, ianua est mordax mea, / quo intro ire metuas, mea
voluptas?
(‘Please, my darling, you don’t think my door will bite you, do you, so that you should
be afraid to go in?’ Pl. Truc. 352–3)
Supplement:
<Nusquam> quisquam est tam opulentus qui mi opsistat in via, / nec strategus nec
tyrannus quisquam nec agoranomus / nec demarchus nec comarchus nec cum tanta
gloria / quin cadat, quin capite sistat in via de semita. (Pl. Cur. 284–7); Nam generi
lenonio / numquam ullus deus tam benignus fuit qui fuerit propitius. (Pl. Per.
582–3); . . . nemo opinor tam insanus esset qui iudicaret meliorem esse Gellium quam
Turium. (Cato orat. 51); Nulla mihi res posthac potest iam intervenire tanta / quae
mi aegritudinem adferat. Tanta haec laetitia oborta’st. (Ter. Hau. 679–80); Num quis
igitur est tam demens qui hoc P. Clodio vivo contingere potuisse arbitretur? (Cic.
Mil. 78); . . . nemo omnium tam sit inmanis cuius mentem non imbuerit deorum
opinio . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.30)
Similarly, relative clauses are used in combination with talis ‘of such a kind’ and eius-
modi ‘of that kind’. These are also in the subjunctive. This construction also has an ut
clause alternative (see § 16.54). The earliest attestations are in Cicero. Examples are
(n)–(q). The governing expressions are usually the subject or object constituent in
their clause, but sometimes also an attribute, as in (p). Relative adverbs are found as
well, as in (q).
(n) Talem igitur te esse oportet qui primum te ab impiorum civium . . . societate
seiungas . . .
(‘You must be the sort of man who first would separate himself from the alliance of
disloyal citizens . . .’ Cic. Fam. 10.6.3)
(o) Etenim nomen legati eiusmodi esse debet quod . . . incolume versetur.
(‘And indeed the name of legatus ought to be of such a kind that its bearer should be
able to move unharmed.’ Cic. Ver. 1.85)
(p) Nam est innocentia adfectio talis animi quae noceat nemini.
(‘For inoffensiveness is a disposition of the soul to injure no one.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.16)
(q) Cum . . . spes esset ad talem tamen virum iudicem veniendi unde . . . plus opis
auferret . . .
(‘Since . . . he had the hope after all of coming before a judge of such a character that
he would offer more assistance . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 32)
Supplement:
Erat iter tale per quod vix tranquillum ab hostili metu agmen expediri posset. (Liv.
35.30.4); Tales fuerunt ex quibus posset alter tyrannum contemnere, alter occidere.
(Sen. Con. 9.4.3)
In corpore si quid eius modi est quod reliquo corpori noceat id uri secarique
patimur . . . (Cic. Phil. 8.15)
An instance like (r) also probably belongs here. Eo magnitudinis ‘to such a degree of
greatness’ requires the relative clause with ubi.
(r) (sc. homines) . . . eo magnitudinis procederent ubi pro mortalibus gloria
aeterni fierent.
(‘. . . they would advance to that degree of greatness where glory would make
them eternal instead of mortal.’ Sal. Jug. 1.4)
Autonomous relative clauses can furthermore be used after a comparative expression
+ quam. When they are in the subjunctive mood, they resemble quam ut clauses (see
§ 17.25). The latter is the regular expression, with a rare exception in Caesar, (s), with
the relative adverb quo. For a relative pronoun, see (t).
(s) . . . non longius hostes aberant quam quo telum adigi posset . . .
(‘. . . the enemy were not farther from them than the distance to which a dart could be
cast . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.21.3)
(t) Maior sum quam cui possit Fortuna nocere . . .
(‘I am too great for Fortune to harm . . .’ (Ov. Met. 6.195)
Supplement:
. . . maiora in defectione deliquerant quam quibus ignosci posset. (Liv. 26.12.6);
Nam . . . maiores et magis ramosas arbores caedebant quam quas ferre cum armis
miles posset . . . (Liv. 33.5.6); Distulerant tamquam maiora meritum quam quae sta-
tim exsolverentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.51.1)
NB: When autonomous relative clauses in comparisons are in the indicative, they
refer to facts, as in (u).
(u) Elephantorum maior est vis quam quos in Africa domitant . . .
(‘The strength of its elephants is greater than those which men tame in
Africa. . .’ Curt. 8.9.17)
18.20 Some observations on the use of the tenses in relative clauses
In general the use of the tenses in relative clauses needs no separate treatment.
However, two details are discussed in the next two sections.
18.21 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a future indicative
In relative clauses related to a head constituent in a main clause with some sort of
directive expression, the simple future is used to reflect the fact that the execution of
Tenses and moods in relative clauses 537
the states of affairs will be in the future (see also § 7.23). This is common in Cato.
Examples are (a)–(c). In ex. (a) the main clause has a future imperative, (b) has the
verb oportet, and (c) is directive by implication.
(a) Per ver serito in loco ubi terra tenerrima erit (quam ‘pullam’ vocant), ubi
aqua propter siet.
(‘Sow (sc. cypress) in the spring in a place where the soil is very mellow, grey earth as
it is called, where there is water nearby.’ Cato Agr. 151.2—NB: subjunctive in the
second clause)
(b) Qui ager frigidior et macrior erit, ibi oleam Licinianam seri oportet.
(‘As for land which is colder and thinner, there the Licinian olive should be planted.’
Cato Agr. 6.2)
(c) Ager oleto conserundo, qui in ventum Favonium spectabit et soli ostentus
erit.
(‘Land which is suitable for olive planting is that which faces the west and is exposed
to the sun.’ Cato Agr. 6.2)
18.22 The use of the tenses in relative clauses with a subjunctive

In relative clauses with a subjunctive tense form there are in principle no restrictions on
the use of the tenses. However, in autonomous relative clauses functioning as secondary
predicates (traditionally called ‘final’ relative clauses or relative clauses ‘of purpose’),
which behave to some extent as purpose adjunct clauses (see § 7.101), the rules of the
sequence of tenses are usually said to apply. There are a few deviations in these clauses as
well, as in (a), where present tense exigat after perfect dedi is related to the time of
speaking. Other examples regarded as deviations are (b)–(c). In (b), the adnominal
non-restrictive relative clause is interpreted in a causal sense. Exx. (c) and (d) are descrip-
tive restrictive relative clauses (traditionally called ‘consecutive’ or ‘of characteristic’).
Grammars note that deviation is especially common when the main clause is negated, as
in (d). In all three examples the tenses deviate from the sequence of tenses, but are seman-
tically fully justified. Instead of speaking of ‘deviations from the sequence of tenses’ it is
better to state that there are no tense restrictions on this type of relative clause.
(a) Dedi ei meam gnatam quicum <una> aetatem exigat.
(‘I gave him my daughter to spend his life with.’ Pl. Trin. 15)
(b) Fuit enim mirifica vigilantia, qui suo toto consulatu somnum non viderit.
(‘His vigilance indeed was amazing, because he never saw sleep during his entire
consulship.’ Cic. Fam. 7.30.1)
(c) Inventus est scriba quidam Cn. Flavius qui cornicum oculos confixerit . . .
(‘A certain notary was found, by name Cnaeus Flavius, who could pierce the eyes of
ravens . . .’ Cic. Mur. 25)
(d) Numquam hominem quemquam conveni unde abierim lubentius.
(‘I’ve never met anyone I left more eagerly.’ Pl. Epid. 80)
Supplement:
Adnominal non-restrictive clause: . . . ille populus Romanus, cuius usque ad nos-
tram memoriam nomen invictum in navalibus pugnis permanserit, magna ac multo
maxima parte non modo utilitatis sed dignitatis atque imperi caruit. (Cic. Man. 54)
Descriptive restrictive clause: Nulla domus in Sicilia locuples fuit ubi iste non tex-
trinum instituerit. (Cic. Ver. 4.58)
Autonomous clause: Quin ob eam rem Orcus recipere ad se hunc noluit, / ut esset
hic qui mortuis cenam coquat. (Pl. Ps. 795–6); Nemo . . . oppressus aere alieno fuit
quem non ad hoc incredibile sceleris foedus asciverit. (Cic. Catil. 2.8); Qui igitur
adulescens nondum tanta gloria praeditus nihil umquam nisi severissime et gravis-
sime fecerit, is ea existimatione eaque aetate saltavit? (Cic. Deiot. 27); . . . nec illi com-
mittendum illud negotium sed inponendum putaverunt qui in contione palam
dixerint linguam se evellisse M. Catoni . . . (Cic. Sest. 60); Fuere quos inconsultus
pavor nando etiam capessere fugam inpulerit. (Liv. 22.6.6); Et hercule is fuit
Quintianus quem diligi deceat ipsius exemplo. (Plin. Ep. 9.9.2)
The present is occasionally used in relative clauses instead of a past tense, that is, as a
historic present (see § 7.121), as in (e).
(e) Dedi mercatori quoidam (sc. tabellas) qui ad illum deferat / meum erum qui
Athenis fuerat, qui ha<n>c amaverat, / ut is huc veniret.
(‘I gave them to a certain merchant to bring to that master of mine who’d been
in Athens and who’d loved her, telling him to come here.’ Pl. Mil. 131–3)
The state of affairs in a relative clause can be independently positioned in time in
other ways as well, as illustrated by (f) and (g). In (f), imperfect excelleret in its autono-
mous relative clause is fully justified because the search referred to in the main clause
(in the present tense) is for someone who lived in the past. A remarkable example is
(g), an autonomous relative clause, with apparently deviant secutus esset presented as
anterior to ‘correct’ voluerit, and therefore in the pluperfect.
(f) Qui vero utraque re excelleret, ut et doctrinae studiis et regenda civitate
princeps esset, quis facile praeter hunc inveniri potest?
(‘But who can readily be found except this man, who excelled in both careers, so as to
be foremost both in the pursuit of learning and in the actual government of a state?’
Cic. Leg. 3.14)
(g) Et qui nec . . . tuum . . . consilium secutus esset nec . . . vobis auctoribus uti
voluerit, nunc . . . nostras sententias desideraturum censes fuisse?
(‘And do you suppose that he would feel any need of our opinions, who did not follow
your counsel and then did not want to use you as counsellors?’ Cic. Fam. 4.9.2)
18.23 The use of the moods in relative clauses
Leaving aside the oblique use of the subjunctive in indirect speech and cases of attrac-
tion of the subjunctive in clauses that are subordinate to another clause in the
subjunctive, the indicative and subjunctive moods are mostly used in relative clauses
with the same semantic values as in independent declarative sentences: the indicative
is used to present an event as factive, the subjunctive as non-factive, most often to
present something as possible or likely (potential), less often as something that has to
be done (deontic). In most studies more detailed labels are used for the use of the
subjunctive, such as ‘causal subjunctive’, ‘concessive/adversative subjunctive’, ‘consecu-
tive subjunctive’, and ‘final subjunctive’. Most of these cases can easily be understood
as contextual interpretations of the two values (potential and deontic) mentioned
above. In addition to these regular semantically justified uses of the subjunctive, there
are a number of idiomatic expressions.98
The following three sections deal with the use of the moods in the three types
of relative clauses that are distinguished in this Syntax: non-restrictive adnominal
clauses, restrictive adnominal clauses, and autonomous relative clauses that function
at the clause level. For the use of the subjunctive in autonomous relative clauses at the
adjective phrase level (e.g. tantus . . . qui), see § 18.19. For its use in autonomous rela-
tive clauses which function as secondary predicates, see § 21.15.
18.24 The use of the moods in non-restrictive adnominal relative clauses

In adnominal relative clauses of the non-restrictive type, both the indicative and the
subjunctive mood are used. The reason for using a specific mood is essentially the
same as in independent declarative sentences. Certain groups of adnominal relative
clauses in the subjunctive have received special attention and are indeed sometimes
less easy to understand. In what follows two specific cases are discussed, the so-called
causal and adversative/concessive relative clauses. (So-called final relative clauses are
treated in § 18.26.)
From Early Latin onwards, the subjunctive is used in relative clauses that are under-
stood as justifying or giving evidence for what is said in the superordinate clause.
These are commonly called ‘causal relative clauses’. It is generally observed that the
indicative is used in the same or very similar contexts (especially in Early Latin for
perfect tense forms). The question is thus whether there is a difference in meaning
between the two types and how this relates to the normal semantic values of the two
moods. Examples of the use of the indicative and the subjunctive in these clauses are
(a) and (b), respectively. In both examples the head constituents are definite (in
Plautus very often first and second person pronouns) and the relative clauses are
therefore non-restrictive. In both examples the events referred to in the relative clause
constitute real facts. In accordance with the semantic values of the moods as demon-
strated in Chapter 7 the event of the subordinate clause in (a) is presented as an asser-
tion of what is going on, hence the indicative. In (b) the subjunctive marks the clause
as a milder assertion (see § 6.2) and serves to characterize tu as ‘the sort of person who
98 For general discussion, see Vester (1989), Álvarez Huerta (2011), Lavency (2011), and
Panchón (2011). See also Bock (2009) for the interpretation of relative clauses in Latin and other old Indo-
European languages.
abuses himself ’.99 Along the same lines the relative clause in (c) refers to a character-
istic property of Scipio. Exx. (d) and (e) are in the perfect tense, and a paraphrase is
less easy. Ex. (f) has an indicative in the first relative clause, which is restrictive, and
subjunctives in the subsequent non-restrictive clauses.
There is no need to assume a special ‘causal’ value of the subjunctive (which would
also be difficult to integrate into a description of the modal system). Often there
are contextual features that contribute to a causal interpretation, such as words
expressing a subjective judgement (e.g. insanit in (a), probo in (e)), nominative first
and second personal pronouns, the emphasizing particle quidem, and the exclama-
tory sentence type.100
(a) Insanit hicquidem, qui ipse male dicit sibi.

(‘He’s the insane one, to be cursing his own self.’ Pl. Men. 309)
(b) Nam tu quidem hercle certo non sanu’s satis, / Menaechme, qui nunc ipsus
male dicas tibi.
(‘For, by Hercules, you’re certainly not in your right mind, Menaechmus, since you’re
cursing yourself now.’ Pl. Men. 312–13)
(c) Scipio qui hoc dignum populo Romano arbitraretur, . . . quae potuit restitu-
enda curavit.
(‘Since he deemed this worthy of the Roman people, Scipio took care of restoring
those things which he was able to.’ Cic. Ver. 2.86)
(d) Miserior mulier me nec fiet nec fuit, / tali viro quae nupserim.
(‘No woman will be or has ever been more wretched than me because I married such
a husband.’ Pl. Mer. 700–1)
(e) Quam ob rem in ista quidem re vehementer Sullam probo, qui tribunis plebis
sua lege iniuriae faciendae potestatem ademerit.
(‘Wherefore, I heartily approve of Sulla’s laws on this subject at least, since he took
from the plebeian tribunes the power of doing mischief . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.22)
(f) Ut illum di deaeque senium perdant qui me hodie remoratus est, / meque
adeo qui ei restiterim, tum autem qui illum flocci fecerim!
(‘May all the gods and goddesses destroy that old man who delayed me today, and me
too for stopping and taking any notice of him!’ Ter. Eu. 302–3)
Supplement:
Indicative mood: Quor eiulas, / quem ego avom feci iam ut esses filiai nuptiis? (Pl.
Aul. 796–7); Edepol, Neptune, peccavisti largiter, / qui occasionem hanc amisisti tam
bonam. (Pl. Mos. 438–9); Sed sumne ego stultus, qui rem curo publicam . . .? (Pl. Per.
99 Paraphrasing Bennett: I.292, who presents the relevant instances in Early Latin (137–8; 292–4). See
also Lavency (1996b; 2011: 101) on the difference between so-called causal relative clauses and causal cum
clauses (for which see § 16.29).
100 See Iordache (1977: 265–8).
75); Ille vir fuit; nos quidem contemnendi, qui auctorem odimus, acta defendimus.
(Cic. Phil. 2.96); Quid ergo? Non omni puero stultiores sumus, qui in luce timemus?
(Sen. Ep. 110.6)101
Subjunctive mood: Ego stultior, / qui isti credam. (Pl. Mer. 920–1); Amant ted omnes
mulieres, neque iniuria, / qui sis tam pulcher. (Pl. Mil. 58–9—NB: v.l. es; cf. l. 63: Ergo
mecastor pulcher est);102 Davos? # Interturbat. # Quam ob rem? # Nescio, / nisi mihi
deos sati’ scio fuisse iratos, qui auscultaverim. (Ter. An. 663–4); ‘O fortunate’, inquit,
‘adulescens, qui tuae virtutis Homerum praeconem inveneris!’ (Cic. Arch. 24—NB:
the older mss. have inveneras); Illi autem, qui omnia de re publica praeclara atque
egregia sentirent, sine recusatione ac sine ulla mora negotium susceperunt . . . (Cic.
Catil. 3.5); . . . Ti. Gracchus—patrem dico, cuius utinam filii ne degenerassent a gravi-
tate patria!—tantam laudem est adeptus . . . (Cic. Prov. 18—NB: unless it is an instance
of relative connexion); Tarquinio vero quid impudentius, qui bellum gereret cum is
qui eius non tulerant superbiam? (Cic. Tusc. 3.27); Hac inpulsi occasione, qui iam
ante se p. R. imperio subiectos dolerent, liberius atque audacius de bello consilia inire
incipiunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.1.3); Inde barbari dissipati, quibus nec certa imperia nec
duces essent, vertunt impetum in suos. (Liv. 7.24.8); Quibus equidem adsenserim; sed
M. Cato quantum differt, qui dicat Capuam ab eisdem Tuscis conditam ac subinde
Nolam. (Vell. 1.7.3)
The causal interpretation of relative clauses can be made more explicit by the particle
quippe ‘as is to be expected’ (which is also found in combination with cum in a causal
interpretation—see § 16.29), as in (g). Ut ‘as is natural’ (from Cicero onwards) and
utpote ‘as is natural’ are also used, as in (h) and (i), respectively.103
(g) Aegre tulisse P. Rupilium fratris repulsam consulatus scriptum apud Fannium
est; sed tamen transisse videtur modum, quippe qui ob eam causam a vita
recesserit: moderatius igitur ferre debuit.
(‘It has been recorded in Fannius that P. Rupilius was distressed at his brother’s
failure to be elected to the consulship. But all the same he seems to have
passed the limit, since he died of chagrin. He ought therefore to have shown
more restraint.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.40)
(h) . . . senatui placere C. Cassium pro consule provinciam Syriam obtinere, ut
qui optimo iure eam provinciam obtinuerit . . .
(‘. . . that it please the Senate that Caius Cassius, proconsul, shall hold the
province of Syria, as one appointed to that province with all due form.’ Cic.
Phil. 11.30)
(i) . . . sati’n nequam sum, utpote qui hodie amare inceperim?
(‘. . . aren’t I naughty, since I’ve fallen in love today?’ Pl. Rud. 462)
101 For more examples of the indicative mood, see K.-St.: II.292–4. Also Lodge, s.v. qui, p. 460 § B.1.
102 Panchón (2011: 133–7) prefers es.
103 For more examples, see OLD s.v. § 2, ut § 21.b, utpote § b. For ut qui, see Gibert (2012). For dia-
chronic and individual variation in the use of the moods and of the particles, see Sz.: 558–61. For the use
of quippe with relative, cum, and other clauses, see Schrickx (2011: 120–6).
Supplement:
Tametsi pro imperio vobis quod dictum foret / scibat facturos, quippe qui intellexerat
/ vereri vos se et metuere, ita ut aequom est Iovem. (Pl. Am. 21–3);104 . . . non possim
dicere me haec quae nunc complector perinde ut dicam discenda esse didicisse,
quippe qui omnium maturrime ad publicas causas accesserim . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.74);
Est enim quoddam genus eorum qui se philosophos appellari volunt, quorum
dicuntur esse Latini sane multi libri. Quos non contemno equidem, quippe quos
numquam legerim. (Cic. Tusc. 2.7); Adversae pugnae in Hispania nullius in animo
quam meo minus oblitterari possunt, quippe cui pater et patruus . . . interfecti sunt.
(Liv. 26.41.8)
Tum demum Titurius, ut qui nihil ante providisset, trepidare et concursare cohor-
tesque disponere . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.33.1)
The use of the subjunctive spread in the course of time, as in reason adjuncts with
cum (see § 7.143). However, it never reached the point of becoming a meaningless,
purely grammatical phenomenon.
A few examples of adnominal non-restrictive relative clauses in the subjunctive that
are interpreted in an adversative or concessive sense are ( j)–(l). In this case, too, the
same interpretation is possible for relative clauses in the indicative, as in (m).105
( j) Miro equidem, soror, te istaec sic fabulari, / quae tam callida et docta sis
et faceta.
(‘I really am surprised, my sister, that you say that like this, even though you’re so
clever and smart and witty.’ Pl. Poen. 233–4)
(k) Tu’n ted expurges mihi, / qui facinus tantum tamque indignum feceris?
(‘You would try to apologize to me even though you’ve committed such a big and
disgraceful offence?’ Pl. Mil. 497–8)
(l) Namque egomet, qui sero ac leviter Graecas litteras attigissem, tamen cum
pro consule in Ciliciam proficiscens venissem Athenas, complures tum ibi
dies sum propter navigandi difficultatem commoratus.
(‘For although I came into contact with Greek literature late in life and even then only
in a superficial way, nevertheless when on my journey to Cilicia as proconsul I
reached Athens, I stayed there for several days due to the difficulty in putting to sea.’
Cic. de Orat. 1.82)
(m) Quae quidem ego, patres conscripti, qui illa numquam probavi, tamen ita
conservanda concordiae causa arbitratus sum . . .
(‘I, who never approved those acts, Members of the Senate, nevertheless judged that
they should be retained for concord’s sake . . .’ Cic. Phil. 1.23)
104 Qui in the combinations quippe qui and quippe . . . qui in Plautus is usually taken as an indefinite
adverb ‘in some way’, and not as a relative pronoun, but this is one of the instances where qui can be taken
as a relative pronoun. For discussion, see Vallejo (1948) and Schrickx (2011: 131–3).
105 For more examples of the indicative mood, see K.-St.: II.294–5. Also Lodge s.v. qui, p. 463 § C.1. For
subjunctive instances, see Bennett: I.294.
Supplement:
Hodie qui fuerim liber, / eum nunc potivit pater servitutis. (Pl. Am. 177–8—NB: qui
is coreferential with the speaker); Hercules, qui deus sis, sane discessisti non bene.
(Pl. St. 395); Quis est qui C. Fabrici M’. Curi non cum caritate aliqua benivola memo-
riam usurpet, quos numquam viderit? (Cic. Amic. 28); . . . cum posteritatem ipsam,
cuius sensum habiturus non sit, ad se putet pertinere. (Cic. Tusc. 1.91); At hi miser-
rimo ac patientissimo exercitu Caesaris luxuriem obiciebant, cui semper omnia ad
necessarium usum defuissent. (Caes. Civ. 3.96.2); Tarquinium regem qui non tulerim,
Sicinium feram? (Liv. 2.34.10); Scilicet etiam illum, qui libertatem publicam nollet,
tam proiectae servientium patientiae taedebat. (Tac. Ann. 3.65.3); Nam qui luxuriae
immoderatissimae esset, ter omnino per quattuordecim annos languit . . . (Suet.
Nero 51)
An example of a ‘consecutive’ interpretation is (n):106
(n) Quae te mala crux agitat, qui ad istunc modum / alieno viris tuas extentes
ostio?
(‘What evil torment is driving you to try out your strength on someone else’s
door in this way?’ Pl. Bac. 584–5)
Appendix: A remarkable instance of a ‘final’ relative clause is (o). The clause is used
in a sense similar to that of the ‘voluntas fati’ instances given in § 16.50.
(o) Omnium harum gentium virtute praecipui Batavi non multum ex ripa, sed
insulam Rheni amnis colunt, Chattorum quondam populus et seditione
domestica in eas sedes transgressus, in quibus pars Romani imperii
fierent.
(‘Of all these races, the most manly are the Batavi, who occupy only a short
stretch of the riverbank, but with it the island of the Rhine river in the
stream: they were once a tribe of the Chatti, and on account of an uprising at
home they crossed the river for those lands in which they were to become
part of the Roman Empire.’ Tac. Ger. 29.1)
Finally, the subjunctive is used in instances like (p), where the author (Caesar) does
not commit himself to what was claimed by the persons ( plerique) who are the subject
of the clause (for this use of the subjunctive, see § 7.128). Indeed, in this case we know
from Gal. 5.37 that their recollection of the event is not in accordance with what actu-
ally happened.
(p) Plerique novas sibi ex loco religiones fingunt Cottaeque et Titurii calami-
tatem, qui in eodem occiderint castello, ante oculos ponunt.
(‘The majority pictured to themselves new superstitions because of the place and set
before their eyes the disaster of Cotta and Titurius, who (as they remembered) fell in
the same fort.’ Caes. Gal. 6.37.8)
106 For a few more examples, see Lodge s.v. qui, p. 466, § E.
18.25 The use of the moods in restrictive adnominal clauses

In restrictive adnominal clauses, the indicative is statistically the dominant mood in
identifying clauses, as one would expect. They serve to identify the referent of the
head noun (phrase) and this is best guaranteed if the clause is presented as factive.
However, the subjunctive is not entirely excluded. In descriptive clauses, on the other
hand, the subjunctive is the mood one expects: the content of the clause is presented
as possible or likely (see § 7.8).
Examples of identifying relative clauses in the indicative are (a)–(c). Subjunctives,
which are rare, are shown in (d)–(e). It is difficult to explain them. In (d), Cicero
reports a fact that he has mentioned in a letter to Atticus a few weeks earlier (Att.
1.20.7—in a relative clause with the indicative). The most likely explanation is that the
relative clause ‘represents the words of ’ Paetus,107 and that Cicero uses the non-factive
subjunctive, i.e. ‘as Paetus said’. Ex. (e) is a remarkable instance: not only does the
verb dico make it explicitly clear that the statement was Antonius’ (quas sibi miserim
would have been sufficient), but dico itself is placed in the subjunctive. (For further
discussion of the non-committal use of the subjunctive and of verbs like dico see
§ 7.128 fin.)
(a) Confidam fore, / si medicus veniat qui huic morbo facere medicinam potest.
(‘I trust it will, if the doctor comes who can cure this illness.’ Pl. Cist. 73–4)
(b) Sed iste’st ager profecto, ut te audivi loqui, / malos in quem omnes publice
mitti decet.
(‘But from what I’ve heard you say, that land is indeed such that all bad people ought
to be sent onto it by public decree.’ Pl. Trin. 547–8)
(c) Cum factum tuum gratum omnibus debet esse, tum vero oratio qua recitatis
litteris usus es.
(‘This action of yours should be welcome to all, and especially the speech you made
when you had read the letter.’ Cic. Phil. 10.1)
(d) Paetus, ut antea ad te scripsi, omnis libros quos frater suus reliquisset mihi
donavit.
(‘Paetus, as I told you in my last letter, has presented me with the entire library that
his late cousin left to him.’ Cic. Att. 2.1.12)
(e) At etiam litteras quas me sibi misisse diceret recitavit homo et humanitatis
expers et vitae communis ignarus.
(‘But he even quoted a letter which he said I had written him—this fellow devoid of
good breeding, and ignorant of the usages of life!’ Cic. Phil. 2.7)
Ex. (d) is one of the most discussed cases of the subjunctive in Latin. For the inter-
pretation of the words as a quotation of Paetus one may point to the use of the reflex-
ive determiner suus (for the indirect use of the reflexive pronoun and determiner, see
107 So OLD s.v. suus § A.3.

§ 11.127) and possibly also the use of omnis and of the pluperfect. This does not mean
that one has to assume for Latin the existence of a ‘quotative’ subjunctive, as in
German.108
Supplement:
Indicative mood: Adulescenti qui puellam ab eo emerat / ait sese Veneri velle votum
solvere . . . (Pl. Rud. 59–60); Miraculo primo esse Romanis qui proximi steterant, ut
nudari latera sua sociorum digressu senserunt. (Liv. 1.27.7); Nervus ex quo testiculus
dependet plenior fit, simulque indurescit. (Cels. 7.18.11); Oppida Aegae, in quo sepe-
liri mos reges, Beroea et in regione quae Pieria appellatur a nemore, Aeginium. (Plin.
Nat. 4.33)
Subjunctive mood: Velut in Gorgia Socrates, cum esset ex eo quaesitum, Archelaum,
Perdiccae filium qui tum fortunatissimus haberetur, nonne beatum putaret, ‘haud
scio’, inquit. (Cic. Tusc. 5.34)
One type of idiomatic expression in which the subjunctive is normal is illustrated
by (f) and (g). The subjunctive is used here to make the statement more modest
(see § 6.2).
(f) Fuit enim Sulpicius omnium vel maxume, quos quidem ego audiverim,
grandis et, ut ita dicam, tragicus orator.
(‘Sulpicius indeed was of all orators whom I have heard perhaps the most
elevated in style, and, so to speak, the most theatrical.’ Cic. Brut. 203)
(g) Ac si verum quaeritis, quod mihi quidem videatur—nihil enim aliud adfir-
mare possum nisi sententiam et opinionem meam—hoc instrumentum
causarum et generum universorum in forum deferre debemus . . .
(‘And if you want the truth, at any rate as I see it (for I can assert only my
own verdict and belief), we ought to bring this stock of cases and types down
to Court with us . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.146)
As for descriptive restrictive clauses, the relationship between the head and the rela-
tive clause is sometimes paraphrased as ‘of such a character that’ or ‘such persons that’.
In English the term ‘relative clause of characteristic’ is used for such clauses. The trad-
itional term for the subjunctive is ‘consecutive’. Examples are (h)–(l). In (k), the rela-
tive clause can be seen as a specification of the preceding adjective non boni. In (l), the
relative clause is coordinated with the adjective leniore. The subjunctive is regular in
this type of coordination (for exceptions, see the note below). Ex. (m) likewise shows
parallelism between an adjective and a relative clause. In comparative expressions of
various types in which the second element is a relative clause, the subjunctive is used
when that clause is descriptive.
(h) Ad eam rem usu’st homine astuto, docto, cauto et callido / qui imperata
effecta reddat, non qui vigilans dormiat.
(‘For this purpose I need a smart, clever, cautious, and tricky man, someone who turns
commands into results and not someone who is asleep while he’s awake.’ Pl. Ps. 385–6)
108 Álvarez Huerta (1996; 2011: 113–14) argues against the explanation given here.
(i) Mea quidem sententia paci quae nihil habitura sit insidiarum semper est
consulendum.
(‘In my opinion, at least, we should always strive to secure a peace that shall not
admit of guile.’ Cic. Off. 1.35)
( j) Octo hominum milia tenebat Hannibal non quos in acie cepisset aut qui
periculo mortis diffugissent sed qui relicti in castris fuissent a Paulo et a
Varrone consulibus.
(‘Hannibal was in control of eight thousand prisoners, not men whom he had taken
in the battle or who had fled in the face of danger but rather those who had been left
behind by the consuls Paulus and Varro.’ Cic. Off. 3.114)
(k) <Erant> enim quidam Romanorum quoque non boni auctores qui spe
cupiditatem eius elicerent.
(‘For there were also certain untrustworthy Roman advisers to stimulate his self-
seeking with hope . . .’ Liv. 45.19.4)
(l) Ille autem superior (sc. Xenophon) leniore quodam sono est usus et qui illum
impetum oratoris non habeat . . .
(‘His predecessor, however, adopted a gentler kind of tone, one that lacked the
characteristic vigour of oratory . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.58)
(m) Nec quemquam fideliorem nec quoi plus credat potes / mittere ad eum . . .
(‘You can’t send him anyone more faithful, anyone he could trust more . . .’ Pl. Capt.
346–7)
Supplement:
Si aequom siet / me plus sapere quam vos, dederim vobis consilium catum / quod
laudetis, ut ego opino, uterque— # Ergo ubi id est, Epidice? / # —atque ad eam rem
conducibile. (Pl. Epid. 257–9); Eo fistulam ferream indito quae in columellam con-
veniat et in cupam. (Cato Agr. 21.1); . . . viatorem · unum · legunto · quei · in / ea
· decuria · viator · appareat . . . (CIL I2.587.8–9 (Lex Cornelia, Rome, 81 bc));
Video igitur causas esse permultas quae istum impellerent. (Cic. S. Rosc. 92); . . . nul-
lum erat Italiae municipium . . . quod tum non honorificentissime de mea salute
decrevisset. (Cic. Sest. 32); Cum haec agerem, repente ad me venit Heraclius, is qui
tum magistratum Syracusis habebat, homo nobilis qui sacerdos Iovis fuisset, qui
honos est apud Syracusanos amplissimus. (Cic. Ver. 4.137); Haec est una contentio
quae adhuc permanserit. (Cic. Luc. 78); Hanc enim perfectam philosophiam semper
iudicavi, quae de maximis quaestionibus copiose posset ornateque dicere. (Cic. Tusc.
1.7); Utrisque ad animum occurrit unum esse illud tempus quo maxime contendi
conveniat. (Caes. Gal. 7.85.2); non exercitus neque thesauri praesidia regni sunt,
verum amici quos neque armis cogere neque auro parare queas: officio et fide pariun-
tur. (Sal. Jug. 10.4); Eo quidem res ista culpa docentium reccidit, ut inter praecipuas
quae corrumperent eloquentiam causas licentia atque inscitia declamantium fuerit.
(Quint. Inst. 2.10.3)
With relative adverbs: Ipse parte copiarum parvo circuitu locum maxime secretum
ab tumultu petit unde ex necopinato aversum hostem invadat. (Liv. 4.27.8)
Coordination with adjectives (and related): Exierant autem cum ipso Crasso
adulescentes et Drusi maxime familiares et in quibus magnam tum spem maiores
natu dignitatis suae conlocarent . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.25); Cum homine et edaci tibi res
est et qui iam aliquid intellegat. (Cic. Fam. 9.20.2); Sed vitate viros cultum formamque
professos / quique suas ponunt in statione comas. (Ov. Ars 3.433–4); Venerat, ut
fama’st, multo spectabilis auro / quique suo Phrygias corpore ferret opes, / classe
virisque potens . . . (Ov. Ep. 13.57–9); Inde consilia inire cum genero coepit adhibito
L. Sextio, strenuo adulescente et cuius spei nihil praeter genus patricium deesset.
(Liv. 6.34.11); Inter bellorum magnorum aut vixdum finitorum aut imminentium
curas intercessit res parva dictu sed quae studiis in magnum certamen excesserit.
(Liv. 34.1.1); Cibis vero opus est copiosis, variis, boni succi, quique etiam minus
facile corrumpantur, vino austero. (Cels. 3.22.7); Locum autem prius eligi conveniet,
si permittit agri situs, iuxta villam praecipue pinguem quique adveniente rivo vel, si
non sit fluens aqua, fonte puteali possit rigari. (Col. 11.3.8); Fertilissima tritici genera
ramosum ac quod centigranium vocant. (Plin. Nat. 18.95); Forma egregia et cui non
minus auctoritatis inesset quam gratiae . . . (Suet. Tit. 3.1)109
NB: Also when the relative clause is subject or object complement: Non esse servos
peior hoc quisquam potest / nec magis vorsutus nec quo ab caveas aegrius. (Pl. As.
118–19)
Comparative expressions: Maior sum quam cui possit Fortuna nocere . . . (Ov. Met.
6.195); Et primo magis auribus quam animis id acceptum erat ut maius laetiusque
quam quod mente capere . . . possent. (Liv. 27.50.7); Distulerant tamquam maiora
meritum quam quae statim exsolverentur. (Tac. Hist. 3.51.1)
Descriptive relative clauses which are coordinated with an adjective and which are in
the indicative are rare. The earliest instances in poetry and prose are (n) and (o),
respectively.110
(n) Ardua prima via est et qua vix mane recentes / enituntur equi.
(‘The first part of the road is steep, up which my steeds in all their morning
freshness can scarce make their way.’ Ov. Met. 2.63)
(o) Continuoque producta est puella satis bella et quae non plus quam septem
annos habere videbatur . . .
(‘Forthwith was brought in a pretty young girl, that seemed not to be above
seven years of age . . .’ Petr. 25.2)
18.26 The use of the moods in autonomous relative clauses

The moods in autonomous relative clauses have the same semantic values as they have
in declarative sentences.111 Grammars pay much attention to two interpretations of
109 For more examples, see Sz.: 561; K.-St.: II.296–7.

110 For more examples, see K.-St.: II.297; Sz.: 561. Also Petersmann (1977: 268–72).
111 See Lavency (2005) and, for the jurists, Reggio (2005). Of course, there are also instances where the
subjunctive in the relative clause is due to modal assimilation (see §§ 7.162–3 and Lavency 2005: 593).
these clauses in the subjunctive mood, viz. the so-called consecutive and the so-called
final interpretation.
Instances of autonomous relative clauses that are labelled ‘consecutive’ are (a)–(f).
In (a) and (b), the relative clauses are the objects of ducam and audies, respectively. In
(c) multa . . . quae teneant is the subject of existential sunt. Likewise quod gaudeas in
(d) is the subject of existential est. In (e), the qui clause is the subject complement with
the copula es. In (f), the clauses are the subject of passive reperio. With verbs meaning
‘to exist’, ‘to be available’, ‘to possess’, or ‘to find’ numerous instances can be found. In
(g), the clause is the attribute (signalled by genitive eorum) of genus. As for the use of
is in (a) and (e), it is often taken as equivalent to talis ‘such’ (on which see § 18.19), but
see the explanation given in § 18.16 (‘the typical’, not just ‘any’). In (c), the relative
clause is modified by the quantifier multa. The subjunctive in all these examples has
its common non-factive potential (‘possible’, ‘likely’) or deontic (‘must’) meaning. In
all these contexts indicatives can be found as well, of course with a different meaning.
Two examples—(h) and (i)—will suffice.112 Note that there are no instances of the
second type (the head-internal type) of autonomous relative clause with a relative
phrase used in this way.
(a) Verum egone eam ducam domum / quae mihi numquam hoc dicat . . .
(‘But should I bring home a woman who’d never say to me . . .’ Pl. Mil. 686–7)
(b) Sed audies ex me fortasse quod non omnes probent.
(‘. . . but you will perhaps get an answer from me which not everyone would accept.’
Cic. Brut. 183)
(c) In eloquentia autem multa sunt quae teneant.
(‘In eloquence, on the other hand, there are many features to hold the attention.’ Cic.
de Orat. 1.259—tr. May and Wisse)
(d) Tu si animum vicisti potius quam animus te, est quod gaudeas.
(‘If you have conquered your heart rather than your heart you, there is reason for you
to be happy.’ Pl. Trin. 310)
(e) Neque enim tu is es qui quid sis nescias.
(‘For you are not the sort of man to be ignorant of who you are.’ Cic. Fam. 5.12.6)
(f) Qui se ultro morti offerant facilius reperiuntur quam qui dolorem patienter
ferant.
(‘It is easier to find men to offer themselves recklessly to death than men to endure
pain patiently.’ Caes. Gal. 7.77.5)
(g) Rarum est quoddam genus eorum qui se a corpore avocent et . . . rapiantur.
(‘However, there is a certain class of men, though small in number, who withdraw
themselves from their bodies and are . . . possessed.’ Cic. Div. 1.111)
112 For more examples, see K.-St.: II.298, Anm. 7; II.304, Anm. 11. Also Lavency (1998a: 67).
(h) Tu es enim is qui me tuis sententiis saepissime ornasti.

(‘You are the one who has honoured me again and again with your motions in the
Senate.’ Cic. Fam. 15.4.11)
(i) Sunt qui putant posse te non decedere quod sine lege curiata tibi succedatur.
(‘There are some who think you have the right to stay in your province because you
are being superseded without a curiate law.’ Cic. Fam. 1.9.25)
Supplement:
Nam quanti refert te ei nec recte dicere / qui nihili faciat quique infitias non eat? (Pl.
Ps. 1085–6); Quis enim esset, iudices, qui imperatoribus nostris in bello, in acie, in
exercitu delectum virtutis, qui sociis, qui foederatis in defendenda re publica nostra
spem praemiorum eripi vellet? (Cic. Balb. 49); Taceo, ne haec quidem colligo quae
fortasse valerent etiam apud iudicem. (Cic. Lig. 30); Ergo habet Antonius quod suis
polliceatur. (Cic. Phil. 8.9); Haec habui de senectute quae dicerem. (Cic. Sen. 85);
Nactus sum etiam qui Xenophontis similem esse se cuperet . . . (Cic. Orat. 32); Sed
est isdem de rebus quod dici possit subtilius, si prius Epicuri sententiam viderimus.
(Cic. Tusc. 3.32); (sc. Alexander) . . . misit qui conquirerent alios (sc. duces). (Curt.
9.9.1)
. . . miratus fui / neminem venire qui istas adsereret manu. (Pl. Poen. 1347–8);
Multi qui domi aetatem agerent propterea sunt improbati. (Enn. scen. 261V=220J);
Ah desine. / Solus est quem diligant di. (Ter. An. 972–3); Quamquam non nulli sunt
in hoc ordine qui aut ea quae imminent non videant aut ea quae vident dissimulent.
(Cic. Catil. 1.30); Frater erat unus qui suo squalore vestros oculos inflecteret, qui suo
fletu desiderium mei memoriamque renovaret. (Cic. Red. Pop. 8); Video enim hoc in
numero neminem cui mea salus non cara fuerit . . . (Cic. Planc. 2); Inventi autem
multi sunt qui non modo pecuniam, sed etiam vitam profundere pro patria parati
essent . . . (Cic. Off. 1.84); Sapientia enim est una quae maestitiam pellat ex animis,
quae nos exhorrescere metu non sinat. (Cic. Fin. 1.43); Idem (sc. Cicero tradit) fuisse
qui pervideret CXXXV passuum. (Plin. Nat. 7.85)
Autonomous relative clauses functioning as secondary predicates are discussed in
§ 18.16 and in § 21.15. They are usually labelled ‘final’ relative clauses and are inter-
preted as the purpose or motive of the action referred to in the superordinate clause.
In contrast to the ‘consecutive’ clauses dealt with above, there are no recorded instances
of relative clauses with this interpretation that are in the indicative. Furthermore,
there are no instances of this construction with autonomous relative clauses of the
second type (head-internal). Examples are ( j)–(l).
( j) Quin eapse me allegavit qui istam arcesserem.
(‘But she herself commissioned me to send for her.’ Pl. Cas. 604)
(k) Ego tibi meam filiam bene quicum cubitares dedi.
(‘I’ve given you my daughter so that you could sleep pleasantly with her.’ Pl. St. 547)
(l) Neque vero hoc fugit sapientissimum regem Philippum, qui hunc Alexandro
filio doctorem accierit, a quo eodem ille et agendi acciperet praecepta et
eloquendi.
(‘Nor did this escape the notice of that extremely sagacious monarch Philip, who
summoned this man to be the tutor of his son Alexander, so that he could impart to
him the principles both of conduct and of oratory.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.141)
The explanation of the use of the subjunctive in these clauses is a matter of debate.
The subjunctive is often taken as ‘jussive’ or in the terminology of this Syntax ‘deon-
tic’, that is: it is used in the way the subjunctive is used in imperative sentences. There
is, however, no evidence to decide for or against the imperative nature of the clauses
themselves. For that reason it seems better to attribute the purpose element to the
type of verbs in the superordinate clause.
The autonomous clause with a relative phrase (head-internal) in the subjunctive in
(m) is usually described as expressing purpose, but it is not a secondary predicate like
the examples discussed above.113
(m) Composito factum’st quo modo hanc amans habere posset / sine dote.
(‘It was all arranged in such a way that her lover could have her without a
dowry.’ Ter. Ph. 756–7)
There are a few instances that are described as ‘adversative/concessive’. They are usu-
ally presented together with the non-restrictive adnominal instances above. One
example is (n).
(n) Nam qui per tot annos Hieronem filiumque eius Gelonem nec vestis habitu
nec alio ullo insigni differentes a ceteris civibus vidissent, ei conspexere pur-
puram ac diadema . . .
(‘For, though through so many years they had seen Hiero and his son Gelo not differ-
ing from the rest of the citizens in garb or any other distinction, they beheld purple
and a diadem . . .’ Liv. 24.5.3–4)
Supplement:
Nam qui hastis sagittisque et rara lanceis facta volnera vidissent, . . . postquam . . .
foeditatem aliam volnerum viderunt, adversus quae tela quosque viros pugnandum
foret pavidi volgo cernebant. (Liv. 31.34.4)
A generic autonomous relative clause that precedes the main clause is sometimes
interpreted as ‘conditional’ if the events the clauses refer to are causally related. An
example is (o).
(o) Qui horum quid acerbissime crudelissimeque fecerat, is et vir et civis opti-
mus habebatur.
(‘Among these he who had acted with the greatest harshness and cruelty was
accounted the best of men and the best of citizens.’ Caes. Civ. 3.32.3)
113 See TLL s.v. modus 1293.40ff. (‘sensu finali (vel consecutivo)’).
Relative clauses as clausal appositions 551
18.27 Autonomous relative clauses functioning

as clausal appositions
Autonomous relative clauses may function in quasi-apposition to an entire clause or

sentence, or to an even larger textual unit. This is called clausal apposition in this
Syntax (see § 11.90). When the relative expression is a pronoun it is a neuter form, as
in (a) and (b). The autonomous clause may be determined in the same way as other
autonomous clauses, usually by a form of is. An example is (c). If the relative expres-
sion consists of a relative determiner and a noun (phrase), the form of the determiner
agrees with its noun (phrase). The nouns involved are usually generic expressions,
such as res ‘thing’ in (e), or they qualify the content of the clause they refer to, like
facultas ‘opportunity’ in (f). Such clauses are often inserted in the sentence, but they
can also precede, as in (d), or follow it, as in (f).114 When they precede, it is difficult to
make a distinction between ‘normal’ relative clauses and relative connexion.
(a) Sequimini, ut, quod imperatum est, veniam advorsum temperi.
(‘Follow me, so that I can go to him in good time, as commanded.’ Pl. Men. 445)
(b) Quare etsi satis docui rationem nullam huic corrumpendi iudicii fuisse, ex
quo intellegitur ab Oppianico esse corruptum, tamen de illo ipso separatim
cognoscite.
(‘And so, although I have adequately shown you that my client had no reason for
bribing the court, from which it follows that Oppianicus did bribe it, still let me give
you a separate proof of this latter point.’ Cic. Clu. 64)
(c) Sin a vobis—id quod non spero—deserar, tamen animo non deficiam et id
quod suscepi, quoad potero, perferam.
(‘But if I am abandoned by you—which I do not expect—I will not lose courage,
but will accomplish as far as I am able the task which I have undertaken.’ Cic.
S. Rosc. 10)
(d) Quod caput est, ipsum non novi sed audio laudabilia, de <S>crofa etiam
proxime.
(‘The main point is, I don’t know him personally but I hear only good things from
Scrofa just recently.’ Cic. Att. 13.21a.4)
(e) Quoniam tu me et ego te qualis sis scio / —quae res recte vortat mihique
tibique tuaeque filiae— / filiam tuam mi uxorem posco.
(‘Since you know what I am like and I know what you are like—may this turn out
well for me, you, and your daughter—I’m asking for your daughter’s hand.’ Pl. Aul.
217–19)
114 The Plautine instances can be found in Lodge s.v. qui 473, § N. For id quod clauses, see Merguet
(Reden) s.v. is 762B. For diachronic considerations, see Vonlaufen (1974: 82–4; 163–4). For general dis-
cussion and an indication of the frequency of use, see Panchón (2012).
(f) Habetis ducem memorem vestri, oblitum sui—quae non semper facultas
datur.
(‘You have a leader mindful of you, forgetful of himself—an opportunity which is not
always given to men.’ Cic. Catil. 4.19)
Supplement:
Nam si curent, bene bonis sit, male malis; quod nunc abest. (Enn. scen. 318V=265J);
Sed ego sum insipientior qui rebus curem publicis / potius quam—id quod proxu-
mum est—meo tergo tutelam geram. (Pl. Trin. 1057–8); Nec non si parit humus
mures, minor fit vindemia, nisi totas vineas oppleris muscipulis, quod in insula
Pandateria faciunt. (Var. R. 1.8.5); Clamabat porro ipse Quinctius . . . se (id quod
nunc evenit) de capite suo priore loco causam esse dicturum. (Cic. Quinct. 31);
Homines Rhegium proficiscuntur, Epicratem conveniunt et demonstrant—id quod
ille sciebat—se HS LXXX dedisse. (Cic. Ver. 2.55); Deinde, quod alio loco antea dixi,
quae est ista tandem laudatio . . .? (Cic. Ver. 5.58); Quos tamen idcirco necabat palam
quod homines in conventu—id quod antea dixi—nimium diligenter praedonum
numerum requirebant. (Cic. Ver. 5.157); Haec enim una nos quom ceteras res omnes,
tum—quod est difficillimum—docuit, ut nosmet ipsos nosceremus. (Cic. Leg. 1.58);
Ob easque res ex litteris Caesaris dies quindecim supplicatio decreta est, quod ante id
tempus accidit nulli. (Caes. Gal. 2.35.4); Etenim distantia cum sit / formarum finita,
necesse est quae similes sint / esse infinitas aut summam materiai / finitam constare,
id quod non esse probavi. (Lucr. 2.525–8); Itaque, quod plerumque in atroci negotio
solet, senatus decrevit, darent operam consules, ne quid res publica detrimenti
caperet. (Sal. Cat. 29.2); Praeter virtutem locus quoque superior adiuvit, ut pila omnia
hastaeque non tamquam ex aequo missa vana—quod plerumque fit—caderent, sed
omnia librata ponderibus figerentur. (Liv. 7.23.8); Sive quis, quod accidit plerumque,
sauciatus in opere noxam ceperit, adhibeat fomenta . . . (Col. 11.1.18); (sc. lunae
defectum) . . . quaeque sunt in hoc miraculo maxime mira, cum conveniat umbra
terrae lunam hebetari, nunc ab occasus parte hoc ei accidere, nunc ab exortus . . .
(Plin. Nat. 2.57)
Quin tu tuam rem cura potius quam Seleuci, quae tibi / condicio nova et luculenta
fertur per me interpretem. (Pl. Mil. 951–2); Hi sibi nihil iuris nullam societatem com-
munis utilitatis causa statuunt esse cum civibus, quae sententia omnem societatem
distrahit civitatis. (Cic. Off. 3.28); . . . ex hominum milibus amplius XXX—quem
numerum barbarorum ad castra venisse constabat—plus tertia parte interfecta
reliquos perterritos in fugam coniciunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.6.2)
If such a relative pronoun is the subject of a relative clause with the verb sum, it agrees
with the subject complement, as in (g) and (h), where quae is in agreement with
provincia and with vita, respectively (for this type of agreement, see § 13.24).
(g) Ipsi opsonant, quae parasitorum ante erat provincia.
(‘They themselves go shopping, which used to be the hangers-on’s task before.’ Pl.
Capt. 474)
(h) Vixisti nobiscum, periclitatus es, timuisti, quae tunc erat innocentium vita.
(‘You lived, incurred danger, grew afraid with us, which things defined the life of the
innocent at that time.’ Plin. Pan. 44.1)
Relative clauses as clausal appositions 553
Supplement:
Consurgitur in consilium, cum sententias Oppianicus, quae tum erat potestas, palam
ferri velle dixisset, ut Staienus scire posset quid cuique deberetur. (Cic. Clu. 75)
Autonomous relative clauses consisting of a relative pronoun as the subject and a
form of sum ‘to be’ + subject complement are used in a disjunct-like manner, qualify-
ing all or part of the content of the superordinate clause. Examples are (i) and ( j). In
each instance, the subject complement contains a possessive pronoun (or a similar
expression) referring to the subject of the superordinate clause to which it belongs (in
(i): tua . . . te). This type of expression (as well as the next one) is first found in Cicero,
mostly in his letters. For disjuncts of qualification, see also § 16.83.115
(i) Spero enim—quae tua prudentia et temperantia est—<et> hercule, ut me
iubet Acastus, confido te iam ut volumus valere.
(‘For I hope—a hope which is based on your prudence and self-discipline—and
indeed I am confident, as Acastus tells me to be, that you are by now as well as we
wish you.’ Cic. Att. 6.9.1)
( j) Moriar ni, quae tua gloria est, puto te malle a Caesare consuli quam inaurari!
(‘May I die if I don’t believe that such is your vanity that you would rather be con-
sulted by Caesar than gilded by him!’ Cic. Fam. 7.13.1)
Supplement:
Genus orationis, facultatem, copiam sententiarum atque verborum, quae vestra pru-
dentia est, perspexistis. (Cic. Cael. 45); . . . et qui, quae mea neglegentia est, multos
saepe dies ad te cum hic eras non accedebam . . . (Cic. Fam. 8.3.1); Nec dubito quin
sine mea commendatione, quod tuum est iudicium de hominibus, ipsius Lamiae
causa studiose omnia facturus sis. (Cic. Fam. 12.29.2); Quod si qui etiam inferis sen-
sus est qui illius in te amor fuit pietasque in omnis suos, hoc certe illa te facere non
vult. (Serv. Fam. 4.5.6); Velis tantummodo! Quae tua virtus, / expugnabis. (Hor. S.
1.9.54–5); Quaeque tua est pietas, ut te non excolat ipsum, / ius aliquod tecum fratris
amicus habet. (Ov. Pont. 1.7.59–60—NB: tua is related to te(cum)); Plura laudabis,
non nulla ridebis. Quamquam tu vero, quae tua humanitas, nulla ridebis. (Plin. Ep.
8.8.7); Epistulam matri tuae scripsi, quae mea inpudentia est, Graece eamque epistu-
lae ad te scriptae inplicui. (Fro. ad M. Caes. 2.2.8)
Another type of autonomous relative clause functioning in a disjunct-like manner is
illustrated by (k) and (l). The relative expression in these clauses is formed by a rela-
tive determiner and a head noun. This noun phrase is in the ablative (exceptionally
the genitive) and functions as subject complement (the so-called ablativus qualitatis
or genetivus qualitatis). The subject of the relative clause is coreferential with a con-
stituent in the superordinate clause. In (k), the subject of est in the relative clause is
coreferential with the subject of pervenerit.
115 The fullest collection of instances can be found in Howard (1962). The author suggests that these
clauses derive from exclamatory sentences.
(k) . . . utrum admonitus an temptatus an—qua est ipse sagacitate—in his rebus
sine duce ullo, sine indice pervenerit ad hanc improbitatem nescio.
(‘. . . whether he was advised or spurred on, or whether he came to this immoral pro-
ceeding without a guide or information—which is believable for a man of his clever-
ness—? I do not know.’ Cic. Ver. 1.105)
(l) Quae si de uno me cogitasset—qua mollitia sum animi ac lenitate—num-
quam mehercule illius lacrimis ac precibus restitissem.
(‘If he had plotted against me alone, kind and tender-hearted as I am, by Hercules, I
never would have resisted his tears and prayers.’ Cic. Sul. 18)
Supplement:
At Aiax, quo animo traditur, milies oppetere mortem quam illa perpeti maluisset.
(Cic. Off. 1.113); Qua enim prudentia es, nihil te fugiet, si meas litteras diligenter
legeris. (D. Brut. Fam. 11.13.1); Quaecumque de tua dignitate ab imperatore erunt
impetranda, qua est humanitate Caesar, facillimum erit ab eo tibi ipsi impetrare . . .
(Dolab. Fam. 9.9.3); Maximus incumbet, quaque est pietate rogabit, / ne . . . (Ov. Pont.
1.9.27–8); Illud quoque, qua iustitia in omnibus rebus es, necesse est te adiuvet cogi-
tantem non iniuriam tibi factam . . . (Sen. Dial. 11.10.1); Et cuius lenitatis est Galba,
iam fortasse promisit, ut qui nullo exposcente tot milia innocentissimorum militum
trucidaverit. (Tac. Hist. 1.37.2—NB: genitive); Ego . . . neque Paulinum, qua pruden-
tia fuit, sperasse corruptissimo saeculo tantam volgi moderationem reor . . . (Tac.
Hist. 2.37.2); Noster autem, qua est rerum omnium verecunda mediocritate, ne si
Aelii quidem, Cincii et Santrae dicendum ita censuissent, obsecuturum se fuisse ait
contra perpetuam Latinae linguae consuetudinem . . . (Gel. 7.15.5)
NB: related is: Calenus legionibus equitibusque Brundisii in naves inpositis, ut erat
praeceptum a Caesare, quam tum (cj. Faernus; quantum mss.; quantam cj. Vossius—
see below) navium facultatem habebat, naves solvit . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.14.1—NB: the
transmitted text has been changed in various ways)116
Very rare is the use of a form of quantus, as in (m) and (n). See also § 16.83.
(m) Nam et illis—quantum inportunitatis habent—parum est inpune male
fecisse . . .
(‘For—so outrageous are they—they are not satisfied to have done evil with
impunity . . .’ Sal. Jug. 31.22)
(n) Quantaque in Augusto est clementia, siquis ab illo / hoc peteret pro me,
forsitan ille daret.
(‘Such is Augustus’ mercy that if one should ask this of him on my behalf,
perhaps he would grant it.’ Ov. Tr. 4.4a.53–4)
Quod is also used without a clear relationship to a preceding clause, as illustrated
by exx. (o)–(q). Such quod clauses function as disjuncts of restriction and qualifica-
tion, for which see § 16.38 and § 16.83. For the use of quod as a connector, see
§ 24.15 fin.
116 I thank Cynthia Damon for her comments on this passage. I follow her text.
Relative connexion 555
(o) Verum quod tu dicis, mea uxor, non te mi irasci / decet.

(‘But as for what you’re saying, my darling wife, it’s not fair of you to be
angry with me.’ Pl. Am. 522–3)
(p) Verum quod ad ventrem attinet, / non hercle hoc longe, nisi me pugnis
vicerit.
(‘But as far as my stomach is concerned, not this far, unless he wins against
me with his fists, by Hercules.’ Pl. Trin. 482–3)
(q) Me quidem praesente numquam factum est, quod sciam.
(‘This never happened in my presence, as far as I know.’ Pl. Am. 749)
18.28 Relative connexion
The term relative connexion refers to the use of relative expressions (pronouns,
adjectives, adverbs, or relative phrases) to connect independent sentences. The rela-
tive expression is coreferential with a constituent in the (usually immediately) preced-
ing sentence or—relatively often—with the entire preceding clause, sentence, or even
paragraph. It is not always possible to determine whether an utterance with a relative
expression is an independent sentence or a relative clause that is part of a sentence. It
is especially difficult to make a distinction between relative connexion and the use of
a relative clause at the end of the sentence to indicate something like an afterthought.117
Grammars often describe the relationship between a connective relative sentence
and the preceding sentence as additive (qui = et is), adversative (qui = sed is), causal
(qui = is enim), etc. However, sentences with qui differ from those with is (and those
with hic and ille, and without a pronominal subject) in a number of ways (see also
§ 24.9). The former cannot, for example, contain connectors like et ‘and’, sed ‘but’, nam
‘for’, and igitur ‘therefore’ (unless they belong to another clause). Further, qui cannot
be combined with the emphasizing particle quoque ‘too’ whereas hic can. Within its
sentence the connective relative pronoun functions less often as subject and is more
frequently part of an ablative absolute clause than the other anaphoric and anaphor-
ically used pronouns. These observations are in line with the relative character of
the connexion. In narrative texts the events referred to in sentences with relative
connexion are relatively often in the historical present or perfect and belong to the
story line (that is, they do not contain background information, as ‘normal’ relative
clauses do).118
117 See Longrée (1996a; 1996b; 2005) on criteria to distinguish relative clauses as an afterthought
(‘en rallonge’) from relative connexion, with references.
118 See Bolkestein (1996a) and Pennell Ross (1996) with findings based on Caesar. Also Longrée (2005:
40–1) for Caesar, Sallust, and Tacitus. For a broader perspective and criteria to distinguish relative con-
nexion from ‘normal relatives’, see Rosén (1999: 167). For Tacitus’ use of relative connexion and anaphoric
is, see Longrée (2002b). See also Spevak (2010a: 87–9).
Relative connexion is relatively rare in Early Latin except in Ennius’ poetry (in
Plautus three to four columns out of sixty-three in Lodge’s lexicon)119 and limited in
the range of various uses that can be distinguished.120 However, it is quite popular in
the Classical prose of Cicero and Caesar, where 20 per cent of the sentences are con-
nected in this way.121 This increase is sometimes regarded as a sign of evolution,122 but
in reality it is a stylistic preference. It is rare in Petronius.123 In Table 18.2 on p. 476
Lucretius and Ovid appear as frequent users of this type.124
Not all scholars recognize the existence of relative connexion, and editors vary in
their punctuation. It is sometimes regarded as a problem of translating Latin relative
clauses into modern languages which are more restricted in their use of relative
devices.125
There are two types of relative connexion, one with a relative pronoun, the other
with a relative phrase. Examples of the former are (a)–(c), of the latter (d)–(f). Very
common are expressions like quam ob rem in (e). In (g), the relative determiner
quem links the two-place noun metum to the object of the warning expressed in the
preceding sentence. The determiner quem can be said to be equivalent to the geni-
tive pronoun cuius (a so-called objective genitive). (For the use of the anaphoric
determiner in the same way, see § 11.105.) Ablative absolutes containing a relative
expression at the beginning of a sentence often serve to summarize preceding
events, as in (h). Exx. (b), (c), and (f) resemble the instances of interlacing dis-
cussed in § 18.10. The ordering relative expression > subordinator is obligatory in
Classical Latin prose.126
(a) Quem pol ego hodie ob istaec dicta faciam ferventem flagris.
(‘For those words, by Pollux, I’ll warm you up with whips today.’ Pl. Am. 1030)
(b) Lycurgus quidem, qui Lacedaemoniorum rem publicam temperavit, leges
suas auctoritate Apollinis Delphici confirmavit. Quas cum vellet Lysander
commutare, eadem est prohibitus religione.
(‘Lycurgus himself, who once organized the Spartan state, established his laws by
authority of Apollo’s Delphic oracle. When Lysander wished to change these laws, he
was prevented by the same religious authority.’ Cic. Div. 1.96)
119 In Lodge s.v. qui, pp. 472–4, §§ M and N.

120 For the evolution of the use of relative connexion, see Rosén (1999: 165–73).
121 See Kurzová (1981: 47). In Caesar’s works 27 per cent of relative clauses are punctuated as inde-
pendent sentences (Évrard 2011: 194).
122 ‘Dieser relative Anschluss wird mit Recht als das letzte Moment in der Entwicklung der relativen
Syntaxe betrachtet’ (K.-St.: II.319).
123 See Petersmann (1977: 272).
124 For the quite common use of relative connexion by Lucretius and his relation to earlier authors, see
Vonlaufen (1974: 179–84).
125 See especially Touratier (1994: 546–7) and Évrard (1992; 2011), who also discusses the history of
the concept of relative connexion.
126 See Pennell Ross (1987: 95–9) on what she calls ‘displacement’ in Caesar, Sallust, and Livy. See also
Panhuis (1982: 122).
(c) Quam (sc. coronam) quod amor civium et non vis expresserat, nullam habuit
invidiam magnaque fuit gloria.
(‘Because the love of his fellow-citizens, not force, had induced them to give him this
crown, it excited no envy, but brought him great glory.’ Nep. Thr. 4.1)
(d) Quae res bene vortat mi et tibi et ventri meo . . .
(‘May this turn out well for me and you and my belly . . .’ Pl. Per. 329)
(e) Quam ob rem mi magis par est via decedere et concedere.
(‘For this reason it’s more appropriate to get off the street for me and to get out of my
way.’ Pl. Am. 990)
(f) Qui mos cum a posterioribus non esset retentus, Arcesilas eum revocavit . . .
(‘When this practice was not continued by his successors, Arcesilas reinstituted it . . .’
Cic. Fin. 2.2)
(g) Ne in unius imperium res reccidat admonemur. Ad quem metum si deorum
monitis non duceremur, tamen ipsi nostro sensu coniecturaque raperemur.
(‘We are warned to take care that the republic does not fall under the absolute domin-
ion of a single individual. And even if we were not led to this fear by the warnings of
the gods, we should nonetheless be forcibly driven upon it by our own powers of
perception and inference.’ Cic. Har. 54)
(h) . . . subito vi ventorum et aquae magnitudine pons est interruptus et reliqua
multitudo equitum interclusa. Quo cognito a Petreio et Afranio . . . legiones
IIII equitatumque omnem traiecit . . .
(‘. . . the bridge was suddenly broken down by a storm of wind and a great rush of
water, and a large force of cavalry that remained behind was cut off. When Petreius
and Afranius discovered this, . . . (Afranius) immediately sent four legions and all his
cavalry across . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.40.3–4)
Supplement:
Amat, sapit, recte facit, animo quando opsequitur suo. Quod omnis homines facere
oportet . . . (Pl. Am. 995–6); Nunc hinc parasitum in Cariam misi meum / petitum
argentum a meo sodali mutuom. / Quod si non affert, quo me vortam nescio. (Pl.
Cur. 67–9); Nam hunc nescire sat scio / de illa amica. Quod si sciret, esset alia oratio.
(Pl. Mer. 382–3); Quos quom ferias, tibi plus noceas. (Pl. Ps. 137–8); Quos quidem
quam ad rem dicam in argentariis referre habere, nisi pro tabulis, nescio . . . (Pl. Truc.
70); Alter terribilem minatur vitae cruciatum et necem. / Quae nemo est tam firmo
ingenio et tanta confidentia / quin refugiat timido sanguen atque exalbescat metu.
(Enn. scen. 24–6V=18–20J); Quod qui rescierint, culpent. Illud merito factum omnes
putent. (Ter. Eu. 387); . . . gloria · atque · ingenium quibus sei / in · longa ·
licuset · tibe utier vita / facile · facteis · superases · gloriam / maiorum.
(CIL I2.10.5–8 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.170 bc?)); Nam illud quidem non dices?—quod
utinam dicas!—ad Apronium non pervenisse tantum. (Cic. Ver. 3.107); Quo quid
miserius, quid acerbius, quid luctuosius vidimus? (Cic. Mil. 90); Quod si ita esset, ut
quisque minimum esse in se arbitraretur, ita ad amicitiam esset aptissimus. Quod
longe secus est. (Cic. Amic. 29); Quem inridebant collegae tui eumque tum Pisidam,
tum Soranum augurem esse dicebant. (Cic. Div. 1.105); Quo quid potest dici absur-
dius? (Cic. Div. 2.98); An eum discere ea mavis quae cum plane perdidicerit nihil
sciat? (Cic. Fin. 5.76); Restant duae perturbationes, laetitia gestiens et libido. Quae si
non cadent in sapientem, semper mens erit tranquilla sapientis. (Cic. Tusc. 4.8); Quo
audito vehementer sum commotus . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.4.4); Reducitur ad eum depren-
sus ex itinere N. Magius Cremona, praefectus fabrum Cn. Pompei. Quem Caesar ad
eum remittit cum mandatis. (Caes. Civ. 1.24.4); Quorum oratione permotus Varus
praesidium quod introduxerat ex oppido educit ac profugit. (Caes. Civ. 1.13.2); Ad
quos cum Caesar nuntios misisset . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.16.3); Quarta quoque his igitur
quaedam natura necesse’st / adtribuatur. Ea’st omnino nominis expers. / Qua neque
mobilius quicquam neque tenuius extat / nec magis e parvis et levibus ex (est cj.
Wakefield) elementis. / Sensiferos motus quae didit prima per artus. (Lucr. 3.241–5);
Quem ut barbari incendium effugisse viderunt, telis eminus missis inter-
fecerunt . . . (Nep. Alc. 10.6); Quibus illi freti non, uti equestri proelio solet, sequi,
dein cedere, sed advorsis equis concurrere . . . (Sal. Jug. 59.3—NB: historic infinitive);
Quod ubi audivit consul, extemplo filium aversatus contionem classico advocari ius-
sit. (Liv. 8.7.14); Quod si factum esset, votum rite solvi non posse. (Liv. 31.9.7); Quae
cum ita sint, ego iam hinc praedico, patres conscripti, me exercitu eo qui nunc est rem
publicam administraturum. (Liv. 40.35.14); Foveam igne repletam terra superiecta
obruit. In quam adulescentibus lapsis et consumptis accusatur rei publicae laesae.
(Sen. Con. 10.1.13—NB: some editors print this as one sentence); E quibus qui a
teneris aetatibus doctrinarum abundantia satiantur optimos habent sapientiae sen-
sus . . . (Vitr. 9. pr. 2); Conduntur hieme et Pontici mures, dumtaxat alvi. Quorum
palatum in gustu sagacissimum auctores quonam modo intellexerint miror. (Plin.
Nat. 8.132); In quo ita loquimur, tamquam omnis sermo habeat figuram . . . (Quint.
Inst. 9.1.12)
Audimus aliquem tabulas numquam confecisse. Quae est opinio hominum de
M. Antonio falsa, nam fecit diligentissime. (Cic. Ver. 1.60); Cui legi cum vestra dig-
nitas vehementer adversetur, istius spes falsa et insignis inpudentia maxime suf-
fragatur. (Cic. Ver. 5.178); Quarum omnium rerum quia vis erat tanta ut sine deo
regi non posset, ipsa res deorum nomen optinuit. (Cic. N.D. 2.61); Tarsum veni a. d.
III Non. Oct. inde ad Amanum contendi, qui Syriam a Cilicia in aquarum divortio
dividit; qui mons erat hostium plenus sempiternorum. (Cic. Att. 5.20.3); Postea
mihi non tam meorum litterae quam sermones eorum qui hac iter faciebant ani-
mum tuum immutatum significabant. Quae res fecit ut tibi litteris obstrepere non
auderem. (Cic. Fam. 5.4.1); Consueverat, si iure non potuerat, iniuria quavis inimico
exitium machinari. Cui rei mors indigna Palamedi testimonium dat. (Rhet. Her.
2.28); Quae res omnium rerum copia complevit exercitum. (Caes. Civ. 2.25.7); Nam
tota fere tum / tempestas concussa tremit fremitusque moventur. / Quo de concussu
sequitur gravis imber et uber . . . (Lucr. 6. 288–90); . . . prope uti locus hic linquatur
inanis. / Cuius ubi e regione loci venere volantis . . . (Lucr. 6.832–3); Cuius victoriae
non alienum videtur quale praemium Miltiadi sit tributum docere . . . (Nep. Milt.
6.1); Qui mos cui potius quam consuli aut quando magis usurpandus colendusque
est . . . (Plin. Pan. 1.2)
Connective relative not immediately following the clause in which its antecedent
is present: . . . signa legionum . . . conspiciuntur, quas C. Fabius . . . miserat, suspicatus
fore—id quod accidit—ut duces . . . uterentur. Quarum adventu proelium dirimi-

tur . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.40.7).127
Tamen ‘nevertheless’ is said to be an exception to the incompatibility of connective
relatives and connectors, in view of instances like (i), but tamen is an adverb (see
§ 24.31).128 Very exceptional is the use of et in ( j).
(i) At cuius hominis! Clarissimi ac potentissimi. Qui tamen cum consul fuisset,
condemnatus est.
(‘But what a man. Very eminent and powerful. Yet, though an ex-consul, he
was prosecuted and found guilty.’ Cic. Ver. 4.22)
( j) . . . et · cuius · mortem · gavisum · esse · eum · his · argumentis · senatui ·
apparuerit.
(‘. . . that he rejoiced in his death was obvious to the senate from the following
evidence.’ S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre Copy A.61–2 (ad 20))
Sometimes a connective relative that refers to the preceding content is developed
later on in the sentence, as in (k) and (l).
(k) Quod si rescierit peperisse eam, id qua causa clam me habuisse / dicam, non
edepol scio.
(‘If he discovers she’s had a child, heaven help me, I’ve no idea what reason
I can give him for keeping it secret.’ Ter. Hec. 519–20)
(l) Quod tamen nemo suspicari debet, tam esse me cupidum ut . . .
(‘This no one ought to suppose, that my eagerness should make me willing
that . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.124)
Supplement:
Quo quidem mihi turpius videri nihil solet quam cum ex oratoris dicto aliquo aut
responso aut rogato sermo ille sequitur: ‘occidit’. (Cic. de Orat. 2.302); Quod postquam
Caesar intellexit incitatis militum animis resisti nullo modo posse signo Felicitatis dato
equo admisso in hostem inter principes ire contendit. (B. Afr. 83.1); Quae ubi in castra
Siculorum sunt nuntiata, Epicyden Syracusis excessisse, a Carthaginiensibus relictam
insulam et prope iterum traditam Romanis, legatos de condicionibus dedendae urbis
explorata prius per conloquia voluntate eorum, qui obsidebantur, ad Marcellum
mittunt. (Liv. 25.28.1–2)
Sentences with a connective relative can in principle be of any sentence type (declara-
tive, imperative, and interrogative). They can be part of an accusative and infinitive
sentence (see § 15.107), but usually they belong to a subordinate clause within the
accusative and infinitive sentence, as in (m).129 Disjuncts and discourse particles
can be used. An example of an imperative sentence is (n), of an interrogative, (o).
See also § 18.6.
127 Example taken from Bolkestein (1996a: 563–4). 128 See Spevak (2006c).
129 See Évrard (2011: 194–203).
(m) Caesarem . . . facile intercludi posse frumentoque prohiberi. Quod nisi fecerit
(sc. Pompeius), se (sc. Domitium) cohortesque amplius XXX magnumque
numerum senatorum atque equitum Romanorum in periculum esse venturum.
(‘That Caesar . . . could easily be trapped and cut off from his food supply. But if
Pompey did not do this, he (Domitius), more than thirty cohorts, and a large number
of senators and men of equestrian rank would be in danger.’ Caes. Civ. 1.17.1–2)
(n) Is hunc suo testimonio sublevat. Quod recita.
(‘He gives evidence in his favour. Read this evidence.’ Cic. Clu. 168)
(o) (sc. hae translationes) Quarum ego quid vobis aut inveniendi rationem aut
genera ponam?
(‘Why should I specify for you the categories of these or the method of discovering
them?’ Cic. de Orat. 3.156)
Supplement:
Imperative: Apud alium ipsis facti pudet, / ne ineptu’, ne protervo’ videar. Quod
illum facere credito. (Ter. Hau. 576–7); (sc. belua) Quae quoniam in foveam incidit
obruatur. (Cic. Phil. 4.12); Omne igitur caelum sive mundus, sive quo alio vocabulo
gaudet, hoc a nobis nuncupatus sit—de quo id primum consideremus . . . (Cic. Tim.
4—NB: translates Greek: }up.~hzx oŅzåx .p{ā lß~zŪ .{ŷ~zx); Quorum progeniem
vos, patres conscripti, nolite pati me nepotem Masinissae frustra a vobis auxilium
petere. (Sal. Jug. 14.6)
Interrogative: Ai’n tu te illius invenisse filiam? # Inveni, et domi est. / . . . / # Quamne
hodie per urbem uterque sumus defessi quaerere? (Pl. Epid. 717–19); Quae quo
usque tandem patiemini, o fortissumi viri? (Sal. Cat. 20.9)
18.29 The use of the connective relative in ablative absolute clauses

The use of connective relative pronouns and phrases in ablative absolute clauses is
found from Ennius onwards, as in (a). The ablative absolute in that example functions
as a summary of the preceding event. The use of such sentence-initial clauses is fre-
quent in Caesar’s narrative. The clauses may, however, be more elaborate—as in (b)
and (c)—and they need not be in sentence-initial position, as in (e). Note in (b) the
position of Caesar in the middle of the ablative absolute clause. In (d), hunc refers
back to quo in the ablative absolute.
(a) Mater gravida parere se ardentem facem / visa est in somnis Hecuba. Quo
facto pater / rex ipse Priamus . . . / exsacrificabat hostiis balantibus.
(‘My mother Hecuba, heavy with child, in a dream thought she gave birth to a burn-
ing brand; when this happened my father king Priam himself . . . made atoning sacri-
fice with bleating victims.’ Enn. scen. 35–9V=50–4J)
(b) Quibus litteris circiter media nocte Caesar adlatis suos facit certiores eosque
ad dimicandum animo confirmat.
(‘When this dispatch was delivered about midnight, Caesar informed his troops of it
and encouraged them for the fight.’ Caes. Gal. 5.49.4)
(c) In campo certe non fuisti cum hora secunda comitiis quaestoris institutis
sella Q. Maximi, quem illi consulem esse dicebant, posita esset. Quo mortuo
nuntiato sella sublata est.
(‘At all events you were not in the Campus Martius when, after the opening of the
Comitia for the election of quaestors, at the second hour, the chair of Q. Maximus,
whom those men declared to be consul, was set; and then, on the announcement of
his death, the chair was put away.’ Cic. Fam. 7.30.1)
(d) Quo percusso exanimatoque hunc scutis protegunt hostes, in illum universi
tela coniciunt neque dant regrediendi facultatem.
(‘When he was struck senseless, the enemy sought to cover him with their shields,
and discharged their spears in a volley at the foeman and gave him no chance to
retire.’ Caes. Gal. 5.44.6)
(e) . . . qua Lysimachi quondam regnum fuerit, quo victo omnia quae illius fuis-
sent iure belli Seleuci facta sint, existimare suae dicionis esse.
(‘. . . (but all the country) which had once been the kingdom of Lysimachus, and all of
which, when he was defeated, passed into the hands of that man Seleucus by right of
conquest, he considered his own.’ Liv. 33.40.3)
Supplement:
Quo mortuo, nec ita multo post, in Galliam proficiscitur Quinctius. (Cic. Quinct.
15); . . . ut iis consulibus praetor esset, quibus si non adiuvantibus, at coniventibus
certe speraret se posse eludere in illis suis cogitatis furoribus. (Cic. Mil. 32); Quibus
hic litteris lectis ad urbem confestim incredibili celeritate advolavit. (Cic. Sest. 11);
Recte videretur, nisi et virtutis et vitiorum sine ulla divina ratione grave ipsius con-
scientiae pondus esset, qua sublata iacent omnia. (Cic. N.D. 3.85); Cui cum tres
optationes Neptunus dedisset optavit, interitum Hippolyti filii, cum is patri suspec-
tus esset de noverca; quo optato impetrato Theseus in maximis fuit luctibus. (Cic.
Off. 3.94); Quibus rebus ego cognitis cunctatus non sum. (Planc. Fam. 10.15.2);
Qua pronuntiatione facta temporis puncto sublatis ancoris omnes Uticam relin-
quunt et quo imperatum est transeunt. (Caes. Civ. 2.25.7); Qua perfecta munitione
animadversum est ab speculatoribus Caesaris cohortes quasdam . . . (Caes. Civ.
3.66.1); Quibus ad sequendum impeditis Caesar quod fore providerat meridiano
fere tempore signo profectionis dato exercitum educit . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.76.4); Qua re
cognita Vercingetorix omnibus interruptis eius fluminis pontibus ab altera fluminis
parte iter facere coepit. (Caes. Gal. 7.34.3); Quibus rebus confectis omnia propere
per nuntios consuli declarantur. (Sal. Cat. 46.1); . . . raptim quibus quisque poterat
elatis cum . . . exirent, iam continens agmen migrantium inpleverat vias . . . (Liv.
1.29.4–5); Quo repulso tum vero indignum facinus esse clamitantes, qui patrum
consulibus aderant, devolant de tribunali, ut lictori auxilio essent. (Liv.
2.29.3); . . . quibus poterat sauciis ductis . . . ad urbem proximis itineribus pergit.
(Liv. 4.39.9); . . . ceciditque miserabilius quam ille quo cadente factus est clamor.
(August. Conf. 6.13)
Ablative absolutes are also common in (non-restrictive) adnominal relative clauses.
Examples are (f)–(h).
(f) . . . me expulso, Catone amandato, in eum ipsum se convertit quo auctore,

quo adiutore in contionibus ea quae gerebat omnia quaeque gesserat se et
fecisse et facere dicebat.
(‘. . . as soon as I had been expelled and Cato removed, he turned round upon
the very man whose agency and assistance in mass meetings had enabled
him, as he himself admitted, to carry out all his projects in the past, and still
continued to enable him.’ Cic. Dom. 66)
(g) Nam post Q. Fulvium Q. Fabium consules, quibus consulibus Capua devicta
atque capta est, nihil est in illa urbe contra hanc rem publicam non dico
factum, sed nihil omnino est cogitatum.
(‘For, after the consulship of Quintus Fulvius and Quintus Fabius, during
whose consulship Capua was subdued and taken, nothing has even been
thought of in that city, much less done, that is against the interests of this
republic.’ Cic. Agr. 2.90)
(h) (Africanus) . . . quo vivo, nisi ut ille senatu moveretur, quam notam nemo
memoriae prodidit, alius princeps in locum eius lectus non esset.
(‘. . . and while he lived, unless he had been expelled from the senate, a dis-
grace which no one has recorded, another princeps would not have been
chosen in his stead.’ Liv. 39.52.1)
Supplement:
Eos enim civis pugna illa sustulerat, quibus non modo vivis sed etiam victoribus
incolumis et florens civitas esse posset. (Cic. Phil. 14.23); An hoc tibi persuasum est,
fore ceteros ab eo liberos, quo invito nobis in ista civitate locus non sit? (Brut. ad
Brut. 1.16.5)
18.30 Coordination of relative clauses
Coordination of adnominal relative clauses with repetition of the relative pronoun is

discussed in § 18.13. This section deals with coordination of relative clauses of what-
ever type without repetition of the pronoun. The second (or following) relative expres-
sion need not be expressed, if the functions of the relative expressions in their clauses
are the same. This is the case in (a), where there is no explicit subject of praefuerunt
(signalled by ‘Ø’); qui functions as the subject of both clauses. Similarly in (b). If, on
the other hand, the functions are different, the second (or following) relative expres-
sion is normally expressed, as in (c) and (d) (for constraints on coordination in gen-
eral, see §§ 19.75–81).
(a) Quem umquam audisti maiorum tuorum, qui et sacra privata coluerunt et Ø
publicis sacerdotiis praefuerunt, cum sacrificium Bonae Deae fieret interfuisse?
(‘Who of your ancestors, who were assiduous in their performance of private rites
and their supervision of state priesthoods, have you heard intruded when the sacri-
fice to the Benign Goddess was being performed?’ Cic. Dom. 105)
Coordination of relative clauses 563
(b) Itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo tempore principatum

in civitate obtinebat ac Ø maxime plebi acceptus erat, ut idem conaretur
persuadet . . .
(‘And Dumnorix also, of the Aedui, brother of Diviciacus, who at that time held the
chieftaincy of the state and was a great favourite with the common people, he per-
suaded to attempt the same thing . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.3.5)
(c) Edepol me uxori exoptatum credo adventurum domum, / quae me amat,
quam contra amo.
(‘By Pollux, I’ll come home much longed-for by my wife, I think, who loves me as I
love her.’ Pl. Am. 654–5)
(d) . . . quaeque ipse miserrima vidi / et quorum pars magna fui.
(‘. . . the sights most piteous that I saw myself and wherein I played no small role.’
Verg. A. 2.5–6)
However, throughout Latinity instances can be found where a second relative is absent
even though there is a difference in function. Several patterns may be distinguished.
In (e), the two coordinated clauses share a second argument. If we insert a second
relative, it must be in the accusative (quam), whereas utor governs an ablative (qua).
In (f), the subject of the embedded accusative and infinitive (quae) and the subject of
the coordinated clause are identical. Formally, the expressed quae is an accusative,
while the absent one would be a nominative. What is noteworthy is the fact that the
clauses are hierarchically different. In (g), the absent relative is the subject in its clause
(qui), whereas the expressed one is the object in its clause: the relatives therefore have
two different functions. In (h) cui is the third argument in its clause (a recipient),
whereas the absent relative (quem) is the subject of the embedded accusative and
infinitive clause. Other possibilities (one relative satellite, the other argument, and
one relative attribute, the other sentence constituent) are given in the Supplement.130
All these examples concern conjunctive coordination. An exceptional instance of dis-
junctive coordination with aut is (i).131
(e) Prima est (sc. species) qua usi antiqui et Ø (= quam) nos reliquimus . . .
(‘The first (category) is that which the ancients used and we have abandoned . . .’ Var.
L. 10.4.73)
(f) Quae superiore tempore fieri oportuerit et Ø (= quae) non sunt absoluta . . .
(‘What should have been done in the former period but was not completed . . .’
Var. R. 1.30.1)
(g) Bocchus cum peditibus, quos Volux, filius eius, adduxerat neque Ø (= et qui
non) in priore pugna, in itinere morati, adfuerant, postremam Romanorum
aciem invadunt.
(‘Bocchus with the infantry which his son Volux had brought and which had been
delayed on the way and had not taken part in the former battle, charged the Roman
rear.’ Sal. Jug. 101.5)
130 The examples are taken from K.-St.: II.324. 131 Mentioned by TLL s.v. aut 1565.79ff.
(h) . . . quemque dignum fortuna quam amplissima putant aut cui fidem habent
et Ø (= quem) bene rebus suis consulere arbitrantur aut . . .
(‘. . . who they think is worthy of the most splendid fortune a man can have, or whom
they have confidence in and who they think manages his own affairs well or . . .’
Cic. Off. 2.21)
(i) At quibus longior mora est et ignis fortior motumque caeli sequens aut Ø
(= qui) etiam proprios cursus agunt cometas nostri putant, de quibus dic-
tum est.
(‘But the ones which last a long time, and have a stronger flame, and follow the
motion of the sky or even maintain their own course, our Stoics call comets (which
have already been discussed).’ Sen. Nat. 1.15.4)
Supplement corresponding to exx. (e)–(h):

Eamne rationem igitur sequere, qua tecum ipse et cum tuis utare, Ø profiteri et in
medium proferre non audeas? (Cic. Fin. 2.76)
Omnibus modis qui pauperes sunt homines miseri vivont, / praesertim quibus nec
quaestus est neque Ø <e>didicere artem ullam. (Pl. Rud. 290–1); Nam qui cum inge-
niis conflictatur eius modi / neque Ø commovetur animus in ea re tamen, / scias
posse habere iam ipsum suae vitae modum. (Ter. An. 93–5); . . . mancipium putarunt,
quo et omnes utimur et Ø non praebetur a populo. (Cic. Ver. 4.9); Nam illud tertium,
quod et a Crasso tactum est et Ø ut audio ille ipse Aristoteles, qui haec maxime inlus-
travit adiunxit, etiamsi opus est, minus est tamen necessarium. (Cic. de Orat. 2.43);
Qui autem se integros castosque servavissent, quibusque fuisset minima cum corpo-
ribus contagio Ø seseque ab is semper sevocavissent . . . is ad illos a quibus essent pro-
fecti reditum facilem patere. (Cic. Tusc 1.72); . . . bello superatos esse Arvernos et
Rutenos a[b] Quinto Fabio Maximo, quibus p. R. ignovisset neque Ø in provinciam
redegisset [neque . . . redegisset del. Meusel] neque Ø stipendium inposuisset. (Caes.
Gal. 1.45.2); In ea nave captus est P. Vestrius eques Romanus et P. Ligarius Afranianus
quem Caesar in Hispania cum reliquis dimiserat et Ø postea se ad Pompeium
contulerat . . . (B. Afr. 64.1); Longe illi dea mater erit, quae nube (sc. eum) fugacem /
feminea tegat et Ø vanis sese occulat umbris. (Verg. A. 12.52–3);132 . . . Pallantis pueri,
victum quem vulnere Turnus / straverat atque Ø umeris inimicum insigne gerebat.
(Verg. A. 12.943–4); . . . destillat ab inguine virus, / hippomanes, quod saepe malae
legere novercae / Ø miscueruntque herbas et non innoxia verba. (Verg. G. 3.281–3);
At ex parte altera pontifex Livius, cui lictores Decius tradiderat Ø iusseratque pro
praetore esse, vociferari vicisse Romanos, defunctos consulis fato. (Liv. 10.29.3); . . . id
ipsum est quod addubito et Ø consilium posco. (Fro. Caes. 3.3.3)
Nunc reliquum iudices attendite, de quo et vos audistis et populus Romanus non
nunc primum audiet et Ø in exteris nationibus usque ad ultimas terras pervulgatum
est. (Cic. Ver. 4.64); Nonne illius similitudo est arboris, sub qua sibi furens manus
et infelix adulescentulus intulit et Ø genetrix divum in solatium sui vulneris conse-
cravit? (Arn. 5.16)
132 For this interpretation, see Conte (2016: 55–8).

Coordination of relative clauses 565
M. Bibulum cuius inclusione contentus non eras, Ø interficere volueras, spoliaras

consulatu, patria privare cupiebas. (Cic. Vat. 24); Leptitanos quorum superioribus
annis bona Iuba diripuerat et Ø ad senatum questi per legatos atque arbitris a senatu
datis sua receperant XXX centenis milibus pondo olei in annos singulos mul-
tat . . . (B. Afr. 97.3)
There are a few attestations of coordination of a clause with a relative clause although
the relative has no function in the second clause, as in ( j).133
( j) . . . necesse est terra adruenda pulvinos fieri, quos inrigationes et pluviae
tempestates abluunt et agrum faciunt macriorem.
(‘. . . beds must be formed by heaping up the soil, and irrigation and heavy
rains wash these away and thus make the ground poorer.’ Var. R. 1.35.1)
Supplement:
Actum est de decem legatis, quos alii omnino non dabant, Ø alii exempla quaerebant,
Ø alii tempus differebant, Ø alii sine ullis verborum ornamentis dabant. (Cic. Prov. 28)
A minor alternative for ‘repeating’ relative expressions when the functions in their
clauses are different is shown in (k) and (l). The second clause has an anaphoric(ally
used) pronoun instead.134
(k) Multos iste morbus homines macerat, / quibus insputari saluti fuit atque is
(= iis) profuit.
(‘That illness wears down a lot of people for whom being spat on was helpful
and beneficial.’ Pl. Capt. 554–5)
(l) Sed omnes tum fere, qui nec extra urbem hanc vixerant neque eos aliqua
barbaries domestica infuscaverat, recte loquebantur.
(‘Still, practically everyone, who had not lived outside this city and whose
speech no crudeness of home environment had tainted, in those days spoke
well and correctly.’ Cic. Brut. 258)
Supplement:
Quem neque fides neque iusiurandum neque illum misericordia / repressit neque . . .
(Ter. Ad. 306–7); Altera, quae latius patet, de lacte et caseo, quam scriptores Graeci
separatim ~{z.ztjlx appellaverunt ac scripserunt de ea re permulta. (Var. R.
2.1.28); . . . Themistocles; ad quem quidam doctus homo atque in primis eruditus
accessisse dicitur eique artem memoriae, quae tum primum proferebatur, pollicitus
esse se traditurum. (Cic. de Orat. 2.299); . . . ut bestiis aliud alii praecipui a natura
datum est, quod suum quaeque retinet nec discedit ab eo . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.38); (sc.
laurus) . . . quam pater inventam . . . / ipse ferebatur Phoebo sacrasse Latinus /
Laurentisque ab ea nomen posuisse colonis. (Verg. A. 7.61–3); . . . abstractum a Deci
Magi latere, cum quo ferocissime pro Romana societate adversus Punicum foedus
steterat, nec eum aut inclinata in partem alteram civitas aut patria maiestas sententia
133 For a few more instances, see K.-St.: II.325.

134 Lebreton (1901a: 100–1) has the (twenty) Ciceronian instances (against eighty-four instances of
repetition of the relative pronoun). See also K.-St.: II.324–5.
depulerat. (Liv. 23.8.3); . . . domi improspera fuit ob impudicitiam filiae ac neptis,

quas urbe depulit adulterosque earum morte aut fuga punivit. (Tac. Ann. 3.24.2)
There are some instances of coordination of a relative pronoun with a noun or noun
phrase, as in (m) and (n).135
(m) Asia dicta ab nympha, a qua et Iapeto traditur Prometheus.
(‘Asia was named from the nymph, and it was by her and Iapetus that Prometheus is
said to have been begotten.’ Var. L. 5.31)
(n) Erat stagnum salinarum inter quod et mare angustiae quaedam . . . intererant.
(‘There was a lagoon of salt water, between which and the sea there was a certain
narrow strip of land . . .’ B. Afr. 80.1)
Appendix: From Apuleius (see ex. (o)) onwards, relative clauses are found with a
‘pleonastic’ anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun in the same case as the relative pro-
noun. These combinations appear in larger numbers in ecclesiastical authors and in
Bible translations, as in (p), under the influence of the Greek original (itself influ-
enced by the Hebrew).136 A remarkable example is (s), usually considered the first
instance of the phenomenon, but it is deviant in that the two pronouns are juxta-
posed. There are a few more attestations before Apuleius (Pl. Cist. 691; Var. R. 1.12.3;
Liv. 8.37.8—usually emended; Att. 10.1.1 is different).137 There are also instances
like (t), quoted by Augustine in his comments on odd Latin translations of the
Bible text, where the anaphoric pronoun is in a construction that differs from the
relative pronoun.
(o) De isto quidem, mi erilis, tecum ipsa videris, quem sine meo consilio
pigrum et formidulosum familiarem istum sortita es . . .
(‘You must decide yourself, mistress, what is to be done with this feeble cra-
ven lover you acquired without my advice . . .’ Apul. Met. 9.16.1)
(p) Nam et hoc scire debes me et dominis meis fratribus tuis scripsisse, quas
peto illis eas legere digneris.
(‘This too you should know, that I have written also to my lords, your brethren,
and I beg you to deem it worthy to read these Epistles to them.’ Cypr. Ep. 21.4.2)
(q) Terentiae · Rufillae · v. ·V. / cuius · multi · temporis · bonitatem / et ·
humanitatem · eius · circa · se / in brevi · senserunt.
(‘To Terentia Rufilla, Vestal virgin, whose goodness and humanity towards
themselves many people of her time felt for a short time.’ CIL VI.2135.10
(Rome, c. ad 250)—the interpretation of the text is problematic)
(r) . . . quod divo Iuliano fuit acceptus, cuius memorandis virtutibus eius ambo
fratres principes obtrectabant nec similes eius nec suppares.
135 For a few more instances, see K.-St.: II.325.

136 For the Hebrew basis of these expressions, see Rubio (2009: 212–13).
137 See TLL s.v. hic 2743.21ff.; ille 353.39ff.; is 465.11ff.; iste 505.35ff. Discussion in Sz.: 556–7 (also for
references), Callebat (1968: 110), Touratier (1980: 482–514—‘relative pléonastique’), Lavency (1998b:
111), and Pompei (2011b: 84–5).
Indefinite relative clauses 567
(‘. . . because he had been well regarded by the deified Julian, whose noteworthy
merits both the imperial brothers depreciated, without being his equal or
anywhere near it.’ Amm. 26.10.8—NB: eius is absent from some of the mss.)
(s) Inter eosne homines condalium te redipisci postulas? Quorum (coram cj.
Gratwick) eorum unus surrupuit currenti cursori solum.
(‘Do you expect to recover your ring from among these people? One of
them stole the sole of a runner’s shoe from him while he was actually
running.’ Pl. Trin. 1022–3)
(t) . . . et terra quam inhabitasti in ea . . .
(‘…and the land in which you have lived . . .’ Vet. Lat. Gen. 21.23 (= August.
Loc. Hept. 1.68)—NB: Vulg.: . . . terrae in qua versatus es . . .)
18.31 Indefinite relative clauses
Latin has a number of so-called indefinite relative pronouns (more precisely,

pronouns and determiners) which can in principle be used in both adnominal and
autonomous clauses. The distribution of these expressions is very uneven. In Early
Latin quicumque (also qui . . . cumque) is rare in comparison with quisquis. In Cicero,
by contrast, the quicumque type is more common than the quisquis type. Neuter quic-
quid is especially common. Plural forms are very rarely attested. The mood in these
indefinite clauses is almost always the indicative.138
18.32 Indefinite adnominal relative clauses

The so-called indefinite relative pronouns quicumque ‘who in any way’ or ‘which
in any way’ and—rarely—quisquis ‘whoever it is that’ or ‘whatever it is that’ can be
used in adnominal relative clauses more or less in the same way as qui clauses. The
first attestation of quicumque is in (a). The first clear instance of the adnominal use of
quisquis seems to be (c).139
(a) Quaestor . . . facito in diebus V proxumeis quibus quomque eiei
aerarium provincia obvenerit <fisci resignentur . . .>
(‘The quaestor shall cause the baskets to be unsealed within the next five days after
the treasury shall have fallen to him as his department . . .’ CIL I2.583.68 (Lex Acilia,
122 bc))
(b) . . . non semper easdem sententias ab isdem sed quascumque rei publicae
status . . . postularet esse defensas.
(‘. . . that the same opinions have not always been held by the same men, but that they
have adopted whatever sentiments the state of the republic would demand.’ Cic.
Planc. 94)
138 For discussion, see Ghiselli (1961).

139 More examples in OLD s.v. quicumque § 1.b; quisquis § 3.
(c) Inter omnes (sc. odores) potentissimus odor quisquis novissime additur.
(‘Among all the scents the most powerful is whichever scent is added last.’ Plin.
Nat. 13.19)
18.33 Indefinite autonomous relative clauses

The indefinite relative pronouns/determiners quisquis ‘anyone who’ and quicumque
‘whoever’ have generalizing force. The pronoun quisque (in Early Latin, in inscrip-
tions, and in Late Latin)140 and the relative pronoun uter ‘whichever of the two’ can be
used in autonomous relative clauses both independently and as determiners of noun
phrases (quisque is rarely attested as a determiner).141 Ex. (a) shows the use of quisquis
as a pronoun, (b) and (c) its use as a determiner. In the first two examples, the pro-
nouns are the subjects in their clauses. In (c), the relative clause is resumed by dative
ei, in accordance with its function as recipient. In (d), the relative clause functions
as a position-in-space adjunct and has an exceptional subjunctive. An indefinite
autonomous relative clause may be determined, as in (e), or modified by a quantifier,
as in (f).
(a) Quisquis praetereat, comissatum volo vocari.
(‘I want everybody who walks past to be invited to join the revelry.’ Pl. St. 686)
(b) Quis homo? # Quisquis [homo] huc profecto venerit, pugnos edet.
(‘Who? # Yes, whoever comes here will eat fists.’ Pl. Am. 309)
(c) . . . quemquem hominem attigerit, profecto ei aut malum aut damnum dari.
(‘. . . any man she touches, he is immediately given either ill fortune or loss.’ Pl.
Truc. 228)
(d) (sc. Socrates) . . . quam se cumque in partem dedidisset, omnium fuit facile
princeps . . .
(‘. . . whatever side in a debate he took up, he easily came out on top.’ Cic. de Orat.
3.60—NB: subjunctive)
(e) Quinam igitur dicendi est modus melior . . . quam ut Latine, ut plane, ut
ornate, ut ad id quodcumque agetur apte congruenterque dicamus?
(‘Now what better style of expression can there be . . . than that our language should
be correct, lucid, ornate, and suitably appropriate to the particular matter under
consideration?’ Cic. de Orat. 3.37)
(f) . . . iste omnia quaecumque Carpinatius postulabat facere ac decernere
solebat . . .
(‘That man was accustomed to doing and ordering everything, whatever Carpinatius
asked of him.’ Cic. Ver. 2.172)
140 For Early and Late Latin instances, see Neue-W.: II.493–7.
141 On the relationship between quisquis and quisque, see Calboli (1961b) and Bertocchi et al. (2010:
111–14), with references. For Late Latin, see Bortolussi (2012).
Indefinite relative clauses 569
Supplement:
Ita omnem mihi / rem necesse eloqui est, quicquid egi atque ago. (Pl. Men. 117–18);
Omnia mala ingerebat, quemquem aspexerat. (Pl. Men. 717); At di dabunt— / # Tibi
quidem hercle, quisquis es, magnum malum . . . (Pl. Rud. 107–8); . . . quicquid domi
fuit in navem imposivit? (Pl. Rud. 357); Ita, quicquid est illud, quod sentit quod sapit
quod vivit quod viget, caeleste et divinum ob eamque rem aeternum sit necesse est.
(Cic. Tusc. 1.66); . . . accusare quoquo modo posset quam illo modo emori maluit.
(Cic. Clu. 42); Quisquis est deus, si modo est alius, et quacumque in parte, totus est
sensus, totus visus, totus auditus, totus animae, totus animi, totus sui. (Plin. Nat.
2.14); Igitur longe minus utilis illi / uxor, quisquis erit bonus optandusque maritus.
(Juv. 6.210–11)
Quiquomque ubi sunt, qui fuerunt quique futuri sunt posthac / stulti, stolidi, fatui,
fungi, bardi, blenni, buccones, / solus ego omnis longe antideo / stultitia et moribus
indoctis. (Pl. Bac. 1087–9a); Quodquomque optes, tibi velim contingere. (Pl. Cist.
497—NB: subjunctive); Nam publicae rei causa quiquomque id facit / magis quam
sui quaesti, animus induci potest, / eum esse civem et fidelem et bonum. (Pl. Per.
65–7); Quid male facio aut quoi male dico? # Quoi pol quomque occasio est. (Pl. Per.
210); Cum quibus erat quomque una is sese dedere . . . (Ter. An. 63; . . . ioudicatio
litisque aestumatio quei quomque ioudicium ex h.l. erunt, eorum h.l. esto.
(CIL I2.583.6 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc)); Nam etsi, quocumque in loco quisquis est, idem
est ei sensus et eadem acerbitas ex interitu rerum et publicarum et suarum,
tamen . . . (Cic. Fam. 6.1.1); Licere illis per se incolumibus ex hibernis discedere et
quascumque in partes velint sine metu proficisci. (Caes. Gal. 5.41.6); Nam qui-
cumque tuum violavit vulnere corpus / morte luet merita. (Verg. A. 11.848–9); Qui
testamentum tradet tibi cumque legendum, / abnuere et tabulas a te removere
memento . . . (Hor. S. 2.5.51–2—NB: discontinuity)
Quisque obviam huic occesserit irato, vapulabit. (Pl. As. 404); Quemque a milite
hoc videritis hominem in nostris tegulis, / extra unum Palaestrionem, huc deturba-
tote in viam. (Pl. Mil. 160–1);142 . . . moechum, qui forma est ferox, / qui omnis se
amare credit quaeque aspexerit / mulier. (Pl. Mil. 1390–2); Nam ego arbitror latrones,
quique eorum recte sapiunt, nihil anteferre lucro suo debere . . . (Apul. Met. 7.9.4); . . .
ut quisque (quisquis edd. nonnulli) vim se pati existimaret ‘Vivus ardeat Valens’
licentius clamitaret . . . (Amm. 31.1.2)
Utrum enim horum dixeris, in eo culpa et crimen haerebit. (Cic. Ver. 3.106); Sed
haec aut sanabuntur cum veneris aut ei molesta erunt in utro culpa erit. (Cic. Att.
1.11.1); Nullum enim bellum civile fuit in nostra re publica . . . in quo bello non,
utracumque pars vicisset, tamen aliqua forma esset futura rei publicae. (Cic. ad Brut.
23.10)143
The form quisquis is in Plautus almost limited to the expressions quisquis es or est
(that is, to the function subject complement).144 Emendations of the text of (a) and
(b) above substituting quisque have been suggested, unnecessarily.145 For other uses
142 Further examples can be found in Lodge s.v.: 517B.

143 Further examples can be found in the OLD.
144 According to Bertocchi et al. (2010: 104, n. 137) thirty-two out of a total of thirty-five instances of
quisquis.
145 See Ammann (1949).
of quisque, see § 11.36. For the indefinite use of quisquis and quicumque, see § 11.115
and § 11.154.
Indefinite autonomous relative clauses can sometimes be interpreted in a concessive
sense. Examples are (g) and (h).146
(g) Non recuso; ago etiam gratias, quoquo animo facis.
(‘I do not decline, I even thank you, whatever your motive is for doing it.’
Cic. Phil. 2.33)
(h) . . . quicquid dederis, contentus est.
(‘. . . whatever you give him, he is quite pleased with it.’ Petr. 46.7)
Appendix: Combinations of the conditional subordinator si and the indefinite deter-
miner or pronoun qui/quis are sometimes interchangeable with an indefinite relative
determiner or pronoun. Examples are (i) and ( j), respectively. In ( j) the si quid clause
is coordinated with two other relative clauses; all three are resumed by ea.147 In (k) si
quis is continued by plural homines. In its generalizing use it can also be part of an
ablative absolute clause, as in (l).148
(i) Novi, Neptunus ita solet, quamvis fastidiosus / aedilis est: si quae improbae
sunt merces, iactat omnis.
(‘I know, that’s what Neptune is like, he’s an ever-so-particular market inspector:
if there’s any bad merchandise, he throws the lot overboard.’ Pl. Rud. 372–3)
( j) Qua locus recte ferax erit, quae arida erunt et si quid ventus interfregerit, ea
omnia eximito.
(‘Where the land is very fertile, clear out all dry branches and anything the
wind has broken.’ Cato Agr. 44.1)
(k) Si quis est qui his delectetur, nonne melius tenues homines fruuntur quam
illi qui is abundant?
(‘If there is anyone who would find delight in them, cannot men of narrow
means enjoy them better than those who have plenty?’ Cic. Tusc. 5.102)
(l) . . . dimissisque si qui parum idonei essent . . .
(‘. . . and with those who were unfit having been discharged . . .’ Liv. 42.31.7)
18.34 Relative adjectives and adverbs

18.35 Relative adjectives
The relative adjectives of quality, quantity or size, and number and the related indef-
inite ones can in principle be used ‘adjectivally’ or ‘substantivally’ in a whole range of
146 See Maraldi (2002a) and Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 141; 167–8).
147 For further examples, see OLD s.v. quis2 § 1a. 148 For discussion, see Bortolussi (2010).
Relative adjectives and adverbs 571
constructions. The adjectives involved are qualis ‘of which sort’, ‘such as’; quantus ‘of
what size or amount’; quot ‘whatever number of ’, ‘as many as’;149 and quotus ‘of which
number in a series’ (rare). The range of constructions will be shown for qualis and
quantus; further examples can be found in the Supplement and in the OLD.
With regard to qualis, its very common use as subject complement is shown in (a)
and (b). The latter shows interlacing of the (adnominal) relative with the si clause. In
(c) quale is the attribute of bellum; the same noun is used in the superordinate and the
adnominal relative clause. In (d) the relative clause is adnominal with nardo; quale
functions as the object of laborarint. Ex. (e) shows the substantival use, with qualia
functioning as the object in its clause. Note the resumptive use of talis. Ex. (f) is an
instance of relative connexion. A rare instance of a preceding quale clause that is not
followed by a corresponding demonstrative in the main clause is (g).
(a) Ecastor condignum donum, quale est (= qualis est) qui donum dedit.
(‘Honestly, a worthy gift, matching the one who gave it.’ Pl. Am. 537)
(b) . . . cum senatus populusque Romanus haberet ducem, qualis si qui nunc
esset, tibi idem quod illis accidit contigisset?
(‘. . . when the senate and the Roman people possessed a leader such that, if someone
like him were now here, the same fate would have overtaken you as befell them?’ Cic.
Phil. 2.17)
(c) In hoc autem uno post hominum memoriam maximo crudelissimoque bello,
quale bellum nulla umquam barbaria cum sua gente gessit, quo in bello lex
haec fuit a Lentulo, Gabinio, Cethego, Cassio constituta ut . . .
(‘In this war, however, the most important and the most savage within memory of man,
a war such as no tribe of barbarians ever fought among its own people, a war in which
Lentulus, Gabinius, Cethegus and Cassius laid it down as a law that . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.25)
(d) . . . / senem, quod omnes rideant, adulterum / latrant Suburanae canes / nardo
perunctum, quale non perfectius / meae laborarint manus.
(‘. . . the dogs of the Subura bark at the old lecher, a sight to make everybody laugh,
plastered as he is with the most exquisite perfume that my own hands could concoct.’
Hor. Epod. 5.57–60)
(e) Qualia quisque habet, talis est.
(‘A person is of the same sort as that which he possesses.’ Sen. Ep. 87.17)
(f) Qualibus ostentis Aristandri apud Graecos volumen scatet . . .
(‘The volume of Aristander teems with portents of this nature in Greece.’ Plin. Nat.
17.243)
(g) Quale tamen potui, de caelite, Brute, recenti / vestra procul positus carmen
in ora dedi.
(‘Yet from my distant abode I sent for your reading such poem as I could, Brutus,
about the new god.’ Ov. Pont. 4.6.17–18)
149 For quot, see Gibert (2013).

Of the examples of quantus below, (h) illustrates the attributive use. In (i), quanta is
the subject complement. Exx. ( j)–(m) illustrate the very common substantival use of
quantus in various functions. In ( j), quantum is the object of vis, the whole clause
being an autonomous clause functioning as the object of edas. In (k), quanto is a
degree modifier (ablativus mensurae) with plus. In (l), quanti is a price adjunct. The
use of quantum in the si clause in (m) resembles the examples of relative connexion
discussed in § 18.29. For quantum clauses of qualification, see § 16.83.
(h) Inde (sc. globos) quantos voles facere facito.
(‘Produce from that as many balls as you want.’ Cato Agr. 79.1)
(i) Si auctoritatem quaerimus, etsi id est aetatis ut nondum consecutus sit,
tamen quanta est in adulescente auctoritas, ea propter tantam coniunctio-
nem adfinitatis minor est putanda.
(‘If it is moral weight for which we are looking, though he is not yet of an age to have
gained this, still, however considerable be the authority which that young man pos-
sesses, we should consider it diminished due to the close connexion with Clodius
which his marriage involves.’ Cic. Dom. 118)
( j) An vero non iusta causa est quor curratur celeriter, / ubi bibas, edas de alieno
quantum vis usque ad fatim . . .
(‘Well, isn’t there a just cause for running quickly to a place where you can drink and
eat out of someone else’s pocket as much as you want until you’re full . . .’ Pl. Poen.
533–4)
(k) Quasi ob industriam, quanto ego plus propero, procedit minus.
(‘The more of a hurry I’m in, the less progress is made, as if on purpose.’ Pl. Cas. 805)
(l) Oratio edepol pluris est huius, quam quanti haec empta est.
(‘Her speech is worth more than the price she was bought for.’ Pl. Mer. 514)
(m) . . . gratulor tibi cum tantum vales apud Dolabellam, quantum si ego apud
sororis filium valerem, iam salvi esse possemus.
(‘. . . I congratulate you on having an influence with Dolabella, such as if I had had
with my sister’s son, we might now have been safe.’ Cic. Fam. 9.14.3)
Supplement:
Qualis volo vetulos duo. (Pl. Epid. 187); Qua in sorte sapiens praetor, qualis hic fuit,
offensionem vitat . . . (Cic. Mur. 41); . . . statua . . . inaurata equestris, qualis L. Sullae
primum statu<t>a est. (Cic. Phil. 9.13); . . . est etiam bonorum et fortium civium,
quales vos omnibus rei publicae temporibus extitistis, intercludere omnis seditio-
num vias . . . (Cic. Rab. Perd. 3); . . . meque tum denique sibi esse visum rei publicae
qualis fuissem restitutum . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.9.20); Namque / Plotius et Varius Sinuessae
Vergiliusque / occurrunt, animae qualis neque candidiores / terra tulit neque quis me
sit devinctior alter. (Hor. S. 1.5.39–42)
Nec mehercule me raudusculum movet, sed homines benevolos, qualescumque
sunt, grave est insequi contumelia. (Cic. Att. 14.14.5)
Quantum hic inest? # Quantum sat est, et plus satis. (Pl. Epid. 346); Conveniet
numeru’ quantum debui. (Ter. Ph. 53); . . . quanta est in adulescente auctoritas, ea
propter tantam coniunctionem adfinitatis minor est putanda. (Cic. Dom. 118); . . . ut
ab eo provincias acciperent quas ipsi vellent, exercitum et pecuniam quantam vel-
lent . . . (Cic. Sest. 24); At pater Aeneas . . . horrendumque intonat armis: / quantus
Athos aut quantus Eryx aut ipse coruscis cum fremit ilicibus quantus gaudetque
nivali / vertice se attollens pater Appenninus ad auras. (Verg. A. 12.697–703); . . .
iubet . . . inter ipsam dimicationem quanto maxime posset moto pulvere se ostendere.
(Liv. 10.40.8); Adhibeaturque frictio, quantam is sustinere poterit . . . (Cels. 3.12.5)
. . . quantumcumque itineris equitatu efficere poterat, cotidie progrediebatur . . .
(Caes. Civ. 3.102.1)
. . . dico pluribus milibus medimnum venisse decumas agri Leontini quam quot
milia iugerum sata essent in agro Leontino. (Cic. Ver. 3.113); Navibus circiter octo-
ginta onerariis coactis contractisque quot satis esse ad duas transportandas legiones
existimabat . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.22.3)
‘Mando tibi, Mani, uti illace suovitaurilia fundum agrum terramque meam, quota
ex parte sive circumagi sive circumferenda censeas, uti cures lustrare.’ (Cato Agr.
141.1)
When a clause containing a relative adjective follows a main clause containing a cor-
responding demonstrative adjective, the combination functions as an expression of
comparison (see also § 20.1 and § 20.11). Examples are (n)–(p), with the order t- . . . qu-.
In (n) the disposition of quis is compared to that of all people, to which it ought
to be equivalent. In (o) the factio of nos is compared to that of tu in terms of size. In
(p) the cyathi are equivalent in number to the fingers of tibi. Ex. (q) is an interesting
combination of a relative adjective with an expression of similarity (for which see
§§ 20.16–18).
(n) Ac si quis est talis qualis esse omnis oportebat . . .
(‘But if there is any one of that disposition which all men should have . . .’ Cic.
Catil. 2.3)
(o) Neque nos factione tanta quanta tu sumus . . .
(‘We don’t have as great connexions as you . . .’ Pl. Cist. 493)
(p) Vide quot cyathos bibimus. # Tot quot digiti tibi sunt in manu.
(‘See how many cups we’re drinking. # As many as you have fingers on a hand.’ Pl.
St. 706)
(q) Pariter suades qualis es.
(‘Your advice is of the same quality as you are.’ Pl. Rud. 875)
Supplement: Nec meus servos umquam tale fecit quale tu mihi. (Pl. Men. 1027);
Quid Tarquinius tale qualia innumerabilia et facit et fecit Antonius? (Cic. Phil. 3.9);
Permanent illi soli . . . qui sunt tales qualis pater tuus, M. Scaure, fuit . . . (Cic. Sest.
101); . . . ut et ipsis apud quos ageret talis qualem se esse optaret, videretur. (Cic. de
Orat. 1.87); . . . ut non sit mirum, si in talis disposituras / deciderunt quoque et in talis
venere meatus / qualibus haec rerum geritur nunc summa novando. (Lucr. 5.192–4);
. . . teporque talis est qualis esse sani solet. (Cels. 3.6.7)
Tum meretricum numerus tantus quantum in urbe omni fuit / obviam ornatae
occurrebant suis quaequae amatoribus. (Pl. Epid. 213–14); Malo bene facere tantun-
dem est periculum / quantum bono male facere. (Pl. Poen. 633–4); Auctoritatis tan-
tae quantam vos in me esse voluistis . . . (Cic. Balb. 1); . . . qui ab dis immortalibus tot
et tantas res tacitus auderet optare quot et quantas di immortales ad Cn. Pompeium
detulerunt. (Cic. Man. 48); Cum finis provinciae tantos haberet quantos voluerat,
quantos optarat, quantos pretio mei capitis periculoque emerat, iis se tenere non
potuit. (Cic. Pis. 49)
Talentis magnis totidem quot ego et tu sumus. (Pl. Mos. 644); Nego ullo de opere
publico, de monumento, de templo tot senatus exstare consulta quot de mea
domo . . . Cic. Har.16); Aequa dicitur divisio, quotiens tot tempora habet arsis quot et
thesis. (Pomp. gramm. 123.33K)
The reverse order, in which the relative clause precedes, is far less common though it
seems to be relatively popular in Post-Classical poetry. Examples are (r)–(t). Since
instances of a preceding relative clause without a resumptive element in the main clause
are very rare (see above), some scholars regard the combination of a relative adjective
with a resumptive demonstrative as another instance of ‘correlation’ (see § 18.15).150
(r) Itaque illo interfecto qualem in nos eum esse voluit, talis ipse in ceteros
exstitit.
(‘And so, when he (sc. Caesar) was killed, he himself (sc. Antonius) became such a
man toward the rest of the community as he wanted Caesar to be toward us.’ Cic. Phil.
13.17)
(s) Postidea domum / me rursum quantum potero tantum recipiam.
(‘Afterwards I’ll return home again as quickly as I possibly can.’ Pl. Aul. 118–19)
(t) Quot autem in causa constitutiones . . . erunt, totidem necesse erit quaes-
tiones . . . reperire.
(‘Moreover it will be necessary to find the same number of questions . . . as there are
issues . . . in the case.’ Cic. Inv. 1.19)
Supplement:
. . . qualescumque summi civitatis viri fuerint, talem civitatem fuisse. (Cic. Leg.
3.31); . . . quales in re publica principes essent, talis reliquos solere esse civis. (Cic.
Fam. 1.9.12); Quale solet silvis brumali frigore viscum / fronde virere nova, quod
non sua seminat arbos, / et croceo fetu teretis circumdare truncos, / talis erat species
auri frondentis opaca / ilice, sic leni crepitabat brattea vento. (Verg. A. 6.205–9);
Qualis et Ischomache Lapithae genus heroine, / Centauris medio grata rapina mero;
/ Mercurio <aut> qualis fertur Boebeidos undis / virgineum Brimo composuisse
latus: / talis visa mihi somno dimissa recenti. (Prop. 2.29b.29–33); Quantusque
et qualis ab alta / Iunone excipitur, tantus talisque, rogato, / det tibi conplexus . . .
150 For quanto . . . tanto in proportional comparative constructions, see § 20.29. For the frequency of
qualis . . . talis and related pairs in technical texts, see Viré (2005).
(Ov. Met. 3.284–6); . . . ne, qualis Anci liberum animus adversus Tarquinium fuerat,
talis adversus se Tarquini liberum esset . . . (Liv. 1.42.1); Plane qualis dominus, talis et
servus. (Petr. 58.4 (a freedman speaking))
Tanti quanti poscit, vi’n tanti illam emi? (Pl. Mer. 490); Tantum tibi boni di immor-
tales duint quantum tu tibi optes. / Nam si exoptem quantum dignu’s tantum dent,
minus nihilo sit. (Pl. Ps. 936–7); Quod si aut quantam voluntatem habent ad hunc
opprimendum aut quantam ad male dicendum licentiam, tantum haberent aut <ad>
ementiendum animi aut ad fingendum ingeni . . . (Cic. Font. 40); Viri quantas pecu-
nias ab uxoribus dotis nomine acceperunt, tantas ex suis bonis aestimatione facta
cum dotibus communicant. (Caes. Gal. 6.19.1); Lenta salix quantum pallenti cedit
olivae, / puniceis humilis quantum saliunca rosetis, / iudicio nostro tantum tibi cedit
Amyntas. (Verg. Ecl. 5.16–18); Quantus apud Danaos Podalirius arte medendi, /
Aeacides dextra, pectore Nestor erat, / quantus erat Calchas extis, Telamonius armis,
/ Automedon curru, tantus amator ego. (Ov. Ars 2. 735–8)
Quot genera voles, tot indito. (Cato Agr. 40.3); Quot homines tot sententiae. (Ter.
Ph. 454); . . . ut quot iugera sint sata, totidem medimna decumae debeantur. (Cic. Ver.
3.112); Quot homines tot causae. (Cic. de Orat. 2.140); Sed quot officia oratoris tot
sunt genera dicendi. (Cic. Orat. 69); At primum quot hominum linguae tot nomina
deorum. (Cic. N.D. 1.84); . . . monstrum horrendum, ingens, cui quot sunt corpore
plumae, / tot vigiles oculi subter (mirabile dictu), / tot linguae, totidem ora sonant, tot
subrigit auris. (Verg. A. 4.181–3); Gargara quot segetes, quot habet Methymna race-
mos, / aequore quot pisces, fronde teguntur aves, / quot caelum stellas, tot habet tua
Roma puellas. (Ov. Ars 1.57–9); Quot enim clientes circa singulos fuistis patronos,
tot nunc adversus unum hostem eritis. (Liv. 6.18.6)
18.36 Relative adverbs
Of the relative adverbs mentioned in § 18.1, a number of space adverbs, the time
adverb cum (quom), and the reason adverbs cur and quare are used in adnominal
relative clauses. Autonomous relative clauses containing space and time adverbs that
function as space and time satellites in their sentences are dealt with in Chapter 16 on
satellite clauses. Relative adverbs of space also occur in autonomous relative clauses
functioning in ways other than as space and time satellites. These usages are treated in
§ 18.37 and § 18.38. Reason relative adverbs are discussed in § 18.39. For relative
degree adverbs (quanto and quantopere), see § 20.29. In relative clauses with a relative
adverb the use of the moods is as in ‘normal’ relative clauses (see §§ 18.23–6).151
18.37 Relative clauses containing a space adverb

Relative adverbs of space are more or less synonymous with prepositional expressions
containing a form of qui and related relatives, as is illustrated by the pair in (a).152
151 For Cato’s use of relative adverbs, see Fruyt (2019b).

152 For a survey, see § 14.22.
(a) Namque hanc urbem ei rex donarat, his quidem verbis, quae ei panem prae-
beret (ex qua regione quinquaginta talenta quotannis redibant), Lampsacum
autem, unde vinum sumeret, Myunta, ex qua obsonium haberet.
(‘For the king had given him that city, with the remark that it would furnish him with
bread (the annual revenue of the district was five hundred talents), also Lampsacus,
from which he could get wine, and Myus, from which he could have the rest of his
fare.’ Nep. Them. 10.3)
Relative adverbs of space are used in adnominal relative clauses modifying nouns
indicating space. Examples are (b)–(e).
(b) Nam dudum ante lucem et istunc et te vidi. # Quo in loco? / # Hic in aedibus
ubi tu habitas.
(‘Not long ago, before sunlight, I saw both him and you. # In what place? # Here in
the house where you live.’ Pl. Am. 699–700)
(c) Mamertini tibi et urbem quo furta undique deportares, et navem in qua
exportares praebuerunt.
(‘The Mamertines gave you both a city to which you could carry all the plunder you
amassed from all quarters, and also a ship, in which you could take it away.’ Cic. Ver.
5.59—NB: Note the parallelism with navem in qua)
(d) . . . Romanos neque ullam facultatem habere navium neque eorum locorum
ubi bellum gesturi essent, vada, portus, insulas novisse.
(‘. . . while the Romans had no supply of ships, no knowledge of the shoals, harbours,
or islands of the regions where they were about to wage war.’ Caes. Gal. 3.9.6)
(e) Pontem fecit in Histro flumine qua copias traduceret.
(‘He built a bridge over the river Hister for the transport of his troops.’ Nep.
Milt. 3.1)
Supplement:
Siliginem, triticum in loco aperto celso ubi sol quam diutissime siet, seri oportet.
(Cato Agr. 35.1); A regione, si potius ex his locis ubi nascuntur amplae quam exiles
(sc. sues), pararis. (Var. R. 2.4.4); . . . habent propinquam, fidelem fructuosamque pro-
vinciam, quo facile excurrant, ubi libenter negotium gerant. (Cic. Ver. 2.6); Equidem
vobis, quoniam ita voluistis, fontes unde hauriretis atque itinera ipsa ita putavi esse
demonstranda . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.203); Omnes enim colles ac loca superiora unde erat
propinquus despectus in mare ab exercitu tenebantur. (Caes. Gal. 3.14.9); Mortuus
Cumis, quo se post fractas opes Latinorum ad Aristodemum tyrannum contulerat.
(Liv. 2.21.5)
Relative adverbs of space are used to refer to a human being instead of prepositional
expressions consisting of a preposition and a pronominal form.153 This use has
received attention from Antiquity onwards. Examples are (f)–(h). As these examples
show, relative adverbs are used in this way both in adnominal and in autonomous
153 Fraenkel (1934), Palmén (1958), and also Pascucci (1968: 17–22).
relative clauses. Similar observations can be made about anaphoric and demonstra-
tive pronouns. Semantically, there is nothing unusual about this phenomenon.
(f) Nescioquem ad portum nactus es ubi cenes.
(‘You’ve found some guy at the harbour to dine with.’ Pl. Capt. 837)
(g) . . . in Thensauro scripsit, causam dicere / prius unde petitur, aurum qua re sit
suom, / quam illic qui petit, unde is sit thensaurus sibi . . .
(‘. . . in the Thesaurus [the Treasure] he has described him from whom the gold is
demanded, as pleading his cause why it should be deemed his own, before the person
who demands it has stated how this treasure belongs to him . . .’ Ter. Eu. 10–12—NB:
Donatus ad loc. explains unde as ‘a quo’)
(h) Nam ego ad Menaechmum hunc eo, quo iam diu / sum iudicatus.
(‘I’m going to Menaechmus here, the bond servant of whose household I’ve been for
a long time already.’ Pl. Men. 96–7)
Supplement:
Quodsi saltatorem avum habuisses neque eum virum unde pudoris pudicitiaeque
exempla peterentur, tamen . . . (Cic. Deiot. 28); Sed tamen, quia consules, ubi summa
rerum esset, ad id locorum prospe<re> rem gererent, minus his cladibus commove-
bantur. (Liv. 25.22.1); . . . sed in tribunos centurionesque ubi pretium caedis erat
[re]verteretur. (Tac. Hist. 3.31.1)
Spatial relative adverbs are also used in a more abstract way. Examples are (i) and ( j).
(i) Velut haec mi evenit servitus, ubi ego omnibus / parvis magnisque miseriis
praefulcior.
(‘For instance, this slavery has come upon me where I’m used as a prop for
all small and big miseries.’ Pl. Ps. 771–2)
( j) Quot res dedere, ubi possem persentiscere, / ni essem lapis!
(‘How many clues there were where I could have detected the truth, if I
hadn’t been such a dolt!’ Ter. Hau. 916–17)
Autonomous relative clauses with a relative adverb of space fulfil all sorts of functions in
their superordinate clauses just like those with qui and related words (see § 18.16). They
may function as subject or object, as in (k) and (l), and as satellites, as in (m) and (n)—in
the latter after a comparative adverb. Note that in (k)–(m) the relative adverbs refer to
human beings. Alternatives would be a quo in (k) and (l), quibus (dative) in (m).
(k) Pr . . . fac<ito eos L viros qu>os is quei petet et unde petetur ex h. l.
legerint . . .
(‘The praetor . . . shall cause the names of the 50 persons whom the plaintiff and the
defendant will have chosen under this law . . . ‘ CIL I2.583.26 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))
(l) Domi habuit unde disceret.
(‘He had someone to learn from at home.’ Ter. Ad. 413)
(m) Nam quo dedisti nuptum abire nolumus.
(‘We don’t want to leave the men you gave us in marriage to.’ Pl. St. 142)
(n) . . . quod non longius hostes aberant quam quo telum adigi posset . . .
(‘. . . as the enemy were not further from them than the distance to which a dart could
be cast . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.21.3)
Supplement:
Si quis quid vestrum Epidamnum curari sibi / velit, audacter imperato et dicito. / Sed
ita ut det, unde curari id possit sibi. (Pl. Men. 51–3)
Ita quoquo adveniunt, ubiubi sunt, / duplici damno dominos multant. (Pl. Cas. 722–2a)
The function of the clause may be marked by a determiner and/or a resumptive
expression. Examples are (o)–(q).
(o) Quid, si igitur reddatur illi unde empta est?
(‘Then how about returning her to the man I bought her from?’ Pl. Mer. 418)
(p) Is eum unde petet in ious ed[ucito . . .
(‘Such person shall bring the person whom he shall sue to court . . .’ CIL I2.583.6 (Lex
Acilia, Rome, 122 bc))
(q) . . . illi unde petitur, ei potius credendum esse.
(‘. . . the one from whom the claim is made, that one ought rather to be credited.’ Cato
orat. 51)
Supplement:
. . . ut, qui eum necasset unde ipse natus esset, careret iis rebus omnibus ex quibus omnia
nata esse dicuntur? (Cic. S. Rosc. 71); Is Lilybaei multos iam annos habitat, homo et domi
nobilis et apud eos quo se contulit propter virtutem splendidus et gratiosus. (Cic. Ver.
4.38); ‘Potest fieri’, inquit, ‘Sile, ut is, unde te audisse dicis, iratus dixerit’. (Cic. de Orat.
2.285); Sed qui sunt ex iis nati, eorum habentur liberi, quo primum virgo quaeque
deducta est. (Caes. Gal. 5.14.5); quominus Maximum Batonis quove ea res pertine-
bit habere possidereque recte liceat. (CIL III.936.10–12 (Verespatak, ad 139))
Autonomous adverbial relative clauses may be modified by quantifiers, such as omni-
bus in (r).
(r) Ego omnibus unde petitur hoc consili dederim, ut a singulis interregibus
binas advocationes postulent.
(‘I would give this counsel to all men by whom it is sought: that they demand two
adjournments from each interrex!’ Cic. Fam. 7.11.1)
Spatial relative adverbs are also found at the adjective level, as in (s).
(s) . . . adeo digna res est ubi tu nervos intendas tuos.
(‘. . . the affair is a deserving one for you to exert your energies upon.’ Ter. Eu. 312)
Topographical descriptions are often elliptical. An example is (t) from Pliny the
Elder, where the ubi clause is more or less equivalent to ‘where there used to be a
town called Salduba’. There are a few very late instances of relative ubi in combination
with a form of locus where ubi does not function as a place adverb in its clause. In (u)
it seems to function as the subject (= quae).154
154 See Compernass (1916: 117), Önnerfors (1956: 20–1), Sz.: 210, and Touratier (1980: 513).
(t) Caesaraugusta colonia immunis, amne Hibero adfusa, ubi oppidum antea
vocabatur Salduba, regionis Edetaniae, recipit populos LV.
(‘Caesaraugusta, a colony that pays no taxes, is washed by the river Ebro; its
site was once occupied by a town called Salduba, belonging to the district of
Edetania. It is the centre for 55 peoples.’ Plin. Nat. 3.24)
(u) Dumque venissent in locum ubi Sylvula vocabatur non longe ab urbe Como . . .
(‘Until they had come to a place which was called Sylvula not far from the
city Comus . . .’ Passio Fidelis, Exanti et Carpofori 1)
18.38 Adnominal relative clauses with cum (quom)

Cum (quom) is the only temporal relative adverb used in adnominal relative clauses.
Examples are (a) and (b). The head nouns involved denote time. Compare the use of
the relative quo in (c).
(a) Recordare tempus illud cum pater Curio maerens iacebat in lecto.
(‘Recall that time when Curio the father, sick at heart, was lying on his bed . . .’ Cic.
Phil. 2.45)
(b) . . . sed eo ipso tempore, cum esses in litore, Tertia illa tua, quam tu tecum
deportaras, erat in omnium conspectu.
(‘. . . but all that very time, there you were on the seacoast with that woman of yours,
Tertia, whom you were taking off home with you, in full view of everyone.’ Cic.
Ver. 5.40)
(c) . . . negat ullum esse tempus quo sapiens non beatus sit.
(‘. . . he says that there is no time at which the wise man is not happy.’ Cic.
Tusc. 3.49)
Supplement:
Nunc est ille dies cum gloria maxima sese / nobis ostendat si vivimus sive morimur.
(Enn. Ann. 391V=393J); Hic ille est dies quom nulla vitae meae salus sperabile’st. (Pl.
Capt. 518); In Clodium vero non est hodie meum maius odium quam illo die fuit
cum illum ambustum religiosissimis ignibus cognovi . . . emissum. (Cic. Har. 4); Nam
fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum modo vagabantur . . .
(Cic. Inv. 1.2); Ac fuit antea tempus cum Germanos Galli virtute superarent . . . (Caes.
Gal. 6.24.1)
Exceptional is the use of quod in (d).155
(d) Quarto die navigationis quod imparati a Carteia profecti sine aqua fuissent
ad terram adplicant.
(‘On the fourth day of their voyage from the time they had set sail from
Carteia ill-prepared and without water, they put in to land.’ B. Hisp. 37.3)
155 For instances in later texts, see Norberg (1943: 239).

18.39 Relative clauses with adverbs of reason (quamobrem,

quapropter, and quare)
Cur, quamobrem, and quare are found in adnominal relative clauses with the noun
causa (caussa) and occasionally in other combinations. Quapropter does not seem to
be attested.156 Examples are (a)–(d). Compare (e), which contains a relative clause
with a relative pronoun. These clauses are usually in the subjunctive.
(a) Quid erat causae cur metueret ne condemnaretur?
(‘What reason was there why he should be afraid of being condemned?’ Cic.
Q. Rosc. 26)
(b) Quae fuit enim causa quam ob rem isti mulieri venenum vellet dare Caelius?
(‘For what reason was there why Caelius would want to poison this woman?’ Cic.
Cael. 56)
(c) . . . cum causa quare peccaret non intercessit . . .
(‘. . . when there was no motive for him to go wrong . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.32)
(d) . . . neque esse rationem quare hoc propter hoc fiat . . .
(‘. . . there is no reason why this should be done for that . . .’ Cic. Inv. 2.75)
(e) . . . si perpetuae sunt causae quibus flumina oriuntur ac fontes . . .
(‘. . . if the causes from which rivers and streams arise are constant . . .’ Sen. Nat. 3.11.1)
Supplement:
Nam ei causa alia quae fuit, / quamobrem abs te abiret? (Ter. Hec. 695–6); Quapropter
nulla res est quamobrem ego istum nolim ex paternis probris ac vitiis emergere. (Cic.
Ver. 3.162); Quae autem aestimanda essent, eorum in aliis satis esse causae quam
ob rem quibusdam anteponerentur . . . partim satis habere causae, quam ob rem
reicerentur . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.51); . . . nulla hic alia obligatio est quam ob rem dati re non
secuta? (Cels. dig. 12.4.16)
Permulta sunt quae dici possunt quare intellegatur summam tibi facultatem fuisse
maleficii suscipiendi. (Cic. S. Rosc. 94); . . . miror quid causae fuerit qua re consilium
mutaris. (Pomp. Att. 8.12b.1); (sc. ulmus) nil praeter frondes, quare peteretur,
haberet. (Ov. Met. 14.664)
Common is the use of the relative adverbs with a cataphoric or interrogative pronoun
and the copula sum, as in (f) and (g). For a comparable usage of the subordinator
quod, see § 15.14.
(f) Hoc est cur quaedam tigna supra aquam paene tota efferantur . . .
(‘This is why some logs are elevated almost entirely above water . . .’ Sen. Nat. 3.25.6)
(g) Quid est cur iudicio velit<is> eum liberare ?
(‘What ground have you for wishing to acquit him of the suit?’ Rhet. Her. 4.52)
156 See TLL s.v. caussa 676.81ff.; s.v. ob 31.31ff.

Supplement:
Quam ob rem . . . nihil est cur alius alio iudice melior aut sapientor existimetur
[his]. (Cic. Font. 22); Idque erat cum aliis cur te, si fieri posset, cuperem videre. (Cic.
Att. 11.15.1); Hoc est cur pueri tangar amore minus. (Ov. Ars 2.684)
Quid est quamobrem putes te tuam culpam non modo derivare in aliquem . . .
posse? (Cic. Ver. 2.49)
Sed quid est quapropter nobis vos malum minitamini? (Pl. Bac. 1144)
. . . quid est qua re quisquam mihi se ipsa populari ratione anteponat? (Cic. Dom.
88); Quid est, quare uxorem dimiseris? (Sen. Con. 2.5.7)
For the use of relative clauses with an adverb of reason as a reason adjunct, see (h).
(h) Quid igitur obstat quor non verae fiant?
(‘What, therefore, prevents this (wedding) from being real?’ Ter. An. 103)
Supplement:
Quid accidit cur tanto opere iste homo occultaretur ut eum ne casu quidem quis-
quam adspicere posset? (Cic. Ver. 5.65); . . . quid habent cur Graeca anteponant iis
quae et splendide dicta sint neque sint conversa de Graecis? (Cic. Fin. 1.6); Nam quid
feci ego quidve sum locutus / cur me tot male perderes poetis. (Catul. 14.4–5); . . . aut
amet aut faciat cur ego semper amem! (Ov. Am. 1.3.2); Quid tamen evenit cur sis
metuentior undae . . . (Ov. Ep. 19.83)
Quid ego feci qua istaec propter dicta dicantur mihi? (Pl. Am. 815)
Quamobrem, quapropter, and quare are regularly used as connective relatives.157 Cur
is not used in this way. Examples are (i)–(k). Note also (l).
(i) Quam ob rem mi magis par est via decedere et concedere.
(‘For this reason it’s more appropriate to get off the street for me and to get out of my
way.’ Pl. Am. 990)
( j) Quapropter te ipsum purgare ipsi coram placabilius est.
(‘So it’s more likely to satisfy her if you explain the situation in person to her face.’
Ter. Ad. 608)
(k) quare · lubens · te · in gremiu, / Scipio, recipt · terra . . .
(‘Wherefore, Scipio, joyfully does Earth take you to her bosom.’ CIL I2.10.7–8 (Scip.
Elog., Rome, c.170 bc))
(l) Quare non est cur eorum qui se studio eloquentiae dediderunt spes
infringatur . . .
(‘Therefore there is no reason why the hopes of those who have devoted themselves
to the study of oratory should be dashed . . .’ Cic. Orat. 6)
Relative adverbs of reason are also found (rarely) on the adjective level, as in (m)
and (n).
157 See Merguet (Phil.) s.v. ob 782–3; quapropter 233; quare 233; (Reden) s.v. ob 409–10; quapropter 38;
res 316–17.
(m) . . . tamen digna causa videretur cur inimicitias hominis improbissimi susci-
perem, ut hospitis salutem fortunasque defenderem.
(‘Nevertheless to defend the safety and fortunes of this kind friend would seem a
worthy cause why I should incur this foul scoundrel’s enmity.’ Cic. Ver. 2.117)
(n) . . . modo illud adtendatur, dignane causa videatur ea, quae ad utilitatem
pertinebit, quare de magnificentia aut de honestate quiddam derogetur.
(‘. . . provided only that some attention is paid to the question whether this cause
which conduces to our advantage is worth a loss in glory and honour.’ Cic. Inv. 2.175)
CHAPTER 19
Coordination
19.1 Introductory remarks

In § 14.1 various forms of clause combining are discussed among which is included
combining of clauses into compound clauses by means of coordination (also called:
conjunction). There, coordination is primarily compared with subordination, a
means of combining clauses into complex clauses. The major difference between
coordination and subordination is that in the latter one clause becomes part of another
clause, whereas with the former this is not the case. Another important difference is
that subordination pertains only to clauses, whereas coordination also pertains to
units of a lower level, for example nouns, as is shown below. Furthermore, coordin-
ation, as a means of combining clauses, bears a certain similarity to means that are
used to combine sentences to form larger units such as episodes and paragraphs (see
§ 2.13). This is especially relevant to the most common coordinating device et ‘and’,
which can also be used to connect sentences. Examples of clause combining and sen-
tence combining are (a) and (b), respectively, repeated from § 14.1. From Antiquity
onwards the term ‘conjunction’ is applied to both uses. Something similar is the case
with aut ‘or’, which most frequently functions as a disjunctive coordinator, but which
is taken as a sentence connector in cases like (c). It is not always easy to decide whether
one is dealing with coordination of clauses or with connexion of sentences. Sentence
connexion is discussed in Chapter 24.
(a) {Haec evincit in consilio sententia} et {prima luce postridie constituunt pro-
ficisci.}
(b) Hac oratione habita (sc. Caesar) concilium dimisit. Et (del. Meusel) secun-
dum ea multae res eum hortabantur, quare sibi eam rem cogitandam et sus-
cipiendam putaret . . .
(‘With this speech he dissolved the convention. And straightway many consider-
ations induced him to suppose that he must take thought and action in the matter.’
Caes. Gal. 1.33.2)
(c) Quid? Si per vim tulisti, tamenne lex est? Aut quicquam iure gestum videri
potest quod per vim gestum esse constet?
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0019
 Coordination
(‘Furthermore, if you employed force to carry your measure, is it, in spite of this, a
law? Do you think that the result of any operation which might has effected can be
thought to be founded on right?’ Cic. Dom. 53)
In Merguet (Reden) s.v. et, two columns are reserved for sentence connexion (‘am
Anfang des Satzes’), forty-two for coordination (‘im Satz’), thirty-six of which are of
the simply additive type (A et B), six of the correlative type (et A et B). Similar calcu-
lations are less easy to perform in the material for aut ‘or’ or sed ‘but’.
The most common form of coordination is by specific words or phrases that link the
units involved, like et in (a). For such a linking device this Syntax uses the term
coordinator (see § 3.25). The traditional term is ‘conjunction’. The coordinated
units are called conjoins.¹ They belong to various types. Examples of coordinated
clauses are (a) above and (d), repeated from § 2.2. Here the coordinator et ‘and’ com-
bines two simple clauses into a compound clause. The two clauses do not depend on
each other, as is the case with subordinate clauses (see § 2.2 and § 14.1). In (d), the
compound clause as a whole functions as a subordinate clause of reason and answers
the question Quapropter, quaeso? In (e), two coordinated clauses are both in the
accusative and infinitive (see also § 2.2).
(d) Quapropter, quaeso? # Quia ego hanc amo et haec med amat . . .
(‘Why, if I may ask? # Because I love her and she loves me . . .’ Pl. As. 631)
(e) Neque hoc . . . vos . . . non vidistis, <legem> illam esse nullam atque esse potius
flammam temporis . . .
(‘Nor did you . . . fail to see that that was no law at all, and that it was rather the heat of
the times . . .’ Cic. Dom. 69)
Coordination can be used not only for combining entire clauses, as in (a) and (d), but
also for combining constituents at the level of the clause or at a lower level. This is
illustrated by (f) and (g), respectively.
(f) Deinde rogas Fabium ut et patrem et filium vivos comburat, si possit.
(‘You proceed to ask Fabius to burn both father and son alive if he can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.6)
(g) Sese . . . non arbitratur . . . patrimonium tam amplum et copiosum posse
obtinere . . .
(‘. . . he thinks himself unable to retain possession of an inheritance so large and
rich . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 6)
In (f), the nouns patrem and filium, both referring to human beings, are coordinated
by et . . . et ‘both . . . and’. Patrem and filium do not depend on each other, as they would
in a phrase like filium patris ‘the son of the father’, where patris is an attribute that
modifies filium. Together they function as the compound object of the clause. The
combination counts as plural, as is made clear by the form of the secondary predicate
¹ I take the term ‘conjoin’ from Quirk et al. (1985: 46).

Introductory remarks 
vivos. It is understood that both the father and the son will be burnt. In (g), two
attributive adjectives of a noun phrase are coordinated by et. Both adjectives are
understood as a quality of patrimonium. They belong to the same semantic class
(dimension and size—see § 3.7) and could together be given in answer to the question
quale patrimonium? ‘what kind of estate?’² The compound phrase is modified by the
degree adverb tam.
Subordinate clauses can be coordinated in a similar way, as in (h), where two rea-
son clauses are coordinated.
(h) Chrysalus mihi usque quaque loquitur nec recte, pater, / quia tibi aurum red-
didi et quia non te defrudaverim.
(‘Chrysalus is reviling me all the time, father, because I returned the money to you
and because I didn’t cheat you.’ Pl. Bac. 735–6)
An intermediate form of coordination (neither complete clauses, as in (a) and (d), nor
individual constituents, as in (f)–(h)) is shown in (i). Here, prohibere iniuriis incur-
sionibusque must be understood with the first part of the sentence Cheruscos ab
Suebis. For such instances, in which there is a contrast between two or more argu-
ments that share the same verb, grammars of English use the term ‘gapping’. A trad-
itional term is ‘ellipsis’. It is part of a more general form of coordination of incomplete
clauses that contain several constituents, for which this Syntax uses the term conjunc-
tion reduction (see §§ 19.3–4).
(i) Hanc (sc. silvam) . . . Cheruscos ab Suebis Suebosque a Cheruscis iniuriis
incursionibusque prohibere.
(‘That it (the forest) . . . kept the Cherusci from raids and outrages on the part of the
Suebi, and the Suebi likewise from the Cherusci.’ Caes. Gal. 6.10.5)
The cases mentioned above all make use of an overt coordinator. Coordination by
means of such a coordinator is often called syndetic coordination. However,
coordination is also possible without an overt lexical device, as in (j), an instance of
conjunction reduction, and in (k). This is called asyndetic coordination (or:
zero-coordination). In cases of asyndetic coordination, intonation will have played a
role in marking the sequence as a compound sentence, as it does in contemporary
languages. In (j), the relationship between the two parts may be understood as adver-
sative. An example of asyndetic conjunctive coordination is (k).
(j) Gallos ab Aquitanis Garunna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit.
(‘The Galli (Gauls) are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the
Belgae by the Marne and the Seine.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.2)
(k) L., frater eius, causam agebat. Aderant amici, propinqui.
(‘His brother Lucius pleaded his case. His friends and relatives were present.’ Cic. Ver.
1.125)
² For a parallel, see Pl. Trin. 1095–6.

 Coordination
Following the grammatical tradition, three semantic classes of overt coordinators are
distinguished, each with their own properties and each containing a number of
devices with their own specific properties: conjunctive (also called ‘copulative’ or
‘additive’), disjunctive (also called ‘alternative’), and adversative. The coordin-
ators most typically involved are et ‘and’, aut ‘or’, and sed ‘but’, respectively.
Sequences of more than two conjoins are also very common. In this Syntax, this will
be called multiple coordination. If syndetic coordinators are used, they may be the
same, as in (l), or different, as in (m). An example of asyndetic multiple coordination is
(n) (° marks the asyndeton); syndetic and asyndetic coordination may co-occur, as in
(o), where sapienter and docte are linked asyndetically. Mixed coordination of this type
is very common in Early Latin prose, both in legal texts and in Cato’s de Agricultura.³
(l) Ego valeo recte et rem gero et facio lucrum . . .
(‘I am doing well and am busy and am making a profit . . .’ Pl. Per. 503)
(m) Accedam atque hanc appellabo et supparasitabor patri.
(‘I’ll go to them and address her and play my father’s hanger-on.’ Pl. Am. 515)
(n) Aderant unguenta, coronae. ° Incendebantur odores. ° Mensae conquisitis-
simis epulis extruebantur.
(‘There were perfumes, garlands; incense was burnt; the tables were loaded with the
choicest banquet.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.62)
(o) (sc. res) . . . quas tu sapienter, ° docte et cordate et cate / mihi reddidisti opipa-
ras opera tua.
(‘. . . which you have intelligently, cleverly, sensibly, and shrewdly made sumptuous for
me through your efforts.’ Pl. Poen. 131–2)
A further distinction is made between single coordinators such as those just men-
tioned, and pairs of coordinators like conjunctive et . . . et ‘both . . . and’, disjunctive
aut . . . aut ‘either . . . or’, and adversative non solum . . . sed (etiam) ‘not only . . . but also’.
For this form of coordination, in which both conjoins have a coordinating device, the
term correlative coordination will be used. Such paired coordinators emphasize
the identity of one or both of the conjoins involved. An example is (p). Here graviter
et vehementer, themselves coordinated by the single coordinator et, form the ‘more
particular or noteworthy’ part of the pair coordinated by cum . . . tum.⁴
(p) . . . tametsi dici cum vere tum graviter et vehementer potest . . .
(‘. . . although they might be stated not only truly, but also with vehemence and with
indignation . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.86)
Examples of correlative coordination of more than two conjoins are (q) and (r). In (s) et
is used four times to link four combinations of an infinitive with an adjunct expression
³ For the relationship between asyndetic and syndetic coordination in Early Latin prose, see
Penney (2005).
⁴ Quotation from OLD s.v. cum2 § 14.
Introductory remarks 
(the last consisting of two nouns linked by the conjunctive coordinator ac ‘and’).
Sequences of more than two conjoins are common with conjunctive and disjunctive,
but not with adversative, coordinators.
(q) . . . et fugi et tibi surrupui filium et eum vendidi.
(‘. . . I ran away and snatched your son from you and sold him.’ Pl. Capt. 972)
(r) . . . quae res recte vortat mihique tibique tuaeque filiae . . .
(‘. . . may this turn out well for me, you, and your daughter . . .’ Pl. Aul. 218)
(s) . . . tamen esset magnum tantam causam, tam exspectatam, et diligentia con-
sequi et memoria complecti et oratione expromere et voce ac viribus susti-
nere.
(‘. . . still it would be a great undertaking in a case so great, so anticipated, both to fol-
low it up with diligence, and to keep it in one’s memory, and to discuss it properly in
speech, and to support it with voice and stamina.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 39)
The three types of coordination are represented in a formulaic form in Table 19.1.
Table . Types of coordination

Syndetic Asyndetic Mixed
coordination by a single coordinator A&B A°B –
multiple coordination A&B&C A°B°C A&B°C/A°B&C
correlative coordination &A&B – –
Legend: & = overt coordinator; ° = asyndeton
Conjoins are most often adjacent, as in the examples above and in (t). However, dis-
continuity with an intervening constituent is not uncommon. In that case the coord-
inator and the conjoin are postposed together, as in (u). Further instances can be
found in § 23.101.
(t) Quam ego pecuniam quadruplicem aps te et lenone auferam.
(‘This money I’ll take away from you and the pimp, fourfold.’ Pl. Cur. 619)
(u) Erroris ambo ego illos et dementiae / complebo atque omnem Amphitruonis
familiam . . .
(‘I’ll fill both of them and Amphitruo’s entire household with misunderstandings and
madness . . .’ Pl. Am. 470–1)
Most of the words that are discussed in this chapter occur in other configurations as
well. The most common coordinators et ‘and’ and sed ‘but’, for instance, can be used
as linking devices both between independent sentences and between sections of a
text, that is as ‘connectors’ (see above). Et can also be used in the sense of etiam ‘also’,
‘too’—that is, as an additive emphasizing particle (see § 22.21).
 Coordination
19.2 Syndetic coordination

In the sections that follow a number of topics are discussed that apply to all or most
overt coordinators. The sections on asyndetic coordination (§§ 19.14–22) will follow
the same format. Thereafter follow details concerning the three semantic types of
coordination mentioned in the introductory section (§ 19.1).
. Syndetic coordination of clauses
Examples of syndetic conjunctive coordination of clauses with one coordinator are

(a) and (b).⁵ An example of syndetic correlative conjunctive coordination is (c). Note
that the two coordinated clauses together serve as subsidiary information for the
preceding polite request Ignoscetis autem. This is made explicit through the use of
the connector nam. An example of two coordinated simple clauses within a com-
pound subordinate clause is (d); of the (repeated) negative conjunctive coordinator
nec/neque, (e).
(a) Seiquis · scies / violasit · dolo · malo, / Iovei · bovid · piaclum / datod ·
et · a(sses) · CCC / moltai · suntod.
(‘If any one does damage knowingly and with wrongful intent, he shall make sin-
offering to Jupiter with an ox, and moreover let there be a fine of 300 as-pieces.’ (CIL
I2.366.II.3–7 (Spoleto, not long after 241 bc))
(b) Et meus pater nunc intus hic cum illa cubat, / et haec ob eam rem nox est
facta longior . . .
(‘And my father’s now lying with her inside the house, and for that very reason this
night’s been made longer . . .’ Pl. Am. 112–13)
(c) Ignoscetis autem. Nam et studio rusticarum rerum provectus sum et senec-
tus est natura loquacior . . .
(‘However, forgive me if I go on. For I am both carried away by my farmer’s zeal, and
old age is naturally more chatty . . .’ Cic. Sen. 55)
(d) Cum dies hibernorum complures transissent frumentumque eo comportari
iussisset, subito per exploratores certior factus est . . .
(‘After several days had passed in winter quarters and he (sc. Galba) had ordered for
grain to be brought in there, suddenly he was alerted by his scouts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.2.1)
(e) Nec enim libidine dominante temperantiae locum esse neque omnino in
voluptatis regno virtutem posse consistere.
(‘For neither where lust holds sway is there any place for self-control, nor in pleasure’s
realm is there anywhere virtue can stand.’ Cic. Sen. 41)
⁵ The first et in (b) is a sentence connector.

Syndetic coordination 
Conjunctive coordination of entire clauses as shown in (a) and (b) is not very com-
mon; the correlative type shown in (c) slightly more. Common elements are often not
repeated, as in exx. (i) and (j) in § 19.1 and in (i) and (j) below. With correlative dis-
junctive coordinators and with adversative coordinators coordination of entire clauses
seems relatively more common. Examples are (f)–(h).
(f) Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse
oportet.
(‘Either this woman is by far the greatest trickster or the bowl ought to be in here.’
Pl. Am. 782–3)
(g) . . . Claudio utrumvis satis est planum facere, vel se a me ipso vi deiectum esse
vel me consilium inisse ut vi deiceretur.
(‘. . . it is sufficient for Claudius to prove either point—either that he was driven out
with violence by my very self, or that I contrived a plan to have him driven out with
violence.’ Cic. Tul. 29)
(h) Cuius a morte tertius hic et tricesimus annus est sed memoriam illius viri
omnes excipient anni consequentes.
(‘Thirty-three years have passed since that hero’s death, but each succeeding year will
carry on his memory.’ Cic. Sen. 19)
In the case of coordination of clauses that have the same subject it is normal to express
it only once, as in (i): quae is expressed only with the first clause. If two clauses also
have the same verb, this is also normally expressed only once: in (j), deportasse is only
expressed in the first clause. The term used in this Syntax for the phenomenon under
discussion is conjunction reduction.
(i) Ab illa quae digitos despoliat suos et tuos digitos decorat.
(‘From the one who is robbing her fingers and adorning yours.’ Pl. Mil. 1048)
(j) Novi enim moderationem animi tui et aequitatem teque non cognomen
solum Athenis deportasse sed humanitatem et prudentiam intellego.
(‘For I know your self-control and the even temper of your mind, and I am aware that
you brought home from Athens not only a nickname but culture and practical wis-
dom too.’ Cic. Sen. 1)
Very useful is the organization of the lemmata in Merguet (Caesar). For et there are
two and a half columns (338A–339B) for coordinated clauses ‘with different sub-
jects and predicates’ against eight dedicated to other coordinated clauses (334A–338A).
For -que, six vs. fifteen (879B–882A/871B–879A). Atque is much less common in the
Caesarian corpus and is not so subdivided.
. Syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level
Examples of syndetic coordination of constituents at the clause level are (a) and (b).
In (a), there is one subject (fortuna) and one object constituent (humana), both related
 Coordination
to two coordinated verbs (fingit, artat). In (b), repeated from § 19.1, et patrem et filium
are together object of the verb comburat.
(a) Fortuna humana fingit artatque ut lubet.
(‘Fortune moulds and pinches human life as she likes.’ Pl. Capt. 304)
(b) Deinde rogas Fabium ut et patrem et filium vivos comburat, si possit.
(‘You proceed to ask Fabius to burn both father and son alive if he can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.6)
Such cases of coordination of constituents at the clause level, both syndetic and asyn-
detic, are often described as elliptic or brachylogical forms of clausal coordination.⁶
Thus, in order to explain that fortuna and humana are understood with both verbs, (a)
is said to represent the shortened version of (a'). In a similar way, (b) is said to repre-
sent the shortened version of (b'), and likewise (c) of (c').
(a') Fortuna humana fingit & fortuna humana artat ut lubet.
(b') Deinde rogas Fabium ut patrem vivum comburat & filium vivum comburat,
si possit.
(c) Turbant, miscent mores mali.
(‘The bad confuse and mix up our standards.’ Pl. Trin. 285)
(c') Turbant mores mali & miscent mores mali.
Describing these actually attested sentences as derived from more ‘basic’ clauses is
problematic in several respects. In the first place, conjunctively coordinated pairs
such as those in (b) behave as a unit, with a particular property that differs from
those of the underlying pairs: et patrem et filium is plural (see § 19.1). Compare also
the use of ambos in (d). Another problem is that it is sometimes impossible to divide
a coordinated clause into two basic clauses, as is shown in (e) and (e'), since verbs
like pugno require two arguments (see § 4.38 fin.). In (f), senatus populusque
Romanus behaves as one constituent and counts as singular; yet it would be odd to
paraphrase the content as (f ').⁷ For similar considerations concerning prepositional
phrases, see § 19.13.
(d) . . . vos in patriam domum / rediisse video bene gesta re ambos, te et fratrem
tuom.
(‘. . . I see that you’ve both, you and your brother, returned home to our country con-
ducting your business so successfully.’ Pl. St. 506–7)
(e) Nunc, male res iunctae, calor et reverentia pugnant.
(‘Now, passion and regard for men, two things that ill go together, are at odds.’ Ov. Ep.
19.173)
(e') Nunc . . . calor pugnat & reverentia pugnat.
⁶ K.-St.: II.555–6 use the term ‘Brachylogie’.

⁷ For instances of irreducible coordinate expressions in English, see Quirk et al. (1985: 942–3). For
further discussion and references, see Pinkster (1990: 8–9).
Syndetic coordination 
(f) . . . pro hoc gradu in quo me senatus populusque Romanus conlocavit . . .

(‘. . . in view of the rank conferred upon me by the senate and the people of Rome . . .’
Cic. Phil. 2.6)
(f ') . . . pro hoc gradu in quo me senatus (Romanus?) conlocavit & in quo me
populus Romanus conlocavit . . .
This phenomenon of reduction is found in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts.
It is part of a more general strategy of leaving implicit what is already present in the
(usually preceding) context. Related phenomena are discussed in §§ 9.9–10 and § 9.16
for subjects and objects, respectively; in § 18.11 for adnominal relative clauses; in
§ 18.30 for coordination of relative clauses; in § 20.1 for comparative clauses; and in
§ 24.8 for discourse continuity and zero-anaphora.
. Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject
Examples of conjunction reduction with a noun phrase that is expressed as the subject
only once are (a)–(d). In (e), the subject is mentioned in the preceding context.
(a) Quid nunc agam, / quem omnes mortales ignorant et ludificant ut lubet?
(‘What should I do now, I whom all mortals disown and ridicule as they like?’ Pl. Am.
1046–7)
(b) Quod quo studiosius ab istis opprimitur et absconditur eo magis eminet et
apparet.
(‘Which, the greater the efforts made by them to suppress and conceal it, the more
evident and conspicuous it becomes.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 121)
(c) . . . contra vitam fortunasque nostras ab homine profligato ac perdito non
comparari sed geri iam viderem.
(‘. . . I saw (war) being not plotted but actually waged by a profligate and desperate
man against our lives and property.’ Cic. Phil. 3.1)
(d) Quis mihi in re publica potest aut debet esse coniunctior . . .
(‘Who in the Republic can or should be more closely tied to me . . .’ Cic. Mur. 3)
(e) (sc. equites) Foedant et proterunt hostium copias / iure iniustas.
(‘They rightly mangled and crushed the enemy’s unrighteous troops.’ Pl. Am. 246–7)
Supplement:
. . . qui nunc festinat atque ab hac minatur sese abire. (Pl. As. 604); Iuppiter, qui genus
colis alisque hominum . . . (Pl. Poen. 1187)
. . . causa non solum exponenda, sed etiam graviter copioseque agenda est. (Cic. Div.
Caec. 39)
. . . nescio unde auxili, praesidi, perfugi / mi aut opum copiam comparem aut
expetam. (Pl. Cas. 623–4); . . . praesertim cum tribunus plebis vel denuntiare potueris
vel etiam cogere? (Cic. Dom. 117—NB: with a shared secondary predicate); Difficile
 Coordination
ad fidem est in tam antiqua re quot pugnaverint ceciderintve exacto adfirmare

numero. (Liv. 3.5.12)
NB: shared subject complement: Itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapi-
entes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.7)⁸
. Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same object
Examples of simple conjunction reduction with a noun phrase that is expressed only
as the object of the first verb are (a)–(e) (see also § 9.16). Conjunction reduction is
almost obligatory when the first object is a pronoun used anaphorically or a relative
pronoun, as in (b), and when the coordinated verbs have more or less the same mean-
ing, as in (c).⁹ Note that in (d) the secondary predicate perterritos that belongs to the
implied object of egerunt is expressed. An example of a clausal object is (f). For
examples of disjunctive and adversative coordination, see the Supplement.
(a) Pacisce ergo, opsecro, quid tibi lubet, / dum ne manufesto hominem oppri-
mat neve enicet.
(‘Settle the issue, then, please, on any terms you like, so long as he doesn’t surprise the
man in the act and kill him.’ Pl. Bac. 866–7—NB: for the use of neve, see § 8.40)
(b) (sc. parasiti) . . . quos numquam quisquam nec vocat neque invocat.
(‘. . . whom no one ever either calls to or calls on.’ Pl. Capt. 76)
(c) Illud unum vos magnopere oro atque obsecro, iudices . . . ne fictis auditioni-
bus . . . fortunas innocentium subiciiendas putetis.
(‘One thing I do most earnestly beg and pray of you, gentlemen . . . do not consider it right
that the fate of the guiltless should lie at the mercy of fictitious rumours.’ Cic. Planc. 56)
(d) . . . reliquos in fugam coniecerunt atque ita perterritos egerunt ut . . .
(‘. . . they put the rest to rout, and indeed drove them in such a panic that . . .’ Caes. Gal.
4.12.2)
(e) Indignatus puer quod (sc. Trimalchio) Scylacem tam effuse laudaret catellam
in terram deposuit hortatusque <est> ut ad rixam properaret.
(‘The boy, offended because Trimalchio praised Scylax so lavishly, put the puppy on
the ground and encouraged her to attack at once.’ Petr. 64.9)
(f) Quod ego etsi mea sponte ante faciebam . . . nunc tamen et agam studiosius
et contendam ab illo vehementius . . .
(‘What I have been doing already of my own accord . . . I shall now set to work at more
zealously and press him about harder . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.10.2)
Supplement:
Est profecto deus qui quae nos gerimus auditque et videt. (Pl. Capt. 313); Domum
meam maioribus praesidiis munivi atque firmavi . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.10); Caesar . . . crates
⁸ See Nicolas (1999: 56).

⁹ For ‘quasi-synonymous verbs’, see Spevak (2010a: 104–6).
Syndetic coordination 
ad extremum tumulum contra hostem proferri et adversas locari . . . iussit. (Caes. Civ.
3.46.1—NB: with secondary predicate); Milites . . . praecipites Pompeianos egerunt et
terga vertere coegerunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.46.5—NB: with a secondary predicate)
Quotiens te votui Argyrippum, filium Demaeneti, / compellare aut contrectare,
colloquive aut contui? (Pl. As. 522–3); Eum praeter Marcellos patronum quem suo
iure adire aut appellare posset habere neminem. (Cic. Ver. 2.36); . . . uti . . . quid quisque
eorum de quaque re audierit aut cognoverit quaerant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.5.2)
Nunc quam ob rem huc sum missa, amabo, vel tu mi aias vel neges. (Pl. Rud.
427); . . . tum hic bonus augur eo se sacerdotio praeditum esse dixit ut comitia aus-
piciis vel impedire vel vitiare posset . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.80)
At placuero huic Erotio, / quae me non excludet ab se sed apud se occludet domi.
(Pl. Men. 670–1); Cum vero ne de venalibus quidem homines electos sed ex ergastulis
emptos nominibus gladiatoriis ornarit . . . (Cic. Sest. 134); Eius rei testimonium
esse . . . quod bellum non intulerit sed defenderit. (Caes. Gal. 1.44.6)
When an object is not expressed with the second verb of a coordinated pair, we find
both the word order ‘object verb & verb’ (OV & V) and ‘verb object & verb’ (VO & V).
The former seems to predominate, as in the examples above, but see (g) and (h) for the
reverse order. When the object is omitted with the first verb, the normal word order
is V & VO, as in (i), and not V & OV, but see (j) for an exception.¹⁰
(g) . . . plura suscepi veritus ne movere hominum studia viderer, retinere non posse.
(‘. . . I embarked upon further undertakings in fear that I would seem to have piqued
human interest, but to be unable to maintain it.’ Cic. Fin. 1.2)
(h) . . . sordidatus cum gentilibus clientibusque in foro prensabat singulos ora-
batque, ne Claudiae genti eam inustam maculam vellent, ut . . .
(‘. . . dressed for mourning, accompanied by his clansmen and clients, he approached
one citizen after another in the Forum and begged that they not allow a stain to
besmirch the Claudian line such that . . .’ Liv. 3.58.1)
(i) Ostentare hoc est, Romani, non gerere bellum.
(‘This, Romans, is making a show of war, not waging it.’ Liv. 3.2.8)
(j) Neque hercle ego uxorem habeo neque ego Erotio / dedi nec pallam surrupui.
(‘I don’t, by God, have a wife and I neither gave the mantle to Erotium, nor did I steal
it.’ Pl. Men. 509)
. Syndetic coordination of verbs with different argument marking

that share an object or a comparable constituent
Conjunction reduction of a noun phrase or a similar constituent that is related to two
or more coordinated verbs can occur even when the verbs have different verb frames
or different case patterns.¹¹ In (a), the verbs involved govern different cases (accusative
¹⁰ See Sznajder (1998: 805–6).

¹¹ The examples are taken from K.-St.: II.565 and from von Nägelsbach and von Müller (1905: 388–9).
For cases such as (a) some scholars use the term ‘syllepsis’ (see Sz.: 831–2).
 Coordination
and dative, respectively) but only the dative is expressed. In (b), the understood object
of the verb educit is coreferential with the indirect object of the coordinated verb dat.
As the examples show, the reduction may concern the object of the earlier verb, as in
(a), or the object of the later verb, as in (b). In (c), ab ea may be understood with eve-
huntur. In this case, the expressed constituent is probably a direction argument. For
examples with two objects expressed with different marking, see (d) and (e).
(a) Qui autem non defendit nec obsistit, si potest, iniuriae, tam est in vitio quam
si parentes . . . deserat.
(‘But he who does not prevent or oppose wrong, if he can, is just as guilty of wrong as
if he deserted his parents . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.23)
(b) Eodem tempore clamore exaudito dat tuba signum suis Vercingetorix atque
ex oppido educit.
(‘At the same moment, hearing the shout, Vercingetorix gave his troops the signal by
trumpet, and led them out of the town.’ Caes. Gal. 7.81.3)
(c) Vilicus . . . appellatus a villa, quod ab eo in eam convehuntur fructus et eve-
huntur, cum veneunt.
(‘The name vilicus . . . is derived from villa, as this is the place into which the crops are
hauled by him and out of which they are hauled when they are sold.’ Var. R. 1.2.14)
(d) Ipse dux hostium Camulogenus suis aderat atque eos cohortabatur.
(‘The leader of the enemy, Camulogenus, was himself there among his men and was
urging them on.’ Caes. Gal. 7.62.6)
(e) In hoc sumus sapientes, quod naturam optumam ducem tamquam deum
sequimur eique paremus.
(‘I am wise because I follow Nature as the best of guides and obey her as a god.’
Cic. Sen. 5)
Supplement:
Verum si augeam / aut etiam adiutor si<e>m eius iracundiae, / insaniam profecto
cum illo. (Ter. Ad. 145–7); Nam quid ego de aedile ipso loquar, qui etiam diem dixit
et accusavit de vi Milonem? (Cic. Sest. 95); . . . tamen apparet atque exstat utrum
simus earum rudes an didicerimus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.73); Quocirca poetae in magna
varietate personarum etiam vitiosis quid conveniat et quid deceat videbunt. (Cic. Off.
1.98); . . . univorsos in contione laudat atque agit gratias . . . (Sal. Jug. 54.1); Odi
odioque sum Romanis. (Liv. 35.19.6)
NB: Accusative me governed by the second verb: Nam postea me ut sibi essem lega-
tus non solum suasit verum etiam rogavit. (Cic. Prov. 42)
. . . hoc voluit clarissimum relinquere indicium latrociniorum suorum, de quo non
audire aliquando sed videre cotidie possemus. (Cic. Ver. 1.130); . . . id me non modo
non hortatur ad disputandum sed etiam deterret. (Cic. de Orat. 2.25); (sc. Scipio) . . . ad
Hannibalem detrahendum ex Italia transferendumque et finiendum in Africa bellum
se transire volgaverat. (Liv. 29.26.6); Extemplo caetrati Achaeorum in castra impe-
tum faciunt et diripiunt. (Liv. 35.30.4—NB: unless et diripiunt is an interpolation; see
Briscoe ad loc.; Gronovius proposed et <ea>)
Syndetic coordination 
. Syndetic coordination of verbs sharing

a third argument or a satellite
Instances of coordinated verbs that share a third argument or a satellite are difficult to
find. An example with a third argument is (a); with satellites, (b) and (c). Note the
proposed emendation in (d).
(a) Utrum quae tibi ex societate debeatur an quae ex liberalitate huius promissa
sit et ostentata?
(‘Was it owing to you from the partnership, or had it been promised and offered you
by my client’s generosity?’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 16)
(b) . . . maxumeque reliquiae rerum earum moventur in animis et agitantur de
quibus vigilantes aut cogitavimus aut egimus . . .
(‘. . . and the remnants of those things that we either thought about or accomplished
when awake are especially moved and stirred in our souls . . .’ Cic. Div. 2.140)
(c) Sequitur tertia, quae per omnis partis sapientiae manat et funditur . . .,
disserendi ratio et scientia.
(‘In the third place follows that which seeps into and suffuses all aspects of
wisdom . . ., the art and science of reasoning.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.72)
(d) Ei legi et egi (cum eo add. Wesenberg).
(‘I read it to him and took the matter up.’ Cic. Att. 15.1.2)
Supplement:
. . . cogit quaestorem suum pecuniam quam ex Agonidis bonis redegisset eam mulieri
omnem annumerare et reddere. (Cic. Div. Caec. 57); . . . pro Quinctio cui tu et rem et
famam tuam commendare proficiscens et concredere solebas . . . (Cic. Quinct. 62);
Vos, quaeso, date hoc et concedite pudori meo, ut aliquam partem de istius impu-
dentia reticere possim. (Cic. Ver. 1.32); Est tuum, est ingenii diligentiaeque tuae. Do
hoc tibi et concedo. (Cic. Ver. 3.16)
Atque illi miseri nati in illis agris et educati, glebis subigendis exercitati, quo se subito
conferant non habebunt. (Cic. Agr. 2.84); Habeo autem certam viam atque rationem
qua omnis illorum conatus investigare et consequi possim. (Cic. Ver. 1.48); . . . factum
est senatus consultum quibus de sartis tectis cognitum et iudicatum non esset uti
C. Verres P. Coelius praetores cognoscerent et iudicarent. (Cic. Ver. 1.130)
. Syndetic coordination of arguments

and satellites at the clause level
Clauses with coordinated arguments and satellites that share the same verb are very
common.¹² Compound subjects that consist of two or more conjunctively coordinated
¹² Complete collections can be found in Merguet (Phil. and Reden, also Caesar), s.vv. atque and et, and
in Lodge, s.vv. atque and et.
 Coordination
noun phrases, however, deserve special attention, since specific rules of agreement
apply to them (see §§ 13.4–9). Examples of compound subjects are (a)–(e). In (a) the
verb is singular and the coordination is asyndetic. In (b), the verb is plural and the
coordination is partly asyndetic. In (c), the verb is singular; in (d), plural.
(a) Persuasit nox, amor, vinum, adulescentia.
(‘Night, love, wine, and youth persuaded him.’ Ter. Ad. 470)
(b) . . . praesertim cum Romae domus eius, uxor, liberi essent et procurator aeque
utriusque necessarius.
(‘. . . especially as he had at Rome a house, a wife, children, and an agent equally con-
nected to both parties.’ Cic. Quinct. 86)
(c) . . . nihil est . . . quod humilitatem cuiusquam gravitas et virtus iudicis consoletur.
(‘. . . there is nothing which the authority and integrity of a judge can do for anyone’s
abjection.’ Cic. Quinct. 5)
(d) Quid? Auspicia, quibus ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute
praesumus.
(‘What of augury, over which you and I, Crassus, preside to the great welfare of the
(e) Sestius apud me fuit et Theopompus pridie.
(‘Sestius was with me yesterday, and Theopompus.’ Cic. Att. 13.7.1)
Noun phrases coordinated by a disjunctive or adversative coordinator do not pose

such problems of agreement: the verb agrees with the nearest conjoin. Two note-
worthy cases are shown in (f) and (g). In (f), juridical precision explains the repetition
of the participle to agree with nata. In (g), the plural erant is understood with Graeci
sacrilegi etc.
(f) Quicumque filius aut filia mihi natus natave erit, heres mihi sit.
(‘Let whatever son or daughter is born to me be my heir.’ Gaius [Epit.] 2.3.2)
(g) . . . eius modi recuperatores, quorum civis Romanus nemo erat sed Graeci
sacrilegi iam pridem improbi . . .
(‘. . . court officials of this sort, none of whom was a Roman citizen, but who were
shameless Greeks, formerly temple-robbers . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.69)
Examples of other compound arguments are the accusative object in (h), the dative
object in (i), the indirect object in (j), and the ablative third argument in (k). Ex. (l)
illustrates a compound subject complement; (m) and (n) illustrate compound satellites.
(h) Noctem tuam et vini cadum velim, si optata fiant.
(‘I’d wish for a night with you and a jar of wine if my wishes came true.’ Pl. As. 624)
(i) . . . si potius vobis ac rei publicae quam sibi et suis commodis opera, sumptu,
labore deserviunt . . .
(‘. . . if, by their toil, expense, and labour, they serve you and your country better than
themselves and their own advantage . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.228)
Syndetic coordination 
(j) Tlepolemo dat et Hieroni negotium.

(‘. . . he put the matter into the hands of Tlepolemus and Hiero.’ Cic. Ver. 4.96)
(k) Quanta me cura et sollicitudine adficit / gnatus.
(‘How much worry and anxiety my son is causing me.’ Ter. Ph. 441–2—NB: quanta
modifies both cura and sollicitudine; see § 19.11)
(l) . . . is cum amicus et socius populi Romani esset, . . . praeceps provincia populi
Romani exturbatus est.
(‘. . . this man, although he was the friend and ally of the Roman nation, . . . was driven
out headlong from a Roman province.’ Cic. Ver. 4.67)
(m) Nam tua opera et comitate et virtute et sapientia / fecisti ut redire liceat ad
parentes denuo . . .
(‘Well, through your efforts and kindness and noble spirit and wisdom you’ve made
it that I can return to my parents again . . .’ Pl. Capt. 410–11—NB: see note on (k))
(n) . . . quae res ad usum civilem moribus et legibus constitutae sunt . . .
(‘. . . those matters which have been established by law and custom for citizen use . . .’
Rhet. Her. 1.2)
Examples of disjunctive and adversative coordinators linking constituents that are

connected to the same verb can be found in the relevant sections on individual
coordinators.
. Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level
Syndetic coordination of constituents below the clause level can occur at the level of
the noun, the adjective, the adverb, and the prepositional phrase.
. Syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level

Examples of syndetic coordination of constituents at the noun phrase level are (a)
and (b), in which attributive noun phrases are coordinated, and (c) and (d), in which
attributive adjectives are coordinated. Note in (c) the discontinuity of the coordin-
ated adjectives (for further examples, see § 23.101). In the following sections most
examples contain the conjunctive coordinator et. Further examples of et and other
coordinators can be found in later sections. For coordination of attributive adjec-
tives, see also § 13.22.
(a) Ego virtute deum et maiorum nostrum dives sum satis.
(‘Thanks to the gods and our ancestors I’m rich enough.’ Pl. Aul. 166)
(b) Heraclius . . . capit consilium de amicorum et propinquorum sententia non
adesse ad iudicium.
(‘Heraclius . . . planned, based on the opinion of his friends and associates, not to
appear in court.’ Cic. Ver. 2.41)
 Coordination
(c) Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo.

(‘I want to ask you for a just and a small favour.’ Pl. Am. 33)
(d) . . . quod in rebus honestis et cognitione dignis operae curaeque ponetur, id
iure laudabitur . . .
(‘. . . what of effort and care is devoted to matters honourable and worthy of contem-
plation, this will rightly be praised . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.19)
Supplement:
. . . aliud fraudis et insidiarum in eodem vestigio deverticulum reperit. (Cic. Q. Rosc.
51); . . . quibus rebus ad illum primum motum animi et amoris adhibitis . . . (Cic. Amic.
29); Lacedaemoniorum deinde exsulum et Achaeorum legati introducti sunt . . .
(Liv. 40.20.2); . . . omissis orationum et causarum studiis omne tempus modo circa
Medeam, ecce nunc circa Thyestem consumas . . . (Tac. Dial. 3.4)
. . . qui mage amico utantur gnato et benevolo. (Pl. As. 66); Mulier commoda et /
faceta haec meretrix. (Ter. Hau. 521–2); Hoc vestro iudicio tanto tamque praeclaro
excitatus ita Kalendis Ianuariis veni in senatum ut . . . (Cic. Phil. 6.2); . . . cumque eos
permensus est idem et semper sui similis orbis. (Cic. Tim. 33); Splendidiore nunc eos
catena sed multo graviore vinctos esse . . . (Liv. 35.38.10); . . . sanctiorem illam et
augustiorem eloquentiam colam. (Tac. Dial. 4.2)
The category of adjectives consists of several semantic classes (see § 3.7). In principle
only adjectives that belong to the same semantic class can be coordinated (see
§ 11.39). If adjectives that belong to different semantic classes are coordinated the
second adjective is usually explicative. Noteworthy cases where such an interpret-
ation is difficult are (e) and (f).¹³
(e) . . . video . . . illac facere, omnem fere iuventutem, omnem illam urbanam ac
perditam plebem . . .
(‘. . . I see that all the younger people, all the desperate city rabble are on his
side . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.3.5)
(f) Incedebat muliebre et miserabile agmen . . .
(‘There went on its way a pitiable column of women . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.40.4—tr.
Woodman)
Conversely, compound head nouns with two or more constituents can be modified by
one (or more) modifier(s), as in (g)–(h). In (g), the genitive noun claustrorum modi-
fies both head nouns. In (h) more and modo are modified by the possessive adjective
nostro. Note here the discontinuity of the two coordinated nouns (for further
examples, see § 23.7). Further details, including those concerning the rules of agree-
ment in such cases, are discussed in § 13.21.
(g) . . . sonitum et crepitum claustrorum audio . . .
(‘. . . I can hear the noise and clattering of the bolts . . .’ Pl. Cur. 203)
¹³ See Risselada (1984: 220–2), Spevak (2010a: 229–39), and, for Tacitus, Sánchez Martínez (2000:
194–201).
Syndetic coordination 
(h) . . . nos nostras more nostro et modo instruximus / legiones . . .

(‘. . . we drew up our legions according to our usual method and manner . . .’ Pl. Am.
221–2)
Supplement:
Sed eccos video incedere / patrem sodalis et magistrum. (Pl. Bac. 403–4); . . . digni-
tatem nostram, ut potest in tanta hominum perfidia et iniquitate, retinebimus. (Cic.
Fam. 1.2.4); . . . etsi nemini concedo qui maiorem ex pernicie et peste rei publicae
molestiam traxerit . . . (Cic. Fam. 4.3.1); . . . vagus auditor adsuevit iam exigere laetitiam
et pulchritudinem orationis. (Tac. Dial. 20.3)
Spero consuetudine et / coniugio liberali devinctum, Chreme, / de(h)inc facile ex
illis sese emersurum malis. (Ter. An. 560–2); Tu aliquem patronum invenies, homi-
nem antiqui offici, qui splendorem nostrum et gratiam neglegat. (Cic. Quinct. 72);
Sin has caedes et rapinas et hos tantos tamque profusos sumptus aut facient aut
approbabunt . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 139); Equidem adhuc miser in maximis meis aerumnis
et luctibus . . . maneo Thessalonicae . . . (Cic. Att. 3.8.2); . . . primum strata humi lon-
goque fletu et silentio, post altaria et aram complexa . . . inquit . . . (Tac. Ann. 16.31.1)
. Syndetic coordination of constituents

Examples of syndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level are (a)
and (b), both illustrating arguments that are required by the adjective (see § 4.99 and
§ 11.92).
(a) Pater iam hic me offendet miserum adveniens ebrium, / aedis plenas convi-
varum et mulierum.
(‘On his arrival, my father will find me drunk here now, wretch that I am, and the
house full of guests and women.’ Pl. Mos. 378–9)
(b) . . . consilium ceperunt plenum sceleris et audaciae . . .
(‘. . . they formed a plan full of villainy and audacity . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 28)
Supplement:
Num etiam fratris mei litteras plenissimas humanitatis et aequitatis reprehensurus
es? (Cic. Flac. 78); Huc homines digni istius amicitia, digni vita illa conviviisque
veniebant. (Cic. Ver. 5.30); . . . ut ex eo donum aureum, dignum amplitudine templi ac
numine dei, ex dignitate populi Romani fieret. (Liv. 5.23.11); . . . dignum fide constan-
tiaque Romana capiamus consilium . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.20.4)
There are also instances of compound adjective phrases that are modified in some
way. Ex. (c) illustrates a place satellite (example repeated from § 11.92). More com-
mon are instances with the degree adverb tam, as in (d).
(c) Quis Platorem . . ., hominem in illis locis clarum ac nobilem, legatum
Thessalonicam . . . venisse nescit?
(‘Who does not know that Plator . . ., a noble and a celebrity in his own land, came . . . to
Thessalonica as legate?’ Cic. Har. 35)
 Coordination
(d) . . . sese hoc incolumi non arbitratur huius innocentis patrimonium tam
amplum et copiosum posse obtinere . . .
(‘. . . he thinks himself unable, while that man is still living, to retain possession of the
inheritance of this innocent man, so large and rich it is . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 6)
Supplement:
. . . quod tam infestum scelus et immane . . .? (Cic. Clu. 188); Quae tanta enim potest
exsistere ubertas ingenii . . . quod tam divinum atque incredibile genus ora-
tionis . . . (Cic. Red. Sen. 1); Quae ista tanta crudelitas est, quae tam fera immanisque
natura? (Cic. S. Rosc. 146)
NB: coordinated adverbs: Ita tantum bellum, tam diuturnum, tam longe lateque
dispersum . . . (Cic. Man. 35)
. Syndetic coordination of prepositions

and of prepositional phrases
When two prepositional phrases with the same preposition are coordinated, the prep-
osition may be repeated, as in (a) and (b). In (c) and (d), however, the preposition is
used only once. In (c), one may interpret the sequence cum ero et vostra familia either
as a pair of coordinated nouns governed by a preposition, or as a case of conjunction
reduction with the second preposition unexpressed (for a similar problem, see § 19.4).
In this case, the first analysis is more attractive due to the close semantic relationship
between erus and familia. In (d), by contrast, the second analysis seems preferable. In
these examples, the coordinator is the conjunctive et, as is the case with most of the
examples in this section. For other coordinators, see the Supplement.¹⁴
(a) Quin tu i dierecta cum sucula et cum porculis.
(‘Go and be hanged with your little sow and your little piglets.’ Pl. Rud. 1170)
(b) Id solus solum per amicitiam et per fidem / flens me opsecravit . . .
(‘He, in tears, begged this of me one-on-one by our friendship and by my good
faith . . .’ Pl. Trin. 153–4)
(c) . . . capias restim ac te suspendas cum ero et vostra familia.
(‘. . . you should take a rope and hang yourself with your master and household.’
Pl. Poen. 396)
(d) Per supremi regis regnum iuro et matrem familias / Iunonem . . .
(‘I swear by the kingdom of the king on high and by the matriarch Juno . . .’ Pl. Am.
831–2)
Preposition repeated:
Conjunctive coordination: Eheu, redactus sum usque ad unam hanc tuniculam /
et ad hoc misellum pallium. (Pl. Rud. 549–50); Est enim ratio mensque sapientis ad
¹⁴ For instances with et, see Lodge: s.v. 524B–525A, 526A, 527A; McGlynn: s.v. 169B–170A. For
instances with atque, see Lodge: s.v. 169B–170A.
Syndetic coordination 
iubendum et ad deterrendum idonea. (Cic. Leg. 2.8); Viri, arma, equi ad usum et ad
decus supererant. (Tac. Hist. 1.51.2); Inde in amicitiam insinuavit cum matre et
mecum simul . . . (Pl. Cist. 92—NB: postpositional cum with the pronoun me); At te,
vicine, di deaeque perduint, / cum tua amica cumque amationibus. (Pl. Mer. 793–4); . . .
filiam ut darem in seditionem atque in incertas nuptias . . . (Ter. An. 830—NB: some
mss. lack in before incertas); Apud eum sunt in honore et in pretio. (Cic. S. Rosc. 77);
Ait enim vim divinam in ratione esse positam et in universae naturae animo atque
mente . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.39); Est in Africa consuetudo incolarum ut in agris et in omni-
bus fere villis sub terra specus frumenti condendi gratia clam habeant . . . (B. Afr.
65.1); . . . honores . . . ad quos vos per ludum et per neglegentiam pervenistis. (Cic. Ver.
5.181); Si sine vi et sine bello velint rapta et raptores tradere . . . (Pl. Am. 206); . . .
armatos non fuisse eos qui sine scutis sineque ferro fuerint . . . (Cic. Caec. 64)
Disjunctive coordination: Per epistulam aut per nuntium, quasi regem, adiri eum
aiunt. (Pl. Mil. 1225)
Adversative coordination: . . . ut tota res non solum a me sed etiam a senatu et a
vobis manifesto deprenderetur. (Cic. Catil. 3.4); . . . ut onus huius laboris atque officii
non ex meo sed ex meorum necessariorum tempore mihi suscipiendum putarem.
(Cic. Div. Caec. 5); (sc. qui) . . . non per praestigias sed palam per potestatem uno impe-
rio ostiatim totum oppidum conpilaverit. (Cic. Ver. 4.53)
Preposition not repeated:
Conjunctive coordination: . . . tibi muni viam / qua cibatus commeatusque ad te et
legiones tuas / tuto possit pervenire. (Pl. Mil. 223–5); Mox conversus ad signa et bel-
lorum deos . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.10.4); Sed hic rex cum aceto pransuru’st et sale, sine bono
pulmento. (Pl. Rud. 937); Ego de urbe et his propriis ac vernaculis vitiis loquar . . . (Tac.
Dial. 28.3); . . . ut fueris animatus erga suom gnatum atque se . . . (Pl. Capt. 407); Nam
in mala uxore atque inimico si quid sumas, sumptus est . . . (Pl. Mil. 673); Advorsari
sine dedecore et scelere summo hau possumus . . . (Pl. St. 72)
Disjunctive coordination: . . . si erga parentes aut deos me impiavi. (Pl. Rud. 192);
Potui umor ex hordeo aut frumento, in quandam similitudinem vini corruptus. (Tac.
Ger. 23.1); Nec vero criminibus falsis in odium aut invidiam quemquam voca-
bit . . . (Cic. Off. 1.86); . . . Zenonem, qui nulla in re nisi in virtute aut vitio ([aut vitio]
Davisius, edd.) propensionem ne minimi quidem momenti ad summum bonum
adipiscendum esse diceret . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.47); Eadem de causa sunt quae non possunt
vivere nisi in loco aquoso aut etiam aqua . . . (Var. R. 1.7.7); . . . pluresque in eo loco
sine vulnere quam in proelio aut fuga intereunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.35.3); . . . plures per
silentium aut occultum murmur excepere. (Tac. Ann. 2.38.4); . . . illa immensa volu-
mina quae pro M. Tullio aut Aulo Caecina legimus? (Tac. Dial. 20.1)
Adversative coordination: Finis Neronis . . . varios motus animorum non modo in
urbe apud patres aut populum aut urbanum militem, sed omnes legiones ducesque
conciverat . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.4.2); Usque eone te diligis et magnifice circumspicis ut
pecuniam non ex tuis tabulis sed (sed ex cj. Sylvius) adversariis petas? (Cic. Q. Rosc. 5);
Tunc xystici contemplandi, non in gymnasiis sed igne iaculati . . . (Tert. Spect. 30.5); . . .
non solum inter barbaros, sed etiam omnes Graeciae civitates, clam dare operam
coepit . . . (Nep. Con. 5.2); Inde non per Macedoniam modo sed etiam Thraciam
prosequente et praeparante omnia Philippo . . . (Liv. 37.7.16)
NB: poetic (and poeticizing) word order: . . . manibus sine nonnulli pedibusque
manebant / in vita tamen . . . (Lucr. 6.1210–11); Italiam utroque mari duae classes,
 Coordination
Misenum apud et Ravennam, proximumque Galliae litus rostratae naves praeside-

bant . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.5.1)¹⁵
The preposition inter, which by virtue of its meaning requires two members, should
normally not be repeated, but compare (e) and (f), the latter with repetition.¹⁶
(e) Nunc ita convenit inter me atque hunc, Tyndare / ut . . .
(‘Now the agreement between me and him, Tyndarus, is that . . .’ Pl. Capt. 378)
(f) . . . ut nihil inter te atque inter quadripedem aliquam putes interesse?
(‘. . . that you believe there is no difference between you and some four-footed
animal?’ Cic. Parad. 14)
The preposition seems not to be repeated when the prepositional phrase contains two
or more modifiers of one head, as in (g) and (h).
(g) Nunc volo opsonare, ut, hospes, tua te ex virtute et mea / meae domi
accipiam . . .
(‘Now I want to buy food, my guest, so that I can receive you kindly in my house, as
befits your character and mine . . .’ Pl. Mil. 738–9)
(h) . . . necdum exarui ex amoenis rebus et voluptariis.
(‘. . . and I’m not yet burned-out from all things lovely and enjoyable.’ Pl. Mil. 641)
With single conjunctive coordinators, as in the preceding examples, the preposition is

more often not repeated, at least in Classical authors. By contrast, with disjunctive and
adversative coordinators repetition is more common. With pairs of coordinators
repetition is understandably the rule, since the repetition serves to mark the indi-
viduality of the conjoins. It is difficult to tell if semantic factors played a role in the
choice between repetition and non-repetition of the preposition. In an example like
(i) the two prepositional phrases in the clause appear to have different semantic func-
tions, which may explain the repetition. However, it is more likely that an author’s
decision to repeat the preposition was the product of a personal choice to present the
second phrase in its own right. Intonation may be another factor.
(i) . . . puellam peperit quam a me acceperat, / sine opstetricis opera et sine
doloribus . . .
(‘. . . she gave birth to the girl she’d received from me, without the help of a midwife
and without labour pains . . .’ Pl. Cist. 140–1)
Clark (OCT) and Hinard (Budé), with little manuscript support, read in at Cic.
S. Rosc. 78 . . . in egestate et in insidiis versatur . . . (with and ) and at S. Rosc. 81 . . . in
praeda et in sanguine versabantur . . . (with ); other editors follow the main manu-
scripts and leave the preposition out. Landgraf, in his commentary ad 78, is very
explicit: ‘the preposition cannot be omitted here, because et coordinates two different
notions’ (my paraphrase). K.St.: II.579, however, state that there is nothing whatsoever
¹⁵ For a discussion of this order, see Marouzeau (1947: 320–1).

¹⁶ For further examples, see TLL s.v. inter 2147.68ff.
Syndetic coordination 
that prevents a repetition of the preposition. See also § 19.83 on zeugma. In the two
instances cited the version without repetition is preferable from the rhythmical point
of view.¹⁷
Regular instances of correlative coordination with repetition of the preposition are

(j)–(m).
(j) (sc. Alcumena) . . . / utrimque est gravida, et ex viro et ex summo Iove.
(‘. . .Alcumena is pregnant from both, from her husband and from great Jupiter.’ Pl. Am.
110–11)
(k) . . . permulti et ex urbe et ex agris se in illa castra conferre dicuntur.
(‘. . . many are said to be bringing themselves to those camps from both the city and
the country.’ Cic. Catil. 2.21)
(l) . . . quod aut in oppidis aut in agris maiores nostri proprium nobis relique-
rint . . .
(‘. . . that which our ancestors have left us as our own either in the towns or lands . . .’
Cic. Agr. 2.48)
(m) . . . quod sit vel a dis inmortalibus vel a natura parente omnium constitutum.
(‘. . . that which is established either by the immortal gods or by nature, the mother of
all things.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.118)
Supplement:
Reddenda nunc est eustyli ratio, quae maxime probabilis et ad usum et ad speciem et
ad firmitatem rationes habet explicatas. (Vitr. 3.3.6); . . . si eos aut in odium aut in
invidiam aut in contemptionem adducemus. (Cic. Inv. 1.22); . . . ut tantam pecuniam
scriba tuus auferret sive de aratorum bonis sive de populi Romani vectigalibus? (Cic.
Ver. 3.181)
Other patterns are shown in (n) and (o).

(n) Id facies si omne genus liberalitatis quod et ab humanitate et potestate
(a potestate cj. Wesenberg) tua proficisci poterit . . . exprompseris.
(‘To effect this, you have only to bring out for the occasion all the manifold generosity
that it lies within your good nature and your present power to provide.’ Cic. Fam.
13.6.4)
(o) . . . ut aut de nomine aut scripto et sententia vel ratiocinatione quaeratur.
(‘. . . so that the enquiry is concerned with the name of a given act, with the letter of
the law and its meaning, or with something that requires to be settled by argument.’
Quint. Inst. 3.6.72)
Supplement:
. . . non dubitem quin et in Caesare et Antonio (in Antonio cj. Lambinus) se praes-
taturus fuerit . . . (Brut. ad Brut. 1.11.1); Sub idem fere tempus et ab Attalo rege et
Rhodiis legati venerunt . . . (Liv. 31.2.1); . . . integrioris iudicii et a favore et odio . . .
¹⁷ As was pointed out to me by Andrew Dyck (p.c.).

 Coordination
(Liv. 45.37.8—NB: text much disputed and altered); Quae interim ductu imperioque
Alexandri vel in Graecis vel Illyriis ac Thraecia gesta sunt . . . (Curt. 5.1.1)
As the examples discussed so far show, it is the second preposition in a sequence that
can be omitted. Instances in which the preposition is missing from the first conjoin
are attested from Plautus onwards, as in (p). This became a ‘pervasive usage in Latin
verse’¹⁸ from Catullus onwards, as in (q), which is known as the figura ἀπὸκοινοῦ.
The first prose example is (r). While it is clear that the figura constituted a stylistic
preference in poetry, attested prose instances should be looked at critically.¹⁹
(p) Solus solitudine ego ted atque ab egestate apstuli.
(‘I was the only one to rescue you from loneliness and poverty.’ Pl. As. 163—NB:
unless Plautus ventures a bare ablative to create the pun sol . . . sol . . .)²⁰
(q) Cur non exilium malasque in oras / itis . . .?
(‘Why don’t you go into banishment on accursed shores . . .?’ Catul. 33.5–6)
(r) Paleas triticeas et hordeaceas, acus fabaginum, vicia (de vicia cj. Keil) vel de
lupino, item de ceteris frugibus omnia condito.
(‘Store wheat and barley straw, husks of beans, of vetch or lupines, and likewise of all
other crops.’ Cato Agr. 54.2)
Supplement:
Poetry: Illa Notos atque atra volans in nubila fugit. (Verg. A. 5.512); Quas ego te ter-
ras et quanta per aequora vectum / accipio! (Verg. A. 6.692–3); Quae nemora aut
quos agor in specus / velox mente nova? (Hor. Carm. 3.25.2–3); . . . foedera regum /
vel Gabiis vel cum rigidis aequata Sabinis . . . (Hor. Ep. 2.1.24–5); Pectore Procris erat,
Procris mihi semper in ore. (Ov. Met. 7.708)
NB: variation of construction: Sed ubi aspera saxa / aut in materiam ligni per-
venit . . . (Lucr. 4.147–8)
Prose: Quod <in> (cj. Augustinus) declinatione voluntaria sit anomalia, in naturali
magis analogia. (Var. L. 8.23); Quam (sc. dignitatem) ego, si mihi per Servium liceat,
pari (parem cj. Bake) atque in eadem (eadem in cj. Lambinus)²¹ laude ponam. (Cic.
Mur. 21); Qua enim <in> (edd. with the deteriores) barbaria quisquam tam taeter,
tam crudelis tyrannus quam in hac urbe armis barbarorum stipatus Antonius? (Cic.
Phil. 13.18); Sed mehercule et tum rem publicam lugebam, quae non solum a suis
<erga> me sed etiam a meis erga se beneficiis erat mihi <vita mea> carior . . . (Cic.
Fam. 7.28.3—following Shackleton Bailey ad loc.); . . . ut <ex> (edd. with V) alienis-
simis sociis amicissimos, ex infidelissimis firmissimos redderem . . . (Cic. Fam.
¹⁸ So Brink ad Hor. Ep. 2.1.31.

¹⁹ A large collection of ἀπὸ κοινοῦ instances in prose can be found in Baehrens (1912: 233–99; 533),
many of them unreliable (see TLL s.v. in 804.16ff. and Kroll (1914)). For ἀπὸ κοινοῦ in Plautus in general,
see Leo (1896); for prepositions (1896: 42–4=1960: 117–19).
²⁰ This is suggested by Leo (1896: 43=1960: 117).
²¹ TLL s.v. 804.41ff. gives only one instance of such an order (Lucil. 973M=1026K). For combinations
of par and idem, see TLL s.v. idem 191.3ff. For the use of par as object complement with pono, see Nep. Alc.
3.5 (TLL s.v. pono 2651.63f.). The transmitted text cannot be right.
Syndetic coordination 
15.4.14); Atqui et <ad> (add. Gronovius) Alliam cum Gallis et ad Heracleam cum
Pyrrho utraque non tam clade infamis quam pavore et fuga pugna fuit. (Liv. 22.59.8)
Not ἀπὸ κοινοῦ: Illa quaero quae apud te nuper ad omnes columnas, omnibus etiam
intercolumniis (in intercolumniis cj. R. Klotz, but see § 10.4), in silva denique dis-
posita sub divo vidimus. (Cic. Ver. 1.51)
Appendix: Under the label of ஌ಱౝԒϑഢԒഌ use of prepositions, scholars also refer to
different phenomena where no coordination is involved, illustrated by (s) and (t). Of
these, (s) seems to be an isolated instance.²² In (t), the preposition is not repeated in
the relative clause, a common occurrence, for which see § 18.11.
(s) Fugio sicut ab hoste viro (v.l. virum).
(‘I shrink from my mate as away from a foe.’ Ov. Ep. 8.110)
(t) Quicum litigas, Olympio? / # Cum eadem qua tu semper. # Cum uxoren’ mea?
(‘Who are you arguing with, Olympio? # With the same woman you are
always arguing with. # With my wife?’ Pl. Cas. 317–18)
When two prepositional phrases with different prepositions but with the same noun,
noun phrase, or pronoun are coordinated, various possibilities can be distinguished,
as illustrated by (u)–(y). In (u), the paired prepositions govern the same case but have
opposite meanings. The noun is only expressed once (with the second preposition)
and the prepositions themselves are coordinated. In the other examples, we are deal-
ing with prepositional phrases, which are structurally similar to (y). In (v), the pro-
noun is expressed twice, which is necessary since the prepositions govern different
cases, but which can also occur when they govern the same case (see the Supplement).
In (w), the second (asyndetically coordinated) conjoin is an anaphoric pronoun. In
(x), the second conjoin, extra, which can be used as a preposition and as an adverb,
appears on its own.
(u) . . . dum in XV diebus ante et post brumam, ut pleraque, ne facias.
(‘. . . provided you do not do this, or in fact most things, during the fifteen days pre-
ceding and following the solstice.’ Var. R. 1.35.2)
(v) . . . ita et cum his et inter hos vixi . . .
(‘. . . I lived my life in this way both with them and among them . . .’ Cic. Planc. 75)
(w) Semper ille antea cum uxore, tum sine ea.
(‘Before then he was always with his wife; at that time he was without her.’ Cic. Mil. 55)
(x) . . . sed tamen et in corpore et extra esse quaedam bona.
(‘. . . yet still there are certain good things both in the body and without.’ Cic. Fin. 2.68)
(y) . . . eas leges quas M. Antonius tulisse dicitur omnes censeo per vim et contra
auspicia latas . . .
(‘. . . the laws which Marcus Antonius is said to have championed were all championed
through violence and in contravention of the auspices . . .’ Cic. Phil. 5.10)
²² Pestelli ad loc. gives no precise parallels. The v.l. seems preferable.

 Coordination
Supplement:
. . . sacra et uls et cis Tiberim non mediocri ritu fiant. (Var. L. 5.84); . . . ancipitem ter-
rorem intra extraque munitiones . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.72.2); Quod Q. Aelius Tubero
Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V(erba) F(ecerunt) constitui oportere quo iure intra
extraque urbem ducerent aquas quibus adtributae essent . . . (Fron. Aq. 108.1)
Alfenus cum iis et propter eos periit quos diligebat . . . (Cic. Quinct. 70); . . . in caede
atque ex caede vivunt. (Cic. S. Rosc. 78); . . . pro tabulis et contra tabulas et pro testibus
et contra testis et pro quaestionibus et contra quaestiones . . . (Cic. de Orat.
2.118); . . . amicitiam ipsam sua sponte, vi sua, ex se et propter se expetendam . . . (Cic.
Fin. 2.83); Materiam enim rerum ex qua et in qua omnia sint . . . (Cic. N.D. 3.92); . . . quod
omne orationis officium aut in iudiciis est aut extra iudicia. (Quint. Inst. 3.4.6)
Sub terra et supra virgulta non eodem tempore aeque crescunt. (Var. R. 1.45.2);
Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra. (Hor. Ep. 1.2.16); . . . intra eam (sc. portam)
extraque latae viae sunt . . . (Liv. 31.24.9); Excidunt autem et in posteriorem partem et
in priorem et supra saeptum transversum et infra. (Cels. 8.14.2); Aliorum fructus in
terra est, aliorum et extra, aliorum non nisi extra. (Plin. Nat. 19.61)
Nam aut in animis aut in corporibus aut extra esse possunt. (Cic. Part. 38)
19.14 Asyndetic coordination

In scholarly literature the designation asyndeton (the absence of an overt linking
device; a Latin term is dissolutio, a calque of Gr. διάλυσις) is applied to diverse phe-
nomena. It is used to describe the sequence of two or more independent sentences
without an overt connecting device. This is the case in (a) and (b); it is impossible that
these sequences were expressed as one compound sentence in a single intonation con-
tour.²³ In these instances we are dealing with asyndetic sentence connexion. The effect
of asyndetic linking in (a) is to suggest a rapid succession of events and vividness. In
(b), we are dealing with an enumeration of exempla. For a more detailed discussion of
the semantic relations between asyndetically connected sentences, see § 24.47. (In the
examples asyndeton is marked by ‘°’. I keep the punctuation of the editors of the texts.)
(a) Mittuntur ad Caesarem confestim a Cicerone litterae magnis propositis prae-
miis, si pertulissent; ° obsessis omnibus viis missi intercipiuntur. ° Noctu ex
materia quam munitionis causa comportaverant turres admodum centum
XX excitantur incredibili celeritate. ° Quae deesse operi videbantur perfici-
untur. ° Hostes postero die multo maioribus coactis copiis castra oppugnant,
fossam complent. ° A nostris eadem ratione qua pridie resistitur. Hoc idem
reliquis deinceps fit diebus.
²³ Ex. (a) is taken from K.-St.: II.155–6. The punctuation follows Hering’s Teubner edition. Ex. (b) is
taken from Draeger (1878: II.197–8). Many examples in the sections on asyndetic coordination are taken
from these authors and from von Nägelsbach and von Müller (1905: 790–804). For (a), see also
Fraenkel (1956: 192). For instances of asyndeton in the jurists, see Kalb (1912: 134–9).
Asyndetic coordination 
(‘Dispatches were at once sent by Cicero to Caesar, with promise of great rewards if
the bearers delivered them safe; with all the roads blocked, the messengers were cut
off. During the night about one hundred and twenty towers were erected with incred-
ible speed out of the timber which they had collected for the purpose of the entrench-
ment. The apparent deficiences in the earthworks were rectified. On the next day,
with far greater forces assembled, the enemy assaulted the camp and filled in the
trench. Our troops resisted in the same fashion as on the day before. Exactly the same
was done on the other days following.’ Caes. Gal. 5.40.1–4)
(b) Non tamen adeo virtutum sterile saeculum ut non et bona exempla prodi-
derit. ° Comitatae profugos liberos matres, ° secutae maritos in exilia con-
iuges; ° propinqui audentes, constantes generi, contumax etiam adversus
tormenta servorum fides; ° supremae clarorum virorum necessitates, ipsa
necessitas fortiter tolerata et laudatis antiquorum mortibus pares exitus. °
Praeter multiplices rerum humanarum casus caelo terraque prodigia et ful-
minum monitus et futurorum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta; nec
enim umquam . . .
(‘Yet this age was not so barren of virtue that it did not display noble examples.
Mothers accompanied their children in flight, wives followed their husbands into
exile; relatives were courageous, sons-in-law steadfast, the loyalty of slaves unyielding
even in the face of torture. There were the final straits of famous men—the fate itself
endured bravely and their passings equal to the lauded deaths of the ancients. Besides
the manifold misfortunes of human affairs, there were prodigies in the sky and on the
earth and warnings given by thunderbolts and prophecies of the future, joyful and
gloomy, uncertain and clear. For never was it . . .’ Tac. Hist. 1.3.1)
The term ‘asyndeton’ is also applied to coordinated clauses, as in (c) and (d), and to
constituents at or below the clause level that are not linked by an overt coordinator, as
in (e) (see also § 19.1).
(c) Vixdum dimidium dixeram, ° intellexerat.
(‘I had scarcely said the half of it and he’d grasped the situation.’ Ter. Ph. 594)
(d) (sc. parentes) Adsunt, ° defendunt, ° proclamant, ° fidem tuam, quae nus-
quam erat neque umquam fuerat, inplorant.
(‘They were present, they fronted a defence, they raised an outcry, they appealed to
your sense of justice, which was non-existent, nor had it ever existed.’ Cic. Ver. 5.108)
(e) Et eodem accedit servitus, ° sudor, ° sitis.
(‘And to this is added slavery, sweat, thirst.’ Pl. Mer. 674)
These forms of asyndetic coordination are discussed in the following sections.

Sequences of conjoins wherein two or more asyndetically linked conjoins are com-
bined with a final, overtly linked conjoin (type A, B & C, etc.) are discussed in § 19.66.
Asyndetic coordination must not be confused with what is discussed in § 11.75 with
respect to the hierarchical structure of the noun phrase. While in the case of asyndetic
 Coordination
coordination it is possible to supply one of the overt coordinators, this cannot be done
for modifiers that belong to different categories in the hierarchical structure of the
noun phrase. In the same way the co-occurrence of multiple space or time adjuncts in
the same clause (see, for example, § 10.3) has nothing to do with asyndetic coordin-
ation. Asyndetic coordination must also not be confused with simple listing, as illus-
trated by (f)–(h) (although the boundary is not very clear).
(f) Eae partes (sc. orationis) sex esse omnino nobis videntur: exordium, narra-
tio, partitio, confirmatio, reprehensio, conclusio.
(‘These components seem to me to be just six in number: exordium, narra-
tive, partition, confirmation, refutation, peroration.’ Cic. Inv. 1.19)
(g) Communia autem simplicium coniunctorumque sunt haec quinque quasi
lumina, dilucidum, breve, probabile, illustre, suave.
(‘But the following five ornaments belong in common both to single words
and to combinations of words: lucidity, brevity, acceptability, brilliance,
charm.’ Cic. Part. 19)
(h) At vero meam domum P. Lentulus, consul et pontifex, P. Servilius, M. Lucullus,
Q. Metellus, M’. Glabrio, M. Messalla, L. Lentulus, flamen Martialis, P. Galba,
Q. Metellus Scipio, C. Fannius, M. Lepidus, L. Claudius, rex sacrorum,
M. Scaurus, M. Crassus, C. Curio, Sex. Caesar, flamen Quirinalis,
Q. Cornelius, P. Albinovanus, Q. Terentius, pontifices minores . . . omni reli-
gione una mente omnes liberaverunt.
(‘But Publius Lentulus, consul and pontiff, Publius Servilius, Marcus Lucullus,
Quintus Metellus, Manius Glabrio, Marcus Messalla, Lucius Lentulus, the
priest of Mars, Publius Galba, Quintus Metellus Scipio, Gaius Fannius, Marcus
Lepidus, Lucius Claudius, the Priest in charge of Rites, Marcus Scaurus, Marcus
Crassus, Gaius Curio, Sextus Caesar, priest of Quirinus, and the sub-pontiffs
Quintus Cornelius, Publius Albinovanus, and Quintus Terentius . . . have all
unanimously absolved my house from all sanctity.’ Cic. Har. 12)
Manuscripts sometimes vary between syndetic and asyndetic sequences, which
results in variation among editors. Editors are also tempted to emend transmitted
asyndeta. A few examples are given in the Supplement.
Supplement:
dies / noctes (Pl. Trin. 287a–b—v.l. noctesque); precibus lacrimis (v.l. ac / et) (Cic.
Lig. 13); Nihil enim habent quod definitum sit aut certum, nisi me vultu, taciturnitate
(v.l. et taciturnitate, edd. pler.) significasse tibi non esse amicum . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.8.2);
Avaritia . . . semper infinita insatiabilis (et insatiabilis in Gel. 3.1.2) est . . . (Sal. Cat.
11.3); nautarum militum (v.l. militumque) (Liv. 21.28.2); Hannibal . . . inritat etiam de
industria <Romanu>m ducem, si forte accensum tot indignitatibus [cladibus] (del.
Walters; other emendations in the mss. are et cladibus and cladibusque; alii alia)
sociorum detrahere ad aequum certamen possit. (Liv. 22.13.1); Anceps igitur spes
metus (et metus in old emendations) miscebant animos. (Liv. 30.32.5); L. Postumius
Albinus M. Popilius Laenas cum omnium primum de provinciis exercitibus (et exer-
citibus cj. Vahlen)²⁴ ad senatum rettulissent, Ligures utrique decreti sunt. (Liv. 42.1.1)
²⁴ For some textual problems in Livy, see Briscoe ad loc.

Asyndetic coordination 
Asyndetic coordination is often accompanied by repetition of the same word or

phrase at the beginning of the conjoins, as in (i)–(l). The Latin term for this phenom-
enon is anaphora (or: repetitio).²⁵
(i) Tute ad eum adeas, tut’ concilies, tute poscas.
(‘You should approach him, you should win him over, you should ask for her.’ Pl. Trin.
386)
(j) Sed pleni omnes sunt libri, plenae sapientium voces, plena exemplorum
vetustas . . .
(‘All literature, all philosophy, all history abounds with exemplars. . .’ Cic. Arch. 14)
(k) . . . diffidentem tuis rebus, sine voce, sine libertate, sine auctoritate, sine ulla
specie consulari, horrentem, trementem, adulantem omnis videre te volui; vidi.
(‘. . . I have desired to see you distrusting your own interests, without voice, without
liberty, without authority, without any consular pomp, shivering, trembling, fawning
upon all; and so have I seen you.’ Cic. Pis. 99)
(l) Verum parcite dignitati Lentuli, si ipse pudicitiae, si famae suae, si dis aut
hominibus umquam ullis pepercit.
(‘By all means, have regard for Lentulus’ rank, if he ever had regard for his own mod-
esty, his own reputation, or any gods or men.’ Sal. Cat. 52.32—Cato’s speech)
The asyndetic pair velitis iubeatis had become such a fixed idiom that the question
particle -ne could be attached to the second word, also in vellent iuberentne (e.g. Liv.
1.46.1).
(m) . . . ut, si tribuno plebis rogante ‘VELITIS IUBEATISNE’ Fidulii centum se
velle et iubere dixerint, possit unus quisque nostrum amittere civitatem?
(‘. . . so that, when a tribune of the people asks, ‘Is it your will and command?’,
if a hundred men of Fidulius’ stamp say that it is their will and command,
each one of us lose our privileges?’ Cic. Dom. 80)
The frequency with which asyndeton is used by different authors and in different
types of text varies and is a matter of stylistic preference.²⁶
. Asyndetic coordination of clauses
Although asyndetic coordination of two or more clauses occurs from Early Latin
onwards, it is relatively uncommon. Early examples are (a)–(c). Exx. (a) and (b) occur
in reports of battle scenes and relate the details of contemporaneous actions in rapid
succession. In (c), the asyndetic linking of the clauses reflects the pimp’s excitement
about his future acquisition of a new girl. In (d), we see three asyndetically coordin-
ated clauses without a copula (see § 4.96 on nominal sentences). It is not unlikely that
these clauses, or at least some of them, were pronounced in one intonation contour as
²⁵ For further examples, see K.-St.: II.155 and Lindholm (1931: 157–73), especially on Cicero.
²⁶ For a survey of the individual usage, see Sz.: 828–31.
 Coordination
a compound sentence. (In the examples, asyndeton is marked by ‘°’. I keep the punc-
tuation of the editors of the texts.)
(a) Pro se quisque id quod quisque <et> potest et valet / edit, ferro ferit, ° tela
frangunt, ° boat / caelum fremitu virum, ° ex spiritu atque anhelitu / nebula
constat, ° cadunt volnerum vi [et] viri.
(‘Each man inflicted for himself what he was well and able, he struck with his sword;
lances broke, the heavens resounded with the uproar of men, a mist arose from their
breathing and gasping, men fell under the force of their wounds.’ Pl. Am. 231–4)
(b) Aes sonit, ° franguntur hastae, ° terra sudat sanguine.
(‘Bronze clatters, spears are snapped, earth sweats with blood.’ Enn. scen. 181V=165J)
(c) Si hanc emeris— / di immortales—nullus leno te alter erit opulentior. /
° Evortes tuo arbitratu homines fundis, familiis; / ° cum optumis viris rem
habebis, ° gratiam cupient tuam: / venient ad te comissatum.
(‘If you buy her—immortal gods!—no pimp will be better off than you. You’ll turn
men out of their estates and households as you please; you’ll have dealings with men
of the highest rank, they’ll be keen on your favour; they’ll come to you for their
drinking parties.’ Pl. Per. 564–8)
(d) Praeclara tamen senatus consulta illo ipso die vespertina, ° provinciarum
religiosa sortitio, ° divina vero opportunitas ut quae cuique apta esset, ea
cuique obveniret.
(‘Yet splendid were the decrees of the Senate made on that very day at nightfall; scru-
pulously exact was the allotment of the provinces; truly Heaven-directed the fitness
whereby what suited each individual fell to the lot of that individual!’ Cic. Phil. 3.24)
Supplement:
In bono praedio . . . libentius et saepius venies, ° fundus melior erit, ° minus peccabi-
tur, ° fructi plus capies. (Cato Agr. 4.1); Vix elocuta’st hoc, ° foras simul omnes
proruont se, / ° abeunt lavatum, ° perstrepunt . . . (Ter. Eu. 599–600); An vero vir
amplissimus, P. Scipio, pontifex maximus, Ti. Gracchum mediocriter labefactantem
statum rei publicae privatus interfecit, ° Catilinam orbem terrae caede atque incen-
diis vastare cupientem nos consules perferemus? (Cic. Catil. 1.3); Peroravit ali-
quando, adsedit; ° surrexi ego. ° Respirare visus est quod non alius potius diceret. °
Coepi dicere. (Cic. S. Rosc. 59–60); . . . iudicium hoc omnium mortalium est, fortu-
nam a deo petendam, ° a se ipso sumendam esse sapientiam. (Cic. N.D. 3.88);
Nondum plane ingemueram, ° ‘salve’ inquit Arrius. (Cic. Att. 2.15.3)
Much more common than coordination of entire clauses are sequences of clauses
with conjunction reduction of one or more constituents. Very common is reduction
of the subject, as in (e) and (f).
(e) Vidi, cognovi, interfui.
(‘I was present, observing, and taking note.’ Cic. Fam. 6.12.1)
(f) Caesar . . . celeriter concilium dimittit, Liscum retinet.
(‘Caesar . . . speedily dismissed the meeting. He kept Liscus back.’ Caes. Gal. 1.18.2)
Asyndetic coordination 
More complicated instances of conjunction reduction are shown in (g) and (h). In
(g), repeated from § 19.1, two asyndetically coordinated clauses share both the
object Gallos, which is implied in the second clause, and the verb dividit, which
must be understood with the first clause. The third arguments are different
(although both have the preposition a/ab that is required by the verb). The appos-
ition flumen in the first clause is probably also understood (in plural form) in the
second clause. Another complex example is (h). It shows an opposition between
the subjects (plebs / optumates) and between the modifiers of the object constitu-
ents (publicos canes / domesticos (sc. canes)). From alit in the first conjoin alunt has
to be supplied for the second.²⁷ In practice, almost everything is possible: ‘almost
any type of constituent in one clause may be opposed to its counterpart in the
other clause(s)’.²⁸
(g) Gallos ab Aquitanis Garunna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit.
(‘The Galli (Gauls) are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the
Belgae by the Marne and the Seine.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.2)
(h) In Hyrcania plebs publicos alit canes, optumates domesticos.
(‘In Hyrcania the populace take care of dogs shared by the community, the nobles
keep privately owned dogs.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.108)
Supplement: Sin autem servire meae laudi et gloriae mavis, egredere cum importuna
sceleratorum manu, ° confer te ad Manlium, ° concita perditos civis, ° secerne te a
bonis, ° infer patriae bellum, ° exsulta impio latrocinio, ut a me non eiectus ad alienos,
sed invitatus ad tuos isse videaris. (Cic. Catil. 1.23); (sc. Caesar dixit) Suam innocen-
tiam perpetua vita, felicitatem Helvetiorum bello esse perspectam. (Caes. Gal. 1.40.13);
Harum alterius principatum tenere Haeduos, alterius Arvernos. (Caes. Gal. 1.31.4);
. . . quibus profecto contra naturam corpus voluptati, anima oneri fuit. (Sal. Cat. 2.8);
Hunc consensum senatus equester ordo est secutus, equestris ordinis plebs. (Liv.
26.36.12); Facilius crediderim Tiberio et Augusta<e>, qui domo non excedebant,
cohibitam, ut par maeror et matris exemplo avia quoque et patruus attineri viderentur.
(Tac. Ann. 3.3.3)²⁹
. Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same subject
In addition to (f) in the preceding section, (a)–(c) demonstrate asyndetic coordin-

ation of verbs sharing the same subject. In (c), the three verbs share the same object
constituent as well. An example of adversative asyndeton is (d).
²⁷ The English term ‘gapping’ is used in a strict sense for instances like: ‘One girl has written a poem, and
the other ° a short story’ (see Quirk et al. 1985: 974). Other scholars define it in a different way, e.g.
Panhuis (1980). See also Grover (1999: 120–2).
²⁸ Panhuis (1980: 234).
²⁹ Some of the examples are taken from Panhuis (1980) or suggested by Manfredini (p.c.). For Tac. Ann.
3.3.3, see Woodman and Martin ad loc.
 Coordination
(a) Venio ad macellum, rogito piscis. Indicant / caros; agninam caram, caram
bubulam, / vitulinam, cetum, porcinam: cara omnia.
(‘I went to the market and asked for fish. They told me it’s expensive. Lamb: expen-
sive; beef: expensive; veal, tunny, pork: all expensive.’ Pl. Aul. 373–5)
(b) (sc. Curio) Contionatus est, rediit, fuit ad me sane diu.
(‘He made his speech, returned, and paid me quite a lengthy visit.’ Cic. Att. 10.4.8)
(c) . . . quattuor exercitus Carthaginiensium fudi, fugavi, Hispania expuli . . .
(‘. . . I routed, put to flight, drove out of Spain four armies of the Carthaginians . . .’ Liv.
28.28.9)
(d) Sed non hoc solum, multa alia praetermisi.
(‘But that is only one of many chances I let slip.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.3.6)
Supplement:
Conjunctive: Salutant, ad cenam vocant, adventum gratulantur. (Ter. Eu. 259);
Necare eandem voluit (sc. Caelius); quaesivit venenum, sollicitavit quos potuit,
potionem paravit, horam locum constituit, clam attulit. (Cic. Cael. 31—NB: textually
uncertain; see Dyck ad loc.); ‘Tria genera bonorum’. Proclivi currit oratio. Venit ad
extremum, haeret in salebra. (Cic. Fin. 5.84); Tum iuvenes . . . veste posita corpora
oleo perunxerunt, ad iugum accesserunt. (Cic. Tusc. 1.113); (sc. Isaeus) Poscit con-
troversias plures. Electionem auditoribus permittit, saepe etiam partis. Surgit, amici-
tur, incipit. (Plin. Ep. 2.3.2); Pontico triumpho inter pompae fercula trium verborum
praetulit titulum VENI · VIDI · VICI, non acta belli significantem sicut ceteris, sed
celeriter confecti notam. (Suet. Jul. 37.2)
Disjunctive: Meliu’ peiu’, prosit obsit, nil vident nisi quod lubet? (Ter. Hau. 643)
Asyndetic coordination of imperative verb forms is common from Early Latin

onwards. An example is (e). The Plautine corpus contains 150 instances of asyndeti-
cally coordinated imperatives, 120 instances of coordination by atque, and 60 by et.³⁰
(e) I sane ac morem illi gere. / Percontare, exquire quidvis.
(‘Do go and obey him. Ask her, inquire about anything you like.’ Pl. Per. 605–6)
Supplement:
I, sequere illos, ne morere. (Pl. Mil. 1361); Abi prae, curre, ut sint domi / parata. (Ter.
Eu. 499–500); Sin autem servire meae laudi et gloriae mavis, egredere cum impor-
tuna sceleratorum manu, confer te ad Manlium, concita perditos civis, secerne te a
bonis, infer patriae bellum, exsulta impio latrocinio . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.23); Nunc, mi
Capito, . . . enitere, elabora vel potius eblandire, effice ut Plancus, quem spero opti-
mum esse, sit etiam melior opera tua. (Cic. Att. 16.16c.3); . . . sed obstinata mente per-
fer, obdura. (Catul. 8.11); Decurrit inde quanto maxime poterat cum tumultu ‘ad
arma’ et ‘pro vestram fidem, cives’ clamitans; ‘arx ab hostibus capta est; defendite, ite.’
(Liv. 9.24.10)
³⁰ See K.-St.: II.152, referring to Loch (1871).

Asyndetic coordination 
. Asyndetic coordination of verbs sharing the same

object, indirect object, or satellite
Examples of asyndetic coordination of verbs that share the same object are (a) and
(b). A rare example of disjunctive asyndeton, resulting from the opposite meanings of
the two verbs, is (c). In (d), the two verbs are combined with the same manner adjunct.
(a) Falsone an vero laudent, culpent quem velint, / non flocci faciunt.
(‘They don’t care a straw whether it is rightly or wrongly that they praise and find
fault with anyone they wish.’ Pl. Trin. 210–11)
(b) Eum (sc. Clodium) qui regna dedit, ademit, orbem terrarum quibuscum
voluit partitus est.
(‘A man who had bestowed and taken away thrones, and allotted the world to whom-
soever he wished.’ Cic. Mil. 73)
(c) Scias ista, nescias. Fient.
(‘Whether you know these things or not, they will take place.’ Sen. Ep. 88.15)
(d) Celeriter isti, redisti, ut cognosceret te si minus fortem at tamen strenuum.
(‘You made haste to go, haste to return, so that he might recognize that, if you were
weak in courage, you were at least strong in energy.’ Cic. Phil. 2.78)
Supplement:
Velitis iubeatis ut M. Tullio aqua et igni interdicatur? (Cic. Dom. 47); Audita re
Hirtius cum cohortibus XX veteranis redeunti Antonio in sua castra occurrit
copiasque eius omnis delevit, fugavit . . . (Galb. Fam. 10.30.4); Quom tabulas signa
toreumata emunt, nova diruunt, alia aedificant, postremo omnibus modis pecuniam
trahunt, vexant, tamen summa lubidine divitias suas vincere nequeunt. (Sal. Cat.
20.12); Hi ferre agere plebem plebisque res . . . (Liv. 3.37.7); Ripas fluminum publico-
rum reficere munire utilissimum est. (Ulp. dig. 43.15.1)
Ius civile didicit, multum vigilavit, laboravit, praesto multis fuit, multorum stulti-
tiam perpessus est, adrogantiam pertulit, difficultatem exsorbuit. (Cic. Mur. 19)
Disjunctive: . . . ut mihi velim nolim sit certa quaedam tuenda sententia. (Cic. N.D.
1.17); Velit nolit scire difficile est. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.6.4)
A few examples of multiple asyndetic coordination of verbs are given in the

Supplement below.
Supplement:
Eventus est exitus alicuius negotii, in quo quaeri solet quid ex quaque re evenerit,
eveniat, eventurum sit. (Cic. Inv. 1.42); . . . quibus et lege et senatus consulto permissum
erat ut de Caesaris actis ‘cognoscerent, statuerent, iudicarent’ . . . (Cic. Att.
16.16b.1); . . . quae lex earum rerum quas Caesar ‘statuisset, decrevisset, egisset’ con-
sulibus cognitionem dedit. (Cic. Att. 16.16c.2); . . . populus Romanus Quiritium bel-
lum cum Priscis Latinis iussit esse senatusque populi Romani Quiritium censuit
consensit conscivit ut bellum cum Priscis Latinis fieret . . . (Liv. 1.32.13); . . . externa
litora et urbes hostium urere, vastare, rapere . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.12.2)
 Coordination
. Asyndetic coordination of arguments

and satellites at the clause level
Asyndetic coordination of arguments and satellites at the clause level occurs com-
monly from the archaic period onwards, as is demonstrated by fossilized pairs of
nouns like patres conscripti ‘patricians and registered men’,³¹ sarta tecta (sc. aedificia)
‘windproof and water-tight’ buildings (OLD), loca lautia ‘lodging and entertainment’.
For such pairs, Draeger introduced the term ‘asyndeton sollemne’.³² The words are
usually semantically related, sometimes near synonyms, sometimes antonyms; the
effect of coherence is once in a while increased by alliteration, an example of which is
forte fortuna ‘by pure chance’. Asyndetic pairs of conjoins are often found in a prom-
inent position at the end or—less often—at the beginning of a clause or sentence.
Cases of asyndeton that do not conform to these characteristics are sometimes
emended.³³ See also the note below. Disjunctive instances are rare, but see
(l) (disputed).³⁴
Exx. (a)–(k) illustrate pairs of conjoins in various syntactic functions. Note that
editors vary in their punctuation. Exx. (a) and (b) show coordinated subjects; (c),
coordinated subjects of an accusative and infinitive clause; (d), coordinated objects;
(e), coordinated (interrogative) object clauses; (f), coordinated subject complements;
(g), coordinated value arguments; (h)–(j), coordinated adjuncts; (k), coordinated
secondary predicates; (l), coordinated cause arguments with the secondary predicate
corrupta.
(a) Valent mater, pater?
(‘Are my mother and father well?’ Pl. Mer. 948)
(b) L., frater eius, causam agebat. Aderant amici, propinqui.
(‘His brother Lucius pleaded his case. His friends and relatives were present.’ Cic. Ver.
1.125)
(c) Haec si gravia aut acerba videantur, multo illa gravius aestimari debere
liberos coniuges in servitutem abstrahi, ipsos interfici.
(‘If these measures seemed grievous or cruel, they ought to take into account that it
was far more grievous for their children and their wives to be dragged off into slavery,
for their own selves to be slaughtered.’ Caes. Gal. 7.14.10)
(d) . . . munire urbem, frumentum convehere, tela arma parare; instruere naves
ac mittere ad Hipponem adversus Romanam classem.
(‘. . . to fortify the city, to bring in grain, to provide arms offensive and defensive, to
equip ships and send them to Hippo to face the Roman fleet.’ Liv. 29.4.2)
³¹ For the historical background, see New Pauly s.v. conscripti.

³² Draeger (1878: II.187). The most extensive collection of examples is Preuss (1881). For Cato, see
Adams (2016: 77–80).
³³ Harrison (2006), for example, discusses some ten instances in Apuleius.
³⁴ For discussion, see Giusta (1991: 352): ‘non pare credibile che Cicerone abbia unito per asindeto due
sostantivi di significato fra loro opposto’.
Asyndetic coordination 
(e) Quid sequatur, quid repugnet vident.

(‘They understand what follows from, what contradicts a given premise.’ Cic. Fin. 5.83)
(f) Condus promus sum, procurator peni.
(‘I'm the getter-in and giver-out, the superintendent of supplies.’ Pl. Ps. 608)
(g) Tranquillissimus autem animus meus, qui totum istuc aequi boni facit . . .
(‘Calmest of all is my own mind, which takes the whole business philosophically . . .’
Cic. Att. 7.7.4)
(h) . . . is me autem porro verberat, incursat pugnis, calcibus.
(‘. . . and he beats me in turn and attacks me with fists and heels.’ Pl. Poen. 819)
(i) . . . omnibusque opibus viribus ut nosmet ipsi nobis mederi possimus elabo-
randum est.
(‘. . . and we must endeavour, with the strength of all our resources, to have the power
to be ourselves our own physicians.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.6)
(j) Certiorem te esse volt, / ne quid clam furtim se accepisse censeas.
(‘He wants you to be informed so that you won’t think he’s taken anything in secret
and by stealth.’ Pl. Poen. 1021–2)
(k) . . . Neptuno / laetus lubens laudis ago et gratis gratiasque habeo . . .
(‘To Neptune I joyfully and happily offer praise and thanksgiving . . .’ Pl. Trin. 820–1)
(l) . . . nec eam minis (cj. Pohlenz; minimis d; nimiis cj. Schiche) blandimentis
(aut blandimentis cj. Bentley; blandimentisve cj. Pohlenz, alii alia) corrupta
deseret.
(‘. . . nor will it (sc. beata vita), corrupted by threats and bribes, abandon it (sc.
virtutem).’ Cic. Tusc. 5.87)
In the Supplement, pairs of conjoins will be given in the traditional way—that is,
according to their lexical category, many of them without their context (and with the
punctuation of the text editions retained). The collection is not restricted to groupings
termed ‘sollemne’.
Supplement:
Noun phrases: leges mores (Enn. var. 134); Vinum, frumentum quod supersit, ven-
dat. (Cato Agr. 2.7); manibu’ pedibu’ (Ter. An. 676); Locu’ tempu’ constitutum’st. (Ter.
Eu. 541); Bassus assiduitate indulgitate victus (Sis. hist. 46=19C); studium diligen-
tiam (Cic. Fam. 12.15.6); vestitu <a>edificiis (Var. L. 8.30); iuventute, armis (Liv.
9.25.5); arma dexterae (Liv. 22.29.11); viris armis (Liv. 28.37.8); Nam verba vultus in
crimen detorquens recondebat. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.7); ibique praetextati sacrificium
· deae Diae ture · vino · fecerunt (CIL VI.2080.30–1 (Comm. Fr. Arv. 69, 30–1,
ad 120)); Quidam enim lege impediuntur ne iudices sint, quidam natura, quidam
moribus. Natura, ut surdus mutus . . . (Paul. dig. 5.1.12.2)
Adjectives functioning as subject/object complement or as secondary predicates:
Pater iam hic me offendet miserum adveniens ebrium . . . (Pl. Mos. 378); . . . precor uti
sies volens propitius mihi . . . (Cato Agr. 134.2); Aut in eo, QVOD MELIUS AEQUIUS,
potest ulla pars inesse fraudis? (Cic. Off. 3.61); acer, bellicosus (Sal. Jug. 20.2); Nec
 Coordination
enim secretum putant esse nisi quod certum adprobatum (ac probatum cj. Obrecht)
sit. (Quint. Decl. 254.15);³⁵ . . . adversus superiores tristi adulatione, adrogans minori-
bus, inter pares difficilis . . . (Tac. Ann. 11.21.3)
Prepositional phrases: Decedam ego illi de via, de semita, / de honore populi.
(Pl. Trin. 481–2); . . . ut . . . ostenderet nepotem sub verbere centurionis, inter servo-
rum ictus . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.24.3)³⁶
Adverbs: Dextra sinistra, foramina ubi feceris, lamnis circumplectito. (Cato Agr.
21.2); Hac illac circumcursa. (Ter. Hau. 512); dextra sinistra (Cic. Phil. 13.19); . . . et
tamen ab illo aperte tecte quicquid est datum libenter accepi. (Cic. Att. 1.14.4);³⁷ huc
illuc (Cic. Att. 9.9.2); comminus eminus (Liv. 21.34.6)
Disjunctive interpretation: . . . (sc. castra) quae non longius ab ea caede abesse plus
minus VIII milibus dicebantur . . . Hirt. Gal. 8.20.1); serius ocius (Hor. Carm. 2.3.26)
NB: The following is probably not a case of coordination, but rather of a difference in
hierarchical position (for related cases see §§ 10.53–4): . . . haec incerta . . . inter paucos,
quos tu nosti, palam secreto narrantur. (Cael. Fam. 8.1.4).³⁸
Proper names can also be asyndetically coordinated, but syndetic coordination is

more common. Examples are (m), with praenomen, and (n), without praenomen
(uncommon).³⁹
(m) Cum L. Octavius C. Aurelius consules aedis sacras locavissent . . .
(‘When Lucius Octavius and Gaius Aurelius during their consulship had made con-
tracts for temple maintenance . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.130)
(n) Dicebat idem Cotta, Curio.
(‘Cotta could say the same, and Curio.’ Cic. Off. 2.59)
Supplement:
Iovei · Iunonei · Minervai / Falesce · quei in Sardinia · sunt / donum · dede-
runt. (CIL XI.3078.1–3 (Civita Castellana, 2nd cent. bc (mid)—NB: names of gods);
Q(uintus) · M(arcus) · Minucieis · Q(uinti) · f(ilii) · Rufeis ·de · controvor-
sieis inter / Genuateis · et ·Veiturios ·in · re · praesente · cognoverunt . . . (CIL
I2..– (Sent. Minuc., Genoa, 118 bc—NB: asyndetic praenomina); . . . decernen-
dum . . . utique C. Pansa A. Hirtius consules, a<lter> a<mbo>ve, si e<is> v<ideretur>,
cognoscerent . . . (Cic. Phil. 5.53); Quare L. Sullae, C. Caesaris pecuniarum translatio a
iustis dominis ad alienos non debet liberalis videri . . . (Cic. Off. 1.43); . . . Caesar, post-
quam instabat virginum aetas, L. Cassium, M. Vinicium legit. (Tac. Ann. 6.15.1)
In date expressions of the type X Y consulibus ‘in the consulship of X and Y’, there are
several possibilities for coordination. In public inscriptions until the first century ad,
asyndetic coordination is the rule, as in (o). This is also quite common in Cicero
(especially in his orations), in Caesar, and in the historians. Beginning with Cicero
³⁵ See Winterbottom ad loc. for a collection of instances in Quint. Decl.

³⁶ For Tacitus, see Sörbom (1935: 46–9).
³⁷ Shackleton Bailey ad loc. wants the two adverbs ‘to be taken together, in the sense that Pompey’s
praise was neither open and direct nor so veiled as to be imperceptible’, comparing expressions like English
‘bitter-sweet’.
³⁸ For this passage, see Cavarzere ad loc. For luce palam, see Pinkster (1972: 127–9; 2004a).
³⁹ Tac. Ann. 11.6.2, mentioned by K.-St.: II.150, is not a reliable example.
Asyndetic coordination 
overt linking by et becomes more common, as in (q). In non-official texts, it was pos-
sible to omit the praenomina, as in (r), an option which is also found in later inscrip-
tions. In these cases, linking by et or -que seems to be the rule.⁴⁰
(o) Quei ager poplicus populi Romanei in terram Italiam P. Muucio
L. Calpur<nio cos. fuit . . .>
(‘In regard to the public land in the country of Italy belonging to the Roman people
in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius Calpurnius . . .’ CIL I2.585.1 (Lex Agr.,
111 bc))
(p) Is (sc. Hortensius) L. Crasso Q. Scaevola consulibus primum in foro dixit . . .
(‘This man began his public career in the consulship of Lucius Crassus and Quintus
Scaevola.’ Cic. Brut. 229)
(q) Atqui hic Livius [qui] primus fabulam C. Claudio Caeci filio et M. Tuditano
consulibus docuit . . .
(‘And yet this Livius produced his first play in the consulship of Gaius Claudius, son
of Caecus, and Marcus Tuditanus . . .’ Cic. Brut. 72)
(r) Quam legem L. Cassius Lepido et Mancino consulibus tulit.
(‘A provision which Lucius Cassius passed in the consulship of Lepidus and Mancinus.’
Cic. Brut. 106)
Supplement:
P. · Rutilio · Cn. · Mallio · cos. (CIL X.. (Pozzuoli, 94 bc)); L. Licinio Q. Mucio
consulibus (Cic. Ver. 2.122); Ea quae secuta est hieme, qui fuit annus Cn.
Pompeio M. Crasso consulibus, Usipetes . . . flumen Rhenum transierunt . . . (Caes. Gal.
4.1.1); L. Genucio et Ser. Servilio consulibus (Liv. 7.1.1); Trinos soles et antiqui
saepius videre, sicut Sp. Postumio Q. Mucio et Q. Marcio M. Porcio et
M. Antonio P. Dolabella et M. Lepido L. Planco cos. (Plin. Nat. 2.99); Condita erat Ti.
Sempronio P. Cornelio consulibus . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.34.1)
Lepido et Tullo consulibus (Cic. Catil. 1.15); . . . etiamsi tripudium solistumum
pulli fecissent L. Iunio et P. Claudio consulibus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.20); Centone
Tuditanoque consulibus (Cic. Sen. 50); Nunc quidem in circo quosdam <CLX> pas-
suum tolerare non ignoramus nuperque Fonteio et Vipstano cos. (Plin. Nat. 7.84);
Nam ut de Cicerone ipso loquar, Hirtio nempe et Pansa consulibus, ut Tiro libertus
eius scribit, septimo Idus <Decembris> occisus est . . . (Tac. Dial. 17.2)
Asyndetic coordination of more than two conjoins is also very common from Early
Latin onwards.⁴¹ Some of these combinations resemble the instances of asyndeton sol-
lemne mentioned at the beginning of this section, though these sequences seem to be
less restricted in terms of the words that can be used. Examples are (s) and (t).
⁴⁰ See TLL s.v. consul 568.26ff.; Pease ad Cic. Div. 2.20. For Cicero’s naming conventions in general, see
Adams (1978).
⁴¹ For the numerous cases of asyndetic coordinaton of three members (‘tricola’) in Plautus, see
Leo (1906). For Cicero, see Lindholm (1931: 157–73).
 Coordination
(s) Me a portu praemisit domum ut haec nuntiem uxori suae, / ut gesserit rem
publicam ductu, imperio, auspicio suo.
(‘He’s sent me ahead home from the harbour so that I could report to his wife how he
managed affairs of state through his leadership, command, and authority.’ Pl. Am. 195–6)
(t) Inter ea conregione conspicione cortumione . . .
(‘Between these points, temples, and wild lands . . .’ Var. L. 7.8—NB: part of a quota-
tion of the words of an augur; text very problematic)
Supplement:
Quid isti debes? # Tria. # Quae tria nam? # Unguenta, noctem, savium. (Pl. Truc. 938);
Pernam callum glandium sumen facito in aqua iaceant. (Pl. Ps. 166); Illos accubantis,
potantis, amantis / cum scortis reliqui . . . (Pl. Ps. 1271–2); Sumat consumat perdat,
decretum’st pati . . . (Ter. Hau. 465); Sin autem fuga laboris desidiam, repudiatio sup-
plicum superbiam, amicorum neglectio improbitatem coarguit . . . (Cic. Mur. 9); armis
equis viris (Cic. Phil. 8.21); Caesari ad saucios deponendos, stipendium exercitui dan-
dum, socios confirmandos, praesidium urbibus relinquendum necesse erat adire
Apolloniam. (Caes. Civ. 3.78.1); Natura ferox, vehemens, manu promptus erat . . . (Sal.
Catil. 43.4); . . . quod bonum faustum felix Palaepolitanis populoque Romano esset . . .
(Liv. 8.25.10—NB: in Livy the normal formula is with felixque, see Oakley ad loc.);
Neque aliud Civilis amicitia partum quam vulnera fugas luctus. (Tac. Hist. 5.24.1);
Amisi enim, amisi vitae meae testem rectorem magistrum. (Plin. Ep. 1.12.12)
Grammars pay special attention to the asyndetic coordination of multiple pairs, as in

(u). This reflects an exploitation of the syntactic possibilities for stylistic purposes.⁴²
For an interesting example of variation, see (v).
(u) Democritus luminibus amissis alba scilicet discernere et atra non poterat, at
vero bona mala, aequa iniqua, honesta turpia, utilia inutilia, magna parva
poterat . . .
(‘Democritus, when his sight failed him, could not, to be sure, distinguish
black from white: but all the same he could distinguish good from bad, just
from unjust, honourable from disgraceful, useful from useless, great from
small . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.114)
(v) Arma tela, equi viri, hostes atque cives permixti.
(‘Arms and weapons, men and horses, enemies and citizens were mingled in
confusion.’ Sal. Jug. 51.1)
. Asyndetic coordination of constituents

below the clause level
The following sections deal with asyndetic coordination at the noun and adjective
phrase levels, as well as with asyndetic coordination in prepositional phrases.
⁴² For further examples, see K.-St.: II.153 and Draeger (1878: II.194–5).
Asyndetic coordination 
. Asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the

noun phrase level
Examples of asyndetic coordination of modifiers at the noun phrase level are (a) and
(b), which involve attributive noun phrases, and (c) and (d), which involve attributive
adjectives.
(a) Quis est qui C. Fabrici M’. Curi non cum caritate aliqua benivola memoriam
usurpet . . .
(‘Is there anyone who does not dwell with some kindly affection on the memory of
Gaius Fabricius and Manius Curius . . .?’ Cic. Amic. 28)
(b) Densior deinde incessu tot hominum equorum (et equorum edd.) oriens
pulvis signum propinquantium hostium fuit.
(‘Afterwards an increasingly thick cloud of dust, that rose with the advance of so
many men and horses, gave them notice that their enemies were approaching.’ Liv.
21.46.4)
(c) Purus putus hic sycophanta est.
(‘This chap is a pure, unadulterated impostor.’ Pl. Ps. 1200)
(d) Ex hoc haruspicum responso decrevit senatus ut de locis sacris religiosis ad
hunc ordinem referretis.
(‘As a result of this response of the soothsayers the Senate decreed that a vote of this
body should be taken on the subject of hallowed and consecrated sites.’ Cic. Har. 11)
Supplement:
Propagatio pomorum, aliarum arborum. (Cato Agr. 51); Hic tu me abesse urbe
miraris, in qua domus nihil delectare possit, summum sit odium temporum, homi-
num, fori, curiae? (Cic. Fam. 5.15.4); Inde ad Baeculam urbem processum cum
omni exercitu civium, sociorum (sociorumque cj. Walsh), peditum equitumque
quinque et quadraginta milibus. (Liv. 28.13.5); Quod si vatum, annalium ad testimo-
nia vocentur, plures sibi ac locupletiores esse. (Tac. Ann. 4.43.3); Mirum est qua reli-
gione quo studio imagines Brutorum Cassiorum Catonum domi ubi potest habeat.
(Plin. Ep. 1.17.3)
Recordetur id, / qui nihili sunt, quid eis preti / detur ab suis eris, ignavis, improbis
viris. (Pl. Men. 972–3); Illum liquet mihi deierare his mensibus / sex septem pror-
sum non vidisse proxumis . . . (Ter. Eu. 331–2—NB: ‘six or seven’); De bonis vero
rebus et malis, aequis, iniquis, utilibus, inutilibus, honestis, turpibus quam potest
habere orator sine illis maximarum rerum artibus facultatem aut copiam? (Cic. Part.
140); Loca amoena, voluptaria facile in otio ferocis militum animos molliverant.
(Sal. Cat. 11.5); Praeter multiplices rerum humanarum casus caelo terraque prodigia
et fulminum monitus et futurorum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta. (Tac.
Hist. 1.3.2)
NB: Probably not coordination, but rather a difference in hierarchy (see § 11.75):
Siliginem, triticum in loco aperto celso, ubi sol quam diutissime siet, seri oportet.
(Cato Agr. 35.1); cf.: . . . in loco aperto edito . . . (Plin. Nat. 18.164)
 Coordination
. Asyndetic coordination of constituents

Examples of asyndetic coordination of constituents at the adjective phrase level are
(a) and (b). Both examples involve arguments required by the adjective (see § 11.92).
(a) (sc. Verres) . . . procedit in medium vini somni stupri plenus.
(‘. . . he came into their midst, heavy with sleep and drink and debauchery.’ Cic. Ver. 5.94)
(b) . . . decemvir ille perpetuus, bonis, tergo, sanguini civium infestus . . .
(‘. . . that man, the perpetual decemvir, inimical to the fortunes, the persons, and the
lives of the citizens . . .’ Liv. 3.57.2)
Supplement:
. . . capesserent pugnam, coniugum parentum patriae memores. (Tac. Hist. 5.17.2)
. Asyndetic coordination of nouns and noun

phrases in prepositional phrases
The asyndetic coordination of nouns or noun phrases governed by the same prepos-
ition is rare. Examples are (a) and (b). Note in (a) the continuation with an overtly
coordinated pair. In quite a few transmitted cases editors have inserted a coordinator.⁴³
(a) Sed quoniam decorum illud in omnibus factis dictis, in corporis denique
motu et statu cernitur . . .
(‘But since that propriety shows itself in every deed, in every word, even in every
movement and attitude of the body . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.126)
(b) . . .Vitellius . . . de numero servorum, electione litorum loqui.
(‘. . .Vitellius . . . spoke of the number of slaves and the selection of his place of retreat.’
Tac. Hist. 3.63.2)
Supplement:
Ad ferrum, faces, ad cotidianam caedem, incendia, rapinas se cum exercitu suo con-
tulit. (Cic. Sest. 88); . . . gratia mea sic utantur in omnibus publicis privatis, forensibus
domesticis, tuis amicorum, hospitum clientium tuorum negotiis ut . . . (Cic. Fam.
5.8.5); L. Postumius Albinus M. Popilius Laenas <consules> cum omnium primum
de provinciis exercitibus (<et> cj. Vahlen) ad senatum rettulissent . . . (Liv. 42.1.2)
19.23 Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators

Latin has three conjunctive coordinators: ac/atque, et, and -que, and additionally the
negative conjunctive coordinator nec/neque. When these coordinators are used to
⁴³ This type of asyndetic coordination is discussed in detail by Adams (forthc.).

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
link two conjoins, it is called simple coordination (§ 19.24). The same coordin-
ators can also be used for combinations of three or more conjoins (§ 19.38). This
is called multiple coordination. The coordinators et and neque, and to some extent
-que, can furthermore be used in such a way that all conjoins are marked by a
coordinator (for ac and atque, see below). This is called correlative syndetic
coordination (§ 19.29).
. Simple conjunctive coordination
The conjunctive coordinators ac/atque, et, and -que are used in different contexts in
Early and Classical Latin. Et is the general coordinator that can be used for all types of
coordination, both clauses and constituents, regardless of the semantic relation
between the conjoins. It simply adds another element. The other two coordinators are
less often used to link clauses. Between them, -que is the most neutral; it frequently
links constituents with cognate meanings, suggesting that the conjoins are closely
related. Ac and atque are used with the same type of conjoins as -que, but they form a
stronger link (‘and . . . too’, ‘and what is more’ (OLD)), and are more formal and ele-
vated (see below).⁴⁴ There are diachronic differences as well: et is the only coordinator
that survived in some form in the Romance languages (with the exception of
Romanian), though there are also traces of ac. Atque/ac and -que seem to have fallen
out of use in the uneducated spoken language towards the end of the first century ad,
as attested by their infrequency or complete absence in Vitruvius, the Cena
Trimalchionis, and inscriptions from Pompeii.⁴⁵ There are also differences in the type
of text in which the individual coordinators are used: -que, for example, is the regular
coordinator in legal texts on inscriptions,⁴⁶ while its use, as a clitic, is avoided in most
authors after certain words and at the end of sentences.⁴⁷ Atque is almost absent in
Cato’s de Agricultura; in his historical narrative and speeches it is the other way
around. The disyllabic coordinator atque, when followed by a consonant, can be
employed to create rhythmic patterns, for example, consistently throughout Cicero’s
loftier orations and occasionally in his other speeches,⁴⁸ and in poetry.⁴⁹ In Augustine’s
de Civitate Dei the proportion between et and -que/atque is c.2:1; in the Sermones 20:1.
⁴⁴ For a description of the relation of et, ac/atque, and -que, in ‘structural’ terms, see Coşeriu (1968).
For the differences between the three coordinators and their development in Early Latin prose, see
Penney (2005).
⁴⁵ For discussion and references, see Sz.: 477 and Rosén (2009: 402). Sz. also mentions the Bellum
Hispaniense, but see Gaertner (2010).
⁴⁶ See Elmer (1887), who also refers to the frequent use of -que in Cic. Phil. 14.36–8, a proposal for a
senatus consultum.
⁴⁷ See Kraus (1992: 323) for a survey of prose authors: Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus do not avoid -que at the
end of a sentence. For a survey of poetry, see her p. 328, n. 30.
⁴⁸ For Cicero’s use of atque to build clausulae, see Hutchinson (1995).
⁴⁹ For the use of atque in poetry, see Butterfield (2008). For metrical factors determining the choice
between atque and et in Plautus, see Penney (2005: 44).
 Coordination
As a result of these differences the picture of the usage of the individual coordin-
ators in individual authors and in individual texts is quite complicated, as can be seen
in Figure 19.1.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
-que et atque ac
Figure 19.1 Distribution of the conjunctive coordinators in a number of prose and

poetry authors/texts by percentage
Legenda: 1 = Plautus (N = 3,309); 2 = Cicero Orations (N = 5,164); 3 = Cicero Letters (N = 5,888); 4 = Caesar
(N = 3,292); 5 = Virgil A. (N = 6,570); 6 = Livy (N = 24,900); 7 = Vitruvius (N = 3,320);a 8 = Petronius Cena
(N = 512); 9 = Petronius 1–27 (N = 205); 10 = Tertullian (N = 14,670); 11 = Peregrinatio Egeriae (N = 460);b
12 = Augustine Civ. (N = 12,840); 13 = Augustine Serm. (N = 40,210).
a
Of his approximately seventy instances of ac, forty are in the expression dextra ac sinistra (TLL s.v. atque
1050.17f.)
b
Including forty-four instances of sentence-initial Ac sic and seven instances of ac si.
The data are taken from the Library of Latin texts. Especially in the case of et, the
results are not entirely reliable, since sentence-connecting et, et as etiam, and correla-
tive et . . . et are not distinguished. Similarly, atque is used in ways other than as a
coordinator. Nevertheless, one can still get a good sense of the general differences
between authors and time periods.
To illustrate the variation in the frequency with which the coordinators are used in
the works of Cicero, Table 19.2, extracted from Lindholm (1931: 124), is useful.
Table . The distribution of et, atque/ac, and -que in six works of Cicero
Q. Rosc. Man. Cael. Phil. 2 de Orat. 1.1–148 Tusc. 5
et 96 64 85 88 141 140
atque/ac 6 127 91 18 110 23
-que 11 56 63 43 76 87
In poetry and in poeticizing prose, coordination of two clauses is sometimes pre-

ferred over a cum inversum construction (for which see § 7.20 and § 16.11; see also
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
§ 16.18 donec and § 16.62 nisi) to express the suddenness or the speed of an incident
that interferes with a particular event. The preceding clause normally refers to an
ongoing event; the following clause usually to a terminative or momentaneous event
(see § 2.9). Examples are (a)–(c).⁵⁰
(a) Vix primos inopina quies laxaverat artus, / et super incumbens cum puppis
parte revolsa / cumque gubernaclo liquidas proiecit in undas . . .
(‘Sudden slumber had scarcely loosened the first of his limbs, and looming over him,
he (sc. deus) flung him into the clear waters together with a cleft part of the keel and
the rudder . . .’ Verg. A. 5.857–9)
(b) Vix ea fatus erat senior subitoque fragore / intonuit laevom . . .
(‘Scarcely had the aged man thus spoken, when with sudden crash there was thunder
on the left . . .’ Verg. A. 2.692–3)
(c) Huc mihi, dum teneras defendo a frigore myrtos, / vir gregis ipse caper deer-
raverat atque ego Daphnim / aspicio.
(‘To this place, while I sheltered my tender myrtles from the frost, my he-goat, the
lord of the flock himself, had strayed; and I catch sight of Daphnis.’ Verg. Ecl. 7.6–8)
Supplement:
Vixdum ad consulem se pervenisse et audisse oppidum expugnatum, principes
securi percussos, sub corona ceteros venisse. (Liv. 43.4.10); Iamque nitidior lux dis-
cussa caligine aciem hostium ostenderat et Macedones sive alacritate sive taedio
expectationis ingentem pugnantium more edidere clamorem. (Curt. 4.12.23);
Nondum quartus a victoria mensis et libertus Vitellii Asiaticus Polyclitos Patrobios et
vetera odiorum nomina aequabat. (Tac. Hist. 2.95.2); Vix consideramus et nox, non
qualis inlunis aut nubila, sed qualis in locis clausis lumine exstincto. (Plin. Ep.
6.20.14); Commodum cubueram et ecce Photis mea, iam domina cubitum reddita,
laeta proximat rosa serta et rosa soluta in sinu tuberante. (Apul. Met. 2.16.1)
Iamque propinquabant portis, rursusque Latini / clamorem tollunt et mollia colla
reflectunt. (Verg. A. 11.621–2); Et a Volscis et Aequis statum iam ac prope sollemne
in singulos annos bellum timebatur propiusque aliud novum malum necopinato
exortum. (Liv. 3.15.4)
Vix ego haec dixeram cunctabundus atque inibi quispiam . . .‘Valerium’, inquit,
‘Probum audivi haec dicere . . .’ (Gel. 3.1.5)
NB: without a temporal adverb: Iusserat et fratris virgo Saturnia iussis / adnuit et
mediae tempora noctis erant. (Ov. Fast. 6.383–4)⁵¹
The (rare) use of et and atque in the main clause following a temporal subordinate
clause—attested from Plautus onwards—may be related to the use of the coordinators
illustrated above. Examples are (d)–(g).⁵²
⁵⁰ Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 646–7) deals with this use of coordination as one of the ‘techniques de
rupture’ (‘breaking off ’) used in historical narrative. For further examples, see TLL s.v. 895.25ff. For
Virgil’s practice, see Hahn (1956: 186–9).
⁵¹ For a few more examples, see TLL s.v. et 895.53ff.
⁵² For ex. (d), see Petersmann (1977: 242–3). For (e), see Callebat (1968: 496). For further instances of
atque in Plautus, see Lodge: 179B, § 15; TLL s.v. atque 1076.6ff. For—mainly Late Latin—instances and the
Romance successors, see Wehr (1984: 153–81; 2008). TLL s.v. et 896.51ff. has further instances of this so-
called abundant use of et in (very) Late Latin.
 Coordination
(d) Quom ad portam venio atque ego illam illi video praestolarier . . .
(‘When I came to the gate, I saw her waiting for him . . .’ Pl. Epid. 217)
(e) . . . cum Incuboni pilleum rapuisset et (om. edd. plerique) thesaurum invenit.
(‘. . . when he pulled off Incubo’s cap, and discovered a treasure-trove.’ Petr. 38.8
(Hermeros speaking))
(f) Interim dum puerum illum parentes sui plangoribus fletibusque querebantur
et adveniens ecce rusticus . . . destinatam sectionem meam flagitat.
(‘Meanwhile, the boy’s parents were in the process of mourning him with blows to
their breasts and tears, and that country fellow, appearing suddenly . . . called for my
fated castration.’ Apul. Met. 7.26.4)
(g) Nam posteaquam completo desiderio descenderis inde et de contra illum
vides, quod antequam subeas facere non potest.
(‘After you have seen everything and come down, it can be seen facing you, but this
cannot be done till you start your climb.’ Pereg. 2.7—tr. Wilkinson)
Supplement:
. . . dum circumspecto atque ego lembum conspicor / longum . . . (Pl. Bac. 279–80);
Postquam id quod volui transegi atque ego conspicor / navim ex Rhodo . . . (Pl. Mer.
256–7)
Haec ubi ille dixit et discessit. (Gel. 2.29.8)
. The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator -que

The coordinator -que is the regular one in inscriptions that date from before the sec-
ond Punic War (218–201 bc), and it remains the regular coordinator in legal inscrip-
tions thereafter. In the Lex Agraria of 111 bc (CIL I2.585), for example, there are
forty-six instances of -que against one of et and one of atque.⁵³ It is also the regular
coordinator used by Cato in the prayer of Agr. 141.⁵⁴ It is used to link clauses, as in
(a)—almost a new sentence—and in (b) and (c), and to link constituents, as in (d). For
the rare use of -que as a connector of sentences, see (e) and § 24.17.
(a) . . . <eiusque loci . . . emptio venditi>o . . . esto; censorque queiquomque
erit fa<c>ito utei is ager . . .
(‘. . . and there shall be allowed right of purchase and sale of the said ground . . . and
a censor in office at any time shall cause the said land . . .’ CIL I2.585.8 (Lex Agr.,
111 bc))
(b) Bacas · vir · nequis · adiese · velet · ceivis · Romanus ...nisei · pr(aitorem) ·
urbanum · adie · sent · isque · de · senatuos · sententiad . . . iousise[n]t.
⁵³ See the survey in Elmer (1887: 294). See also Sz.: 473–4. For Early Latin prose, see Penney (2005:
41–4) and, for Cato, Adams (2016: 62–4). For -que to coordinate clauses in legal contexts, see Powell (2005:
130–1).
⁵⁴ For which see Courtney (1999: 62–7).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
(‘Let no man, whether Roman citizen . . . be minded to attend a meeting of Bacchant

women . . . unless they have first approached the praetor of the city and he has author-
ized them, by a vote of the Senate, to do so.’ CIL I2.581.7–9 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc))
(c) Vortentibus Telobois telis complebantur corpora / ipsusque Amphitruo
regem Pterelam sua optruncavit manu.
(‘When the Teloboians turned their backs, their bodies were filled with spears, and
Amphitruo himself slew King Pterela with his own hand.’ Pl. Am. 251–2)
(d) Hec · cepit · Corsica · Aleriaque · urbe.
(‘He captured Corsica and the city of Aleria.’ CIL I2.9.5 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.200 bc))
(e) Ob easque res ex litteris Caesaris dies quindecim supplicatio decreta est,
quod ante id tempus accidit nulli.
(‘And for those achievements, upon receipt of Caesar’s dispatches, a fifteen days’
thanksgiving was decreed, an honour that had previously fallen to no man.’ Caes. Gal.
2.35.4)
In Plautus, the instances of coordination of constituents with -que are two and a half
times more frequent than those of coordination of entire clauses and of clauses with
two or more constituents, apart from shared constituents.⁵⁵ In Cicero, clausal coord-
ination by -que occurs less frequently and in Tacitus even less so.⁵⁶ Certain combin-
ations of words and phrases are particularly common, such as di deaeque ‘gods and
goddesses’, senatus populusque Romanus ‘the senate and people of Rome’, terra marique
‘on land and sea’, longe lateque ‘far and wide’, satis superque ‘more than sufficiently’.⁵⁷
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . huic mihique hau faciet quisquam iniuriam. (Pl. Bac.
59); Ita di deaeque faxint. (Pl. Capt. 172); . . . ita[que] venter gutturque resident esu-
rialis ferias. (Pl. Capt. 468); Conservi conservaeque omnes, bene valete et vivite . . . (Pl.
Mil. 1340); . . . res rationesque eri / Ballionis curo . . . (Pl. Ps. 626–7); Ut te quidem
omnes di deaeque (que del. Guyet, edd.) quantum’st, Syre, / . . . perduint! (Ter. Hau.
810–11);⁵⁸ Viam · fecei ·ab · Regio · ad · Capuam · et / in · ea · via · ponteis ·
omneis · miliarios / tabelariosque · poseivei. (CIL X..– (Polla,  bc);
Atque ut vos una mente unaque voce dubitare vos negatis, sic . . . (Cic. Phil. 4.8); Ad
causam bellumque redeamus. (Cic. Phil. 6.15); Hoc bellum quintum civile geri-
tur . . . primum non modo non in dissensione et discordia civium sed in maxima con-
sensione incredibilique concordia. (Cic. Phil. 8.8—NB: variation et . . . que in parallel
noun phrases); . . . hic ira dementiaque inflammatus . . . (Cic. Phil. 12.26); Hic servo
spe libertatis magnisque persuadet praemiis ut litteras ad Caesarem deferat. (Caes.
⁵⁵ Vocabula ‘words and phrases’ have more than ten columns vs. less than four columns for clauses in
Lodge.
⁵⁶ In Cicero’s orations, thirty-four columns of -que concern constituents; thirteen, clauses or parts of
clauses (Merguet (Reden)). In Tacitus it is thirty-five to nine (Gerber and Greef). It is particularly infre-
quent in Rhet. Her. and in Cicero’s Inv. (Merten 1893: 24–7).
⁵⁷ For the history of the use by various authors, see Sz.: 475–6.
⁵⁸ For the deletion of -que, see Sjögren (1900: 8).
 Coordination
Gal. 5.45.3); Quem (sc. Germanicum) per omnis illos dies noctesque . . . vix cohibuere
amici quo minus eodem mari oppeteret. (Tac. Ann. 2.24.2)
NB: governed by a preposition: Ex summis opibus viribusque usque experire,
nitere . . . (Pl. Mer. 111); Nempe in Antoni congressum conloquiumque veniendum
est. (Cic. Phil. 12.26). See also § 19.13.
Adjectives, adjective phrases, and other attributes: . . . regias copias aureasque
optuli . . . (Pl. Bac. 647); Tun’ ted expurges mihi, / qui facinus tantum tamque indignum
feceris? (Pl. Mil. 497–8); . . . ego omnibus / parvis magnisque miseriis praefulcior. (Pl.
Ps. 771–2); Adparet servom hunc esse domini pauperis / miserique. (Ter. Eu. 486–7);
Atque sic a summis hominibus eruditissimisque accepimus . . . (Cic. Arch. 18); Nullam
esse actionem dicere in re tam insigni tamque atroci neque prudentiae neque auctori-
tatis tuae est. (Cic. Caec. 37); . . . descendi in campum cum firmissimo praesidio fortis-
simorum virorum et cum illa lata insignique lorica . . . (Cic. Mur. 52); Itaque hominem
huic optimae tutissimaeque custodiae non audet committere . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.69); . . . pars
magna a feris barbarisque nationibus incolitur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.10.4)
Adverbs: . . . illum mater arte contenteque habet . . . (Pl. As. 78); Bene opportuneque
obviam es, Palaestrio. (Pl. Mil. 898); Edepol ne istuc magis magisque metuo, quom
verba audio. (Pl. Ps. 1214); Quam ob rem, dum multorum annorum accusationi
breviter dilucideque respondeo, quaeso ut me, iudices . . . benigne attenteque audiatis.
(Cic. Clu. 8); . . . ibi primum in morbum incidit ac satis vehementer diuque aegrotavit.
(Cic. Clu. 175); . . . ut undique . . . gratiam atque amicitiam publice privatimque pete-
rent. (Caes. Gal. 5.55.4); Inde graves simultates, quas Antonius simplicius, Mucianus
callide eoque implacabilius nutriebat. (Tac. Hist. 3.53.3)
Prepositions: see § 19.13 fin.
Prepositional phrases: . . . ita ted optestor per senectutem tuam / perque illam
quam tu metuis uxorem tuam . . . (Pl. As. 18–19); . . . ego erum expugnabo meum / sine
classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum. (Pl. Bac. 929–30); . . . per tuam fidem
perque huiu’ solitudinem / te obtestor . . . (Ter. An. 290–1); . . . multa autem impendere
videntur praeter naturam etiam praeterque fatum . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.10); De bonorum
emptione deque ea societate neminem esse qui verbum facere auderet hoc tempore?
(Cic. S. Rosc. 58). See also § 19.13.
Finite and non-finite verb forms: Iuppiter, qui genus colis alisque hominum . . . (Pl.
Poen. 1187); Totus, Parmeno, / tremo horreoque, postquam aspexi hanc. (Ter. Eu.
83–4); . . . deinde ipsum <M.> Aurium . . . tollendum interficiendumque curavit. (Cic.
Clu. 23); Decidis statuisque tu . . . quid eis ad denarium solveretur. (Cic. Quinct.
17); . . . ad te litteras misit mittendasque curavit. (Cic. Ver. 5.15); . . . qui a parentibus
spe nostri imperii nostraeque aequitatis suscepti educatique sunt . . . (Cic. Ver.
5.123); . . . magno opere a te peto ut operam des efficiasque ne quid mihi fiat iniu-
riae . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.12.2); Huc magno cursu contenderunt, ut quam minimum
spatii ad se colligendos armandosque Romanis daretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.19.1); Ad
deos, ad effigiem Augusti, ad genua ipsius manus tendere, cum proferri libellum
recitarique iussit. (Tac. Ann. 1.11.3); Atque illum cupido incessit adeundi visendique
templum Paphiae Veneris . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.2.2)
Adnominal relative clauses: Salve, qui me interfecisti paene vita et lumine / vimque
mihi magni doloris per voluptatem tuam / condidisti in corpus . . . (Pl. Truc. 518–20)⁵⁹
⁵⁹ For relative clauses coordinated by -que in Plautus and Terence, see Sjögren (1900: 117–20).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
Autonomous relative clauses: Nimiae voluptati est quod in extis nostris porten-
tum est, soror, / quod[que] haruspex de ambabus dixit. (Pl. Poen. 1205–6)
Result clauses with ut: (sc. sic) . . . ipsus sese ut neget esse eum qui siet / meque ut
esse autumet qui ipsus est. (Pl. Ps. 929–30)⁶⁰
Clauses:
Eugepae, edictiones aedilicias hicquidem habet / mirumque adeo est ni hunc fecere
sibi Aetoli agoranomum. (Pl. Capt. 823–4); At ego aio id fieri in Graecia et
Carthagini, / et hic in nostra terra in <terra> Apulia / maioreque opere ibi serviles
nuptiae / quam liberales etiam curari solent. (Pl. Cas. 71–4); Haec Andria, / si[ve]
ista uxor sive amica’st, gravida e Pamphilo’st. / Audireque <eo>rum’st operae pre-
tium audaciam . . . (Ter. An. 215–17); Quod ego longe secus existimo, iudices, deque
eo pauca disseram. (Cic. Mur. 31); . . . illa insula eorum deorum sacra putatur tan-
taque eius auctoritas religionis et est et semper fuit ut . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.48);
Ille . . . Uticae domi suae vivus exustus est idque ita illi merito accidisse existimatum
est ut laetarentur omnes . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.70); (sc. Ubii) . . . sunt humaniores, prop-
terea quod Rhenum attingunt multumque ad eos mercatores ventitant . . . (Caes.
Gal. 4.3.3); Nam Carnutes . . . veniunt in deditionem, ceteraeque civitates . . .
imperata sine mora faciunt. (Hirt. Gal. 8.31.5);⁶¹ . . . preimario viro pro eius meri-
teis / hoc monumentum constitutum est / eique merenti gratia rellata
est / isque octiens duomvir ter cens(or) colonorum iudicio / apsens
praesensque factus est . . . (CIL VI.29754.5–9 (Ostia, time of Augustus));
Tum . . . Meherdates promissa Parracis paterni clientis secutus dolo eius vincitur
traditurque victori. (Tac. Ann. 12.14.3); Nam postero die quam Curiatius Maternus
Catonem recitaverat, cum offendisse potentium animos diceretur, tamquam in eo
tragoediae argumento sui oblitus tantum Catonem cogitasset, eaque de re per
urbem frequens sermo haberetur, venerunt ad eum Marcus Aper et Iulius
Secundus . . . (Tac. Dial. 2.1); Occupantur plana Umbriae et qua Picenus ager Hadria
adluitur omnisque Italia inter Vespasianum ac Vitellium Appennini iugis divideba-
tur. (Tac. Hist. 3.42.1)
As a rule, -que is attached to the first word of a conjoin that is linked to a preceding
conjoin when the second conjoin starts with, or consists of, a phrase. This can be seen
in (d) above: -que is attached to the first word of the phrase Aleria urbe. However,
when that first word is a monosyllabic preposition, -que is often attached to another
word of the phrase, as is shown by the prepositional phrase ob easque res in (e) above.
Other examples are the adverbs tam and quam in (f) and (g), respectively. It is occa-
sionally postposed with disyllabic prepositions as well, as in (h). -que is never attached
to non. It cannot be combined with words ending in -c (*hicque).⁶² Note that in
(i) -que is attached to the relative quae in the relative clause that precedes its main
clause. (See also § 23.36.)
⁶⁰ Plautus and Terence avoid the sequence utque. See Sjögren (1900: 126). It is also very rare elsewhere.
⁶¹ For a well-organized survey of similar coordinated clauses in the Caesarian corpus, see Merguet
(Caesar) 879B–882A.
⁶² See Bolkestein (2000: 134, n. 7). For Cicero’s usage of monosyllabic words, see Shipley (1913: 43–5).
 Coordination
(f) In hoc igitur tanto tam immensoque campo cum liceat oratori vagari libere . . .
(‘Consequently as the orator has the liberty to roam freely in so wide and measureless
a field . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.124)
(g) Fac, mi frater, ut valeas quam primumque venias.
(‘Be sure to keep well, my dear brother, and come as soon as you can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.6.4)
(h) . . . apud eosque (sc. iudices) me . . . cogas causam de fortunis omnibus dicere?
(‘. . . and do you force me to plead concerning all my fortunes before them?’ Cic.
Planc. 40)
(i) Vela dabant ventis (nec adhuc bene noverat illos / navita) quaeque prius
steterant in montibus altis / fluctibus ignotis exsultavere carinae.
(‘Men now spread sails to the winds, though the sailor as yet scarce knew them; and
the keels of pine, which long had stood upon high mountainsides, now leaped over
unknown waves.’ Ov. Met. 1.132–4)
Supplement:
. . . tam diuque ut obtineat dum M. Brutus C. Cassius consules prove coss. provincias
obtinebunt. (Cic. Phil. 8.27);. . . (sc. morbos) omnis opinabilis esse et voluntarios ea
reque suscipi, quod ita rectum esse videatur. (Cic. Tusc. 4.83)
There are no limitations on the attachment of -que to polysyllabic words, e.g. innu-
merabilitatemque mundorum ‘and the countless number of worlds’ (Cic. N.D. 1.73),
or on its attachment to words ending in a short ĕ, e.g. constituereque ‘and to establish’
(Cic. Fin. 4.25).⁶³
. The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque

Ac is an apocopated form of atque (< ad + que?) that is used in front of consonants
(with very few exceptions); atque appears regularly in front of vowels and h, but it
can be used in front of consonants and is in some authors preferred in front of the
velar consonants c, g, and q. Cicero uses atque followed by a consonant to build
clausulae.⁶⁴ There do not seem to be other distributional differences between the
two forms. They are used to link clauses, as in (a)–(c), and to link constituents, as in
(d) and (e). Coordination of constituents by ac/atque is much more common than
coordination of clauses.⁶⁵ Typical is the use of ac/atque in epitactic conjoins (see
§ 19.68) to add a specification to a preceding clause; also after a change of speaker,
as in (f).⁶⁶ Atque is by far preferred in Cato’s orations, whereas it is rare in his Agr.⁶⁷
⁶³ For older publications on these two items, see K.-St.: II.13–14.

⁶⁴ See TLL s.v. 1049.34ff. In the PHI corpus the sequence atque a occurs 3,570 times; ac a three times;
atque e 2,460 times; ac e never. For metrical considerations, see Richmond (1965) and, for Cicero,
Nisbet (1990: 355–7), Hutchinson (1995), and Berry in his commentary on the pro Sulla (1996: 49–54).
⁶⁵ Sixteen columns in Lodge vs. four (168A–175B/176A–178A); more than twenty-one columns vs.
one and a half in Cicero’s orations (Merguet (Reden) 310B–321A/321A–322A).
⁶⁶ This use of atque is paraphrased as et quidem in the TLL s.v. atque 1050.36ff. See also Lodge s.v. atque
179 (§ 14).
⁶⁷ See Penney (2005: 44–9). For Ennius, see Adams (2016: 11–12).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
It is also relatively common in Cicero in elevated parts of his orations and letters.⁶⁸
Conversely, ‘It never established itself in colloquial Latin.’⁶⁹ For the use of ac/atque
as a connector of sentences, see (g) and § 24.18. For the use of atque as a compara-
tive particle, see § 20.6.
(a) . . . hic vos / dormitis interea domi atque erus in hara, haud aedibus, habitat.
(‘. . . you servants in the meantime sleep here at home and master has to live in a pig-
sty, not a house.’ Pl. As. 429–30)
(b) . . . ne ex his nationibus auxilia in Galliam mittantur ac tantae nationes con-
iungantur.
(‘. . . in order that auxiliaries not be sent from these nations into Gaul, and that such
great nations not form an alliance.’ Caes. Gal. 3.11.3)
(c) Nam nec se Septentriones quoquam in caelo commovent / nec se Luna quo-
quam mutat atque uti exorta est semel, / nec Iugulae nec Vesperugo nec
Vergiliae occidunt.
(‘For the Great Bear isn’t moving anywhere in the sky, the Moon isn’t going to any
place different from where it was when it first rose, and Orion, the Evening Star, and
the Pleiades aren’t setting either.’ Pl. Am. 273–5)
(d) Eo domum, patrem atque matrem ut meos salutem . . .
(‘I’m going home to greet my father and mother . . .’ Pl. Mer. 659)
(e) . . . cum matronarum ac virginum veniebat in mentem . . .
(‘. . . when the thought of wives and unwed girls came into my mind . . .’ Cic. Sul. 19)
(f) Iamne ostendisti signa nutrici? # Omnia. / # Amabo, quid ait? Cognoscitne?
# Ac memoriter.
(‘Have you already shown the nurse the tokens? # All of them. # What does she say,
darling? Does she recognize them? # Yes, and by memory.’ Ter. Eu. 914–15)
(g) Ac iam ut omnia contra opinionem acciderent, tamen se plurimum navibus
posse, [quam] Romanos neque ullam facultatem habere navium neque
eorum locorum ubi bellum gesturi essent vada, portus, insulas novisse. Ac
longe aliam esse navigationem in concluso mari atque in vastissimo atque
apertissimo Oceano perspiciebant.
(‘(sc. the Veneti felt that,) even though everything was turning out contrary to expect-
ation, they were predominant in sea-power, while the Romans had no supply of
ships, no knowledge of the shoals, harbours, or islands of the regions where they
were about to wage war; and they could perceive that navigation on a land-locked
sea was quite different from navigation on an Ocean very vast and open.’ Caes. Gal.
3.9.6–7)
⁶⁸ For statistical data, see Merten (1893: 2–5). See also TLL s.v. atque 1050.10ff.
⁶⁹ So Courtney (1999: 3).
 Coordination
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . eos auspicio meo atque [in]ductu primo coetu vici-
mus. (Pl. Am. 657) . . . tantum erus atque ego flagitio superavimus nuptiis nos-
tris . . . (Pl. Cas. 876); . . . Narbonensis colonia, quae . . . nunc eiusdem miseriis ac
periculis commovetur. (Cic. Font. 46); . . . suorum servorum manibus nuntio atque
imperio tuo violatus esset. (Cic. Quinct. 83); Constat . . . nullum hoc splendore atque
hac dignitate consilium fuisse. (Cic. Ver. 49); . . . si quis quid de re publica a finitimis
rumore ac (v.l. aut) fama acceperit . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.20.1); . . . alius deleto exercitu atque
imperatore victores barbaros venisse contendit. (Caes. Gal. 6.37.7); . . . magnumque
numerum in oppidum telorum atque tormentorum convexerant . . . (B. Alex. 2.1)⁷⁰
NB: governed by a preposition: . . . ex spiritu atque anhelitu / nebula constat . . . (Pl.
Am. 233–4); . . . si quis perdiderit vidulum cum auro atque argento multo, / ad Gripum
ut veniat. (Pl. Rud. 1295–6); . . . quidvis esse perpeti satius quam in tanta vi atque
acerbitate versari. (Cic. Ver. 1.69); . . . qui illum adesse cum magnis copiis dicerent et
de custodia ac defensione urbis hortarentur. (Caes. Civ. 2.36.3); Varius sermo et ad
metum atque iram accommodatus terruit simul audientem et accendit. (Tac. Ann.
14.62.1). (For other prepositional phrases, see below.)
Adjectives, adjective phrases, and other attributes: Quin tu istanc orationem
hinc veterem atque antiquam amoves? (Pl. Mil. 751); . . . dederim vobis consilium
catum, / quod laudetis, ut ego opino, uterque— # Ergo ubi id est, Epidice? / # —atque
ad eam rem conducibile. (Pl. Epid. 258–60—NB: Epidicus is interrupted); (sc. ratio)
Est hercle inepta, ne dicam dolo, atque / absurda. (Ter. Ad. 375–6); Recte hoc repetitur
a vobis ut virum optimum atque innocentissimum plurimisque mortalibus carissi-
mum atque iucundissimum his aliquando calamitatibus liberetis . . . (Cic. Clu.
202); . . . propter hominem perditissimum atque alienissimum de officio ac dignitate
decedis . . . (Cic. Ver. 28); At quo loco! Celeberrimo ac religiosissimo, ante ipsum
Serapim, in primo aditu vestibuloque templi. (Cic. Ver. 2.160); Sperare ab eo de sua
ac militum salute impetrari posse. (Caes. Gal. 5.36.3); . . . sperans barbaros atque
imperitos homines . . . ad iniquam pugnandi condicionem posse deduci. (Caes. Gal.
6.10.2)
Adverbs: Benene usque valuit? # Pancratice atque athletice. (Pl. Bac. 248); Sed ut
astu sum aggressus ad eas. # Lepide hercle atque commode. (Pl. Poen. 1223); . . . id
eum exercitumque eius, municipia, colonias provinciae Galliae recte atque ordine
exque re publica fecisse et facere. (Cic. Phil. 3.38); Planius atque apertius dicam. (Cic.
Q. Rosc. 43)
Prepositional phrases: Equidem me iam censebam esse in terra atque in tuto
loco . . . (Pl. Mer. 196); Natas ex Philomela atque ex (ac [ex] cj. Bothe) Procne esse
hirundines. (Pl. Rud. 604); Ut animus in spe atque in timore usque ant(e)hac attentus
fuit . . . (Ter. An. 303); Fures privatorum furtorum in nervo atque in compedibus
aetatem agunt, fures publici in auro atque in purpura. (Cato orat. 224); . . . in caede
atque ex caede vivunt. (Cic. S. Rosc. 78); Ipse Sulla . . . ab se hominem atque ab exer-
citu suo removit. (Cic. Ver. 1.38). See also § 19.13.
⁷⁰ For the use of atque and other conjunctive coordinators in the Bellum Alexandrinum, see Gaertner
and Hausburg (2013: 70–1).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
Verbs: . . . id vi et virtute militum victum atque expugnatum oppidum est . . . (Pl. Am.
191); Cogo atque impero: / numquam defugiam auctoritatem. (Ter. Eu. 389–90);
Multorum te etiam oculi et aures non sentientem, sicut adhuc fecerunt, speculabun-
tur atque custodient. (Cic. Catil. 1.6); . . . quod agendum atque faciendum, id non
modo non recusem sed etiam appetam atque deposcam. (Cic. Phil. 3.33); . . . te dicere
atque enumerare causas omnis oportebat . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 53); Unamque cohortem,
quae temere ante ceteras extra aciem procurrerat, seclusam ab reliquis circumveniunt
atque interficiunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.55.2)
Autonomous relative clauses: . . . tamen non defore qui illa restituerent atque qui
ante omnia commutarent quam nos audire possemus. (Cic. Agr. 2.90)
Conditional clauses: Quid si adduco tuom cognatum huc a navi Naucratem, / qui
mecum una vectu’st una navi, atque is si denegat / facta quae tu facta dicis, quid tibi
aequom est fieri? (Pl. Am. 849–51)
Purpose clauses: Ego servi sumpsi Sosiae mi imaginem, / . . . ut praeservire amanti
meo possem patri / atque ut ne qui essem familiares quaererent . . . (Pl. Am. 124–7)
Clauses:
Nam si erus tu mi es atque ego me tuom esse servom assimulo . . . (Pl. Capt. 224); Ergo
iste metus me macerat . . . / ne oculi eius sententiam mutent, ubi viderit me, / atque
eius elegantia meam extemplo speciem spernat. (Pl. Mil. 1233–5); Scio solere ple-
risque hominibus rebus secundis atque prolixis atque prosperis animum excellere
atque superbiam atque ferociam augescere atque crescere. (Cato orat. 163—NB:
atque functioning at different levels); (sc. oro) . . . ut me adiuves in hac re atque ita uti
nuptiae / fuerant futurae, fiant. (Ter. An. 542–3); . . . si ne tuorum quidem quisquam
loco motus erit atque omnes in aedibus adservati ac retenti . . . (Cic. Caec. 37); . . . facile
me atque vos crudelitatis vituperatione prohibebo atque obtinebo eam multo
leniorem fuisse. (Cic. Catil. 4.11); . . . patimini veritate patefacta atque omni errore
sublato eo transire illius turpitudinis infamiam . . . (Cic. Clu. 83); An dies auget eius
desiderium, an magis oblivionem, ac laurea illa magnis periculis parta amittit longo
intervallo viriditatem? (Cic. Prov. 29); At vivis et viges, at in omnium animis atque
ore versaris atque divinus animus mortale nihil habuit neque tuorum quicquam
potuit emori praeter corpus. (Cic. Scaur. 50); Et . . . paucis diebus magna erat rerum
facta commutatio ac se fortuna inclinaverat . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.52.2); Eodemque tempore
pugnatum est ad portum ac longe maximam ea res adtulit dimicationem. (Caes. Civ.
3.111); Qui cum se suaque omnia in oppidum Bratuspantium contulissent atque ab
eo oppido Caesar cum exercitu circiter milia passuum quinque abesset . . . (Caes. Gal.
2.13.2); . . . excipiunt Vitellianos temere effusos atque illi consternantur. (Tac. Hist.
3.17.2); . . . neque aliud externi reges aut qui eadem saevitia usi sunt nisi dedecus sibi
atque illis gloriam peperere. (Tac. Ann. 4.35.5)
The second conjoin of a pair of words or phrases linked by ac/atque often has a
stronger or more precise meaning than the first conjoin. This may result from the
lexical meaning of the words or phrases, as in (h) and (i),⁷¹ and/or from the presence
⁷¹ Exx. (h) and (i) are taken from K.-St.: II.16.

 Coordination
of certain adverbs or other expressions, like adeo ‘rather’ in (j) and etiam ‘also’, ‘even’
in (k).⁷² This also occurs with paene ‘almost’, potius ‘rather’, quoque ‘also’, and others.
(h) Cum in maximis periculis huius urbis atque imperii, gravissimo atque acer-
bissimo rei publicae casu, socio atque adiutore consiliorum periculorumque
meorum L. Flacco, caedem a vobis . . . depellebam . . .
(‘When in the greatest perils of this city and Empire, in that most grim and bitter
hour of crisis for the Republic, with Lucius Flaccus as my companion and helper in
my deliberations and dangers, I staved off disaster from you.’ Cic. Flac. 1)
(i) . . . si fuerit is qui haec habet iniustus, intemperans, timidus, hebeti ingenio
atque nullo, dubitabisne eum miserum dicere?
(‘. . . if the man who possesses these things is unjust, intemperate, fearful, with an
intelligence sluggish or even non-existent, will you hesitate to pronounce him
wretched?’ Cic. Tusc. 5.45)
(j) Hoc consilio atque adeo hac amentia impulsi . . . eum iugulandum vobis tra-
diderunt.
(‘Driven by this plan, or rather by this folly . . . they have handed him over to you to
murder.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 29)
(k) Qui illum Persam atque omnis Persas atque etiam omnis personas / male di
omnes perdant!
(‘May all the gods ruin that Persian and all Persians and even all stage characters!’ Pl.
Per. 783–4)
Atque also appears commonly in the combination etiam atque etiam ‘more and more’
(more than one hundred instances in Cicero alone, etiam et etiam only once (Cic. Att.
8.15a.2—NB: see the apparatus criticus)), magis atque magis ‘more and more’ (from
Virgil onwards), and alius atque alius ‘first one person then another’.⁷³
. The simple use of the conjunctive coordinator et

Et is considered the most neutral of the conjunctive coordinators. However, it has
certain particular features. A comparison of the use of et, atque/ac, and -que in pairs
of proper names referring to persons or gods in the orations of Cicero yields the fol-
lowing results: for sixteen columns of et used to connect nouns and/or pronouns there
are 123 pairs of proper names (e.g. Dolabella et Antonius); for eighteen columns of
atque/ac, there are two or three (e.g. Cassius atque Brutus); for twenty-four columns of
-que, there are two (e.g. Apollinem Dianamque).⁷⁴ Et is the normal coordinator
used to link numerals (see Table 19.3 and the Appendix there). Apparently, it is also
⁷² Adeo is also paired with -que in Early Latin and in poetry. The combination with et is very rare (TLL
s.v. adeo 613.42ff.; 614.8ff.). For etiam and quoque, see TLL s.v. atque 1053.39ff.; s.v. etiam 941.12ff; see
there also for (less common) combinations of etiam with et and -que.
⁷³ See TLL s.v. atque 1071.36ff.
⁷⁴ Material taken from Merguet (Reden): ac/atque: Dolabella et Antonius (Phil. 13.26); Pomptini atque
Flacci (Catil. 3.6); unius P. Servili ac (aut cj. Madvig, edd.) M. Luculli responso (Har. 12); -que: Apollinem
Dianamque (Ver. 1.48); Titus Gaiusque Coponii (Cael. 24—NB: praenomina of two brothers).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
the best coordinator to link entities that are not closely related in sense, as it simply
adds another conjoin. Conversely, when two nouns are coordinated of which the sec-
ond one has a strong meaning, atque/ac seems to be preferred, though -que is also
used: thus (improbitas) atque/ac nequitia/ae/am (or: nequitiaque) ‘(shamelessness)
and depravity’ and (dedecore) ac turpitudine ‘(discredit) and disgrace’ (see also § 19.26).
Et is less often used than atque/ac and -que to link nouns and pronouns (the preferred
categories of -que), and adjectives and other attributes (the preferred categories of
atque). At least, this is the situation in Cicero’s orations.
Et is used to link clauses, as in (a), and in (b) (repeated from § 19.1), and to link
constituents, as in (c)—two objects—and (d)—two attributes. Coordination of clauses
by et is more common than of constituents.⁷⁵ For the use of et in epitactic coordination,
see (e) and §§ 19.67–8 (for the term and further examples). For the use of et as a con-
nector of sentences, see § 24.19. For the rare use of et in comparisons, see § 20.6. Finally,
for the use of et as an adverb, more or less equivalent to etiam, see § 22.21.
(a) . . . ego illam illi video praestolarier / et cum ea tibicinae ibant quattuor.
(‘. . . I saw her waiting for him, and four flute-girls were walking along with her.’ Pl.
Epid. 217–18)
(b) Haec vincit in consilio sententia et prima luce postridie constituunt proficisci.
(c) Em illius servos huc ad me argentum attulit / et opsignatum symbolum.
(‘Well, his slave brought the money here to me, and the sealed token.’ Pl. Ps. 1091–2)
(d) . . . tibi cum homine disertissimo et ad dicendum paratissimo futurum esse
certamen . . .
(‘. . . your contest will be with a man highly eloquent and trained in speaking . . .’ Cic.
Div. Caec. 44)
(e) Is dicebatur esse Myronis, ut opinor, et certe.
(‘This was said to be the work of Myron, I believe—yes, it was so.’ Cic. Ver. 4.5)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Nunc hodie Amphitruo veniet huc ab exercitu / et servos
quoius ego hanc fero imaginem. (Pl. Am. 140–1); Ego virtute deum et maiorum nos-
trum dives sum satis. (Pl. Aul. 166); Primo haec pudice vitam parce ac duriter / agebat,
lana et (ac D2, Grammatici Latini, edd.) tela victum quaeritans. (Ter. An. 74–5); . . .
neque aequum est tempore et die memoriam benefici definire. (Cic. Red. Pop. 23);
Tanta enim erat auctoritas et vetustas illius religionis . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.108); . . . illa
summa vis et contentio probatur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.255); Nunc venio ad tua illa brevia,
quae consectaria esse dicebas, et primum illud quo nihil potest brevius. (Cic. Fin. 4.48);
Probat enim legum et libertatis interitum . . . (Cic. Off. 3.83); Ad reliqua transeamus
animalia et primum terrestria. (Plin. Nat. 8.1); . . . sive hostis illos seu Pansam venenum
⁷⁵ Merguet (Caesar) offers the easiest overview.

 Coordination
vulneri adfusum, sui milites Hirtium et machinator doli Caesar abstulerat . . . (Tac.
Ann. 1.10.2—NB: the asyndetically coordinated clauses in the seu sequence are a
good example of ‘gapping’)
NB: governed by a preposition: Em hominem tibi, / qui a matre et sorore venit. (Pl.
Mil. 1312–13); Suspicionem hanc propter fratrem ei(u)s esse et illam psaltriam. (Ter.
Ad. 600); Agitur . . . ut nullum sit posthac in re publica publicum consilium, nulla
bonorum consensio contra improborum furorem et audaciam . . . (Cic. Rab. Per. 4) . . .
non solum ex oratione Caesaris . . . sed etiam ex oculis et vultu, ex multis praeterea
signis . . . hac opinione discessi ut mihi tua salus dubia non esset. (Cic. Fam.
6.14.2); . . . quem tu cum civi acerrimo, patre tuo, in ore et amore semper habuisti. (Cic.
Fam. 10.28.1); Segni Condrusique, ex gente et numero Germanorum . . . legatos ad
Caesarem miserunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.32.1); . . . Afranium et Faustum cum coniuge et lib-
eris vivos capit. (B. Afr. 95.3); Missus ilico Stertinius cum equite et armatura levi igne
et caedibus perfidiam ultus est. (Tac. Ann. 2.8.4). See also § 19.13.
Adjectives, adjective phrases, and other attributes: Paucis, Euclio, est quod te volo /
de communi re appellare mea et tua. (Pl. Aul. 199–200); . . . recta porta invadam extem-
plo in oppidum antiquom et vetus. (Pl. Bac. 711); Imitatur nequam bestiam et damnifi-
cam. (Pl. Cist. 728); Mulier commoda et / faceta haec meretrix. (Ter. Hau. 521–2); Qui
tamen ita gravis est accusator et vehemens ut . . . (Cic. Mur. 58); Etiam a Stoicis ista trac-
tata sunt? # Non sane, nisi . . . a magno homine et in primis erudito, Panaetio. (Cic. Leg.
3.14); . . . atque idem Aventinum et Caelium montem adiunxit urbi . . . (Cic. Rep.
2.33); . . . paene iniquo loco et leviter declivi castra fecerant. (Caes. Gal. 7.83.3); . . . insig-
nisque et antiquitus sacras coronas adeptus . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.33.2); . . . quia Vespasianus,
venerabilis senex et patientissimus veri, bene intellegit . . . (Tac. Dial. 8.3)
Adverbs: Bene ego istam eduxi meae domi et pudice. (Pl. Cur. 518); . . . nisi multa aqua
usque et diu macerantur . . . (Pl. Poen. 243); Nam hic Clinia . . . attamen / habet (sc. ami-
cam) bene et pudice eductam, ignaram artis meretriciae. (Ter. Hau. 225–6); . . . cum una
quaque de re a P. Cannutio, homine eloquentissimo, graviter et diu diceretur. (Cic. Clu.
30); . . . aperte iam et perspicue nulla esse iudicia. (Cic. Ver. 20); . . . uterque eorum ex castris
stativis a flumine Apso exercitum educunt, Pompeius clam et noctu, Caesar palam atque
interdiu. (Caes. Civ. 3.30.3); Nam quo sordidius et abiectius nati sunt . . . (Tac. Dial. 8.3)
Prepositional phrases: Id solus solum per amicitiam et per fidem / flens me opse-
cravit . . . (Pl. Trin. 153–4); Nunc te per amicitiam et per amorem obsecro . . . (Ter. An.
326); Non fuerunt armati, cum fustibus et cum saxis fuerunt. (Cic. Caec. 64). See also
§ 19.13.
Finite and non-finite verb forms: Novi erum, novi aedis nostras. Sane sapio et sen-
tio. (Pl. Am. 448); Quin collaudo consilium et probo. (Pl. Trin. 1148); Quae si erunt, ut
mea ratio et cogitatio fert, posita et constituta, nullam accusationis partem pertimes-
cam. (Cic. Scaur. 21); . . . solet haec quae rapuit et furatus est non numquam dicere
se emisse . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.60); Homo nobilis, qui a suis amari et diligi vellet . . .
(Cic. Ver. 4.51); Timere Caesarem . . . ne ad eius periculum reservare et retinere eas
(sc. legiones) ad urbem Pompeius videretur. (Caes. Civ. 1.2.3); Dum ea conquiruntur
et conferuntur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.27.4); At nunc colimus externos et adulamur . . . (Tac.
Ann. 15.21.1); Frustra Cassium amovisti, si gliscere et vigere Brutorum aemulos
passurus es. (Tac. Ann. 16.22.5)
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
Autonomous relative clauses: Qui utuntur vino vetere sapientis puto / et qui
lubenter veteres spectant fabulas. (Pl. Cas. 5–6)
Conditional clauses: Nunc vos, si vobis placet / et si placuimus neque odio fui-
mus, signum hoc mittite. (Pl. Capt. 1034–5)
Purpose clauses: At vero praeclarum diem illis reposuisti Verria ut agerent et ut
ad eum diem quae sacris epulisque opus essent in compluris annos locarentur. (Cic.
Ver. 2.52)
Indirect questions: . . . cum ex me quidam quaesisset quo die Roma exissem et num
quidnam esset novi. (Cic. Planc. 65 ); Tu tamen de †Tutio† ad me rescribe certius et
num quis in eius locum paretur, et quid de P. Clodio fiat . . . (Cic. Att. 2.5.3)
Clauses:
Decet me facetum esse et hunc irridere / lenonem lubido est, quando dignus est. (Pl.
Per. 807–8); Gratiam habeo et de talento nulla causa est quin feras, / quod isti sum
iuratus. (Pl. Rud. 1397–8); Cum patre altercasti dudum et is nunc propterea tibi /
suscenset . . . (Ter. An. 653–4); Esse autem tertium ac medium inter illos et ita factos
eos pedes esse ut in iis singulis modus insit aut sesquiplex aut duplex aut par. (Cic.
Orat. 193); Vos videte quid aliae faciant isto loco feminae et ne, cum velitis, exire non
liceat. (Cic. Fam. 14.18.2); Cassius . . . onerarias naves <in nostras naves> circiter XL
praeparatas ad incendium immisit et flamma ab utroque cornu comprensa naves
sunt conbustae quinque. (Caes. Civ. 3.101.4); Cum in conloquium ventum esset et, ut
convenerat, manum Commii Volusenus adripuisset . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.23.5); Aderat iam
annus quo proconsulatum Africae et Asiae sortiretur et occiso Civica nuper nec
Agricolae consilium deerat nec Domitiano exemplum. (Tac. Ag. 42.1); Is (sc. Simo) a
Quintilio Varo obtinente Syriam punitus et gentem coercitam liberi Herodis triper-
tito rexere. (Tac. Hist. 5.9.1)
Appendix: Special attention is given to coordination of clauses by et, where the
first conjoin can be interpreted as the condition for the realization of the second
conjoin. A term used for this is ‘parataxis poetica et vulgaris’. A few examples are
the following.⁷⁶
Dic quibus in terris—et eris mihi magnus Apollo— / tris pateat caeli spatium non
amplius ulnas. (Verg. Ecl. 3.104–5); . . . promissa . . . foedera serva / et comitum prin-
ceps tu mihi . . . eris. (Ov. Fas. 2.159–60); Concupiscite et poenas certe non dabitis.
(Sen. Suas. 6.25)
The second conjoin of a pair of words or phrases coordinated by et can be emphasized

by the use of etiam ‘also’, ‘even’, ‘still’ and—less commonly—quoque ‘too’. Examples are
(f)–(h).
(f) . . . ita sibi convenisse cum Dolabella ut ille Trebonium et, si posset, etiam
Brutum, Cassium, discruciatos necaret . . .
(‘. . . that he had arranged with Dolabella for him to kill Trebonius and, if he could,
also Brutus and Cassius, first putting them to the torture . . .’ Cic. Phil. 13.37)
⁷⁶ For further examples, see TLL s.v. et 894.55ff.

 Coordination
(g) . . . cum duplici vallo fossaque et muro etiam, qua res postulabat, ex multa
copia passim iacentium lapidum permunisset omnia . . .
(‘. . . when he had strengthened everything with a double wall and ditch and even,
where the situation demanded, with a rampart constructed out of the great quantity
of stones which were scattered all about . . .’ Liv. 36.16.1)
(h) Praeclarum illud est et, si quaeris, rectum quoque et verum ut . . .
(‘It is an excellent thing, if you look into it, a right and just thing, too, that . . .’ Cic.
Tusc. 3.73)
Appendix: Et is the regular coordinator in complex numerals. Examples are (i)–(k).

-que and ac/atque are exceptional, as in (l) and (m) and in the Supplement. Asyndetic
combinations are also possible. For the various possibilities and orderings, see
Table 19.3.⁷⁷
(i) Decem horis nocturnis sex et quinquaginta milia passuum cisiis pervo-
lavit . . .
(‘During the night, in ten hours, with light equipage, he rapidly covered
fifty-six miles . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 19)
(j) Centum et unum aratores unus ager istius iniuria desiderat . . .
(‘Through the oppression of this man, one single district mourns the loss of
one hundred and one farmers . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.120)
(k) Mille et ducentos Philippos attulimus aureos / Epheso . . .
(‘We brought one thousand two hundred gold Philippics from Ephesus . . .’
Pl. Bac. 230–1)
(l) Primum stipendium meruit annorum decem septemque.
(‘He served his first campaign at the age of seventeen.’ Nep. Ca. 1.2)
(m) . . . amissa Sicilia et Sardinia duabusque Hispaniis et cohortibus <in> Italia
atque Hispania civium Romanorum C atque XXX . . .
(‘. . . after losing Sicily and Sardinia and the two Spains and citizen cohorts in
Italy and Spain, a hundred and thirty of them . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.10.5)
Table . The structure of complex numerals in Latin

21–99 101–999 >1000
lower duo et quattuor sex et centum et
number viginti quadraginta trecenti mille
precedes (very rare) (rare)
lower octoginta viginti duo centum et ducenta mille et quattuor
number et quattuor decem sexaginta ducenti (less milia ducenti
follows (rare) duo frequent) septuaginta
⁷⁷ For further examples, see K.-H.: 640–1.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
Supplement:
. . . turres, ubi mons iuvisset, in sexagenos pedes, inter devexa in centenos vicenosque
attollebantur . . . (Tac. Hist. 5.11.3)
. . . de duobus milibus ac ducentis. (Cato orat. 86); Caesa ibi milia hominum duo
ferme atque octingenti, capta quattuor milia ducenti septuaginta. (Liv. 10.39.3); In
Thessalia quattuor atque triginta (sc. montes sunt) . . . (Plin. Nat. 4.30)
. The single use of the negative conjunctive

coordinator nec/neque
The use of nec and neque to coordinate a negative clause with a preceding clause is
discussed in §§ 8.35–40. For the distribution of nec and neque, see § 8.12 fin. This sec-
tion deals with its use to coordinate constituents at or below the clause level.
Coordination by means of single nec/neque at these levels is relatively rare. Examples
of nec/neque linking a negative element to a preceding negative element are (a)—two
means adjuncts—and (b)—two subject complements; to a preceding positive elem-
ent, (c)—two subject complements—and (d)—two attributes. For (d) and a few paral-
lels, see also § 8.9 on coordination of locally negated constituents.
(a) Virtute dixit vos victores vivere, / non ambitione nec perfidia.
(‘He said that you live as victors through virtue, not through canvassing or unfair
behaviour.’ Pl. Am. 75–6)
(b) . . . cum in his, inquam, rebus omnibus publicanus petitor ac pignerator, non
ereptor neque possessor soleat esse . . .
(‘. . . in all these situations, I say, the tax-gatherer tends to be a petitioner or a lender,
not a repossessor or an occupier . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.27)
(c) Dicant te mendacem nec verum esse . . .
(‘People would say that you’re a liar and not truthful . . .’ Pl. Mil. 1369)
(d) . . . eius enim nomine, optimi viri nec tibi ignoti, male dicebat tibi . . .
(‘. . . for it was under the name of a man, excellent and not unknown to you, that he
proceeded to slander you . . .’ Cic. Deiot. 33)
Supplement:
Noun phrases: . . . si ex omnibus rebus se ipsum nudum neque praeterea quicquam
excepit . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 144); Numquam hoc ita defendit Epicurus neque Metrodorus
aut quisquam eorum . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.25); . . . vitamque sibi neque amplius quicquam
deprecatur. (B. Afr. 89.5)
Adjectives: . . . sic vixerit ut nullum umquam pudicum neque sobrium convivium
viderit . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.160); Reperiam multos, vel innumerabilis potius, non tam curi-
osos nec tam molestos quam vos estis . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.28); Nam dum tibi turpe nec
dignum viro videbitur gemere . . . (Cic. Tusc. 2.31)
Disputed are instances of single neque where negation of the first conjoin has to be
inferred (so-called ஌ಱౝԒϑഢԒഌ use of neque), as in (e). The ms. reading is accepted by
 Coordination
Löfstedt, but most editors emend the text.⁷⁸ The first case that is not usually emended
is (f), from Valerius Flaccus.
(e) Transierant illuc, [ut] rationem eius habendam qui <neque> exercitum
neque provincias traderet.
(‘They have come around to accept that a person should be allowed to stand
for office without handing over his army and provinces.’ Cael. Fam. 8.13.2—
following Watt’s OCT edition)
(f) . . . immanes quos sternere Bessi / nec Geticae potuere manus aut aequoris
irae.
(‘. . . the men whom neither the huge Bessi nor the Getic armies nor the anger
of the sea could overcome.’ V. Fl. 2.231–2)
. Correlative conjunctive coordination
The following sections deal with pairs or series of conjoins that are each marked by a
coordinator, so & A & B or & A & B & C. The coordinators involved are et, -que, and
neque. For atque there is only one reliable attestation. These forms of correlative
coordination must not be confused with cases in which the first coordinator actually
links a sequence of conjoins A & B to the preceding context, expressed in the formula
CONTEXT & (A & B) (see § 19.66).
. The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator -que

The attachment of -que to each conjoin is attested beginning with Plautus, as in (a)
and (b),⁷⁹ and Ennius, as in (c).⁸⁰ Its use in Ennius is influenced by the combination
τε . . . τε in Homer, and metrical convenience.⁸¹ The usage is highly literary and was
adopted by later (especially hexameter) poets. It is absent from the Classical prose of
Cicero and Caesar.⁸² It is infrequent in later prose, limited in some authors to the
coordination of relative clauses, as in (d), from Livy.⁸³ By far its most common use is
in the coordination of nouns and noun phrases, but see (a) and (d) for relative clauses;
extreme is its use in the coordination of independent clauses by Tacitus in (e).
(a) . . . quasque incepistis res quasque inceptabitis . . .
(‘. . . what you have begun and what you will begin . . .’ Pl. Am. 7)
⁷⁸ See Löfstedt (1942/1933: I.342–7) and Cavarzere ad loc., with references. See also K.-St.: II.562–3
and Sz.: 517 for further instances.
⁷⁹ It occurs eleven times in all, rarely in the senarian metre, though twice in prologues. See Sjögren
(1900: 130–1).
⁸⁰ It occurs a total of thirteen times in his Annales.
⁸¹ See Skutsch ad Enn. Ann. 184–4V=170–1S. The most complete study of the use of double -que in
hexameter poetry is Christensen (1908). For Plautus and Ennius—did he create it?—see Fraenkel (1922:
209–11) and Haffter (1934: 119).
⁸² Cic. Fin. 1.51 noctesque diesque is an Ennianism (cf. Cic. Sen. 1 and Powell ad loc.).
⁸³ For a historical survey, see Sz.: 515.
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
(b) Tibi paterque (que om. A) avosque facilem fecit et planam viam / ad quaerun-
dum honorem.
(‘Both your father and your grandfather gave you an easy and plain way for finding
distinction.’ Pl. Trin. 645–6)
(c) Proletarius publicitus scutisque feroque / ornatur ferro.
(‘The state-supported commoners were armed with shield and savage steel.’ Enn.
Ann. 183–4V=170–1S)
(d) . . . idque ita cecinere vates quique in urbe erant quosque ad eam rem con-
sultandam ex Etruria acciverant.
(‘. . . and such was the interpretation of the soothsayers, both those who were in the
City and those who were called in from Etruria to consider the matter.’ Liv. 1.55.6—
NB: see Weissenborn and Müller ad loc.)
(e) Etiam si bella externa . . . memorarem, meque (me v.l., see Wellesley in his
apparatus) ipsum satias cepisset aliorumque taedium expectarem . . .
(‘Even if I were narrating campaigns abroad . . . a sense of sufficiency would have taken
hold of me myself, and I would expect the tedium of others . . .’ Tac. Ann. 16.16.1)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . huc opesque spesque vostrum cognoscendum con-
didi. (Pl. Rud. 1145); Educta ita uti teque illaque dignum’st. (Ter. Eu. 748); . . . popu-
lusque patresque / iactare indu foro se omnes . . . (Lucil. 1229–30M=1253–4K);
Quendam municipem meum de tuo volo ponte / ire praecipitem in lutum per
caputque pedesque . . . (Catul. 17.8–9); . . . seque remque publicam curabant. (Sal. Cat.
9.3); . . . et nos aliquod nomenque decusque / gessimus. (Verg. A. 2.89–90); . . . multam
in medio sine nomine plebem, / Fadumque Herbesumque subit Rhoetumque
Abarimque / ignaros. (Verg. A. 9.343–5—NB: a sequence of four); . . . ut et ipsa Iovis
coniunxque sororque / eventus Hecubam meruisse negaverit illos. (Ov. Met. 13.574–5);
Hoc fiduciam in posterum quoque praebuerat, levatos se oneribus[que] (edd.) inpen-
sisque, quibus, alia aliis inperantibus, exhauriebantur. (Liv. 43.17.3); . . . Arsacidarum
vi seque regnumque tutatus est. (Tac. Ann. 2.3.2)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Apud aedilis pro eius factis
plurumisque pessumisque / dixi causam . . . (Pl. Men. 590–1); . . . et mores veteresque
novosque †tenentem / multorum veterum leges divomque hominumque . . . (Enn.
Ann. 247–8V=283–4S); . . . dextrumque (dextrum v.l.) sinistrumque cornu, ubi ele-
phanti erant, in conspectu patenti adversariorum constituit. (B. Afr. 41.3);⁸⁴ . . . sed et
haec vilisque vetusque/ vestis erat . . . (Ov. Met. 8.658–9)
Adverbs: Ergo postque magisque viri nunc gloria claret. (Enn. Ann. 372V=365S);
Variae circumque supraque / adsuetae ripis volucres et fluminis alveo / aethera mul-
cebant . . . (Verg. A. 7.32–4)
Verbs: . . . Iam iam stupido Thessala somno / pectora languentque senentque. (Acc.
trag. 611–12); . . . hanc versa in faciem Turni se pestis ob ora / fertque refertque sonans
clipeumque everberat alis. (Verg. A. 12.865–6)
⁸⁴ For this example, see Adams (2005b: 81).

 Coordination
Clauses:
. . . eamque legem qui non servent . . . existumantur indoctique (indocti v.l.) esse dis-
putandique morem atque rationem non tenere. (Gel. 16.2.1)
Appendix: It is unlikely that the expression susque deque ‘both up and down’ (Pl. Am.
886, etc.) belongs here.⁸⁵ See also . . . susque omnia deque fuerunt, / susque et deque
fuere . . . (Lucil. 110–11M=108–9K)
. The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator ac/atque

There is only one sure instance of a correlative use of atque, viz. (a), where two noun
phrases are coordinated.⁸⁶
(a) Hic crine effuso atque Hennaeae numina divae / atque Acheronta vocat
Stygia cum veste sacerdos.
(‘Here the priestess with streaming hair and Stygian garb calls up Acheron and the
divinity of Henna’s goddess.’ Sil. 1.93–4)
. The correlative use of the conjunctive coordinator et

The correlative use of et is widely attested from Plautus onwards to join both constitu-
ents and clauses. There seem to be no instances in Ennius, and in later (hexameter)
poetry its use is not as prominent as that of -que . . . -que. Examples of the various
categories of conjoins are given in (a)–(g). Ex. (a) shows two coordinated nouns; (b),
possessive adjectives; (c), adverbs; (d), prepositions; (e), prepositional phrases; (f),
verbs; (g), clauses.
(a) Namque ecastor Amor et melle et felle est fecundissumus.
(‘To be sure, Love abounds in honey as well as in bitterness.’ Pl. Cist. 68)
(b) Et meam partem loquendi et tuam trado tibi.
(‘I grant you both my share of speaking and yours.’ Pl. As. 517)
(c) . . . ne et hic viris sint et domi molestiae.
(‘. . . so that they won’t be a nuisance to their husbands here as well as at home.’ Pl.
Poen. 35)
(d) . . . cum ideo sacra et uls et cis Tiberim non mediocri ritu fiant.
(‘. . . since in that connexion rites are performed on both sides of the Tiber with no
small ceremony.’ Var. L. 5.83)
(e) . . . ita tu diligenter et nobiscum et sine nobis considerabis . . .
(‘. . . if you study diligently, both with and without me . . .’ Rhet. Her. 2.50)
(f) Deos quoque edepol et amo et metuo . . .
⁸⁵ See Fraenkel (1922: 209–11).

⁸⁶ For a few other more or less debatable instances, see TLL s.v. atque 1055.27ff.
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
(‘I also love and fear the gods . . .’ Pl. Poen. 282)
(g) Et te utar iniquiore et meus me ordo inrideat . . .
(‘I wouldn’t have you as my equal and the people of my class would laugh at me.’ Pl.
Aul. 232)
Correlatively coordinated nouns and noun phrases, as well as other conjoins, are ‘very
often’⁸⁷ preceded by expressions that emphasize that both conjoins are equally
involved, as utrimque and simul in (h) and (i).⁸⁸ Relatively often the conjoins belong
to different lexical or syntactic categories, as in (j), where a prepositional phrase and
a quod clause are coordinated (see also §§ 19.75–80). The greatest number of repeti-
tions of et on record is twelve.⁸⁹
(h) . . . utrimque est gravida, et ex viro et ex summo Iove.
(‘. . . she’s pregnant from both, from her husband and from great Jupiter.’ Pl. Am. 111)
(i) . . . iudices longius quam potestatem habeant progressuros, si simul et de reo
et de eo quem reus arguat iudicarint.
(‘. . . the judges will go beyond their authority if they pass judgement at the same time
on the defendant and the person whom the defendant accuses.’ Cic. Inv. 2.81)
(j) . . . L. Carpinatius, qui et sui quaestus causa et fortasse quod sociorum inter-
esse arbitrabatur, bene penitus in istius familiaritatem sese dedit.
(‘. . . Lucius Carpinatius, who both for his own profit and possibly also because he
believed it was in the interest of his associates, worked his way very thoroughly into
the intimacy of this man.’ Cic. Ver. 2.169)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Deos quaeso ut adimant et patrem et matrem meos.
(Naev. trag. 95); . . . et datores et factores omnis subdam sub solum. (Pl. Cur.
297); . . . eduxi omnem legionem, et maris et feminas. (Pl. Mos. 1047); Putavit me et
aetate et benevolentia / plus scire et providere quam se ipsum sibi. (Ter. Hau.
115–16); . . . tertium (sc. genus) quod habet utrunque et tempora et casus . . . (Var. L.
6.36); Ita is cuius arbitrio et populus Romanus et exterae gentes contentae esse con-
suerunt ipse . . . contentus non fuit. (Cic. Clu. 134); Sin hoc et ratio doctis et necessitas
barbaris et mos gentibus et feris natura ipsa praescripsit . . . (Cic. Mil. 30); Utrumque
opus est, et cura vacare et negotio. (Cic. Leg. 1.8); Qua quidem voluntate <te> esse
erga Atticum saepe praesens et illi ostendisti et vero etiam mihi. (Cic. Att. 16.16b.2)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . animus induci potest /
eum esse civem et fidelem et bonum. (Pl. Per. 66–7); Quam multi sunt summi hom-
ines et ornatissimi et nostri et equestris ordinis quorum pro salute se hic Sullae obli-
gavit! (Cic. Sul. 72); Omnis et demonstrativa et deliberativa et iudicialis causa . . . (Cic.
⁸⁷ So TLL s.v. et 881.13. The TLL article is for all questions the most reliable source of information. The
number of examples given in this section is for that reason very small.
⁸⁸ In (h), the coordinated noun phrases could be taken as apposition of utrimque (see Spevak 2014a:
323–5).
⁸⁹ See TLL s.v. et 885.64ff.
 Coordination
Inv. 2.12); Et ad scorpionis autem et aranei ictum alium cum ruta recte miscen-
tur . . . (Cels. 5.27.6—NB: position of autem)
Adverbs: . . . et bene et benigne facitis . . . (Pl. Poen. 589); . . . confiteareque aliquando
me quod faciam et grate et pie facere. (Cic. Planc. 98); . . . disputas tu quidem et aman-
ter et prudenter . . . (Cic. Att. 1.20.2)
Prepositional phrases: . . . ita et cum his et inter hos vixi . . . (Cic. Planc. 75); Multa
enim et in deos et in homines impie nefarieque commisit . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.6)
Finite and non-finite verb forms: Tum tu igitur sine me ire. # Et iubeo et sino. (Pl.
Per. 189); Ergo propterea te sedulo / et moneo et hortor ne quoiusquam mise-
reat . . . (Ter. Hec. 63–4); . . . magnas copias pulsas esse et vidimus et audivimus . . . (Cic.
Caec. 43); Ut igitur et monere et moneri proprium est verae amicitiae . . . (Cic. Amic.
91); Tu vero ut me et appelles et interpelles et obloquare et colloquare velim. (Cic. Q.
fr. 2.9.1—NB: four times)
Clauses:
Et salve et salvom te advenisse gaudeo. (Pl. Trin. 1097); Ita boves et corpore curatiores
erunt et morbus aberit. (Cato Agr. 103.1); Locus is melior, quem et non coquit sol et
tangit ros. (Var. R. 3.14.2); Ex quo simul utrumque, et huic accusare et illi condemnari,
necesse fuisse intellegetis. (Cic. Clu. 43); Etenim sine controversia et magna est et late
patet et ad multos pertinet et summo in honore semper fuit et clarissimi cives ei stu-
dio etiam hodie praesunt. (Cic. de Orat. 1.235—NB: five times); Quid est cur dubite-
mus dicere et sapientiam propter voluptates expetendam et insipientiam propter
molestias esse fugiendam? (Cic. Fin. 1.46); Nam hic uterque et id posuit quod con-
veniebat et tamen suae causae commodo consuluit. (Cic. Inv. 1.31); Nam et semper
me coluit diligentissimeque observavit et a studiis nostris non abhorret. (Cic. Fam.
13.22.1); ‘Et aequum postulare videtur’, inquit, ‘Hasdrubal, et ego tamen non censeo
quod petit tribuendum.’ (Liv. 21.3.3); Saepe et contemptus hostis cruentum certamen
edidit et incluti populi regesque perlevi momento victi sunt. (Liv. 21.43.11)
. The correlative use of the negative conjunctive

coordinator nec/neque
Correlative use of nec/neque is found from Early Latin onwards, both for clauses, as in
(a) and (b), and for constituents, as in (c)–(e). This correlative use must not be con-
fused with sequences of nec/neque wherein the first provides a link to something
prior, as in (f)—a phenomenon attested from Caesar onwards.⁹⁰ For the use of
nec/neque in epexegetic negation, see § 8.46. Occasionally the second conjoin is omit-
ted, a phenomenon known as particula pendens.⁹¹
(a) Sed hoc primum, me expurigare tibi volo me insaniam / nec tenere nec mi
esse ullum morbum . . .
(‘But first I want to clear myself with you: I’m neither mad nor is there anything
wrong with me . . .’ Pl. Capt. 620–1)
⁹⁰ So K.-St.: II.46. ⁹¹ See Sz.: 517.

Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
(b) Nimis demiror, Sosia, / qui illaec illic me donatum esse aurea patera sciat, /
nisi tu dudum hanc convenisti et narravisti haec omnia. / # Neque edepol ego
dixi neque istam vidi nisi tecum simul.
(‘I’m very surprised, Sosia, how she knows I was presented with a golden bowl there,
unless you met her before and told her about all this. # I haven’t told her, nor have I
seen her except together with you.’ Pl. Am. 765–8)
(c) . . . quorum animis avidis atque insatietatibus / nec lex nec sutor capere est
qui possit modum.
(‘. . . neither law nor cobbler can take the measure for their greedy hearts and grasping
natures.’ Pl. Aul. 487–8)
(d) . . . Publio tuo neque opera neque consilio neque labore neque gratia neque
testimonio defui.
(‘. . . then neither in my time nor in my advice nor in my effort nor in my friendship
nor in my testimony did I fail your son Publius.’ Cic. Fam. 5.17.2)
(e) . . . quibus nihil nec taetrius nec foedius excogitari potest.
(‘. . . nothing either more atrocious or more repulsive than these things can be con-
ceived.’ Cic. Off. 3.36)
(f) Haeduis se obsides redditurum non esse neque his neque eorum sociis iniu-
ria bellum inlaturum . . .
(‘He would not restore their hostages to the Aedui, and he would make war neither
on them nor on their allies without cause . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.36.5)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Nec tu illi nec mihi viro ipsi credis? (Pl. Am. 756); Nec
med umquam deseruisse te nec factis nec fide, / rebus in dubiis egenis. (Pl. Capt.
405–6—NB: an instance of epexegetic negation, see § 8.46); Adeon’ me ignavom
putas / . . . ut neque me consuetudo neque amor neque pudor / commoveat . . . (Ter.
An. 277–80); Nam neque neglegentia tua neque odio id fecit tuo. (Ter. Ph. 1016);
Reliqui fuerunt quos neque terror nec vis, nec spes nec metus, nec promissa nec
minae, nec tela nec faces a vestra auctoritate, a populi Romani dignitate, a mea salute
depellerent. (Cic. Red. Sen. 7)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Quid factis (sc. me arbitrare)?
# Nec malis neque improbis. (Pl. Aul. 213); . . . neque boni / neque liberalis functus
officium’st viri. (Ter. Ad. 463–4); . . . victorias . . . quarum nulla neque tam diuturnam
laetitiam attulit nec tantam. (Cic. Mil. 77)
Adverbs: Recte et vera loquere, sed nec vere nec <tu> recte adhuc / fecisti umquam.
(Pl. Capt. 960–1); Em neque domi nunc nos nec militiae sumus. (Enn. scen.
239V=200J); Neque istic neque alibi tibi erit usquam in me mora. (Ter. An. 420);
Verum ego quod invitus ac necessario facio neque diu neque diligenter facere
possum. (Cic. S. Rosc. 123)
Prepositional phrases: Nolo ego cum improbis te viris, gnate mi, / neque in via,
neque in foro necullum sermonem exsequi. (Pl. Trin. 281–2a—NB: an instance of
 Coordination
epexegetic negation); Tu enim neque in litteris quas Neroni mittis neque in testimo-
nio causam tanti tumultus ostendis ullam. (Cic. Ver. 1.80)
Finite and non-finite verb forms: . . . nec dependes nec propendes . . . (Pl. As. 305);
Viri non esse neque exorari neque placari. (Cic. Mur. 61); . . . nullo modo nec divelli
nec distrahi possint . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.50)
Clauses:
. . . quae nec sunt facta neque ego in me ammisi arguit. (Pl. Am. 885); Nec tu me qui-
dem umquam subiges redditum ut reddam tibi / nec daturus sum. (Pl. Cur. 540–1);
Verum nec tu illum sati’ noveras / nec te ille. (Ter. Hau. 153–4); Haec igitur lex
in amicitia sanciatur, ut neque rogemus res turpes nec faciamus rogati. (Cic. Amic.
40); Nam nec hostes moverunt arma neque consul in agrum eorum legiones induxit.
(Liv. 43.9.1)
. The correlative use of different conjunctive coordinators

. Correlative combinations of -que with another conjunctive coordinator
Correlative combinations of -que and et (in that order) are used from Early Latin
onwards, when they are even more common than -que . . . -que.⁹² Examples are (a) and
(b). The combination is not used by Cicero, Caesar, or Nepos. When used in poetry
and prose (especially when poeticizing), it represents an elevated archaism. The
sequences -que . . . -que . . . et and -que . . . et . . . et, etc. are also used (see the Supplement).
(a) . . . maxumas opimitates . . . / suis eris ille una mecum pariet, gnatoque et
patri . . .
(‘. . . along with me he’ll bring forth the greatest prosperity . . . for his masters, both son
and father . . .’ Pl. As. 282–3)
(b) . . . malaque et bona dictu / evomeret . . .
(‘. . . he would blurt out words both good and bad to say . . .’ Enn. Ann. 240–1V=274–5S)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Sed optume eccum exit senex, patronus mihique et
vobis. (Pl. Rud. 705); Nimium ipse duru’ st praeter aequomque et bonum . . . (Ter. Ad.
64);⁹³ quamquam annisque et aetate hoc corpus putret (Pac. trag. 340); . . . ubi (sc.
terra) putorem umida nacta’st / intempestivis pluviisque et solibus icta. (Lucr.
6.1101–2); . . . fide accepta seque et sua omnia et oppidum proconsuli tradit. (B. Afr.
93.3); . . . Adherbali suadent uti seque et oppidum Iugurthae tradat . . . (Sal. Jug.
26.1); . . . venti / confligunt, Zephyrusque Notusque et laetus Eois / Eurus equis. (Verg.
A. 2.416–18); Ipsa subit manibusque undantis flectit habenas / cuncta gerens,
vocemque et corpus et arma Metisci. (Verg. A. 12.471–2); Te fontium qui celat
⁹² See Sjögren (1900: 131–2). For a survey of the instances, see TLL s.v. et 887.36ff.
⁹³ This example is discussed by Bagordo (2001: 82).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
origines / Nilusque et Hister, te rapidus Tigris . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.14.45–6); Tela in

hostem hastaque et gladius. (Liv. 1.43.2); . . . tumultus eo pavore signaque et ordines
turbavit ut . . . (Liv. 2.59.7); Laudat digitosque manusque / bracchiaque et nudos
media plus parte lacertos. (Ov. Met. 1.500–1); . . . dum Augustus aetate validus seque
et domum et pacem sustentavit. (Tac. Ann. 1.4.1); . . . ratus regnumque et domum
suam procul iniuria fore. (Tac. Ann. 14.31.1)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . alterius quoniam’st ipsum
pars primaque et una . . . (Lucr. 1.604)
Adverbs: . . . ut res rationesque vostrorum omnium / bene expedire voltis pere-
grique et domi . . . (Pl. Am. 4–5)
Finite and non-finite verb forms: Sileteque et tacete atque animum advortite . . . (Pl.
Poen. 3—NB: see also § 19.36);⁹⁴ Exerce vocem quam per vivisque et clues. (Pl. Poen.
13); Amoque et laudo et vehementer desidero. (Ter. Hec. 488); . . . quae voles /
faciamque et dicam. (Ter. Ph. 1050–1)
Clauses:
Illic tegumenque removit / et posuit pennas . . . (Ov. Met. 1.674–5)
The reverse order et . . . -que is less common, and many instances are rejected or
emended.⁹⁵ The first examples date from Cicero’s time. Unlike instances of -que . . . et,
occurrences of et . . . -que with words and phrases are rare (the first attested example of
its use with nouns is (c)) and most are found in prose, as in (d). They are probably
better regarded as a change of construction due to the complexity of the sentence.
(c) . . . debetis dare . . . operam ut quam paratissimi et (del. Cratander, edd.) ab
exercitu reliquisque rebus pro vestra salute . . . confligamus.
(‘. . . you should . . . take care that in military force and all other respects we are as well
equipped as possible to join battle in your defence . . .’ Brut. Planc. Fam. 11.13a.2—
NB: et outside the prepositional phrase and -que inside is very strange)
(d) . . . unusquisque vestrum qui et ipsi incensi sunt studio quod ad agrum colen-
dum attinet vitamque hanc rusticam . . . et honestissimam et suavissimam
esse arbitrantur.
(‘. . . each of you, who of their own accord are inspired by zeal for everything that
pertains to agriculture, and consider this country life . . . to be most honourable and
most agreeable.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 48)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Namque temperatissimae ad utramque partem et cor-
porum membris animorumque vigoribus pro fortitudine sunt in Italia gentes. (Vitr.
6.1.11); Interim quae sunt communia et pomis omnibusque sucis saporum genera
XIII reperiuntur. (Plin. Nat. 15.106)
⁹⁴ For this example, usually but unnecessarily regarded as a quotation from Ennius, see Jocelyn (1969:
104–10).
⁹⁵ See TLL s.v. et 888.20ff. For (putative) cases of ‘redundant’ et . . . -que, see Goodyear ad Tac. Ann.
1.65.4.
 Coordination
Clauses:
Namque et in Lysandri, qui Lacedaemoniorum clarissimus fuerat, statua quae Delphis
stabat in capite corona subito exstitit . . . stellaeque aureae, quae Delphis erant a
Lacedaemoniis positae post navalem illam victoriam Lysandri . . . stellae aureae, quas
dixi, Delphis positae paulo ante Leuctricam pugnam deciderunt neque repertae sunt.
(Cic. Div. 1.75); Quae quidem omnia et innumerabilia praeterea quis est quin intellegat
et eos qui fecerint dignitatis splendore ductos immemores fuisse utilitatum suarum
nosque, cum ea laudemus, nulla alia re nisi honestate duci? (Cic. Fin. 5.64—NB: Madvig
ad loc. is still worth reading); Igitur et Epaminondas, princeps meo iudicio Graeciae,
fidibus praeclare cecinisse dicitur, Themistoclesque aliquot ante annos cum in epulis
recusaret lyram, est habitus indoctior. (Cic. Tusc. 1.4); . . . quod et illa prima facile in con-
traria vitia convertuntur, ut exsistat ex rege dominus . . . quodque ipsa genera generibus
saepe conmutantur novis . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.69); . . . labore et perseverantia nautarum et (del.
Dinter) vim tempestatis superari posse sperabat praetervectosque Dyrrachium magna
vi venti nihilo setius sequebatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.26.3); Aeneas, quamquam et sociis dare
tempus humandis / praecipitant curae turbataque funere mens est, / vota deum primo
victor solvebat Eoo. (Verg. A. 11.2–4); Sed et hunc innata libido / exstimulat pron-
umque genus regionibus illis / in Venerem est. (Ov. Met. 6.458–60); . . . Nero et iuven-
tutem proximas per provincias quaesitam supplendis Orientis legionibus admovere
legionesque ipsas propius Armeniam conlocari iubet . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.7.1)
The correlative use of -que . . . atque is very rare; it is found from Lucretius (once) and
Virgil onwards. This combination primarily links pairs of constituents, as in (e), but
compare (f).⁹⁶
(e) . . . Bistoniasque plagas atque Ismara propter . . .
(‘. . . near the coasts of the Bistones and Ismara . . .’ Lucr. 5.31)
(f) Saepe exiguus mus / sub terris posuitque domos atque horrea fecit . . .
(‘Often under the ground the tiny mouse sets up a home and builds his storehouses . . .’
Verg. G. 1.181–2)
Supplement:
Nouns and noun phrases: Mortua quin etiam iungebat corpora vivis / componens
manibusque manus atque oribus ora . . . (Verg. A. 8.845–6); Et Acarnanas quos aegre
ferrent Aetoli a corpore suo diremptos restituturum se in antiquam formulam
iurisque ac dicionis eorum. (Liv. 26.24.7); Atque illa . . . seque ac maiores et posteros
municipali adultero foedabat . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.3.4)
Adjectives: . . . esto / liberque ac sapiens praetoribus ac Iove dextro. (Pers. 5.114–15)
Adverbs: . . . quidque furor valeat Penthea caede satisque / ac super ostendit. (Ov.
Met. 4.430–1)
. Correlative combination of et and ac/atque
The combination et . . . ac/atque is practically unattested, and most instances are dubi-
ous.⁹⁷ An example is (a).
⁹⁶ The material can be found in TLL s.v. atque 1054.76ff.

⁹⁷ See TLL s.v. atque 1055.14ff. and s.v. et 888.59.
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
(a) . . . ibi tum et pabulum multum, quod in campis aret, ac cultura arborum
aptior . . .
(‘. . . because there is abundant forage at that time, whereas it is dry in the plains, and
the cultivation of the trees is more convenient . . .’ Var. R. 1.6.5)
. Correlative combinations of nec/neque with another

conjunctive coordinator
Correlative use of the combination nec/neque . . . -que (in that order) is attested from
Cicero onwards, but it is very rare. An example is (a). Some sequences are dubious, as
in (b).⁹⁸ All examples quoted in the literature concern coordination of clauses.
(a) Ex quo intellegitur nec intemperantiam propter se esse fugiendam tempe-
rantiamque expetendam . . .
(‘This clearly proves that Intemperance need not be shunned for its own sake, and
that Temperance should be coveted . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.48)
(b) Sed nec illa extincta sunt alunturque potius et augentur cogitatione et memo-
ria mea et, si illis plane orbatus essem, magnum tamen adfert mihi aetas ipsa
solacium.
(‘But those experiences with him are not dead and are rather nourished and made
more vivid by my reflection and memory; and even if I were utterly deprived of them,
yet my age would of itself afford me great relief . . .’ Cic. Amic. 104)
Supplement:
. . . perficiam . . . ut neque bonus quisquam intereat paucorumque poena vos omnes
salvi esse possitis. (Cic. Catil. 2.28); Nec enim in Torquati sermone quicquam impli-
catum aut tortuosum fuit, nostraque, ut mihi videtur, dilucida oratio. (Cic. Fin. 3.3);
Nec enim divinationem quam probatis ullam esse arbitror fatumque illud esse quo
omnia contineri dicitis contemno. (Cic. Luc. 126); . . . si istic adfuissem, neque tibi
defuissem coramque meum dolorem tibi declarassem. (Serv. Fam. 4.5.1)
Correlative use of the combination nec/neque . . . ac/atque is exceptional.⁹⁹ An example is

(c). The examples quoted in the literature concern coordination of clauses.
(c) Naturam Oceani atque aestus neque quaerere huius operis est ac multi rettulere.
(‘The character and tides of the ocean it is not the function of this work to investigate,
and, besides, many have recorded them.’ Tac. Agr. 10.6)
Correlative use of the combination nec/neque . . . et (in this order) to combine clauses
is attested from Plautus onwards, as in (d); the reverse order is found from Cicero’s
time onwards, as in (e). Beginning with Cicero, both iterations are only rarely used to
combine constituents, as in (f)–(h).¹⁰⁰ An inherent contrast between the two conjoins
⁹⁸ It is taken as a combination nec/neque . . . -que by K.-St.: II.48 and by Powell in his (2006) OCT edi-
tion. Further instances can be found in Merguet (Phil.) s.v. nec 679, a.
⁹⁹ See TLL s.v. atque 1055.23ff.
¹⁰⁰ For a survey of the combinations, see TLL s.v. et 888.65ff.
 Coordination
can be made explicit by the addition of tamen ‘nevertheless’ or vero ‘indeed’ (see the
Supplement).
(d) Nec munda adaeque es, ut soles (hoc sis vide, ut petivit / suspiritum alte), et
pallida es.
(‘You’re not as neat as usual (just look how she heaved a deep sigh) and you’re pale.’
Pl. Cist. 55–6)
(e) . . . Stloga, iudice hoc nostro, primario viro, qui et rem agnoscit neque homi-
nem ignorat.
(‘. . . Stloga, a juror in this case, an eminent man, and one who realizes what is going
on and is not ignorant.’ Cic. Flac. 46)
(f) C. Canius, eques Romanus, nec infacetus et satis litteratus . . .
(‘Gaius Canius, a Roman knight, a man not lacking wit and sufficiently literate . . .’ Cic.
Off. 3.58)
(g) . . . patebat via et certa neque longa.
(‘. . . a road safe and of no great length lay open before him.’ Cic. Phil. 11.4)
(h) . . . nam cetera neque enumerare et minus serere dignamur . . .
(‘. . . for we do not think it worthwhile to enumerate the rest, and still less to sow
them . . .’ Col. 2.10.24)
Supplement:
nec/neque . . . et:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . idque neque amoris mediocris et ingeni summi ac
sapientiae iudico. (Cic. Att. 1.20.1); Hoc nec mihi placebat et multo illi minus. (Cic.
Att. 14.8.1)
Adjectives and adverbs: . . . ut ego, qui neque usu satis et ingenio parum possum,
cum patrono disertissimo comparer . . . (Cic. Quinct. 2); . . . M. Buculeius, homo
neque meo iudicio stultus et suo valde sapiens et ab iuris studio non abhor-
rens . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.179); Ita caesi in medio praedatores, neque ad pugnam
viribus pares et ad fugam saeptis omnibus viis. (Liv. 2.11.10—NB: variation of
construction)
Clauses:
Vide, Parmeno, / quid agas, ne neque illi prosis et tu pereas. (Ter. Eu. 964–5); Ita neque
fumosa erunt et ardebunt bene. (Cato Agr. 130.1); Aberat omnis dolor, qui si adesset, nec
molliter ferret et tamen medicis plus quam philosophis uteretur. (Cic. Fin. 2.64); (sc.
natura animi atque vis) Quae si est una ex omnibus quae se ipse moveat, neque nata certe
est et aeterna est. (Cic. Rep. 6.28); Neque enim naves erant aliae quibus reportari possent
et omnia deerant quae ad reficiendas naves erant usui . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.29.4); . . . neque
regerentur magis quam regerent casus et eo magnitudinis procederent, ubi pro mor-
talibus gloria aeterni fierent. (Sal. Jug. 1.5); . . . super ripas Tiberis effusus lenibus stagnis
nec adiri usquam ad iusti cursum poterat amnis et posse quamvis languida mergi aqua
infantes spem ferentibus dabat. (Liv. 1.4.4); Sed neque cur morerer quicquam mihi
comperit actum, / et minus infestus quam fuit esse potest. (Ov. Pont. 1.2.93–4)
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
et . . . ne/neque:
Constituents:
Adjectives and adverbs: Neque segnius ad hostes bellum apparatur qui et parti
ante decoris memores neque ignari auctarum virium hostis suas quoque vires augent.
(Liv. 7.7.4); At olim et pauca erant balnea nec ullo cultu exornata. (Sen. Ep. 86.9)
Clauses:
Nam et in recentibus pomariis . . . alii conserunt hortos, alii quid aliud neque cum con-
valuerunt arbores, idem faciunt, ne violent radices. (Var. R. 1.23.6); Itaque intellegitis et
animum ei praesto fuisse nec consilium defuisse. (Cic. Phil. 13.13); . . . et beatus esse
poterit virtute una praeditus carens ceteris, nec tamen illud tibi concedetur, praeter
virtutem nihil in bonis esse ducendum. (Cic. Fin. 4.51); Nam et perturbatis animis
inducuntur—accepimus enim deorum cupiditates aegritudines iracundias—nec vero,
ut fabulae ferunt, bellis proeliisque caruerunt . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.70); . . . ita sunt Stoici
assensi, ut et quicquid honestum esset id utile esse censerent nec utile quicquam, quod
non honestum. (Cic. Off. 3.11); . . . et ego regem nostrum Cluilium causam huiusce esse
belli audisse videor, nec te dubito, Tulle, eadem prae te ferre. (Liv. 1.23.7)
. Multiple conjunctive coordination
Multiple coordination concerns the coordination of more than two conjoins either by
two or more syndetic devices or by a combination of syndetic and asyndetic devices,
with the first conjoin lacking its own coordinator. Examples of the first type are (a)
and (b), of the second (c) and (d) (asyndeton is marked by °). In (a), the same coord-
inator is repeated; (b) shows variation. In (c), the coordinator et follows two asyndeta;
in (d) the asyndetic batiocis follows two conjoins with an overt coordinator et. The
examples in this section exemplify coordination of nouns and noun phrases. For
other categories, see the following sections.
(a) Omnium primum salutem dicito matri et patri / et cognatis et si quem alium
benevolentem videris.
(‘First of all give my regards to my mother and father and relatives and if you see
anyone else who wishes me well.’ Pl. Capt. 389–90)
(b) . . . id petam id persequarque corde et animo atque auribus.
(‘. . . with heart, and mind, and ears I will look for and strive after what benefits you
most.’ Pl. Capt. 387)
(c) (sc. accipiam te) Lepido victu ° vino ° unguentis et inter pocula pulpamentis.
(‘With lovely food, wine, perfumes, and with titbits between the cups.’ Pl. Ps. 947)
(d) Quibus divitiae domi sunt scaphio et (scaphiis cj. Bothe)¹⁰¹ cantharis / ° bati-
ocis bibunt.
(‘Those who have wealth at home drink from a beaker, tankards, and goblets.’ Pl. St.
693–4)
¹⁰¹ Most editors follow Bothe, but see Sjögren (1900: 32) and TLL s.v. et 878.38f.
 Coordination
. Multiple syndetic conjunctive coordination

All three conjunctive coordinators are used in multiple conjunctive coordination,
both with and without variation in the other coordinators. Et is the most common
coordinator used in this way, atque the least. In addition to exx. (a) and (b) with et in
§ 19.38, see (a) and (b) below with -que and (c) and (d) with atque. Often, the vari-
ation of coordinators correlates with a difference in hierarchy (see § 19.66). These
examples concern coordination of nouns and noun phrases. For other categories, see
the Supplement.
(a) Iube / domi mi tibique tuaeque uxori celeriter cenam coqui.
(‘Have a dinner cooked at home quickly, for myself and you and your wife.’ Pl. St.
608–9)
(b) Harundinem fert sportulamque et hamulum piscarium.
(‘He’s carrying his fishing rod, a basket, and a fishhook.’ Pl. St. 289)
(c) Iam perdidisti te atque me atque operam meam . . .
(‘Now you’ve wasted yourself and me and my efforts . . .’ Pl. Bac. 132)
(d) Larvae hunc atque intemperiae insaniaeque agitant senem.
(‘Evil spirits and madness and insanity are troubling this old chap.’ Pl. Aul. 642)
Supplement:
(without variation):¹⁰²
-que: Emit hospitalem is filium imprudens senex / puerum illum eumque adoptat
sibi pro filio / eumque heredem fecit, quom ipse obiit diem. (Pl. Poen. 75–7);
Immo Athenis natus altusque educatusque Atticis. (Pl. Rud. 741); . . . qui uno tempore
fratris uxorem speratosque liberos fratremque ipsum . . . interfecerit . . . (Cic. Clu.
125); . . . plena domus caelati argenti optimi multaeque stragulae vestis pretioso-
rumque mancipiorum. (Cic. Ver. 2.35); Tam claram tamque testatam rem tamque
iustam, Buthrotiam, non tenebimus aliqua ex parte? (Cic. Att. 14.12.1); . . . percursis
Asiatici in rem publicam officiis recentique adversus Britanniam militia quaeque alia
conciliandae misericordiae videbantur, liberum mortis arbitrium ei permisit. (Tac.
Ann. 11.3.1)
ac/atque: Nam illius oculi atque aures atque opinio / transfugere ad nos. (Pl. Mil.
589–90); Facite enim ut non solum mores et adrogantiam eius sed etiam voltum
atque amictum atque etiam illam usque ad talos demissam purpuram recordemini.
(Cic. Clu. 111); . . . a constantia atque a mente atque a se ipse discessit? (Cic. Div.
2.114); Mella contrahunt sucumque dulcissimum atque subtilissimum ac saluberri-
mum . . . (Plin. Nat. 11.11)
et: Malum et scelestum et periurum aibat esse me. (Pl. Ps. 1083); Immo vero pulchre
discedo et probe / et praeter spem. (Ter. Ph. 1047–8); Hi sunt anni consumpti in
quaestura et legatione Asiatica et praetura urbana et praetura Siciliensi. (Cic. Ver.
1.34); Cogitare enim et providere et discere et docere et invenire aliquid et tam multa
¹⁰² Collections of instances can easily be found in the TLL s.v. atque and s.v. et, as well as in the lexica
to individual authors. For that reason, the Supplement is relatively brief.
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
[alia] meminisse, amare odisse, cupere timere, angi laetari, haec et similia eorum in
horum quattuor generum inesse nullo putat. (Cic. Tusc. 1.22); . . . qui a finibus
Allobrogum et lacu Lemanno et flumine Rhodano ad summas Alpes pertinent. (Caes.
Gal. 3.1.1); Iam adulescentulus cum declamaret, apte et convenienter [et decenter]
hoc genere utebatur. (Sen. Con. 7.pr.6); Illi ut segnem et desidem et circo ac theatris
corruptum militem, hi peregrinum et externum increpabant. (Tac. Hist. 2.21.4)
(with variation):
-que: Imbres fluctusque atque procellae <ferri> infensae frangere malum . . . (Pl.
Trin. 836); . . . quos hieme saltem in domos ac tecta reduci oporteat et aliquo tempore
anni parentes liberosque ac coniuges invisere . . . (Liv. 5.2.12)
. . . missis ad eum undique legatis obsidibusque datis et pace facta constituit
cohortes duas in Nantuatibus conlocare . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.1.4); Iunias triumphavit de
Cheruscis Chattisque et Angrivariis quaeque aliae nationes usque ad Albim colunt.
(Tac. Ann. 2.41.2)
ac/atque: Omnis enim calor ac frigus mediique tepores . . . (Lucr. 2.517); Contra
Vitellius ac Veranius ceterique Germanicum comitati tendebant . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.10.1)
Quibus rebus et agris et urbibus et nationibus rem publicam atque hoc imperium
et populi Romani nomen auxerunt. (Cic. S. Rosc. 50); Rura insuper arvis atque vine-
tis et pascuis silvisque varia . . . (Suet. Nero 31.1)
et: At ego te per crura et talos tergumque optestor tuom . . . (Pl. Rud. 635); . . . id eum
recte et ordine exque re publica fecisse . . . (Cic. Phil. 5.36); . . . propter virtutis cae-
lestem quandam et divinam tantamque praestantiam . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.95); . . . navibus
quas ex Pictonibus et Santonis reliquisque pacatis regionibus convenire iusserat . . .
(Caes. Gal. 3.11.5)
Est etiam quiete et pure atque eleganter actae aetatis placida ac lenis senectus. (Cic.
Sen. 13); Quem ego diem si videro et si in vestrum complexum venero ac si et vos et
me ipsum reciperaro, satis magnum mihi fructum videbor percepisse et vestrae pieta-
tis et meae. (Cic. Fam. 14.1.3); Idem hoc L. Lentulo, qui superiore anno consul fuerat,
et P. Lentulo consulari ac nonnullis aliis acciderat Rhodi. (Caes. Civ. 3.102.7)
. Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) conjunctive coordination

Sequences of three or more conjoins, of which two or more are asyndetically linked and
one or more are linked by at least one conjunctive coordinator, are found from Early
Latin on. Examples are (a)–(c), with -que, atque, and et, respectively. Note that in (b) the
conjoin linked by atque is continued by three other asyndetically linked conjoins.
(a) Nam amorem haec cuncta vitia sectari solent, / cura ° aegritudo nimiaque
elegantia.
(‘Well, normally all these vices go hand in hand with love: worry, distress, and exces-
sive refinement.’ Pl. Mer. 18–19)
(b) Os habet ° linguam ° perfidiam ° malitiam atque audaciam ° / confidentiam
° confirmitatem ° fraudulentiam.
(‘She has a mouth, a tongue, perfidy, wickedness and boldness, self-confidence, self-
assurance, and deceit.’ Pl. Mil. 189–90)
 Coordination
(c) Apollo, quaeso te, ut des pacem propitius / ° salutem et sanitatem nostrae
familiae . . .
(‘Apollo, I ask you to give us peace in your mercy, health and well-being for our
household . . .’ Pl. Mer. 678–9)
It has been observed that sequences with final et or ac/atque are rare in Cicero and
Caesar; beginning with Madvig’s conjecture on (d) the attested instances have often
been emended in some way, without good reason.¹⁰³ Only cases like (e) were accepted,
where et is taken to mean omnino.¹⁰⁴ Certain cases are explained as belonging to dif-
ferent levels (see § 19.66).
(d) . . . rebus iis quas nos bonas ducimus concessit ut haberentur aptae¹⁰⁵ ° habiles
(aptae et habiles cj. Madvig, aestimabiles cj. Heine) et ad naturam accommo-
datae . . .
(‘. . . he allowed the things that we call goods to be considered “fitting”, “proper” and
“suited to nature” . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.56)
(e) Vox ° gestus et omnis actio sine lepore (sc. erant).
(‘His voice, his gesture, and his whole delivery were without charm.’ Cic. Brut. 238)
Supplement:
-que: Mars pater, te precor quaesoque uti sies volens propitius mihi ° domo ° famili-
aeque nostrae (Cato Agr. 141.2); . . . eaque res vobis populoque Romano pacem ° tran-
quillitatem ° otium concordiamque adferat. (Cic. Mur. 1—NB: compare: . . . id quod
ego . . . adfero, pacem ° tranquillitatem ° otium. (Cic. Agr. 2.102)); . . . omnia non modo
dicere, verum etiam libenter ° audacter libereque dicere. (Cic. S. Rosc. 31); . . . ut . . . ea
res fauste ° feliciter prospereque eveniret (Cic. Mur. 2); Quae maiores nostri quia
valere censebant, idcirco omnibus rebus agendis ‘QUOD BONUM, ° FAUSTUM, °
FELIX ° FORTUNATUMQUE ESSET’ praefabantur . . . (Cic. Div. 1.102); . . . licet
magnifice ° graviter animoseque vivere . . . (Cic. Off. 1.92); . . . ex ea proficiscuntur
honestae voluntates ° sententiae ° actiones omnisque recta ratio . . . (Cic. Tusc.
4.34); . . . cuncta a Bestia ° Albino Metelloque imperata nave fecerant. (Sal. Jug.
77.4); . . . quod bonum ° fau<stum fe/l>ixque sit sod<alibus> (CIL VIII.
(Medeina))¹⁰⁶
ac/atque: I hac mecum intro, ubi tibi sit lepide victibus ° vino atque unguentis. (Pl.
Bac. 1181); Quid? <te> antepones Veneri iaientaculo? / # Me ° te atque hosce omnis.
(Pl. Cur. 73–4); Sed habet patrem quendam avidum ° miserum atque aridum . . . (Ter.
Hau. 526); . . . non est incredibile putandum istius quoque animum ferum ° crudelem
atque inhumanum cupide ad inimici perniciem profectum. (Rhet. Her. 2.29); . . . te
non tam res gestas quam mores (mores del. Madvig, mores et cj. Shackleton Bailey) °
instituta atque (institutamque cj. Lehmann) vitam imperatorum spectare solere . . .
(Cic. Fam. 15.4.14); . . . omnia removistis: avaritiam ° inperitiam atque superbiam.
(Sal. Jug. 85.45)
¹⁰³ See Merten (1893: 59–60) and Pinkster (1969). ¹⁰⁴ See, for example, TLL s.v. et 877.8ff.
¹⁰⁵ Some editors have apte in their apparatus criticus.
¹⁰⁶ Part of a Punic–Latin bilingual inscription discussed by Adams (2003b: 224–5).
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
et: . . . breve iam relicuom vitae spatium est: quin ego / voluptate ° vino et amore
delectavero. (Pl. Mer. 547–8); Sumito testam picatam ° eo prunam lenem indito ° suf-
fito serta et schoeno et palma, quam habent unguentarii, ° ponito in dolio et ope-
rito . . . (Cato Agr. 113.1); . . . eam confeci sine molestia / ° sine sumptu et sine dispendio.
(Ter. Eu. 928–9); . . . neget in [cornibus] bovom ° hominum et equorum natura simili-
tudines proportione constare. (Var. L. 9.33); Cum commiserari ° conqueri et ex illius
invidia deonerare aliquid et in te traicere coeperit . . . (Cic. Div. Caec. 46); . . . qui ex bello
(belli cj. Madvig) ° caede et fuga nunc primum audent contra M. Fonteium inermem
consistere. (Cic. Font. 14); In contemptionem adducentur, si eorum inertia ° negle-
gentia ° ignavia ° desidiosum studium et luxuriosum otium proferetur. (Cic. Inv.
1.22); Haec erunt quae . . . dicentur . . . in homines claros ° nobiles et honore usos . . . (Cic.
Inv. 1.103); In picturis alios horrida ° inculta ° abdita et (abdita et del. Madvig) opaca,
contra alios nitida ° laeta ° conlustrata delectant. (Cic. Orat. 36); . . . temperantia °
modestia ° iustitia et omnis honestas perfecte absoluta est. (Cic. Fin. 4.18); Qua de re
cum ad me ita suaviter ° diligenter ° officiose et humaniter (v.l. ° humaniter) scripseris
ut . . . (Cic. Att. 1.20.1); In controversiam autem veniebant Philippopolis ° Tricca °
Phaloria et Eurymenae et cetera circa eas oppida . . . (Liv. 39.25.3); . . . alios tormentis
hastas ° saxa et faces ingerere. (Tac. Ann. 2.81.2)¹⁰⁷
The reverse order—with two or more syndetically linked conjoins followed by one or
more asyndetically linked ones—is less common.¹⁰⁸ Examples are (f)–(h).
(f) Egomet autem quom extemplo arcum [mihi] et pharetram et sagittas sump-
sero ° / cassidem in caput, dormibo placidule in tabernaculo.
(‘But as soon as I have taken a helmet for my head and bow and quiver and
arrows . . . I’ll sleep calmly in the tent.’ Pl. Trin. 725–6)
(g) Itaque illi amanti suo hospiti morem gerit / nosque opera consilioque adhor-
tatur ° iuvat.
(‘And so the old man humours that lovesick guest of his and encourages and supports
us with help and advice.’ Pl. Mil. 136–7)
(h) Concedite atque apscedite omnes ° de via decedite . . .
(‘Get away and get out, all of you, get off the street . . .’ Pl. Am. 984)
. The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins
Depending on their respective meanings and on contextual information the relation-

ships between conjunctively linked conjoins can be interpreted in various ways.
Scholars vary in their approach to these different interpretations and in the number of
interpretations they recognize, which may also depend on their native language: in
some languages the various available coordinators correspond more precisely with
¹⁰⁷ For a very complete survey of instances of et used for the last conjoin after a sequence of asyndeti-
cally linked conjoins, see TLL s.v. et 877.1ff. See also Lodge s.v. atque 180 § 17; s.v. et 538 § l.
¹⁰⁸ For et, see TLL s.v. 878.34ff.
 Coordination
the Latin idiom than in others.¹⁰⁹ Dictionaries indicate cases in which a conjunctive
coordinator might be replaced by a disjunctive (rare) or an adversative coordinator.
Random examples from the scholarly literature are (a)–(c) and (d)–(f), respective-
ly.¹¹⁰ In reality, Latin authors apparently preferred to use a conjunctive coordinator in
these cases, and it is advisable to take the coordinator as a conjunctive coordinator
with its proper meaning.
(a) . . . sic animus nonnumquam laeditur ipse / laetitiaque viget . . .
(‘. . . so the mind sometimes feels pain by itself or waxes strong with joy . . .’ Lucr.
3.149–50—NB: see Kenney ad loc.)
(b) . . . nec sibi quaeque sine alterius vi posse videtur / corporis atque animi seor-
sum sentire potestas . . .
(‘. . . neither power of either body or mind can feel separately without the power of the
other . . .’ Lucr. 3.333–4—NB: Kenney’s paraphrase ad loc.)
(c) Vineis incensis, multis hostium volneratis et occisis consulum quoque
alterum . . . prope interfecerunt.
(‘Siege shelters were burned, many of their enemies were wounded or slayed, and one
of the consuls . . . they almost killed.’ Liv. 2.17.3)
(d) . . . homines, cum quaedam etiam praeclara cuperent eaque nescirent nec ubi
nec qualia essent . . . .
(‘. . . human beings, since they desire some things that are, indeed, noble but do not
know of these things where or of what nature they are . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.4)
(e) Sed ubi is nunc est? # Ubi ego minime atque ipsus se volt maxume.
(‘But where is he now? # Where I want him to be least and where he wants to be most.’
Pl. Capt. 640)
(f) Valeo et valui rectius.
(‘I’m well, but I’ve been better.’ Pl. Trin. 50)
Apart from the disjunctive and adversative interpretations illustrated above, others
may arise from the relationship between the meanings of the conjoins. These are also
mere interpretations and the coordinators retain their proper meaning.¹¹¹ A few
examples with et are (g)–(i).
(g) Perii et tu periisti.
(‘I’m dead, and you’re dead, too.’ Pl. Cas. 633—‘et etiam’)
(h) . . . omnia haec quae putantur in communi vitae consuetudine mala ac
molesta et fugienda . . .
¹⁰⁹ See Kirk (1921).

¹¹⁰ For further examples of an adversative interpretation, see TLL s.v. atque 1074.16ff. and s.v. et
893.4ff.; for a disjunctive interpretation, see TLL s.v. et 894.30ff. For -que, see OLD s.v. §§ 7–8 and Gerber
and Greef s.v. 1282 § c. For . . . prout bene ac secus cessit . . . at Plin. Pan. 44.8, see Galli (2019).
¹¹¹ So TLL s.v. 892.53ff. The examples are taken from that section.
Conjunctive (or: copulative) coordinators 
(‘. . . all such things as in everyday life are thought evil and troublesome and
necessary to be shunned . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.221—‘et ideo’)
(i) . . . unguor, / ut illi placeam, et placeo, ut videor.
(‘. . . I use the ointment in order to please her. And I do seem to please her.’ Pl.
Cas. 227–8—‘et profecto’)
Other labels for what are in fact interpretations which are used in the literature are
‘epexegetic’,¹¹² as in (j), or ‘explicative’ ‘and so’,¹¹³ as in (k).
(j) . . . ipsa animi vis / . . . posset . . . / tandem in eodem homine atque in eodem
vase manere.
(‘. . . the force of mind itself could . . . at least remain in the same man or the
same vessel.’ Lucr. 3.790–3)
(k) Quod genus in nostris membris et corpore toto / mixta latens animi vis
est . . .
(‘Even as in our limbs and our whole body the force of the mind is secretly
intermingled . . .’ Lucr. 3.276–7)
The semantic relation between conjunctively linked conjoins can be made explicit or
more specific by adverbs of all sorts. Some of the most frequent combinations are item
‘as well’ + -que; atque/ac + adeo ‘and what is more’, etiam ‘and even’, quoque ‘and also’,
potius ‘and rather’, ita ‘and in that way’; et + etiam ‘and even’, quidem ‘and what is more’,
tamen ‘and yet’. See also maxime in (o).
(l) Nam si ita diceres, qui iuris consultus esset, esse eum oratorem, itemque qui
esset orator, iuris eundem esse consultum . . .
(‘For if you were to put it in this way, that the man learned in law is an orator,
and likewise the orator is at the same time one learned in the law . . .’ Cic. de
Orat. 1.236)
(m) Qui illum Persam atque omnis Persas atque etiam omnis personas / male di
omnes perdant!
(‘May all the gods ruin that Persian and all Persians and even all stage characters!’ Pl.
Per. 783–4)
(n) Pompeius N. Magium de pace misit et tamen oppugnatur.
(‘Pompey has sent N. Magius to sue for peace and is besieged just the same.’ Cic. Att.
9.13a.1)
(o) Ceteris de rebus maximeque de pecunia, cum Pansae mortem ignorares,
scripsisti . . .
(‘You write on other points, especially money, since you are unaware of Pansa’s
death . . .’ Cic. Fam. 12.30.6)
¹¹² See OLD s.v. et § 11.

¹¹³ The term and paraphrase are used by Kenney ad loc. Ex. (j) is also taken from Kenney. See also
Risselada (1984) on explicative relations between coordinated adjectives.
 Coordination
. The use of cum resembling a comitative coordinator
In § 4.38, two-place verbs that require an associative second argument are dis-
cussed. An example of this is the verb osculor ‘to kiss’, for which the associative
argument can be marked by cum ‘with’. With these types of verbs, the two entities
involved can also be expressed as a plural subject, with the two noun phrases coord-
inated by a conjunctive coordinator, as in (a), repeated from § 4.38. A mixed form
of expression is shown in (b). Here, the verb is in the plural although the subject
Syrus is singular, as both Syrus and ille voster are naturally involved in the action
consusurrant. The same phenomenon is also found with associative adjuncts (see
§ 10.72 fin.), as in (c), and with non-subject constituents, as in (d), where A. Cottam
cum T. Sabino behaves as a plural constituent with two coordinated members, as
appears from the plural form legatos.
(a) Modo nescioquis inspectavit . . . Philocomasium atque hospitem / osculantis.
(‘Just now someone saw . . . Philocomasium and my guest kissing.’ Pl. Mil. 174–6)
(b) Syru’ cum illo vostro consusurrant, conferunt / consilia ad adulescentes.
(‘Syrus is whispering with that slave of yours, and they’re reporting their plans to the
young men.’ Ter. Hau. 473–4)
(c) Cana Fides et Vesta, Remo cum fratre Quirinus / iura dabunt.
(‘White-haired Faith and Vesta, Quirinus with his brother Remus, shall give laws.’
Verg. A. 1.292–3)
(d) Aurunculeium Cottam cum Titurio Sabino legatos amisimus.
(‘We lost the lieutenant-generals Aurunculeius Cotta and Titurius Sabinus.’ Flor. Epit.
1.45.10)
This use of cum, more or less equivalent to et or ac/atque, resembles the use of comita-
tive coordinators in other languages.¹¹⁴ However, it is not a productive coordinating
device in Latin.¹¹⁵
Supplement:
Scipio interim cum Damasippo et Torquato et Plaetorio Rustiano navibus longis
diu multumque iactati cum Hispaniam peterent . . . (B. Afr. 96.1); . . . Demosthenes
cum ceteris qui bene de re publica meriti existimabantur populi scito in exilium
erant expulsi. (Nep. Phoc. 2.2); Summisere oculos cum duce turba suo. (Ov. Fast.
3.372); Nam et castra expugnata sunt atque ipse dux cum aliquot principibus capi-
untur. (Liv. 21.60.7); Hermeros / cum Phile / tero · et Caphi / so hic · futu /
erunt (CIL IV.2192 (Pompeii)); Apelles Mus cum fratre Dextro / amabiliter ·
futuimus bis / bina(s). (CIL IV.10678 (Pompeii)); Annua nunc maestis ferimus
tibi iusta querellis / . . . cum genero et natis consocer Ausonius (Auson. 189.
11–12S=X.30.11–12 Green)
¹¹⁴ For a survey of languages using the AND and the WITH device, see Stassen (2000).
¹¹⁵ For further examples, see TLL s.v. cum 1377.72ff. ‘de structura q.d. ad sensum’.
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
Fecit amor . . . volucres cum paelice regem . . . (Ov. Tr. 2.389); tituli heic / ordi-
nantur et / sculpuntur / aedibus sacreis / qum operum / publicorum (CIL
X. (Panormus))¹¹⁶
19.43 Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators

The relationship between alternatives linked by disjunctive (or: alternative) coordin-
ators can be one of mutual exclusivity (It will be a boy or a girl), one of non-exclusivity
(Give me a pen or a pencil—it doesn’t matter which), or one of equivalence, wherein
the second option is a reformulation or a correction of the first, as in (a).
(a) . . . in ardore caelesti qui aether vel caelum nominatur.
(‘. . . in the fiery heat of heaven that is entitled the aether or sky.’ Cic. N.D. 2.41)
Latin has four disjunctive coordinators: aut, vel, -ve, and sive (seu). Of these aut is by
far the most common in all periods of Latin and is the one which has left its traces in
the Romance languages (e.g. Fr. ou). Although it can be used to link two mutually
exclusive alternatives from Early Latin onwards (for examples, see § 19.45), which is
considered its original purpose,¹¹⁷ it is more common as a non-exclusive coordinator,
especially in negative contexts (where English may use and/or). In Early and Classical
Latin, vel is the second most frequent disjunctive coordinator, but is all but absent
from certain authors, like Caesar and Livy. Its original meaning ‘or if you wish’¹¹⁸
applies in some cases in Early and Classical Latin (obviously not in legal texts). Often
it is more or less equivalent to non-exclusive aut, but, unlike aut, it is usually used in
positive contexts. The frequency of its use in a given text depends on the authorial
preference. It is relatively frequent in Silver and Late Latin, especially with the
jurists.¹¹⁹ The clitic coordinator -ve is the least frequent. It is used in legal contexts in
Early and Classical Latin. Due to its clitic nature it is common with pronouns and
subordinators (for example sive) and has certain metrical advantages in poetry. Its
meaning is more or less equivalent to vel. It disappeared early on from the spoken
language.¹²⁰ The words sive (in inscriptions also seive) and seu can be used in the same
contexts, though the former is rare in poetry.
All four of these coordinators can be used to link pairs of conjoins (simple coord-
ination, §§ 19.44–9). The coordinators aut, vel, sive, and to some extent -ve can also be
used in such a way that all conjoins are marked by a coordinator (correlative coordin-
ation, §§ 19.50–6). The same coordinators can furthermore be used for combinations
¹¹⁶ See the discussion of the inscription in Adams (2003b: 429).

¹¹⁷ For the etymology, see de Vaan (2008) s.v. The ‘exclusive’ instances in Lodge s.v. 201A–B take up
half a column, the other uses five and a half.
¹¹⁸ See Sz.: 500.
¹¹⁹ For indications of its frequency in Late Latin, see Sz.: 501.
¹²⁰ According to Bal (p.c.) the proportion of aut, vel, and -ve in the BTL is 8 : 4 :1.
 Coordination
of three or more conjoins (multiple coordination, §§ 19.57–9). An, which is common

in multiple direct (§ 6.20) and indirect (§ 15.62) questions, is also used, albeit rarely,
as a disjunctive coordinator from Cicero onwards.
. Simple disjunctive coordination
Of the four disjunctive coordinators, vel and sive are not used for simple coordination
as often as for correlative or multiple coordination.
. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator aut

Examples of aut linking conjoins that are mutually exclusive are (a) and (b).¹²¹ This is
not a special use of aut, but results from the opposite meanings of the conjoins
involved. An exclusive interpretation is unlikely if the context is explicitly or impli-
citly negative, as in (c), or in questions, as in (d).¹²² The use of aut instead of a con-
junctive coordinator to link two (or more) ne argument clauses with verbs of fearing,
as in (e), is also common (see § 15.37).
(a) Nam hodie Sicyoni necesse est me esse aut cras mortem exsequi.
(‘I need to be in Sicyon today or die tomorrow.’ Pl. Ps. 995)
(b) Id ergo est pronuntiatum quod est verum aut falsum.
(‘A proposition then is a statement which is true or false.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.14)
(c) Tantum superantibus aliis ac mergentibus malis nemo tribunos aut plebem
timebat.
(‘So greatly did other evils overtop and threaten to engulf them that no one feared the
tribunes or the plebeians.’ Liv. 3.16.4)
(d) Numquis servorum deliquit? Num ancillae aut servi tibi / responsant?
(‘Did any of the servants commit an offence? Do the slave-girls or the slaves talk back
to you?’ Pl. Men. 620–1)
(e) . . . non verear ne iniuste aut graviter mi imperet.
(‘. . . I shouldn’t be afraid that he would order me around in an unjust or harsh way.’ Pl.
Capt. 308)
Aut can link various types of constituents, but is also used to link clauses. In addition
to examples above consider (f)–(j). For the use of aut as a connector, see § 24.21.
(f) Ubi ego nunc Libanum requiram aut familiarem filium . . .?
(‘Where should I now look for Libanus or for our young master . . .?’ Pl. As. 267—two
noun phrases)
¹²¹ See TLL s.v. aut 1564.65 and K.-St.: II.100.

¹²² For discussion, see Orlandini (2001: 117–49) and Jennings (1994: 239–51; 2008). Negative and inter-
rogative clauses have in common that they are ‘nonassertive’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 83–4). For the use of aut
and -ve instead of a conjunctive coordinator in Lucretius, see Reinhardt (2010: 205–6), with references.
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
(g) Non mihi isti placent Parmenones, Syri, / qui duas aut tris minas auferunt
eris.
(‘I don’t like those Parmenos and Syruses, who take two or three minas away from
their masters.’ Pl. Bac. 649–50)
(h) Nisi qui illud tractat aut movet, mutum est, tacet.
(‘Unless someone pulls at it or moves it, it’s silent and quiet.’ Pl. Trin. 1005)
(i) Certen’ vidit? # Tam hercle certe quam ego te aut tu me vides.
(‘Has he seen her for certain? # For as certain as I see you or you me.’ Pl. Mer. 186)
(j) Leno, tu autem amicam mihi des facito aut [auri] mihi reddas minam.
(‘Pimp, you, on the other hand, must make sure to give me a girlfriend or to return
my mina to me.’ Pl. Poen. 1414)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . quis parentem aut hospitem necasset . . . (Enn. scen.
211–12V=177–8J); Quid tibi hanc curatio est rem, verbero, aut muttitio? (Pl. Am.
519); Atque hoc idem in parentis, in amici re aut periculo fecerit. (Cic. Off. 1.154);
Nec tamen omnes possunt esse Scipiones aut Maximi . . . (Cic. Sen. 13); Neque quis-
quam agri modum certum aut fines habet proprios . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.22.2)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . si esse salvom vis me aut
vitalem tibi. (Pl. Bac. 998); Em nunc ipsast opus ea aut, siquid potest, / meliore et
callidiore. (Ter. Ph. 227–8); . . . neque homini infanti aut impotenti iniuste facta con-
ducunt . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.52); . . . fractique motus, quales protervorum hominum aut
mollium esse solent, contra naturam sunt . . . (Cic. Fin. 5.35); . . . quod ex omnibus sae-
culis vix tria aut quattuor nominantur paria amicorum. (Cic. Amic. 15); . . . uti inter
novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum primum non amplius quinis aut senis mili-
bus passuum interesset. (Caes. Gal. 1.15.5); . . . noctu dimittunt eos quos aut aetate aut
viribus inferiores aut inermes habebant . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.14.1)
Adverbs: Quia, si facias recte aut commode, / me sinas curare ancillas, quae mea
est curatio. (Pl. Cas. 260–1); . . . hos ego asotos bene quidem vivere aut beate numquam
dixerim. (Cic. Fin. 2.23); . . . non esse in iis partem maximam positam beate aut secus
vivendi. (Cic. Fin. 4.59); Non haec omnia fortuito aut sine consilio accidere potuisse.
(Caes. Gal. 7.20.2)
Prepositional phrases: Ni pagunt, in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem causam
conicito. (Lex XII 1.7); Hoc genus oleae in XXV aut in XXX pedes conserito. (Cato
Agr. 6.1); . . . omnia exempla cruciatusque edere, si qua res non ad nutum aut ad
voluntatem eius facta sit. (Caes. Gal. 1.31.12)
Verbs: Servin’ uxorem ducent aut poscent sibi? (Pl. Cas. 69—NB: non-exclusive in
question); Nam omnia quae sumenda quaeque legenda aut optanda sunt inesse
debent in summa bonorum . . . (Cic. Fin. 4.46); . . . quom aliquid minutatim et grada-
tim additur aut demitur. (Cic. Luc. 49)
Clauses:
. . . si vos eximat vinculis / aut solutos sinat quos argento emerit. (Pl. Capt. 204–5);
Dabitur malum, / me quidem si attigeris aut si propius ad me accesseris. (Pl. Men.
 Coordination
856–7); Quasi vero quicquam sit tam valde quam nihil sapere vulgare aut quasi tibi
ipsi in iudicando placeat multitudo! (Cic. Div. 2.81); Quis, quaeso, inquit, est qui
quid sit voluptas nesciat aut qui, quo magis id intellegat, definitionem aliquam desi-
deret? (Cic. Fin. 2.6)
Additional examples of interrogative and negative contexts:¹²³ . . . si disputetur

num interire virtus in homine aut num in vitium possit convertere. (Cic. de Orat.
3.114); Quaero enim de te, si sunt di . . . quī (‘how’) possint esse beati, cum voluptates
corpore percipere non possint, aut, si sine eo genere voluptatis beati sint, cur similem
animi usum in sapiente esse nolitis. (Cic. Fin. 2.115)
Non eo dico, C. Aquili, quo mihi veniat in dubium tua fides et constantia aut quo non
<in> his quos tibi advocavisti viris lectissimis civitatis spem summam habere P. Quinctius
debeat. (Cic. Quinct. 5); Erant praeterea complures . . . nobiles quos magis dominationis
spes hortabatur quam inopia aut alia necessitudo. (Sal. Cat. 17.5); Et quisquam numen
Iunonis adorat / praeterea aut supplex aris imponet honorem? (Verg. A. 1.48–9)
. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator vel

There are only a few instances of the simple disjunctive use of vel in Plautus, as in (a),
where two clauses are coordinated. In Cicero’s time it is used with all types of con-
stituents, as is shown in (b)–(e), and with clauses. Vel is rarely used in negative con-
texts, but for an exception see (f). The exclusive use of vel is more common in Silver
and Late Latin, as in (g), but for an early example see (a). It may also be used, with or
without potius, to add a correction or modification (see the Supplement).
(a) Diu qui domi otiosi dormierunt, decet / animo aequo nunc stent vel dormire
temperent.
(‘Those who have slept at leisure at home for too long ought now to stand with good-
will or else refrain from sleeping.’ Pl. Poen. 21–2)
(b) Transfer idem ad modestiam vel temperantiam . . .
(‘Apply the same test to Temperance or Moderation . . .’ Cic. Fin. 2.60)
(c) Sunt autem etiam clariora vel plane perspicua minimeque dubitanda indicia
naturae . . .
(‘But there are signs of nature even more striking, and in fact absolutely obvious and
not doubtable in the least . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.55)
(d) (sc. animus) . . . paullo momento huc vel illuc impellitur.
(‘. . . it is driven here or there by just a little thing.’ Ter. An. 266)
(e) . . . quibus moribus aut legibus (sc. rem publicam) constituere vel conservare
possimus.
(‘. . . by what training, customs, or laws we shall be able to establish or preserve it.’ Cic.
Rep. 2.64)
¹²³ The examples of negative contexts are taken from Orlandini (2001: 119–21).
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
(f) Neque satis Bruto, qui classi praeerat, vel tribunis militum centurionibusque,
quibus singulae naves erant attributae, constabat quid agerent . . .
(‘Nor did it appear clear to Brutus, who commanded the fleet, or to the military trib-
unes and the centurions, to whom the individual ships were assigned, what to do . . .’
Caes. Gal. 3.14.3)
(g) Si copias armatorum, si causas belli secum expenderent, vincendum illa acie
vel cadendum esse.
(‘If they considered in their own hearts the forces of armed men and the motives of
the war, on that field they must conquer or fall.’ Tac. Ann. 14.35.2)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Meam tu amicam vendidisti? # Valide, viginti minis. / #
Viginti minis? # Utrum vis, vel quater quinis minis . . . (Pl. Ps. 344–5); Tantus igitur te
stupor oppressit vel, ut verius dicam, tantus furor ut . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.65); Magno in
dolore, patres conscripti, vel maerore potius . . . inest tamen aliquid quod rei publicae
profuturum putem. (Cic. Phil. 11.1); Cum, ut scitis, hoc triduo vel quadriduo tristis a
Mutina fama manaret . . . (Cic. Phil. 14.15); Ceteros veniae vel saevitiae Vitellii reliquit.
(Tac. Hist. 1.68.2); Quicumque casus temporum illorum nobis vel aliis auctoribus
noscent . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.64.3)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: <Ins>omnis vel si quis est
seniosus, hac eadem curatione sanum facies. (Cato Agr. 157.8); Ex hoc enim populo
indomito vel potius immani deligitur aliqui plerumque dux . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.68); At
enim eadem Stoici ‘praecipua’ vel ‘producta’ dicunt quae ‘bona’ isti. (Cic. Tusc.
5.47); . . . ut quisque Pannonici vel Germanici exercitus militibus oblatus esset . . . (Tac.
Hist. 1.26.1)
Adverbs: Caruitne febris te heri vel nudiustertius? (Pl. Cur. 17); . . . quando hinc vel
illinc appellere indiscretum et innoxium est. (Tac. Hist. 3.47.3)
Prepositional phrases: Dodrantes horarum, cum minimum, intervalla ea deside-
rant ante solis ortum vel post occasum, ut aspici possint. (Plin. Nat. 18.219)
Verb forms: . . . Carbone et Cassio et Scauro Aurelio et Servilio Caepione
Maximoque Mallio fusis vel captis . . . (Tac. Ger. 37.5)
Conditional clauses: . . . si tum auxilia Pompeio vel si etiam filium misisset, ipse
aetatis excusatione usus esset. (Cic. Deiot. 9)
Clauses:
Servi ne opsideant, liberis ut sit locus, / vel aes pro capite dent. (Pl. Poen. 23–4); Lege
vel tabellas redde. (Pl. Ps. 31); Atque utinam his omnibus abstergere fletum sententiis
nostris consultisque possemus vel aliqua talis eis adhiberi publice posset ora-
tio . . . (Cic. Phil. 14.34); Unum illud extimescebam, ne quid turpiter facerem vel
dicam iam ne fecissem. (Cic. Att. 9.7.1); Ubii autem, qui uni ex Transrhenanis ad
Caesarem legatos miserant, amicitiam fecerant, obsides dederant, magnopere ora-
bant ut sibi auxilium ferret, quod graviter ab Suebis premerentur; vel si id facere
occupationibus rei publicae prohiberetur, exercitum modo Rhenum transportaret.
(Caes. Gal. 4.16.5)
 Coordination
. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve

Simple -ve is used from Early Latin onwards to link noun phrases, as in (a), but in
Plautus and Terence it is used more commonly as a coordinator of subordinate clauses,
especially conditional clauses with si and ni, as in (b) and (c); imperative and other
subordinate clauses with ne, as in (d) (see also § 15.37 fin. and § 15.64); and relative
clauses, as in (e). In legal texts it is used for constituents and for clauses, as is shown
in (f). For its use in interrogative clauses, see (g) and (h). In Cicero’s works it is used
to link constituents much more often than clauses.¹²⁴ Caesar does not use it at all. It is
common in poetry and in poeticizing prose. (For sive and neve as coordinators, see
§ 19.48 and § 19.55, respectively.)
(a) Noenum mecastor quid ego ero dicam meo / malae rei evenisse quamve
insaniam, / queo comminisci.
(‘I simply cannot imagine what misfortune, or what madness I should say, has come
over my master.’ Pl. Aul. 67–9)
(b) Si hercle scivissem sive adeo ioculo dixisset mihi, / se illam amare, numquam
facerem ut illam amanti abducerem.
(‘If I’d known or if he’d told me merely in jest that he was in love with her, I would
never have made a point of taking her away from her lover.’ Pl. Mer. 993–4)
(c) Di me perdant, si ego tui quicquam apstuli / nive adeo apstulisse vellem.
(‘May the gods destroy me if I carried away anything belonging to you . . . (aside) and
if I wouldn’t have wanted to.’ Pl. Aul. 645–6)
(d) Id utrumque, argentum quando habebo, cavero, / ne tu delinquas neve ego
irascar tibi.
(‘When I have the money I’ll prevent both these things: you committing an offence
and me being angry with you.’ Pl. Men. 270–1)
(e) Qui sibi mandasset delegati ut plauderent / quiv’ quo placeret alter fecisset
minus, / eius ornamenta et corium uti conciderent.
(‘Should anyone have given instructions that hired hands should applaud him, or
should anyone have caused another to be unsuccessful, they should beat his costume
and his skin to pieces.’ Pl. Am. 83–5)
(f) . . . <extra eum agrum quei ager ex> lege plebive scito quod
C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr(ibunus) pl(ebei) rogavit exceptum cavitumve
est nei divideretur, quod quoieique de eo agro . . . IIIvir dedit adsig-
navit reliquit inve formas tabulasve retulit referive iusit . . .
(‘. . . not including the land which, by a saving clause under the law or plebiscite intro-
duced by Gaius Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, was excepted from
division . . . whatever part of the said land a member of the Board of Three has granted,
¹²⁴ Cicero uses -ve some two hundred times. See also Merguet (Phil.); it is absent from Merguet
(Reden).
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
assigned or left to any person or has entered or ordered to be entered in the plans and
registers . . .’ CIL I2.585.6–7 (Lex Agr., 111 bc)
(g) Quid mihi scelesto tibi erat auscultatio, / quidve hinc abitio quidve in navem
inscensio?
(‘What induced a wretch like me to listen to you? Or what to go away from here? Or
what to go aboard a ship?’ Pl. Rud. 502–3)
(h) Eho Mysis, puer hic unde’st? Quisve huc attulit?
(‘Hey there, Mysis, where does this baby come from? Or who brought it here?’ Ter.
An. 748—NB: usually printed as two sentences)
Since most of the conjoins linked by -ve in Plautus are not really contrastive alter-
nates, Langen (1880) thought that its original function was not disjunctive but con-
junctive, being more or less equivalent to -que. This idea now has few if any adherents,
but it left its traces in Lodge’s Lexicon.
For its function as a clitic the same observations hold that are made concerning
-que in § 19.25.
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Uti legassit super [familia] pecunia tutelave suae rei, ita
ius esto. (Lex XII 5.3); <monuit res> / aut occasus ubi tempusve audere, repressit
(Enn. Ann. 294V=254–5S);¹²⁵ . . . quasi magistratum sibi alterive ambiverit. (Pl. Am.
74); Numquid est / aliud mali damnive quod non dixeris / relicuom? (Ter. Eu. 994–6);
Corbes ab eo quod eo spicas aliudve quid corruebant. (Var. L. 5.139); Num, quod
maximum est, leges nostras moresve novit? (Cic. Phil. 5.13); Ut saepe in hilaritatem
risumve (sc. animos) convertat. (Cic. Orat. 138); Cur stella Iovis aut Veneris con-
iuncta cum luna ad ortus puerorum salutaris sit, Saturni Martisve contraria? (Cic.
Div. 1.85); . . . pluris esse contendat dulcedinem corporis ex eave natam laetitiam
quam gravitatem animi atque constantiam. (Cic. Fin. 3.1—NB: position -ve); . . . verba
illa UTI NE PROPTER TE FIDEMVE TUAM CAPTUS FRAUDATUSVE SIM. (Cic.
Off. 3.70); Non illis omnibus arma / nec clipei currusve sonant. (Verg. A. 7.685–6);
Qui aedes acervumve frumenti iuxta domum positum conbusserit, vi<n>ctus ver-
beratus igni necari iubetur . . . (Gaius dig. 47.9.9)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Si uno duobusve dubitabit,
sic verba concipito. (Cato Agr. 141.4); Post hanc habitam contionem duabus tribusve
horis optatissimi nuntii et litterae venerunt. (Cic. Phil. 14.16); Quod enim munus rei
publicae adferre maius meliusve possumus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.4); Sic enim res se habet, ut
ad prosperam adversamve fortunam qualis sis aut quem ad modum vixeris nihil
intersit. (Cic. N.D. 3.89)
Adverbs: Quaere obsecro, / nequid plus minusve faxit quod nos post pigeat, Geta.
(Ter. Ph. 553–4); Progredientibus autem aetatibus sensim tardeve potius quasi nos-
met ipsos cognoscimus. (Cic. Fin. 5.41); . . . cavetque ne quid indecore effeminateve
¹²⁵ For this difficult passage, see Skutsch ad loc.

 Coordination
faciat . . . (Cic. Off. 1.14); A te vero bis terve summum et eas (sc. litteras) perbrevis
accepi. (Cic. Fam. 2.1.1)
Prepositional phrases: <Quibusquom ioudicium> fuit fueritve ex lege quam
L. Calpurnius . . . rogavit exve lege quam M. Iunius . . . rogavit . . . (CIL I2.583.74
(Lex Acilia, 122 bc)); . . . ne quis ad concilium sociorum referret agendas apud sena-
tum pro praetoribus prove consulibus grates . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.22.1); . . . edictum per
manipulos ne quis in certamine iurgiove seditionem aut cladem commilitoni obiec-
taret. (Tac. Hist. 4.72.4)
Verb forms: Quotiens te votui Argyrippum filium Demaeneti / compellare aut
contrectare colloquive aut contui? (Pl. As. 522–3); Nam si id facis facturave es . . . (Ter.
Hec. 739); Nec enim satis est iudicare quid faciendum non faciendumve sit . . . (Cic.
Fin. 1.47—NB: position of -ve not after non); (sc. corpus) . . . quod dirimi distrahive
non possit. (Cic. N.D. 3.29); . . . nec veterum memini laetorve malorum. (Verg. A.
11.280); Additur senatus consulto, qui talem operam emptitasset vendidissetve per-
inde poena teneretur . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.41)
Relative clauses: Serviendae servituti ego servos instruxi mihi, / hospes, non qui
mi imperarent quibusve ego essem obnoxius. (Pl. Mil. 745–6)
Subordinate clauses with ne: Blepharo, quaeso ut advocatus mi assis neve abeas. (Pl.
Am. 1037); . . . dum ne manufesto hominem opprimat neve enicet. (Pl. Bac. 867); Dictum
hoc inter nos fuit / . . . ne tu curares meum / neve ego tuom? (Ter. Ad. 796–8); . . . vereor ne
illud graviu’ Phaedria / tulerit neve aliorsum atque ego feci acceperit . . . (Ter. Eu.
81–2); . . . quod habeat rationem ne cui falso adsentiamur neve umquam captiosa proba-
bilitate fallamur . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.72); Isdemque temporibus cavendum est ne assentatori-
bus patefaciamus aures neve adulari nos sinamus, in quo falli facile est. (Cic. Off. 1.91)
Conditional clauses: Verum qui improbu’st si quasi bibit / sive adeo caret temeto,
tamen ab ingenio improbu’st. (Pl. Truc. 832–3); Illa te, si adulterares sive tu adulte-
rarere, digito non auderet contingere neque ius est. (Cato orat. 222); . . . si quis occen-
tavisset sive carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri. (Cic. Rep.
4.12); Si minus id commodo rei publicae facere posses sive non existimares ex re
publica esse, ut in isdem locis exercitum contineres. (Cic. ad Brut. 13.1(1.5.1));
Praeterea senatus censuit, ut si tutor pupilli pupillaeve suspectus a tutela remotus sit
sive ex iusta causa fuerit excusatus, in locum eius alius tutor detur . . . (Gaius Inst. 1.182)
NB: with reduction of common element(s) (especially the verb) in one of the two
clauses: Tua quidem ille causa potabit minus, / si (cj. Bothe; sive P (deest A)) illic sive
alibi lubebit? (Pl. Men. 792–3); . . . si quis pro se sive pro altero rationem dari volet,
voca[t] inlicium huc ad me. (Var. L. 6.86—NB: quotation from the Censoriae
Tabulae); . . . ut si arborum trunci sive trabes deiciendi operis causa essent a barbaris
missae, his defensoribus earum rerum vis minueretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.17.10); Si atro
die faxit insciens, probe factum esto. Si nocte sive luce, si servus sive liber faxit, probe
factum esto. (Liv. 22.10.6—NB: part of a rogatio)
NB: poetic sive . . . si: Sive sacro pavi sedive sub arbore sacra / pabulaque e bustis inscia
carpsit ovis, . . . da veniam culpae. (Ov. Fast. 4.749–55)
Clauses (general):
Si ei fort’ fuisset febris, / censerem emori; cecidissetve ebrius aut de equo uspiam, /
metuerem ne ibi diffregisset crura aut cervices sibi. (Pl. Mil. 720–2); De(h)inc postulo
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
sive aequom’st te oro, Dave, ut redeat iam in viam. (Ter. An. 190—NB: -ve links the
entire complex clause si . . . viam to the preceding clause); Nam si omnes atomi
declinabunt, nullae umquam cohaerescent, sive aliae declinabunt, aliae suo nutu
recte ferentur, primum erit hoc quasi provincias atomis dare . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.20—NB:
-ve links the entire complex clause si . . . atomis dare to the preceding clause);¹²⁶ Sin
quando aut regi iusto vim populus attulit regnove eum spoliavit aut etiam, id quod
evenit saepius, optimatium sanguinem gustavit . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.65); Non equidem
insector delendave carmina Livi / esse reor. (Hor. Ep. 2.1.69–70)
Direct questions: Quid petam praesidi aut exequar quove nunc / auxilio exili aut
fugae freta sim? (Enn. scen. 86–7V=81–2J); Quid tu’s tristi’ quidve’s alacris? (Ter. Eu.
304—NB: usually printed as two sentences); Quis enim hippocentaurum fuisse aut
Chimaeram putat quaeve anus tam excors inveniri potest quae . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.5)
Indirect questions: . . . ut saltem sciam / quid de hac re dicat quidve sit sententiae.
(Ter. Ph. 443–4); . . . unde omnia orerentur quove reciderent . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.10); A
quibus cum quaereret Caesar quo loco multitudo esset Bellovacorum quodve esset
consilium eorum . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.7.3); . . . quae loca, quive habeant homines, ubi moe-
nia gentis / vestigemus . . . (Verg. A. 7.131–2)
NB: Indirect question with si (see § 15.57): De ipsa autem testa si sit optima seu
vitiosa ad structuram statim nemo potest iudicare . . . (Vitr. 2.8.19)
In (b) and (c) and in the Supplement, clauses with sive/seu follow a conditional clause
with si or an indirect question and have the same conditional or interrogative mean-
ing: ‘if . . . or if ’ and ‘(to see) whether . . . or’, respectively. The notation sive suggests
that in the period in which these examples were produced they were understood by
the speakers and writers of Latin as combinations of si and -ve. However, this need
not be the case; in these contexts sive may already have been regarded and used as
one word to indicate an alternative condition (or an alternative indirect question).
Also, the fact that seu can be used in the same contexts as sive suggests that sive was
one word; whatever its etymology, it is unlikely that synchronically seu was regarded
as containing the suffixed clitic -ve.¹²⁷ In the same way, the correlative pair sive . . . sive,
which can carry the same meaning as the si . . . sive cases described above (see § 16.65),
need not—and in fact should not—be described as the pair -ve . . . -ve in combination
with si clauses. The use of -ve . . . -ve in other contexts is rare (see § 19.53).
. The simple use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu

The use of sive/seu as a disjunctive coordinator to link constituents is well attested
from Cicero’s time onwards (apart from a few fragments of Ennius and Lucilius that
are difficult to interpret). Examples are (a) and (b). The second conjoin often serves
as a correction or a more precise description of the content of the preceding word
or phrase, as in (c) and (d). Sometimes this is made explicit by an adverb like potius
in (e).
¹²⁶ For further examples, see OLD s.v. sive § 2.

¹²⁷ For the etymology of seu, see de Vaan (2008: 561).
 Coordination
(a) Adiungit . . . Attalicos agros in Cherroneso, in Macedonia qui regis Philippi

sive Persae fuerunt . . .
(‘He adds . . . the lands of Attalus in the Chersonese; those in Macedonia, which
belonged to king Philip or Perses . . .’ Cic. Agr. 2.50)
(b) . . . fluere e lapide hoc permulta necesse’st / semina sive aestum qui discutit
aëra plagis . . .
(‘. . . it must be that very many seeds flow out from this stone, or, let us say, a current
which by its blows beats away all the air . . .’ Lucr. 6.1002–3)
(c) Ut meliore <iure> tui soceri fundus Hirpinus sit sive ager Hirpinus—totum
enim possidet—quam meus paternus avitusque fundus Arpinas?
‘(sc. What are you saying?) That your father-in-law’s farm in the Hirpine district, or
rather the territory of Hirpinum (for he possesses it all), is held by a better title than
my farm at Arpinum, passed down by my father and grandfathers?’ Cic. Agr. 3.8)
(d) Sed omnium oratorum sive rabularum . . . solutissimum in dicendo et acutis-
simum iudico nostri ordinis Q. Sertorium . . .
(‘But of all that class of orators, or rather ranters . . . I hold Quintus Sertorius of our
order . . . to have been the readiest and shrewdest speaker . . .’ Cic. Brut. 180)
(e) . . . quid perturbatius hoc ab urbe discessu sive potius turpissima in qua
sum<us> fuga?
(‘. . . what could be . . . more disorderly than this withdrawal from the capital or rather
this disgraceful flight in which we are now involved?’ Cic. Att. 8.3.3)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Tum illam incredibilem celeritatem seu potius audaciam
protuli. (Cic. Quinct. 88); . . . huius improbissimi furti sive adeo nefariae praedae tam
illustrem ac tam nobilem civitatem testem futuram. (Cic. Ver. 1.87); Ista enim flagitia
Democriti sive etiam ante Leucippi . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.66); . . . si verum est Q. Fabium
Labeonem seu quem alium . . . arbitrum Nolanis et Neapolitanis de finibus a senatu
datum . . . (Cic. Off. 1.33); Inde iter qua maxime ἀναπάντητον esset ad mare superum
remotis sive omnino missis lictoribus. (Cic. Att. 9.1.3); Tum vobis veniat in mentem,
ut vere dicam, neglegentia vestra sive ignavia potius illos omnes ante oculos vestros
trucidatos esse . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.48); . . . sagitta / armatam saevi Parthus quam felle
veneni / Parthus sive Cydon, telum immedicabile, torsit . . . (Verg. A. 12.856–8); . . . opu-
lentam urbem matri seu novercae reliquit . . . (Liv. 1.3.3); . . . Aristarchus et aetate nostra
Palaemon, qui vocabulum sive appellationem nomini subiecerunt tamquam speciem
eius . . . (Quint. Inst. 1.4.20); Quippe Getae praetorii praefecto haud satis fidebant ad
honesta seu prava iuxta levi. (Tac. Ann. 11.33); . . . qui sese Chaldaeos seu genethliacos
appellant . . . (Gel. 14.1.1)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . et inde tot per impotentia
freta / erum tulisse, laeva sive dextera / vocaret aura . . . (Catul. 4.18–20); Albanum,
Maecenas, sive Falernum / te magis adpositis delectat, habemus utrumque. (Hor. S.
2.8.16–17); . . . Sallustius Crispus . . . metuens ne reus subderetur iuxta periculoso ficta
seu vera promeret monuit Liviam . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.6.3); . . . quaesitis . . . carminibus
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
Sibullae, una seu plures fuere . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.12.3); Plurimum coeptis contulerunt
iactatum exemplar epistulae verae sive falsae defuncti Othonis ad Vespasianum . . .
(Suet. Ves. 6.4)
Prepositional phrases: Titio vina quae in urbe habeo seu in portu do lego. (Paul.
dig. 34.2.30)
Verb forms: Postremo eiecto sive emisso iam ex urbe Catilina ille arma misit . . . (Cic.
Sul. 17); Dixit Pompeius sive voluit. (Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.2); . . . nec timuit . . . rabiem Noti, /
quo non arbiter Hadriae / maior, tollere seu ponere volt freta. (Hor. Carm. 1.3.
12–16); . . . tertium illud, utrocumque est nomine, delectandi sive, ut alii dicunt, con-
ciliandi praestare videatur officium . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.10.59)
Clauses:
Nam dispulsa suo de coetu materiai / copia ferretur magnum per inane soluta / sive
adeo potius numquam concreta creasset / ullam rem . . . (Lucr. 1. 1017–20)
Simple sive/seu can be used in clauses that serve as a correction or explanation of a

preceding formulation (‘or it may be (that)’—OLD s.v. § 9), as in (f) and (g). Instances
are attested from Cicero’s time onwards.
(f) Sed haec ars tota dicendi, sive artis imago quaedam et similitudo est, habet
hanc vim . . .
(‘But this whole art of speaking (or perhaps it is only a shadow and semblance of an
art) has this function . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.356—tr. adapted from Wisse and May)
(g) Isque censor seive quis alius mag(istratus) censum populi aget . . .
eos libros census . . . accipito . . .
(‘And let this official or any other magistrate who takes the public census . . .
receive . . . those records of the census . . .’ CIL I2.593.153–4 (Lex Iulia Munic., Pisticci,
45 bc))
Supplement:
Ut mihi Platonis illud, seu quis dixit alius, perelegans esse videatur. (Cic. Rep.
1.29); . . . redde harmoniai / nomen ad organicos alto delatum Heliconi, / sive aliunde
ipsi porro traxere et in illam / transtulerunt, proprio quae tum res nomine egebat.
(Lucr. 3.131–4); . . . me, seu corpus spoliatum lumine mavis, / redde meis. (Verg. A.
12.935–6); Ita haec pars dialectica, sive illam dicere malumus disputatricem, ut est
utilis saepe . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.2.13); . . . inprompto iam <Arminio> ob continua peri-
cula, sive illum recens acceptum vulnus tardaverat. (Tac. Ann. 2.21.1)¹²⁸
. The simple use of an as a disjunctive coordinator

Early examples of the use of an (rarely anne) more or less equivalent to aut are (a) and
(b). A rare and disputed correlative case is (c). There are quite a few instances in
Tacitus, several with conjoins that belong to different categories (see the Supplement).¹²⁹
¹²⁸ For discussion and further examples, see Goodyear ad loc. See also Sánchez Martínez (2000: 457).
¹²⁹ For further instances, see TLL s.v. 6.83ff. For Tacitus, see Eriksson (1934: 70ff.). For later develop-
ments, see Norberg (1944: 99–100).
 Coordination
(a) Themistocles quidem, cum ei Simonides an quis alius artem memoriae pol-
liceretur, ‘Oblivionis’, inquit, ‘mallem.’
(‘Themistocles at all events, when Simonides or someone else offered to teach him
the art of memory, replied that he would prefer the art of forgetting.’ Cic. Fin. 2.104)
(b) Cum signaretur argentum Apolloniae, non possum dicere eum non praefu-
isse neque possum negare adfuisse, sed non plus duobus an tribus mensibus.
(‘When money was minted at Apollonia, I cannot assert that he was not in charge,
and I cannot deny that he was present, but for no more than two or perhaps three
months.’ Cic. Fam. 13.29.4)
(c) Is dicitur vidisse Quintum an (del. Ernesti) euntem an iam in Asia.
(‘He is said to have seen Quintus on his way or maybe already in Asia.’ Cic. Att. 11.6.7)
Supplement:
Saucius an sanus numquid tua signa reliqui? (Ov. Fast. 4.7); . . . finem vitae sponte an
fato implevit. (Tac. Ann. 2.42.3); (sc. Tiberius) . . . ut solitum per illos dies egit, altitu-
dine animi an compererat modica (sc. bella Germanorum) esse et vulgatis leviora.
(Tac. Ann. 3.44.4); Simul Civilis ausus an ex composito intulit se agmini Tungrorum.
(Tac. Hist. 4.66.2); Horum omnium vix duos anne tres incolumis praestitit . . . (Suet.
Tib. 55.1)
This use of an is a further development of its regular use in multiple questions, with
examples like (d) serving as a bridge between the two usages.¹³⁰
(d) Quo mihi etiam indignius videtur obtrectatum esse adhuc Gabinio dicam
anne Pompeio an utrique, id quod est verius . . .
(‘And this in my opinion makes even more ungracious the opposition which
has hitherto been offered, whether to spite Gabinus or Pompeius, or, as is
nearer the truth, both of them . . .’ Cic. Man. 57)
. Correlative disjunctive coordination
All four disjunctive coordinators are also used correlatively, aut and vel from Early
Latin onwards, sive from Cicero onwards, and -ve in poetry, with an early example in
Ennius. For details about the constellations in which each can be used, see the indi-
vidual sections that follow. In Late Latin, aut . . . aut and vel . . . vel lose their adversative
meaning and are more or less equivalent to et . . . et.¹³¹
. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator aut

The correlative use of aut is widely attested from Plautus onwards, both with constitu-
ents and with clauses. Examples of the various categories of conjoins are given in
¹³⁰ See TLL s.v. 6.61ff. ¹³¹ See Väänänen (1987: 118).
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
(a)–(f). In these examples the interpretation of aut . . . aut is exclusive. In a negative

context, as in (g), this need not be the case.¹³²
(a) . . . aut mihi in mundo sunt virgae aut atriensi Saureae.
(‘. . . rods are certainly in store either for me or for the steward Saurea.’ Pl. As. 264)
(b) Ego emero matri tuae / ancillam . . . aut Syram aut Aegyptiam.
(‘I’ll buy your mother some maid . . . a woman from Syria or Egypt.’ Pl. Mer. 413–15)
(c) (sc. Diana) Adhibetur autem ad partus, quod i maturescunt aut septem non
numquam aut ut plerumque novem lunae cursibus . . .
(‘She is invoked to assist at the birth of children, because the period of gestation is
either occasionally seven, or more usually nine, lunar revolutions . . .’ Cic. N.D. 2.69)
(d) Aut ad populum aut in iure aut apud aedilem res est.
(‘. . . The case comes before the people or the court or the aedile.’ Pl. Men. 587—NB:
versum del. Ussing)
(e) Haec vasa aut mox aut cras iubebo aps te peti.
(‘I’ll have these vessels demanded back from you a bit later or tomorrow.’ Pl. Mer. 781)
(f) Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse
oportet.
Am. 782–3)
(g) Non sum aut tam inhumanus aut tam alienus a Sardis . . .
(‘I am neither so inhuman nor so lacking in sympathy toward the Sardinians . . .’ Cic.
Scaur. 39)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Ea mihi cottidie / aut ture aut vino aut aliqui semper
supplicat . . . (Pl. Aul. 23–4); . . . ut istic Philocrates non magis est quam aut ego aut tu.
(Pl. Capt. 623); Quem tibi aut hominem invitis dis immortalibus aut vero deum tan-
tis eorum religionibus violatis auxilio futurum putas? (Cic. Ver. 4.78); Sed quo potius
utar aut auctore aut teste quam te? (Cic. Div. 1.17); . . . ut Graeci dicunt omnis aut
Graios esse aut barbaros . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.58); Difficile est enim in philosophia pauca
esse ei nota, cui non sint aut pleraque aut omnia. (Cic. Tusc. 2.1); Non esse aut ipsis
aut militibus suscensendum quod . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.84.3); . . . noctu dimittunt eos quos
aut aetate aut viribus inferiores aut inermes habebant . . . (Hirt. Gal. 8.14.1)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Num ista aut populna sors
aut abiegna est tua? (Pl. Cas. 384); Aves eventus significant aut adversos aut secundos.
(Cic. Div. 2.79); . . . Epicuro concedenti omne enuntiatum aut verum aut falsum
esse . . . (Cic. Fat. 19); Nempe fundamentum dialecticae est, quidquid enuntietur
(id autem appellant ἀξίωμα, quod est quasi ecfatum) aut verum esse aut falsum.
¹³² See Orlandini (2001: 119–21).

 Coordination
(Cic. Luc. 95); Nam fortasse . . . calamitatem aut propriam suam aut temporum queri . . .
etiam mediocris est animi. (Caes. Civ. 3.20.3)
Adverbs: . . . ut rem divinam faciat, aut hodie aut heri. (Pl. Rud. 130); si enim inter
visa < * * nihil interesset>, (sc. sapiens adsensionem) aut semper sustineret aut num-
quam. (Cic. Luc. 53)
Prepositional phrases: . . . ibit istac, aliquo, in maxumam malam crucem, / latroci-
natum, aut in Asiam aut in Ciliciam. (Pl. Trin. 598–9); Necesse est quid aut ad natu-
ram aut contra sit a natura ipsa iudicari. (Cic. Fin. 1.30); . . . confideretque se fruiturum
aut in omni aut in magna parte vitae dolore non interveniente . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.38)
Verb forms: Quotiens te votui Argyrippum filium Demaeneti / compellare aut
contrectare, colloquive aut contui? (Pl. As. 522–3—NB: non-exclusive: interrogative
sentence); Quin tu huic respondes aliquid, / aut facturum aut non facturum? (Pl. Mil.
1067–8—NB: exclusive in an interrogative sentence); . . . si pleraque somnia aut igno-
rantur aut negleguntur . . . (Cic. Div. 2.125); Ita semper angi aut accipiendo aut cogi-
tando malo. (Cic. Tusc. 3.32); Reliquos omnes earum turmarum aut interfecerunt aut
captos ad Domitium deduxerunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.38.4)
Subordinate clauses: An tu existimas aut suppetere nobis posse quod cotidie dica-
mus in tanta varietate rerum, nisi animos nostros doctrina excolamus, aut ferre ani-
mos tantam posse contentionem, nisi eos doctrina eadem relaxemus? (Cic. Arch.
12—NB: non-exclusive)
Clauses:
. . . quin ego illum aut deseram / aut satis faciat mi ille . . . (Pl. Am. 888–9); Ecquis est
igitur . . . qui illud aut fieri noluerit aut factum improbarit? (Cic. Phil. 2.29—NB:
non-exclusive); Nunc reliqua videamus, nisi aut ad haec, Cato, dicere aliquid vis aut
nos iam longiores sumus. (Cic. Fin. 4.44); . . . ubicumque haec aut occurrat aut deficiat,
aut ‘etiam’ aut ‘non’ respondere possit. (Cic. Luc. 104); Ibi perpauci aut viribus confisi
tranare contenderunt aut lintribus inventis sibi salutem reppererunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.53.2)
There are a number of instances in which the author changed the structure of the
sentence he had in mind with the result that there is only one conjoin introduced by
aut. Examples of such anacoluthic structures are (h) and (i).¹³³
(h) Quasi vero aut concedatur in omnibus stultis aeque magna esse vitia . . . et
quasi nihil inter res quoque ipsas in quibus peccatur intersit ut . . .
(‘As though it were admitted that all foolish people possess an equal degree of
vice . . . and as though there were no difference also between the respective cir-
cumstances in which the transgressions are committed, so that . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.77)
(i) Nec aut (del. Vielhaber) procurrere quisquam ab ordinibus suis . . . audebant
et stantes, quo densiores erant, hoc plura . . . vulnera accipiebant.
(‘No one dared to rush forward from their ranks . . . and, standing fast, the
more closely they were crowded together the more wounds they received.’
Liv. 38.26.7—NB: see Briscoe ad loc.)
¹³³ For further instances, see TLL s.v. aut 1572.56ff.

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator vel

Although correlative vel is relatively uncommon in Plautus, it is used frequently by
other authors both with constituents and clauses. Examples are (a)–(e). In Cicero, it
appears with all sorts of conjoins.
(a) In Velabro vel pistorem vel lanium vel haruspicem / vel qui ipsi vorsant vel
qui aliis ubi vorsentur praebeant.
(‘In the Velabrum you can meet the miller or the butcher or the soothsayer or those
who turn or give others the opportunity to turn.’ Pl. Cur. 483–4—NB: three nouns
and two autonomous relative clauses)
(b) Num te ad fabulas revoco vel nostrorum vel Graecorum poëtarum?
(‘Why don’t I recall to your memory some stories to be found in the works of Roman
and of Greek poets?’ Cic. Div. 1.40)
(c) <Ipsam> hanc tu mihi vel vi vel clam vel precario / fac tradas.
(‘Now get her delivered to me, by force or stealth or entreaty.’ Ter. Eu. 319–20)
(d) Vel me monere hoc vel percontari puta.
(‘Take it as advice or, if you like, as a question.’ Ter. Hau. 78)
(e) Me misit miles ad eam Cleomachus, / vel ut ducentos Philippos reddat aureos /
vel ut hinc in Elatiam hodie eat secum simul.
(‘The soldier Cleomachus has sent me to her; she must either return the two hundred
gold Philippics, or she must accompany him from here to Elatia today.’ Pl. Bac. 589–91)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . tamen vel virtus tua me vel vicinitas, / . . . facit ut te
audacter moneam . . . (Ter. Hau. 56–8); . . . quaerere ex eo viderenturne illa Philonis
aut ea num vel e Philone vel ex ullo Academico audivisset aliquando. (Cic. Luc. 11);
Id enim esse praeclarissimum sapientiae munus maximumque virtutis vel documen-
tum vel officium puto. (Cic. Rep. 1.33); Caesarem vel auctoritate sua atque exercitus
vel recenti victoria vel nomine populi Romani deterrere posse, ne . . . (Caes. Gal.
1.31.16)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: [nam quoivis homini vel
optumo vel pessumo] (Pl. Mos. 410—NB: eliminated by Ritschl); Si enim id quod
eventurum est vel hoc vel illo modo potest evenire . . . (Cic. Div. 2.24); Atque habet
etiam amoenitas ipsa vel sumptuosas vel desidiosas inlecebras multas cupiditatum.
(Cic. Rep. 2.8); Una mehercule nostra vel severa vel iocosa congressio pluris erit
quam . . . (Cic. Fam. 7.10.4)
Adverbs: Vel ego huc vel illuc vortar, quo imperabitis. (Pl. Capt. 370); . . . an sum
etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus? (Cic. Fin. 2.15)
Prepositions: . . . vomica vel ante vel circa vicesimum diem erumpet. (Cels. 2.7.36)
Prepositional phrases: . . . vel in lautumiis vel in pistrino mavelim / agere
aetatem . . . (Pl. Poen. 827–8); . . . prohiberi sese non posse quominus cotidie navibus
aquam peterent vel a sinistra parte a Paratonio vel dextra ab insula . . . (B. Alex. 8.2)
 Coordination
Verb forms: Sed hic numquis adest? # Vel adest vel non. (Pl. Mil. 1019); . . . quas (sc.
habenas) vel adducas, cum velis, vel remittas. (Cic. Amic. 45); . . . imagines quae vel
prodesse nobis solent vel nocere . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.120)
Subordinate clauses: Nempe anui illi prodita abs te filia’st planissume, / per te vel
uti quaestum faceret vel uti veniret palam. (Ter. Hau. 639–40); Qui me valde movet,
vel quod amavi hominem sicut ille me vel quod ita iudico . . . (Cic. Luc. 113); . . . quis
umquam dixit . . . vel id solum percipi posse quod esset verum tale quale falsum esse
non posset vel sapientem nihil opinari. (Cic. Luc. 113)
Clauses:
Vel ai vel nega. (Naev. com. 125); Iussit vel nos atriensem vel nos uxorem suam /
defrudare. (Pl. As. 365–6)
. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator -ve

The correlative use of -ve is rare and mainly limited to poetry (from Ennius onwards).
Examples from Virgil are (a)—two nouns—and (b)—two indirect questions.
(a) . . . si quis in adversum rapiat casusve deusve, / te superesse velim . . .
(‘. . . if some god or chance should sweep me to disaster, I would want you to sur-
vive . . .’ Verg. A. 9.211–12)
(b) . . . regi memorat nomenque genusque / quidve petat quidve ipse ferat . . .
(‘. . . to the king he announces his name and race, the aid he seeks, and the aid he him-
self offers . . .’ Verg. A. 10.149–50)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: (sc. imago) sic eliditur, ut siquis, prius arida quam sit /
cretea persona, adlidat pilaeve trabive . . . (Lucr. 4.296–7); Non has (sc. pecudes) pas-
torve canisve, / non armenta truces possunt defendere tauri. (Ov. Met. 8.296–7);¹³⁴ . . .
quis tales impune moras casusve laborve / attulerit. (V. Fl. 3.574–5)
Adverbs: . . . nullaque laudetur plusve minusve mihi. (Ov. Fast. 5.110)
Verb forms: . . . Prudentem qui dicta loquive tacereve posset . . . (Enn. Ann.
250V=285S); Ipse pavet nec se qui sit status ipse fatetur / scire ratis rector nec quid
iubeatve vetetve. (Ov. Met. 11.492–3); . . . nec quod fuimusve sumusve, / cras erimus.
(Ov. Met. 15.215–16)
Secondary predicates: Sed (sc. Turnus) neque currentem se nec cognoscit euntem
/ tollentemve manu saxumve immane moventem. (Verg. A. 12.903–4—NB: variation
with neque . . . nec)
. The correlative use of the disjunctive coordinator sive/seu

The correlative use of sive/seu is well attested in the Classical period. Earlier instances
are usually emended, as in (b) (see also § 16.65 with note 191). It is used with all sorts
of constituents both at the clause level, as in (a), and at a lower level, as in (b) and (c).
¹³⁴ For further instances in Ovid, see Bömer ad loc.

Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
In (a) there are several prepositional phrases and purpose clauses at the clause level as
well as attributive adjectives at the noun phrase level. In (b), there are two appositives;
in (c), there are two attributive noun phrases. As (a) shows, a considerable number of
conjoins can be linked by sive.
(a) Nam (sc. oratio) sive de caeli natura loquitur sive de terrae, sive de divina
vi sive de humana, sive ex inferiore loco sive ex aequo sive ex superiore, sive
ut impellat homines sive ut doceat sive ut deterreat sive ut concitet sive
ut reflectat sive ut incendat sive ut leniat, sive ad paucos sive ad multos
sive inter alienos sive cum suis sive secum, rivis est diducta oratio, non
fontibus . . .
(‘Whether its subject is the nature of the heavens or of the earth, the power of gods or
men, whether it speaks from a place lower, equal, or higher, whether its object is to
move men to action or to instruct them or to deter them, to excite them or to curb
them, to fire them or to calm them down, whether it be delivered to few or to many,
among strangers or among friends or by oneself, the flow of language diverges in its
channels, not in its sources . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.23)
(b) Annos gnatus sexaginta qui erit, si quem scibimus / seu (P, deest A; si cj. Brix)
maritum sive hercle adeo caelibem scortarier, / cum eo nos hac lege agemus.
(‘If we find out that any sixty-year-old, married or unmarried, whores around, we
shall deal with him according to the following law.’ Pl. Mer. 1017–19)
(c) Quod genus hominum, quem numerum, quem ordinem proferre possum
qui te non oderit, sive civium Romanorum sive Siculorum?
(‘What type or grade or class of men can I mention that does not hate you, whether
they are Romans or Sicilians?’ Cic. Ver. 2.166)
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Quinque omnino fuerunt qui illum vestrum inno-
centem Oppianicum sive imprudentia sive misericordia sive aliqua suspicione sive
ambitione adducti absolverunt. (Cic. Clu. 76); Sed tamen, si quis est, iudices, qui illam
Postumi sive inanem spem sive inconsultam rationem sive, ut gravissimo verbo utar,
temeritatem vituperandam putet, ego eius opinioni non repugno. (Cic. Rab. Post.
2); . . . si cuiquam ordini sive aratorum sive pecuariorum sive mercatorum probatus
sit . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.17); . . . similiter arbitror in hac sive ratione sive exercitatione
dicendi . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.70); Ex quo exardescit sive amor sive amicitia. (Cic. Amic.
100); Itaque sive casu accidit sive consilio, percommode factum est quod . . . (Cic.
Tusc. 4.64); Drappes . . . sive indignitate et dolore vinculorum sive timore gravioris
supplicii paucis diebus cibo se abstinuit atque ita interiit. (Hirt. Gal. 8.44.2); Eodem
anno seu motu terrae seu qua vi alia forum medium ferme specu vasto conlapsum in
immensam altitudinem dicitur. (Liv. 7.6.1); Hinc illae quaestiones sive actionis sive
tralationis. (Quint. Inst. 3.6.83); . . . ita haec de quibus loquimur, sive tropi sive figurae
dicentur, idem efficient. (Quint. Inst. 9.1.8)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: . . . ut quibusdam populis, sive
foederatis sive liberis, permittendum esse videatur ut statuant ipsi non de nostris sed
 Coordination
de suis rebus . . . (Cic. Balb. 22); . . . quem voles eorum testium quos produxero, qui ex
Sicilia testes sunt, sive togatum sive Siculum, rogato . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.152); Seu tristis
veniam seu contra laetus amicis, / quicquid ero, dicam ‘Cynthia causa fuit.’ (Prop.
1.11.25–6); Servos seu fugitivos seu bello captos, seu quis liber captus aut transfuga
erit, reddito Romanis sociisque. (Liv. 38.38.8)
Adverbs: Quam qui ignorat, is est iniustus, sive est illa scripta uspiam sive nus-
quam. (Cic. Leg. 1.42)
Prepositional phrases: . . . sum (sc. deiectus) de via, sum certe alicunde, sive de
privato sive de publico. (Cic. Caec. 82)
Verb forms: Nam qui appetitus longius evagantur et tamquam exultantes sive
cupiendo sive fugiendo non satis a ratione retinentur, ii sine dubio finem et modum
transeunt. (Cic. Off. 1.102)
Subordinate clauses: . . . artes nostrae nescio quo modo nunc uberiores fructus
ferre videntur quam olim ferebant, sive quia nulla nunc in re alia acquiescimus sive
quod gravitas morbi facit ut medicinae egeamus . . . (Cic. Fam. 9.3.2); Hunc virgo, sive
ut templis praefigeret arma / Troia captivo sive ut se ferret in auro / venatrix, unum
ex omni certamine pugnae / caeca sequebatur . . . (Verg. A. 11.778–81); Rubrum mare
Graeci sive quia eius coloris est sive quod ibi Erythras regnavit Erythran thalassan
appellant. (Mela 3.72)
Secondary predicates and ablative absolute clauses: At Pharnaces impulsus sive loci
felicitate sive auspiciis et religionibus inductus . . . sive paucitate nostrorum qui in armis
erant comperta . . . sive etiam fiducia veterani exercitus sui . . . simul contemptu exercitus
nostri . . . inito consilio dimicandi descendere praerupta valle coepit. (B. Alex. 74.3)
. The correlative use of the negative disjunctive coordinator neve

In legal inscriptions, pairs or longer sequences of neve (neive) used with each conjoin
are fairly common in prohibitions to mean ‘neither . . . nor’, as illustrated by (a), with
coordinated constituents; and (b), with coordinated clauses. This use of neve (also
neive) resembles the use of the negator ne in imperative sentences and clauses (see
§ 8.5). Much more rare is its use as a subordinator in imperative subordinate clauses,
as in (c). A third use is illustrated by (d), where neve . . . neve are inside an ut clause and
themselves have no subordinating function.
(a) Neive quis iudex neive quaestor facito sciens dolo m<alo . . .
(‘No judge or quaestor shall knowingly and with wrongful intent so act as to . . .’ CIL
I2.583.61 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc))
(b) . . . neive is ager compascuos esto neive quis in eo agro agrum
o<q>upatum habeto neive defendito quo mi<nus quei v>elit com-
pascere liceat . . .
(‘. . . nor shall the said land be associated pasture land, nor shall any person have occu-
pancy of or fence off land within the said land so as to prevent any person who shall
be so minded from pasturing his animals . . .’ CIL I2.585.25 (Lex Agr., c.111 bc)
(c) (in a sequence of instructions) Bellum neve in Africa neve extra Africam
iniussu populi Romani gererent.
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
(‘They were to wage war neither in Africa nor outside of Africa without the consent
of the Roman people.’ Liv. 30.37.4)
(d) Cur autem laudarim, peto a te ut id a me neve in hoc reo neve in aliis requi-
ras . . .
(‘As for why I spoke for his character, I appeal to you not to ask me that question
about this particular defendant or any others . . .’ Cic. Fam. 1.9.19)
Supplement:
Constituents: . . . Petreius manipulos circumit militesque appellat, neu se neu
Pompeium absentem imperatorem suum adversariis ad supplicium tradant obsecrat.
(Caes. Civ. 1.76.1—NB: in this punctuation the first neu seems to link appellat and
obsecrat, which governs the imperative clause (neu = et ne); see Meusel ad loc.; see
also § 8.40 Appendix);¹³⁵ Namque ita discedens praeceperat optimus armis / Aeneas:
Si qua interea fortuna fuisset, / neu struere auderent aciem neu credere campo. (Verg.
A. 9.40–2); Scipiones me ambo dies noctesque curis insomniisque agitant et excitant
saepe somno neu se neu invictos per octo annos in his terris milites suos, commi-
litones vestros, neu rem publicam patiar inultam . . . (Liv. 25.38.6)¹³⁶
Conlocationis est componere et struere verba sic ut neve asper eorum concursus
neve hiulcus sit. (Cic. de Orat. 3.171); Fit gratia Bruti senatus consultum ‘ut neve
Salaminis neve qui eis dedisset fraudi esset’. (Cic. Att. 5.21.12)
. . . eam (sc. terram) ne quis nobis minuat neve vivus neve mortuus. (Cic. Leg.
2.67—NB: compare § 8.46 on epexegetic negation)
NB: difficult to fit in: (sc. Cynthia) Ibat et hinc castae narratum somnia Vestae, / neu
sibi neve mihi quae nocitura forent. (Prop. 2.29.27–8—purpose clause? verb of fear-
ing understood?)
. The correlative use of different disjunctive coordinators

Examples of different disjunctive coordinators used correlatively without a discern-
ible difference in meaning between the individual coordinators and without a differ-
ence in hierarchy (on which see § 19.66) are difficult to find.¹³⁷
(a) . . . sed aut rei familiaris exiguitas aut inbecillitas fortunae seu in ambitione
certationis contrariorum superatio obstitit eorum dignitati.
(‘. . . but their reputation was hindered, either by scanty possessions, or poor fortune,
or the victory of rivals in competitions.’ Vitr. 3.pr.2)
(b) . . . quibus dolet spina coxaeve aut post cursum vehementem vel ambulationem . . .
(‘. . . in whom the back or hips ache whether after hard running or walking . . .’ Cels.
4.11.4)
¹³⁵ OLD s.v. neve § 3b seems to take the subordinate clause with appellat, which would be possible, but
for obsecrat.
¹³⁶ For excito ut, see TLL s.v. 1262.78ff. ¹³⁷ Examples taken from TLL s.v. aut 1571.51ff.
 Coordination
(c) Deinde sparteis re[s]tibus arborem cludunt, ne aut corvis aut cornicibus ali-
isve avibus pomum laceretur.
(‘Then they cover the tree with nets made of broom, so that the fruit not be torn by
ravens or crows or other birds.’ Col. 12.46.2)
(d) Non ille aut sanguinis haustus, / cetera ceu plebes, aliumve accedit ad
imbrem . . .
(‘He does not approach like the rest of the crowd to drink the blood or other pour-
ings . . .’ Stat. Theb. 4.607–8)
(e) . . . cum abrumpi dissimulationem etiam Silius sive (del. Acidalius) fatali vecor-
dia an imminentium periculorum remedium ipsa pericula ratus urguebat.
(‘. . . when Silius himself, blinded by his fate, or convinced perhaps that the antidote to
impending danger was actual danger, began to press for the mask to be dropped.’ Tac.
Ann. 11.26.1)
. Multiple disjunctive coordination
Multiple coordination is defined in § 19.1 as the coordination of more than two con-
joins by either two or more syndetic devices or by a combination of syndetic and
asyndetic devices, with the first conjoin lacking its own coordinator.
. Multiple syndetic disjunctive coordination

Of the disjunctive coordinators, only aut is used with some frequency in multiple
coordination and without varying the other coordinators. Multiple use of vel and -ve
is very rare. Examples are (a)–(c). For -ve in (c), note the legal context.
(a) Semper petunt / aquam hinc aut ignem aut vascula aut cultrum aut veru /
aut aulam extarem aut aliquid . . .
(‘They always want to get water from here or fire or vessels or a knife or a spit or a pot
for cooking entrails or something . . .’ Pl. Rud. 133–5)
(b) In omni enim arte vel studio vel quavis scientia vel in ipsa virtute optimum
quidque rarissimum est.
(‘For as in every art or study, or science of any kind, so in right conduct itself, supreme
excellence is extremely rare.’ Cic. Fin. 2.81)
(c) Si quam legem de actis Caesaris confirmandis deve dictatura in perpetuum
tollenda deve coloniis in agros deducendis tulisse M. Antonius dicitur, eas-
dem leges de integro ut populum teneant salvis auspiciis ferri placet.
(‘If Marcus Antonius is said to have effectuated a law confirming Caesar’s acts or
abolishing the dictatorship in perpetuity or founding colonies on land, I think it
proper that the same laws be effectuated afresh with due observance of auspices so
that they may bind the people.’ Cic. Phil. 5.10)
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
Supplement:
Constituents:
Nouns and noun phrases: Sed cum de religione agitur, Ti. Coruncanium P. Scipio-
nem P. Scaevolam, pontifices maximos, non Zenonem aut Cleanthen aut Chrysippum
sequor. (Cic. N.D. 3.5); Quorum inbutae mentes pravitatis erroribus quamvis car-
nificinam prius subierint quam ibim aut aspidem aut felem aut canem aut crocodil-
lum violent . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.78)
Fortitudo est igitur ‘adfectio animi legi summae in perpetiendis rebus obtempe-
rans’ vel ‘conservatio stabilis iudicii in eis rebus quae formidolosae videntur subeundis
et repellendis’ vel ‘scientia rerum formidolosarum contrariarumque aut omnino
neglegendarum conservans earum rerum stabile iudicium’ vel brevius, ut Chrysippus . . .
(Cic. Tusc. 4.53)
Ludere qui nescit campestribus abstinet armis / indoctusque pilae discive trochive
quiescit . . . (Hor. Ars 379–80)
. . . eius / viae partem dimidiam is aed(ilis) quoi ea pars urbis ob venerit
inqua parte ea aedis sacra erit seive aedificium / publicum seive locus
publicus tuemdam locato . . . (CIL I2.593.29–31 (Lex Iulia Munic., Pisticci, 45 bc)
Adjectives, adjectival phrases, and other attributes: Quam vero Graecia colo-
niam misit . . . sine Pythio aut Dodonaeo aut Hammonis oraculo? (Cic. Div. 1.3)
Prepositional phrases: Supplicia eorum qui in furto aut in latrocinio aut aliqua
noxia sint comprehensi gratiora dis immortalibus esse arbitrantur. (Caes. Gal. 6.16.5)
Stercus columbinum spargere oportet in pratum vel in hortum vel in segetem.
(Cato Agr. 36.1)
Verbs: Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut
fugit . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.32)
Subordinate clauses: Habe iudicem / . . . si tuas esse oportet nive eas esse oportet
liberas / neu te in carcerem compingi aequom est . . . (Pl. Rud. 712–15); Si te in germani
fratri’ dilexi loco / sive haec te solum semper fecit maxumi / seu tibi morigera fuit in
rebus omnibus, / te isti virum do . . . (Ter. An. 292–5); . . . nei quem eorum det sciens
d(olo) m(alo) quoiei is . . . <sobrinus siet> . . . queive eiei sodalis siet queive in
eodem conlegio siet quoiave in fide is erit . . . (CIL I2.583.10 (Lex Acilia, 122
bc)); Lege itaque Aelia Sentia cavetur ut qui servi a dominis poenae nomine vincti
sunt quibusve stigmata inscripta sunt, deve quibus ob noxam quaestio tormentis hab-
ita sit et in ea noxa fuisse convicti sunt quive ut ferro aut cum bestiis depugnarent
traditi sint inve ludum custodiamve coniecti fuerint et postea vel ab eodem domino
vel ab alio manumissi eiusdem condicionis liberi fiant cuius condicionis sunt pere-
grini dediticii. (Gaius Inst. 1.13—NB: the last -ve is at a different level)
Multiple use of different disjunctive coordinators without a discernible difference in

meaning between the individual coordinators and without a difference in hierarchy
(on which see § 19.66) is very uncommon before the Augustan period.¹³⁸ The cases in
which aut is involved occur mostly in negative contexts. This variation is especially
favoured by poets and poeticizing prose authors, but is also common in authors like
Vitruvius and Celsus. Examples are (d)–(f).
¹³⁸ For a survey of combinations of aut, see TLL s.v. 1570.72ff.

 Coordination
(d) . . . ne tenues pluviae rapidive potentia solis / acrior aut Boreae penetrabile
frigus adurat.
(‘. . . so that the searching showers not cause harm, or the blazing sun’s fierce tyrrany
cause withering, or the North Wind’s piercing cold cause freezing.’ Verg. G. 1.92–3)
(e) . . . quisquis luxuria tristive superstitione / aut alio mentis morbo calet.
(‘. . . whoever is feverish with extravagance or gloomy superstition, or some other
mental disorder.’ Hor. S. 2.3.79–80)
(f) . . . Fidenas inde aut Gabios aliamve quam urbem quaesituri sumus quo
transmigremus?
(‘. . . are we to seek out Fidenae, or Gabii, or any other town you like to which we can
migrate?’ Liv. 5.54.1)
Supplement:
Non exuvias pulsaeve tropaeum / virginis aut spolia ulla peto . . . (Verg. A. 11.790–1);
Laudabunt alii claram Rhodon aut Mytilenen / aut Epheson bimarisve Corinthi / moe-
nia vel Baccho Thebas vel Apolline Delphos / insignis aut Thessala Tempe. (Hor. Carm.
1.7.1–4); Neque enim est de tigride natus / nec rigidas silices solidumve in pectore fer-
rum / aut adamanta gerit, nec lac bibit ille leaenae. (Ov. Met. 9.613–15—NB: multiple
disjunctive coordination inside one of three conjunctively linked conjoins); Infestissimi
Rhodiis erant qui consules praetoresve aut legati gesserant in Macedonia bellum. (Liv.
45.25.2); Sed ubi sunt saxa quadrata sive silex seu caementum aut coctus later sive cru-
dus, his erit utendum. (Vitr. 1.5.8); . . . maximeque si circa pectus aut cervices aut crura
vel genua vel coxas (sc. insudat). (Cels. 2.2.2); . . . neque (sc. libelli mei) admittunt exces-
sus aut orationes sermonesve au<t> casus mirabiles vel eventus varios, iucunda dictu
aut legentibus blanda sterili materia. (Plin. Nat. praef. 12); Quippe Augustus supremis
sermonibus cum tractaret quinam adipisci principem locum suffecturi abnuerent aut
inpares vellent vel idem possent cuperentque . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.13.2)
. Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) disjunctive coordination

Multiple mixed (syndetic and asyndetic) disjunctive coordination is rare. An example
in a legal context is (a).¹³⁹
(a) Magistratus nec oboedientem et noxium civem multa vinculis verberibusve
coherceto . . .
(‘Upon the disobedient or guilty citizen the magistrate shall use compulsion by
means of fines, imprisonment, or beatings . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.6)
Supplement:
Nouns and noun phrases: . . . queive eius quei in senatu siet fueritve pater frater
filiusve siet queive trans mare erit. (CIL I2.583.17 (Lex Acilia, 122 bc); Seiquas ·
vias . . . IIIvir II vir aedilisve . . . / . . . munire · volet (CIL I2.590.39–40 (Taranto, 1st
cent. bc (early))); . . . aes argentum aurumve publice signanto . . . (Cic. Leg. 3.6)
¹³⁹ For Cicero’s use of contemporary legal Latin, see Powell (2005: 129).
Disjunctive (or: alternative) coordinators 
. The semantic relation between disjunctively linked conjoins
As was the case for conjunctive coordinators in § 19.41, disjunctive coordinators are
also occasionally used where a conjunctive coordinator could well be imagined.¹⁴⁰
Aut is used in this way especially by Tacitus, as in (a), who sometimes employs the
periphrasis et rursus or et vicissim. The first instances of -ve to which scholars refer
appear in Ennius; poets beginning with Lucretius like it, possibly for metrical reasons,
as in (b). It is also relatively common in poeticizing prose, especially in Tacitus. It is
particularly common after relative and interrogative pronouns. For sive (seu), cases
are noted from the Peregrinatio Egeriae onwards, as in (c).¹⁴¹ More conspicuous
instances of vel are relatively common in (very) Late Latin.¹⁴²
(a) . . . legionariis aut (atque cj. Brotier; ac cj. Hand) cohortibus civium Roma-
norum trecenos nummos viritim dedit.
(‘. . . he gave three hundred sesterces to the legionaries or cohorts of the Roman citi-
zens.’ Tac. Ann. 1.8.2)
(b) Et quoniam docui, cunctarum exordia rerum / qualia sint et quam variis dis-
tantia formis / sponte sua volitent aeterno percita motu, / quove modo pos-
sint res ex his quaeque creari . . .
(‘And since I have shown of what kind are the beginnings of all things, and in how
varying and different shapes they fly of their own accord driven in everlasting motion,
and how all things can be produced from these . . .’ Lucr. 3.31–4)
(c) . . . singula ibi ostendit seu retulit de illas statuas quas dixi . . .
(‘. . . he showed us everything there and told us about the aforesaid statues . . .’
Pereg. 8.5)
The coordinator of the second (or later) conjoin can be combined with various adverbs
that specify the semantic relationship between the conjoins.¹⁴³ The four most prom-
inent adverbs (in decreasing order of the number of attestations) are: etiam ‘even’,
‘also’ (often used with vel ), certe ‘certainly’ (not used with sive), potius ‘rather’ (fre-
quently combined with -ve and vel). Examples are (d)–(g).
(d) Tibi habe, aufer, utere / vel tu vel tua uxor, vel etiam in loculos compingite.
(‘Have it for yourself, take it away, use it, you or your wife, or even shut it away in your
money-box.’ Pl. Men. 690–1)
(e) Itaque necesse est aut damnum aut certe non magnum lucrum fecisse
decumanos.
(‘It must follow that the collectors who paid it have brought about a loss, or at least
made very little profit.’ Cic. Ver. 3.110)
¹⁴⁰ Sz.: 503 uses the term ‘quasi-kopulative Verwendung’ for -ve. For ‘Disjunktion statt Kopulation’ in
general, see Sz.: 500.
¹⁴¹ See Sz.: 504. ¹⁴² See Sz.: 502.
¹⁴³ Surveys of such combinations are easily found in Merguet’s Lexika and in the TLL s.v. aut 1572.74ff.
 Coordination
(f) Brundisium veni, vel potius ad moenia accessi.

(‘I came to Brundisium, or rather approached the walls.’ Cic. Planc. 97)
(g) De hominum genere aut omnino de animalium loquor . . .
(‘But I do speak of the human race or of animals generally . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.33)
19.61 Adversative coordination

The principal adversative coordinator in Latin throughout its history is sed. From
Early Latin onwards verum is also used, although it is absent from many authors and
is rare in Late Latin. Ceterum ‘however that may be’ (OLD § 5c) is used as an adversa-
tive coordinator by Sallust and later prose authors, but in general it is uncommon. All
three of these words are also used as sentence connectors. See §§ 24.27–9. (For sin ‘if
however’, see § 16.57 fin.)
There are two main types of adversative coordination, for which I will use the terms
substitution and modification.¹⁴⁴ When the first conjoin linked by these coordin-
ators is negative, the information in the second conjoin, as a rule, replaces the infor-
mation presented by the first conjoin. Thus in (a), the information of the entire first
accusative and infinitive clause is replaced by that of the second. In (b) servos replaces
erus; in (c) centiens, semel. Similar cases for the other two coordinators are given in
the appropriate sections. The second conjoin functions as replacing focus (see § 22.8).
For non solum . . . sed/verum, see § 19.65.
(a) Scio te sponte non tuapte errasse, sed amorem tibi / pectus opscurasse.
(‘I know that you didn’t go wrong on purpose, but that Love beclouded your breast.’
Pl. Trin. 666–7)
(b) Non ego erus tibi, sed servos sum.
(‘I’m not your master, but your slave.’ Pl. Capt. 241)
(c) Liberare iuravisti me hau semel sed centiens.
(‘Not once, but a hundred times you’ve sworn to free me.’ Pl. Poen. 361)
When the first conjoin is positive (or: affirmative), the second supplies correct infor-
mation that is intended to preclude a possible misunderstanding by the addressee of
the content of the first, or to present it from a particular perspective. In both cases the
second conjoin modifies the information contained by the first conjoin. In (d), the
speaker of the prologue informs the audience that the Carthaginian they will see on
¹⁴⁴ For these two types, see already Hand (1829/45: I. 559) in his discussion of the difference between
sed and autem. See also K.-St.: II.73–4. Other terms that are used for these two types are ‘exclusive’ and
‘non-exclusive’. The two types are formally distinct in German (sondern vs. aber) and in Spanish (sino vs.
pero). See among others Ducrot and Vogt (1979: 317–18). For a more detailed discussion of adversative
relations, see Kroon (1995: 210–17). She uses the term ‘substitution’.
Adversative coordination 
stage knows all languages, but that they will not be able to observe this. In (e), the
slave explains why he has behaved as though the wrong Menaechmus is his master
even though he knows which one is his true master. The relationship between the two
conjoins approaches a concessive one (see quidem in (e)). In both cases, the two con-
joins are complete clauses. In (f) there is a contrast between two satellite constituents.
Here, too, the second conjoin corrects a possible wrong interpretation of sedatiore
tempore. Ex. (g) is different: more modesto is a manner adjunct which completes the
information of the preceding clause. What (g) has in common with the preceding
examples is that sed more modesto contradicts or corrects a possibly wrong inference
on the part of the addressee about the information presented by the first conjoin. It is
different in that more modesto is not a proper conjoin with syntactic and semantic
properties comparable to what precedes sed. It will be dealt with as epitactic coordin-
ation in § 19.67 and § 19.69.
(d) Et is omnis linguas scit, sed dissimulat sciens / se scire.
(‘He also knows all languages, but he knowingly pretends not to know.’ Pl. Poen.
112–13)
(e) Ego quidem huius servos sum, sed med esse huius credidi.
(‘I am this man’s slave, but I thought I was that man’s.’ Pl. Men. 1071)
(f) Paulo sedatiore tempore est accusatus quam Iunius sed eadem fere lege et
crimine.
(‘He was accused at a somewhat quieter time than was Junius but under much the
same statute and on much the same charge.’ Cic. Clu. 103)
(g) Scio, fui ego illa aetate et feci illa omnia, sed more modesto.
(‘I know, I was of that age too and I did all those things, but in moderation.’ Pl. Bac.
1079)
There are a few cases where the adversative connector at is taken by editors as an
adversative coordinator at the noun phrase level (for its use as a connector, see
§ 24.24). Examples are (h) and (i). In (h), a different punctuation with At opening its
sentence in the usual way is possible. Note also that the ut clause supports the typical
protesting sense of at. In (i), at is Faernus’ generally accepted, but not very convin-
cing, emendation of the reading aut of the mss.¹⁴⁵
(h) Non honestum consilium, at utile, ut aliquis fortasse dixerit . . ..
(‘The trick was not morally right, but someone might perhaps say useful . . .’
Cic. Off. 3.97—NB: ut del. Ernesti)
(i) Erat vallis inter duas acies, ut supra demonstratum est, non ita magna at dif-
ficili et arduo ascensu.
(‘There was a ravine between the two lines, as was indicated above. It was not
particularly large but had a difficult and steep ascent.’ Caes. Civ. 2.34.1)
¹⁴⁵ For these two instances, see Kroon (1995: 224–5).

 Coordination
Autem is mainly used as a connector to link sentences and text segments. However, it
is also used at a lower level, as in (j), where it resembles a coordinator. It cannot be
used in a substitution context.¹⁴⁶ For further examples, see § 24.26.
(j) Est enim finitimus oratori poeta, numeris astrictior paulo, verborum autem
licentia liberior, multis vero ornandi generibus socius ac paene par.
(‘The truth is that the poet is a very near kinsman of the orator, rather more
heavily fettered as regards rhythm, but with ampler freedom in his choice of
words, while in the use of many sorts of ornament he is his ally and almost
his counterpart.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.70)
The adverb magis ‘more’, the source of the Romance adversative coordinator (Fr.
mais), is occasionally used as an adversative adverb in the sense ‘rather’, as in (k).¹⁴⁷
See also § 20.10 fin.
(k) Sed (sc. ambigua) non saepe magnum risum movent. Magis ut belle et (v.l.
ut) litterate dicta laudantur.
(‘They seldom, however, provoke much laughter; rather, they are praised as
neat and erudite sayings.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.253—tr. May and Wisse)
In Petronius, immo is used to link constituents below the clause level and thus resem-
bles a corrective coordinator, as in (l).¹⁴⁸
(l) Recte, videbo te in publicum, mus, immo terrae tuber.
(‘Count on it, I shall meet you in public, you rat or rather fungus.’ Petr. 58.5
(a freedman speaking))
. The use of the adversative coordinator sed
Exx. (a)–(c) in the section above illustrate the use of sed to link a preceding negative
conjoin with one of the negative adverbs haud or non to a subsequent one that replaces
it (substitution). Other forms of negative conjoins are illustrated by (a)–(d) below. In
(a) and (c) the two conjoins are constituents; in (b) and (d), clauses.
(a) Neque hoc in uno fecit Annaeo, sed in omnibus senatoribus . . .
(‘And he did not do this to Annaeus alone, but to all the senators . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.97)
(b) Qui ne sorti quidem fortunas nostras destin<a>vit, sed libidini cuiusque nos
ita addixit ut . . .
(‘He who has not even put our fortunes into a lottery, but has given us over to every
individual’s desire, so as . . .’ Cic. Phil. 5.33)
¹⁴⁶ See Kroon (1995: 279). See also Orlandini (1999a: 151–2).
¹⁴⁷ For the material, see TLL s.v. 66.22ff. For a discussion of the Latin–Romance development, see
Melander (1916: 24–32), Ducrot and Vogt (1979), Rosén (2009: 396), and Orlandini and Poccetti (2010),
with references.
¹⁴⁸ Discussion in Rosén (2003).
Adversative coordination 
(c) Duo praeterea testes nihil de vi, sed de re ipsa atque emptione fundi dixerunt.
(‘Two more witnesses spoke in no way about the use of force, but only about the
original facts and the purchase of the estate.’ Cic. Caec. 27)
(d) Nolo ego mi te tam prospicere qui meam egestatem leves, / sed ut inops
infamis ne sim . . .
(‘I don’t want you to look out so much for something with which to alleviate my pov-
erty, but rather to make sure that I won’t have a bad reputation in my poverty . . .’ Pl.
Trin. 688–9)
Examples of the modifying use of sed, which links a positive conjoin with a subse-
quent one, are (e)–(i). In (e), the second clause corrects the possible wrong inference
that the language used to address a judge would be adequate in the given, non-legal
situation; in (f), the possible wrong inference is the slave need not be careful about
what he buys because he must buy it quickly. The second conjoin can be reduced, as
in (g)–(i).¹⁴⁹
(e) Ad iudicem sic (sc. dices), sed ego apud parentem loquor.
(‘That is the tone to use to a jury, but I plead before a father.’ Cic. Lig. 30)
(f) . . . abi atque opsona, propera, sed lepide volo, / molliculas escas . . .
(‘. . . go and buy food, hurry, but I want it in a lovely way, tender bites . . .’ Pl. Cas.
491–2)
(g) Pacis equidem semper auctor fui sed tum sero.
(‘For my part, I was always a promulgator of peace, but at that point it was too late.’
Cic. Lig. 28)
(h) Cum quo et Antiochum saepe disputantem audiebam sed utrumque leniter.
(‘I often used to hear Antiochus arguing with him, both however in a gentle manner.’
Cic. Luc. 11)
(i) Cura ut omnia sciam, sed maxime ut valeas.
(‘Take care you send me all the news, but take special care of your health.’ Cic. Att.
5.11.7)
The contrast between the two conjoins can be reinforced by the addition of quidem,¹⁵⁰
omnino, or sane in the first conjoin and/or tamen or vero in the second conjoin.
Examples are (j)–(n).
(j) Deinde tui municipes sunt illi quidem splendidissimi homines, sed tamen
pauci . . .
(‘In the second place, your fellow-citizens, highly distinguished men though they
undoubtedly are, are but a mere handful . . .’ Cic. Planc. 21)
¹⁴⁹ For further instances of what he calls ‘abbreviated sentences’, see Merguet (Phil.) s.v. sed 473B, § b.
¹⁵⁰ For quidem . . . sed, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 173–5): quidem functions as a signal of a ‘more
relevant’ point to come. For sane, which expresses ‘agreement or compliance’ of the speaker/writer with
the content of the first clause, see Risselada (1998a).
 Coordination
(k) (sc. libri) Grandiores sunt omnino quam erant illi, sed tamen multa detracta.
(‘They are altogether bigger than the old ones, yet much has been removed.’ Cic. Att.
13.13–14.1)
(l) Ac mihi repetenda est veteris cuiusdam memoriae non sane satis explicata
recordatio sed, ut arbitror, apta ad id quod requiris . . .
(‘And now I must bring back to mind the recollection of an old story, to be sure not
sufficiently detailed, but, to my thinking, suited to what you ask . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.4)
(m) Gemebant Syracusani, sed tamen patiebantur.
(‘The Syracusans grumbled, but all the same they abided.’ Cic. Ver. 2.47)
(n) O praeclarum imperatorem nec iam cum M’. Aquilio, fortissimo viro, sed
vero cum Paulis, Scipionibus, Mariis conferendum!
(‘A truly great commander this! Let us compare him no longer with the gallant
Manius Aquilius, but indeed with men like Paulus, Scipio, Marius.’ Cic. Ver. 5.14)
. The use of the adversative coordinator verum
As is observed in § 19.61, verum as an adversative coordinator is absent from many

authors and texts, including Rhetorica ad Herennium, Caesar, Livy, and the Elder
Seneca. Furthermore, it occurs infrequently in Tacitus and in most Late Latin texts.
However, from the authors who do use it, it appears that it was used in the same
contexts as sed.
An example of the use of verum as an adversative coordinator of clauses, of which
the first is negative, is (a). For a comparable case of coordinated constituents, see (b).
(a) . . . ea res me male habet. At non eo quia tibi non cupiam quae velis, / verum
istam amo.
(‘. . . that does make me feel down; but not because I wouldn’t wish you to have what
you want, but because I love her.’ Pl. As. 844–5)
(b) Atque hic equos non in arcem verum in arcam faciet impetum.
(‘And this horse will attack not a stronghold, but a strongbox.’ Pl. Bac. 943)
Supplement:
. . . neque equidem id factura nec tu ut facias consilium dabo, / verum ut exoremus.
(Pl. St. 73–4); Ea signa nemo horum familiarium / videre poterit verum vos videbitis.
(Pl. Am. 146–7); Ne plora, nescis ut res sit, Phoenicium, / verum hau multo post faxo
scibis accubans. (Pl. Ps. 1038–9)
At vero T. Roscius non unum rei pecuniariae socium fefellit . . ., verum novem
homines honestissimos . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 117)
Indisputable instances of adversatively coordinating verum after a positive clause are

more difficult to find, but see (c). For a comparable case of coordination of constitu-
ents, see (d).
Adversative coordination 
(c) Videtur temere commissum verum, ut opinor, hoc fuit causae.

(‘It seems rashly undertaken but, as I imagine, this was the point of reasoning.’ Cic.
Caec. 21)
(d) Itaque excogitat—quid? Nihil ingeniose, nihil ut quisquam posset dicere
‘Improbe verum callide’.
(‘He arrived at a plan: and what was it? Oh, nothing ingenious; nothing that anyone
could describe as “Dishonest, but clever”.’ Cic. Ver. 1.141)
Supplement:
Quae sunt omnia permagna verum illud maximum. (Cic. Ver. 4.113); Ergo et avarus
erit, sed finite et adulter verum habebit modum . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.27—NB: note the par-
allelism of sed and verum)
Habemus enim eius modi senatus consultum verum inclusum in tabulis. (Cic.
Catil. 1.4); Meo beneficio tabulae novae proferuntur verum auctionariae. (Cic. Catil.
2.18); Ergo haec uno verum optimo auctore domo prolata defendimus. (Cic. Phil.
1.24); Dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus? an Meliboei? / # Non, verum Aegonis.
(Verg. Ecl. 3.1–2); Cassius plebeii Romae generis verum antiqui honoratique . . . (Tac.
Ann. 6.15.1)
The contrast between the two conjoins can be reinforced by the inclusion of quidem,
omnino, or sane in the first conjoin and/or tamen in the second.
(e) Est istuc quidem honestum, verum hoc expedit.
(‘That is, to be sure, the right course, but this course brings advantage.’ Cic. Off. 3.75)
Supplement:
. . . utrumque (sc. vocem claram et suavem) omnino a natura petundum est verum
alterum exercitatio augebit, alterum imitatio presse loquentium et leniter. (Cic. Off.
1.133); De amore, de tormentis, de rumore loci sane inanes, verum tamen . . . tolera-
biles. (Cic. Brut. 124); Videte maiorum diligentiam, qui nihildum etiam istius modi
suspicabantur, verum tamen ea quae parvis in rebus accidere poterant providebant.
(Cic. Ver. 4.9)
. The use of the adversative coordinator ceterum
The use of ceterum as an adversative coordinator is attested in prose beginning with

Sallust (in his Jugurthine War) and is best regarded as a literary innovation. It is used
with a preceding conjoin (either a clause—of which one instance is recorded in the
TLL—or a constituent) that can be either negative, as in (a) and (b), or positive as in
(c) and (d). The contrast between the two conjoins can be reinforced by the inclusion
of quidem in the first conjoin, as in (e). Other forms of reinforcement are not attest-
ed.¹⁵¹ For the use of ceterum as a connector, see § 24.27.
¹⁵¹ See TLL s.v. ceterus 971.9ff. For ceterum = sed re vera, see Orlandini (1999a: 143–4).
 Coordination
(a) . . . responderunt nullum ipsos mare ne fama quidem accepisse, ceterum

tertio die perveniri posse ad aquam amaram quae corrumperet dulcem.
(‘. . . they answered that they had never even heard of any sea; but that on the third day
they could reach bitter water, which spoiled the fresh water.’ Curt. 9.9.6—NB: recent
editors punctuate ‘; ceterum’)
(b) Denique . . . aliam rem adgreditur, non eadem asperitate qua Capsensium,
ceterum haud secus difficilem.
(‘Finally . . . he embarked upon another undertaking, not involving the same hardship
as the Capsa campaign, but no less difficult.’ Sal. Jug. 92.4)
(c) Quo magis pravitas eorum admiranda est qui dediti corporis gaudiis . . .
aetatem agunt, ceterum ingenium . . . incultu atque socordia torpescere
sinunt . . .
(‘Consequently, one has to marvel all the more at the perversity of those who pass
their life . . . given over to the pleasures of the body, but allow their intellect . . . to grow
dull from neglect and inaction . . .’ Sal. Jug. 2.4)
(d) . . . proelia multa, ceterum levia alia aliis locis facere.
(‘. . . he fought many battles, but slight ones and in various places.’ Sal. Jug. 87.1)
(e) Pugna atrox ad silvam Malitiosam fuit, ubi et peditum quidem robore,
ceterum equitatu aucto nuper plurimum Romana acies valuit.
(‘A desperate battle was fought near the Silva Malitiosa, where, owing partly, it is true,
to the strength of their infantry, but most of all to their newly augmented cavalry, the
Roman army gained the mastery.’ Liv. 1.30.9)
Supplement:
. . . haud magna oppida ceterum et situ et munimentis tuta. (Liv. 25.27.1); Sapientem
non vinci maerore ceterum tangi. (Sen. Ep. 85.3); Itaque triumphus negatus, ceterum
ob Sempronianae cladis levatam ignominiam ut ovans urbem intraret concessum est.
(Liv. 4.43.2); Eo de homine haud sum ignarus sinistram in urbe famam, pleraque
foeda memorari ceterum regendis provinciis prisca virtute egit. (Tac. Ann. 6.32.4); . . .
cum aliud longius ceterum commodius ostenderetur iter . . . (Liv. 22.2.2); . . . qui sem-
per argumenta sermone puro et dilucido et distincto, ceterum minime elato orna-
toque putant esse dicenda. (Quint. Inst. 5.14.33); Ergo concedas oportet ex his
quoque quae sensum quidem effugiunt, ceterum ratione prenduntur esse in quibus-
dam unitatem corporum. (Sen. Nat. 2.2.3); Secuti exemplum veterani haud multo
post in Raetiam mittuntur, specie defendendae provinciae ob imminentis Suebos
ceterum ut avellerentur castris . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.44.4)
. The correlative use of the adversative coordinators
Strictly speaking, correlative adversative coordination (with the same coordinator

repeated, as in the case of et . . . et) is not practised. However, the negative adverb non
when combined with an exclusive particle (see § 22.23)—e.g. non modo ‘not exactly’,
Adversative coordination 
‘I do not say’¹⁵² (the most common combination), non solum ‘not only’, non tantum
‘not so much’ (rare before Livy), or non tantummodo ‘not so much’—can form some-
thing akin to a correlative pair with sed or verum. This can then be combined with
additive or scalar etiam ‘also’ and ‘even’, which can follow either directly after or later
on;¹⁵³ or—less commonly—additive quoque ‘also’, which does not follow directly. In
these cases, the second conjoin does not so much replace or correct the first, but adds
to it. Examples are (a)–(f). The various pairs can link both independent clauses, as in
(a), and constituents of various types, as in (b)–(f).¹⁵⁴ Dividing non . . . modo becomes
common from Livy onwards.
(a) . . . is non modo ex numero vivorum exturbatur, sed, si fieri potest, infra
etiam mortuos amandatur.
(‘. . . that man is not only banished from the company of the living, but is relegated to
a position lower than the dead, if that is possible.’ Cic. Quinct. 49)
(b) . . . considera non modo in Umbria atque in ea vicinitate, sed in his veteribus
municipiis quae studia a patribus familias maxime laudentur.
(‘. . . consider what pursuits are most esteemed by heads of households, not only in
Umbria and the neighbourhood, but in our old municipal towns.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 48)
(c) Perficiendum est . . . ut homines te non solum audiant, verum etiam libenter
studioseque audiant.
(‘It must be effected . . . that people not just listen to you, but listen willingly and
eagerly.’ Cic. Div. Caec. 39)
(d) . . . non tantum pecora atque iumenta, sed etiam magna hominum multitudo
siti consumebatur.
(‘. . . not only cattle and beasts of burden, but even the great host of the enemy were
being sapped by thirst.’ Hirt. Gal. 8.41.6)
(e) Sati’n habes, si ego advenientem ita patrem faciam tuom / non modo ne intro
eat, verum etiam ut fugiat longe ab aedibus?
(‘Are you content if I make sure that on his arrival your father does not only not go in,
but even runs far away from the house?’ Pl. Mos. 389–90)
(f) . . . ut . . . propinquum suum non modo honeste partis bonis, verum etiam
communi luce privaret.
(‘. . . so that he could deprive his kinsman . . . not only of property honestly acquired,
but even of the light of day that is common to all.’ Cic. Quinct. 74)
Often, the second conjoin contains the more relevant or important information, or a
more extreme alternative to what is presented in the first (we are dealing with replacing
¹⁵² This is the paraphrase of Roby (1882: II.470). See also K.-St.: II.60.
¹⁵³ For the various combinations of etiam, see TLL s.v. 946.35ff. Sz.: 485 refers to Late Latin instances
of adhuc.
¹⁵⁴ For a collection of instances in a number of texts, see Saur (1913: 92–101).
 Coordination
focus—see § 22.8). Good examples are (a), (e), and (f), but in (b) this is less evident.
An example of the reverse order is (g).¹⁵⁵
(g) Quae civitas est in Asia quae non modo imperatoris aut legati, sed unius
tribuni militum animos ac spiritus capere possit?
(‘What state in Asia is sufficient to contain the arrogance and insolence of one mili-
tary tribune, not to speak of a general or his lieutenant?’ Cic. Man. 66)¹⁵⁶
Supplement:
Non modo igitur nihil prodest, sed obest etiam Clodi mors Miloni. (Cic. Mil. 34);
Reus igitur Postumus est ea lege qua non modo ipse, sed totus etiam ordo solutus ac
liber est. (Cic. Rab. Post. 12); . . . venit in agrum communem, eo denique ubi non
modo res erat, sed ratio quoque omnis et omnes litterae. (Cic. Quinct. 38); . . . non
pecuniam modo, verum etiam hominis propinqui sanguinem vitamque eripere
conatur? (Cic. Quinct. 39); Omnia perculsa metu non in Asia modo, sed etiam in
Syria esse. (Liv. 37.3.10)
. . . (sc. dixi) non solum re et sententia, sed verbis quoque hoc interdictum ita esse
compositum ut nihil commutandum videretur? (Cic. Caec. 86); Nimirum illi non
ingenio solum his patronis, sed fortuna etiam praestiterunt. (Cic. Ver. 2.191); (sc.
Dumnorigem) Neque solum domi, sed etiam apud finitimas civitates largiter
posse . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.18.6)
. . . cur audet Ulixes / ire per excubias et . . . non tantum moenia Troum, / verum
etiam summas arces intrare . . . (Ov. Met. 13.341–3);. . . quia non tantum terrestria,
sed aquatilia quoque desiderant pabula . . . (Col. 8.13.1); Lichas Tarentinus, homo
verecundissimus et non tantum huius navigii dominus quod regit, sed fundorum
etiam aliquot et familiae negotiantis . . . (Petr. 101.4)
. . . non ad tuendos tantummodo veteres socios conciliandosque novos, sed
etiam ad pellendum Hispania Hasdrubalem. (Liv. 21.32.4); . . . idque non in febri-
bus tantummodo, in quibus frequentissimum est, sed in aliis quoque fit.
(Cels. 3.1.2)
Appendix: Other forms of adversative correlation are shown in (h)–(k).¹⁵⁷

(h) Nunc enim sunt pauci illi quidem, sed tamen plures quam re publica dig-
num est qui ita loquantur: . . .
(‘At present there are some, few to be sure but more than befits the Republic,
who say: . . .’ Cic. Phil. 6.16)
(i) . . . quoniamque vides versa esse omnia, causam pro Sex. Roscio, si non com-
mode, at libere dici . . .
(‘. . . and since you see that everything is changed, that the cause of Sextus
Roscius is being pleaded, if not adequately, at least with freedom . . .’ Cic.
S. Rosc. 61)
¹⁵⁵ Roby (1882: II.470) citing (g) says: ‘Non modo . . . is applicable in some cases where the others
are not.’
¹⁵⁶ For unus, see § 11.117.
¹⁵⁷ For discussion of instances like (h)–(j), and the differences between them, see Bertocchi (1998).
Hierarchical ordering of sequences of conjoins 
(j) Accusatorem etiam reo suo, ne dicam diligendum, certe laudandum!

(‘A prosecutor to be praised at least, not to say loved, by the accused!’ V.
Max. 6.5.5)
(k) Cum maxume Capua circumvallaretur, Syracusarum oppugnatio ad finem
venit, praeterquam vi ac virtute ducis exercitusque, intestina etiam prodi-
tione adiuta.
(‘Just as soon as Capua was being encircled the siege of Syracuse came to an
end, expedited not only by the vigour and valour of the general and the army
but also by treachery within.’ Liv. 25.23.1)
A second conjoin with sed etiam sometimes follows a preceding conjoin which does
not contain a negation, as in (l).
(l) Hic mihi primum meum consilium defuit, sed etiam obfuit.
(‘That was the first point where my judgement let me down, or rather did me
down.’ Cic. Att. 3.15.5)
19.66 Hierarchical ordering of sequences of conjoins

In a sequence of two or more conjoins, the conjoins may themselves consist of two or
more conjoins. Examples of this sort of conjunctive coordination are (a)–(c). In (a)
and (b), two conjoins are closely connected and are, as a unit, coordinated with
another conjoin. This structure will be indicated by brackets: {A + B} + C. This phe-
nomenon of a hierarchical difference between conjoins can also be found in a sequence
of conjoins in which some are coordinated asyndetically, as in (c). Here, three of the
four conjoins, one of which itself consists of two conjoins, are linked asyndetically,
with the fourth joined by an overt coordinator et (asyndeton marked by °). The situ-
ation in (d) represents a different kind of hierarchical relationship between conjoins:
-que links two of the attributes of comitatu, which is itself modified at a higher level by
et impedito et muliebri ac delicato, while the whole phrase et impedito . . . comitatu is
modified by magno. For this latter kind of hierarchy, see § 11.75. Not all instances of
hierarchical variation mentioned in the literature will be universally convincing, but
when encountering a series of coordinators, one should at least keep in mind the pos-
sibility of such variation.¹⁵⁸
(a) {Confidentes (sc. homines) garrulique} et malevoli supera lacum (sc. ambu-
lant) . . .
(‘Arrogant, over-talkative, and malevolent people are above the Lake . . .’ Pl. Cur. 477)
(b) . . . dum {captivos obsidesque} et praedam ex consilio eius disponeret . . .
(‘. . . until with his advice he should dispose of captives and hostages and the booty . . .’
Liv. 26.51.1)
¹⁵⁸ Exx. (a) and (b) are taken from TLL s.v. et 878.55ff. See also K.-St. II.30–1.
 Coordination
(c) . . . deduntque se ° {divina humanaque omnia} ° urbem et liberos / in dicio-

nem atque in arbitratum cuncti Thebano poplo.
(‘. . . they all surrendered themselves, all their sacred and profane possessions, their
city and their children, into the power and sway of the Theban people.’ Pl. Am. 258–9)
(d) . . . cum hic insidiator . . . cum uxore veheretur in raeda paenulatus magno {et
impedito et muliebri ac delicato {ancillarum puerorumque} comitatu}.
(‘. . . while our supposed conspirator . . . was riding with his wife in a coach, wrapped
in his travelling-cloak, with a large retinue of waiting-maids and pages that was cum-
bersome, effeminate and dainty.’ Cic. Mil. 28)
Supplement:
. . . et meum nomen et mea {facta et itinera} ego faxo scias. (Pl. Trin. 882); Et
Romani . . . multis armis et {magno commeatu praedaque ingenti} copiantur. (Quad.
hist. 24=21C); . . . ut habeat {ostium ac fenestras} et aquam puram ac {parietes ac cama-
ras munitas tectorio}. (Var. R. 3.8.1); . . . senatui placere Ser. Sulpicio statuam pedes-
trem aeneam in rostris ex huius ordinis sententia statui circumque eam statuam
locum {ludis gladiatoribusque} {liberos posterosque} eius quoquo versus pedes
quinque habere, quod is ob rem publicam mortem obierit, eamque causam in basi
inscribi. (Cic. Phil. 9.16); Haec {diu multumque} et multo labore quaesita una eripuit
hora. (Cic. Sul. 73); . . . si quis apud nos servisset ex populo foederato {seseque liberas-
set et postea domum revenisset} . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.182); Unde et amicitia exsistebat et
{iustitia atque aequitas} . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.23); Adde etiam reconditas {auri argentique}
venas infinitamque vim marmoris. (Cic. N.D. 2.98); . . . se . . . paratosque esse et obsides
dare et imperata facere et oppidis recipere et {frumento ceterisque rebus} iuvare.
(Caes. Gal. 2.3.3); {Sardos Corsosque} et {Histros atque Illyrios} lacessisse magis quam
exercuisse Romana arma . . . (Liv. 21.16.4); . . . ea res uti populo Romano {sociisque ac
nomini Latino} bene ac feliciter eveniret. (Liv. 31.5.4); . . . quia probrosis sermonibus
divum Augustum ac {Tiberium et matrem eius} inlusisset . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.50.1); . . . mis-
susque e senatoribus qui . . . regemque et {socium atque amicum} appellaret. (Tac. Ann.
4.26.2); Super sanguinem et spolia revelant frontem {seque tum demum pretia nas-
cendi rettulisse dignosque patria ac parentibus} ferunt. (Tac. Ger. 31.1)¹⁵⁹
With asyndetically linked conjoins: . . . domum reductus ad vesperum est a patribus
conscriptis ° populo Romano ° {sociis et Latinis} . . . (Cic. Amic. 12); Haec est, inquam,
societas, in qua omnia insunt, quae putant homines expetenda, honestas ° gloria °
{tranquillitas animi atque iucunditas} . . . (Cic. Amic. 84); . . . studioseque ab is
{siderum magnitudines ° intervalla ° cursus} anquirebantur et cuncta caelestia. (Cic.
Tusc. 5.10); . . . enitere per amicos ° clientis ° hospites ° {libertos denique ac servos
tuos} ut scida ne qua depereat. (Cic. Att. 1.20.7); . . . postea quam senatus {consulibus
° praetoribus ° tribunis pl.} et nobis qui pro consulibus sumus negotium dede-
rat . . . (Cic. Fam. 16.11.2)
Examples of disjunctive coordination occurring at various levels are (e)–(h).¹⁶⁰ In (e),

the first si conjoin itself consists of two conjoins linked by seu; aut links the two
¹⁵⁹ For the hierarchical ordering of conjoins in Tacitus, see Gerber and Greef s.v. que 1272Bff. and
elsewhere.
¹⁶⁰ These four examples, as well as some in the Supplement, are taken from TLL s.v. aut 1570.48ff.
Epitactic coordination 
conjoins at the higher level. In (f), multiple aut is used at the lower level and vel at the
higher level. In (g), the first aut functions at the lower level, the second at the higher.
In (h), the same pattern is illustrated with -ve.
(e) . . . {si sumus compecti seu consilium umquam iniimus} / aut si de istac re
umquam inter nos convenimus . . .
(‘. . . if we’ve ever made an agreement or hatched a plan, or if we’ve ever come together
concerning this matter . . .’ Pl. Ps. 543–4)
(f) Quis enim nescit maxime vim exsistere oratoris in hominum mentibus vel
{ad iram aut ad odium aut dolorem incitandis}, vel ab hisce isdem permo-
tionibus ad lenitatem misericordiamque revocandis?
(‘Who indeed does not know that the orator’s virtue is pre-eminently manifested
either in rousing men’s hearts to anger, hatred, or indignation, or in recalling them
from these same passions to mildness and mercy?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.53)
(g) Edepol minime miror {si te fugitat aut oculos tuos}, / aut si te odit . . .
(‘Seriously, I’m not surprised at all if he’s avoiding you or eye-contact with you, or if
he hates you . . .’ Pl. Capt. 545–6)
(h) Magistratus nec oboedientem et noxium civem . . . coherceto, ni {par maiorve}
potestas populusve prohibessit.
(‘Upon the disobedient or guilty citizen the magistrate shall use compulsion . . . unless
an equal or higher authority, or the people, forbid it.’ Cic. Leg. 3.6)
Supplement:
Deinde dubitatio, tum distributio, tum correctio vel {ante vel postquam} dixeris, vel
cum aliquid a te ipso reicias. (Cic. de Orat. 3.203); Ubi enim potest illa aetas aut
{calescere vel apricatione melius vel igni} aut {vicissim umbris aquisve} refrigerari
salubrius}? (Cic. Sen. 57); Denique cur animi numquam mens consiliumque / gigni-
tur in capite aut {pedibus manibusve} . . . (Lucr. 3.615–16); Illa tamen {se / non habitu
mutatve loco} peccatve (v.l. peccatque) superne . . . (Hor. S. 2.7.63–4); . . . causas requi-
ris nec aut tibi ipsi aut {huic Secundo vel huic Apro} ignotas . . . (Tac. Dial. 28.1);
Neque enim {domus munimentis saeptae vel templa muris cincta} aut quid aliud
morae interiacebat. (Tac. Ann. 15.38.2)
19.67 Epitactic coordination

Epitactic coordination, also called ‘epexegetic’ coordination, occurs when some
form of specification is added to a preceding clause or phrase by means of a coordin-
ator, without any proper corresponding conjoin in what precedes.¹⁶¹ Such a specifica-
tion can take various forms. It may be just an additional phrase or word, as in (a) and
¹⁶¹ For the origin of the term ‘epitaxis’, see Rosén (1990; 2008: 205; 2011: 143–5). The 2008 article,
elaborating on Rosén (1990) and (2007b), contains the most thorough discussion of the phenomenon.
 Coordination
(b), or the preceding clause or noun phrase may be repeated, either by restating one
or more words of the clause or noun phrase, as in (c), or in the form of an anaphoric
expression, as in (d). In (a), merito meo is a cause adjunct. In (b), probas is an attribute
of clavas. In (c), prohibiti is repeated from the preceding clause. In (d), anaphoric eos
is substituted for veteranos. Most epitactic expressions follow at the end of a clause or
a noun phrase, but they can be in the middle as well, as in (e). They contain prag-
matically salient information, usually expanding or replacing focus (see § 22.10).
(a) Pauca effugiam, scio. Nam multa evenient, et merito meo, / quia et fugi . . .
(‘I’ll escape precious little, I know: many things will happen, and I deserve them
because I ran away . . .’ Pl. Capt. 971–2)
(b) I dum Turbalio curriculo, affert<o domo> / duas clavas. # Clavas? # Sed
probas. Propera cito.
(‘Go quickly, Turbalio, bring two cudgels from home. # Cudgels? # But make sure
they’re proper ones. Get going, hurry.’ Pl. Rud. 798–9)
(c) Prohibiti estis in provincia vestra pedem ponere, et prohibiti summa cum
iniuria.
(‘You were debarred from setting foot in your province—debarred too with the deep-
est affront.’ Cic. Lig. 24)
(d) Ego autem veteranos tueri debeo, sed eos quibus sanitas est.
(‘Now I have a duty to look after the veterans, but only those of sound sentiments.’
Cic. Phil. 11.37)
(e) Quaeris igitur—idque iam saepius—quod eloquentiae genus probem
maxume . . .
(‘You ask me then, and have done so repeatedly, what style of oratory I most
approve . . .’ Cic. Orat. 3)
The new element in the epitactic conjoin is usually an optional constituent (a satellite
or modifier—for exceptions, see § 19.68, Supplement). The coordinators involved are
the conjunctive (§ 19.68) and adversative (§ 19.69) ones. There are also asyndetic
instances (§ 19.70). Epitactic conjoins can contain particles and adverbs of various
types, as in (f) and (g). See also § 22.4.¹⁶²
(f) Esurio hercle, atque adeo hau salubriter.
(‘I’m hungry and so much so that I can’t be saved.’ Pl. Cas. 801)
(g) Dicitur quidem istuc . . . a Cotta, et vero saepius . . .
(‘This very thing is said by Cotta, and quite often, at that . . .’ Cic. Div. 1.8)
Epitactic coordination is found in all periods of Latin and in all types of text. Epitactic
conjoins are more commonly related to preceding clauses than to phrases, and they
are more often of the simple type, as illustrated by (a). More extended expressions, as
¹⁶² For further examples, see Rosén (2008: 218–21; 2009: 413–16; 2011: 143–6).
Epitactic coordination 
in (c), are uncommon.¹⁶³ Epitactic coordination must not be confused with discon-
tinuous coordination as discussed in § 23.101.
. Conjunctive epitactic coordination
The conjunctive coordinators used for epitactic coordination are ac/atque,¹⁶⁴ et,¹⁶⁵
-que, and nec/neque. Of these, -que is mainly used with resumptive expressions, as in
(e) in § 19.67. Examples of conjunctive epitactic conjoins with clauses are (a)–(c). In
(a) the conjoin is attached by the coordinator alone; in (b), with the addition of
resumptive id; in (c), with repetition of the verb.
(a) Beatum autem esse sine virtute neminem posse: id quoque damus, et libenter
quidem.
(‘But no one can be happy without virtue: this also we grant you, and willingly.’ Cic.
N.D. 1.89)
(b) Iterum iam hic in me inclementer dicit, atque id sine malo.
(‘He’s abusing me a second time already, and without punishment.’ Pl. Am. 742)
(c) Quamdiu quisquam erit qui te defendere audeat vives, et vives ita ut nunc
vivis, multis meis et firmis praesidiis obsessus . . .
(‘So as long as there remains a single man bold enough to defend you, you will live,
and live as you live now, hemmed in by my many steadfast guards . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.6)
Examples of conjunctive epitactic conjoins related to noun phrases are (d)–(f). In (d),
atque simply adds the attribute meus to servos. In (e), anaphoric ii refers to (substan-
tival) multi; in (f), senatus is repeated. For an example of an epitactically coordinated
degree modifier with a (substantivally used) adjective that itself is a repetition of a
preceding adjective, see (g).
(d) Servos ego? # Atque meus.
(‘I’m a slave? # Yes, mine in fact.’ Pl. Cas. 735)
(e) Non lubet enim mihi deplorare vitam, quod multi, et ii docti, saepe fecerunt . . .
(‘I do not mean to complain of life as many men, and they learned ones, have often
done . . .’ Cic. Sen. 84)
(f) In foro . . . cunctus senatus, atque ille senatus quem etiam vos ipsi . . . <laudare
consuevistis> . . .
(‘While in the Forum . . ., the entire senate (such a senate, moreover, as even you . . . are
wont to praise) . . .’ Cic. Rab. Perd. 20)
(g) Pauci enim, atque admodum pauci . . . vel corrumpere mores civitatis vel
corrigere possunt.
¹⁶³ See Rosén (2008: 225–8). ¹⁶⁴ TLL s.v. atque 1050.36ff. ¹⁶⁵ TLL s.v. et 873.81ff.
 Coordination
(‘For a few men—very few, in fact . . . have the power either to corrupt the morals of
the state or to reform them.’ Cic. Leg. 3.32)
Supplement (following the order of the examples above):
Coordinator only: Ego vero, et quidem edepol lubens. (Pl. As. 645); Pol illa (sc. arma)
ad hostis transfugerunt. # Armane? # Atque equidem cito. (Pl. Epid. 30); Eodem
modo anserem alito, nisi prius dato bibere, et bis in die, bis escam. (Cato Agr. 89.1—
NB: continuation with an object constituent); Harum exempla, ut reliquorum loco-
rum, paulo ante posui, et quidem (equidem | edd. pler.) ex iure civili. Sed haec patent
latius. (Cic. Top. 58);¹⁶⁶ At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter. (Cic. Fin. 2.21); Fuisti
saepe, credo, cum Athenis esses, in scholis philosophorum. # Vero, ac libenter qui-
dem. (Cic. Tusc. 2.25); Aranti quattuor sua iugera in Vaticano . . . Cincinnato viator
attulit dictaturam, et quidem, ut traditur, nudo . . . (Plin. Nat. 18.20); Venit in nostras
manus / tandem Thyestes, venit, et totus quidem. (Sen. Thy. 494–5); Non puto illum
capillos liberos habere nec mehercules sua culpa. (Petr. 38.12 (freedman speaking))
NB: Exceptional epitactic arguments: Nam iam huc adveniet miles. # Et miles qui-
dem? (Pl. Bac. 222); . . . quis facile praeter hunc inveniri potest? # Puto posse, et qui-
dem aliquem de tribus nobis. (Cic. Leg. 3.14); Ego vestros patres . . . viros clarissimos
mihique amicissimos vivere arbitror, et eam quidem vitam quae est sola vita nomi-
nanda. (Cic. Sen. 77—cognate object);¹⁶⁷ Animadvertebas igitur . . . versus ab is
admisceri orationi. # Ac multos quidem a Dionysio Stoico. (Cic. Tusc. 2.26)
With anaphoric id: Duxi, habui scortum, potavi, dedi, donavi, et enim id raro. (Pl.
Bac. 1081—NB: et emended in various ways);¹⁶⁸ Quia pol te unum ex omnibus /
Venus me voluit magnuficare, neque id haud immerito tuo. (Pl. Men. 370–1); Quod
vero dicere ausus es—idque multis verbis—opera mea Pompeium a Caesaris amicitia
esse diiunctum . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.23)
With repetition of the verb: Dixit, et bis quidem dixit. (Cic. Clu. 103); . . . quod et
fecimus et, ut spero, non frustra fecimus . . . (Cic. Lig. 14—NB: correlative coordin-
ation); Erras, et vehementer erras. (Sen. Con. 9.5.3)
Attribute expanding a noun phrase: Numquae advenienti aegritudo obiecta est? #
Atque acerruma. (Pl. Bac. 538); Quadrigentos filios habet, atque equidem omnis lec-
tos sine probro. (Pl. Bac. 974); Liberatu’ sum hodie, Dave, tua opera. # Ac nullus
quidem. (Ter. An. 370); Caput eius recisum cum dextera manu ad regem reportatum
ludibrio fuit, neque indigno. (Flor. Epit. 1.46.10)
Anaphoric pronoun expanding a noun phrase: . . . Callisthenes, comes Alexandri,
scripsit historiam, et is quidem rhetorico paene more. (Cic. de Orat. 2.58); Ex quo
genere ea sunt sidera quae infixa caelo non moventur loco, quae sunt animantia,
eaque divina . . .(Cic. Tim. 36); Ingemescere non numquam viro concessum est, idque
raro, eiulatus ne mulieri quidem. (Cic. Tusc. 2.55); Neque esse crudele, sicut plerique
proponunt, hominum nocentium, et horum quoque paucorum, suppliciis, remedia
populis innocentibus saeculorum omnium quaeri. (Cels. 1. pr. 26); Dicitur ius: ad
assem impendium reddes, nec id modicum. (Plin. Ep. 1.15.1)
With the noun repeated: Nolle hoc accipere reum ab accusatore, et eum reum qui
praetor in Sicilia fuerit, aratores ei statuam sua voluntate statuisse, aratores de eo
¹⁶⁶ See Reinhardt ad loc. ¹⁶⁷ See Rosén (1996: 145–7; 2008: 208–9).
¹⁶⁸ See Rosén (2007b).
Epitactic coordination 
bene existimare, amicos esse, salvum esse cupere! (Cic. Ver. 2.151); Uva uva sum, et
uva Falerna. (Annian. poet. 1)
Instead of repeating the verb in the conjoin, facio can be used instead, as in (h).¹⁶⁹
(h) Suscepi causam, Torquate, suscepi, et feci libenter . . .
(‘I have undertaken the case, Torquatus, I have undertaken the case, and done so
gladly . . .’ Cic. Sul. 20)
An epitactic conjoin can contain the emphasizing particle quidem, as in (a) above and
in (i) and (j).¹⁷⁰ There are a few instances of ac/atque + equidem, as in (k). For other
particles, see the Supplement.¹⁷¹
(i) Tun’ me vidisti? # Atque his quidem hercle oculis.
(‘You’ve seen me? # Yes, and with these eyes.’ Pl. Mil. 368)
(j) At erat mecum senatus, et quidem veste mutata . . .
(‘But the senate was with me, even changing its garments . . .’ Cic. Planc. 87)
(k) O lepidum senem, in se si quas memorat virtutis habet, / atque equidem
plane educatum in nutricatu Venerio.
(‘What a lovely semi-old man, if he has the qualities he’s talking about, and clearly
brought up in Venus’ nurture.’ Pl. Mil. 649–50)
Supplement (see also the Supplement above):
Hem / conligavit? # Atque quidem orante ut ne id faceret Thaide. (Ter. Eu. 955–6);¹⁷²
Ego vero (sc. pergam), atque hilare quidem a te acceptus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.290); Ego
autem ne irasci quidem possum iis quos valde amo. Tantum doleo, ac mirifice qui-
dem. (Cic. Att. 2.19.1)
Proinde istuc facias ipse quod faciamus nobis suades. / # Ego vero, et quidem ede-
pol lubens. (Pl. As. 644–5); In te, M. Antoni, id decrevit senatus, et quidem incolu-
mis . . . (Cic. Phil. 2.51); Ego lanista? Et quidem non insipiens. (Cic. Phil. 13.40); Nunc
reliquorum oratorum aetates, si placet, et gradus persequamur. # Nobis vero, <inquit>
Atticus, et vehementer quidem . . . (Cic. Brut. 122); . . . Callisthenes, comes Alexandri,
scripsit historiam, et is quidem rhetorico paene more. (Cic. de Orat. 2.58); Cupit
regnum, et quidem scelerate cupit . . . (Liv. 40.11.7)
. . . facile intellectu cuivis fuit qualisnam accusatio futura esset, cuius qui fuerat
professor et machinator idem fieri auctor timeret, ac praesertim Sicinius
Aemilianus . . . (Apul. Apol. 2)
‘Solent’ inquit ‘haec fieri, et praecipue in hac civitate . . .’ (Petr. 129.10); . . . iis
plerumque quae composita domo attulerunt contenti sine adversario dicunt, et scili-
cet multo magis in scholis . . . (Quint. Inst. 5.13.36); . . . maior esse debet eo quem sibi
¹⁶⁹ For further examples, see Rosén (2008: 222–3).

¹⁷⁰ This is what Solodow (1978: 110–19) calls the ‘extending’ use of quidem. See also Kroon (2004a:
206–7; 2009b: 152–3) and Orlandini (2005: 164–6). For Cicero’s usage, see Stamm (1885).
¹⁷¹ See Rosén (2011: 144).
¹⁷² Atque quidem is attested only here in the PHI corpus. Donatus has equidem, which some editors
print. At Pl. Epid. 30 editors read equidem for ms. quidem. For a number of passages where editors vary,
see TLL s.v. equidem 722.72ff.
 Coordination
per adrogationem vel per adoptionem filium facit, et utique plenae pubertatis.
(Mod. dig. 1.7.40.1)
. Adversative epitactic coordination
The main coordinator used in adversative epitactic coordination is sed. As one would
expect given its adversative semantic value, sed appears commonly after commands
and other directive expressions, as well as after explicit statements of opinion.
However, its distribution widens over time and it is not always easy to understand
which element in the preceding context contrasts with the sed segment. It develops
into a device used to create emphasis and becomes more or less equivalent to et.¹⁷³
Examples of adversative epitactic conjoins with clauses are (a) and (b). In (a) the
conjoin is attached by the coordinator alone; in (b), with the—rare—addition of ana-
phoric id.¹⁷⁴
(a) Immo vero etiam quid futurum sit perscribe ad me omnia, sed diligentis-
sime, in primisque num quid iudiciorum status aut factorum aut futurorum
etiam laboret.
(‘But I should add “what is going to happen,” give me full and comprehensive reports,
really conscientious ones, and first whether the state of the trials, past or future too,
is unsatisfactory.’ Cic. Att. 5.13.3)
(b) Primo ita me pupugit ut somnum mihi ademerit, sed id cogitatione magis
quam molestia.
(‘It gave me such a shock at first that sleep became impossible, but rather from activ-
ity than distress of mind.’ Cic. Att. 2.16.1)
Examples of adversative epitactic conjoins related to noun phrases are (c)–(e).¹⁷⁵ In

(c) sed simply adds the attribute duos to gladios, which is understood and supplied
from the preceding gladium. In (d), anaphoric is refers to quaestus; in (e), Iuppiter is
repeated.
(c) Sed etiamne habet nunc Casina gladium? / # Habet, sed duos.
(‘But does Casina still have a sword? She does, but she actually has two.’ Pl. Cas. 691–2)
(d) . . . in quo erat aliqui quaestus, sed is honestus atque concessus . . .
(‘. . . a thing that meant considerable gain, but gain of a respectable and recognized
kind . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.195)
(e) . . . quem Iuppiter genuit, sed tertius Iuppiter, quoniam, ut iam docebo, pluris
Ioves etiam accepimus.
¹⁷³ Sz.: 487 calls it ‘bloße Hervorhebung’. For the diachronic development, see Väänänen (1987: 118)
and Rosén (2008: 218).
¹⁷⁴ I have not found instances of repetition of the verb in an adversative epitactic conjoin.
¹⁷⁵ For sed, see Rosén (2007b).
Epitactic coordination 
(‘. . . whose male progenitor was Jupiter, that is Jupiter number three, since, as I will
now explain, tradition tells us of several Jupiters also.’ Cic. N.D. 3.42)
An exceptional case is (f) wherein the adverb mane is repeated in combination with
the degree-of-truth adverb plane ‘absolutely’.
(f) Rogo mane videas Plinium domi, sed plane mane . . .
(‘Please see Pliny at his home early in the morning—but really quite early in the
morning . . .’ Plin. Ep. 1.5.8)
Supplement (following the order of the examples above):
Coordinator only: Vera dico, sed nequiquam, quoniam non vis credere. (Pl. Am.
835); Aperi, deprome inde auri ad hanc rem quod sat est, / continuo operito denuo,
sed clanculum, / sicut praecepi. (Pl. Trin. 803–5); Magis eum delectabat Neoptolemus
Ennii, qui se ait philosophari velle, sed paucis. Nam omnino haud placere. (Cic. Rep.
1.30); . . . dicamque, si potero, rhetorice, sed hac rhetorica philosophorum, non nos-
tra illa forensi . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.17); . . . et saepe idoneis hominibus indigentibus de re
familiari impertiendum, sed diligenter atque moderate. (Cic. Off. 2.54); Eos dico qui
aiunt manere animos, cum e corpore excesserint, sed non semper. (Cic. Tusc. 1.78 ); . . .
aliquot simul partibus ad vallum ac fossas perventum est, sed cum multis vulneribus
ac militum pernicie. (Liv. 25.14.1); . . . promisit, sed difficulter, sed subductis super-
ciliis, sed malignis et vix exeuntibus verbis? (Sen. Ben. 1.1.6)
Proelium commissum atrox, ceterum longe disparibus animis. (Liv. 10.41.1); . . .
dicebant . . . lege istius impediri. Erat hoc verum. Nam impediebantur, verum ea lege
quam idem iste de Macedonia Syriaque tulerat. (Cic. Dom. 70); Permittente ergo
Gaio revocatus est, verum sub condicione ne quam partem curamve rei publicae
attingeret. (Suet. Tib. 13.2)
Attributes expanding a noun phrase: Tum Scipio: Atqui nactus es (sc. me), sed
mehercule otiosiorem opera quam animo. (Cic. Rep. 1.14—NB: conjoin corrects an
understood object complement otiosum); Quippe <Q>. Pompeius, collega Sullae, ab
exercitu Cn. Pompei proconsulis seditione, sed quam dux <ex>citaverat interfectus
est. (Vell. 2.20.1—NB: adnominal relative clause); . . . scalis habito tribus, sed altis.
(Mart. 1.117.1—NB: ‘et quidem altis’ Citroni ad loc.); Artissime namque complexa
totum me prorsus, sed totum recepit. (Apul. Met. 10.22.3—NB: Scriverius transferred
prorsus to the second totum, which is easier); . . . in medio loco est monticulus non
satis grandis sed factus sicut solent esse tumbae, sed grandes. (Pereg. 13.3)
NB: With the conjoin in the middle of the clause: Timentes rursus aliquid ne simile
accidat, / odore canibus anum, sed multo, replent. (Phaedr. 4.19.18–19); Ostendit
digitum, sed impudicum, / Alconti Dasioque Symmachoque. (Mart. 6.70.5–6); . . .
vindictam tuae parenti, sed plenam, tribue . . . (Apul. Met. 4.31.1)
Anaphoric pronouns expanding a noun phrase: Venit ad nos ex iis quos amamus
etiam absentibus gaudium, sed id leve et evanidum. (Sen. Ep. 35.3); In universum
autem quidquid probandum est erit caput, sed id maius aut minus. (Quint. Inst.
3.11.27)
Super terga gladii et scuta, verum ea Numidica ex coriis . . . (Sal. Jug. 94.1)
With the noun repeated: . . . gentes eloquentiam in civitatibus plurimum valere pas-
sae sunt, sed hanc eloquentiam quae . . . (Cic. Orat. 97)
 Coordination
NB: With the conjoin in the middle of the clause: Hic ex Antoni amicis—sed
amicioribus libertatis—contra Antonium confecit exercitum. (Cic. Phil. 5.44)
. Asyndetic epitactic coordination
From a systematic point of view, examples that manifest some of the characteristics of
the previous ‘syndetic’ sections, but that lack an overt coordinator, might be expected.
The proposed instances, however, are subject to doubt. Two of these are (a) and (b).¹⁷⁶
In (a), intempestiva quidem et inprovisa can also be taken as a non-restrictive attribute
or as appositive, the more so because it is explained in a following cum clause; in (b),
graviter quidem can alternatively be taken as a degree modifier with iratus. Another
example is (c), where some editors delete id, others start a new sentence. Noteworthy is
(d), where quidem is inserted in the prepositional phrase, following the preposition.¹⁷⁷
(a) Non enim preces sunt istud sed efflagitatio—intempestiva quidem et inpro-
visa, cum aliis de rebus convenerint patres . . .
(‘For this is no petition, but a demand—an unseasonable and unexpected demand,
when the senators have a session for other purposes . . .’ Tac. Ann. 2.38.2)
(b) Tibi quoque edepol sum iratus, Philumena, / graviter quidem.
(‘In heaven’s name, Philumena, I’m angry with you too, exceedingly so.’ Ter. Hec.
623–4)
(c) Reliquas omnes munitiones ab ea fossa pedes CCCC reduxit, id hoc con-
silio . . . ne de improviso aut noctu ad munitiones multitudo hostium advo-
laret . . ..
(‘He set back the rest of the siege-work four hundred paces from the trench, this with
the intention to provide against any sudden rush of the enemy’s host by night upon
the entrenchments . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.72.2)
(d) Iam mater rure rediit? Responde mihi. / # Cum quidem salute familiai maxuma.
(‘Has my mother come back from the country? Answer me. # Yes, and she has
brought great well-being to our household.’ Pl. Mer. 810–11)
19.71 Quasi-coordinators
The term quasi-coordinator is used in this Syntax for expressions that behave like
coordinators but that, at least etymologically, do not belong to the class of coordinators
¹⁷⁶ The case for asyndetic epitactic coordination has been made by Rosén (2011: 143–5).
¹⁷⁷ The PHI corpus contains no other instances of quidem following a preposition, it seems. The ms.
has afamilia. Camerarius emended to sua quidem salute ac familiai.
Quasi-coordinators 
proper.¹⁷⁸ Latin nedum and the correlative pairs cum . . . tum and ut . . . ita can be said
to belong to this class.
. The quasi-coordinating use of nedum
The word nedum ‘let alone’ is used to link clauses, as in (a) and (b) and—much more
often—constituents, such as the two noun phrases in (c) and (d). It can also be used
to link subordinate clauses, such as the two accusative and infinitive clauses in (e), but
this is rare. There are over 200 attestations of its use, mainly in prose (almost a quarter
of which are in Tertullian).¹⁷⁹
(a) Satrapes si siet / amator, numquam sufferre eius sumptus queat, / nedum tu
possis.
(‘If she had a satrap for a lover, he’d never be able to sustain her extravagance, much
less you.’ Ter. Hau. 452–4)¹⁸⁰
(b) (sc. viros) . . . qui vel in pace tranquilla bellum excitare possent, nedum in
bello respirare civitatem forent passuri.
(‘. . . who even in unruffled peace were capable of stirring up war, and were still less
likely in time of war to allow the state a breathing-spell.’ Liv. 26.26.11)
(c) Erat enim multo domicilium huius urbis (sc. Romae) . . . aptius humanitati et
suavitati tuae quam tota Peloponnesus, nedum Patrae.
(‘For a residence in this city . . . was much better suited to your culture and refinement
than all the Peloponnesus put together, to say nothing of Patrae.’ Cic. Fam. 7.28.1)
(d) Vix clamorem eorum, nedum impetum Suessetani tulere.
(‘The Suessetani scarcely waited for them to raise the shout, much less for them to
charge.’ Liv. 34.20.7)
(e) Haud sum ignarus fabulosum visum iri tantum ullis mortalium securitatis
fuisse in civitate omnium gnara et nihil reticente, nedum consulem designa-
tum cum uxore principis . . . convenisse . . .
(‘It will seem, I am aware, incredible that, in a city cognizant of all things and reticent
of none, any human beings could have felt so much security; far more so, that . . . a
consul designate and the emperor’s wife should have met . . .’ Tac. Ann. 11.27)
In these examples, nedum has a scalar function: the content of the second element is
either more or less valid than that of the first. In (a) and (b), nedum is interpreted as
‘much less’; (a) has a negative preceding clause; (b), an affirmative. The situation is
¹⁷⁸ The term is used by Quirk et al. (1985: 982–3).

¹⁷⁹ For data and discussion, see Pascucci (1961), Dupraz (2013), Goldstein (2013), Bertocchi and
Maraldi (2015: 521–2), Orlandini and Poccetti (2016), and especially Schrickx (2016; 2018). See also TLL
s.v. For diachronic considerations, see Fleck (2017).
¹⁸⁰ In § 8.46 this example is discussed as an instance of epexegetic negation, which now seems less
appropriate.
 Coordination
Table . Interpretation of nedum

First element Second element
nedum + clause nedum + constituent
semantic negation ‘much less’ ‘much less’
lexical/pragmatic negation or affirmative ‘much less’ ‘much more’
different for nedum when it introduces a constituent: in (c) and (e), nedum is inter-
preted as ‘much more’; in (d), with a preceding negative adverb, as ‘much less’. This is
shown in Table 19.4.¹⁸¹
The categorial status and etymology of nedum are disputed.¹⁸² It is clearly not a sub-
ordinator, given the fact that it can link two clauses which are both accusative and
infinitive constructions, as it does in (e). Although it can be used in the combination
nedum ut (see below), it is not an adverb either. The use of the subjunctive in a nedum
clause is semantically justified. In this Syntax it is regarded as a quasi-coordinator:
the linked constituents are subject to the same constraints as in the case of regular
coordination (see § 19.75).
Supplement:
Nedum + clause: Optimis hercule temporibus . . . tamen nec P. Popilius neque
Q. Metellus . . . vim tribuniciam sustinere potuerunt, nedum his temporibus . . . salvi
esse possimus. (Cic. Clu. 95); Ego vero ne inmortalitatem quidem contra rem publi-
cam accipiendam putarem, nedum emori cum pernicie rei publicae vellem. (Cic.
Planc. 90); . . . vix cancellis et regionibus offici magnis in fortunis et copiis continetur,
nedum isti . . . non statim conquisituri sint aliquid sceleris et flagitii . . . (Cic. Agr. 2.97);
Quis enim mediocri prudentia, nedum Tiberius tantis rebus exercitus, inaudito filio
exitium offerret . . .? (Tac. Ann. 4.11.1—NB: rhetorical question); Fabium illis
Valentem . . . praegravem fuisse, nedum Primus ac Fuscus et specimen partium
Mucianus ullam in Vitellium nisi occidendi licentiam habeant. (Tac. Hist. 3.66.3)
Nedum + constituent: Quinctius, quem armorum etiam pro patria satietas teneret,
nedum adversus patriam . . . (Liv. 7.40.3); . . . puerum vixdum libertatem, nedum
dominationem modice laturum. (Liv. 24.4.1); . . . quorum iudicis (= iudiciis) (sc.
Livia) etiam si non contin/gere[n]t domum eorum merito gloriari posset
nedum tam coniunctis necessitu/dinibus inligata femina. (S.C. de Gn. Pisone
patre, 143–5 (ad )); . . . ornamenta etiam legioni, nedum militi satis multa. (V. Max.
3.2.24); . . . quia regibus aequa, nedum infima insolita sunt, finem vitae sponte an fato
implevit. (Tac. Ann. 2.42.3); . . . iterato beneficio gratus esto, nedum ampliato. (Tert.
Paenit. 7.11); Damnatus . . . in possessionem Satanae iam tunc perierat ecclesiae, cum
tale facinus admiserat, nedum cum et ab ipsa eierabatur. (Tert. Pud. 14.24); . . . etiam
domorum, nedum urbium interna noscentes. (Amm. 31.16.1)
The combination nedum ut is attested about seven times from Livy onwards as an
introduction of clauses with the same meaning as nedum ‘much less’, as in (f). A
strange case of inversion is (g).
¹⁸¹ Adapted from Schrickx (2016: 127).

¹⁸² For discussion and references, see Pascucci (1961) and Schrickx (2016).
Quasi-coordinators 
(f) (sc. tribuni) . . . refecti quoque in insequentem annum, ne voce quidem incom-
moda, nedum ut ulla vis fieret.
(‘. . . they were even re-elected for the following year, by avoiding so much as an offen-
sive word, to say nothing of any sort of violence.’ Liv. 3.14.6)
(g) Nedum hominum humilium, ut nos sumus, sed etiam amplissimorum viro-
rum consilia ex eventu, non ex voluntate a plerisque probari solent.
(‘Advice, even the advice of great men, let alone of humble folk like us, is generally
judged by the event, not by the intention.’ Balb. Opp. Att. 9.7a.1)
There are a few cases in which ne = nedum, as in (h).

(h) Me vero nihil istorum ne iuvenem quidem movit umquam, ne nunc senem.
(‘As for me, even when I was young I was never attracted by anything of that sort,
much less now that I am old.’ Cic. Fam. 9.26.2)
Supplement:
Igitur ii milites, postquam victoriam adepti sunt, nihil relicui victis fecere. Quippe
secundae res sapientium animos fatigant, ne illi conruptis moribus victoriae tempe-
rarent. (Sal. Cat. 11.7–8); Novam inexpertamque eam potestatem eripuere patribus
nostris, ne nunc dulcedine semel capti ferant desiderium . . . (Liv. 3.52.9); . . . nec nunc
adulteria obiecturum ait, ne domum servitia et ceteros fortunae paratus reposceret.
(Tac. Ann. 11.30.2)¹⁸³
NB: ne ut = nedum ut: Si illud quod volumus dicitur, palam quom mentiuntur, /
verum esse insciti credimus, ne ut iusta utamur ira. (Pl. Truc. 192);¹⁸⁴ Quae mihi ne
in mediocribus quidem civitatibus unquam defuere, ne ut Karthagini desint . . . (Apul.
Flor. 16.46)
. The use of the combination cum . . . tum as a correlative

conjunctive quasi-coordinator
The use of cum . . . tum as a coordinating device for constituents at or below the clause
level is found in all types of text from Cicero’s time onwards. It developed from the use
of these two words in correlative clauses, which is found from Early Latin onwards.
Exx. (a) and (b) illustrate this correlative use. That the cum clause is no longer a sub-
ordinate is clear from the fact that both clauses must have an infinitive in the accusa-
tive and infinitive construction in indirect speech, as in (c). Ex. (d) and the Supplement
illustrate the use of cum . . . tum as a coordinating device with constituents.¹⁸⁵
(a) Quom ego antidhac te amavi et mi amicam esse crevi, / mea Gymnasium, et
matrem tuam, tum id mihi hodie / aperuistis, tu atque haec.
¹⁸³ This instance of ne is much disputed, but correct. See Heubner (1964: 141–3).
¹⁸⁴ Ut iusta is a conjecture of Bugge and Buecheler for incomprehensible readings of A and P. Pl. Cas.
1002 ut ne eam amasso (indicative!) is suspect.
¹⁸⁵ For further examples, see OLD s.v. cum § 14 b. For discussion, see Orlandini and Poccetti (2008:
181–2). Exx. (b) and (c) are taken from their article. See also Orlandini and Poccetti (2009).
 Coordination
(‘I’ve always loved you and decided that you were my friend, my dear Gymnasium,
and also your mother, but today you’ve revealed it, you and she.’ Pl. Cist. 1–3)
(b) Nam cum omnis iuventus, omnes etiam gravioris aetatis . . . eo convenerant,
tum navium quod ubique fuerat unum in locum coegerant.
(‘For, on the one hand, all the fighting men, or more so all the older men . . . had there
assembled; on the other, they had collected in one place every single ship they had
anywhere.’ Caes. Gal. 3.16.2)
(c) . . . eas (sc. res) a Stoicis esse perspectas eisdemque de rebus hos cum acutius
disseruisse tum sensisse gravius et fortius . . .
(‘. . . these things were perceived by the Stoics and they had discussed the same sub-
jects with more insight and had arrived at bolder and more profound conclusions . . .’
Cic. Fin. 4.62)
(d) Itaque et alieni sermonis molesti interpellatores et scripti cum odiosi tum
obscuri interpretes sunt.
(‘Accordingly, when someone else speaks, they are his annoying hecklers, and when
he writes, they are his boring and hazy interpreters.’ Rhet. Her. 2.16)
Supplement:
Nam cum omnium sociorum provinciarumque rationem diligenter habere debetis,
tum praecipue Siciliae, iudices . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.2); Te valde amamus nosque a te amari
cum volumus, tum etiam confidimus. (Cic. Fam. 7.14.2); Itaque cum et alii multi,
tum etiam Faberius scriba . . . peristyliis parietes omnes induxit minio . . . (Vitr.
7.9.2); . . . Saleium Bassum, cum optimum virum tum absolutissimum poetam? (Tac.
Dial. 5.2)
. The use of the combination ut . . . ita (sic) as a

correlative coordinator
The combination ut . . . ita (less commonly sic) is used to coordinate constituents at or

below the clause level from Terence onwards, as in (a) and (b). This use resembles that
of cum . . . tum (§ 19.73). For its use in comparisons, see § 20.25.
(a) Tum Phormio itidem in hac re ut in aliis strenuom hominem praebuit.
(‘And Phormio too has proved a staunch ally, in the same way as he has in other mat-
ters.’ Ter. Ph. 476)
(b) Ut in suis rebus, ita in re publica luxuriosus <est> nepos . . .
(‘Just as with his own property, so in the case of the republic he is a profligate
spender . . .’ Cic. Agr. 2.48)
Supplement:
Postremo corporis et fortunae bonorum ut initium sic finis est . . . (Sal. Jug. 2.3);
Centuriones statione deserta itidem ut manipulares capitali animadversione
puniit . . . (Suet. Aug. 24.2)
Less common types of coordination 
The combination can also be used as a correlative adversative coordinator of clauses

meaning ‘while . . . at the same time’, as in (c) and (d).¹⁸⁶
(c) Nam ut ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promptus est animus, sic
mollis ac minime resistens ad calamitates ferendas mens eorum est.
(‘To the extent that the temper of the Gauls is eager and ready to undertake a cam-
paign, likewise their purpose is feeble and in no way steadfast to endure disasters.’
Caes. Gal. 3.19.6—NB: the comparative element is still noticeable)
(d) Saguntini ut a proeliis quietem habuerant nec lacessentes nec lacessiti per
aliquot dies, ita non nocte, non die unquam cessaverant ab opere . . .
(‘The Saguntines, though they had had a rest from fighting, neither attacking nor
being attacked for several days, stopped working at no time during either the night or
day. . .’ Liv. 21.11.5)
19.75 Less common types of coordination

The normal type of coordination, amply illustrated in the preceding sections, is
one in which two or more constituents of a clause or of a constituent at or below
the clause level are functionally equivalent, that is, the conjoins have the same
semantic function and usually also the same syntactic function. An example is (a),
where two nouns, pater and filius, both functioning as subject, are coordinated by
et . . . et. In this case the two conjoins also belong to the same lexical category—
both are common nouns—but this is not a necessary condition, as is shown by (b),
wherein a personal pronoun, a proper name, and a noun phrase with a common
noun are coordinated.
(a) Egit autem et pater et filius ut tibi sponderem . . .
(‘Both father and son have asked me to be his guarantor with you . . .’ Cic. Att. 16.1.6)
(b) Quoius modi hisce homines erunt? / # Ego et Menaechmus et parasitus eius.
(‘What sort of people will they be? # Myself and Menaechmus and his hanger-on.’ Pl.
Men. 221–2)
The following sections deal with less typical instances of coordination. Coordination
of constitutents which are functionally equivalent but belong to different lexical cat-
egories is dealt with in §§ 19.76–9. Cases of functionally unequivalent coordination
are discussed in § 19.80. Thereafter follow three sections with types of coordination
that have received much attention in the literature.
¹⁸⁶ For further examples, see OLD s.v. ut § 5b.

 Coordination
. Coordination of two or more functionally equivalent

conjoins belonging to different lexical categories
Coordination of two or more functionally equivalent conjoins that belong to different

lexical categories is attested from Early Latin onwards and is duly recorded in diction-
aries for individual authors, as well as in general dictionaries. Some authors exploited
the inherent possibilities of the language systematically and thus developed a style
that is marked by variatio (or: inconcinnitas). Virgil and Tacitus are good examples of
this phenomenon.¹⁸⁷ The sections that follow illustrate the occurrence of this
phenomenon with several types of constituents. No attempt is made to give a repre-
sentative survey.
. Coordination of nouns and noun phrases with

constituents that belong to other lexical categories
Noun phrases can be coordinated with various types of constituents depending on the
function they themselves fulfil. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), the noun phrase mala
merx functions as subject complement and is coordinated with the adjective callida,
which also functions as subject complement. In (b), the noun phrase tua . . . opera, a
cause adjunct, is coordinated with a prepositional phrase that has the same function
(see §§ 10.79–80). In (c), the means adjunct lustris is coordinated with the gerundial
clause male suadendo, which has the same function (see § 16.101). In (d), the noun
phrase meum parentum functions as attribute of nomen; it is coordinated with the
possessive adjective meum, which functions in the same way with the same noun. In
(e), the noun phrases animi magnitudinem and iustitiam, both objects, are coordin-
ated with the argument clause ut . . . iudicet, which is also the object of complectitur.
(a) Mala merx, era, haec et callida est.
(‘My mistress, this woman’s a bad piece of work and she’s sly.’ Pl. Cist. 727)
(b) Tua sum opera et propter te improbior?
(‘Am I less respectable now because of your effort and because of you?’ Pl. Bac. 1201)
(c) Vos faenori, hi male suadendo et lustris lacerant homines.
(‘You tear people to pieces with your interest, they do it by encouraging people to
behave badly and through brothels.’ Pl. Cur. 508)
(d) Quis tu homo es, qui meum parentum nomen memoras et meum?
(‘Who are you? You’re stating the names of my parents and of myself.’ Pl. Epid. 637)
(e) Sapientia enim et animi magnitudinem complectitur et iustitiam et ut omnia
quae homini accidant infra se esse iudicet . . .
¹⁸⁷ For Virgil, see Hahn (1930); for Tacitus, see Longrée (1998; 2001) and especially Sánchez
Martínez (2000). See also Helander (1977: 96–8) on ‘inconcinnity’.
Less common types of coordination 
(‘For wisdom includes also magnanimity and justice and a sense that everything that
befalls humankind is beneath it.’ Cic. Fin. 3.25)
Supplement:
. . . haec est mea et huius fratris mei germana patria. (Cic. Leg. 2.3); An quisquam in
potiendis voluptatibus gloriando se et praedicatione effert? (Cic. Parad. 15); Phalaris,
cuius in similitudinem dominatus unius proclivi cursu et facile delabitur. (Cic.
Rep. 1.44)
. . . nisi qui colaphos perpeti / potes parasitus frangique aulas in caput, / vel
ire . . . licet. (Pl. Capt. 88–90); Dubitationem autem de Epiro non inconstantia nostra
adferebat sed quod de fratre ubi eum visuri essemus nesciebamus. (Cic. Att. 3.7.3);
Perscribe ad me omnia, sed diligentissime, in primisque num quid iudiciorum status
aut factorum aut futurorum etiam laboret. (Cic. Att. 5.13.3)
NB: understood object and indirect question: De Rutilia quoniam videris dubitare,
scribes Ø ad me cum scies, sed quam primum, et num Clodia D. Bruto consulari, filio
suo, mortuo vixerit. (Cic. Att. 12.22.2—NB: et is absent in most mss)
. Coordination of adjectives with constituents that

belong to other lexical categories
Coordination of adjectives and noun phrases is shown in § 19.77, exx. (a) and (d). See
also (a) below for another example at the noun phrase level, where the adjective is
coordinated with a noun phrase in the genitive (genetivus qualitatis). Adjectives and
prepositional phrases can be coordinated both when used as subject complements, as
in (b), and when used attributively, as in (c). Also compare the coordinated apposi-
tives in (d), with a noun phrase in the ablative as well.
(a) O vitam honestam atque eius modi ut libentibus animis ad eius testimonium
vestrum ius iurandum accommodetis!
(‘An honourable character, and one of such a sort that you should be ready to adapt
your verdict to its evidence!’ Cic. S. Rosc. 101)
(b) . . . quae et honesta actio sit et sine dolore, eam magis esse expetendam . . .
(‘. . . an action which is both morally good and not attended by pain is more desir-
able . . .’ Cic. Fin. 3.44)
(c) . . . qualine amico mea commendavi bona? / # Probo et fideli et fido et cum
magna fide.
(‘. . .What sort of friend did I entrust my possessions to? # To one who is decent, reli-
able, trustworthy, and of great faithfulness.’ Pl. Trin. 1095–6)
(d) . . . sed Cn. Mallium, non solum ignobilem, verum sine virtute, sine ingenio,
vita etiam contempta ac sordida.
(‘. . . but Gnaeus Malius, who was not merely low-born, but without scruple, without
talent, whose life indeed was degraded and despicable.’ Cic. Planc. 12)
 Coordination
Supplement:
Eugae, eugae, di me salvom et servatum volunt. (Pl. Aul. 677); Uxor tibi placida et
placata est. (Pl. Mer. 965)
Pro di immortales, mulierem lepidam et pudico ingenio. (Pl. Mos. 206); . . . ad
Caepasios fratres confugit, homines industrios atque eo animo ut quaecumque
dicendi potestas esset data in honore atque in beneficio ponerent. (Cic. Clu. 57); . . . bene-
ficium populi Romani cum vestra atque omnium civium salute tueatur. (Cic. Mur. 2);
Barba demissa, sordidatus, cum criminibus meis ad vos veni. (Sen. Con. 10.1.2)
Incertum’st quid agam, quia praeter spem atque incredibile hoc mi optigit. (Ter. Ph.
239); Honesta oratio, sed ita si bonos et utilis et e re publica civis. (Cic. Phil. 8.13); . . .
T. Iuventius . . . et callidus et in capiendo adversario versutus et praeterea nec indoc-
tus et magna cum iuris civilis intellegentia. (Cic. Brut. 178); Cetera par concors et sine
lite fuit. (Ov. Pont. 3.2.88); . . . ut caelestia dona, / artis opus tantae, rudis et sine pec-
tore miles / indueret? (Ov. Met. 13.289–91); Praecipueque ex his oritur mira sublimi-
tas, quae audaci et proxime periculum translatione tolluntur . . . (Quint. Inst. 8.6.11)
Obiecisti mihi ultimum nefas et quod qui tantum suspicatus est noluit vivere. (Sen.
Con. 8.3.fin.)
In primis autem miraculo sunt atque frequentes (frequentia/frequenter codd.)
mortes repentinae—hoc est summa vitae felicitas—quas esse naturales docebimus.
(Plin. Nat. 7.180—NB: text as emended by Rackham)
. Coordination of adverbs with constituents that

belong to other lexical categories
Examples of coordination of an adverb with a constituent that belongs to another
lexical category are (a)–(c). In (a), the manner adverb is coordinated with a noun
phrase in the ablative (the so-called ablativus modi); in (b), with a prepositional
phrase; in (c), with a manner adjunct clause (see § 16.34).
(a) Sapienter factum et consilio bono.

(‘Done sensibly and with good planning.’ Pl. Aul. 477)
(b) (sc. ager) . . . quo cum labore magno et misere viveret.
(‘. . . he could live on it with great toil and miserably.’ Pl. Aul. 14)
(c) Recte loquere et proinde diligentem ut uxorem decet.
(‘You speak properly and just as is appropriate for a diligent wife.’ Pl. Am. 973)
Supplement:
Verum id videndum est . . . / tranquille cuncta ut proveniant et sine malo . . . (Pl. Mos.
412–14); Aliquanto liberius et fortius et magis more nostro refutaremus istam male
dicendi licentiam. (Cic. Cael. 7); . . . id eum exercitumque eius, municipia, colonias
provinciae Galliae recte atque ordine exque re publica fecisse et facere. (Cic. Phil.
3.38); . . . quod officiose et amice et cum labore aliquo suo factum queant dicere. (Cic.
Amic. 71)
Less common types of coordination 
. Coordination of two or more functionally

unequivalent conjoins
Coordination of two or more conjoins that have different syntactic and/or semantic
functions is less common than the type of coordination discussed in the preceding
sections. Particularly rare is the coordination of two or more arguments with different
functions, as occurs in (a), a passive clause in which the subject/patient and the agent
are coordinated. (Note that multo goes both with plura and with pluribus.) More
frequent are instances of coordination of arguments and adjuncts, as in (b).¹⁸⁸
Coordination of adjuncts with different semantic functions is not uncommon, but
instances like (c) are rare. These forms of coordination seem to be more acceptable in
interrogative sentences and clauses, as in (d).
(a) Intellego, iudices, in causa aperta minimeque dubia multo et plura et a pluri-
bus peritissimis esse dicta quam res postularet.
(‘I am aware, gentlemen, that in a case which is so clear and admits of such little
doubt far more matters have been discussed and by far more learned counsel than the
case required.’ Cic. Balb. 56)
(b) Recte et vera loquere, sed nec vere nec tu recte adhuc / fecisti umquam.
(‘Tell me the honest truth; but so far you’ve never behaved truthfully or honestly.’ Pl.
Capt. 960–1)
(c) Declamavit non quidem populo, sed egregie.
(‘He was an outstanding declaimer, though not one who performed in public.’ Sen.
Con. 10 pr. 4)
(d) Quo tempore aut qua in re non modo ceteris specimen aliquod dedisti, sed
tute tui periculum fecisti?
(‘When or where have you given any proof to others, or even tested yourself on your
own account?’ Cic. Div. Caec. 27)
Supplement:
Subject + adjunct: Nec, si hoc Crassus non committit, ideo non multi et saepe com-
mittunt. (Cic. de Orat. 2.302); Ceteris virtutum generibus varie et multi fuere
praestantes. (Plin. Nat. 7.100); . . . plerosque qui aut ubi essent prae poculis nescientes
Appius Pulcher invadit. (Flor. Epit. 1.26.2); De quibus breviter et pauca dicenda sunt.
(Hist. Aug. Gall. 21.1)
Cf.: . . . nemo ex iis qui contra eum arma tulerant ab eo iussuve eius interemptus. (Vell.
2.87.2)
Object + adjunct: Verum edepol ne etiam tua quoque malefacta iterari multa / et vero
possunt (Pl. As. 567–8); Et recte et verum dici. (Ter. Ad. 609); Sed iam satis est philo-
sophatum: nimis diu et longum loquor. (Pl. Ps. 687); Reliquum est ut de felicitate . . .
¹⁸⁸ For this particular case, see Fugier (1983a). For instances of coordination of adjectives and adverbs,
as in (b), see Lundström (1982: 28) and Vester (1987: 349–57).
 Coordination
timide et pauca dicamus. (Cic. Man. 47); Ego et saepius ad te et plura scriberem nisi
mihi dolor meus cum omnis partis mentis tum maxime huius generis facultatem
ademisset. (Cic. Att. 3.7.3); De urbanis rebus scilicet plura tu scis, saepius et certiora
audis; equidem doleo non me tuis litteris certiorem fieri. (Cic. Att. 6.3.4); Sic moneo
ut filium, sic faveo ut mihi, sic hortor ut et pro patria et amicissimum. (Cic. Fam.
10.5.3); Nam nisi ego tantam pecuniam tantaque praesidia et tam celeriter Cassio
dedissem . . . (Lent. Fam. 12.14.6); . . . Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem ordine
enumeraverit notans qui a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset.
(Nep. Att. 18.3); Dictator de se pauca ac [de] modice locutus . . . (Liv. 23.24.3);
Respondent illis et quae volunt et cum volunt. (Sen. Con. 9 pr. 2); Et cum multa
Tetricus feliciterque gessi<sse>t . . . (Hist. Aug. trig. tyr. 24.2)
Various adjuncts: Eum etiam hominem in senatu dare operam aut cluentibus (Pl.
As. 871—NB: text emended in various ways, e.g. <aut> in senatu Camerarius; this
does not change the coordination); Praesertim in re populi placida atque interfec-
tis hostibus / non decet tumultuari. (Pl. Poen. 524–5); Sero atque stulte . . . rationem
putat. (Pl. Trin. 416); Hodie sero ac nequiquam voles. (Ter. Hau. 344—NB: a neg-
ation adverb); Quos quidem tu quam ob rem temere prosiluisse dicas atque ante
tempus non reperio. (Cic. Cael. 64); Verum ego quod invitus ac necessario facio,
neque diu neque diligenter facere possum. (Cic. S. Rosc. 123); Haec diu multumque
et multo labore quaesita una eripuit hora. (Cic. Sul. 73); Nihil aut sero aut exigue a
patria civi tributum potest videri. (Planc. Fam. 10.9.2); Quod iussus sum eo tem-
pore atque ita feci ut appareret invito imperatum esse. (Pol. Fam. 10.31.3); Ac
nescio an nimis undique eam minimisque rebus muniendo modum excesserint.
(Liv. 2.2.2); Qua in re observatum a meridianis partibus ad occasum solis pestilen-
tiam semper ire nec umquam aliter fere, non hieme, nec ut ternos excedat menses.
(Plin. Nat. 7.170)
Adjunct clauses: . . . sibi ambo consilia capiunt: Caesar, ut quam primum se cum
Antonio coniungeret, Pompeius, ut venientibus in itinere se opponeret et si impru-
dentes ex insidiis adoriri posset. (Caes. Civ. 3.30.2—NB: [et] Davisius)
Secondary predicates can be coordinated with various types of adjuncts, as in (e),

where censor is coordinated with the time adjunct alias, and in (f), where invitus is
coordinated with the subject-oriented manner adverb cursim.¹⁸⁹ Their compatibility
with various adjuncts is not surprising, since secondary predicates can be interpreted
in various ways depending on their meaning and the context in which they occur (see
§ 21.17). See also § 10.43 for coordination of secondary predicates with manner
adjuncts.
(e) . . . quorum pater . . . et saepe alias et maxime censor saluti rei publicae fuit.
(‘. . . whose father . . . was many a time and most particularly when Censor the salva-
tion of the commonwealth.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.38)
(f) . . . rationes legebam invitus et cursim . . .
(‘. . . I was looking over the accounts—unwillingly and superficially . . .’ Plin. Ep. 5.14.8)
¹⁸⁹ Many examples can be found in Lundström (1982: 28–30; 50–3). See also K.-St.: I.236–8.
Less common types of coordination 
Supplement:
Secondary predicate + adjunct:
Manner adjunct: . . . villam conversam mundeque habeat . . . (Cato Agr. 143.2); Haud
impigre neque inultus occiditur. (Sal. Hist. 4.41); Multitudine aliquantum Volsci
superabant. Itaque effusi et contemptim pugnam iniere. (Liv. 2.30.12); Hoc primis
diebus, dum integrae vires erant, et frequentes et impigre fecerunt; in dies deinde
pauciores et segnius. (Liv. 36.23.4); Ut raro, invitus et cum magna cunctatione, ita
aliquando scribas necesse est istud . . . (Sen. Cl. 2.2.3); (sc. leo) Quamlibet magna
canum et venantium urguente vi contemptim restitansque cedit in campis et ubi
spectari potest. (Plin. Nat. 8.50)
Time adjunct: Quae (sc. virtus) et semper et sola libera est . . . (Cic. de Orat.
1.226); . . . ad hoc genus castigandi raro invitique veniemus nec unquam nisi necessa-
rio . . . (Cic. Off. 1.136); . . . ut nos et saepe alias et adulescentes contra L. Sullae domi-
nantis opes pro Sex. Roscio Amerino fecimus quae ut scis extat oratio. (Cic. Off.
2.51); . . . etsi domum bene potus seroque redieram . . . (Cic. Fam. 7.22); . . . e quibus (sc.
nominationibus) prima et antiquitus Dorica est nata. (Vitr. 4.1.3); Spirant autem et a
bruma, cum vocantur ornithiae, sed leniores et paucis diebus. (Plin. Nat. 2.127)
Cause adjunct: Verum ego quod invitus ac necessario facio, neque diu neque dili-
genter facere possum. (Cic. S. Rosc. 123); His quidam signis atque haec exempla secuti /
esse apibus partem divinae mentis et haustus / aetherios dixere. (Verg. G. 4.219–21)
Purpose adjunct: . . . qui et privati et privatum ad negotium exierunt . . . (Cic. Agr.
1.8); Ibi cum Boccho Numida quidam Aspar nomine multum et familiariter agebat,
praemissus ab Iugurtha, postquam Sullam adcitum audierat, orator et subdole specu-
latum Bocchi consilia. (Sal. Jug. 108.1)
Other: Cecidissetve ebrius aut de equo uspiam, / metuerem ne ibi diffregisset crura
aut cervices sibi. (Pl. Mil. 721–2); De dignitate M. Caelius notis ac maioribus natu et
sine mea oratione et tacitus facile ipse respondet. (Cic. Cael. 3); Sed is quasi dictata,
nullo dilectu, nulla elegantia, Philo ut propria noster et lecta poemata et loco
adiungebat. (Cic. Tusc. 2.26—NB: following (Lundström 1982)); . . . quamquam tibi
inmaturo et unde minume decuit vita erepta est . . . (Sal. Jug. 14.22); Uni tibi et cum
singulis res erit. (Liv. 2.12.11); . . . subito ex insidiis consurgitur, et adversi et undique
hostes erant. (Liv. 2.50.6); . . . subitoque et inopinatus ait Simpliciano, ut ipse narrabat,
‘eamus in ecclesiam: Christianus volo fieri’. (August. Conf. 8.4)
NB: . . . tibi nos, ut antea magna ex parte, sic nunc penitus totosque tradimus. (Cic.
Tusc. 5.5)
Rare is the coordination of constituents that belong to different levels of the clause, as
in (g), where the frequency adjunct saepe is coordinated with the adjective maximas,
which functions as a modifier of the noun gratias. Equally uncommon is the occur-
rence of this form of coordination at a lower level, as in (h), where the determiner his
is coordinated with the noun phrase huius modi (a genitive of description—see
§ 11.48) instead of appearing at a hierarchically higher level (see § 11.75).
(g) Terentia tibi et saepe et maximas agit gratias.
(‘Terentia tells me continually how very grateful she is to you.’ Cic. Att. 3.5.1)
 Coordination
(h) Idemque tu cum his atque huius modi consiliis ac facinoribus . . . M. Bibulum
foro, curia, templis, locis publicis omnibus expulisses . . .
(‘Further, when by these and the like designs and atrocities . . . you had driven Marcus
Bibulus from the Forum, the Senate House, the temples and all the public places . . .’
Cic. Vat. 22)
Supplement:
Assunt / quas me iussisti adducere et quo ornatu. (Pl. Mil. 898–9)
. Other noteworthy types of coordination
From Antiquity onwards, certain unconventional instances of coordination have been

commented upon. What they have in common is that the coordination results in
something that seems semantically odd.¹⁹⁰
. Hysteron Proteron

The term hysteron proteron is used to describe various phenomena by Roman
grammarians and ancient commentators such as Servius, following the practice in
Greek commentaries. Servius applies it to instances of clausal coordination in Virgil,
as illustrated by (a) and (b). What has troubled critics of these sentences is that,
according to the natural sequence of events, the action of the first clause should follow
that of the second clause. While Servius’ comment on (a) is logically correct, the
action in arma ruamus can also be seen as a specification of the manner in which or
the method by which moriamur should be performed; in this light, the order of the
clauses is entirely comprehensible.¹⁹¹ Ex. (b) is debated, since much depends on the
precise interpretation of relinquit.¹⁹² Scholars disagree about the reasons authors may
have had for adopting a specific sequence of the clauses. In many of the instances that
are cited, it is not clear what is unusual or wrong about the ordering as it stands. The
frequency of the phenomenon in Virgil is related to his tendency to avoid participles
and other forms of subordination.¹⁹³ Similar instances have been noted in other
authors, as in (c) and (d). Considerations such as those expressed above in reference
to (a) apply here as well.
(a) MORIAMUR ET IN MEDIA ARMA RUAMUS hysteroproteron quidem est;
nam ante est in arma ruere, et sic mori.
¹⁹⁰ For the following sections, see Pinkster (1972: 114–20), with references. For Virgil, Hahn (1930) is
essential.
¹⁹¹ For a discussion of the phenomenon as such, see Nutting (1916). For the Virgilian examples, see
McDevitt (1967). Ancient sources can be found in TLL s.v. hysteronproteron and hysterologia.
¹⁹² See Horsfall ad loc.
¹⁹³ See Norden’s Anhang II.2 in his commentary on Book VI. See also Sz.: 698–9 and Görler
(1985: 274).
Less common types of coordination 
(‘ “Let us die and rush into the thick of the fray” is certainly an example of hysteron
proteron; for the first thing to do is to rush into the midst of the weapons, and then
to die.’ Serv. ad Verg. A. 2.353)
(b) At pius exequiis Aeneas rite solutis, / aggere composito tumuli, postquam
alta quierunt / aequora, tendit iter velis portumque relinquit.
(‘Now good Aeneas, when the last rites were duly paid and the funeral mound was
raised, as soon as the high seas were stilled, sails forth on his way and leaves the
harbour.’ Verg. A. 7.5–7)
(c) Sit Scipio clarus ille, cuius consilio atque virtute Hannibal in Africam redire
atque Italia decedere coactus est.
(‘I acknowledge the renown of that Scipio whose skill and valour compelled Hannibal
to return to Africa and quit Italy.’ Cic. Catil. 4.21)
(d) Caesar . . . milites cohortatus est ut beneficio fortunae uterentur castraque
oppugnarent.
(‘Caesar exhorted his troops that they . . . use the gift of fortune and attack the camp.’
Caes. Civ. 3.95.1)
Supplement:
. . . iste certe statuerat ac deliberaverat non adesse . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.1); Qualis mugitus,
fugit cum saucius aram / taurus et incertam excussit cervice securim. (Verg. A. 2.223–4);
Quin, ut te supplex peterem et tua limina adirem / idem orans mandata dabat. (Verg.
A. 6.115–16)
. Zeugma
The term zeugma is used inconsistently from Antiquity onwards, and modern
attempts to formulate a more accurate definition have not been very succesful.¹⁹⁴
Often cited instances to which the term is applied are (a) and (b), where the verbs
govern two coordinated noun phrases. In (a), bellum gerens is perfectly idiomatic, but
instead of pacem gerens a Roman would say pacem agens, which the coordinated
utterance requires the reader to recognize. In (b), by contrast, both in urbe permanent
and in eadem mente permanent are idiomatic utterances. However, the semantic rela-
tionship between the two prepositional phrases and the verb are different, which
makes the coordination striking. In this case, the parallelism is strengthened by the
use of correlative coordinators, but this is not essential. The latter type in particular
lends itself to being used for humorous effect, as in (c).¹⁹⁵
(a) . . . ut . . . (sc. Iugurtha) pacem an bellum gerens perniciosior esset, in incerto
haberetur.
(‘. . . it was not certain whether he was more destructive . . . when offering peace or
war.’ Sal. Jug. 46.8)
¹⁹⁴ See Sievers (1907) and Lussky (1953).

¹⁹⁵ For a discussion of zeugma in Virgil, see Mack (1980).
 Coordination
(b) . . . si et in urbe et in eadem mente permanent, ea quae merentur exspectent.

(‘. . . if they remain in Rome and in the same mindset, they can expect their deserts.’
Cic. Catil. 2.11)
(c) . . . cum in gremiis mimarum mentum mentemque deponeres.
(‘. . . when you were laying your mouth and mind in the lap of actresses.’ Cic. Phil.
13.24)
Scholars vary in the extent to which they use the term zeugma for describing instances
of coordination, especially those of the type illustrated by (a), and some scholars even
use expressions like ‘a slight zeugma’.¹⁹⁶
Supplement:
Verb to be inferred: Tace. Occultemus lumen et vocem. (Pl. Cur. 95); Namque hoc
tempu’ praecavere mihi me, haud te ulcisci sinit. (Ter. An. 624—from sinit infer iubet
or cogit for the first infinitive); Omnis hic locus acervis corporum et civium san-
guine redundavit. (Cic. Catil. 3.24); Itaque sive casu accidit sive consilio, percom-
mode factum est quod . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.64—with consilio infer factum est); Meque
vosque in omnibus rebus iuxta geram. (Sal. Jug. 85.47); Iuturnam misero (fateor)
succurrere fratri / suasi et pro vita maiora audere probavi, / non ut tela tamen, non ut
contenderet arcum. (Verg. A. 12.813–15); Nam si legatus officii terminos, obse-
quium erga imperatorem exuit . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.12.2)
Different semantic relations: Erigite mentes auresque vestras . . . (Cic. Sul. 33); Vadit
enim in eundem carcerem atque in eundem paucis post annis scyphum Socrates . . .
(Cic. Tusc. 1.97); . . . Pergama cum peteret inconcessosque Hymenaeos . . . (Verg. A.
1.651); . . . pariterque oculos telumque tetendit. (Verg. A. 5.508); . . . demisere metu
vultumque animumque Pelasgi. (Ov. Met. 7.133); Cecidere illis animique manusque.
(Ov. Met. 7.347); Ille humilis supplex oculos dextramque precantem protendens . . .
(Verg. A. 12.930–1); . . . manus ac supplices voces ad Tiberium tendens immoto eius
vultu excipitur. (Tac. Ann. 2.29.2)
The same phenomenon also occurs at the noun phrase level, as in (d), where praeto-
rium has to be interpreted in two different ways with imperium and nomen.¹⁹⁷
(d) . . . cum penes te praetorium imperium ac nomen esset . . .
(‘. . . as the authority and rank of praetor was in your hands . . .’ Cic. Ver. 5.40)
Sz.: 833 draws attention to (e), where the same noun has to be interpreted in different
ways with two coordinated verbs. Something similar has been suggested for (f),
though less convincingly.¹⁹⁸
(e) . . . neque se aliter · consilium ·habiturum · neq(ue) aliter / daturum . . .
(‘. . . and otherwise he will neither hold an assembly nor give advice . . .’ CIL
II.1963.II.6–7 (Lex Salpensana, Utrera c.ad 82–4))
¹⁹⁶ So Williams ad Verg. A. 5.508 (cited in the Supplement).

¹⁹⁷ See Serbat (1996: 292–3). ¹⁹⁸ See Nicolas (1999: 56–7).
Less common types of coordination 
(f) Itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis σοφοί, sapientes a nostris et habebantur
et nominabantur . . .
(‘And so the famous seven (who were called σοφοί by the Greeks) were both
considered and called wise men by our countrymen.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.7)
The term double zeugma is used for highly literary cases like (g), where spem and
metum go with strenuis and ignavis, respectively.¹⁹⁹
(g) . . . ut si adesset imperator et strenuis vel ignavis spem metumve adderet.
(‘. . . so that they inspired hope in the energetic or fear in the indolent, exactly
as if the commander-in-chief were there in person.’ Tac. Hist. 1.62.2)
. Hendiadys
The phenomena that fall under the label hendiadys (Greek: ἓν διὰ δυοῖν ‘one by
two’) are commented on from Antiquity onwards: Servius (end of the fourth century
ad) ad Verg. A. 1.61 (example (a) below) defines it as a figure of speech in which one
thing is divided into two by the insertion of a coordinator, and this for metrical
reasons (metri causa). In (a) and (b), the content of the conjoins could also be
expressed by a noun phrase in which one of the conjoins functions as modifier of the
other, either in the form of a noun phrase in the genitive, as in (a): montium alto-
rum—where ‘et . . . altos explains the moles’ (Austin ad loc.)—or in the form of an
adjective, as in (b): ferreis.
(a) Sed pater omnipotens speluncis abdidit (sc. ventos) atris / . . . molemque et
montis insuper altos / imposuit . . .
(‘But the father omnipotent hid them in gloomy caverns, and over them piled high
mountain masses . . .’ Verg. A. 1.60–2)
(b) Dirae ferro et compagibus artis / claudentur Belli portae.
(‘The gates of war, grim with iron and close-fitting bars, shall be closed.’ Verg. A.
1.293–4)
However, the term was also used by Porphyrio (early third century ad) to describe the
wording oppida . . . et deorum templa in (c) ‘instead of oppidorum templa’. In this case,
the paraphrase is less evident and indeed has been rejected by recent commentators.²⁰⁰
The term has also been applied to instances of coordination of (near-)synonyms, as in
(d) and (e).²⁰¹ As with zeugma, some scholars are more generous in their use of the
term than others. The supplement contains examples of coordination that can be
paraphrased in a way similar to that in which (a) and (b) were.
¹⁹⁹ See Sz.: 834 and Brink (1944), with instances from Virgil onwards (Tacitus in particular).
²⁰⁰ E.g. Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc.
²⁰¹ For a survey of the various uses of the term hendiadys, see Panagl (2005). See also Sz.: 782–3. For a
very critical discussion of the usefulness of the term hendiadys, with reference to Virgil, see Hahn (1922).
Malchukov (2000: 37) describes hendiadys as a form of upgrading of the attribute.
 Coordination
(c) . . . leges . . . oppida publico / sumptu iubentes et deorum / templa novo deco-
rare saxo.
(‘. . . the law . . . insisted that towns and the temples of the gods should be beautified at
public expense with fresh-cut stone.’ Hor. Carm. 2.15.18–20)
(d) . . . ut arare, ut pascere, ut negotiari libeat, ut denique sedes ac domicilium
conlocare.
(‘. . . in order, according to their preference, to farm or raise livestock or conduct busi-
ness, in short, in order to settle and make a home there.’ Cic. Ver. 2.6—NB: the
German scholar Fuhrmann translates ‘seinen bleibenden Wohnsitz’)
(e) . . . in eis (sc. clausulis) maxime perfectio atque absolutio iudicatur.
(‘. . . it is here that perfection and finish is chiefly evaluated.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.192—NB:
cf. quibus praetermissis caeli absolutio perfecta non erit. (Cic. Tim. 41))
Supplement:
. . . ex his studiis haec quoque crescit oratio et facultas . . . (Cic. Arch. 13); . . . ut incon-
ditam antiquorum dicendi consuetudinem delectationis atque aurium causa, quem
ad modum scribit discipulus eius Naucrates, numeris astringeret. (Cic. de Orat.
3.173); Est enim tarda illa quidem medicina, sed tamen magna, quam adfert longin-
quitas et dies. (Cic. Tusc. 3.35); Pro multitudine autem hominum et pro gloria belli
atque fortitudinis angustos se fines habere arbitrabantur . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.2.5); Arma
virumque cano . . . (Verg. A. 1.1—NB: disputed); . . . hic laticis, qualem pateris libamus
et auro (Verg. G. 2.192); . . . loricam consertam hamis auroque trilicem . . . (Verg. A.
3.467); Interea socios inhumataque corpora terrae / mandemus . . . (Verg. A. 11.22–3);
In huius sinu indulgentiaque educatus per omnem honestarum artium cultum pue-
ritiam adulescentiamque transegit. (Tac. Agr. 4.2—NB: so according to Woodman
and Kraus ad loc.; zeugma according to Sz.: 833); . . . alam equitum quae conscripta
e Treveris militia disciplinaque nostra habebatur . . . (Tac. Ann. 3.42.1); Sed
Agrippina, . . . in oppidum Ubiorum, in quo genita erat, veteranos coloniamque
deduci impetrat . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.27.1)²⁰²
²⁰² The examples from Cicero and Caesar are taken from K.-St.: II.26–7. For hendiadys in Cicero, see
Hatz (1886); for Virgil, see Görler (1985: 274–5), with references, and Muñoz (1976); for Tacitus’ minor
works, see Ulbricht (1875).
CHAPTER 20
Comparison
20.1 Introduction
This chapter deals with a number of expressions that are syntactically quite diverse,
but have in common one of the two following properties: either entities are compared
with respect to the way in or degree to which they possess a certain property, or prop-
erties are compared that pertain to certain entities. In this Syntax the term ‘term’ is
used for entities that are involved in some form of comparison. The term ‘property’ is
used in a broad sense to refer to qualities, events, situations, etc. The following types
of comparison can be distinguished:
(i) expressions in which two terms are compared with respect to a certain stand-
ard, as in (a), with respect to ‘easiness’ (§§ 20.2–11);
(ii) expressions in which two properties, usually of one and the same term, are
compared, as in (b), where the length and width of the acies are compared
(§§ 20.12–14);
(iii) expressions in which the (dis)similarity between two terms is expressed
lexically, as in (c) by simili (§§ 20.15–23);
(iv) expressions that characterize the manner in which a certain event takes place
or the quality of a certain entity, as in (d) with ut (§ 20.24–7);
(v) finally, relative adjectives of amount in combination with demonstrative
adjectives of amount function de facto as a means of comparison, as in (e),
where teams of animals and carts are compared in terms of number. This
type is discussed in § 18.35 fin.
(a) Tam hoc quidem tibi in proclivi (sc. est) quam imber est quando pluit.
(‘This (sc. ransoming someone) will be just as easy for you as rain when it’s raining.’
Pl. Capt. 336)
(b) Sed longior quam latior acies erat.
(‘But the battle-line was deep rather than widely extended.’ Liv. 27.48.7)
(c) Date operam, adeste aequo animo per silentium, / ne simili utamur fortuna
atque usi sumus . . .
(‘Pay attention, and listen in silence with open minds, so that we do not suffer the
same fate as we suffered . . .’ Ter. Ph. 30–1)
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0020
716 Comparison
(d) . . . venit vel rogatus ut amicus, vel accersitus ut socius, vel evocatus ut is qui
senatui parere didicisset . . .
(‘. . . he came either requested as a friend, or summoned as an ally, or called forth as
one who had learned to obey the Senate . . .’ Cic. Deiot. 13)
(e) Quot iuga boverum, mulorum, asinorum habebis, totidem plostra esse
oportet.
(‘You should have as many carts as you have teams of oxen, mules, or donkeys.’ Cato
Agr. 62.1)
Some scholars include verbs that express more or less explicitly superiority or infer-
iority of one entity with respect to another, such as supero and antecello ‘to surpass’. In
this Syntax these verbs are dealt with in a different way. See § 4.53.1 Many scholars use
comparison in a wider sense than is done in this Chapter. See § 14.1 (iii).
The chapter concludes with sections on proportional comparison, illustrated by (f)

(§ 20.28–30), on the absolute use of comparatives, as in (g) (§ 20.31), and on the
superlative, illustrated by (h) (§ 20.32).
(f) . . . scitumque est Scytharum legati, quanto plus biberint, tanto magis sitire
Parthos.
(‘. . . and it was a shrewd observation of the Scythian ambassador that the more the
Parthians drank the thirstier they became.’ Plin. Nat. 14.148)
(g) . . . senectus est natura loquacior . . .
(‘. . . old age is naturally inclined to talk too much . . .’ Cic. Sen. 55)
(h) Nam Arcturus signum sum omnium acerrumum. / Vehemens sum exoriens,
quom occido vehementior.
(‘For I, Arcturus, am the fiercest constellation of all. I am violent when I rise, and
when I set I am even more violent.’ Pl. Rud. 70–1)
20.2 Comparison between two terms with respect

to a certain standard
Latin has two types of devices for comparing two terms with respect to a certain
standard:2
(i) devices that express the equivalence (or: equality) of two terms under
comparison with respect to a certain standard, as in (a);
1 For a different approach, see Cuzzolin (2011: 628–33) and Tarriño (2011: 373–4; 391–2), with
references.
2 I follow the terminology of Quirk et al. (1985: 1127ff.). This differs considerably from the terminology
used by Cuzzolin (2011: 555) and Tarriño (2011: 376–8).
Comparison between two terms against a certain standard 717
(ii) devices that express the non-equivalence (or: inequality) of two terms
under comparison with respect to a certain standard, as in (b).
(a) Tam ego fui ante liber quam gnatus tuos. / Tam mihi quam illi libertatem
hostilis eripuit manus. / Tam ille apud nos servit quam ego nunc hic apud te
servio.
(‘Once I was just as free as your son. The enemy’s armed force has taken freedom
away from me just as it did from him; and he’s a slave at our place just as I’m now a
slave at yours.’ Pl. Capt. 310–12)
(b) . . . multo tamen pauciores oratores quam poetae boni reperientur.
(‘. . . far fewer good orators will be found even than good poets.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.11)
In both types two terms are involved, which will normally be expressed explicitly but
which may be understood from the context or from general knowledge, as is shown
in (c), where Hercules is implicitly compared with the speaker (ego).
(c) Nimio ego hanc periculo / surrupui hodie. Meo quidem animo ab Hippolyta
succingulum / Hercules haud aeque magno umquam apstulit periculo.
(‘I risked great danger in stealing this today. In my opinion Hercules didn’t steal
Hippolyta’s undergirdle in such great danger.’ Pl. Men. 199–201)
For the description of the various comparative expressions the following terminology
is used: in the first sentence of (a) above the terms that are compared with each other
are ego and gnatus tuos and the comparison expresses that the degree of freedom of
ego is the same as that of gnatus tuos. The standard of comparison is the freedom,
the basis of comparison is the noun phrase gnatus tuos. In (b), in turn, the standard
is the number, the basis is poetae boni; what the comparison indicates is that the num-
ber of good orators will turn out to be lower than the number of good poets.
Comparison is indicated by the presence of a comparative element. In the case of
(a), this consists of the correlative adverbs tam and quam; in (b), of the comparative
degree pauciores of the adjective paucus and quam (on which see § 20.5). In (c), the
comparative element consists of aeque, with atque understood.
Graphically, the comparison expressed in (b) can be represented as in Table 20.1.
Table 20.1 Structure of the comparative construction in ex. (b) of § 20.2

Term 1 Standard of comparison Term 2
(Basis of comparison)
‘number’
oratores poetae boni
Comparative element
(pauc)ior(es) quam
718 Comparison
Many grammars use the term ‘comparative clause’ or ‘clause of comparison’ for the
part quam poetae boni reperientur in ex. (b) above. These clauses are described as
‘adverbial’, that is—in the terminology of this Syntax—as satellites.3 However, ‘com-
parative clauses’ are obligatory constituents that are required by the comparative
element in the expression (for comparative forms of adjectives, see § 11.92), and are
therefore essentially different from satellites.4 Also, ‘comparative clauses’ are not sub-
ordinate clauses in the sense that they are part of another clause (see § 14.1). Therefore,
when comparative expressions in which clauses are involved depend on a verb of
perception, cognition, or communication, both terms can be in the accusative and
infinitive, as is shown in (d) (see § 15.108). In this respect, comparison resembles
coordination (see § 2.2 and § 14.1).5
(d) Censes ante coronam herbae exstitisse quam conceptum esse semen?
(‘Do you think the crown of herbs appeared before their seeds were formed?’
Cic. Div. 2.68)
Supplement:
Ego periurare me mavellem miliens / quam mi illum verba per ridiculum dare.
(Pl. Ps. 1057–8); . . . ego me ruri amplexari mavelim patulam bovem / . . . / quam tuas
centum cenatas noctes mihi dono dari. (Pl. Truc. 277–9)
In the examples (a)–(c) above, the comparative construction contains an explicit element
of comparison (tam, pauciores, and aeque). However, from Early Latin onwards there
are instances in which this has to be deduced from the context. Examples of equiva-
lence and non-equivalence, respectively, are (e) and (f)—for further details, see § 20.5.
(e) Non edepol piscis expeto / quam tui sermonis sum indigens.
(‘I’m not looking for fish as much as I’m in need of a conversation with you.’ Pl. Rud.
943–3a)
(f) . . . vidua vivam quam tuos mores perferam.
(‘. . . I’ll live as a divorcee rather than tolerate your habits.’ Pl. Men. 726)
The terms of comparison can be found at various levels in the clause and in various
functions. In (g) (already cited) two subjects at the clause level are compared with
each other. In (h) and (i) the comparison is between two object constituents, in ( j)
between two indirect objects. In (k) and (l) the comparison is between two satellites
(in the latter example the first term must be inferred from modo). In (m) it is between
two attributes at the noun phrase level.
(g) . . . multo tamen pauciores oratores quam poetae boni reperientur.
(‘. . . far fewer good orators will be found even than good poets.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.11)
3 For example, in K.-St.: II.457: ‘Vergleichende Adverbialsätze der Quantität oder Intensität’ (‘com-
parative clauses of quantity or degree’).
4 It must be said that a corpus study shows that most comparative forms are not combined with a
second term (the basis of comparison). See Bauer (2016: 319–24).
5 For a discussion of the status of comparative clauses of degree, see Tarriño (2011: 395–9). See also
Suárez (2002).
(h) Eas si adeas, abitum quam aditum malis.

(‘And if you did approach them, you’d rather have an escape than an approach.’ Pl.
Cist. 33)
(i) Malim hercle ut verum dicas quam ut des mutuom.
(‘By god, I’d prefer that you tell the truth than that you give the loan.’ Pl. Trin. 762)
( j) Verba illi non magis dare hodie quisquam quam lapidi potest.
(‘No one can trick him now any more than a block of stone.’ Pl. Mos. 1073)
(k) Ego vero quamquam illi omnia malo quam mihi, tamen honorum aditus
numquam illi faciliores optavi quam mihi fuerunt.
(‘Although I want all things for him more than for myself, I have never hoped that the
avenues to honour would be easier for him than they were for me.’ Cic. Planc. 59)
(l) Modo mihi Victorinus indicat dominam tuam magis caluisse quam heri.
(‘Victorinus has just told me that your Lady is more feverish than yesterday.’ Fro. Aur.
5.25.1)
(m) Bonus est hic homo, mea voluptas. # Pol istum (sc. hominem) malim quam
malum (sc. hominem).
(‘He’s a good man, my darling. # I’d rather have a good man than a bad one.’ Pl. Poen.
1214)
The terms of comparison may belong to various lexical (or grammatical) categories.
They may be verbs (n), the temporal values of a verb (o), adjectives (p), nouns (q),
adverbs (r), prepositional phrases (s). Note that (r) and (s) show multiple
comparison.
(n) Plus dabo quam praedicabo ex me venustatis tibi.
(‘I will give you even more charm than I will tell you I’m going to give.’ Pl. Mil. 651)
(o) Plusque amat quam te umquam amavit.
(‘And he loves her more than he ever loved you.’ Pl. Epid. 66)
(p) Maioreque opere ibi serviles nuptiae / quam liberales etiam curari solent.
(‘There, an even greater effort is made for slave weddings than for those of free men.’
Pl. Cas. 73–4)
(q) . . . nobis lucro fuisti potius quam decori tibi.
(‘. . . you have been more of an income to us than a credit to yourself.’ Pl. As. 192)
(r) . . . melius esse turpiter aliquid facere cum voluptate quam honeste cum
dolore?
(‘. . . that it is better to do something shamefully with pleasure than honourably with
pain?’ Cic. Fin. 5.93)
(s) Plus aegri ex abitu / viri quam ex adventu voluptatis cepi.
(‘I’ve received more grief from my husband’s going away than I’ve received joy from
his coming.’ Pl. Am. 641–1a)
720 Comparison
Comparison may also be between terms of a higher level, for example between
combinations of predicates and one or more of their arguments or satellites, as in (t)
and (u).
(t) . . . tamen est eius modi cupiditatis ut magis insectari alterius innocentiam
quam de se timide cogitare videatur.
(‘. . . yet his ambition is such that he seems rather to be attacking the innocence of
another than to be apprehensive about himself.’ Cic. Cael. 16)
(u) Magis istuc percipimus lingua dici quam factis fore.
(‘We are aware that you say this with your tongue rather than that you’ll do it with
your actions.’ Pl. As. 162)
Normally the elements under comparison have the same syntactic and semantic
function(s), as in the first set of examples above, but in the second set this is less obvi-
ous. When the terms of comparison have the same function they may belong to dif-
ferent categories (as in the case of coordination).6 The following examples will serve
as an illustration of the variety that is possible. In (v), the terms of comparison are the
purpose clause ut . . . servem and the reason clause quod . . . faciatis. In (w), a noun
phrase is compared with an autonomous relative clause. In (x) a prepositional phrase
is compared with a bare dative noun phrase; the comparison is at the level of the
adjective phrase gratiorem. More complex are (y) and (z). In (y), two events are com-
pared in respect of speed. The first term is an accusative and infinitive clause func-
tioning as object, the second a main clause. In (z), the quality of two horses is
compared. The first term is a noun phrase functioning as object, the second term is a
main clause (quam tuus (equus) est (bonus) instead of quam tu (habes)). A noteworthy
instance of a second term of comparison that is embedded in an accusative and infini-
tive clause is (aa).
(v) Hic ego magis ut consuetudinem servem quam quod vos non vestra hoc
sponte faciatis, petam a vobis ut me . . . attente audiatis.
(‘It’s more to preserve custom than because you are not likely to do so on your own
that I ask you, at this point, to give me . . . your careful attention . . .’ Cic. Clu. 89)
(w) Tamen haec belua dignior vobis tanto honore videbitur quam qui vos urbe
agrisque donatos in colonias mittunt . . .?
(‘Shall this wild beast seem to you, notwithstanding, more deserving of so great an
office than those who, after giving you a city and lands, send you out to colonies . . . ?’
Liv. 4.49.14)
(x) . . . actionem susceperat . . . nec in vulgus quam optimo cuique gratiorem.
(‘. . . commenced an action . . . no more welcome to the common people than to the
aristocrat.’ Liv. 9.33.5)
6 See Hernández Cabrera about the functional equivalence of the terms of comparison and about
categorial differences (2002: 107–12; 113–21 respectively), with a number of illustrations from Livy.
(y) Soleo saepe ante oculos ponere . . . nec vero disiunctissimas terras citius
passibus cuiusquam potuisse peragrari quam tuis non dicam cursibus, sed
victoriis lustratae sunt.
(‘It is my practice to let my vision dwell upon the fact . . . that lands the most widely
severed could have been traversed by the footsteps of none in shorter time than
they have been traversed I will not say by your marches but by your victories.’
Cic. Marc. 5)
(z) . . . si vicinus tuus equum meliorem habeat quam tuus est, tuumne equum
malis an illius?
(‘. . . if your neighbour had a better horse than yours, would you prefer your horse or
his?’ Cic. Inv. 1.52)
(aa) . . . tam gratum est mihi quam ferunt puellae / pernici aureolum fuisse
malum . . .
(‘. . . this is as welcome to me as they say the golden apple was to the swift maiden. . .’
Catul. 2b.1–2)
When the two terms of a comparison have more or less the same structure and would
contain more or less the same words, shared elements are often not repeated. This is a
form of reduction (or ‘ellipsis’) that is also common in the case of coordination (‘con-
junction reduction’, see §§ 19.3–4).7 In (ab), the speaker compares his mental distress
at the time when he had heard about the addressee’s anger with his mental state at all
other moments in his life. In the second term the verb of the main clause fuit is unex-
pressed and the whole term is reduced to the temporal clause postquam, which is the
correlate of numquam in the first term. In (ac), the relative clause quantam hic dedisset
is sufficient without the repetition of pecuniam. In (ad), aures Ser. Sulpici ferre didicis-
sent can be explained as being short for cohortatio quam aures . . . Note that the com-
parison is at the adjective phrase level. Ex. (ae) is rather complex.
(ab) Nam numquam quicquam meo animo fuit aegrius / quam postquam audivi
ted esse iratam mihi.
(‘Well, never have I been more upset about anything than after hearing that you’re
angry with me.’ Pl. Am. 910–11)
(ac) Ait accusatores eius multo maiorem pecuniam praetori polliceri quam
quantam hic dedisset.
(‘He told him that his accusers had offered the praetor a much larger sum than he had
himself paid.’ Cic. Ver. 2.70)
(ad) Ut vero Pansae consulis accessit cohortatio gravior quam aures Ser. Sulpici
ferre didicissent . . .
(‘But when there was added by the consul Pansa an exhortation in terms more
pressing than Servius Sulpicius’ ears had learned to tolerate . . .’ Cic. Phil. 9.9)
7 For a discussion of the various forms of reduction in comparative expressions, see Manfredini
(2015a; 2016).
722 Comparison
(ae) Sed tonitrum fit uti post auribus accipiamus, / fulgere quam cernant oculi,
quia semper ad auris / tardius adveniunt quam visum quae moveant res.
(‘But it comes to pass that we receive the thunder in our ears after our eyes perceive
the lightning, because things always move more slowly to the ears than things which
stir the eyes.’ Lucr. 6.164–6—tr. Bailey)
Supplement:
Peiore res loco non potis est esse quam in quo nunc sita’st. (Ter. Ad. 344); Ad quos
celerius quam ipsi opinati sunt appropinquavit . . . (B. Hisp. 2.3); Pulverem maiorem
quam pro numero excitabant. (Liv. 10.41.6); Erat <in> exercitu L. Marcius, Septimi
filius, eques Romanus, impiger iuvenis animique et ingenii aliquanto quam pro
fortuna in qua erat natus maioris. (Liv. 25.37.2); Atque utinam ego potius filio iuveni
quam ille patri seni cessisset. (Tac. Ann. 3.16.3);8 (sc. Antonius) Litteras ad
Vespasianum composuit iactantius quam ad principem . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.53.1); . . .
Minicius Iustus . . . quia adductius quam civili bello imperitabat, subtractus militum
irae ad Vespasianum missus est. (Tac. Hist. 3.7.1); Sed multo prius gaudium victoriae
populus Romanus quam epistolis victoris praeceperat. (Flor. Epit. 1.28.14)
Examples of reduction of constituents related to auxiliary verbs are (af) and (ag).9
With potuerit in (af) something must be supplied like quanti is unius agri decumas
vendidisse; with debemus in (ag) something like quantum nos facere.
(af) Non potest hoc dicere is qui negare non potest se unius agri decumas XXX
milibus modium minoris quam potuerit vendidisse.
(‘That cannot be said by a man who cannot deny that he sold the tithe of a single
district for 30,000 pecks less than he could have.’ Cic. Ver. 3.151)
(ag) . . . ceteraque quae ad te pertinebunt cum etiam plus contenderimus quam
possumus, minus tamen faciemus quam debemus.
(‘. . . and in everything else which will concern you, though I shall strive for more than
I can achieve, I shall yet do less than I ought.’ Cic. Fam. 1.8.7)
Occasionally the same (group of) lexemes are found in both clauses, but in that case
there is normally a pragmatic and/or semantic justification for this. Examples of
repeated verbal lexemes are (ah) and (ai). In (ah) the two verbs differ in voice; in (ai)
the second verb depends on another governing verb. However, in the latter case an
expression like (aj) is more common. A rare exception with strict repetition is (ak).
(ah) . . . neque (sc. homines) regerentur magis quam regerent casus . . .
(‘. . . and they would not be governed by chance so much as govern it themselves.’ Sal.
Jug. 1.5)
(ai) Scio ego plus quam tu arbitrare scire me.
(‘I know more than you think I know.’ Pl. Truc. 296)
8 Reduction of the verb in such contexts is common in Tacitus. See Woodman and Martin ad loc.
9 For discussion, see Manfredini (2016), from whom the examples are taken.
(aj) Scio plus quam tu me arbitrare.

(‘I know more than you think I do.’ Pl. Cas. 243)
(ak) Nec lact’ lactis magis est simile quam ille ego simil’est mei.
(‘Milk doesn’t resemble milk more than that me resembles this me.’ Pl. Am. 601)
Supplement:
With repetition of the same verb or the same verb implied: Nostrum enim unus
quisque, qui tam beati quam iste est non sumus, tam delicati esse non possu-
mus . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.126); . . . si tam brevis epistulas vellem mittere quam tu soles, facile
te superarem et in scribendo multo essem crebrior quam tu. (Cic. Att. 1.19.1)
With different verbs: Tam facile vinces quam pirum volpes comest. (Pl. Mos. 559—
NB: proverbial); . . . ipsius regis non tam subito pavore perculit pectus quam anxiis
implevit curis. (Liv. 1.56.4); Esset aliquod inbecillitatis nostrae solacium rerumque
nostrarum si tam tarde perirent cuncta quam fiunt . . . (Sen. Ep. 91.6)
When the comparison is between predicates or more complex parts of clauses, it is

not always easy to establish the standard of comparison. In (al), Cicero’s future situ-
ation is said to be the same as Verres’ past situation. In (am), the situation expressed
in the first term is said to be more applicable than the one in the second term, or, in
other words, the former expression is more appropriate than the second. Sometimes
the comparative expression is not very different from a coordinated expression, as
in (an).
(al) Sin aliqua in re Verris similis fuero, non magis mihi deerit inimicus quam
Verri defuit.
(‘If I become like Verres in any way, I shall not lack an enemy any more than Verres
has lacked one.’ Cic. Ver. 3.162)
(am) Quae si semper abessent, magis vestras fortunas lugerem quam desiderarem
meas.
(‘Were these things to be lost to us for ever, I should rather bewail your misfortune
than regret my own.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 34)
(an) Frumentum publicum tam fur quam periurus et adulter accipiunt.
(‘The thief no less than the perjurer and the adulterer . . . receives grain from the state.’
Sen. Ben. 4.28.2)
The normal order of the terms is the one given in all the preceding examples: A is
equivalent/non-equivalent > B. An exception are clauses with an ablative of compari-
son, as in (ao) and (ap), which are discussed in detail in § 20.7. Here the standard of
comparison comes first.
(ao) . . . nec me miserior femina est neque ulla videatur magis.
(‘. . . and there isn’t a more wretched woman than me, nor could there seem to be one.’
Pl. Am. 1060)
(ap) . . . quis me miserior umquam fuit?
(‘. . . who was ever more wretched than I?’ Cic. Att. 11.2.3)
724 Comparison
In comparisons formed with quam the basis of comparison is sometimes inserted

between quam and the expression that carries the comparative element proper. This is
not uncommon with the verb malo ‘to wish rather’, as in (aq)—two accusative and
infinitive clauses compared—and (ar)—two prolative infinitive expressions. It is occa-
sionally found with other expressions, as in (as) and (at).10
(aq) . . . carere me aspectu civium quam infestis omnium oculis conspici mallem.
(‘. . . I should wish not to see a single one of my fellow-citizens rather than meet the
hostile gaze of them all.’ Cic. Catil. 1.17—tr. Macdonald)
(ar) . . . ex iis qui vadimonia deserere quam illum exercitum maluerunt.
(‘. . . of men who would rather jump their bail than desert his ranks.’ Cic. Catil. 2.5)
(as) Thai’ quam ego sum maiuscula’st.
(‘Thais is a bit older than I am.’ Ter. Eu. 527)
(at) . . . quia Libyes quam Gaetuli minus bellicosi.
(‘. . . because the Libyans are less warlike than the Gaetulians.’ Sal. Jug. 18.12)
The discussion of comparison between two terms will start with sections on com-
parison of non-equivalence (§§ 20.3–10) and then a section on comparison of equiva-
lence will follow (§ 20.11).
20.3 Comparison of non-equivalence
In the case of non-equivalence the comparative element usually consists of two not
necessarily adjacent elements: a lexeme or a combination of lexemes with a compara-
tive meaning and a particle (for the term, see below) or a case form. The lexemes can
be divided into three classes:
(i) Comparative forms of adjectives and adjectives modified by an adverb with a
comparative meaning like magis ‘more’ and minus ‘less’; similarly compara-
tive forms of adverbs and adverbs modified by a comparative adverb.
(ii) Comparative forms related to adverbs/prepositions with a local or temporal
meaning like posterior ‘later’ and propior ‘closer’, ‘nearer’.
(iii) Lexical items with a comparative meaning, including:
— adverbs and prepositions that indicate relative position (in space or
time) like ante ‘before’, post ‘after(wards)’, infra ‘below’, and pridie ‘the
day before’ (see also § 10.30);
— verbs expressing preference, such as malo ‘to prefer’ and praesto ‘to be
preferable’.11
The following examples, four with the particle quam, one with an ablative, serve as an
illustration: (a) has a comparative adjective; (b), repeated from § 20.2, the adverb post
10 See Fontana (1997: 25). 11 Three-place praesto ‘to surpass’ is different. See § 4.53.
Comparison of non-equivalence 725
and the comparative adverb tardius ‘more slowly’; (c), the adverb saepe ‘often’ modi-
fied by the comparative adverb magis; (d) shows the comparative adjective propior;
(e), the verb praesto.
(a) Hominem ego iracundiorem quam te novi neminem.
(‘I don’t know anyone more prone to anger than you.’ Pl. Mer. 141)
(b) Sed tonitrum fit uti post auribus accipiamus, / fulgere quam cernant oculi,
quia semper ad auris / tardius adveniunt quam visum quae moveant res.
(‘But it comes to pass that we receive the thunder in our ears after our eyes perceive
the lightning, because things always move more slowly to the ears than things which
stir the eyes.’ Lucr. 6.164–6—tr. Bailey)
(c) Insperata accidunt magis saepe quam quae speres.
(‘Things that are not hoped for happen more often than things you do hope for.’ Pl.
Mos. 197)
(d) Tunica propior pallio est.
(‘The shirt is closer than the overcoat.’ Pl. Trin. 1154)
(e) . . . profecto damnum praestet facere quam lucrum.
(‘. . . it is certainly better to make a loss than a profit.’ Pl. Capt. 327)
For the second part of the comparative element, for example quam, the term ‘particle’
will be used. This is a rather vague term (see § 3.22). In this combination with a com-
parative expression, quam is neither an adverb nor a coordinator, and certainly not a
subordinator.12 The same goes for atque and et as part of a comparative element in
§ 20.6 and in § 20.11.
Comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs can also be used in an ‘absolute’ sense
(see § 3.7 and § 20.31). Obviously, in this sense they cannot be combined with another
term. An example of absolute use is (f).
(f) Tu puere, abi hinc intro ocius.
(‘You, boy, go inside quickly.’ Pl. Mer. 930)
A negated expression of non-equivalence sometimes comes close to an expression of
equivalence. This is especially the case with non minus quam ‘no less than’ and non
magis/plus quam ‘no more than’. Examples are (g)–(i).13
(g) Et si non minus nobis iucundi atque inlustres sunt ii dies quibus conserva-
mur quam illi quibus nascimur . . .
(‘And if the days on which we are saved are no less bright and joyous than those on
which we are born . . .’ Cic. Catil. 3.2)
12 For similar problems with English than, see Quirk et al. (1985: 661–2).
13 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis 66.30ff.; parvus 578.33ff. For subtle differences between
these expressions, see K.-St.: II.481–3. Lundström (1993) discusses instances of non minus quam in the
two Senecas.
726 Comparison
(h) Qui est enim animus in aliquo morbo . . . non magis est sanus quam id corpus
quod in morbo est.
(‘For the soul which is suffering from some disease . . . is no more in a sound condi-
tion than the body which is diseased.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.10)
(i) Domus erat non domino magis ornamento quam civitati.
(‘The house served as an adornment not more for the owner than for the whole town.’
Cic. Ver. 4.5)
Supplement:
Ea nobis erepta esse quae hominibus non minus quam liberi cara esse debent . . .
(Sulp. Ruf. Fam. 4.5.2); . . . cum . . . ad extremam senectutem non minus dignitate
quam gratia fortunaque crevisset . . . (Nep. Att. 21.1)
. . . credas mihi adfirmanti velim me hoc non pro Lysone magis quam pro omnibus
scribere . . . (Cic. Fam. 13.24.2); Debitor non est sine creditore, non magis quam
maritus sine uxore aut sine filio pater. (Sen. Ben. 5.8.1)
Nec nunc quidem vires desidero adulescentis . . . non plus quam adulescens tauri
aut elephanti desiderabam. (Cic. Sen. 27)
(sc. Fabius fuit) Nec vero in armis praestantior quam in toga. (Cic. Sen. 11)
The use of magis + a positive form of an adjective or adverb instead of a comparative
form is attested from Early Latin onwards and is regular with classes of adjectives and
adverbs for which there are formal or semantic constraints on the formation of com-
parative forms (see § 3.7).14 These constraints concern e.g. the stem of the adjective/
adverb (e.g. vowel stems like idoneus—for exceptional innoxiior, see § 20.13
Supplement), polysyllabic adjectives like manufestus, verbal adjectives like amicus,
and adjectives with a prefix in-. Outside these classes the use of magis is uncommon;
sometimes it is justified by metrical or other considerations. It is therefore not entirely
correct to call magis an ‘analytic’ alternative for the ‘synthetic’ comparative.15
Plus + a positive instead of a comparative is rare until very Late Latin. An early
example is ( j).
( j) Homo nullu’st . . . / . . . quoi ego de industria amplius male plus lubens faxim.
(‘There is no man whom I’d be more willing to hurt intentionally.’ Pl. Aul.
419–20)
Supplement:
Plus miser sim si scelestum faxim quod dicam fore. (Enn. scen. 308V=261J); Nimio
plus quam velim nostrorum ingenia sunt mobilia. (Liv. 2.37.5)
20.4 The comparative particles of non-equivalence

Between the particles that are used for the basis of comparison and the ‘ablative of
comparison’ (ablativus comparationis) expression (see § 20.7) there are differences
14 See TLL s.v. magis 61.5ff. and K.-H.: 565–75. Discussion in Maltby (2016: 342–3) and Pultrová
(2018).
15 As in Cuzzolin (2011: 576–7).
with respect to frequency, distribution, semantics, and diachronic change, each of

which will be described below in the discussion of the various devices.16
20.5 The comparative particle quam ‘than’
The regular comparative expression of non-equivalence consists of a comparative

degree or similar combined with quam for introducing the basis of comparison, as in
(a), with quam and the comparative adjective facilius. There are almost no syntactic or
semantic restrictions on the use of this particle, as opposed to the use of ac/atque and
the ablative of comparison.
(a) Incipere multo est quam impetrare facilius.
(‘It’s much easier to begin something than to succeed.’ Pl. Poen. 974)
Supplement:
Adjectives: . . . ubi amicae quam amico tuo fueris magis fidelis . . . (Pl. As. 573); Ita fus-
tibus sum mollior magis quam ullus cinaedus. (Pl. Aul. 422—NB: magis + compara-
tive); . . . et invidia nos minore utamur quam utimur . . . (Pl. Aul. 482); Postulo aps te ut
mi illum reddas . . . qui mi melior quam sibi semper fuit . . . (Pl. Capt. 938–9); Minus
iam furtificus sum quam antehac. (Pl. Epid. 12); Tamen non dubito quin ea tela quae
coniecerit inimicus quam ea quae collega patris emisit leviora atque hebetiora esse
videantur. (Cic. Har. 2); Ego eo die casu apud Pompeium cenavi nactusque tempus
hoc magis idoneum quam umquam antea . . . (Cic. Fam. 1.2.3); Quae, cum veneris,
tanto consilio tantaque animi magnitudine a me gesta esse cognosces ut tibi multo
maiori quam Africanus fuit [a] me non multo minore<m> quam Laelium facile et in
re publica et in amicitia adiunctum esse patiare. (Cic. Fam. 5.7.3); Plus est quam
poena sine spe miserum vivere. (Pub. Sent. P 5); Sed non Hannibalem magis infestum
tam sanis consiliis habebat quam magistrum equitum . . . (Liv. 22.12.11); Nihil in eo
triumpho magis insigne fuit quam quod forte evenit ut . . . (Liv. 40.59.3); . . . poste-
riorque operum quam funerum cura est. ([Quint.] Decl. 13.17)
Adverbs: Non tuom tu magis videre quam ille suom gnatum cupit. (Pl. Capt. 399);
Nihil est quod magis expediat quam boves bene curare. (Cato Agr. 54.5); Etenim
isti . . . fines officiorum paulo longius quam natura vellet protulisse . . . (Cic. Mur. 65);
Si pridie quam a me tu coactus es confiteri . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.77); (sc. oratio) . . . octava
quam habui ad populum postridie quam Catilina profugit . . . (Cic. Att. 2.1.3); Paulo
post in urbem est ingressus consul, non ab se magis enixe amovens culpam quam
Tempanium meritis laudibus ferens. (Liv. 4.41.9); In cubito enim celerius quam in
ullo alio articulo . . . callus circumdatur. (Cels. 8.16.4)
Verbs: Edepol ne illa si istis rebus te sciat operam dare, / ego faxim ted Amphitruonem
esse malis quam Iovem. (Pl. Am. 510–11); Non omnia iudicia fieri mallet quam
unum illud unde haec omnia iudicia nascuntur. (Cic. Quinct. 46)
The second term of a comparative expression with quam is often negative by implica-
tion. In (a) impetrare is not easy. This negative pragmatic implication explains the
16 See Torrego (2002).

728 Comparison
occurrence in the second member of the comparative expression of quisquam (instead

of nemo), as in (b), ullus (instead of nullus), as in (c), or aut (instead of vel ), as in (d).17
(b) . . . ut superior sis mihi quam quisquam qui imperant.
(‘. . . so that for me you are above any of those who command me.’ Pl. Men. 192)
(c) Ita fustibus sum mollior magis quam ullus cinaedus.
(‘Thanks to your clubs I’m softer than any catamite.’ Pl. Aul. 422)
(d) . . . nobiles, quos magis dominationis spes hortabatur quam inopia aut alia
necessitudo.
(‘. . . nobles, whom hope for supremacy was urging on rather than poverty or any
other exigency.’ Sal. Cat. 17.5)
Quam is used without an explicit comparative expression from Plautus onward.
Whereas in his plays there are only a few examples, it is relatively frequent in the his-
torians, especially Tacitus, and it remains quite common in later authors.18 Examples
in poetry are very rare. Editors tend to emend such passages, especially in Classical
authors.19 Examples are (e), repeated from § 20.2, and (f). In ecclesiastical texts, in
which this use of quam is very common, Greek influence is obvious.20
(e) . . . vidua vivam quam tuos mores perferam.
(‘. . . I’ll live as a divorcee rather than tolerate your habits.’ Pl. Men. 726)
(f) . . . et nobilitatem . . . honori quam ignominiae habendam ducebat.
(‘. . . it held (that) . . . an honoured name . . . should be considered an honour rather
than a disgrace.’ Tac. Ann. 3.32.2)
Supplement:
Eo tacent, quia tacita est melior mulier semper quam loquens. (Pl. Rud. 1114—NB:
various emendations); Quodsi in ceteris quoque studiis a multis eligere homines
commodissimum quodque quam sese uni alicui certe vellent addicere, minus in
arrogantia[m] offenderent. (Cic. Inv. 2.5); Hoc etsi Autophrodates videbat, tamen
statuit congredi quam cum tantis copiis refugere . . . (Nep. Dat. 8.1); Ipsorum quam
Hannibalis (<magis> cj. Wesenberg) interesse capta an tradita Nola poteretur. (Liv.
23.43.13); Occumbere tandem / possumus idque sedet quam non quaecumque sub-
ire / patris iussa tui. (V. Fl. 7.427–9); . . . quia bonum scilicet fidere in Deum quam
fidere in hominem . . . (Tert. Marc. 2.19.3); Paulisper praepilabantur missilia et
properantes concito quam considerato cursu Germani telaque dexteris explicantes
involavere nostrorum equitum turmas . . . (Amm. 16.12.36); . . . ex magna parte id
patiebar invitus quam faciebam volens . . . (August. Conf. 8.11)
The use of quam is excluded or at least avoided in combination with a relative pro-
noun. The ablative of comparison is used instead, as in (g). The use of quam is
17 See Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 196–9), Orlandini (2001: 95–8).

18 See Lodge s.v. quam 416B.5; Gerber and Greef s.v. quam 1246A.c.
19 See Timpanaro (1970) for a discussion of emended passages. See also Questa (2007: 210).
20 For references, see Sz.: 593–4.
unavoidable with constituents that cannot be expressed in the ablative, for instance
with satis ‘enough’, as in (h).
(g) . . . L. fratrem exspectat, quo neminem reperire potest sui similiorem.
(‘. . . he is waiting for his brother Lucius—no one more like himself could he
find.’ Cic. Phil. 3.31)
(h) Vide sis, ne forte ad merendam quopiam devorteris / atque ibi ampliuscule
quam satis fuerit biberis.
(‘I suspect that you called in somewhere for a snack and that you drank a
little more there than was good for you.’ Pl. Mos. 966–7)
20.6 The use of ac/atque and et in comparison of non-equivalence
The use of ac/atque with comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs is rare.21 In the
examples before Horace there is a negation element present, like nullus in (a). This use
is not found with verbs that express preference. Even more rare is et, as in (b).
(a) Amicior mi nullus vivit atque is est / qui illam habet.
(‘No one’s a closer friend to me than the one who has her.’ Pl. Mer. 897–8)
(b) . . . nec minus ille diu iam non erit, ex hodierno / lumine qui finem vitai fecit,
et ille / mensibus atque annis qui multis occidit ante.
(‘. . . and no less long a time will he be no more, who has made an end of life with
today’s sun, than he who fell many a month and year before.’ Lucr. 3.1092–4)
The use of ac/atque in comparisons with magis and minus is equally rare. Examples
are (c) and (d).22
(c) Illi non minus ac tibi / pectore uritur intimo / flamma . . .
(‘In his inmost heart no less than in yours glows the flame . . .’ Catul. 61.169–71)
(d) Non Apollinis mage verum atque hoc responsum’st.
(‘Apollo’s oracle doesn’t speak more truthfully than this.’ Ter. An. 698—tr. Brown)
Supplement:
Nec fallaciam astutiorem ullus fecit / poeta atque ut haec est fabre facta ab nobis. (Pl.
Cas. 860–1); Quod posse videmus / nec minus atque homines inter se nota cluere.
(Lucr. 2.350–1); Haud minus ac iussi faciunt . . . (Verg. A. 3.561); Inachia langues
minus ac me. (Hor. Epod. 12.14); . . . (sc. sententiam) velut gravius atque ipse sensisset
exceptam. (Suet. Jul. 14.1)
20.7 The ablative of comparison (ablativus comparationis)

From Early Latin onwards comparative forms of adjectives are used in combination
with a noun phrase (for a few exceptions, see the Supplement) in the ablative (the
21 See TLL s.v. atque 1084.38ff.; s.v. et 894.23 and 27.

22 For further examples see TLL s.v. parvus 578.71ff.
730 Comparison
ablativus comparationis). These combinations are usually regarded as an alternative

way of expressing comparison of non-equivalence. However, the construction is con-
fined to a limited number of contexts, which widens in Post-Classical poetry and
poeticizing prose. In Early Latin, the ablative and quam expressions are not synonym-
ous, and there is little overlap (see the note under the Supplement). The ablative never
became a common way to express comparison.23
The use of the ablative is almost restricted to situations in which the first term of the
comparison functions as subject or object in its clause and is also almost entirely
restricted to comparison by means of a comparative form of an adjective or adverb.
The second term, the standard of comparison, is—obviously—a noun phrase. A majority
of the examples contain or imply a negative element, especially in Early Latin. The
ablative is avoided when the comparative element is determined by expressions like
multo, paulo, nihilo (the so-called ablative of measure (ablativus mensurae) expres-
sions, for which see § 20.10) or by a so-called genitive of price ( genetivus pretii—see
§ 10.59). In these cases quam is used instead.24 The ablative is the only comparative
device that can be used with relative pronouns, as in (b), and it is also normal in a
number of more or less idiomatic expressions, such as celerius opinione in (c). Other
expressions are with spe ‘than hoped’, aequo ‘than what is equitable’, iusto ‘than what is
just’, necessario ‘than what is necessary’, solito ‘than usual’. Other idiomatic expressions
are alius alio magis ‘some more than others’ (Cic. Fin. 4.43), and the hyperbolic expres-
sions melle dulci dulcior ‘sweeter than sweet honey’ (Pl. As. 614) and levior pluma,
as in (d). If instead of a comparative degree form a comparative adverb is used,
as minus in (e), the first term of the comparison can only be the subject, in this
case nemo.
(a) Habet . . . me . . . se ipso cariorem.
(‘. . . he is . . . fonder of me than of himself.’ Cic. Att. 10.11.1)
(b) Sequamur . . . Polybium . . ., quo nemo fuit . . . diligentior.
(‘We should follow . . . Polybius, . . . than whom no one was . . . more diligent.’ Cic.
Rep. 2.27)
(c) . . . ipse opinione celerius venturus esse dicitur.
(‘. . . he is said to be arriving in person sooner than was expected.’ Cic. Fam. 14.23.1)
(d) Si quid bene facias, levior pluma est gratia.
(‘If you do them a good turn, their thanks is lighter than a feather.’ Pl. Poen. 812)
(e) Hoc nemo fuit / minus ineptu’, mage severu’ quisquam nec mage continens.
(‘Nobody was less irresponsible than he or more serious or more sober-minded.’ Ter.
Eu. 226–7)
23 A diachronic description can be found in Sz.: 107–10, with references. See also van der Heyde (1930),
Löfstedt (1942/1933: I.326ff.), and Cuzzolin (2011: 608–11). See Neville (1901), for the Early and Classical
Latin material; Bennett: II.292–7, for Early Latin; and Wölfflin (1889), for Silver Latin.
24 Formal restrictions on the use of the ablative are discussed in Traglia (1947: 12–16), Pasoli (1966:
76–87), and Torrego (2002: 259ff.). Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 199) observe that the ablative forms
quoquam and ullo are excluded.
Supplement:
With comparative forms: Neque ego hac nocte longiorem me vidisse censeo . . . (Pl.
Am. 279); Iam istoc es melior. (Pl. As. 717); Quis me est ditior? (Pl. Aul. 809); Nihil
hoc homine audacius. (Pl. Men. 631); . . . tu es lapide silice stultior . . . (Pl. Poen. 291);
Nullus me est hodie Poenus Poenior. (Pl. Poen. 991); Minus hercle in istis rebus
sumptum est sex minis. (Pl. Trin. 411); . . . dum · ne · minus · senatorbus · C ·
adesent . . . (CIL I2.581.6 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); . . . Annos sexaginta natus es / aut
plus eo, ut conicio. (Ter. Hau. 62–3); Habeo etiam dicere quem contra morem maiorum
minorem annis LX de ponte in Tiberim deiecerit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 100); ‘Hoc plus’, inquit,
‘ne facito.’ (Cic. Leg. 2.59 = Lex XII 10.2); . . . quid philosophia magis colendum aut quid
est virtute divinius? (Cic. Fin. 3.76—NB: parallelism); Atqui pares esse virtutes nec bono
viro meliorem nec temperante temperantiorem nec forti fortiorem nec sapiente sapien-
tiorem posse fieri facillume potest perspici. (Cic. Parad. 21); . . . itaque nihil mathematicis
inlustrius. (Cic. Tusc. 1.5); Hoc mihi gratius facere nihil potes. (Cic. Fam. 6.9.2); . . . uti inter
novissimum hostium agmen et nostrum primum non amplius quinis aut senis milibus
passuum interesset. (Caes. Gal. 1.15.5); . . . nisi eorum vitam sua salute habeat cariorem.
(Caes. Gal. 7.19.5); . . . fossas duas . . . in eum locum deduxit quo longius constituerat suam
non producere aciem. (B. Alex. 38.3); Sed nec reverentior captae maiestatis alius Paulo
fuit. (Flor. Epit. 1.28.10); Qua re maiorem in modum te rogo ut rem potiorem oratione
ducas . . . (Mat. Fam. 11.28.5); Amico firmo nihil emi melius potest. (Pub. Sent. A 53)
Ei mihi, credibili fortior illa (sc. Dido) fuit. (Ov. Fast. 3.618); Ea res aliquanto
expectatione omnium tranquillior fuit. (Liv. 4.24.1); Ille est oneratus recte et plus
iusto vehit. (Pl. Bac. 349); Prius tua opinione hic adero. (Pl. Am. 545); Latius
opinione disseminatum est hoc malum. (Cic. Catil. 4.6); Illi tertio mense pervenere
in Pontum multo celerius spe Mithridatis. (Sal. Hist. 2.79)
With magis:25 . . . nec te equo magis est equos ullus sapiens. (Pl. As. 704); Quem cum
mihi conspectum morte magis vitandum fugiendumque esse videatis, nolite . . . (Cic.
Dom. 146); . . . sed tamen est species alia (sc. virtus) magis alia formosa et inlustris . . .
(Cic. de Orat. 3.55); . . . nil tamen hoc habuisse viro praeclarius in se / nec sanctum
magis et mirum carumque videtur. (Lucr. 1.729–30); . . . nunc ab secundis rebus magis
etiam solito incauti. (Liv. 5.44.6)
With minus:26 Nemo me minus timidus, nemo tamen cautior. (Cic. Phil. 12.24); . . .
nemo illo minus fuit emax . . . (Nep. Att. 13.1)
Relative pronouns as the basis of comparison: . . . conspicatus sum interim / cercu-
rum, quo ego me maiorem non vidisse censeo. (Pl. St. 367–8); Vos obsecro, iudices,
ut huic optimo viro, quo nemo melior umquam fuit, nomen equitis Romani . . . ne
eripiatis. (Cic. Rab. Post. 48); Itaque et Phidiae simulacris quibus nihil in illo genere
perfectius videmus et iis picturis quas nominavi cogitare tamen possumus pulchriora.
(Cic. Orat. 8); Profecto id, quo ne in deo quidem quicquam maius intellegi potest.
(Cic. Tusc. 1.65); Punici tamen belli perpetrati, quo nullum <neque> maius neque
periculosius Romani gessere, unus praecipuam gloriam tulit. (Liv. 38.53.11)
More exceptional uses of the ablative as the basis of comparison:
With a verb: Nullos his mallem ludos spectasse. (Hor. S. 2.8.79); . . . in agresti negotio
dici vix potest, quid navus operarius ignavo et cessatore (cessatori cj. Rodgers)
praestet. (Col. 11.1.16)
25 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis 66.15ff.

26 For further examples, see TLL s.v. parvus 578.78ff.
732 Comparison
Consimili ratione necessest ventus et aër / et calor inter se vigeant commixta per
artus / atque aliis aliud subsit magis emineatque . . . (Lucr. 3.282–4)
Comparative is attribute of a non-accusative second argument: Pane egeo iam
mellitis potiore placentis. (Hor. Ep. 1.10.11); . . . qui pauperiem veritus potiore metal-
lis / libertate caret . . . (Hor. Ep. 1.10.39–40)
Comparative is attribute in the genitive: Me pedibus delectat claudere verba / Lucili
ritu, nostrum melioris utroque. (Hor. S. 2.1.28–9)
Participial clause as the basis of comparison: Quid impudentius publicanis renun-
tiantibus? (Cic. Att. 2.1.8)27
Gerundial clause as the basis of comparison: Nullum enim officium referenda gra-
tia magis necessarium est. (Cic. Off. 1.47)
Comparative modified by an ablative of measure: Praestatur laus virtuti, sed multo
ocius / verno gelu tabescit. (Andr. trag. 16–17)
In the proverbial examples like melle dulcior, mel constitutes the conventional proto-
type of sweetness and one might just as well consider it an expression of equivalence
‘as sweet as honey’. In Early Latin the use of quam—an explicit marker of non-
equivalence—in a similar context is very rare, as in (f), which may be compared with
(d) above. Initially, there must have been a semantic difference between the two
expressions. Substituting prius opinione veni by prius veni quam opinio results in
nonsense.28
(f) Quid ais, homo / levior quam pluma . . .?
(‘What do you say, you man lighter than a feather . . .’ Pl. Men. 487–8)
Quam is used when the head noun of a noun phrase is not expressed, in instances like
(g) and (h), where the comparison is between attributes:
(g) Novella (capra) enim quam vetus utilior.
(‘The young goat is more profitable than the old.’ Var. R. 2.3.1)
(h) Ex quo iudicari potest virtu<ti>s esse quam aetatis cursum celeriorem.
(‘From this it can be concluded that the course of ability is swifter than that
of age.’ Cic. Phil. 5.48)
In the literature two instances are discussed of an ablative in combination with a
positive form of the adjective, one of which is (i). The other example is tan · durum
saxso in CIL IV.1895 (cf. Ov. Ars 1.474).29
(i) (sc. aedes) Speculo claras, candorem merum.
(‘One bright as a mirror, pure candor.’ Pl. Mos. 642)
27 For discussion, see Laughton (1964: 96–7).

28 For the idea that the ablativus comparationis is a marker of equivalence, see Rosén (1999: 189–93),
following van der Heyde (1930). So also Traglia (1947: 11). Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996: 199)
and Orlandini and Poccetti (2010) point to the ‘elative’ meaning of the expression: ‘the highest degree of
sweetness’. Donatus in his Ars IV.401.24K describes the phenomenon as a hyperbole: ‘Hyperbole est
dictio fidem excedens augendi diminuendive causa: augendi ut nive candidior, minuendi ut tardior
testudine.’
29 See Traglia (1947: 16) and Sz.: 110, with references.
The origin of the ablative in prehistoric times is disputed (separative or instrumental?).30
Cicero has a number of instances of ‘double comparison’31 with an ablative (either the
connecting relative quo or the preparative demonstrative hōc) and quam followed by
an accusative and infinitive, as in (k), or a finite clause, as in ( j) and (l).
( j) Quo quidem mihi turpius videri nihil solet quam cum (L, quod M) ex orato-
ris dicto aliquo aut responso aut rogato sermo ille sequitur: ‘occidit. # . . .’
(‘Actually, I always think that nothing is more disgraceful than when an utterance or
response or question from an orator gives rise to an exchange like this: “That’s really
the end of it!” # . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.302—tr. May and Wisse)
(k) Quid ergo hoc fieri turpius aut dici potest quam eum . . . labi . . .
(‘And so what more unseemly can be done or said than this, that the very man . . .
should blunder . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.169)
(l) . . . tamen hoc certius esse nihil potest quam quod omnes artes aliae sine
eloquentia suum munus praestare possunt . . .
(‘. . . nevertheless, there can be nothing more certain than this, that while all other arts
are able to discharge their functions unaided by eloquence . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.38)
20.8 Minor alternative expressions for the basis of comparison

in comparisons of non-equivalence
(i) Sallust is the first author to use the dative for the basis of comparison with inferior
‘inferior’, as in (a), and there are a few later instances. It is better to relate this use of
the dative to its use with words like impar ‘not the equal (of)’ (see § 4.100) and to
regard other instances of the dative in the literature (see the Supplement) as analogical
extensions.32
(a) Vir gravis et nulla arte cuiquam inferior.
(‘An impressive man and inferior to none in any type of activity.’ Sal. Hist. 2.37)
Supplement:
Nulli tua forma secunda est (Ov. Am. 1.8.25); Adiuro per du<l>cem istum capilli tui
nodulum, quo meum vinxisti spiritum, me nullam aliam meae Fotidi malle. (Apul.
Met. 3.23.2)
(ii) The use of the genitive for the basis of comparison is slightly better attested
from Vitruvius onwards. Examples are (b) and (c). Its relatively frequent use in
30 For discussion and references, see Cuzzolin (2011: 589–92; 603–5).

31 This term is used by Pease in his note ad Cic. N.D. 1.38, where he also mentions one instance at
Lact. Inst. 5.10.4. Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.170–1) discusses the phenomenon in his chapter on
‘Kontamination’.
32 For discussion and references, see Sz.: 113–14. For the dative for the basis of comparison with
inferior, see TLL s.v. inferus 1395.35ff.
734 Comparison
ecclesiastical texts (including early Latin translations of the Bible) is due to Greek
influence.33
(b) Intervalla autem turrium ita sunt facienda, ut ne longius sit alia ab alia sagit-
tae missionis . . .
(‘The distances between the towers are so to be made that one is not further from
another than a bowshot.’ Vitr. 1.5.4)
(c) Caelia · C. · l. · quae · fuit / caeli · melior

(‘Caelia, freedwoman of Caelia, who was better than heaven.’ CIL VI.4912.1–2 (Rome,
1st cent. ad (early))
Supplement:
Fistulae ne minus longae pedum denum fundantur. (Vitr. 8.6.4); . . . primus peregrini
marmoris columnas habuit in eodem Palatio, Hymettias tamen nec plures sex aut
longiores duodenum pedum . . . (Plin. Nat. 36.7); . . . in id quod amplius sui debiti solu-
tum est teneri. (Scaev. dig. 12.6.61); Nec tamen sui molliore<m> provocarat. (Apul.
Met. 9.38.5); Memorat et Plato maiorem Asiae vel Africae terram Atlantico mari
inereptam. (Tert. Apol. 40.4)
(iii) The use of a prepositional phrase with ab + ablative for the basis of comparison
is very rare and is almost restricted to Christian texts, starting with the early Latin
versions of the Bible. Many of the instances are in combination with suppletive
comparative forms, such as magis ‘more’ and plus ‘more’. An example is (d). However,
this use originates from the use of ab with words like alter and secundus meaning
‘after’, as in (e), and in its poetic extension, as in (f). It is also found with alius (see
§ 20.20). Even rarer than the use of ab is the use of de and ex in this context.34
(d) Quanto magis melior est homo ab ove.
(‘How much more valuable is a man than a sheep!’ Vet. Lat. Mat. 12.12—NB: for
magis, see § 20.10 fin.)35
(e) Tu nunc eris alter ab illo.

(‘Now you will be next after him.’ Verg. Ecl. 5.49)
(f) . . . nec Priamo’st a te dignior ulla nurus.

(‘. . . after you, there is no one more worthy to be a daughter-in-law to Priam.’ Ov.
Ep. 16.98)
Deroux (1973) discusses the origin of the expression (following earlier scholars who
suggest influence from Hebrew)36 and a few expressions that may have favoured the
33 For the history of the construction and references, see Sz.: 112–13 and Cuzzolin (2011: 611–15), also
about possible Greek influence on the early instances. A few more instances are cited in TLL s.v. parvus
579.6ff. See also § 20.9 fin.
34 See TLL s.v. de 64.34ff.; Sz.: 112. 35 The Vulgate has melior ove.
36 Hebrew has no comparative form and uses a prepositional expression for the basis of comparison
(Roland Hoffmann, p.c.).
use of the preposition ab, such as longe ab ‘far away from’ and ab meaning ‘next to’, as
in (e). Compare: Dulcissimum ab hominis (sc. lacte) camelinum, efficacissimum ex asi-
nis. (Plin. Nat. 28.123).37
(iv) Prepositional phrases with prae meaning ‘in comparison with’ are found from
Early Latin onwards, in combination with a comparative expression, as in (g), but also
with all sorts of expressions, as in (h).38 It is not really the (obligatory) basis of com-
parison in a comparative expression, but a satellite.
(g) Ac me minoris facio prae illo . . .
(‘And I think my case is not as bad as that man’s . . .’ Pl. Epid. 522)
(h) Quid est? / # Quia enim non sum dignus prae te palum ut figam in parietem.
(‘What is it? / # Because compared with you I’m not worthy to pound a peg into a
wall.’ Pl. Mil. 1139–40)
20.9 The comparative element used with expressions

of quantity, extent of space or time, age, etc.
With the comparatives plus ‘more’, amplius ‘more’, ‘longer’, ‘farther’, minus ‘less’, and—
rarely—longius ‘longer’ and propius ‘nearer’, ‘closer’ used in combination with an
expression of quantity or of extent of space or distance quam is not used in Early Latin
and the ablative of comparison is less common than the expression shown in (a) and
(b). In (a), minus is juxtaposed to quindecim dies, the subject in its clause, and hence
in the nominative. In (b), amplius is juxtaposed to the measure expression duodeviginti
partibus, which is in the ablative case, as is common with measure expressions (it is an
ablativus mensurae—see § 20.10). The comparatives in (a) and (b) are so to speak
insensitive to the syntactic environment in which they are used.39 Very rare are cases
like (c), where pluris is in the genitive, just like sestertium triginta milium, an instance
of the genitive of description (see § 11.48).
(a) Minus quindecim dies sunt quom pro hisce aedibus / minas quadraginta
accepisti a Callicle.
(‘It’s less than two weeks since you got forty minas for this house from Callicles.’ Pl.
Trin. 402–3)
(b) Quid potest sole maius, quem mathematici amplius duodeviginti partibus
confirmant maiorem esse quam terram?
(‘What can be bigger than the sun, which the mathematicians declare to be eighteen
times the size of the earth?’ Cic. Luc. 82)
37 Material can be found in TLL, s.v. ab 39.40ff. Add Deroux’s (1973) comments. He also notes the
occasional use of ab with inferior (Var. R. 1.2.16) and citerior (Val. Max. 9.12.6). The ab expression is found
in texts of both educated and uneducated writers (Adams 2013: 363–70).
38 The material can be found in the TLL s.v. 374.46ff. See also Torrego (2002: 272).
39 For thoughts about the origin of the construction, see Sz.: 110, with references, Calboli (1961a), and
Pasoli (1966: 84–7). The two constituents are sometimes called ‘appositives’.
736 Comparison
(c) . . . qui praedium praediave rustica pluris sestertium triginta milium

haberent . . .
(‘. . . those who had an estate or estates in the country valued at over thirty thousand
sesterces . . .’ Liv. 45.15.2)
Supplement:40
Quid si tandem amplius triennium est? (Cic. Q. Rosc. 8); . . . cum eum Syracusis
amplius centum cives Romani cognoscerent . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.14); Reliquum spatium,
quod est non amplius pedum sescentorum . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.38.5); Hamilcar puerulo
me utpote non amplius novem annos nato . . . Iovi optimo maximo hostias immolavit.
(Nep. Han. 2.3)
Vitibus sulcos et propagines ne minus p. IIS quoquoversus facito. (Cato Agr.
43.2); . . . nisi mature Laetilius in Siciliam cum litteris venisset, minus XXX diebus
Metellus totam triennii praeturam tuam rescidisset. (Cic. Ver. 2.140); . . . ad castra
Caesaris omnibus copiis contenderunt et a milibus passuum minus duobus castra
posuerunt. (Caes. Gal. 2.7.3); (sc. vallum) . . . neque minus XL pedes altitudinis habe-
bat . . . (B. Alex. 2.4); Inter eos satis constabat non minus ducentos Carthaginiensium
equites fuisse . . . (Liv. 29.34.17)
Nam illaec me in alvo menses gestavit decem, / at ego illam in alvo gesto plus
annos decem. (Pl. St. 159–60); Quantum sat est et plus satis: superfit. (Pl. Epid. 346);
Supra terram ne plus IIII digitos transvorsos emineant. (Cato Agr. 45.3); In Sauracti
<et> Fiscello caprae ferae sunt quae saliunt e saxo pedes plus sexagenos. (Cato hist.
52=47C); Homini misero plus quingentos colaphos infregit mihi. (Ter. Ad. 200);
Tribunum plebis plus viginti vulneribus acceptis iacentem moribundumque vidistis.
(Cic. Sest. 85); Unius tamen ea magnitudo hominis erit collecta paulo plus decem
annorum felicitate. (Liv. 9.18.8)
. . . ipse legiones . . . non longius fere mille passus ab suis munitionibus progressus
in acie constituit. (B. Afr. 78.2); Neque enim provocationem esse longius ab urbe
mille passuum . . . (Liv. 3.20.7)
. . . dum ne p<rop>ius urbem Romam CC milia admoveret? (Cic. Phil. 6.5—NB:
propius governs urbem41); P. Mucius Scaevola urbanam sortitus provinciam est et ut
idem quaereret de veneficiis in urbe et propius urbem decem milia passuum . . . (Liv.
40.44.6)
NB: Quid sit quod . . . Q. Calidius damnatus dixerit minoris HS tricies praetorium
hominem honeste non posse damnari. (Cic. Ver. 38—a penalty argument in the geni-
tive, see § 4.64; HS tricies is invariable)
Examples that conform to the regular patterns described in §§ 20.5 and 20.7 are
(d)—with quam—and (e)—with an ablative of comparison.
(d) Nam partim quinque eius partes esse dixerunt, partim non plus quam in tres
partes posse distribui putaverunt.
(‘For some have said that it has five parts and others have thought that it could be
divided into not more than three parts.’ Cic. Inv. 1.57)
40 Most of the examples are taken from K.-St.: II.471–2. 41 See TLL s.v. prope 1962.4ff.
(e) Plus triginta annis natus sum . . .

(‘I’m more than thirty years old . . .’ Pl. Men. 446)
Supplement:
Eam (sc. enumerationem) plus quam trium partium numero esse non oportet. (Rhet.
Her. 1.17); . . . nequis nostrum plus quam unius civitatis esse possit . . . (Cic. Balb.
31); . . . eorum qui non sunt usi plus quam quattuor coloribus, formas et liniamenta
laudamus. (Cic. Brut. 70); Plus octo milia hominum caesa, et haud multo minus
quam mille captum . . . (Liv. 24.42.8); Nec plus quam quattuor milia hominum
effugerunt. (Liv. 39.31.13); . . . si . . . id . . . testati fuerint adhibitis non minus quam sep-
tem testibus civibus Romanis puberibus . . . (Gaius Inst. 1.29)
Cum iam amplius horis sex continenter pugnaretur . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.5.1); Sed ubi
certis auctoribus comperit minus V et XX milibus longe ab Utica eius copias
abesse . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.37.3)
NB: (sc. Cicero) pluris occidit uno . . . (Brut. ad Brut. 26 (25[1.17]).1); . . . neve hiberna
propius ullam urbem decem milibus passuum aedificarent. (Liv. 26.1.10)
In age expressions with the adjective natus ‘old’, the number of years, months, or days
is regularly a noun phrase in the accusative, as with other dimensional adjectives (see
§ 4.104). An example is (f).
(f) Ovem tibi eccillam dabo, natam annos sexaginta, / peculiarem.
(‘Look, I’ll give you that sheep, sixty years of age, as your very own.’ Pl. Mer. 524–5)
Natus has no comparative form. For expressing a higher or a lower number of years,
months, or days there are a few other possibilities illustrated by (g)–(i).42 In (g), annos
is in the accusative case, as in ex. (f) with natam alone; in (h), annis is in the ablative
case, with the comparative minor, as in (e).
(g) Annos natus maior quadraginta.
(‘He is more than forty years old.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 39)
(h) . . . leges Halaesinis dedit, in quibus multa sanxit de aetate hominum, nequi
minor XXX annis natus . . .
(‘. . . he gave laws to the men of Halaesa in which he laid down many rules about the
age of the men who might be elected; that no one might be under thirty years of
age . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.122)
Supplement:
. . . queive minor anneis XXX maiorve annos LX gnatus siet . . . (CIL I2.583.13
(Lex Acilia, Rome, 122 bc))
Maior enim annos sexaginta natus decessit florente regno. (Nep. Reg. 2.3); . . . ne
quis minor quinquaginta annos natus hospitio matris familias uteretur. (Fron. Str.
4.1.10)
Sic Hannibal minor quinque et viginti annis natus imperator factus . . . (Nep.
Han. 3.2)
42 See TLL s.v. nascor 88.18ff.

738 Comparison
There are also various expressions with the number of years in the genitive, most
probably derived from the genitive of description (see § 11.48). They are relatively
common in inscriptions and in juridical texts. Examples are (i)–(k), (i) with gnatus
alone, ( j) with minor and maior and natus, and (k) with minor alone.
(i) <Co>rnelius · L. · f. · L. · n. / <Sci>pio Asiagenus / Comatus annoru /
gnatus · XVI
(‘Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus Nevershorn, son of Lucius, grandson of Lucius, sixteen
years of age.’ CIL I2.13 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c. 150 bc))
( j) . . . dum ne in/vito eius opera exigatur qui minor annor(um) XIIII /
aut maior annor(um) LX natus erit . . .
(‘. . . as long as no labour is exacted unwillingly from any person less than four-
teen or more than sixty years of age.’ CIL II.5.1022.XCVIII.8–10 (Lex coloniae
Genetivae Iuliae, Flavian copy of a law adopted soon after Julius Caesar’s death,
44 bc))
(k) . . . dumne · cuiius comi/tis · rationem · habeat · qui · IIviratum · pe/tet
· et qui minor · annorum · XXV erit . . . item qui aedilitatem · quaes-
turam/ve · petet · qui minor · quam annor(um) XXV erit . . .
(‘. . . provided that he does not accept in the election the eligibility of anyone seek-
ing the duumvirate who is under 25 . . . likewise of anyone seeking the aedileship
or the quaestorship who is under 25 . . .’ CIL II.1964.54.10–15 (Lex Irnitana,
Malaga, 1st cent. ad (late)—NB: note quam in the second age expression—tr.
González))
Supplement:
Obsides Romanis viginti dato et triennio mutato, ne minores octonum denum anno-
rum neu maiores quinum quadragenum. (Liv. 38.38.15); Cautum est, domine,
Pompeia lege quae Bithynis data est ne quis capiat magistratum neve sit in senatu
minor annorum triginta. (Plin. Ep. 10.79.1)43
Cf.: Cautumque in posterum senatus consulto ne quis gladiatorium munus ederet
cui minor quadringentorum milium res . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.63.1)
In a way that resembles the examples above, plus quam and minus quam can be used
to modify nouns functioning as subject complement and adjectives functioning as
attribute to indicate an extreme degree. Examples are (l) and (m), respectively.
(l) Confiteor eos . . . plus quam sicarios, plus quam homicidas, plus etiam quam
parricidas esse . . .
(‘I confess them to be worse than assassins, worse than murderers, worse even than
parricides.’ Cic. Phil. 2.31)
(m) Odisse plebem plus quam paterno odio.
(‘That he hated the plebs with a hatred greater than his father’s.’ Liv. 2.58.5)
43 This instance is discussed by Coleman (2012: 222–3).

Supplement:
. . . primaque eorum proelia plus quam virorum, postrema minus quam feminarum
esse. (Liv. 10.28.4)
Has tantas viri virtutes ingentia vitia aequabant, inhumana crudelitas, perfidia
plus quam Punica, nihil veri . . . (Liv. 21.4.9)
20.10 Expressions specifying the measure of difference

in comparisons of non-equivalence
When two terms are compared with respect to a certain standard, the most common
way to indicate the measure of difference between them is to use a noun phrase in the
ablative case (the so-called ablativus mensurae). This may be a full noun phrase containing
a noun and a quantifier of some form, as in (a), a noun with a specific meaning, as in
(b), or a neuter singular form of an adjective of amount, as in (c). In (d), the head
noun to which the numeral una belongs can be understood from the context (tribu).
(a) Probae hic argenti sunt sexaginta minae. / Duobus nummis minus est (sc.
argentum).
(‘There are sixty decent silver minas here, minus two obols.’ Pl. Per. 683–4)
(b) Ego enim ne pilo quidem minus me amabo.
(‘I won’t love myself any less, not even less by a hair’s breadth.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.16.5)
(c) Immo hercle vero / qui pendet multo est miserior.
(‘No, a chap is more miserable by far when he’s hanging.’ Pl. As. 616–17)
(d) . . . legem una plures tribus antiquarunt quam iusserunt.
(‘. . . the law was rejected by one more tribe than voted in its favour.’ Liv. 5.30.7)
Examples of noun phrases in the ablative of measure of difference are (e)–(g). Among
them noun phrases with partes ‘times’ are relatively common, as in (e) and (f).44
(e) Quis est . . . avaritia tam ardenti . . . ut eandem illam rem . . . non multis parti-
bus malit ad sese . . . sine facinore . . . pervenire?
(‘For who is there . . . of avarice so consuming . . . that he would not a hundred times
rather attain the same object without transgressing?’ Cic. Fin. 3.36)
(f) Si duabus partibus doceo te amplius frumenti abstulisse quam populo
Romano misisse . . .
(‘If I prove that you embezzled twice as much corn as you sent home for the nation . . .’
Cic. Ver. 3.49)
(g) Transeunt Rhenum . . . triginta milibus passuum infra eum locum ubi pons
erat perfectus . . .
(‘They crossed the Rhine thirty miles below the spot where the bridge had been
built . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.35.6)
44 For further examples, see TLL s.v. pars 453.22ff., OLD s.v. pars § 4e.
740 Comparison
Supplement:
With comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs: Nempe octoginta debentur
huic minae? # Hau nummo amplius. (Pl. Mos. 919); Immo edepol una littera plus
sum quam medicus (sc. mendicus). (Pl. Rud. 1305); Uno Gelasimo minus est quam
dudum fuit. (Pl. St. 498); Quasi volturii triduo / prius praedivinant quo die esuri
sient. (Pl. Truc. 337–8); . . . cum maximas animo voluptates percipiat omnibusque
partibus maiores quam corpore . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.108); Quam molestum est uno digito
plus habere. (Cic. N.D. 1.99); (sc. honestas) . . . certe omni pondere gravior habenda
quam reliqua omnia . . . (Cic. Off. 3.35); Uno plus Tuscorum cecidisse in acie. (Liv.
2.7.2); Non die, non hora citius quam necesse est magistratu abieris . . . (Liv. 9.34.15)
NB: Assunt quae imperavisti omnia: / uxor, sortes, situla atque egomet. # Te uno
adest plus quam ego volo. (Pl. Cas. 358–9)
With malo and praesto: Nam decem partibus tuas litteras legere malim quam omnes
Massicos aut Gauranos palmites. (Fro. Ep. ad M. Caes. 4.4.2vdH); . . . quattuor et
triginta tum habebat annos totidemque annis mihi aetate praestabat. (Cic. Brut. 161)
With adverbs and related prepositional phrases: Eam (sc. vitem) anno post prae-
cidito seritoque cum qualo. (Cato Agr. 52.2); Ergo his fundamentis positis consulatus
tui triduo post . . . Lex Aelia et Fufia eversa est. (Cic. Pis. 9); . . . exposuit nobis sermo-
nem Laeli de amicitia habitum . . . paucis diebus post mortem Africani. (Cic. Amic. 3);
. . . qui annis ante permultis fuit quam ipse Pythagoras. (Cic. de Orat. 2.154); . . . pau-
cis ante annis ex praetura eam provinciam obtinuerat. (Caes. Civ. 1.31.3); . . . milibus
passuum duobus ultra eum (sc. Caesarem) castra fecit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.48.2); Paucis
citra milibus lignatores ei cum praesidio occurrunt. (Liv. 10.25.5)
The use of adjectives of amount in the ablative as measure of difference expressions is

very common. Apart from multo in (c), these adjectives include nimio ‘too much’
(especially in Plautus), paulo ‘little’, nihilo ‘nothing’, aliquanto ‘somewhat’, aliquo
‘somewhat’, quanto ‘how much’, tanto ‘so much’, and several combinations with tanto,
e.g. bis tanto ‘twice as much’. Examples are (h) and (i). The measure expressions usu-
ally precede the comparative expression, as in (h), but see (i) (see also § 23.80 fin.).45
(h) Ter tanto peior ipsa est quam illam tu esse vis.
(‘She’s three times worse on her own than you want her to be.’ Pl. Per. 153)
(i) Sed certe eidem illi melius aliquanto dicerent, si . . .
(‘But those same individuals would certainly speak rather more successfully, if . . .’
Supplement (in alphabetical order by ablative):

With comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs: Atque aliquanto lubentius
quam aps te sum egressus intus. (Pl. Epid. 380); Sed et si non totum evictum sit verum
aliquo minus habet quam putavit, erit ei subveniendum. (Ulp. dig. 38.2.8.1); . . . vir
sapiens multo arte maiore praeditus non quid verissimum sit, sed quid velit vulgus,
exquiret? (Cic. Tusc. 5.104); Sed quod te misi, nihilo sum certior. (Pl. Cur. 327);
Vixisse nimio satiu’st iam quam vivere. (Pl. Bac. 151); Quem res plus nimio delecta-
vere secundae, / mutatae quatient. (Hor. Ep. 1.10.30–1—NB: nimio follows); . . . Accius
45 For the Early Latin instances, see Bennett: II.362–3.

tunc haut parvo iunior proficiscens in Asiam . . . devertit ad Pacuvium . . . (Gel. 13.2.2);
Sed ea quae demissurus eris sumito paulo acerbiora. (Cato Agr. 101.1); Caesar . . . matu-
rius paulo quam tempus anni postulabat in hiberna in Sequanos exercitum deduxit.
(Caes. Gal. 1.54.2—NB: paulo follows); Illa autem (sc. via) qua omnes commeabant
altero tanto longiorem habebat anfractum . . . (Nep. Eum. 8.5)
With malo and praesto: . . . quicquid in Creta nascatur infinito praestare ceteris eius-
dem generis alibi genitis . . . (Plin. Nat. 25.94); Ne me quidem contemno meoque iudi-
cio multo stare malo quam omnium reliquorum. (Cic. Att. 12.21.5); . . . multo mihi,
multo, inquam, iudices, praestat in eandem illam recidere fortunam quam tantam
inportare meis defensoribus et conservatoribus calamitatem. (Cic. Sest. 146); Nunc
illud est, quom me fuisse quam esse nimio mavelim. (Pl. Capt. 516)
With adverbs and related prepositional phrases: . . . epulamur una non modo non
contra legem, si ulla nunc lex est, sed etiam intra legem, et quidem aliquanto. (Cic.
Fam. 9.26.4);. . . quorum furibunda mens videt ante multo quae sint futura. (Cic. Div.
1.114—NB: multo follows); Cucumin silvestrem esse diximus, multo infra magni-
tudinem sativi. (Plin. Nat. 20.3); Aut in qua<m> inserunt (sc. vitem), in ea paulo
infra quam insitum est incidunt . . . (Var. R. 1.41.3); . . . propter ea vitia maritimarum
urbium quae ante paulo perbreviter adtigi. (Cic. Rep. 2.9—NB: paulo follows); . . .
legati eorum paulo ante a Caesare discesserant . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.12.1)
Appendix: Difficult to explain are instances of tantā in similar contexts, transmitted
several times in the manuscripts of Plautus and Apuleius, and also transmitted in the
palimpsest at Cic. Ver. 3.225. Two examples are ( j) and (k). Many editors prefer read-
ing tanto.46
( j) Ego multo tanta miserior quam tu, Labrax.
(‘I am much more wretched than you, Labrax.’ Pl. Rud. 521—NB: also multo)
(k) Ego tibi redimam bis tanta pluris pallam quam voles.
(‘I’ll buy you another mantle instead, twice as expensive, of your own
choice.’ Pl. Men. 680)
Instead of ablative neuter forms of adjectives of amount, accusative forms are used.
The first undisputed attestations are from Livy, as in (l) and (m). Such accusative
forms are well attested as extent of space adjuncts (see § 10.18), quantity adjuncts (see
§ 10.63), and as degree modifiers of adjectives and adverbs (see § 11.94) from Early
Latin onwards. It is therefore not impossible that the earlier instances that are trans-
mitted are correct, though they are sometimes emended (see the Supplement).47
(l) . . . formamque viri aliquantum ampliorem augustioremque humana intuens
rogitat qui vir esset.
(‘. . . looking at the man’s figure, which was somewhat ampler and more august than a
mortal’s, he inquired who he was.’ Liv. 1.7.9)
46 For discussion, see K.-St.: I.403, Sz.: 136, and Petersmann ad Pl. St. 339, with references. Also TLL
s.v. multus 1616.40ff.
47 See Lundström (1961: 73–5) and Leeman et al. ad Cic. de Orat. 3.92. There seems to be only one Late
Latin attestation of multum with malo (see TLL s.v. multus 203.60).
742 Comparison
(m) . . . flumen Allia . . . haud multum infra viam Tiberino amni miscetur.
(‘. . . the river Allia . . . mingles, not far south of the highway, with the waters of the
Tiber.’ Liv. 5.37.7)
Supplement:
With comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs: Hercle, qui multum (P, multo
ς) improbiores sunt quam a primo credidi. (Pl. Mos. 824); Eiu’ frater aliquantum ad
rem’st avidior. (Ter. Eu. 131); Illud rursus ipsum quod tradunt isti . . . non multum
(multo cj. Manutius) est maius quam illud vulgare et forense. (Cic. de Orat. 3.92); . . .
meliore aliquantum militum genere urgebantur . . . (Liv. 40.40.1); Est et beta silvestris
quam limonium vocant . . . multum minoribus foliis tenuioribusque ac densioribus.
(Plin. Nat. 20.72); Itaque verba posui Varronis e libro . . . cuius principium hoc est:
‘Praxiteles, qui propter artificium egregium nemini est paulum modo humaniori
ignotus.’ (Gel. 13.17.3); Sesquipede quiddam est quam tu longior. (Pl. Trin. 903—NB:
in combination with an ablative of comparison)48
With adverbs and prepositional phrases: De qua etsi permultum (permulto cj.
Lambinus) a<n>te certior factus eram litteris . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.11.1); Uvae paulum
ante maturitatem decerptae siccantur acri sole . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.77); Multum infra
hunc sucum est qui in Gallia fit . . . (Plin. Nat. 25.79); . . . cuius sane decora et procax
soror, Iunia Calvina, haud multum ante Vitellii nurus fuerat. (Tac. Ann. 12.4.1)
NB: Exceptional noun phrases in the accusative: Is locus est citra Leucadem stadia
CXX. (Cic. Fam. 16.2.1); Nacti portum, qui appellatur Nymphaeum, ultra Lissum
milia passuum III, eo naves introduxerunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.26.4)
The adverb longe ‘by far’ is also used as a modifier of comparative expressions, as in
(n) and (o).49 The use of adverbs becomes more common in Late Latin.50
(n) . . . longe superiores virtute rem feliciter gerebant.
(‘. . . being far superior in courage, they fought successfully.’ B. Alex. 46.4)
(o) Utra societas sit utilior, eam longe minorem ac levioris momenti consultatio-
nem esse.
(‘Which alliance was the more advantageous was a far less significant question and
one of far less weight.’ Liv. 24.28.5)
Supplement:
Gnate mihi longe (cj. Hoeufft, longa V) iucundior unice vita . . . (Catul. 64.215); . . .
inimicitiis . . . quas longe acrius arsuras si matrimonium Liviae velut in partis domum
Caesarum distraxisset. (Tac. Ann. 4.40.3)
. . . longe ante omnes mihi quae me carior ipso est . . . (Catul. 68B.159); . . . fuere longe
quidem infra praedictos, probati tamen, Antaeus, Callistratus . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.52)
Ianua vel domina penitus crudelior ipsa, / quid mihi tam duris clausa taces fori-
bus? (Prop. 1.16.17–18); Item munitiones muri turriumque aggeribus coniunctae
maxime sunt tutiores . . . (Vitr. 1.5.5); . . . bonus Deus atque his validissime longissi-
meque praestantior. (August. Conf. 7.7)
48 For the use of quidam, see § 11.114. 49 For further examples, see TLL s.v. longus 1648.41ff.
50 For instances and references, see Sz.: 167.
From Plautus onwards instances are found of clauses that contain both a comparative
form of an adjective or adverbs and magis. In some cases magis is used in its ‘correc-
tive’ sense (like potius, see § 19.61 fin. and § 20.13),51 but most of the eleven instances
in Plautus seem to be pleonastic, as in (p). This also holds for (q) and (r). The phe-
nomenon is slightly more frequent in the Latin Bible translations.52
(p) Ego faxo posthac di deaeque ceteri / contentiores mage erunt atque avidi
minus, / quom scibunt, Veneri ut adierit leno manum.
(‘I’ll make sure that from now on the other gods and goddesses will be more con-
tented and less avaricious when they know how the pimp tricked Venus.’ Pl. Poen.
460–2)
(q) . . . exercitus eius magis suspensiore animo ante adventum Iubae commovebatur.
(‘. . . his army was moved by a greater feeling of suspense before the arrival of Juba.’
B. Afr. 48.3)
(r) . . . quae (sc. manus sinistra) . . . videbatur aequitati magis aptior quam
dextera.
(‘ . . . a left hand which seemed more appropriate for justice than a right hand.’ Apul.
Met. 11.10.5)
Appendix: A number of particles can be used with comparatives (and related expres-
sions) with a scalar meaning (see also § 22.22). Common in all periods of Latin are
iam ‘even’, as in (s)53 and etiam ‘even’, ‘still’, as in (t);54 vel ‘even’ is used from the
Classical period onwards, as in (u); adhuc ‘even’, ‘still’ is used in this way from Seneca
onwards, as in (v).55
(s) . . . certe de istoc Amphitruone iam alterum mirum est magis.
(‘. . . the other business with that Amphitruo is certainly even odder.’ Pl.
Am. 829)
(t) . . . Hegionem, cui boni / tantum affero quantum ipsus a dis optat, atque
etiam amplius.
(‘. . . Hegio, to whom I’m bringing as much good as he himself wishes from
the gods, and even more.’ Pl. Capt. 776–7)
(u) Si autem fieri posset, vel pluris te animos habere vellem . . .
(‘But if it were possible, I should wish you had even more than one mind . . .’
Cic. Phil. 11.22)
(v) Magis adhuc proderunt summissi et humani et dulces . . .
(‘Still more helpful will be those who are yielding and kindly and suave . . .’
Sen. Dial. 5.8.5)
51 See TLL s.v. magis 58.25ff.

52 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis 62.72ff. For discussion, see Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.199–
208), Sz.: 166–7; also for other pleonastic combinations, K.-St.: II.464, and Maltby (2016: 344). The usage
is criticized by Donatus IV.363.3K.
53 For further examples, see TLL s.v. iam 125.12ff.
54 For further examples, see TLL s.v. etiam 948.69ff.
55 For further examples, see TLL s.v. adhuc 662.61ff.
744 Comparison
Supplement:
Adhuc difficilior observatio est per tenores . . . (Quint. Inst. 1.5.22); Melius quidem
adhuc eae civitates in quibus tantum virgines nubunt . . . (Tac. Ger. 19.2)
Maioreque opere ibi serviles nuptiae / quam liberales etiam curari solent. (Pl. Cas.
74–5); Scelus est accipere ab reo: quanto magis ab accusatore, quanto etiam scelera-
tius ab utroque! (Cic. Ver. 2.78); Ego vero, et quidem fecit etiam iste me epilogus fir-
miorem. (Cic. Tusc. 1.119); Maxime tamen doleo adeo et longo et infesto itinere ad
me veniri ut die quadragensimo post aut ultra etiam quam facta sunt omnia nuntien-
tur. (Pol. Fam. 10.33.5); Ibi minus etiam quod alienis cladibus ceciderant animi cer-
taminis fuit. (Liv. 1.11.3)
Quippe qui certo scio / ibi plus scortorum esse iam quam ponderum. (Pl. Truc.
68–9); Quasi quicquam in hunc iam graviu’ dici possiet. (Ter. An. 874); . . . neque in
uno aut altero animadversum est sed iam in pluribus . . . (Cic. Mur. 43); Sed me minus
iam movent, ut vides. (Cic. Fam. 13.15.2); Ab ignis iam maiore vi ac violentia
Volcanus dictus. (Var. L. 5.70); Trans Lugios Gotones regnantur, paulo iam adductius
quam ceterae Germanorum gentes . . . (Tac. Ger. 43.6)
Sed Campans genus / multo Surorum iam antidit patientia. (Pl. Trin. 546–7); Sin
vera sunt quae dicuntur . . . id multo iam beatius est.
. . . quod etiam vel maior est in quibus similitudines reperiuntur . . . (Var. L. 9.114);
Quintus <filius> fuit mecum dies compluris et, si ego cuperem, ille vel pluris fuisset.
(Cic. Att. 16.5.2); Haec vel melior est vitibus satio. (Col. 3.4); Sunt etiam qui decem
genera fecerint sed eo modo quo fieri vel plura possunt. (Quint. Inst. 8.5.5)
These adverbs are also used with verbs and expressions that denote a gradual change.
An example is etiam in (w). Adhuc is attested from Seneca onwards, as in (x).56
(w) Inde in totam urbem discursum est, aucto etiam tumultu quod circa forum
ignis tectis iniectus erat.
(‘They now ran amok throughout the city, the chaos becoming further
intensified because the buildings around the forum were put to the torch.’
Liv. 31.23.7)
(x) Tu ista credis excelsa quia longe ab illis iaces. Ei vero qui ad illa pervenit
humilia sunt. Mentior nisi adhuc quaerit escendere. Istud quod tu summum
putas gradus est.
(‘You deem lofty the objects you seek, because you are on a low level and
hence far away from them. But they are mean in the sight of him who has
reached them. And I am very much mistaken if he does not desire to climb
still higher. That which you regard as the top is merely a rung of the ladder.’
Sen. Ep. 118.6)
20.11 Comparison of equivalence
The most common way from Early Latin onwards to indicate that two terms are
equivalent with respect to a certain standard is with the correlative adverbs
56 See TLL s.v. etiam 948.63ff.; s.v. adhuc 662.36ff.

Comparison of equivalence 745
tam . . . quam. These adverbs can be used with adjectives, adverbs, prepositional
phrases, and with verbs, as in (a)–(c), but also with entire clauses, as in (d). The stand-
ard may be indicated with both terms but is usually indicated only with one. An
example of indication of the standard in both terms is (e). Conditional clauses with si
are relatively frequent as the second term in this type of comparison, as in (d). For
other correlative pairs, see §§ 20.28–30.
(a) Neque opes nostrae tam sunt validae quam tuae.
(‘And our wealth is not as great as yours.’ Pl. Cist. 494)
(b) Quis umquam nepos tam libere est cum scortis quam hic cum sororibus
volutatus?
(‘What debauchee ever wallowed so dissolutely with prostitutes as he has with his
sisters?’ Cic. Har. 59)
(c) . . . intellegatis nihil esse homini tam timendum quam invidiam . . .
(‘. . . you know that nothing should be feared by a man so much as prejudice.’ Cic. Clu. 7)
(d) Qui autem non defendit nec obsistit, si potest, iniuriae . . . tam est in vitio
quam si parentes aut amicos aut patriam deserat.
(‘But he who does not prevent or oppose wrong, if he can, is just as guilty of wrong as
if he deserted his parents or his friends or his country.’ Cic. Off. 1.23)
(e) Tam frictum ego illum reddam quam frictum est cicer.
(‘I’ll make sure he’s as roasted as a roasted pea.’ Pl. Bac. 767)
Supplement:
Tam ego homo sum quam tu. (Pl. As. 490); Tam ego fui ante liber quam gnatus tuos, /
tam mihi quam illi libertatem hostilis eripuit manus, / tam ille apud nos servit quam
ego nunc hic apud te servio. (Pl. Capt. 310–12); Tam propitiam reddam quam quom
propitia est Iuno Iovi. (Pl. Mer. 956); Nihil esse in civitate tam diligenter quam ius
civile retinendum. (Cic. Caec. 70); . . . tamque omnibus Caesarianis quam Pompeianis
Longinum esse in odio . . . (B. Alex. 59.1); Non tam creber agens hiemem ruit aequore
turbo / quam multae pecudum pestes. (Verg. G. 3.470–1); . . . aliamque orationem
non tam honorificam audientibus quam sibi deformem habuisse. (Liv. 45.44.20)
NB: Magis quam id reputo, tam magis uror / quae meus filius turbavit. (Pl. Bac.
1091–91a—NB: magis repeated); Quam magis aspecto, tam magis est nimbata et
nugae merae. (Pl. Poen. 348)
The relatedness of tam . . . quam and tantus . . . quantus expressions appears from com-
binations like (f). In (f) the amount of terror and the joy are equivalent. More mixed
are (g) and (h).57
(f) Profectio Q. Fabi trans Ciminiam silvam quantum Romae terrorem fecerat,
tam laetam famam in Samnium ad hostes tulerat interclusum Romanum
exercitum obsideri . . .
57 For further examples, see K.-St.: II.458–9.

746 Comparison
(‘As much terror as Quintus Fabius’ march through the Ciminian Forest had
created at Rome, just so happy had the report arrived in Samnium among
the enemy that the Roman army was intercepted and besieged.’ Liv. 9.38.4)
(g) Quid est enim in vita tantopere quaerendum quam cum omnia in philoso-
phia, tum id, quod his libris quaeritur, qui sit finis . . .?
(‘For what problem in life should be inquired into so much as all the topics
of philosophy, and especially the question raised in these volumes—What is
the End . . . ?’ Cic. Fin. 1.11)
(h) Iam non tantum mihi videntur iniuriam facere ii qui haec disputant quam si
cuius aures ad hanc disputationem patent.
(‘At this point those who so contend don’t seem to do me so much wrong as
those whose ears are open to such a contention.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.3)
The demonstrative elements of these pairs are rarely combined with a comparative
particle, as in (i) and ( j). TLL s.v. atque 1083.53 quotes two late instances of
tam . . . atque.
(i) Faxo tali sum (= eum) mactatum atque hic est infortunio.
(‘I’ll have the same misfortunes inflicted on him as on our friend here.’ Ter.
Ph. 1028)
( j) . . . cum totidem navibus atque erat profectus Athenas magna cum offensione
civium suorum rediret.
(‘. . . and returned to Athens with the same number of ships as he had set out
with, to the great vexation of his fellow citizens.’ Nep. Milt. 7.4)
Equivalence can also be expressed by other combinations of correlative words, as in

(k)–(m) (see § 18.35).
(k) Si . . . tot labores et pericula suscepissem quotiens . . . vobis salus quaesita est,
nihil amplius in absentem me statuissetis . . .
(‘If . . . I had undertaken so many dangerous exertions as many times as . . . your safety
has been secured, you would have passed no more severe measures against me in my
absence . . .’ Sal. Hist. 2.98.1)
(l) Sed plerique perverse, ne dicam inpudenter, habere talem amicum volunt,
quales ipsi esse non possunt . . .
(‘But most men unreasonably, not to say shamelessly, want to have such a friend as
they cannot be themselves . . .’ Cic. Amic. 82)
(m) . . . tot noctes reddat spurcas quot pure habuerit.
(‘. . . she shall give you as many unchaste nights as she had chaste ones.’ Pl. As. 807)
Negation of an expression of comparison of equivalence can be interpreted more or
less as an expression of non-equivalence, as in (n)–(p), where non tam quam resem-
bles minus quam.
(n) Nostrum enim unus quisque, qui tam beati quam iste est non sumus, tam
delicati esse non possumus, si quando aliquid istius modi videre volet, eat ad
aedem Felicitatis . . .
Comparison between two properties 747
(‘As for ourselves, who are not such grand people as he is, not able to afford such
luxuries, if any one of us is ever disposed to have a look at something of this sort, let
us go off to the temple of Good Fortune . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.126)
(o) Id adeo non tam ex re quam ex istius factis decretisque cognosco.
(‘I am led to this conclusion not so much by direct evidence as by observing what
Verres did or ordered to be done.’ Cic. Ver. 5.9)
(p) (sc. Apollonius) . . . multaque non tam graviter dixit quam facete.
(‘. . . and many of his remarks, rather than being serious, were made in a spirit of jest.’
Cic. de Orat. 1.75)
For a similar situation with comparison of non-equivalence, see § 20.3 fin. The choice
between a positive and a negative expression can be made for pragmatic reasons.58
See also § 8.8 and § 8.50 for pragmatic aspects of negation.
20.12 Comparison between two properties

As with comparison between two terms, for comparison between two ‘properties’ (for
the term, see § 20.1) a distinction must be made between the situation in which two
properties are presented as equivalent and one in which they are presented as non-
equivalent. The two types are illustrated by (a) and (b), the latter repeated from § 20.1,
respectively.
(a) At hic (sc. Alexander) a pueritia latro gentiumque vastator, tam hostium per-
nicies quam amicorum . . .
(‘But this other was from his boyhood a robber and a plunderer of nations, a scourge
alike to his friends and to his foes . . .’ Sen. Ben. 1.13)
(b) Sed longior quam latior acies erat.
(‘But the battle-line was deep rather than widely extended.’ Liv. 27.48.7)
20.13 Comparison of non-equivalence between two properties
Latin has two devices for indicating that of two properties which an entity possesses
one is present in a higher (or lower) degree than the other. One device is magis (or
minus) quam. It can be used to compare two verbs, as in (a): Pompeius showed both
caution and fear, but his degree of caution was higher.59 In a similar way it is used to
compare two adjectives (with the copula expressed or not), as in (b), but it can also be
58 For statistical data on the use of positive and negative expressions of comparison, see Baños (1998: 32).
59 Such utterances are analysed by Baños (2002: 50–6). See also Orlandini and Poccetti (2018), who use
the term ‘epistemic comparison’. For comparison of reason adjunct clauses, see Baños (2019).
748 Comparison
used to compare two adverbs, as in (c) (with the adverbs functioning as disjuncts). Ex.
(d), already cited in § 20.2, shows two clauses that do not share a common entity; the
standard of comparison is the degree of similarity.
(a) Verum ut intellego, cavebat magis Pompeius quam timebat . . .
(‘But, as I understand, Pompeius was more cautious than fearful.’ Cic. Mil. 66)
(b) Celer tuus disertus magis est quam sapiens.
(‘Your relation Celer is more eloquent than wise.’ Cic. Att. 10.1a.4)
(c) . . . per hanc consensionem quae magis honeste quam vere sodalitas nomina-
retur . . .
(‘. . . by means of that form of combination which, in compliment rather than accuracy,
is known as an association . . .’ Cic. Planc. 37)
(d) Nec lact’ lactis magis est simile quam ille ego simil’est mei.
(‘Milk doesn’t resemble milk more than that me resembles this me.’ Pl. Am. 601)
Supplement:
. . . perfectam artem iuris civilis habebitis, magis magnam atque uberem quam diffi-
cilem et obscuram. (Cic. de Orat. 1.191); Si vero aut numerus quidam sit animus,
quod subtiliter magis quam dilucide dicitur, aut quinta illa non nominata magis
quam non intellecta natura . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.41); Credulitas enim error est magis quam
culpa . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.1); . . . dum se temere magis quam satis caute in mediam
dimicationem infert . . . (Liv. 3.5.7); Ad ea consul respondit magis saepe quam vere
unquam Aetolos pacem petere . . . (Liv. 38.8.7); Ludicro Iuven<ali>um sub Nerone
velut ex necessitate, mox sponte mimos actitavit, scite magis quam probe. (Tac. Hist.
3.62.2); Adversus quos Lupicinus . . . temere magis quam consulte progressus in nono
ab urbe miliario stetit paratus ad decernendum. (Amm. 31.5.9)
The other device to indicate the non-equivalence of two properties consists of two
comparative forms of adjectives (both when functioning as subject or object comple-
ment and as attribute) or adverbs in combination with quam, as in (e) and (f). This
device is attested from Cato onwards, while the use of magis in such comparisons
can be found from Cicero onwards. The former becomes more frequent from Livy
onwards.
(e) Id non est in oratoribus aut, etiam si est ut alius gravitatem sequens subtili-
tatem fugiat, contra alius acutiorem se quam ornatiorem velit . . .
(‘But the same is not true of orators, or, even if one in pursuit of weight and dignity
avoids simplicity, and on the other hand, another prefers to be plain and to the point
rather than ornate . . .’ Cic. Opt. Gen. 6)
(f) Non timeo, iudices, ne odio mearum inimicitiarum inflammatus lubentius
haec in illum evomere videar quam verius.
(‘I have no fear, gentlemen, lest I should be thought, in the heat of personal animosity,
to give vent to this attack upon Clodius with greater relish than respect for truth.’ Cic.
Mil. 78)
Supplement:
Quantoque suam vitam superiorem atque ampliorem atque antiquiorem animum
inducent esse quam innoxiiorem. (Cato orat. 178); Haec diligentius quam apertius
dicta esse arbitror . . . (Var. L. 10.75); Collegae eius Pauli una . . . contio fuit, verior
quam gratior populo . . . (Liv. 22.38.8); Nam Asia . . . ditiores quam fortiores exercitus
faciebat. (Liv. 39.1.3); . . . repentinus et tumultuarius exercitus acrius primo impetu
quam perseverantius pugnavit. (Liv. 41.10.3); . . . praecepto compositius cuncta quam
festinantius agerent. (Tac. Ann. 15.3.1); . . . reciperare gloriam avidius quam consultius
properabat. (Tac. Hist. 2.24.1)
Tacitus has two instances of the combination of a comparative form of an adverb +
quam + a positive form, as in (g) (also once in Ammianus 21.16.9).
(g) Nimia pietas vestra acrius quam considerat<e> excitavit.
(‘It was your excessive loyalty that spurred you to an action more violent
than cautious.’ Tac. Hist. 1.83.2)
In (a) above and in some of the other examples in the Supplement another interpret-
ation is possible as well: according to the speaker the expression caveo is more appro-
priate than timeo (the ‘corrective’ use of magis). Other examples are (h) and (i).60
(h) At is quem petebat quietus . . . metuens magis quam metuendus.
(‘While his intended victim was quiet . . . more given to fear than inspiring it.’ Sal.
Jug. 20.2)
(i) Interfecto Vitellio bellum magis desierat quam pax coeperat.
(‘At the death of Vitellius it was rather that war had stopped than peace had begun.’
Tac. Hist. 4.1.1)
Appendix: In a way resembling the corrective use of magis mentioned above, potius
‘rather, preferably’ quam, and to a lesser extent citius ‘sooner’ quam and prius ‘earlier’
quam, can be used to correct a term or to replace it by another term. Examples
are ( j)–(m). These expressions convey a subjective evaluation (TLL uses the term
aestimatio).61
( j) . . . dem potius aurum quam illum corrumpi sinam.
(‘. . . I’d give him the gold rather than let him be ruined.’ Pl. Bac. 1040)
(k) . . . facite hic lege potius liceat quam vi victo vivere.
(‘. . . make sure that one can live here by law rather than coerced by brute
force!’ Pl. Rud. 621)
(l) . . . dies me citius defecerit quam nomina.
(‘. . . daylight will run out before the names do.’ Cic. Ver. 4.59)
(m) Qui scis, an tibi istuc eveniat prius quam mihi? / # Quia numquam merui, tu
meruisti et nunc meres.
60 For further examples, see TLL s.v. magis (‘correctivum’) 58.22ff. For discussion, see Bertocchi and
Orlandini (1996: 219), Tarriño (2011: 377–8), Whitton (2011), and Manfredini (2015b).
61 For these expressions, sometimes called ‘pseudo-comparatives’, see Bertocchi and Orlandini (1996:
223); Baños (2002: 56–9); Tarriño (2007; 2011: 392–5), and Manfredini (2015b). For further instances, see
TLL s.v. citus 1212.31ff.; s.v. potis 347.59ff; s.v. prior 1341.30ff. See also OLD s.v. potius.
750 Comparison
(‘How do you know that won’t happen to you rather than me? # Because I’ve
never deserved it; you have deserved it and still do now.’ Pl. Mos. 58–9)
Supplement:
Etenim semper magno ingenio adulescentes refrenandi potius a gloria quam
incitandi fuerunt. (Cic. Cael. 76)
From Livy onwards potius quam and citius quam can also be used to link a subordin-
ate clause with ut to a preceding or following main clause. Examples are (n) and (o).62
(n) . . . multi ex plebe spe amissa potius quam ut cruciarentur trahendo animam
capitibus obvolutis se in Tiberim praecipitaverunt.
(‘. . . with hope lost, many of the plebeians, sooner than suffer torment by
prolonging their existence, covered up their heads and threw themselves
into the Tiber.’ Liv. 4.12.9)
(o) . . . in corpora sua citius per furorem saevituros quam ut Romanam amici-
tiam violarent.
(‘. . . intending rather to rage madness against their own persons than violate
the Roman friendship.’ Liv. 35.31.16)
20.14 Comparison of equivalence between two properties
Properties that are presented as equivalent may have various forms and may occur at
various levels. In (a), two mutually independent clauses are presented as equivalent.
The reverse order of the clauses is shown in (b), where the two clauses share the same
verb. In (c), the relevant properties felix and pia are subject complements in their
clause, both related to the subject haec mens nostra. In the case of negation of the part
containing tam, the comparison is one of non-equivalence rather than of equivalence,
as in (d) and (e): in (d), Gracchus ought to have shown more pietas towards his coun-
try than to his brother; patriae has the pragmatic function of ‘replacing focus’ (on
which see § 22.8).63 Another example, with two contrastive clauses, is (f).
(a) . . . quoi tam credo datum voluisse quam me video vivere.
(‘. . . to whom I believe he wanted it to be given as much as I can see that I’m alive.’ Pl.
Men. 461)
(b) Quam tu filium tuom, tam pater me meus desiderat.
(‘Just as you long for your son, so does my father long for me.’ Pl. Capt. 316)
(c) Haec mens nostra est (sit cj. Karsten)—di immortales faciant—tam felix
quam pia.
(‘Such is our resolution. May the gods make it as fortunate as it is loyal.’ Liv. 6.26.6)
62 For a discussion of seemingly similar instances of potius ut in Cicero, see Roveri (1959).
63 For such instances of ‘replacing focus’, see Manfredini (2015b: 484–5).
(d) Utinam (sc. C. Gracchus) non tam fratri pietatem quam patriae praestare
voluisset.
(‘If only C. Gracchus had been willing to prefer loyalty not to his brother but to his
country.’ Cic. Brut. 126)
(e) Cum autem ego te non tam vitandi laboris mei causa quam quia tua id inter-
esse arbitrarer . . . hortatus essem . . .
(‘When, however, not so much to avoid my labour as because I thought it would be
for your good I had urged you to . . .’ Cic. Top. 2)
(f) Sed tanta est in plerisque levitas ut eos non tam constantia in re publica nos-
tra delectet quam splendor offendat.
(‘But so great is the pettiness in most men that my steadfastness in public affairs does
not please them so much as my distinction irritates them.’ Cic. Fam. 1.7.7)
Supplement:
Cupam facito p. X, tam crassam quam modioli postulabunt, media inter orbis quae
convenia[n]t crassam quam columella ferrea erit. (Cato Agr. 21.1—NB: text is prob-
lematic); Quis enim umquam . . . tam brevi tempore tot loca adire, tantos cursus con-
ficere potuit, quam celeriter Cn. Pompeio duce tanti belli impetus navigavit? (Cic.
Man. 34); (sc. Fama) . . . magnas territat urbes, / tam ficti pravique tenax quam nuntia
veri. (Verg. A. 4.187–8)
Quamquam non tam dicendi ratio mihi habenda fuit quam audiendi. (Cic. N.D.
1.56); . . . redeoque ad illud quod initio scripsi, totius facti tui iudicium non tam ex
consilio tuo quam ex eventu homines esse facturos. (Cic. Fam. 1.7.5); . . . non tam
pugnandi quam diffugiendi fuit utrorumque consilium. (Hirt. Gal. 8.23.6)
Instead of non tam . . . quam (or other negated expressions) occasionally quam is used
alone, as in (g) and (h), with non alone. Positive instances without a negation, as in
(i), are even less frequent and the earlier attestations are disputed (Sen. Dial. 6.15.2;
Fron. Aq. 128.1).64
(g) Non edepol piscis expeto / quam tui sermonis sum indigens.
(‘I’m not looking for fish as much as I’m in need of a conversation with you.’
Pl. Rud. 943–3a)
(h) . . . non militum, quos perpaucos habebat, fiducia, quam iuventutis
Thurinae.
(‘. . . from his confidence not so much in his soldiers, of whom he had very
few, as in the young men of Thurii.’ Liv. 25.15.9)
(i) educatus · litter(is) / Graecis · quam ·et · Latinis
(‘Educated in both Greek and Latin literature.’ CIL VI.28138.10–11 (Rome))
64 Examples in OLD s.v. quam § 6. Baehrens (1912: 308–9) is the most generous defender of the trans-
mitted texts. For discussion of this example and a few others, see Löfstedt (1936: 24–5). See also Orlandini
and Poccetti (2009).
752 Comparison
20.15 Similarity and dissimilarity

Expressions of similarity and dissimilarity belong to various lexical classes:
(i) idem ‘the same’, alius ‘other’, and related adverbs;
(ii) two-place adjectives and adverbs like aequus ‘equal’ and aeque ‘equally’ also
when used as a modifier of adjectives and adverbs; par ‘equal’ and related
adjectives and adverbs; similis ‘similar’, and related adjectives and adverbs;
diversus ‘different’, etc.;
(iii) adverbs like ita ‘in the same way (as)’, perinde ‘in the same way (as)’, proinde
‘just (as if)’, secus ‘otherwise’, ‘differently’;
(iv) various adverbs that in their literal meaning indicate position, such as contra
‘otherwise (than)’, iuxta ‘alike’, ‘equally’, proxime ‘most nearly’,65 and ultra
‘more (than)’;
(v) prepositional phrases with pro, notably pro eo ‘just the same as’.
Examples of the classes mentioned above are (a)–(g), all with the comparative elem-
ent ac/atque. Note that the two-place adjectives and adverbs in class (ii) also govern
cases (genitive or dative) if the constituent with which (dis)similarity exists is a nom-
inal one. Idem is also occasionally found with a dative,66 though it is much more often
followed by a relative clause (see § 18.15).
(a) Illi / sunt alio ingenio atque tu . . .
(‘Those have a different character from you . . .’ Pl. Ps.1134–4a)
(b) Pumex non aeque est ardus atque hic est senex.
(‘A pumice stone is not as dry as this old fellow.’ Pl. Aul. 297)
(c) Date operam, adeste aequo animo per silentium, / ne simili utamur fortuna
atque usi sumus / quom . . .
same fate as we suffered when . . .’ Ter. Ph. 30–2)
(d) Nam numquam secus / habui illam ac si ex me esset gnata.
(‘I’ve never treated her otherwise than as if she were my own daughter.’ Ter. Hec. 278–9)
(e) Item contra atque apud nos fieri ad Elephantinen, ut neque ficus neque vites
amittant folia.
(‘(It is said) that, contrary to what happens in our country, near Elephantine neither
the fig nor the vine sheds its leaves.’ Var. R. 1.7.6)
(f) Nam primum debeo sperare omnis deos . . . pro eo mihi ac mereor, relaturos
esse gratiam.
65 See TLL s.v. prope 1958.18ff.

66 See TLL s.v. idem 189.93ff. For possible Greek influence in the cases of Horace and Lucretius, see
Calboli (2009: 97–8), with references.
Similarity and dissimilarity 753
(‘Firstly, I am bound to hope that all the gods . . . will recompense me as I deserve.’ Cic.
Catil. 4.3)
(g) Eundem animum oportet nunc mihi esse, gratum ut impetravi, / atque
olim . . .
(‘I ought to have the same attitude now that I’ve got what I wanted as I used to have
back then . . .’ Pl. Mos. 220–1)
Supplement:
Num alia res, alia ratio illius iudicii, alia natura totius negotii nunc est ac tum fuit?
(Cic. Clu. 92); Iam vero virtus eadem in homine ac deo est neque alio ullo in genere
praeterea. (Cic. Leg. 1.25); Aliae enim sunt legati partes atque imperatoris. (Caes.
Civ. 3.51.4); . . . quamquam aliud dicit ac sentit, non aliud tamen simulat. (Quint.
Inst. 9.2.45); Hic loquebatur aliter atque omnes, sentiebat idem quod ceteri. (Cic.
Fin. 4.57)
. . . pariter hoc fit atque ut alia facta sunt. (Pl. Am. 1019); Si amavit umquam aut
si parem sapientiam [hic] habet ac formam / . . . (Pl. Mil. 1251); Neque vero illum
similiter atque ipse eram commotum esse vidi. (Cic. Phil. 1.9); In rebus minoribus
socium fallere turpissimum est aequeque turpe atque illud de quo ante dixi. (Cic.
S. Rosc. 116)
At te ego faciam / hodie proinde ac meritus es, / ut minus valeas . . . (Pl. Am. 583–5);
Nec despero tamen, quamquam languet iuventus, nec perinde atque debebat, in
laudis et gloriae cupiditate versatur . . . (Cic. Pis. 82); . . .non dixi secus ac sentiebam.
(Cic. de Orat. 2.24); Sed quoniam coepi secus agere atque initio dixeram . . . (Cic. N.D.
2.23); Haud secus ac iussi faciunt . . . (Verg. A. 3.236); . . . ita vindicandum atque in
propriis servis senatus censuit. (Ulp. dig. 29.5.1.15)
Contrarium est, quod contra dicitur atque ii, qui audiunt, fecerunt. (Cic. Inv. 1.93);
E quis feminas Q. Modius Equiculus, vir fortissimus, etiam patre militari, iuxta ac
mares habere solebat. (Var. R. 2.7.1); Tricipitinus . . . non ultra quam in Hernicos pro-
cedit. (Liv. 3.8.4); De iis, quae passi erant, questi non sunt, ne quid ultra ac mandatum
esset loquerentur . . . (V. Max. 2.2.5)
. . . sane quam pro eo ac debui graviter molesteque tuli . . . (Serv. Fam. 4.5.1)
The comparative element with expressions of similarity and dissimilarity can be (i)
ac/atque, as in the above examples, and et, (ii) quam, (iii) rarely the ablative of com-
parison, (iv) a preposition such as ab ‘from’, or (v)—especially with alius—nisi ‘except’.
Relative adverbs of manner such as ut and conditional comparative subordinators
such as quasi can be used as well.
The term introduced by a particle follows (not necessarily immediately) the word
or phrase that denotes similarity or dissimilarity. The terms presented as similar or
dissimilar belong to various lexical categories, but the (dis)similarity may also con-
cern a difference in tense form, as in (h) (already used above as (c)). The second term
may be a full main clause, but it may also be a subordinate clause. Potential or coun-
terfactual si clauses are relatively frequent, as in (i). When the content of the first and
the second terms overlap the second term is usually reduced. Often the two terms
have the same syntactic function, but this need not be the case.
754 Comparison
(h) Date operam, adeste aequo animo per silentium, / ne simili utamur fortuna
atque usi sumus / quom per tumultum noster grex motus loco’st.
same fate as we suffered when our company was driven from the stage by an uproar.’
Ter. Ph. 30–2)
(i) Qui me cum omnibus rebus quibus tribunus plebis potuit defendit, tum reli-
quis officiis iuxta ac si meus frater esset sustentavit.
(‘He not only defended me by every means he could as tribune of the plebs but even
supported me by performing other friendly services almost as if he were my own
brother.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 20)
20.16 The use of coordinators in expressions

of similarity and dissimilarity
Ac/atque and rarely et are used to introduce the second term in expressions of (dis)
similarity. In certain situations the utterances containing them may be ambiguous
(allowing two interpretations) or be liable to misunderstanding. This is the case in
(a)–(c). In (a) the adverb aeque can be omitted without making the remainder of the
sentence ungrammatical, which proves that aeque . . . et need not be taken together as
an expression of similarity, as the words are in the Loeb translation. For et can also be
taken as a coordinator on its own and aeque as an adverb: ‘unless we love our friends
and ourselves equally’. The situation in (c) with the adverb iuxta is similar, but here
the translator does not take iuxta . . . et as an expression of similarity.67 The same
applies to the adjective aequo in (b). There can be no doubt in cases with multiple et.68
(a) . . . nisi aeque amicos et nosmet ipsos diligamus . . .
(‘. . . unless we love our friends as much as ourselves . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.67)
(b) Aequo mendicus atque ille opulentissumus / censetur censu ad Accheruntem
mortuos.
(‘The beggar and the richest man in the world are rated with an equal rating in the
Underworld.’ Pl. Trin. 493–4)
(c) Post ubi paulatim licentia crevit, iuxta bonos et malos lubidinose interficere,
ceteros metu terrere.
(‘But afterwards, when their licence gradually increased, the tyrants slew good and
bad alike at their pleasure and intimidated the rest.’ Sal. Cat. 51.30)
(d) Aeque enim perfidiosum et nefarium est fidem frangere quae continet vitam
et pupillum fraudare qui in tutelam pervenit et socium fallere qui se in nego-
tio coniunxit.
67 It is cited as an example in TLL s.v. et 894.26f.

68 For further instances, see Núñez (2002: 152–4), also with pariter in Cic. Parad. 46.
(‘For it is equally perfidious and wicked to break faith, which is the bond of life, as it
is to defraud a ward who has come under one’s guardianship, and to deceive someone
who is a business partner.’ Cic. Q. Rosc. 16)
20.17 The use of ac/atque in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity

Ac/atque are common in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity from Early Latin
onwards. Many examples are given in the introduction to this section (§ 20.15), so
three more will suffice here.69
(a) . . . quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo . . .
(‘. . . a play I love as much as myself.’ Pl. Bac. 214)
(b) . . . nulla adaeque est Acheruns / atque ubi ego fui, in lapicidinis.
(‘. . . there is no Underworld that can match the place where I was, in the quarries.’ Pl.
Capt. 999–1000)
(c) Pomarium seminarium ad eundem modum atque oleagineum facito.
(‘Make the fruit nursery in the same way as the olive nursery.’ Cato Agr. 48.1)
Just as with quam with comparative expressions of non-equivalence, there are occa-
sional instances with atque without an explicit similarity expression. Examples are
(d)–(f).
(d) Sicut est hic quem esse amicum ratus sum atque ipsus sum mihi.
(‘Such is this man who I thought was as good a friend to me as I am to
myself.’ Pl. Bac. 549)
(e) Nempe / vir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac tu.
(‘To be sure, I like to be called a good man and wise, even as you do.’ Hor. Ep.
1.16.31–2)
(f) . . . condicionem inesse stipulationi atque si hoc expressum fuisset.
(‘. . . the condition was incorporated in the stipulation, just as if it had been
expressly stated.’ Paul. dig. 2.14.4.3)
Supplement:
. . . nec se Luna quoquam mutat atque uti exorta est semel . . . (Pl. Am. 274)
20.18 The use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity

Instances of the use of et in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity, where it cannot
be interpreted as a coordinator, are found from Cicero onwards, but in all periods
they are rare.70 Examples are (a) and (b).
69 For a detailed list of the combinations with atque, see TLL s.v. atque 1080.10ff. For historical obser-
vations on the individual words, see Sz.: 478.
70 For instances of et in combination with aeque, see TLL s.v. aequus 1042.81ff. See also s.v. et 895.4ff.
756 Comparison
(a) . . . nec si ille sapiens ad tortoris eculeum a tyranno iure cogatur, similem
habeat vultum et si ampullam perdidisset . . .
(‘. . . and if the Wise Man were to be forced by a tyrant to go to the rack, he would not
wear the same look as if he had lost his oil-flask.’ Cic. Fin. 4.31)
(b) Et quoniam catuli qui iam dispecturi sunt caeci aeque et ii qui modo nati,
Platonem quoque necesse est, quoniam nondum videbat sapientiam, aeque
caecum animo ac (v.l. et) Phalarim fuisse.
(‘Again, since puppies on the point of opening their eyes are as blind as those only just
born, it follows that Plato, not having yet attained to the vision of wisdom, was just as
blind mentally as Phalaris.’ Cic. Fin. 4.64)
Supplement:
Quod de puero alter ad te scripsit et ad matrem de filio, non reprehendo. (Cic.
Att. 10.11.1); Non enim alia causa est aequitatis in uno servo et in pluribus . . . (Cic.
Caec. 57); Idque si ita dicit . . . dicit absurde, similiter et (ut cj. Lambinus) si dicat
non reprehendendos parricidas . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.21); . . . solet enim aliud sentire et
loqui . . . (Cael. Fam. 8.1.3); Isdem sua (sc. vox) maribus, aliis eadem et feminis, ut
lusciniarum generi. (Plin. Nat. 11.268); Conchylia et purpuras omnis hora atterit,
quibus eadem mater luxuria paria paene et margaritis pretia fecit. (Plin. Nat. 9.124);
Servitia perinde et ingenua plebes raptim exstingui . . . (Tac. Ann. 16.13.2)
The use of -que in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity is mentioned as a Post-

Classical phenomenon in various studies, and as typical of Tacitus.71 However, all the
instances mentioned in Gerber and Greef ’s lexicon72 can be interpreted as coordin-
ation, as in (c). Similarly in (d), mentioned in the OLD s.v. § 1.
(c) Eodem subsidio obaerati adversum creditores suspectique capitalium
criminum receptabantur . . .
(‘Debtors and men suspected of a capital offence were covered by the same
shelter . . .’ Tac. Ann. 3.60.1)
(d) Non idem tibi sunt aliisque triumphi.
(‘You and other men don’t have the same triumphs.’ [Tib.] 3.7.136)
20.19 The use of quam in expressions of similarity and dissimilarity
The use of quam in expressions of (dis)similarity is rare in Early Latin, except with
aeque and aliter. These instances are usually negated or negative by implication.
Examples are (a)–(c). The first instance of quam with aeque in a positive context is (d).
The use of quam spreads after Cicero and Caesar, especially with expressions of dis-
similarity. This spread is illustrated for a few lexical items in Table 20.2. Note that with
perinde atque remains the norm.
71 See Sz.: 478. 72 s.v. -que p. 1284A, § B.

Table 20.2 The use of quam and atque with a number of expressions of (dis)similarity
Pl. Ter. Cic. Caes. Hor. Verg. Liv. Sen. Tac. Suet. Petr. Amm.
q a q a q a q a q a q a q a q a q a q a q a q a
aeque 3 5 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 34 4 13 1 5 0 0 1 0 0
aliter 3 1 0 3 0 5 0 2 1 0 2 0 5 1 56 1 1 0 13 1 0 1 0 0
alius 3 3 0 4 0 3 0 8 0 0 3 0 42 2 102 0 57 0 31 0 5 0 5 0
perinde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 10 7 1 4 0 0 0 0
secus 6 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 12 0 2 0 28 0 0 2 0 0 2 0
Total 15 10 0 11 0 18 0 10 1 3 5 7 61 17 194 7 109 8 50 7 5 2 7 0
q = quam; a = ac/atque
The table is based on Fontana (1997: 154–9), where details concerning the corpus used for the individual authors can be found. See Sz.: 593–4 for diachronic data.
758 Comparison
(a) Neque eques nec pedes profecto est quisquam tanta audacia, / qui aeque
faciat confidenter quicquam quam mulier facit.
(‘No soldier on foot or on horseback is indeed so bold as to do anything as self-
confidently as a woman.’ Pl. Mil. 464–5)
(b) Quid si sors aliter quam voles evenerit?
(‘What if the lot settles it differently from how you want it?’ Pl. Cas. 345)
(c) . . . nec mi secus erat quam si essem familiaris filius.
(‘. . . and I wasn’t in a different situation from being a son of the house.’ Pl. Capt. 273)
(d) Expalluit aeque / quam puer ipse deus . . .
(‘The god grew deadly pale even as the boy . . .’ Ov. Met. 10.185–6)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by (dis)similarity expression):
Qui tamen nequaquam adeo est intempestivus quam vestrae istae absurdae atque
abhorrentes lacrimae sunt. (Liv. 30.44.6); . . . nec quemquam interea alium ammit-
tat prorsus quam me ad se virum. (Pl. As. 236); Nunc mihi certum est alio pacto
Pseudolo insidias dare / quam in aliis comoediis fit . . . (Pl. Ps. 1239–40—NB:
positive context); Aliud enim quam cogebatur inlatum est. (Cic. Inv. 1.87—NB:
positive context); Praeterea bybliothecas, pinacothecas, basilicas non dissimili
modo quam publicorum operum magnificentia <habeant> comparatas . . . (Vitr.
6.5.2); Eruca praecipue frigorum contemptrix diversae est quam lactuca naturae
concitatrixque Veneris. (Plin. Nat. 19.154); . . . non eadem neglegentia in extermin-
ium discretis (sc. iniuriis) quam acciderat in casibus matris. (Tert. Val. 16.2);
Studia exercitus raro cuiquam bonis artibus quaesita perinde adfuere quam huic
per ignaviam. (Tac. Hist. 3.86.1); Si proinde amentur, mulieres diu quam lavant, /
omnes amantes balneatores sient. (Pl. Truc. 324–5); Haud proinde id damnum
Vitellianos in metum compulit quam ad modestiam composuit . . . (Tac. Hist. 2.27.1)
Appendix: Several of the adverbial expressions of similarity mentioned in the previ-
ous sections are also found in combination with clauses and phrases introduced by
ut(i) (also sicut(i), quemadmodum, and quomodo). An example is (e). These combin-
ations are sometimes presented as equivalent to the ac/atque expressions. However,
whereas in the previous sections the terms introduced by ac/atque (and quam) must
be regarded as obligatory constituents required by their governing two-place similar-
ity expressions, in their co-occurrence with ut clauses many similarity expressions
can better be regarded as (optional) modifiers of the ut clauses as a whole. In (f) and
(g), for instance, the entire proinde/perinde ut clauses correspond with sic/ita in the
main clauses. There is also another difference: in (h) the ut clause precedes simillime,
which is impossible with the similis ac/atque combination. This is also the case in (i)
with exinde (exim) (which does not occur with ac/atque). In (e) the ut soles clause is
a set phrase (ac/atque soles does not occur). Adaeque is therefore best regarded as an
autonomous degree expression. For further details about ut and related expressions
see §§ 20.24–7.
(e) Nec munda adaeque es ut soles . . .
(‘You are not as neat as usual . . .’ Pl. Cist. 55)
(f) Numquam edepol quemquam mortalem credo ego uxorem suam / sic efflic-
tim amare, proinde ut hic te efflictim deperit.
(‘By god, I don’t believe there’s a mortal man alive who loves his own wife so
madly as the mad way he dotes on you.’ Pl. Am. 516–17)
(g) Omnia ista, perinde ut cuique data sunt pro rata parte, ita aut longa aut
brevia dicuntur.
(‘All such things are spoken of as long or short according to the proportion
in which they are in each case allotted.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.94)
(h) Ut onera contentis corporibus facilius feruntur, remissis opprimunt, simil-
lime animus intentione sua depellit pressum omnem ponderum . . .
(‘As weights are more easily carried by straining every nerve of the body but
become too heavy when the nerves are relaxed, quite similarly the soul by its
intense effort throws off all pressure of burdens . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 2.54)
(i) Utquomque in alto ventu’st, Epidice, exim velum vortitur.
(‘One turns the sail according to how the wind is on the sea, Epidicus.’ Pl.
Epid. 49)
Supplement:
Quis enim cuiquam inimicior quam Deiotaro Caesar? Aeque atque huic ordini, ut
equestri, ut Massiliensibus, ut omnibus quibus rem publicam populi Romani caram
esse sentiebat. (Cic. Phil. 2.94—NB: the ut phrases add another point of similarity and
they are not continuations of atque); . . . cui nihil aeque in causis agendis ut brevitas
placet. (Plin. Ep. 1.20.1); Eo fit, quia mihi / plurumum credo et scio istaec facta
proinde ut proloquor. (Pl. Am. 756–7); Atque hoc verum est: proinde ut quisque fortuna
utitur, / ita praecellet atque exinde sapere eum omnes dicimus. (Pl. Ps. 679–80)
20.20 The use of the ablative in expressions

of similarity and dissimilarity
The use of the ablative for the second term in expressions of similarity and dissimilar-
ity (ablativus comparationis) is very rare. An example with alius is (a); with (ad )aeque,
(b). The instances with (ad )aeque have pronouns in the ablative. An even more note-
worthy later instance is (c), where aeque modifies the verb miror. An example of a
mixed construction (contamination) is (d), where aeque modifies the comparative
miserior.73
(a) . . . est aliut melle <et> propoli.
(‘It is a different substance from either honey or propolis.’ Var. R. 3.16.23)
(b) Qui me in terra aeque fortuna- / tus erit, si illa ad me bitet, / Palinure?
(‘Who on earth will be as fortunate as me, if she comes to me, Palinurus?’ Pl. Cur.
141–2)
73 See Sz.: 110; TLL s.v. aequus 1044.35ff; Traglia (1947: 16–18); Pasoli (1966: 81ff.); Timpanaro (1970:
474=1978: 39); Núñez (2002: 161–2).
760 Comparison
(c) Exstant certe hodieque antiquiores urbe picturae Ardeae . . ., quibus equidem
nullas aeque miror . . .
(‘At all events there survive even today in Ardea paintings that are older than the city
of Rome, and I don’t marvel at any paintings in the same way as I do at them . . .’ Plin.
Nat. 35.17)
(d) Homo me miserior nullu’st aeque . . .
(‘Nobody is more wretched than me . . .’ Pl. Mer. 335)
Supplement:
With alius: Nos ab initio spectasse otium nec quicquam aliud libertate communi
quaesisse exitus declarat. (Brut. Cas. Fam. 11.2.2); . . . neve putes alium sapiente
bonoque beatum . . . (Hor. Ep. 1.16.20)74
With (ad )aeque: Nullu’st hoc metuculosus aeque. (Pl. Am. 293); Neque est neque fuit
me senex quisquam amator / adaeque miser. (Pl. Cas. 684–5); Quo nemo adaeque
iuventute ex omni Attica / antehac est habitus parcus nec magis continens . . . (Pl. Mos.
30–1—NB: here magis continens may have contributed to the use of the ablative)
20.21 The use of relative adverbs of manner and conditional

comparative subordinators in expressions of similarity
Relative adverbs of manner (see § 16.33) and conditional comparative subordinators

(see § 16.66) can be used with expressions of similarity, but instances are relatively
rare. Examples are (a)–(e).
(a) Nec simile’st ut cum inpulsi procedimus ictu / viribus alterius magnis mag-
noque coactu.
(‘Nor is this the same as when we move forwards impelled by a blow from the strength
and mighty effort of another.’ Lucr. 2.272–3)
(b) . . . invenietur eadem latitudo uti altitudo . . .
(‘. . . the breadth will be found to be the same as the height . . .’ Vitr. 3.1.3)
(c) Namque de tegulis . . . mutandis non est eadem cura quemadmodum de
his . . .
(‘For the same care is not needful in repairing roof tiling as in these . . .’ Vitr. 6.8.8)
(d) Simile est ius iurandum amantum quasi ius confusicium.
(‘A lover’s oath is similar to oatmeal gruel.’ Pl. Cist. 472)
(e) Haec omnia . . . alligato integitoque ad eundem modum tamquam oleas.
(‘Tie all these up and protect them in the way I have described for olives.’ Cato
Agr. 41.4)
74 See TLL s.v. alius 1636.58ff., where a few Late instances of alius ab can be found as well.
20.22 The use of prepositions and nisi in expressions of dissimilarity
The preposition ab is rarely used with alius from Tertullian onward, but see the earlier
use with aliter in the Supplement. An example is (a). Similarly with dissimilis.75
(a) . . . nisi eum longe alium demonstraveritis a Christo Creatoris . . .
(‘. . . unless you show that he is altogether different from the Christ of the Creator.’
Tert. Marc. 3.16.7)
Supplement:
Cultores regionum multo aliter a ceteris agunt. (Mela 1.57)
In clauses containing alius prepositional phrases meaning ‘but’, ‘save’, ‘except’ (e.g.
praeter, praeterquam, and citra) are quite common, in all periods of Latin. An example
is (b).76
(b) Numquis est hic alius praeter me atque te?
(‘There isn’t anyone here apart from me and you, is there?’ Pl. Trin. 69)
The use of nisi ‘other than’, ‘except’ in interrogative or negative clauses with alius is
very common from Early Latin onwards, as in (c) and (d), respectively (see also
§ 16.67).
(c) Quid ego aliud exoptem amplius nisi illud quoius inopia est . . .?
‘What other thing should I wish for more than that which I lack . . .?’ Pl. As. 724)
(d) Negat ponere alio modo ullo profecto / nisi se sciat vilico non datum iri.
(‘She says she won’t put them down unless she knows she won’t be given to the
overseer.’ Pl. Cas. 698–9)
20.23 Expressions specifying the degree of dissimilarity
The degree of dissimilarity can be expressed by an adjective of amount in the ablative

(of comparison), as in (a) and (b), or by the adverb longe, as in (c) (see also § 20.10).77
(a) Non multo aliter tuendum hoc pecus in pastu atque ovillum.
(‘In the matter of feeding this animal does not need to be cared for much differently
from sheep.’ Var. R. 2.3.6)
(b) Ut enim athletas nec multo secus gladiatores videmus nihil . . . facere caute . . .
(‘For as we observe that boxers, and gladiators not much less, do not make any
motion cautiously . . .’ Cic. Orat. 228)
75 See TLL s.v. alius 1636.67ff.; s.v. dissimilis 1475.36ff.

76 For further examples, see TLL s.v. alius 1636.31ff.
77 For further examples of longe, see TLL s.v. 1648.29.
762 Comparison
(c) At erat huic iudicio longe dissimilis illa contentio.

(‘But that earlier dispute was very different from the present case.’ Cic. Sul. 49)
Supplement:
Verum aliter evenire multo intellegit. (Ter. An. 4); Item amaturus eiusdem modi
habet declinationes, amans paulo aliter. (Var. L. 9.110); Nec multo aliud de novis
sentio. (Quint. Inst. 10.1.41)
Ego fateor, sed longe aliter est amicus atque amator. (Pl. Truc. 172); O fortunam
longe disparem, M. Fontei, si deligere potuisses . . . (Cic. Font. 49); Quod ego longe
secus existimo, iudices. (Cic. Mur. 31); Tum ille ‘ut ita ista esse concedam,’ inquit
‘Antoni, quae sunt longe (L, valde M) secus, quid mihi tu tandem hodie aut cuiquam
homini quod dici possit reliquisti?’ (Cic. de Orat. 2.365); Sed longe clarius inlustra-
verunt hoc opus Sophocles atque Euripides . . . (Quint. Inst. 10.1.67)
20.24 Comparative expressions of quality

Satellite clauses of manner introduced by ut(i), sicut(i), quemadmodum, and quomodo
with or without corresponding cataphoric or anaphoric adverbs are dealt with in
§§ 16.33–6. They indicate how the event of the main clause took place (as adjuncts) or
situate the event in a broader perspective (as disjuncts). This section and the two fol-
lowing ones deal with the use of ut(i) (and rarely sicut) in characterizing qualities of
entities. Two types can be distinguished: (i) introducing a finite clause, as in (a), (ii) in
combination with constituents of various forms in the clause which function as sec-
ondary predicates, as in (b). In both cases we are dealing with optional constituents.78
Details for these two types are given in § 20.25 and § 20.26, respectively.
(a) Horam unam aut duas eodem loco armatos ut collocati fuerant retinere
magnum fuit?
(‘Would it have been so difficult to retain the armed men in the same place for an
hour or two as they had originally been positioned?’ Cic. Deiot. 19)
(b) . . . et venit vel rogatus ut amicus, vel accersitus ut socius . . .
(‘. . . and he came either requested as a friend, or summoned as an ally . . .’ Cic. Deiot. 13)
20.25 Ut clauses characterizing a quality of a constituent

in the main clause
Examples of ut clauses that characterize the quality of a constituent in the main clause
are (a)–(d). These clauses contain a form of the verb sum (as copula or auxiliary),
which usually follows ut immediately. For another order, see (e). Sometimes the ut
78 The label ‘quality’ is taken from Dik (1997: I.231), where the expressions discussed in the text are
regarded as satellites. See also Revuelta (2002: 195–7).
Comparative expressions of quality 763
clause can be interpreted in a causal sense, as in (e). There may be a corresponding ita,
as in (a) and (b).
(a) Oleum si in metretam novam inditurus eris, amurca, ita uti est cruda, prius
colluito . . .
(‘If you are to put oil in a new jar, rinse it first with amurca just as it comes, raw . . .’
Cato Agr. 100—tr. Dalby)
(b) . . . ut erat laena amictus ita venit in contionem seditionemque cum auctori-
tate tum oratione sedavit.
(‘. . . clad in his priestly robe, just as he was, he hurried to the assembly, and by the
authority of his presence as well as by his words allayed the tumult.’ Cic. Brut. 56)
(c) Deinde . . . litterasque nondum perlectas, sicut erant signatae, dat homini
certo ad Scipionem perferendas.
(‘He then . . . gave the letter—still unread and with its seals intact—to a reliable mes-
senger to take to Scipio.’ B. Afr. 4.4)
(d) His, sicut erant nuntiata, expositis auctoribusque in curiam introductis
consul de religione patres consuluit.
(‘When the consul had laid these reports before the senate exactly as they had come
to him and had introduced into the House the men who had vouched for their truth,
he consulted the Fathers regarding their religious import.’ Liv. 22.1.14)
(e) Ab hoc abaci vasa omnia ut exposita fuerunt abstulit.
(‘He (sc.Verres) swept his sideboard clean of all its vessels, just as they stood there.’
Cic. Ver. 4.35)
Supplement:
Quae cum iam accubanti in convivio esset data, sicut erat signata, sub pulvinum
subiciens . . . inquit . . . (Nep. Pel. 3.2–3); Lotis in herbosa sub acernis ultima ramis, /
sicut erat lusu fessa, quievit humo. (Ov. Fast. 1.423–4); Haec, sicut audita erant, rex
M. Aemilio praetori, cuius Sicilia provincia erat, perscribit . . . (Liv. 21.49.6)
NB: Cum iis litteris sicut erant signatis L. Verginio tribuno militum ducendi ad
Claudium consulem traduntur. (Liv. 27.43.4).
20.26 Ut and related phrases functioning as secondary predicate
Not unlike the way in which the ut clauses in the preceding section characterize the
quality of a constituent of the main clause, phrases consisting of ut and a noun
(phrase), an adjective, or a participle may characterize the quality of an entity. The
nominal parts of the phrase agree with the constituent to which they are related in
case, gender, and number. They are in fact secondary predicates, as described in
Chapter 21. It is not always easy to distinguish such phrases from condensed manner
clauses (see § 16.34 fin.). Examples are (a)–(c). We also find sicut, quasi, and tamquam
used in this way. Examples are (d)–(f).79
79 For tamquam phrases, especially in Petronius, see Manfredini (2014).

764 Comparison
(a) In ea est crebra ista vocum concursio, quam magna ex parte ut vitiosam fugit
Demosthenes.
(‘In this there is frequent clash of vowels, which Demosthenes generally avoided as
vicious.’ Cic. Orat. 151)
(b) . . . nec . . . te consoler ut adflictum et iam omni spe salutis orbatum sed ut
eum de cuius incolumitate non plus dubitem quam te memini dubitare
de mea.
(‘I shall not console you as a man undone beyond all hope of recovery, but as one of
whose rehabilitation I feel no more doubt than I remember you used to feel of mine.’
Cic. Fam. 6.6.2)
(c) . . . cum vos me ut carissimum filium desiderabatis . . .
(‘. . . at a time when you regretted my absence as if I were a beloved son . . .’ Cic. Prov. 43)
(d) . . . Graeci (sc. mihi) quasi Ephesio praetori se alacres obtulerunt.
(‘. . . the Greeks, as though I were governor in Ephesus, presented themselves to me
with eagerness.’ Cic. Att. 5.13.1)
(e) Quam tu totam insulam cuidam tuorum sodalium sicut aliquod munuscu-
lum condonaras . . .
(‘This island that you presented complete, as though it were some trifling gratuity, to
one of your associates . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.85)
(f) Hi dum aedificant tamquam beati . . . in tantum aes alienum inciderunt, ut . . .
(‘Putting up buildings as men of wealth . . . they have run so deeply into debt that . . .’
Cic. Catil. 2.20)
Supplement:
Iacet enim corpus dormientis ut mortui . . . (Cic. Div. 1.63); . . . superante multitudine
hostes carpere multifariam viris Romanas, ut non suffecturas ad omnia, adgressi
sunt. (Liv. 3.5.1); Quid te ut regium iuvenem conspici sinis? (Liv. 1.47.5); Nam cum
Speusippum sororis filium Plato philosophiae quasi heredem reliquisset . . . (Cic. Ac.
1.17); . . . sermone, qui ore (ex ore cj. Novak) eius quasi e beato quodam eloquentiae
fonte manabat . . . (V. Max. 2.6.8—NB: variation); An quicquam stultius quam, quos
singulos sicut operarios barbarosque contemnas, eos aliquid putare esse universos?
(Cic. Tusc. 5.104); ‘Mihi vos nunc’, inquit Crassus, ‘tamquam alicui Graeculo
otioso . . . quaestiunculam de qua meo arbitratu loquar ponitis?’ (Cic. de Orat.
1.102); . . . cum eum cives sui missis legatis tamquam seditiones apud eos moventem
accusarent. (V. Max. 4.1.6); Postremo sociis nostris veluti hostibus, hostibus pro
sociis utuntur. (Sal. Jug. 31.23—NB: parallelism); . . . si, ut poetis, nobis quoque mos
esset . . . (Liv. praef. 12); . . . velut adsueti malis abalienaverant ab sensu rerum suarum
animos, arma tantum ferrumque in dextris velut solas reliquias spei suae intuentes.
(Liv. 5.42.8); . . . ne se quoque, ut patrem Hamilcarem, deinde Hasdrubalem,
cunctantem casus aliquis opprimeret . . . (Liv. 21.5.1); . . . numquam more aliarum,
quibus omnis commendatio ex forma petitur, tumescentem uterum abscondisti
quasi indecens onus . . . (Sen. Dial. 12.16.3); Mihi [in] anima in naso esse, stabam
tamquam mortuus. (Petr. 62.5); Cassius quidem Parmensis quadam epistula non
Comparative expressions of quality 765
tantum ut pistoris, sed etiam ut nummulari nepotem sic taxat Augustum: . . . (Suet.
Aug. 4.2); . . . Onesimus quo velut fratre minusculo fruebatur . . . (Hier. Ep. 3.4.2)
20.27 Ut phrases of qualification
Ut (rarely sicut) is used with phrases to indicate from which perspective the statement
being made about the entity to which it is attached must be understood. The qualify-
ing function of such ut phrases resembles the use of ut clauses that function as attitu-
dinal disjuncts (see § 16.35 and, for the adjective phrase level, § 11.92). Examples are
(a)–(d).80 In (a) Epicharmus’ qualities acuti and nec insulsi are said to be typical for a
Sicilian. In (d), conversely, Meneclides’ quality satis exercitatum is said to be unusual
for a Theban.
(a) Sed tu mihi videris Epicharmi, acuti nec insulsi hominis ut Siculi, senten-
tiam sequi.
(‘But you seem to me to agree with the aphorism of Epicharmus, who was, as one
expects in a Sicilian, a man of keen insight and not without taste.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.15)
(b) . . . Pythius qui esset ut argentarius apud omnes ordines gratiosus piscatores
ad se convocavit . . .
(‘. . . Pythius, who, as might be expected of a moneylender, could command favours of
all classes, called the fishermen together . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.58)
(c) Tum ab Staieno, sicut ab homine ad excogitandum acutissimo ad auden-
dum impudentissimo ad efficiendum acerrimo . . ., auxilium capiti ac fortu-
nis suis petere coepit.
(‘And so from Staienus, seeing as he was a man subtle in scheming, brazen in contriv-
ance, and swift in execution, he began to seek aid for his fortunes and for his very
life . . .’ Cic. Clu. 67)
(d) Habuit obtrectatorem Menecliden quendam . . ., satis exercitatum in dicendo,
ut Thebanum scilicet. Namque illi genti plus inest virium quam ingenii.
(‘He had a detractor in the person of one Meneclides . . ., who too was a practised
speaker, at least for a Theban; for that people possesses more bodily strength than
mental ability.’ Nep. Epam. 5.2)
Supplement:
Quos tum ut pueri refutare domesticis testibus patre et C. Aculeone propinquo nostro
et L. Cicerone patruo solebamus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.2); Ne tu, inquam, Cato, ista expo-
suisti, ut tam multa memoriter, ut tam obscura, dilucide. (Cic. Fin. 4.1); . . . (sc.
Clitomachus) homo et acutus ut Poenus et valde studiosus ac diligens. (Cic. Luc. 98);
Durior Diogenes, et is quidem eadem sentiens, sed ut Cynicus asperius. (Cic. Tusc.
1.104); . . . non nihil ut in tantis malis est profectum. (Cic. Fam. 12.2.2); Fuerunt quibus
haec eius oratio ut sera et intempestiva et praepostera displiceret . . . (Plin. Ep. 6.5.3)
80 For further examples, see OLD s.v. ut § 22. For discussion, see Van Laer (2010: 353–4).
766 Comparison
20.28 Proportional comparison

The degree to which a certain property A pertains to an entity X in relation to the
degree to which another property B pertains to another entity Y can be expressed by
two types of constructions, one using pronouns or quantifiers in combination with
comparative expressions, the other using adverbs in combination with superlative
expressions.81 They are dealt with in sections § 20.29 and § 20.30, respectively.
20.29 The proportional pattern with a comparative
The standard proportional expression with a comparative is formed by the combin-

ation of a subordinate and a main clause. The subordinate clause contains either the
relative pronoun quo or the relative quantifier quanto functioning as a measure
expression in the ablative (a so-called ablativus mensurae) in combination with a
comparative form. The main clause usually contains the anaphoric pronoun eo (or the
demonstrative pronoun hoc) or the demonstrative quantifier tanto functioning as a
measure expression in the ablative in combination with a comparative. (The quo . . . eo
combination is almost not attested in Early Latin.) The subordinate clause usually
precedes. The term used in this Syntax is proportional comparative pattern.82 In
both clauses the properties that the comparatives express are variable and the vari-
ation is proportional: the more or less of property A in the subordinate clause, to the
same degree more or less of property B in the main clause. Examples with the corres-
pondence fully expressed are (a)–(c). Note in (b) the (rare) correlation between quo
and tanto.
(a) Atque quanto, Nox, fuisti longior hac proxuma, / tanto brevior dies ut fiat
faciam . . .
(‘And, Night, I’ll make the day shorter by the amount you were prolonged last night . . .’
Pl. Am. 548–9—tr. Christenson)
(b) Quo mage novi, tanto saepius.
(‘The more I know, the more often (I do it).’ Ter. Ph. 328)
(c) Sed quo maior est in eis praestantia et divinior, eo maiore indigent diligentia.
(‘To the degree that their superiority is greater and more divine, to that degree they
need greater care.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.58)
In (d) and (e) there are no correlating elements in the main clause (tanto and eo,
respectively). In these and the earlier examples the proportional pattern connects two
81 K.-St.: II.483ff. deal with this expression type in the chapter on ‘Vergleichende Adverbialsätze der
Quantität oder Intensität’.
82 It is also called ‘comparative conditional’ and ‘comparative correlative’. For recent discussion, see
Bertocchi and Maraldi (2008; 2009); Michaelis (1992; 1994). For the use of the proportional comparative
pattern in technical texts, see Viré (2005).
Proportional comparison 767
clauses—the qu-clause being subordinate to the other. However, it can also function
at a lower level, as in (f), where two attributes are connected.
(d) Quasi ob industriam, quanto ego plus propero, procedit minus.

(‘It seems almost intentional—the more I hurry, the less headway we make.’ Pl.
Cas. 805)
(e) Nam cui proposita sit conservatio sui, necesse est huic partes quoque sui caras
esse carioresque, quo perfectiores sint et magis in suo genere laudabiles.
(‘For he who aims at the preservation of himself, must necessarily feel an affection for
the parts of himself also, and the more so, the more perfect and admirable in their
own kind they are.’ Cic. Fin. 5.37)
(f) Duae ad Luceriam ferebant viae, altera . . . patens apertaque, sed quanto
tutior, tanto fere longior, altera per furculas Caudinas, brevior.
(‘There were two roads to Luceria. One . . ., though open and unobstructed, was long
almost in proportion to its safety. The other led through the Caudine Forks, and was
shorter.’ Liv. 9.2.6)
Supplement:
Full correlative pattern: Quanto in pectore hanc rem meo magis voluto, / tanto mi
aegritudo auctior est in animo. (Pl. Capt. 781–2); . . . quanto diutius / abest, mage
cupio tanto et mage desidero. (Ter. Hau. 424–5—NB: tanto follows mage cupio); . . .
recte praecipere videantur qui monent ut quanto superiores simus tanto nos gera-
mus summissius. (Cic. Off. 1.90); Quanto vos adtentius ea agetis, tanto illis animus
infirmior erit. (Sal. Cat. 52.18); Quanto quaeque magis sint terram sidera propter, /
tanto posse minus cum caeli turbine ferri. (Lucr. 5.623–4); Quod quanto plura
parasti, / tanto plura cupis, nulline faterier audes? (Hor. Ep. 2.2.147–8); . . . ceraeque
renovabuntur, quae tanto deteriores sunt quanto vetustiores. (Col. 9.15.11); Ea sic
conficitur, ut dura sit, et quanto facta est vetustior, eo melior in usu est. (Col.
12.23.1—NB: unequal correlatives); Procellae, quanto plus habent virium, tanto
minus temporis. (Sen. Nat. 7.9.3)
Arationes absolvi, quae eo fructuosiores fiunt, quo caldiore terra aratur. (Var. R.
1.32.1); An id agendum ut eo celerius de isto transigamus, quo maturius ad Apronium
possimus . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.60); . . . solet idem Roscius dicere se, quo plus sibi aetatis
accederet, eo tardiores tibicinis modos et cantus remissiores esse facturum. (Cic. de
Orat. 1.254); Eiusdem collis occupandi [gratia] Labienus consilium ceperat et quo
propiore loco fuerat eo celerius occurrerat. (B. Afr. 49.2); . . . sed quo inpunitior sit, eo
effrenatiorem fore. (Liv. 3.50.7); Passum, quo ex sicciore uva est, eo valentius est.
(Cels. 2.18.12); Eo enim crassior est aër quo terris propior. (Sen. Nat. 7.22.2)
Iam quo quisque est sollertior et ingeniosior, hoc docet iracundius et laboriosius.
(Cic. Q. Rosc. 31); Quo magis exhaustae fuerint, hoc acrius omnes / incumbent
generis lapsi sarcire ruinas . . . (Verg. G. 4.248–9); Hanc tibi commendo, quae, quo
magis orba parente est, / hoc tibi tutori sarcina maior erit. (Ov. Tr. 3.14.15–16); Et
quo longius moles agebatur a litore, hoc magis quicquid ingerebatur praealtum
absorbebat mare. (Curt. 4.2.22); Quo quisque honestior genere, fama, patrimonio
est, hoc se fortius gerat, memor in prima acie altos ordines stare. (Sen. Dial. 2.19.3)
768 Comparison
Only relative element present: Ita quanto (cj. Pius; quanti mss.) magis extergeo,
rutilum atque tenuius fit. (Pl. Rud. 1301—NB: positive form rutilum);83 Nam quanto
propius truncum ridica statuitur, etiam leviter defixa stabilior est . . . (Col. 4.16.3); At
ille, quanto acriora in eum studia militum et aversa patrui voluntas, celerandae vic-
toriae intentior, tractare proeliorum vias . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.5.2—NB: positive form
aversa); Crebriores apud ipsum sermones, quanto sperantibus plura dicuntur. (Tac.
Hist. 2.78.4)
Quoque suo propior sceleri est, magis horret. (Ov. Met. 10.460); Venit amor gravius,
quo serius. (Ov. Ep. 4.19); Quo plures erant, maior caedes fuit. (Liv. 2.51.6); . . . procul
dubio apparere, quo quid humilius sit, propius a centro esse terrae . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.165);
Et hercule ut aliae bonae res, ita bonus liber melior est quisque, quo maior. (Plin. Ep.
1.20.4); . . . quo sublimior gloria est, maior et cura est. (Cypr. Hab. Virg. 3)
Very remarkable instances of the proportional pattern are (g)–(i). In (g)—if the text
is correct—there are two measure constituents with melior, of which quo lacks its
corresponding eo. In (h) and (i) the bases of comparison are expressed as well (quam
quos vicisti and Aristarcho, respectively).84
(g) Nam tibi eos certo scio, / quo vir melior multo es quam ego, obtemperaturos
magis.
(‘They’re more likely to take notice of you, I’m quite sure, insofar as you are
a much better man than I am.’ Ter. Ad. 704–5)
(h) Quod tu non esses, iure vir illa fuit. / Qua tanto minor es, quanto te, maxime
rerum, / quam quos vicisti, vincere maius erat.
(‘She was by full right what you were not: a man. You are as much less than
she, O greatest of men, as it was greater to vanquish you than those you
vanquished.’ Ov. Ep. 9.106–8)
(i) Corrigere ut res est tanto minus ardua, quanto / magnus Aristarcho maior
Homerus erat . . .
(‘But while to emend is as much easier as great Homer was greater than
Aristarchus . . .’ Ov. Pont. 3.9.23–4)
In deviation from the proportional pattern with two comparative expressions some
authors exhibit patterns with only one comparative, with either a comparative expres-
sion in the qu-part of the pattern, as in ( j) and (k), or, the other way around, with a
comparative expression in the eo or tanto part. Sometimes the meaning of the verb
implies a gradual change, like crescit in ( j). These patterns are favoured by Livy and
especially Tacitus.85 These authors also use a proportional pattern with a positive
adjective or adverb in one part and a comparative in the other, as in (l) and (m).86
( j) Ita dimissis, quo minus consules velle credunt, crescit ardor pugnandi.
(‘Dismissed with these words, the soldiers’ eagerness to fight grew greater
the less they believed the consuls wanted to fight.’ Liv. 2.45.9)
83 For further examples with magis, see TLL s.v. 65.73ff.

84 For these examples, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2008: 26–30).
85 Tacitus’ instances can be found in Heubner’s commentary ad Hist. 1.14.2.
86 For Tacitus, see Sörbom (1935: 98).
(k) . . . ceteri nobilium, quanto quis servitio promptior, opibus et honoribus

extollerentur . . .
(‘. . . the rest of the nobles, each in proportion to his readiness for servitude,
were being exalted by wealth and honours . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.2.1—tr. Woodman)
(l) Romani ovantes ac gratulantes Horatium accipiunt eo maiore cum gaudio,
quo prope metum res fuerat.
(‘The Romans welcomed Horatius with jubilations and thanksgivings, and
with a joy that was greater to the degree that the event had been close to fear.’
Liv. 1.25.13)
(m) Hosti . . . sonus tubarum, fulgor armorum, quanto inopina, tanto maiora
offunduntur . . .
(‘Over the enemy . . . there poured the sound of trumpets and glitter of arms,
magnified in proportion to their unexpectedness . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.68.4—tr.
Woodman (adapted))
Supplement:
Ea, quo maiore pugnabat ira ob erepta bona patriamque ademptam, pugnam
parumper restituit. (Liv. 2.19.10); Ea pars morum eius, quo suspectior sollicitis,
adoptanti placebat. (Tac. Hist. 1.14.2); Sed quo plus virium ac roboris, e fiducia tardi-
tas inerat. (Tac. Hist. 2.11.1)
. . . quantum ipse feroci / virtute exsuperas, tanto me impensius aecum est / con-
sulere (Verg. A. 12.19–21—NB: gradable verb); Quantum autem augebatur militum
numerus, tanto maiore pecunia in stipendium opus erat . . . (Liv. 5.10.5—NB:
gradable verb); . . . quanto quis audacia promptus, tanto magis fidus rebusque motis
potior habetur. (Tac. Ann. 1.57.1); . . . tanto infensius caesi, quanto perfugae et
proditores ferre arma ad suum patriaeque servitium incusabantur. (Tac. Ann.
4.48.3); . . . quantumque hebes ad sustinendum laborem miles, tanto ad discordias
promptior. (Tac. Hist. 2.99.1); . . . dimisit lanceam tanto ille quidem fidentius,
quanto crederet ferri vulnera similia futura prosectu dentium. (Apul. Met. 8.5.10);
Quanto pecunia dites et voluptatibus opulentos, tanto magis imbelles Aeduos
evincite et fugientibus consulite. (Tac. Ann. 3.46.2); . . . quanto dives aliqua est et
matronae nomine inflata, tanto capaciorem domum honoribus suis requirit . . . (Tert.
Ux. 2.8)
In Early Latin and in poetry, instead of the measure expressions dealt with above, the
degree adverbs quam . . . tam are found with comparatives as well, especially with
magis ‘more’.87 An example is (n). Sometimes the relative adverb is used alone, as in
(o). Sometimes one of the comparatives is absent, as in (p). And there are also occa-
sionally mixed expressions, as in (q). An instance without an explicit degree expres-
sion is (r).
(n) Magis quam id reputo, tam magis uror / quae meus filius turbavit.
(‘The more I think it over, the more I burn with anger because of the trouble my son’s
stirred up.’ Pl. Bac. 1091–1a)
87 The whole range of measure expressions with magis can be found in TLL s.v. 65.54ff.
770 Comparison
(o) Quam magis in pectore meo foveo, quas meus filius turbas turbet, / . . . / magis
curae est magisque afformido ne is pereat neu corrumpatur.
(‘The more I ponder in my heart what trouble my son’s stirring up . . . the more it’s a
source of anxiety for me and the more I fear that he might perish or go astray.’ Pl. Bac.
1076–8)
(p) Quam magis te in altum capessis, tam aestus te in portum refert.
(‘The more you put out to sea, the more the tide brings you back to the harbour.’ Pl.
As. 158)
(q) Quam magis extendas tanto astringunt artius.
(‘The more you stretch them, the more tightly they tie.’ Pl. Men. 95)
(r) Immo, hospes, magis quom periclum facies, magis nosces meam / comitatem
erga te amantem.
(‘Indeed, my dear guest, when you test me more, you’ll get to know more of my
friendliness toward you in your love.’ Pl. Mil. 635–6)
Supplement:
Quam magis aspecto, tam magis est nimbata et nugae merae. (Pl. Poen. 348); Tam
magis illa fremens et tristibus effera flammis, / quam magis effuso crudescunt san-
guine pugnae. (Verg. A. 7.787–8); Quam magis specto, minus placet mi haec hominis
facies. (Pl. Trin. 861); Quam magis exhausto spumaverit ubere mulctra, / laeta magis
pressis manabunt flumina mammis. (Verg. G. 3.309–10); Quae quanto magis inter se
perplexa coibant, / tam magis expressere ea quae mare sidera solem / lunamque
efficerent . . . (Lucr. 5.452–4); Et, quanto ad gelidas propius quis venerit Arctos, / tam
magis effugiunt oculos brumalia signa, / vixque ortis occasus erit. (Man. 3.344–6)
Exceptional and Late are instances like (s) and (t). Ex. (s) has a correspondence
between a superlative and a comparative, but must be intended as a proportional
expression. Ex. (t) has what was originally a proportional measure expression in
combination with a positive adverb, but must be understood as a variant of the
coordinator cum . . . tum (see § 19.73).
(s) Quo enim quemquam maxime diligimus, eo minus ei debemus in quibus
magno periculo peccatur committere.
(‘For the more we love anyone, the more are we bound to avoid entrusting to
him things which are the occasion of very dangerous faults.’ August. Ep.
104.7—tr. Cunningham)
(t) Haec testimonia animae quanto vera tanto simplicia . . . quanto naturalia
tanto divina.
(‘These testimonies of the soul are as true as they are simple, . . . as natural as
they are divine.’ Tert. Test. 5.1—tr. Arbesmann)
20.30 The proportional pattern with a superlative
There are two types of proportional expressions with a superlative (proportional

superlative pattern), one with the degree adverbs quam . . . tam, the other with
the manner adverbs ut . . . ita (or sic). The expressions indicate that the entities are
equivalent and that to each of them the highest degree indicated by the relevant
superlatives applies.88
Instances of the use of quam . . . tam with superlatives are almost confined to Early
Latin. Examples are (a) and (b). In (b) the second superlative is absent.
(a) Quam ad probos propinquitate proxume te adiunxeris, / tam optumum est.
(‘The more closely you connect yourself with honourable men through family ties,
the better it is.’ Pl. Aul. 236–7)
(b) Quam citissume potest, tam hoc cedere ad factum volo.
(‘I want this matter to come to pass as quickly as possible.’ Pl. Capt. 352)
Supplement:
Quam potis tam verba confer maxume ad compendium. (Pl. Mil. 781); Quam citis-
sime conficies, tam maxime expediet . . . (Cato Agr. 64.2); Nam quam maxume huic
visa haec suspitio / erit vera . . . / . . . tam facillume patri’ pacem in leges conficiet suas.
(Ter. Hau. 997–8); Quam paucissimos (sc. canes) reliqueris, tam optimi in alendo
fiunt propter copiam lactis. (Var. R. 2.9.12); Ita quam quisque pessume fecit, tam
maxume tutus est. (Sal. Jug. 31.14)
Instances of the use of ut . . . ita with superlative adjectives and adverbs and verbs of a
gradable meaning are common in Cicero and later authors. The ut clause contains a
form of the pronoun quisque ‘each’ (see § 11.158). Examples are (c)–(e).
(c) Profecto ut quisque minimo contentus fuit, / ita fortunatam vitam vixit
maxime . . .
(‘Truly as each man was content with the least, so he lived a happy life to the highest
degree. . .’ Turp. com. 142–3)
(d) Ut quisque te maxime cognatione . . . attingebat, ita maxime manus tua putabatur.
(‘The more closely a man was connected with you by any tie of blood . . ., the more he
was reckoned one of your hands.’ Cic. Ver. 2.27)
(e) . . . ut quisque aetate et honore antecedit, ita primus solet sua sponte dicere,
itaque a ceteris ei conceditur.
(‘. . . according as a person is senior in age or official position, he is accustomed to
speak first of his own accord, and that precedence is yielded to him by the rest.’ Cic.
Ver. 4.142)
Supplement:
Cuius quidem rei cum causam quaererem, quidnam esset cur, ut in quoque oratore
plurimum esset, ita maxime is pertimesceret, has causas inveniebam duas. (Cic. de
Orat. 1.123); Ut enim quisque sordidissimus videbitur, ita libentissime severitate
iudicandi sordis suas eluet . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.20); . . . colendum autem esse ita quemque
maxime ut quisque maxime virtutibus his lenioribus erit ornatus . . . (Cic. Off. 1.46);
Et ut quisque contemptissimus et vel ludibrium est, ita solutissimae linguae est. (Sen.
Dial. 2.11.3)

772 Comparison
20.31 The absolute use of comparative forms

of adjectives and adverbs
Comparative forms of adjectives and adverbs can be used with the basis of compari-
son unexpressed. This is the normal situation if from the meaning of the comparative
word it is clear with what entity the comparison is made, as in (a).
(a) VIII Kal. duas a te accepi [litteras]. Respondebo igitur priori prius.
(‘On the 25th I have received two letters from you, so I shall answer the earlier first.’
Cic. Att. 15.13.1)
In other situations comparative forms without a basis indicate a relatively high degree
of the meaning of the adjective or adverb, or a higher degree than expected in the
specific situation or in general. Examples are (b)–(d).
(b) Eugae, / corpulentior videre atque habitior.
(‘Excellent! You seem stouter and heavier.’ Pl. Epid. 9–10)
(c) Interea haec soror / quam dixi ad flammam accessit inprudentius, / sati’ cum
periclo.
(‘Meanwhile this sister I was talking about approached the flames with little regard
for her own safety and was in real danger.’ Ter. An. 129–31)
(d) . . . senectus est natura loquacior . . .
(‘. . . old age is naturally inclined to talk too much . . .’ Cic. Sen. 55)
The use of comparative forms without a clear semantic motivation is rare in Early and
Classical Latin. The traditional early example is ocius in (e), repeated from § 20.3 (f),
for which the positive form ociter is not attested before Apuleius. A morphologically
unmotivated example is (f), where supra would be adequate. This phenomenon
increases in the course of time, especially in non-elevated texts.89 It is also not uncom-
mon in Ammianus, sometimes for rhythmic purposes, as in (g).
(e) Tu puere, abi hinc intro ocius.
(‘You, boy, go inside quickly.’ Pl. Mer. 930)
(f) Namque ut superius demonstravimus loca excellentia tumulis contineri . . .
(‘For as we have pointed out earlier that the lofty country is surrounded by hills . . .’
B. Hisp. 28.4—NB: the text is problematic)
(g) Impositusque scuto pedestri et sublatius eminens nullo silente Augustus
renuntiatus iubebatur diadema proferre . . .
(‘And being placed upon an infantryman’s shield and raised on high, he was hailed by
all as Augustus and bidden to bring out a diadem.’ Amm. 20.4.17)
89 See Sz.: 168–9 and Adams (1977: 58; 1991: 91–2).

The superlative and related expressions 773
Supplement:
Ex quavis olea oleum viridius et bonum fieri potest, si temperi facies. (Cato Agr. 3.4);
Si demptus erit odor deterior, id optime. Si non, saepius facito, usque dum odorem
malum dempseris. (Cato Agr. 110.1); (sc. Antonius Iulianus) Doctrina quoque ista
utiliore ac delectabili veterumque elegantiarum cura et memoria multa fuit. (Gel.
1.4.1); Pares enim quodam modo coiere cum paribus, Alamanni robusti et celsiores,
milites usu nimio dociles. (Amm. 16.12.47)
20.32 The superlative and related expressions

Superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs indicate the highest degree of intensity of
a certain property, either in comparison with other entities or states of affairs or in an
absolute sense (the ‘elative’ use of the superlative—see § 3.7). A high degree of inten-
sity may also be expressed by degree modifiers (see §§ 11.93–9), and with certain
adjectives and adverbs this is the only possible or the preferred expression (see § 3.7
and the note below ex. (c), this page).90 Two examples of coordination of a superlative
form with an adjective modified by maxime are (a) and (b). From Vitruvius onwards
it is also used with comparative and superlative forms, as in (c).91 Note in (a) the use
of minime to indicate a very low degree of intensity.
(a) . . . maximeque pius quaestus stabilissimusque consequitur minimeque
invidiosus . . .
(‘. . . their livelihood is most highly respected, most assured and least liable to hostil-
ity . . .’ Cato Agr. pr. 4)
(b) . . . quia virtus, ut omnes fatemur, altissimum locum in homine et maxime
excellentem tenet . . .
(‘. . . because virtue, as we all agree, holds the highest and most esteemed place in a
man . . .’ Cic. Fin. 4.37)
(c) Equilibus quae maxime in villa loca calidissima fuerint, constituantur . . .
(‘For the stables must be designated those areas in the villa that are the warmest . . .’
Vitr. 6.6.4)
For some adjectives superlative forms are excluded or avoided, either for formal
reasons, for example adjectives ending in -osus or -eus and polysyllabic adjectives like
domesticus, or for semantic reasons, for example present participles and gerundives
(unless they are used as adjectives).92
90 Latin has also two prefixes of adjectives and adverbs that indicate high intensity: per- and prae-. See
André (1951) and Cuzzolin (2011: 643–6).
91 See TLL s.v. magis 73.47ff. Cic. Att. 12.38a.1 is usually emended.
92 See TLL s.v. magis 72.43ff.
774 Comparison
The entity or entities in comparison with which an entity possesses the highest degree
of a certain property is regularly expressed by the partitive genitive (see § 11.54) or the
preposition ex (see § 11.68). Examples are (d) and (e)–(f), respectively.93
(d) . . . propterea quod Ariovistus . . . tertiam . . . partem agri Sequani, qui esset
optimus totius Galliae, occupavisset . . .
(‘. . . because Ariovistus has seized a third of the territory of the Sequani, which is the
best in all Gaul . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.31.10)
(e) Acerrimum autem ex omnibus nostris sensibus esse sensum videndi.
(‘That the keenest of all our senses is the sense of sight . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.357)
(f) Ex tempestatibus vero optimae aequales sunt, sive frigidae sive calidae.
(‘But of weather conditions the best are those which are settled, whether cold or
hot . . .’ Cels. 2.1.2)
Superlative forms can be combined with various expressions, such as the scalar par-
ticles etiam ‘even’, vel ‘quite’, ‘altogether’, and ne . . . quidem, as in (g)–(i),94 the adverbs
of degree quam ( potest) in ( j) and longe in (k), and the ablative of measure multo
(see § 20.10) in (l). Another combination is shown in (m), where the numeral unus,
functioning as a secondary predicate, indicates the uniqueness of the high degree
of intensity.95
(g) Omnes enim ad pericula propulsanda concurrimus et qui non aperte inimici
sumus etiam alienissimis in capitis periculis amicissimorum officia et studia
praestamus.
(‘We all rush to repel danger and those of us who are not open enemies fulfil the
obligations and good offices of the closest friendship even in the case of total strangers
when their civil rights are in danger.’ Cic. Mur. 45)
(h) Huius domus est vel optuma Messanae . . .
(‘His house is perhaps the finest in Messana . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.3)
(i) . . . ne minimam quidem moram interposuisti quin quam primum maximo
gaudio et gratulatione frueremur.
(‘. . . you did not let even the slightest of intervals delay our enjoyment of so great a
cause for happiness and congratulation.’ Cic. Phil. 10.1)
( j) Pabulum aridum, quod condideris in hieme<m>, quam maxime
conservato . . .
(‘Save as carefully as possible the dry fodder that you have stored against winter . . .’
Cato Agr. 30)
93 For other prepositions that can be used in the context of superlatives, see Torrego (1998) on praeter
and Cuzzolin (2011: 649–51).
94 For the use of scalar particles with superlatives, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 12–15), from
whom some of the examples are taken.
95 For further expressions with quam, see TLL s.v. magis 75.15ff.; 76.20ff.
The superlative and related expressions 775
(k) (sc. porticus) Longe omnium longissuma est.

(‘It’s by far the longest of them all.’ Pl. Mos. 911)
(l) Aut pol haec praestigiatrix multo mulier maxuma est / aut pateram hic inesse
oportet.
Am. 782–3)
(m) . . . ex ea provincia quae fuerit ex omnibus una maxime triumphalis . . .
(‘. . . from a province which was above all others the most prolific in triumphs . . .’ Cic.
Pis. 44)
Supplement:
Qua ex pugna cum se ille eripuisset et Bosphorum confugisset quo exercitus adire
non posset, etiam in extrema fortuna et fuga nomen tamen retinuit regium. (Cic.
Mur. 34); Litaviccus cum suis clientibus, quibus more Gallorum nefas est etiam in
extrema fortuna deserere patronos, Gergoviam perfugit. (Caes. Gal. 7.40.7); Nemo
non fortius ad id cui se diu composuerat accessit et duris quoque, si praemeditata
erant, obstitit. At contra inparatus etiam levissima expavit. (Sen. Ep. 107.4)
Speramus optima, pati vel difficillima malumus quam servire. (Cic. Phil. 13.16); . . .
duobus milibus nummum sese dicit emisse adulescens vel potentissimus hoc tem-
pore nostrae civitatis, L. Cornelius Chrysogonus. (Cic. S. Rosc. 6); . . . quorum splen-
dore vel maxime istius qui legem promulgavit oratio et causa nititur. (Cic. Ver. 2.175);
Quamquam vel inimicissimis omnibus praeclusisse vocem videbatur, Phaeneas
tamen Aetolus cunctis tacentibus ‘quid? nobis’, inquit, ‘Philippe . . .’ (Liv. 33.13.5)
Crudele, nefarium, ne in sceleratissimo quidem civi sine iudicio ferundum! (Cic.
Dom. 47); . . . causam, in qua ne tenuissima quidem dubitatio posset esse . . . (Cic. Ver.
2.20); Ciceronis autem factum adeo visum est probabile, ut imitari id ne inimicissi-
mus quidem illi P. Pulcher dubitaverit. (V. Max. 4.2.5); Videbis portum . . . sic tutum
ut ne maximarum quidem tempestatium furori locus sit. (Sen. Dial. 6.17.4)
Instead of quam alone, illustrated by ( j) above, and which is possibly the origin of that
usage, quam is also used as a relative adverb ‘to which extent’ in ‘qualifying’ clauses
(see § 16.83 and § 18.27) with the verb possum, as in (n)—modifying an adverb in the
superordinate clause—and (o), modifying the adjective of a noun phrase. The use of
quam in (n) can be compared with the relative manner adverb ut in (p).96
(n) . . . teque ut quam primum possim videam emortuam.
(‘. . . and that I may see you dead as quickly as possible.’ Pl. Trin. 42)
(o) Locum quam optimum et apertissimum et stercorosissimum poteris . . . eum
locum bipalio vertito . . .
(‘The best, most open and most highly fertilized land you can (sc. find for this pur-
pose), turn this with a trench spade . . .’ Cato Agr. 46.1)
96 For a discussion of quam, see Manfredini (2018). For further examples of quam, see OLD s.v. § 7; for
ut, see OLD s.v. § 15b.
776 Comparison
(p) Curate igitur familiarem rem ut potestis optume.

(‘Then look after the household affairs as best as you can.’ Pl. St. 145)
Supplement:
Concede huc, mea nata, ab istoc quam potest longissime. (Pl. Men. 834—NB: imper-
sonal potest); . . . quam potui maximis itineribus ad Amanum exercitum duxi. (Cic.
Fam. 15.4.7)
. . . ut potui accuratissime te tuamque causam tutatus sum . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.17.2)
CHAPTER 21
Secondary predicates
21.1 Secondary predicates: introductory remarks

Among the constituents of Latin sentences, those functioning as secondary predi-
cate (or: praedicativum) introduce a particular set of interpretive issues.¹ Adjectives
indicating the mental or physical condition of a person are the best known type of
constituent functioning as secondary predicate. An example is (a).
(a) At ii qui ab Alesia processerant maesti . . . se in oppidum receperunt.
(‘But they who had come forth from Alesia sadly withdrew again into the town.’ Caes.
Gal. 7.80.9)
Maesti is an optional constituent in the sentence and therefore resembles a satellite. It is in

some way related to the subject ii qui ab Alesia processerant—with which it agrees in num-
ber, gender, and case—but it is not an attribute of that constituent. It indicates the mental
condition of the people who had left Alesia while they were on their way to the oppidum.²
Two other common types of constituents that can function as a secondary predi-
cate are shown in (b), with the quantifier omnes, and (c), with a present participle.
Examples illustrating other types of constituents are discussed later on in this chapter.
(b) (sc. Athenienses et Boeotii ceterique eorum socii) Quos omnes gravi proelio
vicit (sc. Agesilaus).
(‘(the Athenians and Boeotians, and others in alliance with them) All of them he
defeated in a great battle.’ Nep. Ag. 4.5)
(c) Is amore misere hanc deperit mulierculam / quae hinc modo flens abiit.
(‘He’s dying wretchedly with love for this poor woman who went off crying a moment
ago.’ Pl. Cist. 131–2)
¹ In LSS, Chapter 8 these constituents are called ‘praedicativa’. Secondary predicates have received consid-
erable attention in the last few decades, both in Latin linguistics (see LSS, ch. 8, with references, Longrée (1989),
Müller (1990), a collection of articles and discussion in Touratier (ed.) (1991), Pinkster (1991a; 1992—on
Celsus), Heberlein (1996), Hoffmann (1999)) and in general linguistics. For a survey of the construction in
the world’s languages and the variety of terminology, see Himmelmann (1986) and Himmelmann and
Schultze-Berndt (2005). A common term in general linguistics is ‘converb’ (see Hoffmann 1999, also in:
2018a: 71–86). These expressions are called ‘supplementive (adjective and participle) clauses’ in Quirk et al.
(1985: 424–6; 1124–7). They are part of ‘nonfinite and verbless adverbial clauses’ (ibid.: 1120).
² An entirely different analysis of the sequence, in which maesti is taken as a substantival head and ii
qui ab Alesia processerant as the attribute, is extremely unattractive from a semantic point of view.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0021
 Secondary predicates
In (b), omnes is optional, just as maesti in (a): it is related to the object quos, with
which it agrees in number, gender, and case, but is not an attribute of quos. It indicates
the number of people Agesilaus defeated. (Here, too, taking quos as the attribute of
substantival omnes is very unattractive.) In (c), flens is also an optional constituent: it
agrees with the relative pronoun quae, which is the subject of the clause. It cannot be
taken as the attribute of the pronoun.
Since maesti in (a) resembles a satellite in that it is an optional constituent of the
sentence, it is usually taken as an adverbial constituent (often described as an adjec-
tive used instead of a manner adverb). Unlike the morphologically related adverbs
maeste and maestiter, however, it does not specify the action of the verb se receperunt:
the people did not retreat in a sad manner, they were sad while retreating. In some
grammatical traditions, notably the Dutch, maesti is regarded as ‘double-connected’,
with both the subject and the verb; but, as was said above, there is no confirmation of
the latter connexion. The adverb-like approach does not at all work for omnes in (b):
how could it be adverbially related to vicit? Similarly, the woman in (c) is not leaving
in a crying manner. A more detailed discussion of the relationship between adjectives
and adverbs is given in § 21.20.
The secondary predicates in (a) are valid at the time referred to by the verb of the
clause to which they belong. In (a) maesti is simultaneous with se receperunt, which
refers to a time before the time of speaking (it is part of a speech given by Minucius).
In (c), the action of the present participle flens is simultaneous with abiit, the depart-
ure of the muliercula, which itself occurs before the time of speaking. Another example
of simultaneity is (d), wherein consul and quaestorem indicate the social position of
ego and quem, respectively, at the time of the action marked by the pluperfect ornaram.
When the secondary predicate is a perfect participle, as in (e), the reference point of
the action is simultaneous with the time of the main verb considunt, but the action
itself is anterior to the time marked by the main verb (for ‘reference point’, see § 7.2
and § 7.4). Note that these temporal notions are not relevant for quantifiers, such as
omnes in (b) (for further discussion, see § 21.23).
(d) . . . is tribunus plebis quem ego maximis beneficiis quaestorem consul ornaram . . .
(‘. . . that tribune of the people whom, when I was consul and he quaestor, I honoured
with extraordinary kindness . . .’ Cic. Red. Pop. 12)
(e) Ipsi profecti a palude in ripa Sequanae e regione Lutetiae contra Labieni cas-
tra considunt.
(‘After they themselves had set out from the marsh, they halted on the bank of the
Seine opposite Lutetia over against the camp of Labienus.’ Caes. Gal. 7.58.6)
Secondary predicates frequently appear with arguments, as in the examples above.

They are particularly frequent with subject constituents, but they can also be used
with satellites and at the noun phrase level. Secondary predicates can even expand
other secondary predicates (see § 21.16).
As has already been shown, secondary predicates belong to various lexical categories.
Participles, both present and perfect, are relatively frequent, with the future being
Introductory remarks 
much less frequent until the Augustan period. Certain adjectives and nouns can also
be used as secondary predicate. Constituents from these categories agree with the
entity that they expand in case, number, and gender. They cannot always be distin-
guished easily from other optional and obligatory agreeing constituents, such as
attributes and subject or object complements. However, there are also non-agreeing
secondary predicates. An example is the ablative constituent defaecato . . . animo in (f)
(usually called an ‘ablative of description’, see § 11.63, also § 21.12). An example of a
relative clause functioning as secondary predicate is (g), repeated from § 18.16 (see
§ 21.15).
(f) Nunc defaecato demum animo egredior domo . . .
(‘Now that I’ve regained a clear mind at last I’m leaving the house . . .’ Pl. Aul. 79)
(g) I, Palaestrio, / aurum, ornamenta, vestem, pretiosa omnia / duc adiutores
tecum ad navim qui ferant.
(‘Go, Palaestrio, and take helpers with you to take the gold, jewellery, clothing, and all
the valuables to the ship.’ Pl. Mil. 1301–3)
Participial secondary predicates (and to a lesser extent adjectival and substantival

ones) can be accompanied by arguments or satellites of their own, as illustrated in (e)
by a palude in ripa Sequanae. This is very rare in texts reflecting oral conversation
(such as the comedies of Plautus) and is typical of authors striving to condense infor-
mation (for example Suetonius) or of those working in a special stylistic framework,
such as Livy.
Secondary predicates are relatively common as expansions of arguments with cer-
tain classes of verb, such as verbs of standing, moving, finding, and perceiving, but
they are not semantically restricted in their occurrence.
Most secondary predicates formally resemble subject and object complements, and
there are instances in which it is difficult to decide whether a constituent is one or the
other. (Three-place verbs with an object complement are discussed in §§ 4.87–9; the
copula and copular verbs with a subject complement in § 4.92 and § 4.97.) The differ-
ence between secondary predicates and complements becomes clear when they
co-occur in the same clause. Examples are (h)–( j).³ In (h), infidus is the subject com-
plement, sciens the secondary predicate. Similarly, a secondary predicate may be used
in a clause with locative sum alongside a position in space argument (on which see
§ 4.42), as is shown in (k).
(h) Ubi sciens fideli infidus fueris . . .
(‘Occasions where you were knowingly unfaithful to someone . . .’ Pl.
As. 568)
(i) Nam sola nulla invitior solet esse.
(‘Usually no girl is less willing to be alone than me.’ Pl. Cist. 310)
³ For this entire note, see Cabrillana (2010b), where some statistics can be found as well. For the diffi-
culty of distinguishing secondary predicates from subject and object complements, see Cabrillana
(2019b).
 Secondary predicates
( j) . . . saepe magno usui rei publicae Ser. Sulpicius et privatus et in magistrati-

bus fuerit.
(‘. . . Servius Sulpicius was often of great service to the Republic both as a
private citizen and in public office.’ Cic. Phil. 9.15)
(k) Ego, ut in his malis, Patris sum non invitus.
(‘In these bad times I am not sorry to be at Patrae.’ Cic. Att. 11.16.4)
The term ‘secondary predicate’ for the categories mentioned is so chosen because the
expressions involved resemble so-called ‘primary predicates’. Thus, just as se recepe-
runt tells us something about (or: predicates something of) the subject ‘we’, maesti in
(a) tells us that the ‘they’ ‘are sad’ at that moment of se receperunt (for the termin-
ology, see also footnote 1).
21.2 Categories of constituents functioning as

secondary predicate
Most of the categories of constituents that can be used as secondary predicate can also
be used as subject complements (see § 9.21 with Table 9.6) or as object complements
(see § 9.39 with Table 9.7), although this is not necessarily attested or possible for every
lexical item belonging to these categories. This holds especially for adjectives and nouns
and noun phrases that show agreement with the constituent to which they are related.
. Adjectives functioning as secondary predicate
The most common subclass of adjectives that can be used as secondary predicate
describes a non-permanent or transient mental or physical condition of the entity to
which they are related (see § 3.7).⁴ Examples are (a)–(d). In (a)–(c), the secondary
predicate is related to the subject; in (d), to the object. Ex. (c) shows an inanimate
subject. When the adjectival secondary predicate is related to the subject of the clause,
it can often be replaced by the corresponding adverb, but with a difference in meaning
(see § 21.1 and § 21.20). Replacement is obviously out of the question if the adjective
is related to a non-subject constituent, as in (d).
(a) Primumdum, quom tu es aucta liberis / quomque bene provenisti salva,
gaudeo.
(‘First of all, I’m happy that you’ve been blessed with a child and that you’ve pulled
through safe and sound.’ Pl. Truc. 384–5)
(b) . . . Neptuno / laetus lubens laudes ago . . .
(‘. . . to Neptune . . . I joyfully and happily offer praise . . .’ Pl. Trin. 819–20)
⁴ For collections of examples, see K.-St.: I.234ff. and Lundström (1982: 50–2). For dactylic poets, see
Priess (1909).
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
(c) Anio Novus . . . excipitur ex flumine quod . . . etiam sine pluviarum iniuria
limosum et turbulentum fluit.
(‘The New Anio . . . takes its water from the river, which . . . even without the effect of
rainstorms, is muddy and turbid.’ Fron. Aq. 15.1)
(d) Sed laetum eum atque fidentem et subole et disciplina domus Fortuna destituit.
(‘But in the midst of all his joy and hopes in his numerous and well-regulated family,
his fortune failed him.’ Suet. Aug. 65.1—tr. Thomson)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective)
With the subject: Non ita ut sperarunt mali . . . alacris exsultat improbitas in victoria.
(Cic. Att. 1.16.7); Tum tu insiste audax hostium muris . . . (Liv. 5.16.10); . . . omnes
avidi spectant ad carceris oras . . . (Enn. Ann. 85V=80S); Ergo avidus muros optatae
molior urbis . . . (Verg. A. 3.132); (sc. puer) . . . citus e cunis exsilit . . . (Pl. Am. 1115);
Iamque mari magno classis cita / texitur . . . (Enn. scen. 65–6V=43–4J); . . . ne crudus
sumat medicamentum. (Larg. 122); Vexasti negotiatores. Inviti enim Romam raroque
decedunt. (Cic. Ver. 3.96—NB: coordination with adverb); Invita in hoc loco versa-
tur oratio. (Cic. N.D. 3.85); Ille laetus in castra Iugurthae proficiscitur. (Sal. Jug.
112.2); Lepidus vivis.⁵ (Pl. Trin. 390); . . . cum totius Italiae concursus, quem mea
salus concitarat, facti illius gloriam lubens agnovisset . . . (Cic. Mil. 38); Ego, qui tuo
maerore maceror, / macesco, consenesco et tabesco miser. (Pl. Capt. 133–4); (sc.
Marius) . . . tum vero multus (‘assiduous’—OLD s.v. § 6) atque ferox instare. (Sal. Jug.
84.1); (sc. Cupido) . . . qui plurimus urget et urit pectora nostra . . . (Ov. Met. 9.624–5—
NB: adverb does not fit within the metre); . . . inopiam quaeque ipsi inter se fremere
occulti (v.l. occulte) soliti erant conquesti . . . (Liv. 25.28.6); Et cum audissent, turbae
secutae sunt eum pedestres de civitatibus. (Vulg. Mat. 14:13—NB: some of the Greek
manuscripts read .pqzj instead of the accepted reading .pqŎ); . . . campos quos rapi-
dus amnis ex praecipitio vel, cum per plana infusus est, placidus interfluit. (Sen. Con.
2.1.13); Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit . . . (Cic. Mur. 13); Maxumum
vero argumentum est naturam ipsam de inmortalitate animorum tacitam iudi-
care . . . (Cic. Tusc. 1.31); . . . errare videbar / tardaque vestigare et quaerere te neque
posse / corde capessere. (Enn. Ann. 41–3V=40–2S); . . . qui Styga tristem non tristis
videt . . . (Sen. Ag. 607); Sic quoque, quotiens imbres superveniunt, (sc. aqua) turbida
pervenit in urbem. (Fron. Aq. 15.3); (sc. Iugurtha) . . . varius incertusque agitabat.
(Sal. Jug. 74.1); . . . hoc · monumentum / cum · aedificio / me · vivus⁶ · feci · mihi
· et / Calviae / Asclepiadi / coniugi (CIL VI.8455.9–14 (Rome, ad 290?))
With the object (passive subject): Villam aedificandam si locabis novam ab solo,
faber haec faciat oportet: . . . . (Cato Agr. 14.1); . . . ipsaque sibi imbecillitas indulget in
altumque provehitur imprudens . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.42); (sc. fructus) Qui tamen nisi
primo quoque tempore maturi legantur, ad terram decidunt. (Col. 3.2.22); Quis te
illis diebus sobrium . . . vidit? (Cic. Pis. 22); Nam quia vos tranquillos video, gaudeo
et volup est mihi. (Pl. Am. 958); Quos (sc. legatos) cum tristioris vidisset, triginta
minas accepit . . . (Cic. Tusc. 5.91); . . . te vegetum nobis in Graecia siste . . . (Cic. Att. 10.16.6);
⁵ Instances of secondary predicates with the verb vivo are quite frequent in comedy and in (Augustan)
poetry. See Heerdegen (1913) and Hofmann (1924: 81). See also § 4.97 on copular verbs.
⁶ For me vivo in a similar context, see § 16.117.
 Secondary predicates
(sc. columbae) Eligendae vero sunt ad educationem neque vetulae nec nimium
novellae sed corporis maximi . . . (Col. 8.8.7—NB: coordination); Quos Caesaris
equites consecuti partim interfecerunt, partim vivorum sunt potiti. (B. Afr. 50—NB:
parallelism)
A second subclass of adjectives that can be used as secondary predicate describes a

stative physical condition, age, or socio-economic position. Examples are (e)–(g). In
these cases, the adjectives cannot be replaced by corresponding adverbs (which, for
these examples, happen not to exist).⁷
(e) Quis? Nescio, nil video, caecus eo . . .
(‘Who? I don’t know, I can’t see anything, trot along blindly . . .’ Pl. Aul. 714)
(f) Adoptat annos viginti natus, etiam minor, senatorem.
(‘A man twenty years of age or even less adopts a senator.’ Cic. Dom. 34)
(g) . . . Chrysidem, / quae sese inhoneste optavit parere hic ditias / potius quam
honeste in patria pauper viveret.
(‘. . . Chrysis, who has chosen to get rich here dishonourably rather than live a poor
but honourable life in her homeland.’ Ter. An. 796–8)
Supplement:
Beluarum modo caecos in foveam lapsos. (Liv. 9.5.7—NB: for lapsos, see Oakley ad
loc.); Aut dives opto vivere aut pauper mori. (Sen. Ep. 115.14=Trag. Graec. frg. adesp.
181.6 Nauck); Ecce autem structores nostri ad frumentum profecti, cum inanes
redissent, rumorem adferunt . . . (Cic. Att. 14.3.1); . . . (sc. Dionysius) cum quinque et
viginti natus annos dominatum occupavisset. (Cic. Tusc. 5.57); (sc. Syria) . . . quam
pauper divitem ingressus dives pauperem reliquit . . . (Vell. 2.117.2); . . . cum (sc.
servus) . . . testamento se liberum relictum audisset . . . (Ulp. dig. 21.1.17.16); Habeo
etiam dicere quem contra morem maiorum minorem annis LX de ponte in Tiberim
deiecerit. (Cic. S. Rosc. 100)
A third subclass of adjectives that can be used as secondary predicate encompasses

those which specify space or time in a broad sense. Examples are (h) and (i) for spatial
indicators and ( j) and (k) for temporal ones. Poets notably expand the number of
adjectives that are used in this way (see § 21.4). For some of these adjectives—when
they are related to the subject of the clause—corresponding adverbs with more or less
the same meaning are available (notably for ( j)), but they are nevertheless not expres-
sions of manner.
(h) Omnium primum divorsae state.
(‘First of all, stand apart from each other.’ Pl. Truc. 787)
(i) Quin tu illum iubes ancillas rapere sublimem domum?
(‘Why don’t you order your maids to pick him up and drag him home?’ Pl. As. 868)
⁷ For exceptional caece, see TLL s.v. caecus 47.47. Tert. Cult. fem. 2.11.3 has the comparative form
pauperius incedit (sc. mulier quaedam). Vitae pauperis is attested at Luc. 5.527–8.
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
( j) Nam cum hic Sex. Roscius esset Ameriae, T. autem iste Roscius Romae, cum
hic filius assiduus in praediis esset . . ., iste (ipse cj. Eberhard) autem frequens
Romae esset, occiditur . . . Sex. Roscius.
(‘For when this man Sextus Roscius was at Ameria, but that Titus Roscius at Rome;
while the former—the son—was diligently attending to the farm . . ., but the other was
constantly at Rome, Sextus Roscius . . . was slain.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 18)
(k) . . . quem Vergobretum appellant Haedui, qui creatur annuus et vitae necisque
in suos habet potestatem . . .
(‘. . . whom the Haedui call Vergobret, who is elected for a period of one year and
holds the power of life and death over his fellow-countrymen.’ Caes. Gal. 1.16.5)
Position in space expressions: Stratippoclem aiunt, Periphanei filium, / apsentem
curavisse ut fieret libera. (Pl. Epid. 508–9); Statim conplures cum telis in hunc faciunt
de loco superiore impetum; adversi raedarium occidunt. (Cic. Mil. 29); Quos omnes
dextra Dryantis / perculit adversos. (Ov. Met. 12.311–12); Trabes earum liminares ita
altae ponantur ut altitudines latitudinibus sint aequales. (Vitr. 6.3.4); Hannibal pau-
cis propugnatoribus in vallo portisque positis ceteros confertos in media castra
recepit . . . (Liv. 21.59.4); Quemquem visco offenderant, / tam crebri ad terram recci-
debant quam pira. (Pl. Poen. 483–5); . . . diversae duae legiones . . . in ipsis fluminis
ripis proeliabantur. (Caes. Gal. 2.23.3); Nam ut quis misericordia in Germanicum et
praesumpta suspicione aut favore in Pisonem pronior diversi interpreta<ba>ntur (sc.
the facts). (Tac. Ann. 2.73.4); Tamen obvias mihi litteras . . . mittas. (Cic. Att. 6.5.1);
Utinam mi[hi] esset aliquid hic quo nunc me praecipitem darem! (Ter. An. 606); Rex
Antiochus . . . praeceps e provincia populi Romani exturbatus est. (Cic. Ver. 4.67);
Egone quid velim? / Cum milite istoc praesens absens ut sies. (Ter. Eu. 191–2);
Miraculo primo esse Romanis qui proximi steterant, ut nudari latera sua sociorum
digressu senserunt. (Liv. 1.27.7); Genus erat pugnae militum illorum ut . . . rari dis-
persique pugnarent . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.44.1); . . . cumque / rara per ignaros errent anima-
lia montis. (Verg. Ecl. 6.39–40); Ipsa Paphum sublimis abit sedesque revisit / laeta
suas . . . (Verg. A. 1.415–16); Terrebat eum natura mortalium avida imperi . . . prae-
terea opportunitas suae liberorumque aetatis, quae etiam mediocris viros spe prae-
dae transvorsos agit. (Sal. Jug. 6.3)
Time expressions: Cum complicarem hanc epistulam noctuabundus, ad me venit
cum epistula tua tabellarius. (Cic. Att. 12.1.2—NB: if noctuabundus is correct; see
Shackleton Bailey ad loc.⁸); Stare solitus Socrates dicitur pertinaci statu perdius atque
pernox . . . (Gel. 2.1.2—NB: disputable, see TLL s.v. perdius)
A fourth subclass encompasses adjectives that indicate relative position (in space or
in time), such as inferior ‘lower’, and ordinal numerals like primus ‘first’. Examples are
(l) and (m).⁹ These cannot be replaced by corresponding adverbs.
⁸ See also Watt (1962), who proposes to read noctu cunctabundus and takes it with the cum clause, as
I print it.
⁹ For the partitive use of some of these adjectives, e.g. medius, see § 11.77.
 Secondary predicates
(l) (sc. P. Quinctius) At si in causa pari discedere inferior videretur, tamen esset
non mediocriter conquerendum.
(‘But if, in a cause where the merits were equal, he seemed to come off the worse, that
would be something to complain of in no small degree.’ Cic. Quinct. 59)
(m) Primus cubitu surgat, postremus cubitum eat.
(‘He must be the first out of bed, the last to go to bed.’ Cato Agr. 5.5)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by adjective or numeral):
. . . alvos, quas ideo videntur medias facere angustissimas, ut figuram imitentur
earum. (Var. R. 3.16.15); Iacet inter eos satis patens clausus in medio campus herbi-
dus aquosusque, per quem medium iter est. (Liv. 9.2.7); . . . etiam sapientibus cupido
gloriae novissima exuitur. (Tac. Hist. 4.6.1); . . . princepsque decima legio per tribu-
nos militum ei gratias egit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.41.2); (sc. Hannibal) Princeps in proelium
ibat, ultimus conserto proelio excedebat. (Liv. 21.4.8); . . . multo illo adveni prior . . . (Pl.
Aul. 705); Abi tu sane superior . . . (Pl. St. 696); Tertius ad hos Favonius accessit.
(Cael. Fam. 8.11.2)
Other adjectives can be used as well, especially by poets (see § 21.4). Examples of
evaluative adjectives from Cicero can be seen in (n) and (o). These cannot be replaced
by their corresponding adverbs.
(n) Carus omnibus exspectatusque venies.
(‘Your arrival is eagerly expected, and you will find an affectionate welcome from
everyone.’ Cic. Fam. 16.7)
(o) Fac bellus revertare . . .
(‘Mind you come back in good shape . . .’ Cic. Fam. 16.18.1)
. The use of adjectives as secondary predicate in poetry

and poeticizing prose
Poets and poeticizing prose writers quite often use adjectives as secondary predicates.
The frequent use of adjectives by poets is driven by three tendencies: (i) the avoidance
of adverbs in general; (ii) the use of related adjectives in place of adverbs that do not
fit within the metre; and, more vaguely, (iii) the desire to impart some form of char-
acterization to entities, especially human beings, rather than events.
(i) Although there is some variation between authors and types of poetry, adverbs are
used less frequently in poetry than in prose and the variety of adverbs is likewise not as
great. This holds especially for dactylic poetry, in which very common adverbs such as
valde ‘strongly’, vehementer ‘strongly’, recte ‘correctly’ were replaced by less common ones
like multum ‘much’, magnum ‘greatly’, and rite ‘properly’, respectively.¹⁰ An alternative
¹⁰ For the use of adverbs by dactylic poets, see Priess (1909: 10–38, especially 36–8); in general, Axelson
(1945: 62–3), Maurach (1983: 103–5). Håkanson (1986) has detailed statistics about the use of adverbs in
a large number of poetical texts and in prose (Cicero, Livy, and Seneca the Younger). Ovid has recte twice;
Horace, often (c.35 times).
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
expression using a noun in the ablative could also replace an adverb such as astu
instead of astute in (a), and dolo instead of dolose in (b) (for these ablatives, see
§ 10.44).¹¹ Another alternative is the use of adjectives as secondary predicates, as with
citus instead of cito in (c)—avoided in epic poetry from Ennius onwards¹²—and lenta
instead of lente in (d).
(a) Inde Mago procul infensam (sc. Aeneas) contenderat hastam: / ille astu
subit . . .
(‘Next at Magus from a distance he had aimed the hostile lance. Deftly he cowers . . .’
Verg. A. 10.521–2)
(b) Tu faciem illius noctem non amplius unam / falle dolo et notos pueri puer
indue vultus . . .
(‘For but a single night, feign by craft his form and, boy that you are, don the boy’s
familiar face . . .’ Verg. A. 1.683–4)
(c) Volat ille per aëra magnum / remigio alarum ac Libyae citus astitit oris.
(‘Through the wide air he flies with the stroke of his wings, and speedily alights on
the Libyan coasts.’ Verg. A. 1.300–1)
(d) Lenta bibis.
(‘Unmoved, you drink.’ Prop. 2.33b.25)
In (c) and (d), were the adverbs cito and lente used, we would be dealing with subject-
oriented manner adjuncts (see § 10.43). One might, therefore, say that the authors
chose to emphasize a different perspective when assigning the properties ‘fast’ and
‘slow’: they attached them to the persons that act as the subjects of the clauses and not
to the verbs.¹³
(ii) Among the adjectives that poets use as secondary predicates there are quite a few
for which a corresponding adverb did not exist, or did not exist at their time. Examples
are amens in (e), fervidus in (f),¹⁴ and insontes in (g).¹⁵ It is not surprising to find these
as secondary predicate, since they are semantically close to the subclasses of adjectives
discussed above.
(e) Arma amens capio.
(‘Frantic, I seize arms.’ Verg. A. 2.314)
(f) Ocius¹⁶ ensem / Aeneas viso Tyrrheni sanguine laetus / eripit a femine et
trepidanti fervidus instat.
¹¹ For nouns in the ablative, see Priess (1909: 39–41).

¹² See Priess (1909: 68–9). ¹³ See Heberlein (1996).
¹⁴ A Late Latin instance of the adverb fervide is (sc. Iulianus) fervide instans in August. Civ. 5.21.3. For
secondary predicates in the context of insto, see TLL s.v. insto 1999.52ff.
¹⁵ Priess (1909: 45–9) has a list with about sixty adjectives that lack a corresponding adverb and an
even longer lists of adjectives for which corresponding adverbs are attested after Ovid’s time (49–55).
¹⁶ The adverb ocius is used without a comparative meaning from Plautus onwards. See TLL s.v. ocius
414.80ff. and § 20.3, ex. (f). The adjective ocior is common as a secondary predicate, but with a compara-
tive meaning.
 Secondary predicates
(‘Quickly Aeneas, gladdened by the sight of the Tuscan’s blood, snatches his sword
from the thigh and presses eagerly on his confused foe.’ Verg. A. 10.786–8)
(g) Proxima deinde tenent maesti loca qui sibi letum / insontes peperere manu . . .
(‘The region thereafter is held by those sad souls who in innocence wrought their
own death . . .’ Verg. A. 6.434–5—NB: maesti is also a secondary predicate, but not
translated as such)
There are also adjectives for which a corresponding adverb does exist, but one that
does not fit within the dactylic metre, such as turbidus in (h) and memor in (i). In
these examples, too, the use of the adjectives as a secondary predicate is not surpris-
ing, even though from the semantic point of view turbide and memoriter are not
impossible. This holds for most of the adjectives in this category, as listed by Priess.¹⁷
They are used not because the adverb was unavailable, but because they belong to the
semantic classes that are readily used as secondary predicate.
(h) At vero ingentem quatiens Mezentius hastam / turbidus ingreditur campo.
(‘But now Mezentius, brandishing his mighty spear, advances like a whirlwind on the
plain.’ Verg. A. 10.762–3)
(i) ‘Arcades, haec’, inquit, ‘memores mea dicta referte / Euandro.’
(‘Arcadians, give heed, and bear these words of mine back to Evander.’ Verg. A.
10.491–2)
(iii) There are two ways in which poets assign a property to their characters. One way
is to use attributes; the other is to use secondary predicates. Many descriptive adjec-
tives can be used both as an attribute and as a secondary predicate. This is shown by
( j) and (k).¹⁸ There can be no doubt that acer is an attribute in ( j),¹⁹ whereas in (k) it
can only be a secondary predicate: there is no head noun. Furthermore, the use of the
adverb acriter with insto is attested from Plautus onwards.²⁰ There are also ambiguous
situations in which the analyses of scholars may vary, as in (l). I take acer as an attribute
of Eryx²¹ and not, as others do, as a secondary predicate.
( j) Instat Mnestheus acerque Serestus . . .
(‘Mnestheus and valiant Serestus urge on the work . . .’ Verg. A. 9.171)
(k) Dum (sc. Aeneas) nititur acer et instat . . .
(‘While fiercely he tugs and strains . . .’ Verg. A. 12.783)
(l) . . . caestus / proiecit quibus acer Eryx in proelia suetus / ferre . . .
(‘. . . he threw the gauntlets in which fierce Eryx had so often raised his hands for
battle . . .’ Verg. A. 5.401–3—tr. Williams)
¹⁷ Twenty-eight adjectives in total in Priess (1909: 56–8). ¹⁸ See Priess (1909: 41).
¹⁹ Acerque Serestus also at A. 9.779 and 12.549. Virgil uses it as an epitheton ornans.
²⁰ For example, Pl. Cas. 340. See TLL s.v. acer 363.44ff.
²¹ I use the translation by Williams. But Priess (1909: 41) states that this is sine dubio ‘beyond doubt’ an
instance of a secondary predicate.
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
In general, when a clause contains an adjective in agreement with a noun or a noun

phrase, it can be difficult to decide whether that adjective is part of the noun phrase
(functioning as attribute of the noun) or whether it functions on its own as a second-
ary predicate. An example of such ambiguity is (m). Here, I take feroces as the discon-
tinuous attribute of Itali, and not as a secondary predicate.²² There is no definitive
proof for either analysis.
(m) Iamque in palantes ac versos terga feroces / pugnabant Itali, subitus cum
mole pavenda / terrificis Maurus prorumpit Tunger in armis.
(‘And now the fierce Italians were fighting against the straggling and fleeing foe, when
suddenly Tunger, the Moor, a terrible giant, rushed forward to the terrifying battle.’
Sil. 7.680–2)
Two other examples are (n) and (o), where I take the adjectives as discontinuous
attributes, while others identify them as secondary predicates (using other
terminology).²³ Another much discussed example is (p), where some scholars take
rauci as a secondary predicate replacing the adverb rauce to characterize the sound.²⁴
I think it is rather a discontinuous attribute of postes.
(n) . . . fallacem circum vespertinumque (vespertinus cj. Lambinus) pererro /
saepe forum . . .
(‘. . . often I stroll round the cheating Circus and the nighttime Forum . . .’
Hor. S. 1.6.113–14)
(o) . . . cum pater Aeneas, tristi turbatus pectora bello, / procubuit seramque
dedit per membra quietem.
(‘. . . when father Aeneas, his heart troubled by woeful war, lay down . . . and
let a tardy sleep steal over his limbs.’ Verg. A. 8.29–30)
(p) Cum subito rauci sonuerunt cardine postes . . .
(‘When without warning there came the sound of the creaking gate open-
ing . . .’ Prop. 4.8.49)
Whereas the use of adjectives that indicate a non-permanent or transient property as

secondary predicate is common in all sorts of texts, poets also freely use adjectives that
normally indicate a stative property, including adjectives that indicate size or sub-
stance. An example that contains adjectives of both types is (q). Another type of adjec-
tive can be seen in (r); facilis is not normally a transient property of human beings.
(q) In cicere atque faba bona tu perdasque lupinis, / latus ut in Circo spatiere et
aeneus ut stes . . .
(‘Would you waste your wealth on vetches, beans, and lupins, that you might parade
all around in the Circus, or be set up in bronze . . .’ Hor. S. 2.3.182–3)
²² It is taken as a secondary predicate, more or less equivalent to the manner adverb ferociter, by
Heberlein (1996: 355–7). (He quotes the passage incompletely: Itali feroces pugnabant.) Ferox pugna is
attested from Livy 22.29.4 onwards.
²³ So Eden ad Verg. A. 8.30. Contrast this with (s) below.
²⁴ So, among others, Löfstedt (1942/1933: II.368–72). Scholars observe that the sound is produced by
the cardo, and not by the postes. Therefore Hutchinson ad loc. proposes to read rauco (and also, following
Heinsius, subiti).
 Secondary predicates
(r) Haec quia dulce canit flectitque facillima vocem, / oscula cantanti rapta
dedisse velim.
(‘Because this girl sings sweetly and modulates her voice most deftly, I would give
stolen kisses to her as she sings.’ Ov. Am. 2.4.25–6)
Non amet hanc vitam quisquis me non amat, opto. / Vivat et urbanis albus in officiis.
(Mart. 1.55.13–14); Vidisti quo Turnus equo, quibus ibat in armis / aureus. (Verg. A.
9.269–70); (sc. Entellus) . . . atque ingens media consistit harena. (Verg. A. 5.423);
Haec ubi dicta dedit, portis sese extulit ingens / telum immane manu quatiens. (Verg.
A. 12. 441–2)
Generally speaking, when the choice is available between an adjective and an adverb
poets and prose writers who follow their example prefer to use the adjective. In addition,
they use adjectives to replace adverbs outside of the main classes that have been
discussed in § 21.3, especially in place of those adverbs with functions other than that
of manner adjunct. The most striking examples are those in which adjectives are used
to express a semantic relation of time or place, as in (s) and (t), a phenomenon either
imitating or inspired by Greek practice.²⁵ In these cases the adjectives correspond to
adjuncts that situate the event in time or place, respectively. Note in (s) the parallelism
with the adverb mane (navus is a ‘normal’ secondary predicate). In (u), opportunus
corresponds to opportune, a subjective evaluation disjunct, already used by Plautus
(see § 10.104).²⁶
(s) Navus mane forum et vespertinus pete tectum . . .
(‘In your diligence get you to the Forum in the morning, to your home in the even-
ing . . .’ Hor. Ep. 1.6.20)
(t) Pransus non avide, quantum interpellet inani / ventre diem durare, domesti-
cus otior.
(‘After a slight luncheon, just enough to save me from an all-day fast, I idle away time
at home.’ Hor. S. 1.6.127–8)
(u) Numquam potuisti mihi / magis opportunus adven<ire quam> advenis.
(‘You could never have come to me at a better time than this.’ Pl. Mos. 573–4)
Supplement:
Time expressions: ‘Sollemnis’, inquit, ‘dies a primis cunabulis huius urbis conditus
crastinus advenit . . . (Apul. Met. 2.31.2); . . . alii viam inter Mosellamque flumen tam
improvisi adsiluere ut . . . (Tac. Hist. 4.77.1); Nec minus Aeneas se matutinus agebat.
(Verg. A. 8.465); Non lupus insidias explorat ovilia circum / nec gregibus nocturnus
obambulat. (Verg. G. 3.537–8); Ultro acies inferre parant, armisque coruscas /
nocturni texere faces, audaxque iuventus / erupit. (Luc. 3.498–500); (sc. consules)
Frumentatum exeunti Hannibali diversis locis opportuni aderant . . . (Liv. 22.32.2);
²⁵ See K.-G.: I.273–6. ²⁶ For further examples, see TLL s.v. opportunus 775.74ff.
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
Nunc sera querelis / haud iustis adsurgis et inrita iurgia iactas. (Verg. A. 10.94–5); . . .
serae avaritia luxuriaque immigraverint . . . (Liv. 1.pr.11)
Finally, there are also instances of adjectives that are used as secondary predicate for
which a derivationally related adverb does exist but cannot be used as a manner
adverb with the verb of the clause. An example is (v).²⁷
(v) (sc. Turnus) . . . saltuque superbus / emicat in currum . . .
(‘. . . and with a bound he leaps proudly into his chariot . . .’ Verg. A. 12.326–7)
. Adjective phrases functioning as secondary predicate

Adjective phrases in which the adjective is combined with an argument and/or satel-
lite (see § 11.92) can also be used as secondary predicate, though it is more common
to see participles used in this way (see § 21.7). An example is (a). Note the parallelism
with the participial phrase ardens odio vestri.²⁸ Naturally, such an adjective can also be
modified by a degree modifier, as in (b).
(a) Ita enim se recipiebat ardens odio vestri, cruentus sanguine civium Romanorum ...
(‘He was coming back in a fever of hatred for you, stained with the blood of the
Roman citizens . . .’ Cic. Phil. 4.4)
(b) Raro quemquam alium patriam exsilii causa relinquentem tam maestum
abisse ferunt quam Hannibalem hostium terra excedentem.
(‘They say that rarely has any other man leaving his country to go into exile departed
so sorrowfully as Hannibal on withdrawing from the enemy’s land.’ Liv. 30.20.7)
Quique pedum cursu valet et qui viribus audax / aut iaculo incedit melior levibusque
sagittis / seu . . . (Verg. A. 5.67–9); Huius coniugii cupidus Callias quidam . . . egit cum
Cimone ut eam sibi uxorem daret. (Nep. Cim. 1.3); . . . Syracusani tandem liberi metu
portis Achradinae apertis oratores ad Marcellum mittunt . . . (Liv. 25.31.2); Resides et
desuetudine tardi / rursus inire fretum, rursus dare vela iubemur . . . (Ov. Met. 14.436–7)
. Nouns and noun phrases (showing agreement)

functioning as secondary predicate
Nouns (and noun phrases) that indicate age or social position are regularly used as
secondary predicate. Examples of age expressions are (a) and (b); (c) and (d) are examples
of expressions pertaining to social position. Another type of noun (phrase) is shown in
(e), a humorous extension of the possibilities by Cicero. Note in (f) the parallelism of
the secondary predicate puerum and the position in time adjunct in senecta.
²⁷ It is called ‘adj. with adverbial force’ by Tarrant ad loc. (see Pinkster 2015: 177).
²⁸ For a discussion of these adjective phrases, see Heberlein (1996: 360–2), from whom three examples
in the Supplement are taken.
 Secondary predicates
(a) Quia adulescens nupta est cum sene.

(‘Because, though young, she is married to an old man.’ Pl. Mil. 966)
(b) Puerum te vidi puer.
(‘When I was a boy I saw you as a boy.’ Pl. Capt. 630)²⁹
(c) At ei oratores sunt populi, summi viri. / Ambracia veniunt huc legati publice.
(‘But they are public ambassadors, the men of the highest rank. They are coming here
from Ambracia as envoys of the state.’ Pl. St. 490–1)
(d) . . . qui . . . tibi non privato . . . ut gratias agerent mittebantur.
(‘. . . who were sent to express gratitude to . . . you, no private individual.’ Cic. Fam. 3.8.4)
(e) Nam illo si veneris tam Ulixes, cognosces tuorum neminem.
(‘If you go there after such an odyssey, you won’t recognize any of your folk.’ Cic. Fam.
1.10)
(f) Quem puerum vidisti formosum, hunc vides deformem in senecta.
(‘Whom you saw beautiful as a boy, him you see unsightly in his old age.’ Var. L. 5.4)
Age: Defendi rem publicam adulescens, non deseram senex. (Cic. Phil. 2.118); (sc.
fici) Senescunt in arbore anusque d<e>stillant cummium lacrima. (Plin. Nat. 15.82);
Primum aetate idonea parandi (sc. canes), quod catuli et vetuli neque sibi neque ovi-
bus sunt praesidio . . . (Var. R. 2.9.3); Te quoque, quam iuvenem discedens Urbe reli-
qui . . . (Ov. Pont. 1.4.47); . . . quos eandem hanc quaestionem pertractantes iuvenis
admodum audivi. (Tac. Dial. 1.2); Nam illam minis olim decem puellam parvolam
emi . . . (Pl. Cur. 528); Propter velocitatem (sc. satyri) nisi senes aut aegri non capiun-
tur. (Plin. Nat. 7. 24); Milo, quem vitulum adsueverat ferre, taurum ferebat. (Quint.
Inst. 1.9.5)
Social position: Non tamen immerito Minos sedet arbiter Orci. (Prop. 3.19.27); Hoc
tu idem facies censor in senatu legendo? (Cic. Clu. 129); Quam diu mihi consuli
designato, Catilina, insidiatus es . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.11); Contra quem Caesar cum
plurima sua commemorasset officia quae consul ei decretis publicis tribuis-
set . . . (B. Alex. 68.1); Eodem Carnutes legatos obsidesque mittunt usi deprecatoribus
Remis . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.4.5); Min’ domino servos tu suscenses? (Pl. Ps. 472); . . . cui
populo duces Lentidios, Lollios . . . praefeceras. (Cic. Dom. 89); Per dexteram istam te
oro quam regi Deiotaro hospes hospiti porrexisti . . . (Cic. Deiot. 8); Caesarem eodem
tempore hostem et hospitem (sc. Deiotarus) vidit. (Cic. Div. 2.79); . . . cum Longinus
imperator eadem faceret quae fecerat quaestor . . . (B. Alex. 50.1); . . . Remi, qui pro-
ximi Galliae ex Belgis sunt, ad eum legatos [S]Iccium et Andecombogium, primos
civitatis, miserunt, qui dicerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.3.1); Sed maxime eius eloquentia
eluxit Spartae legati ante pugnam Leuctricam. (Nep. Ep. 6.4); . . . qui mortalis natus
condicionem postules inmortalium . . . (Cic. Tusc. 3.36); Orator ad vos venio ornatu
prologi. (Ter. Hec. 9); . . . saepe magno usui rei publicae Ser. Sulpicius et privatus et in
magistratibus fuerit. (Cic. Phil. 9.15—NB: coordination with a position in time
²⁹ Bennett: II.6 takes instances like these as ‘appositives’.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
adjunct); Ast ego, quae divum incedo regina Iovisque / et soror et coniunx . . . (Verg.
A. 1.46–7); Huic et paternum hospitium cum Pompeio et simultas cum Curione
intercedebat, quod tribunus plebis legem promulgaverat . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.25.4); Foris
victores domi trucidamur . . . (Sen. Suas. 6.5—NB: foris is attribute with victor; see
§ 11.69 fin.); Sin autem emimus quem vilicum imponeremus . . . (Cic. Planc. 62)
Other: . . . nec te magis in culpa defensorem mihi paravi quam praedicatorem meri-
torum meorum esse volui. (Planc. Fam. 10.7.1); Fuit · Atistia · uxor · mihei /
femina · opituma · veixsit (CIL I2.1206.1–2 (Rome, c. 50–20 bc)); Et Crassus ‘nox
te’, inquit, ‘nobis, Antoni, expolivit hominemque reddidit.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.40); Terrai
<iam> odium ambulat . . . (Pl. Bac. 820); Non te Penelopen difficilem procis /
Tyrrhenus genuit parens. (Hor. Carm. 3.10.11–12); . . . ipse novas adsignationes insti-
tuit et repentinus Sulla nobis exoritur. (Cic. Agr. 3.10—NB: unless exoritur is taken
as a copular verb; see § 4.97)
There is no prescribed way to decide whether a word functions as a secondary predi-

cate or as a (restrictive) apposition (see § 11.81) when the constituent to which it is
related is explicitly expressed, especially with words that indicate a position in society
such as consul. An example is (g). The decision can only be made on the basis of the
interpretation of the context.
(g) De quibus rebus Servilius consul ad senatum rettulit . . .
(‘The consul Servilius referred these matters to the Senate . . .’ Caes. Civ.
3.21.3)
. Participles functioning as secondary predicate
Participles that function as secondary predicates characterize the activity, process, or

state in which the entity they expand is, was, or will be involved. This entity is most
often the subject in its clause, far less often the object, and rarely something else.³⁰
Being non-finite forms, participles do not convey location in time on their own. Rather,
they indicate the time relative to the event denoted by the main verb of the clause (for
details concerning the time reference of participles, see §§ 7.77–81). Participles func-
tioning as secondary predicates can govern arguments and be expanded by satellites in
the same way as finite verbs.³¹ They are generally said to perform a semantic function
similar to that of satellite (adverbial) subordinate clauses, for which reason they are
often called ‘adverbial’; the Latin term is participium coniunctum.³²
Examples of present participles functioning as secondary predicates are (a)–(c). In
(a), the participle abiens refers to the moment of speaking, as does the main verb
offers; in (b), metuens refers to the state of mind Dionysius was in when he singed
his beard; in (c), the action of fighting ( pugnans) is presented as simultaneous
³⁰ Laughton (1964: 4) gives percentages of the case forms of perfect participles in a sample of Cicero:
nominative and subject-accusative 75%, accusative 22%, dative 1.5%, ablative 1.5%, genitive negligible.
³¹ A survey of arguments and satellites accompanying participles in Tac. Ann. 1 can be found in
Riquelme (2005).
³² For the participium coniunctum, see Vester (1977).
 Secondary predicates
with the action conveyed by the main verb (occiditur—a historic present). In the
examples, arguments and satellites of the participles are shown in italics.³³
(a) Salvere me iubes, quoi tu abiens offers morbum?
(‘You’re telling me to be well? By going away you make me ill.’ Pl. As. 593)
(b) (sc. Dionysius) . . . qui cultros metuens tonsorios candente carbone sibi adure-
bat capillum.
(‘. . . who in fear of the barber’s razor used to have his hair singed off with a glowing
coal.’ Cic. Off. 2.25)
(c) . . . Lucius Petrosidius aquilifer . . . pro castris fortissime pugnans occiditur.
(‘. . . Lucius Petrosidius, the standard-bearer . . . was killed in front of the camp while
he was fighting most courageously.’ Caes. Gal. 5.37.5)
(d) At Homerus . . . Laerten . . . colentem agrum et eum stercorantem facit.
(‘But Homer . . . represents Laërtes as . . . cultivating his farm and manuring it.’ Cic.
Sen. 54)
The perfect participle is commonly used to express either anteriority or the state
resulting from a prior action or process. This is illustrated by (e)–(g). The future parti-
ciple, expressing posteriority, is used much less frequently. Examples are (h), the first
attested one, and (i).³⁴ It becomes more common in the Augustan period, often to
express an intention.
(e) Acceptae bene et commode eximus intus . . .
(‘After we’ve been entertained well and pleasurably we’re going outside . . .’ Pl. Cas. 855)
(f) . . . hanc adepti victoriam in perpetuum se fore victores confidebant.
(‘. . . having obtained this victory, they thought they would be victorious forever.’ Caes.
Gal. 5.39.4)
(g) Persae etiam (sc. mortuos) cera circumlitos condunt . . .
(‘The Persians even bury their dead covered with wax . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.108)
(h) Qui prodeunt dissuasuri ne hanc legem accipiatis . . .
(‘Those who come forward to persuade you not to accept this law . . .’ Gracch. orat. 44)
(i) P. Servilius . . . adest de te sententiam laturus.
(‘Publius Servilius is here to pass judgement on you.’ Cic. Ver. 1.56)
There are no lexical restrictions on the type of verbs that can be used as secondary
predicate. One lexical group on which Cicero draws frequently in his use of the
³³ For verbs of presenting like facio in (d), fingo, induco, pingo, etc. + object and secondary predicate,
see TLL s.v. fingo 117.40ff., Laughton (1964: 51), and Szantyr (1970: 31–2). Lambertz (1982: 375), by con-
trast, regards such cases as causative constructions. This is also the position of Hoffmann (2016a: 47–8).
³⁴ For a discussion of the earliest examples of future participles, see Laughton (1964: 118–21); for
Seneca, see Westman (1961: 90–134). For the old Latin gospels, see Burton (2000: 184–5); for the Passio
Perp., see Adams (2016: 330–1); for further examples, see K.-St.: I.760–2.
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
present participle (about one-third of all instances) encompasses physical and mental
activities or states, e.g. flens ‘crying’, lacrimans ‘weeping’, maerens ‘mourning’,
exspectans ‘full of expectation’, and the like. In Cicero, perfect participles predomin-
antly express either the motive, urge, or mental state involved in realizing the state of
affairs of the main predication, or a possible obstacle in realizing this state of affairs,
e.g. hoc commoti dolore ‘moved by this sadness’, benignitate aut ambitione adductus
‘induced to do so by beneficence or ambition’, metu coacti ‘forced by fear’, voluptate
victi ‘conquered by desire’.³⁵ In Caesar’s Commentarii there is a marked increase of the
use of participles instead of finite subordinate clauses and this remained a feature of
historiography in general.³⁶
Supplement:
Present participles: Quia tui amans abeuntis egeo. (Pl. As. 591); Nihil est lucri quod
me hodie facere mavelim, / quam illum cubantem cum illa opprimere . . . (Pl. Bac.
859–60); . . . duae mulierculae / hic in fano Veneris signum flentes amplexae
tenent . . . (Pl. Rud. 559–60); Et magis par fuerat me vobis dare cenam advenienti-
bus . . . (Pl. St. 512); Stantem stanti savium / dare amicum amicae? (Pl. St. 765–6);
Aspectabat virtutem legionis suai / expectans si mussaret [dubitaret] quae denique
pausa / pugnandi fieret aut duri <finis> laboris. (Enn. Ann. 343–5V=326–8S);
Rex . . . in foro, inquam, Syracusis flens ac deos hominesque contestans clamare
coepit . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.67); Quam vero utilitatem aut quem fructum petentes scire cupi-
mus illa, quae occulta nobis sunt, quo modo moveantur quibusque de causis ea
<quae> versantur in caelo? (Cic. Fin. 3.37—NB: the secondary predicate contains a
question);³⁷ Age, finge me quamvis εὐστομάχως haec ferentem. (Cic. Att. 9.5.2); . . . ut
gaudet insitiva decerpens pira . . . (Hor. Epod. 2.19); Mihi cumba volenti / solvitur . . .
(Prop. 4.11.69–70);³⁸ Ipsis patribus id volentibus laetisque contigerit . . . (Sen. Ben.
3.36.1—NB: coordination)
Perfect participles: . . . damnatus demum, vi coactus reddidit / mille et ducentos
Philippum. (Pl. Bac. 271–2); Filius meus illic apud vos servit captus Alide. (Pl. Capt.
330); Quippe forma inpulsi nostra nos amatores colunt. (Ter. Hau. 389) . . . nequid
propter t<ua>m fidem decepta poteretur mali. (Ter. Ph. 469); Conclusam hic habeo
uxorem saevam. (Ter. Ph. 744); . . . id me neque metu neque calamitatis necessitudine
inductum facere. (Sis. hist. 98=104C); Vos eum regem inultum esse patiemini qui
legatum populi Romani, consularem, vinculis ac verberibus atque omni supplicio
excruciatum necavit? (Cic. Man. 11); Huic enim adsensi VII virum acta sustulimus.
(Cic. Phil. 6.14); . . . genus hominum . . . non prudentium consiliis compulsum potius
quam disertorum oratione delenitum se oppidis moenibusque saepsisse? (Cic. de
Orat. 1.36); Quae est igitur eius oratio qua facit eum Plato usum apud iudices iam
morte multatum? (Cic. Tusc. 1.97); Laudationem Porciae tibi misi correctam.
³⁵ For a list of participles used by historians, arranged by meaning, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 307).
³⁶ For the development of Caesar’s style and his position in the development of the style of
historiography, see Schlicher (1933; 1936).
³⁷ Laughton (1964: 43–4) cites eight examples from Cicero’s later works, suggesting that Cicero may
have tried to introduce a common Greek usage into the Latin language.
³⁸ This use of dative volenti is different from the use of the dative in (q) and the Supplement below it.
The same goes for the next example.
 Secondary predicates
(Cic. Att. 13.48.2); . . . homines locupletes . . . conductos aut emptos habent saltus.
(Var. R. 3.1.8); . . . matris, / quae misera in gnata deperdita laeta<batur> . . . (Catul.
64.118–19); Aventino fulmine ipse (sc. Romulus) ictus regnum per manus tradidit.
(Liv. 1.3.9); Hunc statum rerum Hannibal Tarenti relinquit regressus ipse in hiberna.
(Liv. 25.11.20—NB: for the non-anterior sense of the participle, see § 7.81);
Sermones . . . non nisi scriptos et e libello habebat . . . (Suet. Aug. 84.2); Quanti velis,
quanti aequum putaveris, quanti aestimaveris habebis emptum. (Gaius dig. 18.1.35.1)
Future participles: . . . si quidem etiam vos duo tales ad quintum miliarium, quo
nunc ipsum unde se recipienti, quid agenti, quid acturo? (Cic. Att. 8.9.2); . . . capit
consilium satius esse sibi suoque regno subsidio ire quam, dum alios adiuturus pro-
ficisceretur, ipse suo regno expulsus forsitan utraque re expelleretur. (B. Afr. 25.4);
Ubi inluxit, egreditur castris Romanus vallum invasurus ni copia pugnae fieret. (Liv.
3.60.8); Duae classes infestae circa promunturium Pachynum stabant, ubi prima
tranquillitas maris in altum evexisset concursurae. (Liv. 25.27.10); Cogniturus de
filio Tarius advocavit in consilium Caesarem Augustum. (Sen. Cl. 1.15.3); Cui
umquam morituro non est relictum qua gemeret? (Sen. Dial. 5.19.3); Quis umquam
res suas quasi periturus aspexit? (Sen. Dial. 6.9.4); Rogo / libenter facias ut
venias / ad nos, iucundiorem mihi / <diem> interventu tuo factura, si /
<venia>s . . . (CEL appendix Vindol. γ (Vindolanda, c. ad 103);³⁹ . . . domum clam
refugit pro condicione temporum quieturus. (Suet. Jul. 16.1)
As the examples above show, both arguments and satellites can be used with participles
functioning as secondary predicate. When these participial constituents are heavy, the
sentence as a whole becomes more complex, requiring the speaker/writer to use means
which guarantee that the addressee will understand the message. Here we are faced
with the problem of not knowing the original intonation contour that structured the
pronunciation and interpretation of the sequences that we read. Nevertheless, certain
strategies to facilitate comprehension can be noted. In ( j), the secondary predicate is
placed at the beginning of the sentence because of the anaphoric phrases with hoc and
hac. The whole expression functions as a ‘setting’ (see § 22.15) for the remainder of the
sentence. In (k), the secondary predicates with perpurgatus and retractandus are placed
at the end of the sentence and they serve as more of an afterthought, resembling ‘tail’
constituents (see § 22.16). This placement is very common in historiography, especially
in the narrative parts.⁴⁰ A third strategy is shown in (l). Here, the two secondary
predicates are clearly marked by the correlative coordinators et . . . et. Individual authors
make their own stylistic choices when it comes to such strategies.
( j) Hoc consilio atque adeo hac amentia impulsi . . . eum iugulandum vobis tra-
diderunt.
(‘Urged on to such a degree by this plan and by this madness . . . they have handed the
man over to you to be put to death.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 29)
³⁹ For a commentary on this text, see Adams (2016: 256–64).

⁴⁰ See Laughton (1964: 16–17), who calls these constituents ‘appended’. In French scholarship this phe-
nomenon goes under the name of ‘rallonge’ (‘extension’). For the historians’ use of this strategy, see
Schlicher (1933), Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 302–17), and Longrée (1989; 1996a).
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
(k) Nunc mihi tertius ille locus est relictus orationis, de ambitus criminibus, per-
purgatus ab eis qui ante me dixerunt, a me, quoniam ita Murena voluit,
retractandus.
(‘It now remains for me to deal with the third topic of my speech—the charges of
bribery. It has already been entirely refuted by those who have spoken before me, but
it must still be discussed by me, since such is the will of Murena.’ Cic. Mur. 54)
(l) Postea polliceri et confirmare se et hoc peccato doctum et beneficio eorum qui
sibi ignoverint confirmatum omni tempore a tali ratione afuturum.
(‘After that he should promise and affirm that, taught by this error and strengthened
by the kindness of those who have pardoned him, he will forever after refrain from
such a course of conduct.’ Cic. Inv. 2.106)
The use of participles allows authors to condense information by reducing or avoiding
repetition of entities that are known from the context. Examples are (m)–(p). In (m),
the tragula ‘spear’ is maintained as the subject of the first sentence. In the following
sentence, the epistula to which perlectam refers was mentioned in the preceding con-
text as attached to the tragula and is therefore not explicitly restated. The implication
is that ille (sc. Cicero), the subject of recitat, had read this letter and then recited it. In
(n), the agent of accensos is the subject of the preceding adlocutus and the following
dimisit. In (o), it is irrelevant who the agents of coniecta and posita are. Ex. (p) shows
how Apuleius avoids repetition of the persons involved in the fight. In this way, parti-
ciples are an essential building-block for the periodical style.
(m) Haec (sc. tragula) casu ad turrim adhaesit neque a nostris biduo animad-
versa tertio die a quodam milite conspicitur, dempta ad Ciceronem defertur.
Ille perlectam (sc. epistulam) in conventu militum recitat maximaque omnes
laetitia adficit.
(‘By chance it stuck fast in the tower, and for two days was not noticed by our troops;
on the third day it was sighted by a soldier, taken down, and delivered to Cicero. After
he had read it through, he recited it at a parade of the troops, bringing the greatest
delight to all.’ Caes. Gal. 5.48.8–9)
(n) Quos (sc. ad duo milia peditum et ducentos equites) Poenus benigne adlocu-
tus (sc. est)⁴¹ et spe ingentium donorum accensos in civitates quemque suas
ad sollicitandos popularium animos dimisit.
(‘Hannibal addressed them (sc. some two thousand foot-soldiers and two hundred
horsemen) with fair words, and after encouraging them to hope for great rewards, sent
them off to their several states to solicit the support of their countrymen.’ Liv. 21.48.2)
(o) Item si legumina in vas cum ea aqua coniecta ad ignem posita celeriter per-
cocta fuerint, indicabunt aquam esse bonam et salubrem.
(‘Again, if vegetables, after they have been put in a vessel with water and boiled, are
soon cooked, they will show that the water is good and wholesome.’ Vitr. 8.4.2)
⁴¹ For ellipsis of forms of sum in Livy, see Briscoe (1981: 12–13). See also § 4.93.
 Secondary predicates
(p) Ipse denique dux et signifer ceterorum validis me viribus adgressus ilico
manibus ambabus capillo adreptum ac retro reflexum effligere lapide gestit.
Quem dum sibi porrigi flagitat, certa manu percussum feliciter prosterno.
Ac mox alium pedibus meis mordicus inhaerentem per scapulas ictu tem-
perato tertiumque inprovide occurrentem pectore offenso peremo.
(‘Their general and standard-bearer himself attacked me on the spot with might and
main, snatched me by the hair with both hands, bent me backwards, and was prepar-
ing to slay me with a stone. While he was shouting for someone to hand him the
stone, I struck him with unerring hand and luckily laid him low. The second had
fastened his teeth into my legs, but I felled him with a nice blow between the shoulder-
blades, while the third I killed with a stroke straight through the chest as he ran
carelessly toward me.’ Apul. Met. 3.6.1–2)
Greek influence (notably by Thucydides) explains the use of the participles in
instances like (q).⁴²
(q) . . . vigilias ipse circumire . . . uti militibus exaequatus cum imperatore labor
volentibus esset.
(‘. . . he personally inspected the sentries . . . to make the soldiers willing to
endure labour shared equally by their commander he did his full share.’ Sal.
Jug. 100.4)
Supplement:
. . . quia neque plebi militia volenti putabatur et Marius aut belli usum aut studia volgi
amissurus. (Sal. Jug. 84.3); Grande periculum Lilybaeo maritimisque civitatibus esse
et quibusdam volentibus novas res fore. (Liv. 21.50.10); Et quibus bellum volentibus
erat probare exemplum ac recentis legati animum opperiri, cum Agricola . . . ire
obviam discrimini statuit. (Tac. Ag. 18.2); . . . ut quibusque bellum invitis aut cupien-
tibus erat . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.59.1—NB: coordination); Nunc quoque, si tibi fabulam
brevem libenti est audire, audi. (Fro. Fer. Als. 3.8); Nam et missis in hoc referre volen-
tibus erat mores Abios . . . (Itin. Alex. 95)
. Accusative and participle construction with perception verbs

Present participles can be used as secondary predicates with objects of perception
verbs (or, rarely, as subjects of their passive counterparts). This usage is attested in all
periods of Latin⁴³ and is called the accusative and participle construction.
Semantically, it is close to the use of the accusative and present infinitive clause with
these verbs, when the latter refers to a directly perceived state of affairs (see the dis-
cussion in § 15.98 (i)). In Late Latin the accusative and participle construction is also
used in a ‘quotative’ way—that is, without direct perception—as in (c).
(a) . . . neque tibicinam cantantem neque alium quemquam audio.
(‘. . . and I can’t hear a flautist playing or anyone else.’ Pl. Mos. 934)
⁴² See K.-G.: I.425. ⁴³ For discussion, see Greco (2013).

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
(b) . . . eo ipso die puer, cum hora undecima in publico valens visus esset, ante
noctem mortuus . . . est.
(‘. . . and on that very day the boy, though at the eleventh hour he had been seen in
public in good health, died before night.’ Cic. Clu. 27)
(c) Audi Paulum dicentem: ‘Ideo misericordiam consecutus sum . . .’
(‘Listen to Paul when he says: “Thus I attained mercy . . .”’ August. Serm. Nov. 14D.8)
Active main verbs: Hic, exeuntem me unde aspexisti modo. (Pl. Bac. 204); Cum et
quo Antiochum saepe disputantem audiebam . . . (Cic. Luc. 11); . . . cum se mari ter-
raque simul cernerent circumventos. (Liv. 37.11.9); . . . M. Valerius, Publicolae frater,
conspicatus ferocem iuvenem Tarquinium ostentantem se in prima exsulum
acie . . . (Liv. 2.20.1); (sc. canes) . . . satisque pulchre funguntur officio, si et adve-
nientem sagaciter odorantur et latratu conterrent nec patiuntur propius accedere vel
constantius adpropinquantem violenter invadunt. (Col. 7.12.7); . . . cum sensit (sc.
perdix) feminam aucupis accedentem ad marem . . . (Plin. Nat. 10.102); . . . qui illam
hic vidit osculantem . . . (Pl. Mil. 199); Ecce autem video rure redeuntem senem. (Ter.
Eu. 967); . . . ipsum (sc. Varronem) ad nos venientem vidimus. (Cic. Ac. 1.1); Atque
eos omnes quos commemoravi his studiis flagrantes senes vidimus. (Cic. Sen.
50); . . . quae (sc. mala) venientia longe ante videris. (Cic. Tusc. 3.29); . . . puerum . . . in
aggeris medio vidimus heiulantem . . . (Amm. 18.6.10)
Passive main verbs: Saepe auditus est . . . seque ire ad illam . . . dictitans . . . (Tac. Ann.
13.46.1); . . . murmurans querulis vocibus saepe audiebatur . . . (Amm. 15.8.20); . . .
M. Antonius . . . cum cohortibus XII descendens ex loco superiore cernebatur. (Caes.
Civ. 3.65.1)
. Gerundives functioning as secondary predicate
The gerundive is frequently used as secondary predicate associated with the object
(subject in the passive) in a range of dynamic (mostly terminative) states of affairs
with verbs like do ‘to give’, mitto ‘to send’, rogo ‘to ask’ suscipio ‘to take upon oneself ’.
Illustrations of this usage are (a) (active) and (b) (passive), respectively.
(a) Nam ego quidem meos oculos habeo nec rogo utendos foris.
(‘Well, I for one have my own eyes and needn’t borrow them from outside.’ Pl. Mil. 347)
(b) . . . is cui res publica a me . . . traditur sustinenda . . .
(‘. . . the man to whom I am handing over the republic for him to preserve . . .’ Cic. Mur. 3)
The gerundive in such contexts is often described as ‘final’, in that it indicates the
ultimate purpose of the action. In many cases the combination of object + secondary
predicate could be replaced by the object and one of the gerundial purpose adjunct
expressions dealt with in § 16.100. So (b) might be replaced by something like (c) and
refer to more or less the same event.
(c) is cui res publica a me traditur ad sustinendum
 Secondary predicates
The basis for this use is obviously the non-factive meaning of the gerundive (see
§ 7.84).
Supplement:
Spectandum ne quoi anulum det neque roget. (Pl. As. 778); T<uo>m filium dedisti
adoptandum mihi . . . (Ter. Ad. 114); . . . attribuit nos trucidandos Cethego et ceteros
civis interficiendos Gabinio, urbem inflammandam Cassio, totam Italiam vastan-
dam diripiendamque Catilinae. (Cic. Catil. 4.13); Quodsi ea quae utenda acceperis
maiore mensura si modo possis iubet reddere Hesiodus quidnam beneficio provocati
facere debemus? (Cic. Off. 1.48); <Nam> Iphigenia Aulide duci se immolandam
iubet, ut hostium eliciatur suo. (Cic. Tusc. 1.116); Epistulam quam Balbo, cum etiam
nunc in provincia esset, scripsi, legendam tibi misi. (Pol. Fam. 10.32.5); . . . si umquam
regnandam acceperit Albam. (Verg. A. 6.770); . . . omnis cetera praeda diripienda
data est. (Liv. 22.52.5); . . . equorumque domandi greges peditibus distributi sunt . . .
(Curt. 4.9.4); Coctas (sc. cepas) dysintericis vescendas dedere . . . (Plin. Nat. 20.41);
Ergo igitur evocato statim armentario equisone magna cum praefatione deducendus
adsignor. (Apul. Met. 7.15); Lucius Titius miles notario suo testamentum scriben-
dum notis dictavit . . . (Paul. dig. 29.1.40 praef.)
A very remarkable case with the one-place verb pateo is: Detractum culmen templo,
nudatum tectum patere imbribus putrefaciendum. (Liv. 42.3.7)—a non-dynamic,
non-controllable state of affairs. Another remarkable case with one-place venio is:
Ergo istuc metuo quom venit vobis faciundum utrumque. (Pl. Mil. 891)—a dynamic,
non-controllable state of affairs⁴⁴ (see also below on Late Latin).
The verb habeo ‘to have’, obviously not a candidate for dynamic (terminative) states of
affairs, is also used with an object noun phrase (sometimes understood) and a sec-
ondary predicate as its expansion. An example is (d). Here colendum clearly has to be
understood as the purpose of agrum habere, as in the instances quoted above.
(d) Ibi agrum de nostro patre / colendum habebat.
(‘There he had some land to farm from my father.’ Ter. Ph. 364–5)
Supplement:
Queiquomque id publicum fruendum redemptum comductumve habebit
(CIL I2.585.25 (Lex Agr., c.111 bc—NB: coordination with a perfect passive participle));
Aedem Castoris, iudices, P. Iunius habuit tuendam de L. Sulla Q. Metello consulibus.
(Cic. Ver. 1.130)
This use of habeo must be distinguished from its use in a formally similar context,
where it means ‘to have to’, as in (e), but where no object is understood (for the deontic
meaning of the gerundive, see § 5.41):
(e) De omnibus meis habeo dicendum: ‘habui.’
(‘Of all my family I have to say: “I had.”’ Cestius Pius ap. Sen. Con. 9.5.1)
⁴⁴ K.-St.: I.731 paraphrase venit with offertur.

Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
The verbs curo, do, and loco are also used with a combination of a noun phrase in the
accusative and a gerundive that agrees with the noun phrase in case, number, and
gender. An example is (f). These expressions are structurally different from the cases
discussed above (for discussion, see § 15.141).
(f) . . . suspiciones . . . quod obsides inter eos dandos curasset . . .
(‘. . . suspicions . . . that he had caused hostages to be given between them . . .’
Caes. Gal. 1.19.1)
In Late Latin, the gerundive is also used as a secondary predicate with the subject,
both in passive and in non-passive sentences. An example of a gerundive as secondary
predicate with the subject in a passive sentence is (g).
(g) . . . Hymetius ad oppidum ductus Ocriculum audiendus ab Ampelio . . .
(‘. . . Hymetius was taken to the town of Ocriculum to be heard by Ampelius . . .’ Amm.
28.1.22)
Supplement:
Quot adhuc vobis repurgandae latent leges! (Tert. Apol. 4.10); Per eadem tempora,
cum tantis honoribus occuparetur et cum formandus ad regendum statum rei
publicae patris actibus interesset, studia cupidissime frequentavit. (Hist. Aug. Aur.
6.5); . . . ibi statuit immorari alimentis destituendos forsitan cedere existimans Persas.
(Amm. 20.11.24);⁴⁵ Post hanc gestorum seriem Hymetius ad oppidum ductus
Ocriculum audiendus ab Ampelio, urbi praefecto, et Maximino vicario confestimque
perdendus, ut apparebat, data sibi copia tectius imperatoris praesidium appellavit
nominisque eius perfugio tectus servabatur incolumis. (Amm. 28.1.22); Qui redivivus
ait se iudicis ante tribunal / ductum damnandum . . . (Ven. Fort. Mart. 1.177–8)
. Noun phrases in the genitive functioning

as secondary predicate
Noun phrases in the genitive of description or of quality (see § 11.48) can be used as
secondary predicate both with the subject, as in (a), and with the object, as in (b). This
resembles the use of such noun phrases as subject or object complement (see § 9.31
and § 9.42 on the genitive of description for the internal properties of the phrase).
(a) Quod ei usu venit, cum annorum octoginta subsidio Tacho in Aegyptum
iisset . . .
(‘Such fortune attended him when, at the age of eighty, he went into Egypt to the aid
of Tachos . . .’ Nep. Ag. 8.2)
(b) . . . in funere matris suae, quam extulit annorum nonaginta . . .
(‘. . . at the funeral of his mother, whom he buried at the age of ninety . . .’ Nep. Att. 17.1)
⁴⁵ More instances in Odelstierna (1926: 18–19).

 Secondary predicates
Supplement:
. . . redis mutatae frontis . . . (Hor. S. 2.8.84); . . .‘novem’, inquit, ‘annorum a vobis pro-
fectus post sextum et tricensimum annum redii.’ (Liv. 30.37.9); Incertae enim sortis
vivimus. (Sen. Suas. 4.3); Adversus utrumque statum invictum animum tenet
exploratae iam firmitatis . . . (Sen. Dial. 12.5.5); . . . quod summissa animi, nulla gravis
hospita turba, / stantis adhuc fati vixit quasi coniuge victo. (Luc. 8.157–8—NB: see
Mayer ad loc.); (sc. Nero) . . . blandiente profectu, quamquam exiguae vocis et fuscae,
prodire in scaenam concupiit . . . (Suet. Nero 20.1); Is qui in reatu decedit integri sta-
tus decedit. (Ulp. dig. 48.4.11)
. Nouns in the dative functioning as secondary predicate
An optional dative noun that indicates the function of the subject or the object in the
event described can be added to a clause, especially with verbs of giving/taking and of
going/sending. Examples are auxilio in (a), related to the subject, and dono in (b),
related to the object, respectively.
(a) . . . Assum auxilio, Amphitruo, tibi et tuis.
(‘ . . . I am here with help for you and your family.’ Pl. Am. 1131)
(b) Periisti. Quod promiseram tibi dono perdidisti.
(‘You’re done for: you’ve lost what I promised you as a gift.’ Pl. Mos. 185)
Such clauses often contain another dative constituent, as with tibi et tuis in (a) and tibi
in (b) (hence the term ‘double dative construction’). These dative constituents fulfil
various functions. In (a), tibi et tuis can be taken as the argument of the noun auxilio,
as also in (c) below (see § 11.71). In (b), tibi is the recipient argument with the verb
promiseram. In (d) and (e), bubus and semper sitientibus hortis are beneficiary
adjuncts. Sometimes more than one analysis is possible. Note in (f) the co-occurrence
of the secondary predicate auxilio and the purpose adjunct ad coercendos ignes.
(c) Ariobarzani simul cum Agesilao auxilio profectus est . . .
(‘He went with Agesilaus to the assistance of Ariobarzanes . . .’ Nep. Tim. 1.3)
(d) Rus mane dudum hinc ire me iussit pater, / ut bubus glandem prandio
depromerem.
(‘A while ago in the morning my father told me to go to the farm to fetch acorns for
the cattle for their fodder.’ Pl. Truc. 645–6)
(e) Vicini quoque sint amnes, quos incola durus / adtrahat auxilio semper sitien-
tibus hortis . . .
(‘Let rivers flow adjacent to your plot, whose streams the hardy gardener may divert
as aid to quench the garden’s ceaseless thirst . . .’ Col. 10.23–4)
(f) Satius itaque est comparari ea quae ad coercendos ignes auxilio esse
possint . . .
(‘It is better, then, to procure what may be of assistance in restraining fires . . .’ Tra.
Plin. Ep. 10.34.2)
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
Supplement:
Two datives: . . . pateram, quae dono mi illi ob virtutem data est . . . . (Pl. Am. 534); . . . sym-
phoniacos homines sex quoidam amico suo Romam muneri misit. (Cic. Ver. 5.64); Eo
biduo Caesar cum equitibus DCCCC quos sibi praesidio reliquerat in castra pervenit.
(Caes. Civ. 1.41.1); Atque interim Marius fugatis equitibus adcurrit auxilio suis, quos
pelli iam acceperat. (Sal. Jug. 101.10); Volux adveniens quaestorem appellat dicitque se
a patre Boccho obviam illis simul et praesidio missum. (Sal. Jug. 106.1); Sunt etiam de
nostris quidam qui ne in acie quidem fuerunt, sed praesidio castris relicti, cum castra
traderentur, in potestatem hostium venerunt. (Liv. 22.59.9); Mille praesidio urbis relic-
tis proximos vicos depopulatur atque urit. (Curt. 7.6.10—NB: genitive attribute); Nam
petisse eum a me aliquid tersui dentibus versus testantur. (Apul. Apol. 6.2)
One dative: Mancupio nec promittet nec quisquam dabit. (Pl. Per. 525); . . . quae de
eo genere est quo indutui mulieres ut uterentur est institutum. (Var. L. 10.27); . . .
Germanosque qui auxilio a Gallis arcessiti dicebantur . . . prohibeat. (Caes. Gal.
3.11.2); Ea (sc. virtus) sola neque datur dono neque accipitur. (Sal. Jug. 85.38); Post
ipsum auxilio subeuntem ac tela ferentem / corripiunt spirisque ligant ingenti-
bus . . . (Verg. A. 2.216–17); . . . ni K. Fabius in tempore subsidio venisset. (Liv.
2.48.5); . . . nec ante in campos degressi sunt quam legiones Faliscorum auxilio
venerunt. (Liv. 4.17.11); Illud scire oportet, omne eiusmodi medicamentum quod
potui datur non semper aegris prodesse, semper sanis nocere. (Cels. 2.13)
The instances in this section are often labelled ‘dative of purpose’ (dativus finalis).
Others call them ‘predicative datives’. In this Syntax the dative nouns (and noun
phrases) involved are divided into obligatory and optional constituents. Table 21.1
shows how various dative expressions are dealt with in this syntax.
Table . Treatment of the dativus finalis (or: predicative dative) in this Syntax
obligatory dative constituent optional dative constituent
functioning as subject complement and functioning as functioning as
object complement, respectively secondary predicate beneficiary adjunct
id tibi laudi est § 9.34 tibi auxilio venio librum lego meae
§ 21.11 (with the voluptati
subject) § 10.70
id tibi laudi duco § 9.43 me tibi auxilio misit
§ 21.11 (with the
object)
. Noun phrases in the ablative functioning

as secondary predicate
Noun phrases in the ablative (often called ablative ‘of description’ or ‘of quality’—
ablativus qualitatis—see §§ 9.35, 9.44, and 11.63) can be used as secondary predicate
to expand the subject or object constituents of the clause. The nouns involved denote
mental or physical properties such as animus ‘mind’, mens ‘mind’, pectus ‘breast’, or
 Secondary predicates
caput ‘head’, or personal attributes like clothing. The modifier is usually a descriptive
adjective. Examples are (a), repeated from § 21.1 (f), and (b)–(d). For an instance of a
non-human subject, see (e). Ex. (f) is interesting because it shows an ablative phrase
coordinated with an adjective and a prepositional phrase. If the modifier of the noun
is a perfect passive participle, as demisso in (g), one can question whether it is an
ablative absolute clause or a secondary predicate.⁴⁶
(a) Nunc defaecato demum animo egredior domo . . .
(‘Now that I’ve regained a clear mind at last I’m leaving the house . . .’ Pl. Aul. 79)
(b) . . . quod eos infenso animo atque inimico venisse dicatis . . .
(‘. . . that you declare that they had come with angry and hostile intentions . . .’ Cic. Ver.
2.149)⁴⁷
(c) Interea ad templum non aequae Palladis ibant / crinibus Iliades passis . . .
(‘Meanwhile, to the temple of unfriendly Pallas the Trojan women passed along with
streaming tresses . . .’ Verg. A. 1.479–80)
(d) . . . Codrum, qui se in medios inmisit hostis veste famulari . . .
(‘. . . Codrus, who flung himself into the midst of the enemy in the costume of a
slave . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.116)
(e) . . . pingui flumine Nilus / cum refluit campis et iam se condidit alveo.
(‘. . . when the Nile with its rich flood ebbs from the fields and at length sinks into its
channel.’ Verg. A. 9.31–2)
(f) Cum antehac videbam stare tristis, turbido / vultu, subductis cum superciliis
senes . . .
(‘When formerly I used to see sorry old men standing around with furrowed brows,
their expression troubled.’ Turp. com. 167–8)
(g) At C. Fabricius a subselliis demisso capite discesserat.
(‘But C. Fabricius had left his seat with hanging head.’ Cic. Clu. 58)
Supplement:
With the subject: Paelex aedem Iunonis ne tangito; si tangit, Iunoni crinibus demis-
sis agnum feminam caedito. (Law cited at Gel. 4.3.3); Ille traversa mente mi hodie
tradidit repagula . . . (Enn. scen. 270V=229J);⁴⁸ Sed satine ego animum mente sincera
gero . . .? (Pl. Bac. 509); Continuo occurrit ad me, quam longe quidem, / incurvo’,
tremulu’, labiis demissis, gemens . . . (Ter. Eu. 335–6); . . . pura mente atque integra
Milonem, nullo scelere imbutum . . . Romam revertisse . . . (Cic. Mil. 61); Satis est si
sana mente feci. (Sen. Con. 7.6.13); . . . ut scripturas sanctas mente purissima cogno-
scere mereamur . . . (Cass. Inst. 32.7); . . . totoque libens mihi pectore grator . . . (Ov.
Met. 9.244); . . . te prodire involuto capite, soleatum . . . (Cic. Pis. 13); Sin (sc.
⁴⁶ For a discussion of potential ambiguity in the case of participles of terminative verbs (ablative abso-
lute clause or secondary predicate?), see Longrée (2014). Bennett: I.368–9 deals with several of the
examples cited here as ablative absolutes.
⁴⁷ For this example, see Fugier (1978: 130).
⁴⁸ Rosén (1999: 57–8) takes this as the first instance of periphrastic mente adverbs. See also § 10.48.
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
luna) . . . pura neque obtunsis per caelum cornibus ibit . . . (Verg. G. 1.432–3); . . . cum
plebs in foro erecta exspectatione staret . . . (Liv. 2.54.8); Incedere magno comitatu,
splendido cultu non est fortunae meae. (Sen. Con. 10.1.3); . . . et iubet caelo superos
relicto / vultibus falsis habitare terras. (Sen. Phaed. 294–5)
With the object (subject in the passive): Nam hoc istum vestitu Siculi . . . saepe
viderunt. (Cic. Ver. 5.86); Vigilans ictus coniventibus oculis, dormiens patentibus
reperitur. (Plin. Nat. 2.145); Sed nihil barbaris atrocius visum est quam quod abscisis
manibus relicti vivere superstites poenae suae iubebantur. (Flor. Epit. 1.39.7—NB: a
secondary predicate within a secondary predicate)
Appendix: Some Late Latin authors show a preference for abstract nouns to express
the quality of a noun instead of using an attributive adjective, which results in excep-
tional instances like (h), with magnitudine fluenti instead of magno fluento.⁴⁹
(h) Abundans aquarum Hister advenarum magnitudine fluenti Sauromatas
praetermeat . . .
(‘The Hister, overflowing with tributaries, flows past the Sauromatians with
its mighty stream . . .’ Amm. 31.2.13)
. Prepositional phrases functioning as secondary predicate
For a prepositional phrase functioning as secondary predicate, see ex. (f ) in § 21.12.

Further examples are (a)–(c) below. The prepositional phrases involved seem to be
related only to subjects (in active and passive sentences); the nouns mostly indicate
states of mind, weapons, clothes, or body parts.⁵⁰
(a) Malo enim vel cum timore domi esse quam sine timore Athenis tuis.
(‘I would rather be frightened at home than secure in your Athens.’ Cic. Att. 16.6.2)
(b) . . . te . . . stetisse in comitio cum telo . . .
(‘. . . you were standing in the comitium armed with a weapon . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.15)
(c) . . . in larvam intravi, paene animam ebullivi . . .
(‘. . . I went in like a corpse, and nearly gave up the ghost . . .’ Petr. 62.10)
Ad contumeliam omnia accipiunt magis. (Ter. Ad. 606); . . . expositaque ad exem-
plum nostra re publica . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.70)
Te cum securi caudicali praeficio provinciae. (Pl. Ps. 158); Utut est, mihi quidem
profecto cum istis dictis mortuo’st. (Pl. Ps. 310);⁵¹ . . . quod is cum illo animo atque inge-
nio hac e civitate potissimum natus est . . . (Lael. orat. 22.2–3M); Si et ferro interfectus ille
et tu, inimicus ei, cum gladio cruento comprensus in illo ipso loco . . . (Cic. de Orat.
2.170); . . . tamen cum pudore summo in conspectum vestrum processi. (Liv. 3.67.1)
⁴⁹ See den Boeft et al. ad loc., Svennung (1936: 519), and Sz.: 152.
⁵⁰ For further examples, see Bulhart (1955), Väänänen (1951); for in and pro, Happ (1976: 302, n. 590);
for cum and in, TLL s.v. cum 1351.20ff., s.v. in 768.3ff., 788.46ff.; for sine, Merguet (Reden) s.v. sine.
⁵¹ For these two examples from Plautus, see Fraenkel (1968: 67).
 Secondary predicates
. . . cratera . . . quem Thracius olim / Anchisae genitori in magno munere Cisseus /

ferre . . . dederat . . . (Verg. A. 5.536–8)
. . . eques Romanus ad bellum maximum formidolosissimumque pro consule mit-
teretur? (Cic. Man. 62); . . . dum M. Brutus C. Cassius consules prove consulibus pro-
vincias obtinebunt. (Cic. Phil. 8.27); P. · Paquius . . . Scaevae · . . . pro · consule ·
provinciam · Cyprum · optinuit. (CIL IX.2845.1–4 (Histonium, 13 bc)); . . . Lucullus
cum omni litterarum generi tum philosophiae deditus fuit . . . nec vero ineunte aetate
solum sed et pro quaestore aliquot annos . . . (Cic. Luc. 4); Omnia pro stimulis faci-
busque ciboque furoris / accipit . . . (Ov. Met. 6.480–1)
. . . plerique ut fusi sine mente ac sine ullo sensu iacerent . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.28); Tamen
nemo tam sine oculis, tam sine mente vivit ut . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.249)
The prepositional phrase pro consule was gradually replaced by proconsul in the
course of the first century bc. While the prepositional phrase was mainly used as a
secondary predicate, proconsul functioned as an apposition (or as subject, etc.).⁵²
. The gerund developing into an alternative

for the present participle
Throughout the history of the Latin language, but increasingly so in later periods, one
finds gerunds in the ablative that cannot be easily interpreted as means/instrument or
manner adjuncts in the context of their sentences. Sometimes they seem to express
only the concomitance of the event of the gerundial clause with that of the main
clause. In such instances, the gerund is often considered equivalent to a present parti-
ciple and is seen as a forerunner of the use of the gerund in Romance languages (see
also § 16.101). An early example cited in the literature is (a) from Terence. In some
cases, editors prefer to amend the text, as with (b). However, sometimes replacing the
gerund by a present participle leads to an equally odd result, as in (c). More instances
of this use of the gerund are reported from Livy onwards. Convincing examples date
from a later period. A good illustration is (d).⁵³
(a) Ita miserrimus / fui fugitando, ne quis me cognosceret.
(‘All the time I was running away I was terrified someone would recognize me.’ Ter.
Eu. 846–7—tr. Brown)
(b) Videbatur enim reconciliata nobis voluntas esse senatus, quod cum <in add.
Madvig> dicendo tum singulis appellandis rogandisque perspexeram.
(‘For it seemed that we had regained the Senate’s good will—I had clear evidence of
that both during my address and in approaches and appeals to individuals.’ Cic. Fam.
1.2.1—NB: it is not difficult to interpret the coordinated gerund as instrumental)
⁵² The inscriptional evidence and the development of pro consule and similar phrases can be found in
Hajdú (1999).
⁵³ See Hoffmann (1999), Maltby (2006), and Adams (2013: Ch. 27), with references. For technical Latin
texts, see Galdi and Vangaever (2019).
Constituents functioning as secondary predicate 
(c) Praecipue convertit omnes subtractus Numida mortuo superincubanti

Romano vivus naso auribusque laceratis, cum <ille Scheller, Romanus
Zingerle> manibus ad capiendum telum inutilibus in rabiem ira versa lani-
ando dentibus hostem exspirasset.
(‘But what most drew the attention of all was a Numidian who was dragged out from
under a dead Roman, alive but with mutilated nose and ears; for the Roman, unable
to hold a weapon in his hands, had expired in a frenzy of rage, while rending the
other with his teeth.’ Liv. 22.51.9)
(d) . . . dixit . . . quod . . . sic redirent . . . dicendo psalmos vel antiphonas . . .
(‘. . . he said . . . that . . . they returned in that way . . . reciting psalms and antiphons . . .’
Pereg. 15.5)
Supplement:
. . . morique maluerint falsum fatendo quam verum infitiando dolere. (Cic. Part.
50); . . . sed mehercule incipiendo refugi . . . (Cic. Att. 4.6.3); Tum rursus Bocchus, seu
reputando quae sibi duobus proeliis venerant, seu admonitus ab aliis amicis, quos
inconruptos Iugurtha reliquerat, ex omni copia necessariorum quinque delegit,
quorum et fides cognita et ingenia validissuma erant. (Sal. Jug. 103.2—NB: parallel-
ism); Neque aliter quisquam extollere sese et divina mortalis attingere potest, nisi
omissis pecuniae et corporis gaudiis animo indulgens, non adsentando neque concu-
pita praebendo, pervorsam gratiam gratificans sed in labore patientia bonisque prae-
ceptis et factis fortibus exercitando. (Sal. Rep. 1.7.5); Novi deinde consules . . . ingressi
hostium fines populando usque ad moenia atque urbem pervenerunt. (Liv. 8.17.1);
Quis talia fando / Myrmidonum Dolopumve aut duri miles Ulixi / temperet a lacri-
mis? (Verg. A. 2.6–8); Audio quendam ex delicatis . . . dixisse interrogando: ‘iam
sedeo?’ (Sen. Dial. 10.12.7); Namque ut homines dispersi ac rudes eoque in bella
faciles quieti et otio per voluptates adsuescerent, hortari privatim, adiuvare publice, ut
templa fora domos exstruerent, laudando promptos, castigando segnes. (Tac. Ag.
21.1); Attonitus / exiendo dico illi . . . (CEL 146.30–1 (Karanis, ad 100–25));⁵⁴
. . . pervenimus ad radicem montis Nabau, qui erat valde excelsus, ita tamen, ut pars
eius maxima sedendo in asellis possit subiri. (Pereg. 11.4); . . . dum in remota terrarum
vincendo procedis . . . (Paneg. 2.23.1); . . . stetit diu cunctando . . . (Amm. 17.1.8); Super
his nec stando mingens⁵⁵ nec ad requisita naturae secedens facile visitur Persa.
(Amm. 23.6.79); . . . ego solus confecto tantorum munerum cursu moriar stando . . .
(Amm. 24.3.7); . . . aut equitando aut dormitando conscripserim . . . (Ven. Fort. Carm.
praef. 4); . . . credas ut stellas ire trahendo comas. (Ven. Fort. Carm. 5.5.118); . . .
cum sacerdos de ecclesia ad basilicam psallendo procederet . . . (Greg. Tur. Hist. 5.11).
Instances of the ablative form of the gerund functioning as a secondary predicate with
constituents of the sentence other than the subject have been noted in Late Latin, as
in (e).⁵⁶
⁵⁴ Exiendo was taken as equivalent to the dative of the present participle exienti in earlier studies, but
see Adams (2013: 734).
⁵⁵ Note that the gerund is part of a secondary predicate.
⁵⁶ More examples from Ven. Fort. in Odelstierna (1926: 58–60), for example (Carm. 4.15.7): Dic, tibi quid
prodest scelus hoc peragendo, nefande. (= peragenti), but Leo, in his edition, takes it as equivalent to an infinitive.
 Secondary predicates
(e) . . . atque meos animos plura videndo cremas.

(‘. . . and you burn my soul while I see more.’ Ven. Fort. Carm. 11.19.2)
. Autonomous relative clauses functioning

as secondary predicates
In § 18.16, the secondary predicate is mentioned as one of the syntactic functions of

autonomous relative clauses. In English they are called relative clauses of purpose.⁵⁷
Instances of this usage can be found from Early Latin onwards, as in (a) and (b),
where the clauses are related to an argument of the main clause. As in these examples,
the main clause often contains a verb of coming or sending, but other combinations
can be found as well, as in (c), where the relative clause is coordinated with an adjec-
tive. Ex. (d) represents a relatively complex case with an intervening purpose adjunct.
An example with a relative adverb is (e). The mood in these relative clauses is sub-
junctive, traditionally labelled ‘final’.
(a) Immo alium potius misero / . . . illuc tuom qui conveniat patrem, / qui tua
quae tu iusseris mandata . . . perferat.
(‘No, I’d rather send someone else there who can go to your father and carry out your
instructions . . .’ Pl. Capt. 341–3)
(b) Qui? # Quia venit navis nostrae navi quae frangat ratem.
(‘How come? # Because a ship has come to smash the timbers of our ship.’ Pl. Mos. 740)
(c) Deinde ut cubitum discessimus, me et de via fessum et qui ad multam
noctem vigilassem artior quam solebat somnus complexus est.
(‘When we separated to take our rest, a deeper sleep than usual enveloped me, as
I was weary from my journey and had stayed awake through much of the night.’
Cic. Rep. 6.10—NB: parallelism)
(d) Qui (sc. consules) cum legatis in senatum introductis de re publica rettulis-
sent placuissetque mitti legatos in Hispaniam ad res sociorum inspiciendas,
quibus si videretur digna causa . . . Hannibali denuntiarent ut ab Saguntinis,
sociis populi Romani, abstineret . . .
(‘After introducing the ambassadors into the Senate, they had brought up the ques-
tion of public policy, and the senators had voted to dispatch envoys to Spain to look
into the affairs of their allies, to the end that, if there appeared to be just cause, they
might formally warn Hannibal to keep away from the Saguntines, the allies of the
Roman People . . .’ Liv. 21.6.3–4)
(e) Agri reliquit ei non magnum modum / quo cum labore magno et misere viveret.
(‘He did leave him a piece of land, not a big one, though, where he could live with
great toil and miserably.’ Pl. Aul. 13–14)
⁵⁷ For the use of relative clauses as secondary predicate, see Vester (1989), Maurel (1995: 194–5), and
Lavency (1998a: 24–6) (with varying terminology).
The distribution of secondary predicates 
Supplement:
. . . dedi ei meam gnatam quicum <una> aetatem exigat. (Pl. Trin. 15); Hoc homini
amplius, quod addidit rationem, qua regerentur animi adpetitus, qui tum remitteren-
tur tum continerentur. (Cic. N.D. 2.34); Homines enim sunt hac lege generati qui
tuerentur illum globum quem in hoc templo medium vides, quae terra dicitur. (Cic.
Rep. 6.15); (sc. Helvetii) . . . legatos ad eum mittunt nobilissimos civitatis . . . qui dicerent
sibi esse in animo sine ullo maleficio iter per provinciam facere . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.7.3);
(sc. Clusini) . . . legatos Romam qui auxilium ab senatu peterent misere. (Liv. 5.35.5)
Non oris caussa modo homines aequom fuit / sibi habere speculum ubi os contem-
plarent suom . . . (Pl. Epid. 382–3)
Appendix: Cum clauses can be used in a similar way, not so much to locate the event
of the main clause in time (for which see § 16.10), but to describe the situation in
which one of the arguments of the clause is involved when the event of the main
clause takes place. In this way they resemble present participles and relative clauses
in their function as secondary predicate.⁵⁸ An example is (f).
(f) Saepe enim soleo audire Roscium cum ita dicat . . .
(‘For again and again do I hear Roscius declaring this . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.129)
Supplement:
Olympiae per stadium ingressus esse Milo dicitur cum humeris sustineret bovem.
(Cic. Sen. 33); . . . audivi . . . Metrodorum cum de his ipsis rebus disputaret. (Cic. de
Orat. 2.365)
21.16 The distribution of secondary predicates

Secondary predicates are most naturally used with arguments of the clause, especially
the subject and, to a lesser extent, the object.⁵⁹ These usages have been well illustrated
in the preceding sections. However, the use of those secondary predicates that show
agreement with the constituent to which they are related is not restricted to argu-
ments. A few more noteworthy instances are given in (a)–(e) and in the Supplement.⁶⁰
In (a), there is a secondary predicate with the agent of a passive clause (an argument,
see § 2.12 and § 5.8 Note). Impersonal passives with such a combination of an agent
and a secondary predicate seem not to be attested. In (b), vivis is related to cum illis,
an associative adjunct. In (c), vivo is related to ei, a sympathetic dative. In (d), absentis
is related to cuius, a genitive attribute of the noun nomen. In (e), incautum is part of
the participial phrase inter multas versantem hostium manus, which is itself a second-
ary predicate with Q. Fabium. Incautum is indirectly related to Q. Fabium as well. (See
also § 18.14 for apparent secondary predicates in relative clauses.)
⁵⁸ Maurel (1995: 194–5).

⁵⁹ Many examples of secondary predicates with the object (passive subject) of habere can be found in
TLL s.v. 2423.23ff.
⁶⁰ A few instances are added with secondary predicates from the categories that are discussed in § 21.2
and § 21.3.
 Secondary predicates
(a) . . . qui illum (sc. Carneadem) a se adulescente Athenis iam adfectum senec-
tute multos dies auditum esse dicebat.
(‘. . . who used to say that as a young man he heard him (sc. Carneades) on many occa-
sions at Athens when he was already showing signs of age.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.68)
(b) . . . quin sciat has Timarchidi pactiones sepulturae cum vivis etiam illis esse
factas?
(‘. . . who doesn’t know that these burial bargains were struck with Timarchides even
by the victims themselves before they died?’ Cic. Ver. 5.120)
(c) Quin exta inspicere in sole ei vivo licet.
(‘In fact, you can inspect its innards in the sunlight while it’s still alive.’ Pl. Aul. 565)
(d) Quem hominem absentem . . . condemnasti? Cuius absentis nomen recepisti?
(‘Who is this whom, absent . . . you have pronounced guilty? Who is this whom you
have allowed, in his absence, to be prosecuted?’ Cic. Ver. 2.110)
(e) . . . Q. Fabium . . . Tuscus incautum inter multas versantem hostium manus . . .
gladio per pectus transfigit.
(‘. . . a Tuscan . . . caught Quintus Fabius unawares in the midst of a crowd of his
enemies and drove his sword through his breast.’ Liv. 2.46.4)
Supplement:
Object: (sc. mulier) . . . hospitique oppresso iam desperatoque ab omnibus opitulata
est. (Cic. S. Rosc. 27); Sagittaveras tu cor nostrum caritate tua et gestabamus verba tua
transfixa visceribus . . . (August. Conf. 9.2.3)
Indirect object: Athenienses, quibus primis post regiam legationem dicendi quae
vellent potestas facta est . . . (Liv. 35.32.12); <Dic>ta<tura>m et apsentt
praesentlo et a senatu <M. Marce>llo e<t>
L. Arruntio <cos.> non rec<epi>. (Aug. Anc. 5.1); Corpora animadversorum qui-
buslibet petentibus ad sepulturam danda sunt. (Paul. dig. 48.24.3)
Agent/Cause in a passive clause: Nam ita diligenter constituta sunt iura decumano
ut tamen ab invito aratore plus decuma non posset auferri. (Cic. Ver. 3.20); Quod
enim semel testamento alicui datum est, id ab eo invito cui datum est auferri non
potest. (Cic. Top. 21); . . . nec eos a quibus vita hominum instructa primis sit, fuisse
philosophos arbitrantur. (Cic. Tusc. 5.6); Quo (sc. morbo) cum gravi conflictaretur
(sc. Dionysius), quaesivit a medicis Dion quem ad modum se haberet . . . (Nep. Di.
2.4); Historiarum auctor iam tum Sisenna erat iuvenis, sed opus belli civilis Sullanique
post aliquot annos ab eo seniore editum est. (Vell. 2.9.5); . . . eaedem poenae in
Laelium Balbum decernuntur, id quidem a laetantibus, quia Balbus truci eloquentia
habebatur, promptus adversum insontes. (Tac. Ann. 6.48.4)
Associative adjunct: Nec diu moratus rusticus quidam familiaris oculis meis cum muli-
ercula comite propius accessit ac diligentius considerare pallium coepit. (Petr. 12.3)
Source adjunct: . . . qui cum sciret me ex Mustio vivo audisse . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.139);
Igitur a quo vivo nec praesens nec absens rex Deiotarus quicquam aequi boni
impe<t>ravit, apud mortuum factus est grat<ios>us. (Cic. Phil. 2.94)
The distribution of secondary predicates 
Beneficiary adjunct: Vivo fit quod numquam quisquam mortuo faciet mihi. (Pl.
Am. 459); Credebas dormienti haec tibi confecturos deos? (Ter. Ad. 693); . . . Silvius . . . /
quem tibi longaevo serum Lavinia coniunx / educet silvis regem regumque
parentem . . . (Verg. A. 6.763–5)
Other type of adjunct: . . . semper is fui qui de te oratore sic praedicarem . . . (Cic. de
Orat. 2.296); . . . posse ex is (sc. formis litterarum) in terram excussis annales Enni ut
deinceps legi possint effici. (Cic. N.D. 2.93); L. quidem Caesar, cum ad eum aegro-
tum Neapolim venissem . . . (Cic. Fam. 9.14.3)
Sympathetic dative: . . . non condimentis condiunt sed strigibus, / vivis convivis
intestina quae exedint. (Pl. Ps. 820–1); Pamphile, haud invito ad auris sermo mi
accessit tuos . . . (Ter. Hec. 482); . . . nisi (serpentibus) viventibus absciso capite non
gemmescit invidia animalis mori se sentientis. (Plin. Nat. 37.158)
Genitive attribute: Tamen huius cuius iniurati nutu prope terrarum orbis regebatur
iurati testimonio neque in C. Fimbriam neque in C. Memmium creditum est. (Cic.
Font. 24); . . . eaque sacra quae viri oculis ne imprudentis quidem aspici fas est non
solum aspectu virili sed flagitio stuproque violarit . . . (Cic. Har. 8); Quorum omnium
testimoniis de hac Dionis pecunia confirmatum est. (Cic. Ver. 2.23); At earum rerum
est absentium metus, quarum praesentium est aegritudo. (Cic. Tusc. 4.8); Cuius et
infelicitas vivi et subita mors in magnam spem Octavium adduxit provinciae potiun-
dae. (B. Alex. 43.4); (sc. Pausanias) Cuius mortui corpus cum eodem nonnulli
dicerent inferri oportere quo . . . (Nep. Paus. 5.5); . . . sacerdotibus maxime, qui quos
ad mortem devovissent, eorum deditionem vivorum hosti fecissent . . . (Liv. 31.18.6);
Ergo protinus insania timenda est, ubi expeditior alicuius quam sani fuit sermo est
subitaque loquacitas orta est . . . (Cels. 2.7.24); Et huius quidem recentis usus est.
(Cels. 5.18.3); Cuius intestati filius tuus heres futurus est, quem dementem alligatu-
rus est. (Sen. Con. 9.5.7)
NB: with a possessive adjective: . . . cui nomen meum absentis honori fuisset, ei
meas praesentis preces non putas profuisse? (Cic. Planc. 26); . . . sed moleste fero me
consulem tuum studium adulescentis perspexisse, te meum, cum id aetatis sim, per-
spicere non posse. (Cic. Fam. 15.13.1); . . . cum mea nemo / scripta legat, volgo reci-
tare timentis ob hanc rem . . . (Hor. S. 1.4.22–3); . . . saepe mihi dices vivae bene, saepe
rogabis, / ut mea defunctae molliter ossa cubent. (Ov. Am. 1.8.107–8); Et flesti et
nostros vidisti flentis ocellos. (Ov. Ep. 5.45)
Sed audeat Canuleius in senatu proloqui se nisi suas leges tamquam victoris patres
accipi sinant dilectum haberi prohibiturum? (Liv. 4.2.13—see also § 21.18)
NB: . . . tum muliebris fletus et concursatio incerta nunc hos, nunc illos sequentium
rogitantiumque viros natosque cui se fato darent . . . (Liv. 5.40.3)
Secondary predicates within a participial ablative absolute clause: . . . illo absente
auctore laudato . . . (Cic. Flac. 93); . . . obsidibus acceptis primis civitatis . . . (Caes. Gal.
2.13.1); Dictatore habente comitia Caesare consules creantur Iulius Caesar et
P. Servilius. (Caes. Civ. 3.1.1); . . . paucis . . . resistentibus interfectis . . . (Hirt. Gal.
8.13.2); Temperandum acre ingenium eius moderato et prudenti viro adiuncto col-
lega censebant. (Liv. 27.34.3); . . . contemptim inmobili iacente eo (sc. cane) . . . (Plin.
Nat. 8.149); . . . Mariade vivo exusto. (Amm. 23.5.3)
 Secondary predicates
NB: the following instances are different. Quo mortuo seems to be a dominant parti-
ciple: his death was reported. Quo mortuo nuntiato sella sublata est. (Cic. Fam.
7.30.1); Quo optato impetrato Theseus in maximis fuit luctibus. (Cic. Off. 3.94)⁶¹
Secondary predicates within a secondary predicate construction: Quo cum venis-
sem, M. Catonem, quem ibi esse nescieram, vidi in bibliotheca sedentem multis cir-
cumfusum Stoicorum libris. (Cic. Fin. 3.7); ⁶² Inde ubi prima fides pelago, placataque
venti / dant maria et lenis crepitans vocat auster in altum . . . (Verg. A. 3.69–70); (sc.
serpens) . . . sibilat ore / arduus insurgens . . . (Verg. A. 11.754–5);⁶³ . . . gravis incum-
bens scopulis arentibus aestas . . . (Verg. G. 2.377); Marcia . . . icta gravida partu exani-
mato ipsa citra ullum aliud incommodum vixit (Plin. Nat. 2.137); Vigilans ictus
coniventibus oculis, dormiens patentibus reperitur. (Plin. Nat. 2.145)
Secondary predicates within a gerund construction: Non dissimilem offensionem
et Aemiliani subiit L. Hostilius Mancinus, qui primus Carthaginem inruperat, situm
eius oppugnationesque depictas proponendo in foro et ipse adsistens populo
spectanti singula enarrando, qua comitate proximis comitiis consulatum adeptus est.
(Plin. Nat. 35.23); . . . Rhenum pervium feci . . . stando immobilis virtutis vestrae
nimirum firmamento confisus. (Amm. 21.5.3); . . . ad sancta pignora . . . venerunt
osculando flentes beatas reliquias . . . (Greg. Tur. Mart. 1.11)⁶⁴
Secondary predicate within an attributive participle: Vitis albae viridis tusae suco
inpetigines tolluntur. (Plin. Nat. 23.4)
Secondary predicate with an argument of an adjective: Quamdiu mater vixit, pater
me fuit procuratore contentus. (Sen. Con. 7.5.1)
21.17 The semantic relationship between a secondary

predicate and its clause
Most of the secondary predicates discussed in the preceding sections characterize in
some way the condition of the entity to which they are connected at the time when
this entity is (or was, or will be) engaged in some state, process, or action. Such is the
case in the initial example of this chapter, here repeated as (a). The same holds for (b),
where the secondary predicate invitum is related to the object me. More or less the
same applies to the participles in (c) and (d) and to the noun victor in (e): the relation-
ship is one of temporal simultaneity. See also (f) where vivi is coordinated with a
prepositional temporal adjunct.
(a) At ii qui ab Alesia processerant maesti . . . se in oppidum receperunt.
(‘But they who had come forth from Alesia sadly withdrew again into the town.’ Caes.
Gal. 7.80.9)
⁶¹ For further examples (to be sorted), see K.-St.: I.17; 772. The cases in the Supplement have to be dis-
tinguished from ablative absolute clauses with a three-place predicate governing an object and an object
complement, as in: Treboni (sc. mortem) satis persecuti sumus hoste iudicato Dolabella. (Cic. Phil. 13.39).
⁶² For a few instances in Cicero, see Laughton (1964: 126–8).
⁶³ For parallels of arduus used in this way, see Williams ad Verg. A. 5.278. The often cited line Apparent
rari nantes in gurgite vasto . . . (Verg. A. 1.118) does not belong here: nantes is subject.
⁶⁴ In Cic. Dom. 140 the manuscripts have revocando, for which Madvig conjectured revocans.
The relationship between secondary predicate and clause 
(b) Neque enim Pompeius me sua causa quicquam facere voluisset invitum . . .
(‘For Pompeius would not have wished me to do anything contrary to my inclination
for his sake . . .’ Cic. Rab. Post. 33)
(c) Ea re impetrata sese omnes flentes Caesari ad pedes proiecerunt.
(‘This was granted, and they all threw themselves in tears at Caesar’s feet.’ Caes. Gal.
1.31.2)
(d) Siquidem ego tibi vivus non prosum, qui fortasse mortuus profuissem.
(‘If I, now that I am alive, am unable to be of any service to you, though perhaps
I might have been of some if I had been dead.’ Cic. Planc. 101)
(e) Advocat contionem, habet orationem talem consul qualem numquam
Catilina victor habuisset.
(‘He convenes an assembly. He, the consul, addresses them in such a speech as even
Catiline himself, if he had been victorious, would never have delivered.’ Cic. Sest. 28)
(f) Fortissimi milites non tamen nec vivi nec post mortem inulti fuere.
(‘But the heroic soldiers were not unavenged, living or dead.’ Liv. 4.58.5)
In the case of perfect participles, the semantic relationship is often one of temporal
anteriority; in the case of future participles one of temporal posteriority. For more on
these temporal relations, see § 21.7. It is clear, though, that in the cases discussed in
§ 21.4, including (g) below, these temporal notions do not make much sense.
(g) Navus mane Forum et vespertinus pete tectum . . .
(‘In your diligence get you to the Forum in the morning, to your home in the even-
ing . . .’ Hor. Ep. 1.6.20)
Grammars also take note of the proleptic (or: anticipatory) use of adjectives in
poetry, as illustrated by (h) and (i).⁶⁵ In (h), submersas and diversos indicate the result-
ing state of the object constituents of obrue and age, respectively. Likewise, in (i) the
agros become sterilis, as the result of Sirius’ action. This usage is rare in prose, but see
( j) for an instance related to the subject and (k) for one related to the object. This
resembles the use of dynamic three-place verbs with an object and a complement (see
§ 4.87).⁶⁶
(h) Incute vim ventis submersasque obrue puppis / aut age (sc. Troas) diversos
et dissice corpora ponto.
(‘Hurl fury into your winds, obscure the ships submerged beneath the sea, or drive
the men asunder and scatter their bodies on the deep.’ Verg. A. 1.69–70)
(i) Tum sterilis exurere Sirius agros . . .
(‘Then Sirius burnt the fields so that they became barren . . .’ Verg. A. 3.141—tr.
Williams ad loc.)
⁶⁵ So, for example, K.-St.: I.239–40.

⁶⁶ These cases resemble what Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (2005: 4) call ‘resultatives’.
 Secondary predicates
( j) Hinc CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt.

(‘From this region 132 heads of families have fled like banished men.’ Cic. Ver. 3.120)
(k) Utraque simul obiecta res oculis animisque immobiles parumper eos defixit.
(‘Both facts presenting themselves at the same time to their eyes and minds kept
them for a moment rooted to the spot.’ Liv. 21.33.3)
Supplement:
. . . neque ullum tempus sobrio relinquebatur. (Nep. Di. 4.4); Haud secus ac iussi faci-
unt tectosque per herbam / disponunt enses et scuta latentia condunt. (Verg. A.
3.236–7); . . . premit placida aequora pontus. (Verg. A. 10.103); Non ego . . . anxius illa /
tempestate fui, qua centum quisque parabat / inicere anguipedum captivo bracchia
caelo. (Ov. Met. 1.182–4); . . . ut attonitos formidine terreat hostes . . . (Ov. Met. 4.802)
In addition to the temporal relation already discussed, the content conveyed by the
secondary predicate can be interpreted in a way that resembles how satellites are
treated in their sentence or clause. This is very common with participles (see below),
but there are instances with adjectives and nouns as well. A clear case is (l), where the
secondary predicate avidus is coordinated with a quia reason clause. Other examples,
with a conditional interpretation, are the noun victor in (e) and invitum in (b) above.⁶⁷
Such interpretations are common in the case of adjective phrases, as in (m) (note also
the position of the phrase).⁶⁸
(l) Nam si quis poenam exigit non ipsius poenae avidus sed quia oportet, non
est adnumerandus iratis.
(‘For the man who exacts punishment, not because he desires punishment for its own
sake, but because it is right to inflict it, ought not to be counted as an angry man.’ Sen.
Dial. 1.9.4)
(m) Huius coniugii cupidus Callias quidam . . . egit cum Cimone ut . . .
(‘A certain Callias . . . being desirous of having her for a wife, tried to prevail on Cimon
to . . .’ Nep. Cim. 1.3)
Supplement:
Saluberrimus autem omnium aquilo, noxius auster et magis siccus, fortassis quia
umidus frigidior est. (Plin. Nat. 2.127)
Similar interpretations are possible when non-restrictive attributive adjectives are

used, as in (n) and (o). These usages are sometimes compared to the use of adjectives
with the participle of the copula ïx, zå}l, ×x in Greek.⁶⁹
(n) Nam divitiae, nomen, opes, vacuae consilio et vivendi atque aliis impe-
randi modo, dedecoris plenae sunt . . .
⁶⁷ For ‘condensed conditionals’ like (m), see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2011: 99–100).
⁶⁸ See Heberlein (1996: 360–2), who calls such phrases ‘least integrated’ in their clause in comparison
with other types of secondary predicate. See also the examples in § 21.5.
⁶⁹ Sο K.-St.: I.239.
The relationship between secondary predicate and clause 
(‘For riches, names, and power, when they lack wisdom and the knowledge
of how to live and to rule over others, are full of dishonour . . .’ Cic. Rep. 1.51)
(o) Nec enim cuiquam bono mali quicquam evenire potest nec vivo nec
mortuo . . .
(‘For no evil can befall any good man either in life or in death . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.99)
Participles in their function as secondary predicate allow a broad range of interpret-
ations, such as cause in (p) (repeated from § 21.7), reason in (q), condition in (r),
concession in (s), or purpose in (t).⁷⁰ An interesting instance of coordination between
a present participle and a prepositional phrase that indicates purpose is (u).
(p) (sc. Dionysius) . . . qui cultros metuens tonsorios candente carbone sibi
adurebat capillum.
(‘. . . who through fear of the barber’s razor used to have his hair singed off with a
glowing coal.’ Cic. Off. 2.25)
(q) C. Servilius Ahala Sp. Maelium regnum adpetentem occupatum interemit.
(‘Gaius Servilius Ahala put Spurius Maelius to death for attempting to secure regal
power.’ Cic. Sen. 56)
(r) Nemo ei neganti non credidisset quem esse omnes salvum etiam confitentem
volunt.
(‘No one would have refused to believe him if he denied it, when now all men wish to
save him even when he confesses it.’ Cic. Mil. 50)
(s) Hem / repudiatu’ repetor.
(‘Here I am, the reject recalled.’ Ter. An. 248–9)
(t) . . . Senones Galli multitudine ingenti ad Clusium venerunt legionem
Romanam castraque oppugnaturi.
(‘. . . the Senonian Gauls came with a great multitude to Clusium to besiege the Roman
legion in camp there.’ Liv. 10.26.7)
(u) ‘Atqui, Catule,’ inquit Antonius, ‘non ego utilitatem aliquam ad dicendum
aucupans horum libros et nonnullos alios sed delectationis causa, cum est
otium, legere soleo.’
(‘ “And yet, Catulus”, rejoined Antonius, “it is not because I am on the look-out for
aids to oratory, but just for pleasure, that I make a habit, when I have time, of reading
the works of these authors and a few more.”’ Cic. de Orat. 2.59)
Such interpretations are sometimes clearly related to semantic or grammatical fea-

tures of the secondary predicate and/or the clause to which it belongs. Metuo in (p) is
a good candidate for being the motive of someone’s action. In (q), regnum adpeto
represents socially undesirable behaviour and is thus a cause of Gaius Servilius’ action.
In (r), the subjunctive credidisset contributes to the conditional interpretation of
⁷⁰ The examples are taken from K.-St.: I.774–7. See also Sz.: 384 and Laughton (1964: passim) for Cicero.
 Secondary predicates
neganti. In (s), repudiatus and repetor are lexical opposites. In (t), the future participle
in combination with the verb venerunt prompts the purpose interpretation. But the
actual interpretation of a secondary predicate is more flexible and less predictable
than these explanations might suggest. In this respect, these participles differ from
finite subordinate clauses, where the subordinator signals the semantic relationship
between its clause and the main clause to which it belongs.
Supplement:
Cause: . . . duae mulierculae / hic in fano Veneris signum flentes amplexae tenent /
nescioquem metuentes miserae? (Pl. Rud. 559–61); Quod ubi Hannibali nuntiatum
est, moram magis quam bellum metuens oratores ad regulos eorum misit . . . (Liv.
21.24.3)
Reason: (sc. Athenienses Alcibiadem) . . . corruptum a rege capere Cymen noluisse
arguebant. (Nep. Alc. 7.3)
Condition: . . . idem (sc. Stoici) traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperian-
tur. (Cic. Brut. 118); . . . cum mendaci homini ne verum quidem dicenti credere solea-
mus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.146); . . . epistulae offendunt non loco redditae. (Cic. Fam. 11.16.1)
Concession: . . . ut eum (sc. risum) cupientes tenere nequeamus . . . (Cic. de Orat.
2.235)
Purpose: Quam perverse fugiens Hegesias . . . saltat incidens particulas. (Cic. Orat.
226); Capta Phaloria legati a Metropoli et a Cierio dedentes urbes venerunt. (Liv.
32.15.3); Consul Larisam est profectus ibi de summa belli consultaturus. (Liv.
36.14.6)
. Explicit marking of the semantic relation between a secondary

predicate and the clause to which it belongs
The semantic relationship between a secondary predicate and the clause to which it
belongs can be made explicit by particles or other constituents that are related directly
to the secondary predicate and/or by their more general use in the clause. Examples
are statim, utpote, and tamen, in (a)–(c), respectively.⁷¹ This phenomenon becomes
more widespread after Cicero’s time. For the use of these words with ablative absolute
(a) M. autem Calidius statim designatus sententia sua quam esset cara sibi mea
salus declaravit.
(‘Marcus Calidius, too, was no sooner elected praetor than he intimated by a clear
declaration how high a value he set upon my restitution.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 22)
(b) Has litteras Sisines utpote innoxius ad Alexandrum saepe deferre temptavit . . .
(‘This letter Sisines, since he was innocent of any evil intention, often tried to turn
over to Alexander . . .’ Curt. 3.7.13)
⁷¹ Example (b) is taken from Heberlein (1996: 360). For time specifications, see K.-St.: I.789; for rea-
son, I.791–2; for concession, I.444–6. For the diachronic development, see Sz.: 385.
Secondary predicates and related constructions 
(c) . . . tandemque relicti / stant in rupe tamen.

(‘. . . and at last abandoned, they will yet stand on a cliff.’ Stat. Theb. 4.28–9)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by specification):
Time: . . . qui . . . armati nullum ante finem pugnae quam morientes fecerunt? (Liv.
21.14.4); Haec simul increpans cum ocius signa convelli iuberet . . . (Liv. 22.3.11); Nec
illi primo statim creati nudare quid vellent . . . (Liv. 24.27.4); . . . vixdum ingressus
Illyricum Tiberius properis matris litteris accitur. (Tac. Ann. 1.5.3)
Reason: Quare istam quoque aggredere tractatam praesertim et ab aliis et a te ipso
saepe, ut tibi deesse non possit oratio. (Cic. Fin. 4.1); Namque movetur aqua et tan-
tillo momine flutat / quippe volubilibus parvisque creata figuris. (Lucr. 3.189–90);
. . . praedae loco aestumantur quippe metu pacem repetentes, quo habitam amiserant.
(Sal. Hist. 1.77.5); . . . dis carus ipsis, quippe ter et quater / anno revisens aequor
Atlanticum / impune. (Hor. Carm. 1.31.13–15); Neque illis iudicium aut veritas
quippe eodem die diversa pari certamine postulaturis . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.32.1); Inde
Rubos fessi pervenimus, utpote longum / carpentes iter et factum corruptius imbri.
(Hor. S. 1.5.94–5); Forte et numero et virtute utpote lecti utrimque haud impares
aequis viribus per aliquot horas pugnarunt. (Liv. 31.33.9)
Concession: . . . me . . . etsi minus prudentem multiscium reddidit. (Apul. Met. 9.13.5);
Ad postremum etsi a multitudine victus gloria tamen omnes vicit. ( justin. 12.1.11);
Huic licet ingratae Tityrus ipse canat. (Prop. 2.34.72); M’. Aemilio, C. Valerio Potito
consulibus bellum Aequi parabant, Volscis quamquam non publico consilio capessen-
tibus arma voluntariis mercede secutis militiam. (Liv. 4.53.1); Neque enim di sinant ut
Belgarum quamquam offerentium decus istud et claritudo sit subvenisse Romano
nomini . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.43.2); Sed ne Taprobane quidem quamvis extra orbem a natura
relegata nostris vitiis caret. (Plin. Nat. 6.89); . . . ut ei milites esse confestim responderint
et quamvis recusantem ultro in Africam sint secuti. (Suet. Jul. 70.1); Quis enim quamvis
fortis et intrepidus immani forma tantae bestiae noctu praesertim visitata non se ad
fugam statim concitaret . . . (Apul. Met. 4.18.8); . . . et quae iam diu gesta et a memoria
nostra remota tamen faciant fidem vere tradita esse . . . (Cic. Inv. 1.39)
Due to the range of semantic relations that are possible between secondary predicates
and the remainder of the sentence in which they are used, it is no surprise to see sec-
ondary predicates coordinated with constituents of various types with which they are
semantically compatible. For examples of coordination, see § 19.80.
21.19 Secondary predicates and related constructions

Secondary predicates of various types (adjectives, nouns, and participles) are often
regarded as equivalent to or comparable with other types of constituents. In the case
of adjectives, this especially concerns adverbs; in the case of nouns, appositions; and
in the case of participles, satellite (or: adverbial) subordinate clauses. In the two sections
below, extra attention will be given to the relationship between adjectives functioning
as secondary predicate and adverbs and to ambiguous cases where the distinction
between secondary predicates and appositions is not immediately clear.
 Secondary predicates
. The difference between an adjective functioning as secondary

predicate and a related adverb
Adjectives that function as secondary predicate are usually said to be used ‘instead of ’
adverbs, especially adverbs of manner. Scholars are often also quite explicit about the
difference between the two expressions, noting first, that the secondary predicate rep-
resents a property of the entity involved instead of a property of the event (cf. § 21.1
and § 21.4 fin.); secondly, that often, at least in prose, either the secondary predicate
or the adverb must be used depending on the expression; and thirdly, that there may
be a difference in meaning between the two expressions.
These are the relevant statements by K.-St.: (i) ‘In such cases’ (that is, when the adjec-
tive is used) ‘the Latin construction is undoubtedly more lively, more energetic and
more expressive, because the specific circumstances in which an action occurs are at
the same time included in the character of the entity that performs the action, e.g.
Socrates venenum laetus et libens hausit (“S. gladly and willingly drank the poison”)’.⁷²
(ii) ‘In most cases, at least in prose, only either the adjective or the adverb can be used:
suaviter (not suavis) cantas “you play something sweet”; sobrius (not sobrie) saltat “he
dances sober”.’⁷³ (iii) ‘Or the meaning is different: prudens et sciens ad interitum rue-
rem (voluntarium) “(I rushed) deliberately and with open eyes (upon a self-chosen
doom)” (Cic. Marc. 14), but: prudenter et scienter “in a clever and skilful manner”.’⁷⁴
There are various reasons why adjectives and manner adverbs derived from the same
stem are not interchangeable in the same context. The reason why we do not find
K.-St.’s suavis cantas is not because the idiom requires suaviter, but because suavis
indicates a value judgement of a permanent quality; as a rule, only adjectives indicat-
ing a non-permanent, transient quality can be used as secondary predicate. This
restriction does not hold for adverbs derived from the same stem. The reason is there-
fore a semantic one. By contrast, the fact that there is only one attestation in the OLD
of the adverb sobrie to mean ‘in a state of non-intoxication’⁷⁵ is due to chance (it nor-
mally means ‘temperately’). The adjective sobrius indicates a non-permanent quality
and can therefore be used, and is used, as a secondary predicate.
Another possible reason why adjectives and manner adverbs derived from the
same stem are not interchangeable in the same context is that they have different
meanings. This is the case for prudens and sciens vs. prudenter and scienter. Another
illustration, alongside the one cited from K.-St. in the note above, is (a), where scienter
could be replaced by scientem, but would produce a completely different meaning.
⁷² ‘Die lateinische Ausdrucksweise ist in solchen Fällen ohne Frage lebendiger, energischer und
anschaulicher, indem der nähere Umstand einer Handlung zugleich in die Persönlichkeit des Handelnden
aufgenommen wird’ (K.-St.: I.235).
⁷³ ‘Aber in den meisten Fällen ist in Prosa wenigstens nur entweder das Adjektiv oder das Adverb
zulässig.’ (K.-St.: I.238). For the examples, compare Pl. St. 767 and Cic. Mur. 13, respectively.
⁷⁴ ‘Oder die Bedeutung ist verschieden: Cic. Marc. 14 . . .“wissentlich und mit Vorbedacht” . . .“in
kluger und geschickter Weise”’ (K.-St.: I: 238).
⁷⁵ Apul. Apol. 59.
Secondary predicates and related constructions 
(a) . . . saltasse eum (sc. Epaminondam) commode scienterque tibiis cantasse.

(‘. . . that he danced gracefully, and played skilfully on the flute.’ Nep. praef. 1.2)
An entirely different situation is shown in (b), where an adjective and an adverb are
derived from the same stem, but where the adverb is not an adverb of manner. Here,
rari ‘scattered’ cannot be replaced by raro ‘seldom’, an adverb of time comparable with
numquam ‘never’, without a change of meaning.⁷⁶
(b) (sc. Britanni) Ipsi ex silvis rari propugnabant . . .
(‘They themselves came out of the woods to fight in small groups . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.9.6)
There are contexts in which an adjective can be used but an adverb derived from the
same stem is excluded. This is the case, for example, when the secondary predicate is
not associated with the subject of a clause, as in (c), where it is associated with the
object me. Here imprudentem cannot be replaced by imprudenter without incurring a
change of meaning. (See § 21.16 for further secondary predicates that are not related
to the subject.)
(c) Namque enim tu, credo, me imprudentem obrepseris.
(‘Yes, for you will have taken me by surprise, I suppose.’ Pl. Trin. 61)
Moreover, replacement of an adjective by an adverb is excluded if the adjective is part

of a phrase (see § 21.5) and if the context suggests a specific interpretation of the
adjective in its clause (see § 21.17).
Conversely, there are also contexts in which the use of an adverb is normal, but a
derivationally related adjective is excluded. Illustrative are clauses with an impersonal
passive like (d), where replacement of the adverb acriter by a related adjective as a
secondary predicate is excluded. This adjective, though, can be used in clauses with a
personal verb, as in (e). Likewise with infinitives, as in (f), adjectives cannot replace
adverbs. In finite imperative clauses and with prolative infinitives secondary predi-
cates seem to be excluded, as shown by (g) and (h), respectively.
(d) Acriter in eo loco pugnatum est.
(‘Fierce was the battle fought there.’ Caes. Gal. 2.10.2)
(e) In ius acres procurrunt . . .
(‘Keenly they rush into court . . .’ Hor. S. 1.7.20–1)
(f) Bene dicere autem, quod est scienter et perite et ornate dicere, non habet
definitam aliquam regionem . . .
(‘But the art of speaking well, that is to say, of speaking with knowledge, skill, and
elegance, has no limited province . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.5)
(g) Cupide accipiat faxo . . .
(‘I’ll have him eager to accept our offer . . .’ Ter. Ad. 209)
⁷⁶ The adverb rare is used for ‘thinly’ sowing wheat at Col. 2.9.3 (for Varro’s reservations about the use
of rare, see the citation at Gel. 2.25.8).
 Secondary predicates
(h) vissire tacite Chilon docuit subdolus.

(‘The cunning Chilon taught how to fart silently.’ A. Epig. 1941, nr 6 (Ostia Antica,
2nd cent. ad (end))
The conclusion of all this is that derivationally related adjectives and adverbs can be
used in the same context as secondary predicates or manner adverbs, respectively, to
describe more or less the same situation, but only if the secondary predicate is associ-
ated with the subject, if the adjective indicates a non-permanent quality, and if there
is not a difference in meaning between the adjective and the adverb. Nevertheless,
they describe the situation from a different perspective, either that of the entity or of
the state of affairs expressed by the verb, respectively.
There are a few instances of adjectives that function as secondary predicate in coord-
inate or parallel structures with manner adverbs, which seem to contradict the con-
clusion above. An example of coordination is (i); of parallelism, ( j).⁷⁷
(i) Quaeso ignoscas si quid stulte dixi atque imprudens tibi.
(‘Please forgive me if I said anything stupid to you without being aware of it.’
Pl. Men. 1074)
( j) Dum alii trepidi (trepide Sp) cedunt, alii segniter subeunt, turbata tota acies
est . . .
(‘While the one part in disorder was yielding ground, and the other was slow
in coming up, the whole line was confused . . .’ Liv. 27.12.15)
Appendix: At Cic. Att. 8.3.4 the corrupt text invite cepit Capuam is traditionally cor-
rected as invite cepi Capuam, which is rejected as ‘bad Latin. Cicero would have writ-
ten invitus.’ by Shackleton Bailey ad loc. + Appendix II, p. 439. The correction is
defended by Wistrand (1979: 206–11).
. Potential ambiguity: secondary predicate or apposition?
Adjectives and nouns in agreement with a nominal constituent in a clause can some-
times be interpreted in various ways. For adjectives that can or must be taken as
attribute, see § 21.4. Another possible interpretation for adjectives and noun phrases
is as an apposition or as a tail constituent. An example of an adjective that might
be taken as an apposition is ineptus in (a). An example of a noun phrase that might be
taken as a tail is decrepitus senex in (b).⁷⁸ For heavy adjective phrases, see the
Supplement.
(a) Quid ego ineptus, dum sermonem vereor interrumpere, / solus sto . . .?
(‘Silly me, why am I standing here alone, while being afraid to interrupt the conversa-
tion . . .?’ Pl. Trin. 1149–50)
⁷⁷ For instances of coordination of secondary predicates, also with other types of constituent, see § 19.80.
⁷⁸ For the interpretation as an apposition, see Hofmann (1924: 80): ‘One might say that this apposition-
like postposition is almost the rule in popular speech for words of such an emotional content.’
Quantifiers and related expressions 
(b) . . . qui quidem cum filio / potet una atque una amicam ductet decrepitus senex.
(‘. . . drinking together with his son and hiring a mistress together with him, that old
fart.’ Pl. As. 862–3)
Supplement:
. . . quae in occipitio quoque habet oculos pessuma. (Pl. Aul. 64); Ferox rapidusque
consiliis ac lingua immodicus primo inter paucos, dein propalam in volgus, pro
cunctatore segnem, pro cauto timidum, adfingens vicina virtutibus vitia, compella-
bat, premendoque superiorem . . . sese extollebat. (Liv. 22.12.11–12); Tragoedias pri-
mus in lucem Aeschylus protulit sublimis et gravis et grandilocus saepe usque ad
vitium, sed rudis in plerisque et incompositus. (Quint. Inst. 10.1.66)
21.22 Pragmatic considerations

When adjectives of relative position such as primus (see § 21.4) are used as secondary
predicate, they often convey salient information.⁷⁹ This is demonstrated by (a), where
postrema is the essential element in explaining the name Neapolis. Something similar
is the case with the superlative eloquentissimos in (b). Secondary predicates, though,
share this aspect of saliency with many optional constituents at the clause or phrase
level, and it is not the reason why these specific forms are chosen: in many situations,
the corresponding adverbs postremum and eloquentissime would convey salient infor-
mation as well.
(a) Quarta autem est (sc. urbs) quae, quia postrema coaedificata est, Neapolis
nominatur.
(‘There is also a fourth city, which, because it was the last built, is called Neapolis.’ Cic.
Ver. 4.119)
(b) . . . omnium mihi videor, exceptis, Crasse, vobis duobus, eloquentissimos
audisse Ti. et C. Sempronios . . .
(‘. . . of all men to whom I have listened except you two, Crassus, it seems to me that
the most eloquent were Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.38)
21.23 Quantifiers and related expressions seemingly

functioning as secondary predicate
Adjectives of amount such as unus, multus, paucus, plerusque, plurimus, and nullus;
the universal quantifiers omnis and cunctus; the binary quantifiers uter, uterque, and
neuter; and the distributive quantifiers quisque and singuli can all be used as attributes
⁷⁹ See K.-St.: I.234: ‘Such expressions convey the essential message of the sentence.’ See also Scherer
(1975: 191, n. 13).
 Secondary predicates
at the noun phrase level, as is discussed in §§ 11.33–4 and 36–7. Unlike most ‘normal’
adjectives, these quantifiers cannot be used as subject or object complement, and
attestations for the adjectives of amount in a quantitive sense are rare (see below).
They can, however, all be used in a similar way to the use of the secondary predicates
which are discussed in §§ 21.2–16. Examples are (a) and (b). In (a), omnes is related
to the subject homines, but in view of its position it is very unlikely that it is an attri-
bute that forms a noun phrase with homines. In (b), the distributive quantifier quisque
is related to the (implicit) subject of faciebant; obviously it cannot be an attribute at
all.⁸⁰ Both omnes and quisque can be omitted without producing an ungrammatical
sentence, making them comparable to satellites.
(a) Homines qui gestant quique auscultant crimina, / si meo arbitratu liceat,
omnes pendeant . . .
(‘People who spread and listen to accusations would all be hanged, if I could have my
way . . .’ Pl. Ps. 427–8)
(b) Pro se quisque sedulo / faciebant quo illam mihi lenirent miseriam.
(‘Every one of them was doing his very best to soothe my grief.’ Ter. Hau. 126–7)
In this Syntax, adjectives of amount and other quantifiers used in this way are called
floating quantifiers, borrowing a term that was developed in the theory of gen-
erative grammar.⁸¹
The term ‘floating’ was introduced to describe the difference between sentences like
(i) and (ii).
(i) All the men have found their way home.
(ii) The men have all found their way home.
In the generative approach, (ii) is regarded as transformationally derived from (i)
by a rule called Quantifier-Floating which displaces the attribute all from its
position in (i) to its position in (ii). The term ‘floating’ is not very apt for a language
like Latin, in which word order is mainly determined by pragmatic factors and in
which attributive quantifiers can also be separated from their heads (see the end of
this section).
Adjectives of amount and quantifiers can also be used in the same range of relations
that secondary predicates are shown to cover in § 21.16. This is illustrated in (c)–(h)
with omnis. For omnis related to a subject, see (a) above. In (c), it is related to the
object ea; in (d), to the indirect object nobis; in (e), to the agent ab . . . vobis; in (f), to
the beneficiary adjunct nobis; in (g), to the attribute quorum; in (h), to nobis, which is
governed by iratior, itself a secondary predicate.
(c) At ea subterfugere potis es pauca, si non omnia.
(‘But you can escape a little of it, if not all.’ Pl. Capt. 970)
⁸⁰ For the use of quisque and related words as floating quantifiers, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2010b).
⁸¹ See Pinkster (1983: 206).
Quantifiers and related expressions 
(d) . . . quas ille leges . . . fuerit impositurus nobis omnibus atque inusturus?
(‘. . . what laws was that man intending to impose upon all of us, to brand on our fore-
heads?’ Cic. Mil. 33)
(e) Sic enim existimare debetis . . . rem nullam maiorem . . . magis ab omnibus
vobis providendam neque a tribuno pl. susceptam . . .
(‘For you should realize . . . that never has any project more important, . . . more in
need that all of you should guard against it, been undertaken by a tribune of the
people . . .’ Cic. Rab. Perd. 4)
(f) Deos volo bene vortere / istam rem vobis. # Et ego nobis omnibus.
(‘I wish that the gods may bless you in this. # And I wish they may bless us all.’ Pl. Cur.
658–9)
(g) Quorum omnium testimoniis de hac Dionis pecunia confirmatum est.
(‘By all of whose evidence this case about Dio’s money was fully established.’ Cic.
Ver. 2.23)
(h) . . . cum multo nobis (cj. Christ; bonis mss.) omnibus veniret iratior quam illis
fuerat quos trucidarat . . .
(‘. . . especially as he was coming hither much more angry with all of us than he had
been with those whom he had massacred there . . .’ Cic. Phil. 3.4)
Supplement:
Adjectives of amount (in alphabetical order): Audi viros bonos, quibus multis uteris.
(Cic. Phil. 10.6); . . . omnibus maioribus natu quorum ego multorum cognovi senectutem
sine querela . . . (Cic. Sen. 7); Maiores nos res scribere ingressos, C. Trebati, et his libris
quos brevi tempore satis multos edidimus digniores e cursu ipso revocavit voluntas tua.
(Cic. Top. 1); . . . quae non prosunt singula, multa iuvant. (Ov. Rem. 420); . . . ill’ qui vocavit
nullus venit? (Pl. Rud. 143);⁸² Huc pauci vestris adnavimus oris. (Verg. A. 1.538); Neque
esse crudele . . . hominum nocentium et horum quoque paucorum suppliciis remedia
populis innocentibus . . . quaeri. (Cels. 1.pr.26); Pleraeque eae (sc. meretrices) sub vesti-
mentis secum habebant retia. (Pl. Epid. 216); . . . respondebo ad ea quae dixisti, quae ple-
raque de ipso me fuerunt. (Cic. Planc. 58); (sc. insidiae) Quas ille plerasque vitavit. (Nep.
Dat. 9.2); Ipsum animal non, ut remur plerique, vitae hominum supervacuum est . . . (Plin.
Nat. 8.135);⁸³ . . . periculis etiam quae plurima adii . . . (Cic. Phil. 12.21); . . . nedum ii qui-
bus saluti fuisti, quos tu habes plurimos, non intellegant . . . (Q. Cic. Pet. 21); . . . ut iam a
laqueis Stoicorum, quibus usum me pluribus quam soleo intellego, recedamus . . . (Cic.
Tusc. 5.76); Qui mihi unus uni, privato amico, eadem omnia dedit quae universae rei
publicae, salutem, otium, dignitatem. (Cic. Red. Pop. 16); Est enim illius a quo uno
maxime P. Sestius se oppugnari videt . . . (Cic. Sest. 132); . . . re publica restituta super
omnes mortales gloriam agitabis tuaque unius mors vita clarior erit. (Sal. Rep.
2.13.6–7);⁸⁴ Quas cum solus pertulisset, ut sua unius in his gratia esset . . . (Liv. 2.8.3)⁸⁵
⁸² See also § 8.33.

⁸³ For a Late and unreliable example of the use of plerusque as subject complement, see TLL s.v.
2431.42f.
⁸⁴ On this passage, and the expression tua unius as such, see Szantyr (1974). See also ex. (l).
⁸⁵ For further examples, see K.-St.: I.245–6.
 Secondary predicates
The use of exiguam in (i) can be regarded as an extension of the uses illustrated so far.
Cicero follows Epicurusච words m{lhl }zŸ ~r .l{pw.j.~pt.⁸⁶
(i) Ita fit beatae vitae domina fortuna, quam Epicurus ait exiguam intervenire
sapienti.
(‘Consequently happiness becomes the slave of fortune; yet Epicurus says
that fortune interferes with the Wise Man but little.’ Cic. Fin. 2.89)
Appendix: Solus ‘alone’ can be used in the same way as adjectives of amount and
quantifiers, as in ( j) and (k), and resembles unus, as is shown in (l).⁸⁷
( j) Eripit etiam spem quae sola homines in miseriis consolari solet.
(‘He takes away even hope, which alone can comfort men in their miseries.’
Cic. Catil. 4.8)
(k) . . . qui ordo a vobis adhuc solis contemptus est.
(‘. . . the order that you, and thus far only you, have treated with contempt.’
Cic. Ver. 4.26)
(l) Solius enim meum peccatum corrigi non potest et fortasse Laeli.
(‘For I am the only one whose error cannot be repaired, except perhaps
Laelius.’ Cic. Att. 11.15.2)
Universal quantifiers: Advortite animum cunctae. (Pl. Ps. 187); . . . quae amica es
frumentariis, / quibus cunctis montes maxumi frumenti [acervi] sunt <structi>
domi. (Pl. Ps. 188–9); Nec tamen haec sat sunt ad sensum cuncta creandum . . . (Lucr.
3.238); Ergo agite et laetum cuncti celebremus honorem. (Verg. A. 5.58); Sic erimus
cuncti, postquam nos auferet Orcus. (Petr. 34.10—NB: part of a verse text quoted by
Trimalchio)⁸⁸
Nam res plurumas pessumas, quom advenit, fert, quas si autumem omnis, nimis
longus sermo est. (Pl. Men. 759–60); Nunc adeo hanc edictionem nisi animum
advortetis omnes . . . (Pl. Ps. 143); . . . nonne id agendum nobis omnibus fuit ut
materiem subtraheremus furori tuo? (Cic. Dom. 11); . . . cur omnium horum magis-
ter, Orata, non iucundissime vixerit? (Cic. Fin. 2.70); . . . quorum omnium gratiam
atque amicitiam eius morte redimere posset. (Caes. Gal. 1.44.12); Non omnis moriar
multaque pars mei / vitabit Libitinam. (Hor. Carm. 3.30.6–7)
Binary quantifiers:⁸⁹ Loquere, uter meruistis culpam . . . (Pl. Men. 779)
. . . cum amica sua uterque accubitum eatis . . . (Pl. Bac. 755); Pariter hos perire
amando video, uterque insaniunt. (Pl. Cur. 187); Sed nunc agite uterque id quod
rogabo dicite. (Pl. Men. 1105); . . . ut (sc. naves) vehementissime utraque ex concursu
laborarent (laboraret N2) . . . (Caes. Civ. 2.6.5); Nam uterque cum illo gravis inimici-
tias exercebat (v.l. exercebant). (Sal. Cat. 49.2); Perinde legati provinciaeque cuncta-
bantur, Hordeonius Flaccus . . .Vettius Bolanus . . . et uterque ambigui. (Tac. Hist.
2.97.1)
⁸⁶ See Dougan ad loc. See also § 18.14 on quasi-secondary predicates.

⁸⁷ For a rare instance of an attributive use of solus, see: mea sola et sera voluptas in Verg. A. 8.581–2.
⁸⁸ It is also found as an epitaph in inscriptions. See Smith ad loc. and Schmeling ad loc.
⁸⁹ For notional agreement with these binary quantifiers, see § 13.30.
Quantifiers and related expressions 
NB: plural: Sed tamen nostra legens non multum a Peripateticis dissidentia, quoniam
utrique Socratici et Platonici volumus esse, de rebus ipsis utere tuo iudicio . . .
(Cic. Off. 1.2)
Quotiens tandem edixi tibi / ut caveres neuter ad me iretis cum querimonia?
(Pl. Men. 784–5)
Distributive quantifiers:⁹⁰ . . . sibi quisque habeant quod suom est. (Pl. Cur. 180);
Ubi vos separatim sibi quisque consilium capitis . . . (Sal. Cat. 52.23); Suam quisque
culpam auctores ad negotia transferunt. (Sal. Jug. 1.5); . . . ambo exercitus, Veiens
Tarquiniensisque, suas quisque abirent domos. (Liv. 2.7.1); Dimisso conventu decem
legati . . . ad liberandas suae quisque regionis civitates discesserunt . . . (Liv. 33.35.1);
Sic unus quisque proximi periculi confinio territus suppetiatum decurrunt anxii.
(Apul. Met. 4.10.4); . . . nos non facimus Dei voluntatem . . . unusquisque sibi placentes
et omnibus displicentes. (Cypr. Ep. 11.1)
NB: verb agrees with quisque: Ut enim pictores et ii qui signa fabricantur et vero
etiam poetae suum quisque opus a vulgo considerari vult . . . (Cic. Off. 1.147); Deinde
multi . . . sibi quisque, si in armis foret, ex victoria talia sperabat. (Sal. Cat. 37.6)
. . . binae singulis quae datae ancillae nobis . . . (Pl. Poen. 222); . . . non facile est dicere
(sc. casus) similis esse, si eorum singulorum solum animadvertas voces . . . (Var. L.
10.29); Tria sunt omnino genera dicendi quibus in singulis quidam floruerunt . . . (Cic.
Orat. 20); Vobis vero, patres conscripti, singulis et egi et agam gratias. (Cic. Red. Sen.
30); . . . et pastilli fiunt, qui singuli habeant P. ܼ =, hique singuli quotidie mane ieiuno
dantur. (Cels. 5.20.6); Evenit etiam ut oculi vel ambo vel singuli minores fiant quam
esse naturaliter debeant. (Cels. 6.6.14); Non potest pro omnibus agi pro quibus sin-
gulis non potest. (Sen. Con. 10.4.13)
A difficult passage, not just in terms of its meaning,⁹¹ is (m). This seems to be a rare
instance of omnis as a subject complement.
(m) Ex hac nostra paucitate quarta pars militum praesidio inpedimentis relicta
erat. Nec ignavissimum quemque relinqui ad custodiam sarcinarum scitis.
Sed fuerimus omnes.
(‘Out of this small force of ours, one-quarter of the men were left to guard the
baggage; and you know that the guarding of the packs is not put in the hands
of the most cowardly. But suppose we had been united.’ Liv. 44.38.6–7)
Appendix: Ambo (see § 11.35) can be used in the same way as the quantifiers already
discussed, as in (n). The totality expression totus (see § 11.38) can also be used in this
way, as in (o).⁹²
(n) A quo missi Dioscorides et Serapion, qui ambo legati Romae fuerant . . ., ad
Achillan pervenerunt.
(‘Dioscorides and Serapion, who had both been envoys at Rome, were com-
missioned by him (sc. the king) and came to Achillas.’ Caes. Civ. 3.109.4)
⁹⁰ See Bortolussi (2013). ⁹¹ See Briscoe ad loc. He translates: ‘suppose there were all of us’.
⁹² For the instances in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. totus § II.2.
 Secondary predicates
(o) Convorret iam hic me totum cum pulvisculo.

(‘He’ll sweep me away to the last speck of dust now.’ Pl. Rud. 845)
When a quantifier is related to an explicit noun or noun phrase in its clause, it can be
difficult to decide whether it is part of the noun phrase (in which case it is an attri-
bute) or a floating quantifier. This is best illustrated by (p), which is often cited in
grammars to explain the ‘predicative’ use of omnis and is much discussed in the lit-
erature.⁹³ In reality, it is a discontinuous attribute, as in (q), where omnis modifies
natio Gallorum. Gallia is the topic of its clause. It is the very first word in Caesar’s
account and in fact is the most suitable word with which to begin, since every reader
knew the name Gallia. Est tends to be placed after a pragmatically prominent word
(see § 23.33) and so omnis ends up in third position.⁹⁴ In (q), natio is the topic as well.
Attributive omnis is difficult to translate with an attributive equivalent in a number of
modern languages, but in Latin the use of omnis to describe an entity that is split up
into parts is idiomatic, as is shown by (r).⁹⁵ (See also § 21.3 fin. for similar interpretive
problems with other secondary predicates.)
(p) Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae . . .
(‘The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited by the
Belgae . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)
(q) Natio est omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus . . .
(‘The whole nation of the Gauls is greatly devoted to ritual observances . . .’ Caes.
Gal. 6.16.1)
(r) Is pagus appellabatur Tigurinus. Nam omnis civitas Helvetia in quattuor
pagos divisa est.
(‘The name of that district was the Tigurine; for the whole state of Helvetia is divided
into four districts.’ Caes. Gal. 1.12.4)
21.24 Ipse and idem

Ipse is discussed in detail in §§ 11.143–7. Its status as a secondary predicate is appar-
ent from examples like (a)–(c). In none of these can ipse be understood as an argu-
ment or a satellite on its own, nor can it be understood as an attribute.
(a) Putavit me et aetate et benevolentia / plus scire et providere quam se ipsum sibi.
(‘He reckoned that given my age and concern for him I was wiser than he was and
had a better understanding of what was good for him.’ Ter. Hau. 115–16)
(b) Cuius ipsius quam constet esse artem non invenimus.
(‘There is known to be a textbook from his hand, but I have not seen it.’ Cic. Inv. 2.7)
⁹³ Inter alios by Müller (1990). ⁹⁴ On this example, see also Adams (1994b: 64).
⁹⁵ See TLL s.v. omnis 612.49ff. ‘per abundantiam quandam in describendis terris vel mundo’. For the
use of omnis as distinct from totus in (p) and with geographical names in general, see Nuti (2019). For the
word order possibilities of omnis, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 507–11).
Co-occurrence of secondary predicates and related expressions 
(c) Omitto igitur quae de his ipsis (sc. Crasso et Antonio), quae de Cotta, quae
de Sulpicio, quae modo de Caelio dixeris.
(‘I pass over therefore what you said of them, what you said of Cotta, of Sulpicius, and
what you have just said of Caelius.’ Cic. Brut. 297)
A number of the uses of idem that are discussed in § 11.142 fin. resemble that of ipse
above. An additional example is (d).
(d) . . . in illas tibi maiores plagas incidendum est in quibus te ab eodem me . . .
confici et concidi necesse est.
(‘. . . it will only be to fall into a much more formidable snare, entangling you wherein
I cannot fail . . . to dispatch you and do away with you.’ Cic. Ver. 5.151)
21.25 Co-occurrence of various secondary predicates

and related expressions in the same clause
Since the constituents discussed in the preceding sections belong to different lexical
categories and have different relationships to the constituents that they expand, it is
not surprising to find more than one of these secondary predicates used to expand the
same constituent, as in (a). This resembles the occurrence of multiple modifiers with
the same head noun in a noun phrase, as discussed in § 11.75. Two further examples
are (b) and (c).
(a) Ubi sunt isti scortatores qui soli inviti cubant?
(‘Where are those lechers who are reclining alone against their will?’ Pl. Am. 287)
(b) Nam cum ipsius victoriae condicione omnes victi occidissemus, clementiae
tuae iudicio conservati sumus.
(‘For though, by the conditions of the victory itself, we who were conquered were all
ruined, we still have been preserved by the deliberate decision of your clemency.’ Cic.
Marc. 12)
(c) (sc. senatores) Clausos omnis in curiam accipite, solos, inermis.
(‘As they are enclosed there, every one of them, in the Senate House, seize them, left
alone, unarmed!’ Liv. 23.3.2)
Supplement:
. . . ilico omnes simul / laetae exclamant ‘venit’ . . . (Ter. Hec. 367–8); . . . me lugenti
patriae, flagitanti senatui, poscenti Italiae, vobis omnibus orantibus reddiderunt.
(Cic. Sest. 145); Qui omnes trepidi inproviso metu ac tamen virtutis memores aut
arma capiebant aut . . . (Sal. Jug. 97.5); . . . qui modo ipsi exercitum ante moenia
Romana habuissent victores . . . (Liv. 29.3.10)
CHAPTER 22
Information structure and

extraclausal expressions
This chapter deals with quite diverse topics, all of which, however, have in common
that they concern the role of the speaker/writer and the addressee in the formulation
of a message and its expression in terms of clauses, sentences, and units of discourse.
The way a speaker/writer structures the information in sentences depends, among
other things, on the knowledge the speaker/writer and addressee have of the com-
municative situation and of the matter that is communicated, including their know-
ledge of each other’s knowledge. This is illustrated in Figure 22.1, where P stands for
(pragmatic) knowledge, S for speaker, A for addressee, and (PA)S and (PS)A for the
knowledge the speaker and addressee have of their knowledge of each other.
Speaker Addressee
PS (PA)S (PS)A PA
Figure 22.1 Mutual knowledge of Speaker and Addressee

Source: Dik (1997: I.11)
The relevant aspects of the structuring of information are discussed in §§ 22.1–16. In

addition, the speaker can indicate his personal involvement by adding emphasis to
parts of the information he conveys to the addressee (§§ 22.17–42). Other means to
indicate the interaction between the participants are discussed in §§ 22.43–56.
22.1 The information structure of clauses

The mutual exchange of information that is in some way relevant to the current situ-
ation is central to verbal interaction between human beings. In a dialogical situation
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0022
The information structure of clauses 827
with two participants the speaker (S) may tell the addressee (A) something he thinks
A will find useful or interesting because he does not know it or expects something
else, or S may simply want to tell A something he himself finds noteworthy. Conversely,
S may try to obtain from A information he is missing or is not certain about. Thus, in
(a), Lydus’ answers to a number of (constituent) questions by Mnesilochus adequately
fill the gap of information of the latter (for this example and more responses of this
type, see § 6.38). A more elaborate answer can be seen in (b), also repeated from
§ 6.38. Here the relevant information is eri concubina.
(a) Ubi ea mulier habitat? # Hic. # Unde eam esse aiunt? # Ex Samo. / # Quae
vocatur? # Bacchis.
(‘Where does this woman live? # Here. ( points to Bacchis’ house) # Where do people
say she’s from? # From Samos. # What’s she called? # Bacchis.’ Pl. Bac. 472–3)
(b) Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem.
(‘Who is that girl? # Immortal gods, this is master’s concubine.’ Pl. Mil. 361–2)
For the part of a clause that conveys the information that the speaker presents as most
relevant for the addressee, this Syntax uses the term focus; in other words, that part
fulfils the pragmatic function of focus. In a clause there is (usually only) one part that
has the focus function. In cases like (a) and (b), where the focus constituents fill a gap
in the information held by the addressee, the term completive focus will be used.
Just as in English and other modern languages, it is usually not difficult to determine
the focus in answers to constituent questions. It is also sometimes easy to recognize
the focus element in answers to sentence questions. In (c), sum is the first focus. In the
following coordinated clause noster . . . Leonida is the focus.
(c) Tune es adiutor nunc amanti filio? / # Sum vero, et alter noster est Leonida.
(‘Are you now an accomplice of my son in his affair? # I am indeed, and the other is
our Leonida.’ Pl. As. 57–8)
For a communicative act to be successful the speaker/writer should take into account
the expectations, both intellectual and social, of his addressee, as well as the linguistic
and extralinguistic context in which this act is performed.1 The speaker/writer will
therefore, if possible, start with something he assumes to be known to or in some way
accessible for the addressee. This is illustrated by (d)—repeated from § 2.12 and
§ 5.3—and (e). In (d), Terentia, Cicero’s wife, is known to Cicero’s addressee, his dear
friend Atticus, and therefore an ideal starting point for the message conveyed by the
clause. The newsworthy information for Atticus is that Terentia has an attack of
rheumatism. For the function of Terentia in the information structure of the clause
the term topic will be used, whereas magnos articulorum dolores (habet) is the focus
of the clause. In (e), Messalla consul is the most likely candidate to be presented as the
1 For the important role of the addressee in the formulation of the speaker/writer’s message, see Chafe
(1994: 54–5), Dik (1997: I.8–9), and already Ammann (1911: 3–4). See also § 11.101 on the referring use
of nouns and noun phrases.
828 Information structure and extraclausal expressions
entity about whom further information is provided. It can be assumed that Atticus
knew him and, as a consequence, he can serve as topic of the clause. It is also likely
that Autronius’ house was known to both Cicero and Atticus, but as an inanimate
entity it is a less attractive candidate for the function of topic than animate Messalla.
The price is the most surprising element in the message, as appears from the following
context—in fact, it is the focus of the clause.
(d) Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet.
(‘Terentia has a bad attack of rheumatism.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)
(e) Messalla consul Autronianam domum emit HS |CXXXIIII|.
(‘Consul Messalla has bought Autronius’ house for 13,400,000 sesterces.’ Cic. Att.
1.13.6)
Whereas in (a)–(c) and in (e) individual constituents function as focus, in (d) the
focus is more complex. The sentence can be thought of as an answer to a question like
‘How is it going with Terentia?’ In this context, neither magnos articulorum dolores
nor habet alone is focus, but rather it is the combination that is newsworthy. For this
type of focus this Syntax uses the term complex focus. Further details are discussed
in § 22.9.
The terms ‘focus’ and ‘topic’ are taken from Dik’s Functional Grammar. As for the
term ‘focus’, some linguists make a distinction between ‘information focus’ on the
one hand and ‘intonation focus’ or ‘emphasis’ on the other. This corresponds more or
less with ‘focus’ and ‘emphasis’ in this Syntax. (See also § 22.19.) The term ‘topic’ is
also used in other linguistic frameworks, among other things in the sense of ‘known’
or ‘given information’. Although the constituent that functions as topic in the sense of
this Syntax is often ‘known’, it need not be so, nor is a ‘known’ entity necessarily the
topic of the clause. The terms ‘topic’ and ‘focus’ correspond roughly with the terms
‘theme’ and ‘rheme’ of the Prague school of linguistics.2
While some clauses demonstrate a clear split between a topical and a focal part, there
are also clauses without such a split. Such clauses are sometimes called ‘thetic’ or ‘all-
new’.3 An example is (f), a presentative sentence, in which a completely new situation
is presented (for further discussion, see § 22.11). In (g), the sentence marks a break in
the storyline. Although res refers to the preceding situation and istius is known to the
audience, the sentence is not presented as being ‘about them’; it is ‘the event as such
which is the main message’.4 (For the position of the verb, typical of this type of sen-
tence, see § 23.45.) Another type is the first sentence in (h), an entirely new fact, used
by Cicero to support the philosophical point he is making. Ex. (i) illustrates a familiar
2 For a Prague school approach to Latin word order, see Panhuis (1982).
3 For the term ‘thetic’, see Ulrich (1985), Sasse (1987), Devine and Stephens (2006), Goria (2013).
4 For ‘all-new’ sentences, see Spevak (2010a: 43–4), from which ex. (h) is taken. The other quotation is
a paraphrase of K.-St.: II.599, from which (g) is taken.
Topic 829
technique in historical prose. Here the main clause starts with repente to mark the
unexpectedness of the event.5
(f) Erant omnino itinera duo quibus itineribus domo exire possent.
(‘There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their homeland.’
Caes. Gal. 1.6.1)
(g) Pervenit res ad istius (sc. Verris) auris nescio quo modo.
(‘These facts somehow or other came to the knowledge of Verres.’ Cic. Ver. 4.64)
(h) Karthaginienses multi Romae servierunt, Macedones rege Perse capto. Vidi
etiam in Peloponneso, cum essem adulescens, quosdam Corinthios . . .
(‘Many Carthaginians served as slaves at Rome, many Macedonians after the capture
of King Perses. I have seen too in the Peloponnese some Corinthians, when I was
young . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.53)
(i) Volux adveniens quaestorem (sc. Sullam) appellat dicitque se a patre Boccho
obviam illis simul et praesidio missum. Deinde eum et proxumum diem
sine metu coniuncti eunt. Post ubi castra locata et diei vesper erat, repente
Maurus (sc. Volux) incerto voltu pavens ad Sullam adcurrit dicitque . . .
(‘Upon arriving, Volux addressed the quaestor, saying that he had been sent by his
father Bocchus to meet them and serve as protection at the same time. Then they
journeyed in union that day and the next without any alarm. Afterward, when the
camp was pitched and it was evening, the Moor suddenly with a troubled expression
ran in terror to Sulla and said that . . .’ Sal. Jug. 106.1–2)
A clause normally contains one topic and one focus constituent. In the case of
sentences (in fact, also of clauses) that consist of more than one clause, for example
a main and a subordinate clause, each clause can have a topic and a focus. Also,
a subordinate clause can be the topic or focus constituent of the main clause (see
§ 23.64).
22.2 Topic
Topic is the element of a clause about which the speaker chooses to present fur-
ther information to the addressee. In the sections below, the following aspects
are discussed:
(i) What is the relationship between the topic and the subject of a clause?
(ii) What makes an element of a clause eligible for the function of topic?
(iii) What kind of constituents can function as topic?
(iv) What are the formal properties of a topic?
5 For this use of repente (and subito), see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 549–59) and Torrego (2005).
22.3 Topic and subject

In this Syntax, the subject is defined as the constituent in a finite clause with which the
finite verb shows agreement in person and number (see § 2.12). The term ‘perspective’
is used for the description of active/passive variation: in an active clause the state of
affairs is presented from the perspective of the agent (which in practice is also the
subject), in a passive clause from the perspective of the patient (see § 5.2). In the
European grammatical tradition ‘subject’ is defined as ‘the person or thing of which
we speak’ and a clause or sentence is defined as the combination of a subject and the
predicate, which in turn is defined as ‘the declaration respecting’ the subject.6 This
definition of ‘subject’ resembles the definition of ‘topic’ in this Syntax, so a few
examples to show the difference are in order. In (a), filius meus is both subject and
topic of the clause. This coincidence is common when the entity is a human being (see
also (d) and (e) in § 22.1), but it is by no means necessary, as is shown by (b) and (c).
In (b), filium tuom is object and topic; the subject is an unexpressed first person (vidi).
Ex. (c) shows an anaphoric expression ad ea, a direction adjunct and topic; Caesar is
subject of the clause. More examples of topics which are not subject can be found in
the following sections.
(a) Filius meus illic apud vos servit captus Alide.
(‘My son was taken prisoner and is a slave there, at your place, in Elis.’ Pl. Capt. 330)
(b) Nunc hanc laetitiam accipe a me quam fero. Nam filium / tuom modo in
portu Philopolemum vivom, salvom et sospitem / vidi . . .
(‘Now receive from me the joy I’m bringing: I just saw your son Philopolemus in the
harbour, alive, safe, and sound . . .’ Pl. Capt. 872–4)
(c) Haec quam potest demississime et subiectissime exponit (sc. Afranius). Ad
ea Caesar respondit . . .
(‘He laid out this case as humbly and submissively as possible. To this Caesar
replied . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.84.5–85.1)
22.4 Eligibility of constituents for the function of topic

A speaker can select a constituent as topic of a clause if he thinks it is identifiable
for the addressee.7 In the case of an ‘all-new’ situation, as discussed in § 22.1, in which
the context does not provide a clue, general or encyclopedic knowledge of
the speech participants concerning the entities involved may determine which
entity the speaker selects as the topic of the clause. This is the case with sol ‘the Sun’ in
6 The words are Roby’s (1882: II.6). K.-St.: I.1–2 and Ernout and Thomas (1953:2) are comparable.
‘Thus the subject is often described as the constituent defining the topic of the sentence—that which the
sentence is “about” and which it presupposes as its point of departure’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 78–9—their own
approach is different).
7 For the following sections I am much indebted to Spevak (2010a: Ch. 2).
Topic 831
(a): everybody is familiar with the Sun and there is no need for an introduction.
Certain regions and peoples also constitute encyclopedic knowledge and can be used
as topic without further introduction, for example the various regions of Italy in (b).
In (c), Caesar uses Helvetii without explicitly introducing them either because he
counted on the knowledge of his readers or because he expected that the readers were
able to infer that this must be another people after the three already mentioned (see
the discussion of ex. (n) below).
(a) Male facis properantem qui me commorare. Sol abit.
(‘It isn’t right of you to delay me in my hurry. The sun is setting.’ Pl. Mer. 873)
(b) Campania plerumque boves progenerat albos . . . Umbria vastos et albos . . .
Etruria et Latium conpactos . . . Appenninus durissimos . . .
(‘Campania generally produces white oxen . . . Umbria breeds huge white oxen . . .
Etruria and Latium breed oxen which are thick-set . . ., the oxen bred in the Apennines
are very tough . . .’ Col. 6.1.1)
(c) Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt . . .
(‘For this cause the Helvetii also excel the rest of the Gauls in valour . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.4)
Certain entities that are not identifiable on the basis of general knowledge can be
uniquely identified on the basis of the situation in which the speech participants are
involved. In (d) and (e), the identity of the persons to whom the relational nouns (see
§ 3.6) dominus and pater refer is determined by the identity of the speakers. In Cato’s
de Agri Cultura, there can be no doubt who is meant by vilicus and dominus in (f). In
(g), there can be no doubt which door is meant by fores: it is the door of the procuress
Cleareta’s house. In English the identifiability of the common nouns in these examples
appears from the use of a definite article or a possessive adjective, whereas in Latin
there is no such device.
(d) Dominus me boves mercatum Eretriam misit.
(‘My master has sent me to Eretria to buy oxen.’ Pl. Per. 322)
(e) Pater nunc intus suo animo morem gerit.
(‘My father’s now enjoying himself inside.’ Pl. Am. 131)
(f) Vilicus, si nolet male facere, (sc. familia) non faciet. Si passus erit, dominus
impune ne sinat esse.
(‘If the overseer sets his face against wrongdoing, they will not do it. If he allows it,
the master must not let him go unpunished.’ Cato Agr. 5.2)
(g) Alienum hominem intro mittat neminem. / Quod illa aut amicum aut patro-
num nominet, / aut quod illa amicai <eum> amatorem praedicet, / fores
occlusae omnibus sint nisi tibi.
(‘She shall not let any male outsider in. Even if she describes him as a friend or patron,
or if she says that he is the lover of a female friend of hers, the door shall be shut for
everyone except you.’ Pl. As. 756–9)
Within a speech situation the personal pronouns ego, tu, nos, and vos have naturally
identifiable referents. Demonstrative pronouns and determiners are explicit means to
make entities in the speech situation identifiable. In other communicative situations
there are also specific means to present an entity as identifiable for the addressee and
thereby to make it eligible as topic of its clause, such as anaphoric determiners,
possessive adjectives, and nouns in the genitive, as discussed in § 11.103. By contrast,
quidam can be used to explicitly mark an entity as not identifiable for the addressee
(see § 11.114). Anaphoric pronouns and demonstrative pronouns used anaphorically
often function as topic of their clause, as in (h). These sentences are the beginning of
the final part of a lengthy belated prologue spoken by the god Auxilium, which con-
tains information that the audience has already learned by this point in the play. They
know that there is a problematic relation between a young man Alcesimarchus and a
young woman Selenium caused by the young man’s father. Although the audience
already knows which adulescens is meant, Auxilium introduces him as if he were
unknown (hence, the use of the indefinite article in the translation ‘a young man’),
with adulescens occupying the first position in its clause. The first position is typical
for topics (see also below), but focus constituents are not excluded from the first pos-
ition, especially when there is contrast with another entity (as pater in line 195).8 In
the next clause adulescens is continued by the anaphoric pronoun ei, an experiencer
satellite (dativus sympatheticus—see § 10.96). It is then continued by is, the subject of
its clause. In the following coordinated clause illa is the subject and hunc the topic.
Although the girl has been mentioned just before, illa is used instead of ea in order to
mark the contrast with hunc.
(h) Adulescens hic est Sicyoni. Ei vivit pater. / Is amore proiecticiam illam
deperit / quae dudum flens hinc abiit ad matrem suam, / et illa hunc contra,
qui est amor suavissimus.
(‘There’s a young man here in Sicyon. His father is alive. He is crazy about that
abandoned girl who went off to her mother a moment ago, crying, and she in turn is
crazy about him, which is the sweetest kind of love.’ Pl. Cist. 190–3)
Entities that have not been introduced into the discourse nor constitute general or
encyclopedic knowledge can still be treated as topic if they can easily be inferred from
another entity that is identifiable for the addressee. A term used for this phenomenon
is associative anaphora or subtopic.9 An illustration is Vitruvius’ discussion of
the construction of baths in (i), where after the mention of balinearum dispositionum
he successively presents the constituent parts. Note that the noun phrase magnitudines
balneorum in 5.10.4 can also be treated as topic.
8 Interestingly, almost the same text is transmitted earlier in the play (lines 125 and 130–2), with the
expected expression adulescens quidam. Editors deal with the passage in various ways, often deleting it
completely.
9 For the term ‘associative anaphora’, see Hawkins (1978); for ‘subtopic’, see Dik (1997: I.323–5). Exx.
(i) and (j) are repeated from LSS § 12.2.1.
Topic 833
(i) Quoniam haec nobis satis videntur esse exposita, nunc insequentur baline-
arum dispositionum demonstrationes. Primum eligendus locus est quam
calidissimus, id est aversus ab septentrione et aquilone. Ipsa autem caldaria
tepidariaque lumen habeant ab occidente hiberno . . . Suspensurae caldario-
rum ita sunt faciendae ut . . . Concamarationes vero si ex structura factae
fuerint, erunt utiliores . . . Magnitudines autem balneorum videntur fieri pro
copia hominum . . . Laconicum sudationesque sunt coniungendae tepidario . . .
(‘As it appears that we have given an adequate account of them, next will follow
descriptions of the arrangements of baths. In the first place, the warmest possible
situation must be selected; that is, one which faces away from the north and north-
east. The rooms for the hot and tepid baths should be lighted from the south-
west . . . The hanging floors of the hot bath rooms are to be constructed as follows . . . The
vaulted ceilings will be more serviceable if built of masonry . . . The size of the baths
must depend upon the number of the population . . . The Laconicum and other sweat-
ing baths must adjoin the tepid room . . .’ Vitr. 5.9.9–10.5)
In the situation in which the dialogue in ( j) takes place, two pairs are being spied
upon, each consisting of a man and woman. Hominem can be inferred from the situ-
ation. (It is not at the beginning of the sentence, because novistine is an emphatic
focus with the question particle-ne—see § 6.11.) Note that in the last sentence the
topic hominem is not expressed (marked ‘Ø’), a case of zero-anaphora (for unex-
pressed objects, see § 9.16).
( j) Vide’n convivium? / # Video exadvorsum Pistoclerum et Bacchidem. / # Qui
sunt in lecto illo altero? # Interii miser. / # Novistine hominem? # Ø Novi.
(‘Can you see the party? # I can see Pistoclerus and Bacchis right opposite. # Who are
the ones on that other couch? # Dear me, I’m dead. # Do you know the man? # I do.’
Pl. Bac. 834–7)
Especially in so-called technical texts, like those of Celsus and Pliny the Elder,10
different aspects of the subject matter can be easily used as topics of the clauses and
sentences devoted to it, such as, in the case of Celsus, ‘disease’, ‘period of the year’, or
‘treatment’, as in (k) and (l).
(k) Stomachum autem infirmum indicant pallor, macies, praecordiorum dolor,
nausea, et nolentium vomitus, in ieiuno dolor capitis.
(‘Weakness of the stomach is indicated by pallor, wasting, pain over the heart, nausea,
and involuntary vomiting, headache when the stomach is empty.’ Cels. 1.8.2)
(l) Vere autem maxime quaecumque humoris motu novantur in metu esse
consuerunt.
(‘In spring those diseases are usually to be apprehended which are stirred up anew by
movement of humour.’ Cels 2.1.6)
10 For an illustration from Pliny the Elder, see Pinkster (2005: 254–6).
Something related can be observed in lists of activities that can be expected to take
place in a certain situation, as in (m). Here Varro, one of Caesar’s opponents, organ-
izes a number of actions to prepare for military operation. Entities that have not been
mentioned before may occupy the first position in its clause, as Gaium Gallonium in
sentence (v).11
(m) (sc. Varro) . . . se quoque ad motus fortunae movere coepit.
(i) Dilectum habuit tota provincia, legionibus conpletis duabus cohortes
circiter XXX alarias addidit.
(ii) Frumenti magnum numerum coegit, quod Massiliensibus, item
quod Afranio Petreioque mitteret.
(iii) Naves longas X Gaditanis ut facerent imperavit, conplures praeterea
[in] Hispali faciendas curavit.
(iv) Pecuniam omnem omniaque ornamenta ex fano Herculis in oppi-
dum Gadis contulit.
(v) Eo sex cohortes praesidii causa ex provincia misit Gaiumque
Gallonium, equitem Romanum familiarem Domiti, qui eo pro-
curandae hereditatis causa venerat missus a Domitio, oppido
Gadibus praefecit.
(vi) Arma omnia privata ac publica in domum Galloni contulit.
Ipse habuit graves in Caesarem contiones.
(‘. . . Then Varro’s movements began to mirror those of Fortune. (i) He recruited
troops throughout his province, bringing his two legions up to strength and
supplementing them with about thirty cohorts of allies. (ii) He collected a
large quantity of grain to send to Marseilles and also to Afranius and Pompey.
(iii) He ordered Cadiz to make ten warships and arranged for the construction
of several more in Hispalis. (iv) He moved all of the money and treasures from
the temple of Hercules into the town of Cadiz. (v) To guard the town he sent
six cohorts from the province. He also put Gaius Gallonius, a Roman of eques-
trian rank and a friend of Domitius, in charge of Cadiz; Gallonius was already
there, having been sent by Domitius as his agent for an inheritance. (vi) Varro
moved all weapons, privately owned and public, into Gallonius’ house. He
made speeches critical of Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 2.17.4–18.3)
For entities that are not known or accessible in one of the ways mentioned, the
speaker/writer must use a certain strategy to introduce them into the discourse and
make them eligible for topic function. In (n), at the beginning of his Commentarii,
Caesar introduces the three peoples that inhabit Gallia. These peoples were probably
unfamiliar to most readers and are for that reason introduced at the end of their
clauses. A late or final position in the clause for such entities that will function as topic
further on in the discourse is common in many languages.12 At their first introduc-
tion they function as focus. Once introduced they can head passages that contain
11 Spevak (2010a: 41) takes it as an instance of ‘focus first’. For the use of unintroduced topics in a list,
see Jones (1991: 85–6); he uses the term ‘extension’.
12 See Dik (1997: I.315–18).
Topic 835
geographical or other details, as in (o).13 In other words, they have become given
topics. Other examples of the introduction of non-accessible entities are (p) and (q),
which are both presentative sentences (on which see § 22.11).
(n) Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam
Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur.
(‘Gaul as a whole is divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited by the Belgae,
another by the Aquitani, and a third by a people called in their own tongue Celtae, in
the Latin Galli.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)
(o) Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur . . .
(‘The Belgae begin from the edge of the Gallic territory . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.6)
(p) Erat cum eo Mithrobarzanes, socer eius, praefectus equitum.
(‘He had with him Mithrobarzanes, his father-in-law, as commander of his cavalry.’
Nep. Dat. 6.3)
(q) Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina.
(‘In a certain city there were a king and queen.’ Apul. Met. 4.28.1)
The identifiability of an entity in one of the ways discussed above is a necessary condi-
tion for its being eligible for the function of topic of its clause. However, the identifi-
ability of an entity does not entail its being chosen as the topic, as is shown by (r).
Belgae is mentioned here for the third time and so is well known by this point.
However, it fulfils the function of focus, being the answer to the underlying question
‘who are the bravest of these three peoples?’
(r) Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae . . .
(‘Of all these peoples the Belgae are the most courageous . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.3)
An entity can continue to function as topic over a longer or shorter stretch of dis-
course. If an entity is maintained over a longer stretch it is usually not repeated as a
full lexical item; instead, anaphoric expressions, zero-anaphora, and connecting rela-
tives are used (see also § 11.136, and § 24.5 on ‘anaphoric reference’). This is illus-
trated by (s). After it is introduced as a full lexical item, Orgetorix returns first as an
anaphoric pronoun and then in the form of zero-anaphora.14
(s) Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix. Is . . . coniu-
rationem nobilitatis fecit et civitati persuasit ut de finibus suis cum omnibus
copiis exirent. . . . Id hoc facilius iis Ø persuasit, quod undique loci natura
Helvetii continentur.
(‘Among the Helvetii the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix.
He . . . formed a conspiracy of the nobility, and he persuaded the community to march
13 Caesar’s introduction is slightly chaotic, and earlier editors have proposed various ways to eliminate
difficulties. See, for example, Meusel ad 1.1.5–7.
14 For strategies to continue once-introduced topics, see Tóth (1994: 178–83). Ex. (t) is discussed by
Kroon (2009a: 117–18). For the conditions under which zero-anaphora is possible, see also Longrée (2012).
out of their territory in full force. . . . In this he persuaded them the more easily,
because the Helvetii are closely confined by the nature of their territory.’ Caes.
Gal. 1.2.1)
When an entity ceases to be a topic and is replaced by one or more other entities but
is then reintroduced after a while as a resumed topic, it usually needs the same kind
of introduction as discussed above. An example is (t).15 As the author explicitly states,
this Varus had been introduced before (in Civ. 1.23.2).
(t) Erat in exercitu Vari Sextus Quintilius Varus, quem fuisse Corfinii supra
demonstratum est. Hic dimissus a Caesare in Africam venerat . . .
(‘Sextus Quintilius Varus, whose presence at Corfinium was mentioned above, was in
Attius Varus’ army. He had come to Africa after his release by Caesar.’ Caes. Civ.
2.28.1)
However, reintroduction is not necessary if an entity has become familiar enough in the
preceding discourse. Thus, in his Commentarii, Caesar does not need what we might
call the normal treatment, nor does Jugurtha in Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum. Such
entities function as discourse topic.16 An illustration is (u). In (u)(i), the beginning of
this section, which follows an account of the present situation by the Gaul Liscus, there
is a change of topic, from Liscus to Caesar. For that reason Caesar is in first position.
Note that anaphoric hac oratione, which summarizes Liscus’ speech, is not in its usual
first position.17 In (ii), Caesar is continued by zero-anaphora, as is Liscus. In (iii), there
is a change of topic, but Liscus has been introduced well enough and the situation as a
whole is sufficiently transparent, so explicit mention is not necessary. In the same way,
the switch back to Caesar in (iv) without explicit mention is unproblematic, as is its
continuation in (v). After the rather lengthy report on Dumnorix Caesar is continued as
topic, but due to the distance between (v) and (vi) some form of explicit mention is
required: anaphoric expressions cannot be used, so the proper name is required. Since a
clause-initial position of Caesar would suggest a change of topic, it is placed later in the
clause. Another example is (v).18 Here a sequence of three actions by Caesar is inter-
rupted in (iii) by Crassus’ reaction to Caesar’s order (Crassus is already mentioned as the
recipient of the order in (i) and (ii)). Note that in (iii) Crassus is in final position, so as
to prevent the reader from assuming a complete change of topic, while at the same time
avoiding assigning the action of exiting to Caesar.
(u) (i) Caesar hac oratione Lisci Dumnorigem, Diviciaci fratrem, designari
sentiebat . . . concilium dimittit, Liscum retinet.
(ii) Quaerit (sc. Caesar) ex solo (sc. Lisco) ea quae in conventu dixerat.
(iii) Dicit (sc. Liscus) liberius atque audacius.
15 The example is taken from Spevak (2010a: 60).

16 See Spevak (2010a: 60; 67–73), with references.
17 For the position of summarizing hic expressions in Caesar and Sallust, see Spevak (2010a: 82–5).
18 For this example and more complicated cases in which the topic has to be reconstructed from the
preceding context, see Jones (1991) and especially (2000).
Topic 837
(iv) Eadem secreto ab aliis quaerit (sc. Caesar).

(v) Reperit (sc. Caesar) esse vera.
(Findings concerning Dumnorix, seven paragraphs)
(vi) Reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar . . .
((i) ‘Caesar felt that Dumnorix, the brother of Diviciacus, was indicated in these
remarks of Liscus . . . he speedily dismissed the meeting. He kept Liscus back. (ii) He
questioned him separately on his statement in the assembly. (iii) Liscus now spoke
with greater freedom and boldness. (iv) Caesar questioned others privately upon
the same matters. (v) He found that it was so. . . . (vi) Caesar discovered also in the
course of his questioning . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.18.1–10)
(v) (i) Caesar acceptis litteris hora circiter undecima diei statim nuntium in
Bellovacos ad M. Crassum quaestorem mittit, cuius hiberna aberant ab eo
milia passuum XXV.
(ii) Iubet (sc. Caesar) media nocte legionem proficisci celeriterque ad se
venire.
(iii) Exit cum nuntio Crassus.
(iv) Alterum ad C. Fabium legatum (sc. Caesar) mittit, ut in Atrebatium fines
legionem adducat, qua sibi iter faciendum sciebat.
(v) Scribit (sc. Caesar) Labieno . . .
((i) ‘Caesar received the dispatch about the eleventh hour of the day, and at once sent
a messenger into the country of the Bellovaci to Marcus Crassus, the quartermaster-
general, whose winter quarters were 25 miles away from him. (ii) He bade the legion
start at midnight and come speedily to him. (iii) Crassus marched out on receipt of
the message. (iv) Another envoy was sent to Gaius Fabius, the lieutenant-general, bid-
ding him bring his legion into the borders of the Atrebates, through which Caesar
knew he himself would have to march. (v) He wrote instructions to Labienus . . .’ Caes.
Gal. 5.46.1–3)
Discourse topics differ from regular (or: clause) topics in their relative freedom of
position. They may be preceded by clause topics and setting constituents. Examples
are (w) and (x), respectively. In (w), partly repeated from § 22.3, Caesar follows the
topic constituent ad ea; in (x), the summarizing ablative absolute clause (a setting
constituent—see § 22.15) his rebus confectis.
(w) Ad ea Caesar respondit nulli omnium has partis vel querimoniae vel misera-
tionis minus convenisse.
(‘To this Caesar replied: “Anyone would be more suitable than you to deliver either
reproaches or appeals for pity.” ’ Caes. Civ. 1.85.1)
(x) His rebus confectis Caesar, ut reliquum tempus a labore intermitteretur,
milites in proxima municipia deducit. Ipse ad urbem proficiscitur.
(‘After finishing this business Caesar withdrew his men to towns in the immediate
vicinity to give them a temporary break from exertion. He himself set out for Rome.’
Caes. Civ. 1.32.1)
In certain contexts readers probably had no problem in recognizing persons that are
introduced at the very beginning of the text as topic of the clause to which they
belong. In his letters of recommendation Cicero often starts without a proper intro-
duction, as in (y).
(y) Hagesaretus Larisaeus magnis meis beneficiis ornatus in consulatu meo

memor et gratus fuit . . .
(‘Hagesaretus of Larisa received substantial favours at my hands when I was
Consul and held them in grateful memory . . .’ Cic. Fam. 13.25.1)
22.5 Types of constituents that function as topic

The concept of ‘topic’ concerns the part of a clause about which a speaker/writer pro-
vides further information. Most of the examples discussed so far are nouns, noun
phrases, and pronouns referring to animate beings or inanimate objects. However,
this is not necessarily always the case: in (s) in § 22.4, id refers to the content of
Orgetorix’ advice in the preceding context; it is object of its clause. In (a) below, ea res
refers to the apparition of Jupiter and the disorienting effect of it on the people in
Amphitryon’s house, as described in the preceding text. In (b), the adverbs ibi and
ibidem function as place adjunct and as topic. In (c), the combination of the verb and
its object implet . . . corpus continues inplere se in the preceding context and can there-
fore be taken as a topic constituent. Another example is (d). Note the parallelism of
patrem vita privare and parricidae. It is, however, disputed among scholars whether
such combinations, which are not ‘constituents’ in the technical sense, can be used
as topic.19
(a) Iam ea res me horrore afficit.
(‘The previous events were already filling me with terror.’ Pl. Am. 1068)
(b) Nam apud nos est convivium. / Ibi voster cenat cum uxore adeo et Antipho. /
Ibidem erus est noster.
(‘Well, at our place there is a banquet. There your master is dining with his wife,
actually, and Antipho, and our master is in the same place.’ Pl. St. 664–6)
(c) Ante omnia autem norit quisque naturam sui corporis . . . Tenuis vero
homo inplere se debet, plenus extenuare . . . Implet autem corpus modica
exercitatio . . .
(‘But above all things everyone should be acquainted with the nature of his own
body . . . So then a thin man ought to fatten himself up, a stout one to thin himself
down . . . Now the body is fattened: by moderate exercise . . .’ Cels. 1.3.13–15)
(d) Patrem vita privare si per se scelus est, Saguntini, qui parentes suos liberos
emori quam servos vivere maluerunt, parricidae fuerunt.
19 For a discussion of what she calls an ‘extended Topic unit’, see (Helma) Dik (1995: 64–70). Ex. (d) is
taken from K.-St.: II.591 from their section on emphatic anteposition (‘betonte Voranstellung’).
Focus 839
(‘If to rob a father of life is in itself a crime, the people of Saguntum who chose that
their own parents should all die free men rather than live as slaves were guilty of
parricide.’ Cic. Parad. 24)
22.6 Formal properties of topics

Unlike subjects, which are usually recognizable by their case form and by their agree-
ment with the finite verb of the clause, topics have no formal marking in Latin, nor are
there special suffixes or particles which mark them as topics. The only common fea-
ture of explicit topics is their position in the clause, usually the first (possible) pos-
ition, as most of the examples in the previous sections have shown. This is discussed
in more detail in § 23.42. At this point it is important to note that the statement that
explicit topics usually are in first position cannot be reversed: not all constituents in
first position are topics. Focus constituents are also quite common.20
22.7 Focus
The focus part of a clause provides information about the topic of that clause which
the speaker considers in some way noteworthy for the addressee. This is illustrated by
the question–answer pairs in § 22.1, one of which is repeated here as (a).
(a) Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem.
In instances like (a), determining which part of the clause constitutes the focus is
relatively easy, because these clauses are a response to an explicit request for informa-
tion by one of the speech participants, and they are also relatively short. However,
question–answer pairs are only a minority among the communicative acts, and the
question is how one can decide what constitutes the focus of a clause in other situ-
ations. Even when it comes to questions, the decision is more difficult when the
answer is more complex than the one in (a). This is illustrated by (b) and (c). In (b), a
sequence of accusative and infinitive sentences forms the answer that corresponds to
quid in the preceding question and each sentence has its own internal pragmatic
structure. In (i), me is the topic (a discourse topic), in contrast with te (another dis-
course topic) in (ii). In the absence of data concerning intonational prominence
(stress, for example), it is not immediately clear which element in the remainder of
(i) is the most informative: tibi, the entire action facinora puerilia obicere, or facinora
puerilia alone. Although tibi has an apposition with it (istuc aetatis homini), before
and after which there probably was a pause, it is given information and therefore
not a likely candidate to be regarded as focus. In terms of newsworthiness for the
20 See de Jong (1989: 527): ‘There is no straightforward relation between Topic function and first
position in the clause.’
addressee, facinora puerilia seems the best candidate. This interpretation is also sup-
ported by the appositionlike continuation of facinora puerilia after the verb and the
anaphoric pronoun ea in the next sentence. Note that in (i) there is also a clause-
internal contrast between me and tibi, as there is in (ii), but in a different way. The
focus functions in the two coordinated clauses in (ii) are fulfilled by expetere (ex opi-
bus summis) and ire opitulatum, respectively.
(b) At hoc me facinus miserum macerat / meumque cor corpusque cruciat. #
Quid id est quod cruciat? Cedo. / # (i) Me tibi, istuc aetatis homini, facinora
puerilia / obicere, nec te decora nec tuis virtutibus. / (ii) Ea te expetere ex
opibus summis mei honoris gratia / mihique amanti ire opitulatum . . .
(‘But this fact vexes me and tortures my heart and body. # What is it that tortures
you? Tell me. # (i) That I’m imposing on you, a man of your age, juvenile concerns
appropriate neither for yourself nor for your character. (ii) That you seek these with
all your might for my sake and come to help me in my love . . .’ Pl. Mil. 616–21)
In (c), the slave Chrysalus wants to instruct his young master Mnesilochus to write in
his own name the usual greeting formula to his father. Next he will dictate the main
message of the letter (from line 735 onwards). However, Mnesilochus interrupts him.
It is not immediately clear which of the three constituents in Chrysalus’ continuation
of his instruction (salutem, tuo patri, and verbis tuis) is focus. That the letter is intended
for Mnesilochus’ father has been said before. That the letter will start with a salutem
formula is to be expected in such a situation. So verbis tuis is the least expected elem-
ent and for that reason a good candidate for the function of focus. However, Pistoclerus,
Mnesilochus’ friend, sarcastically reinterprets the sentence in the next line, replacing
salutem by morbum mortem and so changing the focus to salutem: the first thing to
write is a salutation.
(c) Quod iubebo scribito istic. Nam propterea <te> volo / scribere, ut pater
cognoscat litteras quando legat. / Scribe— # Quid scribam? # Salutem
tuo patri verbis tuis. / # Quid si potius morbum mortem scribat? Id
erit rectius.
(‘Write there what I tell you. For I want you to write for the simple reason that your
father may recognize your handwriting when he’s reading it. Write— # What should
I write? # A hearty greeting to your father in your name. / What if he’s writing a greeting
of illness and death to him? That’ll be more to the point.’ Pl. Bac. 729–32)
It is also possible to take tuo patri as the attibute of salutem. This may be the intention
of the Loeb translation. Of course, one can also assume a pause after patri and inter-
pret verbis tuis as a second focus. NB: Verbis tuis does not mean ‘in your own words’,
as the Loeb has it. It must mean a ‘personal’ address from Mnesilochus to his father
(as it is indeed further on: Mnesilochus salutem dicit suo patri. (line 734)). See Barsby
ad loc. and OLD s.v. verbum § 14.
In order to be able to use the term ‘focus’ in a way that can be verified by the users of
this Syntax, three sections will be devoted to the following questions:
Focus 841
(i) What makes a part of a clause focus?

(ii) What kinds of linguistic constituents can function as focus?
(iii) How can we identify focus constituents?
NB: In this section the term ‘focus’ is used both for a ‘part of the clause’ and for ‘con-
stituent’. In (b) for example facinora puerilia obicere is not really a constituent of the
clause in the technical sense of ‘constituent’; rather, it is a combination of a verb and
its object constituent. In § 22.8 examples of focus are discussed that concern a part of
a word. For ease of exposition these differences will be ignored and the term ‘constituent’
will be used throughout.
22.8 What makes a constituent of a clause focus?

The preceding sections have shown several examples of entities that are introduced
into the discourse for the first time and thus constitute the most important or relevant
part of their clause in terms of informativity. In these cases focus is related to the
‘newness’ of the entity in its context. An example is (a), repeated from § 22.4. Orgetorix
can be thought of as the answer to an underlying question, ‘who was the most import-
ant person among the Helvetians?’ In the dialogue in (b), repeated from § 22.1, eri
concubina is not ‘new’, strictly speaking, but it is the answer that fills the gap of infor-
mation that the addressee has explicitly indicated. The term completive focus is
used for this type of focus.21
(a) Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix.
(‘Among the Helvetii the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix.’
Caes. Gal. 1.2.1)
(b) Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem.
Apart from this ‘completive’ type, there are other types of focuses where the informa-
tion transmitted to an addressee is not ‘new’ as in the above cases, but constitutes a
modification of the previous knowledge of the addressee or of his expectations. This
is illustrated by three question/answer pairs in (c)–(e). In (c), the answer confirms
that Philocomasium iam left while adding dudum. In (d), the time of the friendship is
specified more precisely by the addition of present tense est. Both (c) and (d) are
examples of expanding focus. In (e), the information of the person who asks the
question is incorrect. Eius frater functions as replacing focus.
(c) Philocomasium iam profecta est? Dic mihi. # Iam dudum.
(‘Has Philocomasium left already? Tell me. # Already long ago.’ Pl. Mil. 1428–9)
(d) Fuitne hic tibi amicus Charmides? # Est et fuit.
(‘Didn’t you have Charmides here as a friend? # I do and I did.’ Pl. Trin. 106)
21 For the various types of focus discussed in this section, see Dik (1997: I.330–5). Also Revuelta (1999:
698–702).
(e) Rogitabant: ‘hicine Achilles est?’ inquit mihi. ‘Immo eius frater,’ inquam, ‘est.’
(‘They kept asking. “Is this Achilles?” says one to me. “No,” I say, “it’s his brother” .’
Pl. Mil. 62)
A fourth type of focus is shown in (f). In Rome two activities were connected with the
observation of signs from heaven: spectio and nuntiatio. Augurs had only the right of
nuntiatio. Nuntiationem in (f) is a restricting focus, as becomes clear also through
the presence of the restrictive particle solum (and the continuation with etiam).22
(f) Nos (sc. augures) enim nuntiationem solum habemus, consules et reliqui
magistratus etiam spectionem.
(‘For we augurs only possess the right to report an unfavourable omen, whereas
consuls and the rest of the magistrates also have the right to look for omens.’ Cic.
Phil. 2.81)
Ex. (g) is an interesting instance of a change of topic and focus in dialogue. Here the
slave Acanthio has announced bad news to his young master Charinus, who in his
impatience interrupts him. Whereas tuam amicam vidit (a completive focus) is the
planned focus in Acanthio’s message about the topic tuos pater, the interruption
causes a shift due to which tuam amicam becomes topic (eam) and vidit becomes the
(completive) focus of the message—indeed for Charinus the most unexpected and
unwelcome part of the message (as the text that follows shows).
(g) Tuos pater — # Quid meus pater? / # Tuam amicam — # Quid eam? # Vidit.
# Vidit? Vae misero mihi!
(‘Your father— # What about my father? # Your girlfriend— # What about her? # He’s
seen her. # He’s seen her? Poor wretched me!’ Pl. Mer. 180–1)
22.9 Complex focus

As the examples in § 22.8 show, the focus can be a word or a phrase with a clear lexical
meaning, as in (a)–(c), but it can also concern morphological information, as in (d),
where it is the difference in tense that is relevant in the situation. The focal part of the
message can also be a combination of words which do not form a (syntactic) constitu-
ent of the clause or sentence, as in (e) and (f) above. Another example is (a) below,
with (legiones) ex castris educit as a complex focus unit. The sentence answers the
underlying question: what did Varus do? Note the continuation with facit idem.23
Another example is (b), where the action is summarized by qua re animadversa.
Support verb constructions often function as pragmatic units, as can be seen in
(c), where insidias fieri is a complex focus.24 Just as in the case of negation and of
22 There is one more type of focus recognized by Functional Grammar, viz. selecting focus. See Dik
(1997: I.331–5).
23 See Spevak (2010a: 38).
24 For the term ‘complex focus’, see Dik (1995: 71–3). Compare Spevak (2010a: 44), who prefers the
term ‘complex information’. Ex. (b) is taken from Spevak (2010a: 44–5). See also Wachter (2004).
Focus 843
questions, we can make a distinction in the scope of focus. Given the diversity of
linguistic constituents that function as focus, it is in such cases better to speak of
‘focus units’ than of ‘focus constituents’.
(a) Qua opinione adductus Varus postero die mane legiones ex castris educit.
Facit idem Curio . . .
(‘Induced by this view of things Varus led his troops out of camp the following day.
Curio did the same.’ Caes. Civ. 2.27.3)
(b) Qui omnes discessu Curionis multique praeterea per simulationem vulnerum
ex castris in oppidum propter timorem sese recipiunt. Qua re animadversa . . .
(‘After Curio’s departure all of the wounded men (and many, too, pretending to be
wounded) withdrew from the camp into the city because of their fear. Observing
this . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.35.5–6)
(c) Quoniam videmus auro insidias fieri, / capimus consilium continuo.
(‘Since we saw that a trap was being set for the gold, we made a plan at once.’ Pl. Bac.
299–300)
22.10 How can we identify focus constituents?

As with topics, our Latin texts contain no specialized markers of focus constituents,
with the exception of a few enclitic particles (see below on -ne, for example). Apart
from question/answer pairs as discussed in the preceding sections, the identification
of focus constituents must mainly be based on an analysis of the context and the situ-
ation in which the utterances occur. Trying to formulate an underlying question to
which the given utterance may be a response can be helpful, as shown in the preced-
ing sections. However, there are also a few formal indicators of focality.25
The specifying indefinite determiner quidam (see § 11.114 and § 22.4) can be used
with a newly introduced entity and in that way can indirectly signal a focus constitu-
ent, as in (a). Note that the noun phrase is continued by the anaphoric pronoun is.26
(a) Epidamniensis quidam ibi mercator fuit. / Is puerum tollit avehitque
Epidamnum eum.
(‘There was a certain merchant from Epidamnus there. He picked the boy up and
carried him off to Epidamnus.’ Pl. Men. 32–3)
Complexity in terms of enumeration, coordination, and repetition may also function
as a signal of focality, as in (b) and (c).27 Note in (c) the use of inquam to indicate
insistence.28
25 See Spevak (2010a: 39–56). For the methodology of establishing focus in ancient texts (in casu
Hittite), see Goedegebuure (2009).
26 For this use of quidam, see Rosén (1998: 728–31).
27 Taken from Spevak (2010a: 39–40).
28 Forms of inquam often follow an emphatic or focal constituent, but they cannot be taken as a sys-
tematic signal of emphasis of focality. See Spevak (2010a: 163–4).
(b) Frumenti vim maximam ex Thessalia, Asia, Aegypto, Creta, Cyrenis reli-
quisque regionibus comparaverat.
(‘Pompey had procured a very large quantity of provisions from Thessaly, Asia,
Egypt, Crete, Cyrene, and the other regions.’ Caes. Civ. 3.5.1)
(c) . . . reddat misero patri filiam. Membra quae debilitavit lapidibus . . . restituere
non potest. Filiam, filiam inquam, aerumnoso patri, Deciane, redde.
(‘. . . let him restore the daughter to her miserable father: for the limbs which he has
weakened with stones . . . those he cannot restore. The daughter—restore the daugh-
ter, I say, O Decianus, to her unhappy father.’ Cic. Flac. 73)
There are various other means to give prominence to one or more constituents of a
sentence. Correlative coordinate constructions may either mark constituents as
equally important (for example by et . . . et) or indicate that one constituent is more
important than the other (for example by non solum . . . sed etiam—see § 19.65). These
two forms of coordination can be described as devices that signal expanding focus.
Epitactic conjoins usually contain an element with expanding focus (see § 19.67).
Prepositional phrases with pro in its meaning ‘instead of ’ can be used to replace one
entity by another, as in (d) (replacing focus).29 The preposition praeter ‘besides’,
‘except’ has been described in a similar way.30
(d) . . . ei pro scorto supponetur hircus unctus nautea.
(‘. . . for him a goat, perfumed with bilge water, will be substituted in place of a prosti-
tute.’ Pl. Cas. 1018)
Latin has a number of ‘emphasizing particles’, which are, however, not limited to focus
constituents. They are discussed in §§ 22.20–40. Two particular sentence structures
are discussed in the following sections.
22.11 Presentative sentences
‘Presentative sentences’ serve to introduce or to reintroduce an entity into the dis-

course.31 They typically contain an existential verb (for example, sum ‘to be’ (see
§ 4.94), appareo ‘to appear’) or a locative verb (for example sum ‘to be somewhere’ (see
§ 4.42), habito ‘to live’), which can be used as indirect signals of the focus status of
their argument. Examples are (a)–(f). See also ex. (a) in § 22.8 with the copula sum.
In such sentences the focus constituent is most often in final position, but compare
(b) and (d). The verb is most often in an initial position, as in (a) and (c), but, again,
compare (b) and (d). For a presentative subordinate clause, see (e). An example of
reintroduction is (f).
29 For ‘replacive’ pro phrases, see Revuelta (1999). For further examples, see TLL s.v. pro 1425.41ff.
30 See Torrego (1998) and Revuelta (1999).
31 On presentative sentences, see Bolkestein (1995), Rosén (1998), Spevak (2004; 2010a: 187–93), and
Cabrillana (2010a). For examples, see also Devine and Stephens (2006: 208–13), who note that Cato has
the verb sum mostly in final position.
Focus 845
(a) Est Euboicus miles locuples, multo auro potens, / qui ubi tibi istam emptam
esse scibit atque hanc adductam alteram, / continuo te orabit ultro ut illam
tramittas sibi.
(‘There’s a wealthy soldier from Euboea who owns a lot of gold. As soon as he knows
that the first girl has been bought by you and that this second has been brought here,
he’ll ask you of his own accord to send the first over to him.’ Pl. Epid. 153–5—NB:
continuation in a relative clause)
(b) In eo flumine (sc. Axona) pons erat. Ibi praesidium ponit . . .
(‘There was a bridge over the river. He set a guard there . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.5.6)
(c) Erat vallis inter duas acies, ut supra demonstratum est, non ita magna, at
difficili et arduo ascensu. Hanc uterque si adversariorum copiae transire
conarentur . . .
(‘There was a ravine between the two lines, as was indicated above. It was not particu-
larly large but had a difficult and steep ascent. Each side waited to see whether the
adversary’s forces would attempt to cross it . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.34.1)
(d) Palus erat non magna inter nostrum atque hostium exercitum. Hanc si nostri
transirent, hostes exspectabant.
(‘Between our own and the enemy’s army was a marsh of no great size. The enemy
waited to see whether our men would cross it.’ Caes. Gal. 2.9.1)
(e) Sed cum esset inter bina castra campus circiter milium passuum VI,
Domitius castris Scipionis aciem suam subiecit . . .
(‘Moreover, although there was level ground between the two camps for about six
miles, Domitius positioned his line close to Scipio’s camp . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.37.2)
(f) Erant omnino itinera duo quibus itineribus domo exire possent: unum per
Sequanos . . . Relinquebatur una per Sequanos via, qua Sequanis invitis prop-
ter angustias ire non poterant.
(‘There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their homeland.
One through the territory of the Sequani . . . There remained only the route via the
territory of the Sequani, by which they could not march without the consent of the
Sequani, on account of its narrowness.’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.1–9.1)
Supplement:
Verb-initial: Fuit olim quidam senex / mercator. Navim is fregit apud Andrum insu-
lam. (Ter. An. 221–2); Fuit apud Segestanos ex aere Dianae simulacrum cum summa
atque antiquissima praeditum religione tum singulari opere artificioque perfectum.
Hoc . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.72); Quin etiam, si quis est paulo ad voluptates propensior, modo
ne sit ex pecudum genere, sunt enim quidam homines non re sed nomine, sed si quis
est paulo erectior . . . (Cic. Off. 1.105); Erat eo loco fossa pedum XV et vallum con-
tra hostem in altitudinem pedum X . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.63.1); Erat una cum ceteris
Dumnorix Haeduus, de quo a nobis antea dictum est. (Caes. Gal. 5.6.1); Erat unus intus
Nervius nomine Vertico, loco natus honesto, qui a prima obsidione ad Ciceronem
perfugerat suamque ei fidem praestiterat. Hic servo spe libertatis magnisque persuadet
praemiis ut litteras ad Caesarem deferat. (Caes. Gal. 5.45.2–4); Erat idem temporis
Sex. Pompeius frater qui cum praesidio Cordubam tenebat, quod eius provinciae caput
esse existimabatur. (B. Hisp. 3.1);32 Accedebant muliebres offensiones novercalibus
Liviae in Agrippinam stimulis . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.33.3); Fuit in senatu Iunius Rusticus,
componendis patrum actis delectus a Caesare eoque meditationes eius introspicere
creditus. Is . . . (Tac. Ann. 5.4.1); Erat <na>uarchus in ea classe Volusius Proculus,
occidendae matris Neroni inter ministros, non ex magnitudine sceleris provectus, ut
rebatur. Is . . . (Tac. Ann. 15.51.2); . . . incipit: ‘Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina.’
(Apul. Met. 4.27.8–28.1); Et trans vallem apparebat mons sanctus Dei Syna. (Pereg. 1.1)
Verb non-initial: Haec urbs est Thebae. In illisce habitat aedibus Amphitruo. (Pl.
Am. 97–8); Mercator quidam fuit Syracusis senex. / Ei sunt nati filii gemini duo . . . (Pl.
Men. 17–18); Adulescens quidam est qui in hisce habitat aedibus. / Is rem paternam
me adiutrice perdidit. (Pl. Trin. 12–13); Collis erat leniter ab infimo acclivis.
Hunc . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.19.1); Seneca fuit, cuius nomen ad vos potuit pervenisse, inge-
nii confusi ac turbulenti, qui cupiebat grandia . . . (Sen. Suas. 2.17)
22.12 Cleft sentences
Latin has a special construction to mark a constituent as the focus of the message.33 It
looks similar to what is called a ‘cleft sentence’ in English grammar, exemplified by (a),
which can be compared with (b). Whereas in (b) the salience of his callousness is
expressed by word order, the information is divided into two clauses in (a) and his
callousness has a clause of its own.34
(a) It is his callousness that I shall ignore.
(b) His callousness I shall ignore.
Latin examples are (c) and (d). They consist of a subject constituent, a form of the
copula sum ‘to be’, and an autonomous relative clause that functions as subject com-
plement. The subject of the copula is often in some way in contrast with another
entity, explicit or implicit. In (c), there is a dispute about the identity of the person
who hired the addressee, as is shown by the reaction. This explains the use of the cleft
construction for ego, which is already by itself pragmatically marked (see § 9.2). In
(d), Charilaus has been introduced into the discourse together with his colleague. He
(and not his colleague) is selected as the focus for further information. An example of
an interrogative cleft sentence is (e) (see also § 6.21 fin.).35 An example of ‘parallel
focus’ (see § 22.18) is (f).
(c) Non ego sum qui te dudum conduxi. # Quid est? / Immo hercle tu istic ipsu’s.
(‘I’m not the one who hired you a while ago. # What’s that? No, you yourself are the
one.’ Pl. Mer. 758–9)
32 This example is disputed. Some take it as an instance of the cleft construction. For discussion, see
Löfstedt (1966: 265–6) and Hoffmann (2016b: 204).
33 See Löfstedt (1966; 2000: 99–100), Goria (2013), and Hoffmann (2016b).
34 The examples and part of the formulation are taken from Quirk et al. (1985: 1383–7). See also
Lehmann (1984: 358–63).
35 For the instances in Plautus, see Lodge: II.454B.
Focus 847
(d) Charilaus et Nymphius, principes civitatis, communicato inter se consilio partes

ad rem agendam divisere . . . Charilaus fuit qui ad Publilium Philonem venit . . .
(‘Charilaus and Nymphius, their principal citizens, took counsel together, and
arranged the part that each should play in order to bring this about. . . . It was Charilaus
who went to Publilius Philo . . .’ Liv. 8.25.9–10)
(e) Epidice! # Epidicum quis est qui revocat? # Ego sum Periphanes.
(‘Epidicus! # Who is it that’s calling back Epidicus? # It is I, Periphanes.’ Pl. Epid. 201)
(f) Neque tu eras tam excors tamque demens ut nescires Cloelium esse qui con-
tra leges facere, alios qui leges scribere solerent.
(‘And yet you were not so senseless and so infatuated as not to know that it was
Cloelius’ part to act in defiance of the laws, and the business of others to formulate
them.’ Cic. Dom. 48)
Supplement:
Si enim quid liceat quaeritis, potestis tollere e civitate quem voltis. Tabella est quae
dat potestatem. (Cic. Rab. Post. 11); Nequitia est quae te non sinit esse senem. (Ov.
Fast. 1.414); ‘Scythia est quo mittimur’, inquam, / ‘Roma relinquenda est, utraque
iusta mora.’ (Ov. Tr. 1.3.61–2); Caeninenses Crustuminique et Antemnates erant ad
quos eius iniuriae pars pertinebat. (Liv. 1.10.2); Dii maiores sunt qui me restituerunt
in integrum. (Petr. 140.12); Deinde ubi Caesarem esse qui grassaretur pernotuit . . .
(Tac. Ann. 13.25.2); . . . nostrum genus est cui debetur regnum caelorum, non illi
generi qui induuntur purpura . . . (August. Serm. 14.3); Mons erat qui clamabat: . . .
(August. Serm. 46.17)
Si magno emerat, quoniam tu es qui pretia diligentissime exquisisti, qui, ut ais,
magno vendidisti, quare putabas emptori lucrum addi oportere? (Cic. Ver. 3.71); Ego
sum qui nullius vim plus valere volui quam honestum otium . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.21.2);
Ego sum cui Marte peracto / quae populi regesque tenent donare licebit. (Luc. 7.
299–300); . . . audita est vox ‘tu es, Rufe, qui in hanc provinciam pro consule venies.’ (Tac.
Ann. 11.21.1); Non tu es qui dicis: ‘Donata sunt tibi peccata tua’? (August. Serm. 16A.4)
Verum totum insanum amare, hoc est quod meus erus facit. (Pl. Cur. 177); Pro
Iuppiter, / hic est quem ego tibi misi natali die. (Pl. Cur. 655–6); Nempe hoc est quod
illi dedi. (Pl. Men. 535); Haec ego doleo, haec / sunt quae med excruciant, haec dies /
noctesque tibi canto ut caveas. (Pl. Trin. 287ab); Praeterea scio hunc esse in quem
potissimum Iuppiter se convertit . . . (Var. R. 2.5.5); Hoc est quod unum’st pro labori-
bus tantis. (Catul. 31.11); Et hoc est quod ante omnia constituere in animo suo debeat
orator . . . (Quint. Inst. 3.6.12); . . . ‘Hic est’, inquit, ‘apud quem cubitum ponitis . . .’
(Petr. 27.4); Hi sunt in quibus propheticus sermo conpletur. (Hier. Ep. 21.13.3)
Sed quid est tandem quod indicat per istum puerum Cornelius? (Cic. Sul. 51);
Quis est cui magis ignosci conveniat, quoniam me ad XII tabulas revocas, quam si
quis quem imprudens occiderit? (Cic. Tul. 51); Quid est quod Petro recusanti dicit?
(Hier. Ep. 18A.12.1)
It is not always clear whether the subject of the copula is in contrast with another
entity, and therefore individual instances can be disputed. This is the case with (g).36
36 Quoted as a cleft construction by Löfstedt (1966: 81), but rejected as such by Goria (2013: 155–6).
Here the sentence starting with temperantia can either be regarded as a normal def-
inition of what temperantia means, or, preferably, as a cleft sentence, in which tempe-
rantia is implicitly contrasted with the other cardinal virtues.
(g) Eademque ratione ne temperantiam quidem propter se expetendam esse
dicemus, sed quia pacem animis afferat et eos quasi concordia quadam
placet ac leniat. Temperantia est enim quae in rebus aut expetendis aut
fugiendis ut rationem sequamur monet.
(‘The same principle will lead us to pronounce that temperance also is not
desirable for its own sake, but because it bestows peace of mind, and soothes
the heart with a tranquillizing sense of harmony. For it is temperance that
warns us to be guided by reason in what we desire and avoid.’ Cic. Fin. 1.47)
The copula usually follows the subject and precedes the relative pronoun, as in the
examples above.37
Also cited in this context are instances like (h) and (i), which have a determiner.38
However, they are not cleft sentences, but ‘identity statements’ (see § 4.92): ea . . . quam
vis ducere uxorem and ii qui rem publicam occupavere are autonomous relative clauses
which function as subject complements.
(h) Dic mihi, si audes, quis ea est quam vis ducere uxorem?
(‘Tell me, please, who is this woman you want to marry?’ Pl. Aul. 170)
(i) At qui sunt ii qui rem publicam occupavere?
(‘But who are they who have seized upon our country?’ Sal. Jug. 31.12)
A related phenomenon is the use of quod clauses in combination with a form of

the verb sum and an adjunct constituent.39 A common type are evaluative adverbs,
as in ( j).
( j) Non temere est quod corvos cantat mihi nunc ab laeva manu.
(‘It’s not by chance that a raven was cawing to my left just now.’ Pl. Aul. 624)
Supplement:
Haud temere est quod tu tristi cum corde gubernas . . . (Enn. Ann. 482V=507S); Bene
autem quod omnia tempus revelat . . . (Tert. Apol. 7.13)
Other types of adjunct that are used with a quod clause are expressions of extent
of time and other temporal expressions, as in (k) and (l). In such cases cum (quom)
is more common, certainly in Early Latin, as in (m). For the use of quod with statim,
see (n).40 (For statim see also § 16.25.)
37 For the position of the verb sum in this type of clause, see Adams (1994b: 65). Hoffmann has only a
couple of exceptions in his sample of 131 instances (2016b: 203–4).
38 See Löfstedt (1966: 85–6).
39 See Rosén (1989a: 208–11) on what she calls ‘rhematizing of adverbials’. Goria (2013: 159–61) uses
the term ‘adjunct cleft’.
40 For later developments of ‘temporal’ quod, see Sz.: 580–1 and Adams (2016: 329), on a possible
instance in Passio Perp. 3.4.
Theme, setting, and tail 849
(k) Agite, pugni. Iam diu est quod (quom edd.) ventri victum non datis.
(‘Go on, fists. It has long been the case that you have not provided food for my stom-
ach.’ Pl. Am. 302)
(l) Tertius dies est quod audivi recitantem Sentium Augurinum cum summa
mea voluptate, immo etiam admiratione.
(‘It has been three days that I have been listening to Sentius Augurinus reciting his
work, which has given me the greatest pleasure, indeed even filled me with admir-
ation.’ Plin. Ep. 4.27.1)
(m) Hanc domum / iam multos annos est quom possideo et colo . . .
(‘It has been many years that I’ve been occupying this house and protecting it . . .’ Pl.
Aul. 3–4)
(n) Litteras ad te parum fraterne scripseram, quas . . . de pactione statim quod
audieram iracundius scripseram et revocare cupiebam.
(‘I had written you a not very brotherly letter which . . . I wrote in some irritation
immediately after hearing about the agreement and wanted to recall.’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.12)
Supplement:
Iam pridem videtur factum heri quod homines quattuor / in soporem collocastis
nudos. (Pl. Am. 303–4); Melius anno hoc mihi non fuit domi / nec (sc. fuit hoc anno)
quod una esca me iuverit magis. (Pl. Mos. 690–1); Inde adeo quod agrum in proxumo
hic mercatus es. (Ter. Hau. 54); . . . diuque est quod invicem diligimus ex aequo.
(Sidon. Ep. 7.6.1)
Quarto die navigationis quod imparati a Carteia profecti sine aqua fuissent ad ter-
ram adplicant. (B. Hisp. 37.3); . . . filii Israhel commorati sunt his diebus quod sanctus
Moyses ascendit in montem . . . (Pereg. 2.2)
Nam illi quidem hau sane diu est quom dentes exciderunt. (Pl. Mer. 541); Sic ut
istic leno non sex menses Megaribus / huc est quom commigravit. (Pl. Per. 137–8)
Iam diu factum est, postquam bibimus. Nimis diu sicci sumus. (Pl. Per. 822)
An example of a quod clause with a reason adjunct is (o).

(o) Et inde est quod Labienus, homo mentis quam linguae amarioris, dixit . . .
(‘And this is the reason that Labienus, a man whose mind was sharper than his
tongue, said . . .’ Sen. Con. 4.pr.2)
Supplement:
Inde est quod Socrates servo ait ‘caederem te, nisi irascerer’. (Sen. Dial. 3.15.3); Non
hoc est quod me felicem nuncupo. (Fro. Aur. 3.13.1)
22.13 The extraclausal functions theme, setting, and tail
Alongside the two intra-clausal pragmatic functions topic and focus, which concern
the information structure of the clause, two other pragmatic functions are distinguished,
namely theme and tail. These two do not form part of the clause itself, but precede
or follow it, respectively (they do belong to the sentence to which the clause belongs).41
In (a), the theme cancer ater indicates an entity about which the following clause pre-
sents relevant information. In that clause the anaphoric pronoun is is the topic; it is
coreferential with cancer ater. Another type of ante-clausal constituent is shown in
(b). Here, de forma signals a new domain of attention in the discourse which is devel-
oped in the following clause(s). There is no grammatical relation between de forma
and what follows. In (c), the tail omnes scilicet Lanuvini functions as a specification of
the topic permulti alii in the preceding clause.
(a) Cancer ater, is olet et saniem spurcam mittit. Albus purulentus est . . .
(‘As for the black ulcer, it has a foul odour and exudes putrid pus. The white is puru-
lent . . .’ Cato Agr. 157.3)
(b) De forma, ovem esse oportet corpore amplo . . .
(‘As for the form, a sheep ought to have a large body . . .’ Var. R. 2.2.3)
(c) Sed erant permulti alii ex quibus id facillime scire posset, omnes scilicet
Lanuvini.
(‘But there were many others from whom he might very easily have ascertained the
fact—any Lanuvian, for instance.’ Cic. Mil. 46)
Apart from the functions theme and tail, another extraclausal function ‘setting’, which
is introduced in § 22.15, is distinguished. The clausal and extraclausal functions are
shown schematically in Table 22.1.
Table 22.1 Clausal and extraclausal constituents

Anteclausal Clause Postclausal
Theme Topic Focus Tail
Setting
22.14 Theme constituents

The term theme is used for a constituent that does not form part of a clause but pre-
cedes it and serves to orient the addressee with respect to a discourse topic about
which the clause that follows presents information. In modern languages themes are
set off by intonation or, in writing, by a comma. A common term for it in generative
frameworks is ‘left-dislocation’.42 Two types of theme are distinguished in what
follows.
41 For the distinction made in this Syntax between clause and sentence, see § 2.3.
42 The definition of ‘theme’ is a paraphrase of Dik (1997: II.391). There too some considerations can
be found why the term ‘left-dislocation’ is misleading. ‘Theme’ has nothing to do with ‘thema’ in other
pragmatic approaches. The term ‘topicalization’ is used as well. The most detailed discussion of theme
constituents, which she calls ‘left-dislocations’, is Halla-aho (2018).
(i) One type of theme constituents concerns entities which are also explicitly or
implicitly present in the clause that follows. Such theme constituents are attested
from Early Latin onwards, but they are rare. They are avoided in, but not absent from,
literary classical prose. The example already given in § 22.13 is repeated here and
discussed in more detail.
(a) Cancer ater, is olet et saniem spurcam mittit. Albus purulentus est . . .
(‘As for the black ulcer, it has a foul odour and exudes putrid pus. The white is
purulent . . .’ Cato Agr. 157.3)
The two sentences in (a) are part of Cato’s ‘Canticle of the Cabbage’ and deal with a
certain type of brassica ‘cabbage’.43 In the preceding context Cato has already said that
cabbage is a good medicine for wounds and tumours. He now turns to the discussion
of the tumours, of which he distinguishes two types. The first one (black) is presented
in the form of a theme constituent and continued by is, which is the subject and topic
of the clause. The other one (white) is presented directly as subject and (contrastive)
topic in its clause. Thereafter comes the statement that cabbage, if macerated, will cure
such sores. The theme fulfils a discourse-structuring function.44 Another much
discussed instance is (b).
(b) (After talking of poor people in general) Sed urbana plebes, ea vero praeceps
erat de multis causis.
(‘But the city populace, it was truly reckless for many reasons.’ Sal. Cat. 37.4)
In the preceding context Sallust says that cuncta plebes ‘all the common people’ sup-
ported Catiline more suo ‘as is their custom’, which he then expands. Now he switches
to the urbana plebes and sets out to expound the many reasons why they sympathized
with Catiline. The choice of the theme construction is intended to mark this shift.
Note also the use of the adversative connector sed to mark the contrast.45
In (a) and (b) the theme constituents are in the nominative (see § 12.17), and this
is the regular situation. But the accusative is attested as well, as in (c),46 which appears
in a series of duties of the vilicus ‘overseer’, and, possibly, (d).
(c) Amicos domini, eos habeat sibi amicos.
(‘As for this master’s friends, he must consider these his own friends.’ Cato Agr. 5.3)
43 For the term ‘canticle’, see Leeman (1963: 21).

44 Havers (1925), in his discussion of instances like (a), called them emphatic, using the term ‘isoliert-
emphatischer Nominativ’. Criticism in Svennung (1936: 182), Wistrand (1936: 36–8), and Boon (1981).
45 It is not always possible to distinguish between theme and topic. Chausserie-Laprée (1969: Ch. 1)
points out that historians often place names of persons at the beginning of the sentence, as a kind of
paragraph marker. For discussion, see Bolkestein (1981a: 65–9), Serbat (1988a; 1991; 1996: 36–43),
Rosén (1992), Tóth (1994), Adams (2016: 94), Halla-aho (2016; 2018), and Bortolussi (2017). Further
distinctions are made by Hoffmann (1989), Somers (1994), and Cabrillana (1999a). For Late Latin
examples, see Tarriño (1996), Ortoleva (2012), and Bortolussi and Sznajder (2014).
46 For the term ‘anticipation’ and a discussion of this and similar instances in Cato, see Halla-aho (2018: 192).
(d) (Lucretia speaking) ‘Nec ulla deinde impudica Lucretiae exemplo vivet.’
Cultrum, quem sub veste abditum habebat, eum in corde defigit, prolap-
saque in volnus moribunda cecidit.
(‘ “Nor in time to come shall ever unchaste woman live through the example of
Lucretia.” Taking a knife which she had concealed beneath her dress, she plunged it
into her heart, and sinking forward upon the wound, died as she fell.’ Liv. 1.58.10)
Instances like (d) have received much attention because they allow various alternative
analyses. In addition to the description given in the text, cultrum quem might be taken
together as a relative phrase with the relative determiner postposed (see § 18.15, ex.
(n)). It seems better to take quem . . . habebat as a non-restrictive relative clause.
What (a)–(b) and (c)–(d) have in common is that the case form of the theme con-
stituent is the same as it would have been if it were part of the clause. Their case form
can be explained as due to ‘anticipation’ of the construction required by the main
verb. This is not the case in (e) and (f). The use of the nominative in such contexts is
often called nominativus pendens ‘hanging nominative’, because it is not related to the
verb or a comparable constituent.47
(e) Pater tuos, is erat frater patruelis meus, / et is me heredem fecit . . .
(‘Your father, he was my first cousin, and he made me his heir . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1069–70)
(f) Tum Anci filii duo . . . tum inpensius iis indignitas crescere, si . . .
(‘Now the two sons of Ancus . . . their indignation was vastly increased by the pros-
pect that if . . .’ Liv. 1.40.2)
Supplement:
Nominative: Aurum, id fortuna invenitur, natura ingenium bonum. (Pl. Poen. 302);
Thebae, quae ante cataclysmon Ogygi conditae dicuntur, eae tamen circiter duo milia
annorum et centum sunt. (Var. R. 3.1.3); IIII · vir(ei) · aidilesque · quei · h(ac)·
l(ege) · primei · erunt·, quei · eorum · Tarentum venerit ·, / is · in diebus · XX ·
proxumeis . . . / facito . . . (CIL I2.590.7–9 (Lex municipii Tarentini, Taranto, 1st cent.
bc (early))
Sed tu, / quid tibi est? (Pl. Bac. 1108–9); Tum piscatores, qui praebent populo
pisces foetidos, / qui . . . / quorum . . . / eis ego ora verberabo surpiculis piscariis . . . (Pl.
Capt. 813–16); Epidamniensis ill’ quem dudum dixeram / . . . / ei liberorum nisi divi-
tiae nihil erat. (Pl. Men. 57–9); Eius servos, qui hunc ferebat cum quinque argenti
minis, / tuam qui amicam hinc arcessebat, ei os sublevi modo. (Pl. Ps. 718–19);
Leonides Laco, qui simile apud Thermopylas fecit, propter eius virtutes omnis
Graecia gloriam atque gratiam praecipuam claritudinis inclitissimae decoravere
monumentis . . . (Cato hist. 83=76C);48 Ceterae philosophorum disciplinae, omnino
alia magis alia, sed tamen omnes quae rem ullam virtutis expertem aut in bonis aut
in malis numerent, eas non modo nihil adiuvare arbitror . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.11); Arma
quae ad me missuri eratis, iis censeo armetis milites quos vobiscum habetis. (Pomp.
47 Löfstedt (1985: 78–9) discusses instances in the Vulgate, also in the genitive and in the dative. For
Semitic influence, see Rubio (2009: 205–6).
48 For discussion of this instance, see Cornell ad loc., with references.
Att. 8.12a.4);49 Servitium contra paupertas divitiaeque, / libertas bellum concordia

cetera quorum / adventu manet incolumis natura abituque, / haec soliti sumus, ut par
est, eventa vocare. (Lucr. 1.455–8);50 Hic locus est partis ubi se via findit in ambas. /
Dextera, quae Ditis magni sub moenia tendit, / hac iter Elysium nobis. At
laeva . . . (Verg. A. 6.540–2); Signa aliaque ornamenta, quae quererentur ex aedibus
sacris sublata esse, de iis, cum M. Fulvius Romam revertisset, placere ad conlegium
pontificum referri, et quod ii censuissent, fieri. (Liv. 38.44.5); Lupus enim villam
intravit et omnia pecora . . . : tamquam lanius sanguinem illis misit. (Petr. 62.11)51
Ager rubricosus et terra pulla, materina, rudecta, harenosa, item quae aquosa non
erit, ibi lupinum bonum fiet. (Cato Agr. 34.2)
Accusative: Nunc hunc impurissumum / . . . Titanum . . . / ita mihi imperas ut ego
huius membra atque ossa . . . / comminuam . . . (Pl. Men. 853–6—NB: text is problem-
atic); Nam unum conclave concubinae quod dedit / miles . . . / in eo conclavi ego per-
fodi parietem . . . (Pl. Mil. 140–2); Columellam ferream quae in miliario stat, eam
rectam stare oportet in medio ad perpendiculum. (Cato Agr. 20.1)
NB: infinitives as theme: Nam idem velle atque idem nolle, ea demum firma amici-
tia est. (Sal. Cat. 20.4)52
Autonomous relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun share certain characteristics
with the theme constituents discussed in this section. See § 18.5 fin.53
Whereas in the examples shown so far the theme constituent is picked up by another
explicit constituent, there are also instances of nominative constituents where this is
not the case. In (g), a dative constituent is unexpressed with est visum.54 In (h), the
theme constituents return as nemini further on; in (i), as decumam partem. Such
instances can better be regarded as anacoluthons.
(g) Dum haec ita fierent rex Iuba . . . non est visum dari spatium convalescendi . . .
(‘While these events were taking place, king Juba . . . thought it advisable not to give
him any respite for recovering his strength . . .’ B. Afr. 25.1)
(h) Homines maritimi Syracusis . . . cum eius cruciatu atque supplicio pascere
oculos . . . vellent, potestas aspiciendi nemini facta est.
(‘The seafaring folk of Syracuse . . . longed to feast their eyes . . . with the spectacle of
his torture and execution, and none of them was allowed even to look at him.’ Cic.
Ver. 5.65)
(i) Familia vero babae babae, non mehercules puto decumam partem esse quae
dominum suum noverit.
(‘And his slaves! My word! I really don’t believe that one out of ten of them knows his
master by sight.’ Petr. 37.9)
49 This instance is taken as attractio inversa by K.-St.: II.290 and by Shackleton Bailey ad loc.
50 For theme constituents in Lucretius, see Halla-aho (2018: 145–52).
51 For this interpretation, see Rochette (2007: 285).
52 For discussion, see Halla-aho (2018: 218).
53 For discussion, see Halla-aho (2018: 8–10); for quantitative data, ibid. 10–15.
54 For discussion of this instance, see Adams (2005b: 92–3) and Halla-aho (2018: 219).
Supplement:
Homines plous V oinvorsei virei atque mulieres sacra ne quisquam /
fecise velet . . . (CIL I2.581.19–20 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)55
More explicit forms of announcing an entity are shown in ( j) and (k). The quod clauses
in these examples not only have a thematic function, but also indicate the status of the
information in the interaction between speaker and addressee. In this sense they
resemble the illocutionary disjunct purpose clauses discussed in § 16.50. Compare
also § 16.38 on respect clauses.
(j) Quod ad me attinet, iam pannos meos comedi, et si perseverat haec annona,
casulas meas vendam.
(‘As for me, I have already eaten my rags, and if food-prices keep up, I shall have to
sell my cottages.’ Petr. 44.15 (Ganymedes speaking))
(k) De Parthis quod quaeris, fuisse nullos puto.
(‘As for your question about the Parthians, I do not think there were any Parthians.’
Cic. Fam. 3.8.10)
(ii) The second type of theme constituents are prepositional phrases, especially those
with the preposition de ‘about’. Examples are (l), repeated from § 22.13, and (m).56
(l) De forma, ovem esse oportet corpore amplo . . .
(‘As for the form, a sheep ought to have a large body . . .’ Var. R. 2.2.3)
(m) De Pompeio, et facio diligenter et faciam quod mones.
(‘As for Pompey, I am doing my best and will do what you advise me to do.’ Cic. Q.
fr. 3.1.9)
Ex. (l) is part of a discussion about buying sheep. The first important thing mentioned
by the speaker, Atticus, is that a sheep must be good ab aetate ‘with respect to age’.
After a discussion of the importance of age, he proceeds to another aspect, de forma
‘with respect to its physical features’, the manifestations of which are explained. He
continues that it is of foremost importance that the sheep are boni seminis ‘from good
stock’. With de forma in initial position Cato marks the shift to a new stage of his
exposition. Its lack of integration in the clause makes it difficult to consider it an
adjunct of respect (see § 10.94). In the same way de Pompeio in (m) marks the shift to
a new stage in Cicero’s account, in which he has written about Caesar and will proceed
to discuss other matters after Pompey. Thus it is difficult to describe it as an adjunct
of respect.
Prepositional phrases with in are used in a similar way, as in (n).57 Here, Pliny shifts
from a discussion of miracles involving water to ones that occur in the mountains.
The shift is marked by the adversative connector verum in combination with the in
55 For discussion of this example, see Halla-aho (2018: 158–61).

56 On de as a marker of theme constituents, see Rosén (1992: 253–4; 1999: 158–9), Molinelli (1999),
and Weische (2005), with references. For further instances, see TLL s.v. de 76.44ff.
57 For a general discussion of the use of prepositions to mark theme constituents, see Rosén (1992:
253–4) and Weische (2005).
phrase, which is not part of the clause that follows, and which in fact pertains to add-
itional types of miracles mentioned later on.
(n) Namque et ignium, quod est naturae quartum elementum, reddamus aliqua
miracula, sed primum ex aquis. . . . Verum in montium miraculis, ardet
Aetna noctibus semper…
(‘For we must also report some marvels connected with fire, the fourth element of
nature, but first those arising from water. . . . But among mountain marvels, Etna
always glows at night . . .’ Plin. Nat. 2.235–6)
Supplement:
Nam de redducenda (sc. uxore), id vero ne utiquam honestum esse arbitror / nec
faciam . . . Ter. Hec. 403–4); De numero, in centum sues decem verres satis esse
putant. (Var. R. 2.4.22); De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor. (Cic. Att.
1.5.3); De Tadiana re, mecum Tadius locutus est te ita scripsisse, nihil esse iam quod
laboraretur, quoniam hereditas usu capta esset. (Cic. Att. 1.5.6); De domo et Curionis
oratione, ut scribis ita est. (Cic. Att. 3.20.2); De Tirone, mihi curae est. (Cic. Att.
12.49.3)
Quod ad pastiones attinet haec fere sunt. In nutricatu, cum parere coeperunt, ini-
gunt in stabula. (Var. R. 2.2.13–15); Itaque in probris . . . Contraque in laudibus, quae
magno animo et fortiter excellenterque gesta sunt, ea nescio quomodo quasi pleniore
ore laudamus. (Cic. Off. 1.61)58
Circa Felicitatem vero, et illi gratia Domini eiusmodi contigit. (Passio Perp. 15.1)
In (o) and (p), sometimes considered instances of theme constituents,59 the de phrases
are in fact respect adjuncts that are part of the clause (see § 10.94). In both cases the
persons referred to by hoc (homine) have been introduced in the immediately preced-
ing context and therefore they can function as topics. It is noteworthy that the de
constituents return in some form in the following accusative and infinitive clauses, as
subject in (o), as attribute in (p).
(o) Melitensis Diodorus est, qui apud vos antea testimonium dixit. Is . . . De hoc
Verri dicitur habere eum perbona toreumata . . .
(‘There is a man of Melita named Diodorus, whose evidence you have already heard.
He . . . It was reported to Verres about him that he owned some really good chased
silver . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.38)
(p) Duodequadraginta annos tyrannus Syracusanorum fuit Dionysius . . . Atqui
de hoc homine a bonis auctoribus sic scriptum accepimus summam fuisse
eius in victu temperantiam . . .
(‘For thirty-eight years Dionysius was tyrant of Syracuse . . . And yet about this man
we are told on the authority of trustworthy writers that while he was exceedingly
temperate in his way of life . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.57)
58 For discussion of this instance, see Weische (2005). 59 Inter alios, in LSS § 4.2.
Supplement (respect adjuncts):

De Africano quidem, quia notior est nobis propter recentem memoriam, vel iurare
possum non illum iracundia tum inflammatum fuisse . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.50); De
Censorino, Antonio, Cassiis, Scaevola, te ab iis diligi, ut scribis, vehementer gaudeo.
(Cic. Q. fr. 1.2.13); De adiectione quae adicitur in mediis columnis, quae apud
Graecos «x~l}t| appellatur, in extremo libro erit forma et ratio eius, quemadmodum
mollis et conveniens efficiatur, subscripta. (Vitr. 3.3.13); De volutarum descriptioni-
bus, uti ad circinum sint recte involutae, quemadmodum describantur, in extremo
libro forma et ratio earum erit subscripta. (Vitr. 3.5.8)
NB: without a resumptive pronoun: De te tamen fama constans nec decipi posse
nec vinci. (Cic. Fam. 10.20.1)60
22.15 Setting constituents

Setting constituents specify ‘when and where (and under which circumstances)’ the
following contribution to the discourse will take place.61 Examples are (a)–(c). In his
discussion of the appropriateness of the term ‘senatus’, the speaker Cato adds a paral-
lel from Sparta in (a). In (b), Pliny moves on to a new section on thunderbolts. In (c),
Virgil uses the adverb to mark the beginning of a new episode. Ablative absolute
clauses also commonly function as settings, as in (d).62 Ex. (e) shows a combination
of two different types of setting in one sentence. Apart from their sentence-initial
position, they are difficult to distinguish from space and time adjuncts.
(a) Apud Lacedaemonios quidem ii qui amplissimum magistratum gerunt, ut
sunt sic etiam nominantur senes.
(‘Among the Lacedaemonians, for example, those who fill their chief magistracies are
called elders, as they are in fact.’ Cic. Sen. 20)
(b) Hieme et aestate rara fulmina contrariis de causis . . .
(‘In winter and in summer thunderbolts are rare from opposite causes . . .’ Plin. Nat.
2.135)
(c) Interea Aeneas urbem designat aratro / sortiturque domos.
(‘Meanwhile Aeneas marks out the city with a plough and allots homes.’ Verg. A.
5.755–6)
(d) His rebus confectis Caesar . . . milites in proxima municipia deducit.
(‘After finishing this business Caesar withdrew his men to towns in the immediate
vicinity.’ Caes. Civ. 1.32.1)
(e) Interim Romae C. Mamilius Limetanus tribunus plebis rogationem ad
populum promulgat . . .
(‘Meanwhile, at Rome, the plebeian tribune Gaius Mamilius Limetanus proposed to
the people a bill . . .’ Sal. Jug. 40.1)
60 Cited by Dougan in his comment on ex. (p). 61 See Dik (1997: I.396–8).
62 See de Jong (1989: 529–31) and Spevak (2010a: 68–72).
22.16 Tail constituents

Tail constituents are postclausal constituents that function as a specification of a con-
stituent in the clause itself.63 Thus in (a), hanc is specified by sacram urnam Veneris.
Sceleris semen in (b) is rather a negative qualification of is. Ex. (c) resembles partitive
apposition, as discussed in § 11.88. Whereas in (a)–(c) the tail constituents have the
same morphosyntactic properties as the constituents they specify, in the same way as
nominal appositives do (see § 11.80), (d) is different: here the dative tibi is due to
inverse attraction by the relative quoi.64 A tail constituent may be accompanied by
dico ‘I mean’, as in (e).65
(a) Sed autem, quid si hanc hinc apstulerit quispiam, / sacram urnam Veneris?
(‘But what if someone takes it away from here, the sacred pot of Venus?’ Pl. Rud.
472–3)
(b) Is huc erum etiam ad prandium vocavit, sceleris semen.
(‘He even invited my master here to lunch, that fount of infamy.’ Pl. Rud. 327)
(c) Hercle te hau sinam emoriri, nisi mi argentum redditur, / viginti minae.
(‘God, no. I won’t let you die, unless I’m paid the money, twenty minas.’ Pl. Ps.
1222–3)
(d) Ego te hodie reddam madidum, si vivo, probe, / tibi quoi decretum est bibere
aquam.
(‘I’ll get you properly soaked today, as truly as I live, you with your decision to drink
water.’ Pl. Aul. 573–4)66
(e) Adfert in his momentum et aetas et sexus et pignora, liberi, dico, et parentes
et propinqui.
(‘Age, sex, and his “pledges”—that is to say, his childeren, parents, and relatives—all
add force to this.’ Quint. Inst. 6.1.24)
Supplement:
Ait se ob asinos ferre argentum atriensi Saureae, / viginti minas . . . (Pl. As. 347–8);
Qui mihi omnis angulos / furum implevisti in aedibus, misero mihi . . . (Pl. Aul. 551–2);
Em istic homo te articulatim concidit, senex, / tuos servos. (Pl. Epid. 488–9); Sed
erant permulti alii ex quibus id facillime scire posset, omnes scilicet Lanuvini. (Cic.
Mil. 46); Sequebatur raeda cum lenonibus, comites nequissimi. (Cic. Phil. 2.58);
Avaritiam si tollere voltis, mater eius est tollenda, luxuries. (Cic. de Orat. 2.171);
Priori Remo augurium venisse fertur, sex voltures. (Liv. 1.7.1)
63 See Dik (1997: I.401–3), who, in addition, also recognizes parenthetical tails that ‘pertain to some
constituent within the clause’. For discussion, see Spevak (2014a: 326–9), with references, and Cabrillana
(2019a).
64 Most of the examples are taken from Hofmann (1951: 120).
65 For the clarifying function of dico with tails and other extraclausal constituents, see Cabrillana
(2019a).
66 Discussed by Tóth (1994: 190).
Tail constituents resemble clausal appositions with respect to their postclausal pos-
ition, but they are different in other respects (see § 11.90).67 They also differ from
various expression types at the end of sentences which function as some form of after-
thought, such as the ablative absolute clause in (f) (see also § 16.89) and the parti-
cipial secondary predicate in (g) (see also § 21.7).68 Another type is shown in (h) and
(i). Unlike the tails discussed above, the expressions in these examples do not func-
tion as a specification of a constituent in the preceding clause; rather, they are loosely
attached constituents of the sentence, presenting in a disjunct-like manner a com-
ment of the author on the content of the preceding clause.
(f) In his rebus circiter dies X consumit, ne nocturnis quidem temporibus ad
laborem militum intermissis.
(‘Upon this business he spent about ten days, allowing no interruption even at night-
time in the work of the troops.’ Caes. Gal. 5.11.6)
(g) Et ipse paucis diebus eodem profectus est, iussus a senatu Italia decedere.
(‘A few days later he himself set out for the same destination, having been ordered by
the senate to leave Italy.’ Sal. Jug. 35.9)
(h) Sed Tiberius pro confecto interpretatus id quoque Blaeso tribuit ut imperator
a legionibus salutaretur, prisco erga duces honore qui bene gesta re publica
gaudio et impetu victoris exercitus conclamabantur.
(‘Tiberius, however, chose to treat it as ended, and even conferred on Blaesus the
privilege of being saluted Imperator by his legions, a time-honoured tribute to gen-
erals who, after a successful campaign, were acclaimed by the joyful and spontaneous
voice of a conquering army.’ Tac. Ann. 3.74.4)
(i) Catilina longe a suis inter hostium cadavera repertus est, pulcherrima morte,
si pro patria sic concidisset.
(‘Catiline was discovered far in front of his fellows amid the dead bodies of his foes,
a most glorious death, if he had thus fallen fighting for his country.’ Flor. Epit. 2.12.12)
22.17 Contrast and emphasis

The concepts topic and focus deal with the way the speaker or writer chooses to
distribute the information of a clause, the former being the element that constitutes
the point of departure for the information, the latter the element which he considers
particularly noteworthy for the addressee to learn about the topic. Contrast and
emphasis, however, concern means with which the speaker or writer can give
67 For various types of ‘right-dislocation’, see Spevak (2013).

68 The term in French publications is ‘rallonge’. For its use by the historians, see Chausserie-Laprée
(1969: 283–338). For Tacitus’ usage, see Longrée (1996b); for Late Latin historians, Kiss (2016). See also
Nutting (1920; 1928: 10–11). See also § 19.68 on epitactic coordination.
Contrast and emphasis 859
pragmatic prominence to certain elements of that clause. contrast involves ‘the con-
frontation between two elements’ that ‘either share some property or differ in some
property’.69 Emphasis ‘is a means that serves the speaker or writer to express his per-
sonal evaluation of information.’70 Contrastive elements are usually also emphatic,
but there is also non-contrastive emphasis. In modern spoken languages these two
means of giving prominence are often marked by intonation alongside, among other
things, emphasizing particles and word order. For our Latin texts, once again, inton-
ation is not available. The next sections deal with ways of expressing contrast and
emphasis in Latin.
22.18 Contrast
Contrast between two elements can be expressed explicitly, but often it must be
inferred in some other way. In (a), both entities of a contrastive pair are present in the
same clause, one of which is replaced by means of the combination non + adversative
coordinator sed. In (b), there is a contrast between multiple elements that belong
to two adversatively coordinated clauses: video vs. vidi and nunc vs. modo. In (c),
Amphitryon appeals to his slave Sosia to confirm his identity and his whereabouts the
night before and so, by implication, to act as his witness. Alcmena, his wife, who is
convinced that he has been with her (in reality it was Jupiter), says that she too has her
witnesses. Mihi is contrastive, which also appears from the emphasizing particle
quoque. Note that tu in the first sentence is also contrastive (with Alcmena), as is indi-
cated by the emphasizing particle saltem.71
(a) Illuc sis vide, / non ‘paedagogum’ iam me sed ‘Lydum’ vocat.
(‘Just look at that! He isn’t calling me “tutor” any longer, but “Lydus”.’ Pl. Bac. 137–8)
(b) Quin [ergo] commonstras, si vides (sc. amicam)? / # Non video hercle nunc,
sed vidi modo.
(‘Why don’t you show me if you can see her? # I can’t see her now, but I just did.’ Pl.
Mer. 894–5)
(c) Pro di immortales, cognosci’n tu me saltem, Sosia? / # Propemodum. #
Cenavin’ ego heri in navi in portu Persico? / # Mihi quoque assunt testes qui
illud quod ego dicam assentiant.
(‘Immortal gods, can you at least recognize me, Sosia? # Just about. # Didn’t I have
dinner on the ship yesterday, in Port Persicus? # I also have witnesses to corroborate
what I’m saying.’ Pl. Am. 822–4)
69 Quoted from Spevak (2010a: 45), who refers to de Jong (1983: 132). For the distinction between
contrast (he uses the term ‘antithesis’) and emphasis, see also (Adams 1976a: 78–80).
70 Quoted from de Jong (1989: 528) and Spevak (2010a: 47).
71 For the contrastive use of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives, see Fruyt (2008) and Spevak
(2010a: 46; 92–3). Exx. (f), (j), and (m) are taken from Spevak.
Examples of contrast between two elements, which are asyndetically coordinated and
so lack an overt marker, are (d)–(f). The contrast results from the semantic relations
between the two elements and is supported by the parallel structure.
(d) Nam crudelitatis mater avaritia’st, pater furor.
(‘For avarice is the mother of cruelty, fury the father.’ Rut. Lup. 2.6)
(e) O tenebrae, o lutum, o sordes, o paterni generis oblite, materni vix memor!
(‘O darkened eyes! O bemired and dingy soul! O forgetful of your father’s line, with
scarce a memory even of your mother’s!’ Cic. Pis. 62)
(f) . . . cum ab ista parte iudici pecuniam ante iudicium datam, post iudicium
ereptam esse fateamini?
(‘. . . when you confess that it was by your side that money was given to one of the
jurors before the trial, and wrested from him after it?’ Cic. Clu. 65)
Certain words are contrastive on account of their meaning. In Cicero’s correspond-

ence, for example, the possessive adjectives meus and tuus are by implication con-
trastive, as in (g). The intensifier ipse in its ‘pregnant’ use (see §§ 11.144–5) is inherently
contrastive, as in (h) and in (k).72
(g) Scriberem plura si rem causamque nossem. Nunc quae scribo scribo ex
opinione hominum atque fama. Tuas litteras avide exspecto.
(‘I should write more if I knew the facts of the case. As it is, what I write is based on
public opinion and rumour. I am eagerly waiting to hear from you.’ Cic. Fam. 12.4.2)
(h) Ipse ego is sum, adulescens, quem tu quaeris.
(‘I myself am the chap you’re looking for, young man.’ Pl. Ps. 979)
Both topic and focus constituents can be contrastive. Examples of contrastive topic
constituents are (i)–(l), the first three being typical examples of ‘topic shift’.
(i) Hostes crebri cadunt, nostri contra ingruont.
(‘The enemy was falling in heaps, our men were advancing against them.’ Pl. Am. 236)
( j) Oleum dato in menses unicuique sextarium I. Salis unicuique in anno
modium satis est.
(‘Issue a pint of oil a month per person. A modius of salt a year per person is suffi-
cient.’ Cato Agr. 58.1)
(k) Partito exercitu T. Labienum cum legionibus tribus ad Oceanum versus in
eas partes quae Menapios attingunt proficisci iubet, C. Trebonium cum pari
legionum numero ad eam regionem quae Atuatucis adiacet depopulandam
mittit, ipse cum reliquis tribus ad flumen Scaldim, quod influit in Mosam,
extremasque Arduennae partes ire constituit . . .
72 On the additive and scalar uses of ipse, see Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 19–21).
(‘Having divided the army, he ordered Titus Labienus to proceed with three legions
towards the districts which touch the Menapii; Gaius Trebonius with an equal num-
ber of legions to devastate the region which adjoins the Aduatuci; and he determined
to march himself with the remaining three to the river Scheldt, which flows into the
Meuse, and to the uttermost parts of the Ardennes . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.33.1–3)
(l) Quid autem si filium post testamentum natum ex besse, filiam autem post
testamentum natam ex triente scripsit heredem nec ullum coheredem dedit
nec substituit invicem alium? Unus natus solus ex testamento fit heres.
(‘But what if he appointed a son born after the will as heir to two-thirds, but a daughter
born after the will to a third and he did not either name a co-heir or substitute anyone
else in turn? If only one is born, he will become heir under the will.’ Tryph. dig. 28.2.28.4)
Examples of contrastive focus constituents are (m)–(o).

(m) Ampsigura mater mihi fuit, Iahon pater.
(‘My mother was Ampsigura, and my father Iahon.’ Pl. Poen. 1065)
(n) Quibus (sc. navibus) effectis armatisque diebus XXX a qua die materia caesa
est adductisque Massiliam his D. Brutum praeficit, C. Trebonium legatum
ad oppugnationem Massiliae relinquit.
(‘These were finished and equipped within thirty days from when the trees were cut
down, then brought to Marseilles. He put Decimus Brutus in charge of the ships and
left his officer Gaius Trebonius for the assault on Marseilles.’ Caes. Civ. 1.36.5)
(o) . . . edoctus interdiu tantum obsideri saltum, nocte in sua quemque dilabi
tecta luce prima subiit tumulos . . .
(‘. . . having learned that his enemies guarded the pass only by day, and at night dis-
persed, every man to his own home, he advanced up the hills as soon as it was light, . . .’
Liv. 21.32.10)
Instances of parallel focus,73 where topic and focus constituents are both con-
trasted, are quite common, as in some of the examples above and in (p) and (q).
(p) Ex quibus (sc. legionibus) unam in Morinos ducendam C. Fabio legato dedit,
alteram in Nervios Q. Ciceroni, tertiam in Essuvios L. Roscio. Quartam in
Remis cum T. Labieno in confinio Treverorum hiemare iussit.
(‘One of the legions he gave to Gaius Fabius, the lieutenant-general, to be led into the
country of the Morini, a second to Quintus Cicero for the Nervii, a third to Lucius
Roscius for the Esubii; a fourth, with Titus Labienus in command, he ordered to
winter among the Remi on the border of the Treveri.’ Caes. Gal. 5.24.2)
(q) Eodemque die . . . exercitum educunt, Pompeius clam et noctu, Caesar palam
atque interdiu.
(‘On the same day . . . they led the troops out, Pompey secretly and by night, Caesar
openly and by day.’ Caes. Civ. 3.30.3)
73 The term ‘parallel focus’ is taken from Dik (1997: I.332).

As the examples used in this section show, the entities that are contrasted belong to
various lexical categories and function at various levels of their clause or sentence.
Contrastive elements are often in the initial or second position in their clause or sen-
tence, as mihi in (c), filium in (l), and C. Trebonium legatum in (n), as well as mulier in
(r) and nocte in (s). The early placement of a contrastive member of a phrase may lead
to discontinuity, as with salis separated from its head modum in ( j). Further details
can be found in § 23.87.
(r) Mulier quicquid dixerat, / idem ego dicebam.
(‘Whatever the woman said, I’d say the same.’ Pl. Men. 483–4)
(s) Et haec quidem interdiu. Nocte vero, quo commodior quies veniat, non
alienum est superinponere candidi panis interiorem partem ex vino
subactam.
(‘These applications are made by day. At night, in order better to assure sleep, it is not
inappropriate to apply above the eye, the crumb of white bread soaked in wine.’ Cels.
6.6.1.K)
22.19 Emphasis
The term ‘emphasis’ is defined in § 22.17 as ‘a means that serves the speaker or writer
to express his personal evaluation of information’. Some scholars use the term in a
wider sense, to cover also what is called ‘focus’ in this Syntax, that is, the part of a
clause that is ‘informationally prominent’, ‘the most relevant part of the message’, or
‘information focus’.74 Whereas ‘focus’ in the sense of this Syntax concerns the speak-
er’s assessment of the newsworthiness of a piece of information for the addressee,
emphasis reflects the importance the speaker himself attaches to a piece of informa-
tion: the orientation of ‘focus’ and ‘emphasis’ is opposite. Both topic and focus con-
stituents may be emphasized, but other constituents may be as well. In contemporary
spoken languages intonation plays an important role in marking emphasis, but what-
ever its role in Latin was, it is inaccessible to us. However, Latin has several other
devices, which are briefly discussed here and which receive a more systematic treat-
ment in later sections.
(i) The most explicit way to mark a constituent as emphatic is by using an empha-
sizing particle, for instance quidem, as in (a) and (b).75 In (a), the preparative pronoun
illud, focus in its clause, is placed in the first position of the sentence, separated by
three words from the clause it announces. Its prominent role in the sentence is rein-
forced by the addition of the emphasizer quidem. In (b), quidem separates the posses-
sive adjective meam from its head noun spem. Meam is in opposition to vestram, and
74 ‘Information focus’ is distinguished from ‘purely emotive emphasis’ by Quirk et al. (1985: 1414–16).
75 Exx. (b) and (d) are discussed as non-contrastive emphatic instances of quidem by Solodow
(1978: 98).
quidem indicates that, even if the assumption credo item vestram is wrong, Cicero
insists on his personal feelings. For details on emphasizing particles, see §§ 22.20–40.
(a) Illud quidem fatebitur Scaptius, me ius dicente sibi omnem pecuniam ex
edicto meo auferendi potestatem fuisse.
(‘Scaptius will at least admit this: that under my ruling he had the chance of taking
the whole of the money on the terms laid down in my edict.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.7)
(b) Auxerat autem meam quidem spem, credo item vestram, quod domum
Antoni adflictam maestitia audiebam . . .
(‘My hopes rose, as I expect yours did as well, from the report that gloom reigned in
Antonius’ house . . .’ Cic. Phil. 12.2)
(ii) Word order alone is an important device in Latin to make a sentence or part of a
sentence informationally or emphatically appropriate.76 Discontinuity of constituents
that belong to the same phrase is one of the means, as is shown in (c) and (d). In (c),
mea is placed in first position of the main clause and separated by three words from
its head fide to emphasize that the speaker assumes personal responsibility. The
combination of discontinuity and placement in first position in the clause is in itself
sufficient to emphasize mea, but this can be reinforced lexically by adding quidem
immediately after mea, as in (d), with four constituents between mea and vita.
(c) Quin ea te causa duco, . . . / illum ut sanum facias. # Perfacile id quidem est. /
Sanum futurum, mea ego id promitto fide.
(‘Well I’m hiring you to heal him. # That’s very easy. He shall be well, I promise you
that on my honour.’ Pl. Men. 892–4)
(d) Mea quidem hercle certe in dubio vita’st.
(‘My life’s at risk for sure.’ Ter. An. 347)
Another way to produce discontinuity is shown in (e) and (f).77 In (e), nulla is separ-
ated from cupiditas for reasons of emphasis. This discontinuity is created by the inser-
tion of the personal pronoun me. In instances like this, when personal pronouns do
not themselves have an important role in the information structure of their clause,
they are often placed immediately after an emphatic constituent. In (f), huius civitatis,
the topic of the clause, is split up by the verb form est, which like other forms of the
verb sum often follows an emphatic word, in this case huius; the emphasis signals that
other states have less authority. However, when a form of sum is informationally
important, it can be placed in first position, as in (g), where it precedes both the topic
is and the focus maxime et opacus et frigidus. The initial position serves to emphasize
the assertion as a whole: ‘it really is’.78
76 For the expression ‘informationally appropriate’, see Quirk et al. (1985: 1365).
77 The examples are taken from Adams (1994b: 1; 25).
78 For discussion of this example, see Adams (1994b: 73). For the placement of est and personal
pronouns, see Spevak (2006a: 261–72).
(e) De triumpho autem nulla me cupiditas umquam tenuit ante Bibuli impuden-
tissimas litteras . . .
(‘With regard to the Triumph, I was never in the least eager until Bibulus sent that
quite shameless letter . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.2.6)
(f) Huius est civitatis longe amplissima auctoritas . . .
(‘This state has by far the most extensive authority . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.8.1)
(g) Est enim is (sc. locus) maxime et opacus et frigidus.
(‘For it is very shady and very cool.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.18)
Another way to emphasize a particular constituent is to put an extraclausal element
after the word to be emphasized, such as sis ‘please’ in (h).79
(h) Age aspice huc, sis, nunciam / tu qui quae facta infitiare.
(‘Go on, look here now, will you, you who denies what’s happened.’ Pl. Am. 778–9)
In addition to discontinuity and position, there is a third way in which word order can
have an emphasizing function, viz. the relative order of constituents of a phrase. In the
expression meā sententiā (ablative, serving as an attitudinal disjunct: ‘in MỲ opinion’)
mea precedes; the reverse order is not attested in the PHI corpus for this meaning:
sententia mea means ‘my oPÌNion’.80 There is further discussion of this aspect of word
order in Chapter 23.
(iii) The clitic -ne is usually attached to the first word of an interrogative sentence (see
§ 6.11 and § 23.37), which in this way is emphasized. Examples are (i) and ( j). In (i),
an indignant Mercurius, alias Sosia, wants to verify whether (the real) Sosia really
dares to say that he is Sosia. In ( j), a furious Megaronides wants to verify whether his
friend Callicles did indeed buy the house in front of which they are standing from the
young man mentioned a few lines before. The particle is attached to emisti, which is
focus of the clause and in the first position, to lend it further emphasis.81 However, the
constituent emphasized by -ne may also be placed later in the sentence, for example,
when it is preceded by a topic constituent, as in (k). See also § 23.37.
(i) Tun’ te audes Sosiam esse dicere, / qui ego sum?
(‘You dare to say that you are Sosia, the one I am?’ Pl. Am. 373–4)
( j) Emistin’ de adulescente has aedis—quid taces?— / ubi nunc tute habitas? #
Emi atque argentum dedi, / minas quadraginta, adulescenti ipsi in manum. /
# Dedistin’ argentum?
(‘Did you buy this house from the young man—why are you quiet?—where you
yourself live now? # I did buy it and I paid the young man himself cash down, forty
minas. # You paid him?’ Pl. Trin. 124–7)
79 On the role of sis as an emphasizer, see Dickey (2006).

80 Using the coding of accentuation by Quirk et al. (1985).
81 For a comparative analysis of questions with and without -ne, see Schrickx (2017).
Emphasizing particles 865
(k) Sed, quaeso, epistula mea ad Varronem valdene tibi placuit?

(‘But pray, my letter to Varro, didn’t you like it more than a little?’ Cic. Att. 13.25.3)
(iv) For accusative and ablative forms of the personal pronouns me, te, se there are
reduplicated forms, such as sese, which are sometimes regarded as emphasizing
devices. Latin has also a number of suffixes which are attached to personal pronouns
and/or possessive adjectives, such as -pte in the expression suapte natura in (l). They
usually emphasize the word they are attached to. For details, see § 22.41.
(l) Atque esse tamen multos videmus qui neminem imitentur et suapte natura
quod velint sine cuiusquam similitudine consequantur.
(‘Nevertheless we see that there are many who imitate no one, but accomplish what
they want on the strength of their own natural abilities, without resembling anyone.’
Cic. de Orat. 2.98—tr. adapted from May and Wisse)
22.20 Emphasizing particles

Emphasizing particles relate to a part of a clause or of a phrase and serve to empha-
size that particular part. In § 22.18, the particle quoque ‘also’ illustrates the use of
an emphasizing particle with a contrastive element. Another example is (a), where
quoque indicates that the Placentini constitute the addition of another type of soldiers,
and where at the same time it emphasizes the contrast between the two adjectives. For
the relationship between quoque and Placentinis the term ‘scope’ (see § 6.8) is used:
quoque has Placentinis in its scope. Note that quoque follows the word in its scope.
(For the position of these particles, see § 23.34.)
(a) Opus Panicis (sc. militibus) est, opus Placentinis quoque.
(‘You need those from Breading and you also need those from the Cake District.’ Pl.
Capt. 162)
Whereas quoque is only used as an emphasizing particle (but see § 22.22), there are
other words that are occasionally, and often only in a specific context, used in a
similar way. An example is the adverb imprimis (or in primis) ‘above all’. In (b), in
primis has haec civitas in its scope; it singles out this specific city and emphasizes
its exceptional status relative to the rest of Sicily. It is part of an epitactic conjoin
(see § 19.67), a typical context for this interpretation. In (c), by contrast, in primis
does not emphasize a particular word, but relates to the clause as a whole (it is a
degree adjunct—see § 10.68), which is one of its regular usages (for details, see
§ 22.36).
(b) Sunt omnes Siculi non contemnendi . . . sed homines et satis fortes et plane
frugi ac sobrii, et in primis haec civitas de qua loquor . . .
(‘The Sicilians are, all of them, a far from contemptible race . . . they are really quite
fine fellows, thoroughly honest and well-behaved; and this is notably true of the
community of which I am speaking . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.67)
(c) Quod cum ita sit resque eius modi sit ut in primis a magistratibus animad-
vertenda videatur, iterum quaero sitne eius rei aliqua actio an nulla.
(‘This being so and the case being such that the magistrates seem to need to pay spe-
cial attention to it, I ask again whether there is a legal process in my case or not.’ Cic.
Caec. 33)
Emphasizing particles like quoque, which are typically used with a constituent in their
scope, have different characteristics from words and expressions like in primis. The
former cannot be coordinated (by et, atque, -que, sed) with similar words, cannot be
followed by quidem, and are excluded from sentence-initial position. By contrast,
such restrictions do not apply to adverbs and adverbial expressions like in primis.
In the case of the only attested sequence et quoque in the PHI corpus, quoted in (d),
et does not coordinate quoque, but the whole clause, with quoque meaning ‘even’ (see
§ 22.22).
(d) Volt placere sese amicae, volt mihi, volt pedisequae, / volt famulis, volt etiam
ancillis; et quoque catulo meo / subblanditur novos amator, se ut quom
videat gaudeat.
(‘He wants to please his girlfriend, he wants to please me, he wants to please
the waiting-woman, he wants to please the servants, he even wants to please the
maids; and a new lover even tries to make friends with my little dog so that
he’s happy when it sees him.’ Pl. As. 183–5)
Instead of ‘emphasizing particle’ many linguists use the term ‘focus particle’. In Vol. I
I have used the term ‘focusing particle’ and ‘focusing subjunct’. The term ‘particle’ is
also used in a more general way for any uninflected word (see also §§ 3.26–7).
Scholars vary in their use of the labels ‘particle’ and ‘adverb’. In fact, the OLD calls
quoque an adverb and quidem a particle.82 Obviously, both ‘emphasizing’ and ‘focus’
in this combination with ‘particle’ are only indirectly related to the way ‘focus’ is
defined in this Syntax. Sometimes I shall use the term ‘emphasizing particle’ in a
general sense for ‘expressions that function as an emphasizing particle’. Etiam is a
good example. In this Chapter I call it a particle, but in its use with comparative
expressions (see § 20.10, Appendix) I take it as an adverb.
There are languages that have an ‘empty’ emphasizing particle, without a lexical
meaning of its own. The Latin particle that comes closest is quidem.83
Three main types of emphasizing particles are distinguished: additive particles,

exclusive particles, and particularizing particles.84 An example of an additive
particle is quoque ‘also’ in (a) and (e). By using quoque in (e), Cicero says that a
82 For recent discussion, see Rosén (2009: 327 and passim) and Kroon (2011: 176–7), with references.
Quirk et al. (1985: 604–5) use the term ‘emphasizing subjunct’ to describe the relationship of these words
with their host constituents (they also recognize other types of ‘subjunct’). The OLD s.v. adeo2 § 8 uses the
term ‘ancillary particle’.
83 For a discussion of ‘empty focus markers’, see König (1991: 29).
84 Following the terminology of Quirk et al. (1985: 604). See also Rosén (2009: 323 and 361), who
distinguishes the same three types, albeit with a different terminology. The distinction is mainly on broad
semantic grounds.
supplementary ballot had been used in other cases. By using the exclusive particle
solum in (f), Cicero says that the other cities were exclusively bothered by their own
troubles and not by those of other cities (as the continuation of the sentence shows).
By using the particularizing particle quidem in (g), Cicero indicates that his statement
concerns predominantly the minds of the judges.
(e) Eiusmodi subsortitionem homo amentissimus suorum quoque iudicum fore
putavit per sodalem suum Q. Curtium . . .
(‘The insane scoundrel thought that he could manage a supplementary ballot of the
same kind for the judges who were to try himself by the help of his comrade Quintus
Curtius. . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.158)
(f) . . . ceterae civitates suis solum incommodis commoventur, Centuripini . . .
etiam ceterarum civitatum damna ac detrimenta senserunt.
(‘. . . the other places were roused by their own troubles only, whereas the Centuripans
have also been sensitive to the losses and injuries sustained by all those others.’ Cic.
Ver. 3.108)
(g) Sed si certorum hominum mentis nulla ratione, iudices, placare possumus,
vestros quidem animos certe confidimus non oratione nostra, sed humani-
tate vestra esse placatos.
(‘But if, gentlemen, there are no means by which we can appease the feelings of cer-
tain men, I am fully confident that your minds have been appeased, not by words of
mine but by your own human feelings.’ Cic. Balb. 62)
In (e) and (f) the particles immediately follow the word in their scope (they are ‘post-
positive’—exceptions can be found in §§ 22.21, 24, 26). Quidem in (g) emphasizes the
noun phrase vestros . . . animos as a whole, but follows the first word of that phrase (see
§ 23.34). The particles fulfil no function at the clause level, unlike adjuncts. They can
have all sorts of content words and phrases in their scope. This is illustrated in (h)–(o)
for quoque: (h), with a verb (rare); (i), with a noun; ( j), with a personal pronoun; (k),
with an anaphoric pronoun; (l), with an adjective; (m), with a possessive adjective;
(n), with a determiner; (o), with an adverb.85 For an accumulation of contrastive
elements, see (p).
(h) . . . sentio, suspicio / quae te sollicitet: eum esse cum illa muliere. / # Immo est
quoque.
(‘I’ve been feeling what suspicion is troubling you: that he is with that woman. # Yes,
he is with her.’ Pl. Bac. 890–2)
(i) Servos ancillas amove. Atque audi’n? # Quid est? / # Uxorem quoque eampse
hanc rem uti celes face.
(‘Send away your male and female slaves. And can you hear me? # What is it? # Make
sure that you conceal this business also from your wife herself.’ Pl. Trin. 799–800)
85 Convenient collections of instances in Lodge s.v. and Merguet (Reden) s.v.

( j) Hic hodie cenato, leno. # Fiat, condicio placet. / # Sequimini intro. Spectatores,
vos quoque ad cenam vocem, / ni daturus nil sim . . .
(‘Have dinner here today, pimp. # Yes, I like the invitation. # Follow me in, you two.
Spectators, I’d also invite you to dinner, were it not for the fact that I’m not going to
give any . . .’ Pl. Rud. 1417–19)
(k) . . . ‘quoi sit uxor’, id quoque illuc ponito ad compendium.
(‘. . . “you who have a wife”, stow that away as well.’ Pl. Cas. 519)
(l) Eundemque te memini censorias quoque leges in sartis tectis exigendis
tollere . . .
(‘I remember that it was you too who also changed or annulled the censor’s regula-
tions that govern contracts for the upkeep of public buildings . . .’ Cic. Ver. 3.16)
(m) Sapienti ornatus quid velim indicium facit. / # Meus quoque hic sapienti
ornatus quid velim indicium facit.
(‘My getup shows a sensible person what I want. # This getup of mine also shows a
sensible person what I want.’ Pl. Rud. 428–9)
(n) Ad eam sententiam cum reliquis causis haec quoque ratio eos deduxit quod . . .
(‘To this opinion they were brought, among the other reasons, by this particular
consideration also, that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 2.10.5)
(o) Non modo ipsa lepida’st, commode quoque hercle fabulatur.
(‘Not only is she herself pretty, my god, she also speaks in a pleasant way.’ Pl. Cist. 315)
(p) Ego pol te faciam, scelus, / te quoque etiam ipsum ut lamenteris.
(‘I’ll make sure that even you yourself lament also, you criminal.’ Pl. Per. 743–4)
The situation is different in the case of in primis and saltem. When they have a con-
stituent in their scope they can follow it immediately, as in (q) and (r), but this order
is optional—see ex. (c) above.86
(q) Quare pudor in primis est ad eam rem inpedimento . . .
(‘Hence it is in the first place a sense of shame which keeps us from following this
practice . . .’ Rhet. Her. 4.2)
(r) Civilis enim dissensionis . . . non est iste molestus exitus, in quo reliquos
saltem civis incolumis licet conservare.
(‘Of civil dissensions . . . that end is not so grievous in which we are at least allowed to
preserve the rest of our citizens unharmed.’ Cic. Ver. 5.152)
22.21 Additive emphasizing particles
Instances of the additive particle quoque are discussed in the preceding section.87
Other words that can function more or less in the same way as additive quoque are et
86 See TLL s.v. imprimis 677.61ff.

87 The frequency with which authors use quoque varies considerably. See Sz.: 485.
‘also’, ‘too’ (‘usually related to a single word or phrase’) and etiam ‘also’, ‘as well’, ‘too’.88
Examples are (a)–(d).89 In these examples the particles indicate the simple addition of
one entity or property to another. They precede the word in their scope. This simple
use must be distinguished from the use of these particles in the sense ‘even’, which is
discussed in § 22.22.
(a) Et enim vero quoniam formam cepi huius in med et statum, / decet et facta
moresque huius habere me similes item.
(‘And since I took on his looks and dress, I also ought to have similar ways and habits.’
Pl. Am. 266–7)
(b) Nisi vero illud dicet, quod et in Tetti testimonio priore actione interpellavit
Hortensius . . .
(‘Perhaps, however, he will argue as Hortensius did as well when cross-examining
Tettius during the first part of the trial . . .’ Cic. Ver. 1.71)
(c) Fuge, opsecro hercle. # Quo fugiam? Etiam tu fuge.
(‘Run, I entreat you. # Where should I run? You run as well.’ Pl. Mos. 513)
(d) Non enim, si tibi ea res grata fuisset, esset etiam approbata.
(‘For welcome though it might have been, it would not have also been approved by
you.’ Cic. Lig. 23)
Supplement:
. . . mea Philematium, potare tecum collubitum est mihi. / # Et edepol mihi tecum . . .
(Pl. Mos. 295–6); Ubi occisus est Sex. Roscius? # Romae. # Quid? Tu, T. Rosci, ubi
tunc eras? # Romae. Verum quid ad rem? Et alii multi. (Cic. S. Rosc. 92); Idemque
mittit et signa nobis eius generis . . . (Cic. Div. 1.121); Quibus enim ratio a natura data
est, eisdem etiam recta ratio data est. Ergo et lex, quae est recta ratio in iubendo et
vetando. Si lex, ius quoque. (Cic. Leg. 1.33); At Iugurtha, postquam oppidum Capsam
aliosque locos munitos et sibi utilis simul et magnam pecuniam amiserat . . . (Sal. Jug.
97.1); Mox cornua extendendo clausere et ab tergo hostes. (Liv. 22.47.8); Fuerunt et
qui in novercam inveherentur. (Sen. Con. 7.1.20); Et haec enim philosophia prae-
scribit. (Vitr. 1.1.7); Emicant et faces, non nisi cum decidunt visae, qualis Germanico
Caesare gladiatorum spectaculum edente praeter ora populi meridiano transcucur-
rit. (Plin. Nat. 2.96); (sc. Caesar) Neque tamen ob ea parentis patriae delatum et antea
vocabulum adsumpsit . . . (Tac. Ann. 2.87)
NB: conjunctive coordinator and additive et in the same context: Iidem (sc. sativi)
et contra venena prosunt . . . salutares et contra fungorum aut hyoscyami venena
atque, ut Nicander tradit, et contra sanguinem tauri. (Plin. Nat. 20.25); . . . Clesippus
fullo gibber et praeterea et alio foedus aspectu . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.11)90
Atque ego censui aps te posse hoc me impetrare, uxor mea, / Casina ut uxor mihi
daretur; et nunc etiam censeo. (Pl. Cas. 364–5); Ducas easque in maxumam malam
crucem / cum hac cum istac, cumque amica etiam tua. (Pl. Cas. 611–12); Eho an
88 See OLD s.v. et § 5, s.v. etiam § 3. For additive ‘operators’, including scalar ones, see Gast and Van der
Auwera (2011); see p. 24 on et.
89 For expressions like non modo . . . sed etiam, see § 19.65. 90 See TLL s.v. et 910.52ff.; 77ff.
etiam in caelum escendisti? (Pl. Trin. 942); Si utile rei publicae fuit haurire me unum
pro omnibus illam indignissimam calamitatem, etiam hoc utile est, quorum id
scelere conflatum sit, me occultare et tacere. (Cic. Dom. 30); Nos autem praeceptis
dialecticorum et oratorum etiam . . . parentes . . . verbis quoque novis cogimur
uti . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.5); Auctoritate tua nobis opus est et consilio et etiam gratia. (Cic.
Fam. 9.25.3); Sed ante omnia obsidionis bellique mala fames utrimque exercitum
urgebat, Gallos pestilentia etiam . . . (Liv. 5.48.1); Aqua vero frigida infusa, praeter-
quam capiti, etiam stomacho prodest, etiam articulis doloribusque . . . (Cels. 1.9.5);
Ita proelium atque arma, quae fortibus honesta, eadem etiam ignavis tutissima sunt.
(Tac. Ag. 30.1)
Verum edepol ne etiam tua quoque malefacta iterari multa / et vero possunt (Pl.
As. 567–8); Me quoque iuvat, velut ipse in parte laboris ac periculi fuerim, ad finem
belli Punici pervenisse. (Liv. 31.1.1—NB: at the beginning of the book: ‘just as you,
readers, probably are pleased’);91 (sc. Agrippina) Abeunte dehinc ancilla ‘tu quoque
me deseris’ prolocuta respicit Anicetum . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.8.3)92
Whereas quoque has only constituents in its scope (but see below), etiam can also
have larger parts of a clause in its scope (or perhaps one should say, it can function on
its own at the clause level). This may explain the use of both words in the same clause,
as in (e) and (f).93 Most instances occur in Early Latin comedy.94 This usage is some-
times called ‘pleonastic’. One can compare quoque + item in Cicero Fam. 5.1.2 and
Lucretius 5.245 cj. (For additive quoque + scalar etiam, see § 22.22.)
(e) Atque ego quoque etiam, qui Iovis sum filius, / contagione mei patris metuo
malum.
(‘And I too, who am Jupiter’s son, have also caught the fear of a thrashing
from my father.’ Pl. Am. 30–1)
(f) Nunc vero, Crasse, mea quoque etiam (te iam cj. Kiessling) causa rogo ut . . .
(‘But now, Crassus, it is actually also for my own sake that I am asking you.’
Cic. de Orat. 1.164—tr. May and Wisse)
The OLD has a small section (§ 2.c) where quoque ‘attaches to the whole rather than
any individual word’. One of the examples is (g), where it is indeed difficult to attach
quoque to neutra (unless it relates to quare, as it does to ideo on a few occasions). See
also (h).95 The interpretation of the instances cited in the literature varies. Note that
quoque causes discontinuity.
(g) Hic et propositio et assumptio perspicua est. Quare neutra quoque indiget
approbatione.
(‘Here both the major and the minor premise are clear. Therefore neither
needs proof.’ Cic. Inv. 1.66)
91 For a few more instances of what he calls ‘inceptive’ quoque, see Frischer (1983).
92 Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 16) interpret quoque here in a scalar sense, but this seems unnecessary.
93 So already K.-St.: II.53.
94 See TLL s.v. etiam 945.52ff. and Sz.: 523. For Lucretius, see Reinhardt (2010: 220–1).
95 Quoted by Shackleton Bailey (1956: 175–6) as an example of ‘the common [SIC!] usage whereby
quoque belongs to the whole sentence and not to any particular word.’
(h) Non rastros patietur humus, non vinea falcem. / Robustus quoque iam tau-
ris iuga solvet arator.
(‘Earth will not suffer the harrow, nor the vine the pruning hook. The sturdy
ploughman, too, will now loose his oxen from the yoke.’ Verg. Ecl. 4.40–1)
Instances of quoque preceding the constituent it relates to are attested from Varro and
Livy onwards in prose (though not in Cicero and Caesar) and from Lucretius onwards
in poetry. Examples are (i)–(l).96 There is not a scholarly consensus on how to analyse
all the cases cited in the literature.
(i) Itaque ne ab se imperatoria consilia neu consulares artes exquirerent, quae
pensitanda quoque magnis (magnis quoque cj. Mueller) animis atque inge-
niis essent.
(‘It was not, therefore, to him that they must address inquiries concerning
the strategy of commanders and the qualifications of consuls; the weighing
of such abilities demanded also great mental and intellectual powers.’
Liv. 4.41.3)
( j) . . . scilicet expletis (sc. faucibus) quoque ianua raditur oris.
(‘. . . and then, in truth, the door to the mouth too is scraped when the throat
is choked.’ Lucr. 4.532—tr. Bailey)
(k) . . . et amarunt me quoque nymphae.
(‘. . . and the nymphs too have loved me.’ Ov. Met. 3.456)
(l) Nam quoque (namque cj. Rodgers) eius modi laetatur alimentis et holus
et arbor.
(‘For both vegetables and trees thrive on nutriment of this sort too.’ Col.
1.6.24)
The coordinator -que is used in the sense of quoque in the expression hodieque ‘even
nowadays’ from Velleius onwards, as in (m). Also nuperque ‘even recently’ (Plin. Nat.
5.4). There are a few more much-discussed instances of -que in poetry where scholars
have suggested an additive reading, as in (n). (Also meque Catul. 102.3; meque Prop.
3.1.35 al.)97
(m) Vires autem veteres earum urbium hodieque magnitudo ostentat moenium.
(‘The extent of their walls even at the present day serves to reveal the great-
ness of these cities in the past.’ Vell. 1.4.2)
(n) . . . gaudete vosque, o Lydiae lacus undae . . .
(‘. . . rejoice you too, ye waters of the Lydian lake . . .’ Catul. 31.13)
From Quintilian onwards quoque and etiam are used in combination with adhuc,
as in (o).98
96 See Bömer ad Ov. Met. 6.27, K.-St.: II.54, Sz.: 485–6, Shackleton Bailey (1956: 175–6) and, for discus-
sion and parallels in poetry, Ramírez de Verger (2011). In (k), Barchiesi and Rosati ad loc. take quoque
with me, referring to Labate (1983).
97 For discussion and emendations of the Catullan instances, see Trappes-Lomax (2007: 95, 282). For
an instance in the Vindolanda Tablets, see Adams (2019: 255). In general, Sz.: 475.
98 See TLL s.v. adhuc 662.52ff.
(o) At si erit tardus ad hoc, eo quoque adhuc remedio utatur, ut ipsae notae . . .
aptentur ad eos qui excidunt sensus . . .
(‘But if a student is slow at this, let him use the further device of suiting his
marks to the ideas which he is liable to forget . . .’ Quint. Inst. 11.2.29)
22.22 Scalar additive particles

In addition to the simple additive use of the particles discussed in § 20.21, etiam and,
much more rarely, et and quoque can also be used with a ‘scalar’ meaning (‘even’) to
indicate ‘an extreme case’,99 as in (a)–(d). In (a), etiam has cum uxore in its scope. It
indicates that the most unlikely candidate for a husband not to have intercourse with
is his own wife. The use of et in this way is poetic, as in (b). Quoque is found in this use
from Plautus onwards, as in (c), where this interpretation is triggered by quin (which
is also common together with etiam). Note that in (d) etiam has the entire cum clause
in its scope. The choice between the simple additive and the scalar interpretation is
not always easy and depends to a large extent on the context. It is also not easy to
determine whether etiam has a particular word or phrase in its scope or the whole
clause (as is probably the case in (e)).100 For the use of nec/neque in similar contexts,
see § 8.12.
(a) Et inter nos coniuravimus, ego cum illo et ille mecum: / ego cum viro et ill’
cum muliere, nisi cum illo aut ille mecum, / neuter stupri causa caput lima-
ret. # Di immortales, / etiam cum uxore non cubet?
(‘And we swore an oath together, I with him and he with me: neither of us would have
sex with another, I with no man except him, nor he with any woman except me. #
Immortal gods! He shouldn’t even lie with his wife?’ Pl. Mer. 536–8)
(b) Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.
(‘Whatever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts.’ Verg. A. 2.49)
(c) Nullus est tibi quem roges / mutuom argentum? # Quin nomen quoque iam
interiit ‘mutuom’.
(‘Is there no one you could ask for money on loan? # Indeed the very word “loan”
doesn’t exist now.’ Pl. Ps. 294–5)
(d) Qui de me ad te humanissimas litteras scripsit, ad me autem, etiam cum rogat
aliquid, contumaciter, adroganter, uztxzxzi~| solet scribere.
(‘And Brutus, who writes about me so kindly to you, is apt in his letters to me to
take a brusque, arrogant, ungracious tone even when he is asking a favour.’ Cic.
Att. 6.1.7)
99 Quoted from OLD s.v. etiam. Rosén (2009) uses the term ‘escalating’. TLL s.v. et 908.22ff. calls this
use cumulative; s.v. etiam 947.63ff. elativum. In Vol. I (§ 11.145) the term ‘focusing restrictive subjunct’ is
used instead of ‘emphasizing scalar additive particle’. For the use of the term ‘scalarity’, see Bertocchi and
Maraldi (2012) and Risselada (2016: 192–3).
100 See Iordache (2010).
(e) Aetatem velim servire, Libanum ut conveniam modo . . . Etiam de tergo

ducentas plagas praegnatis dabo.
(‘I’d be willing to be a slave all my life if only I can meet Libanus. . . . I’ll even give two
hundred blows from my back ready to multiply.’ Pl. As. 274–6)
Supplement:
Fortiter et ferrum, saevos patiemur et ignis . . . (Prop. 1.1.27); At nos vinum bibere et
iumenta cogimus . . . (Plin. Nat. 14.137)
Iam aderit tempus quom sese etiam ipse oderit. (Pl. Bac. 417); Quin etiam nunc
intus hic in proxumo est. (Pl. Mil. 301); . . . qui tantum immanitate bestias vicerit
ut . . . eos indignissime luce privarit, cum etiam feras inter sese partus atque educatio
et natura ipsa conciliet. (Cic. S. Rosc. 63); In minimis privatisque rebus etiam negle-
gentia in crimen mandati iudiciumque infamiae vocatur . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 113); Nam
quid ego de aedile ipso loquar, qui etiam diem dixit et accusavit de vi Milonem? (Cic.
Sest. 95); . . . quam etiam pecudes, si loqui possent, appellarent voluptatem . . . (Cic.
Fin. 2.18); . . . cum . . . illi autem se contra imperium populi Romani pugnaturos
negarent, oppidani autem etiam sua sponte Caesarem recipere conarentur . . . (Caes.
Civ. 3.11.4); . . . ut . . . calones perterritos hostes conspicati etiam inermes armatis
occurrerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 2.27.2); Tu Philippum patrem aversaris et, si quis deorum
ante Iovem haberetur, fastidires etiam Iovem. (Curt. 8.7.13); . . . postulamus a vobis
muros coloniae, munimenta servitii, detrahatis (etiam fera animalia, si clausa
teneas, virtutis obliviscuntur), Romanos omnis in finibus vestris trucidetis . . . (Tac.
Hist. 4.64.2)
Animadvertis Cn. Pompeium nec nominis sui nec rerum gestarum gloria neque
etiam regum ac nationum clientelis, quas ostentare crebro solebat, esse tutum . . .
(Dolab. Fam. 9.9.2); Etiam C. Caesaris turbata mens vim dicendi non corrupit. (Tac.
Ann. 13.3.2)
Etenim mors honesta saepe vitam quoque inopem exornat . . . (Cic. Quinct. 49);
Vidimus in glacie pisces haerere ligatos / et pars ex illis tunc quoque viva fuit. (Ov. Tr.
3.10.49–50); Quin illa quoque actio movebatur quae postcaptam utique Romam a
Gallis celebratior fuit, transmigrandi Veios. (Liv. 5.24.7); Quin Cicero quoque pro
Q. Ligario idem testari videtur, cum dicit . . . (Quint. Inst. 7.4.17)
For ne . . . quidem as a scalar emphasizing particle, see § 8.14. According to Gellius
17.2.18 ne . . . quoque in this meaning was common in Early Latin. He uses it himself
also a few times (e.g. 1.2.5). For ne/nec . . . saltem, see note 134. For the rare use of
nec = ne . . . quidem, see (f).101
(f) Ita primis repulsis Maharbal cum maiore robore virorum missus nec ipse
eruptionem cohortium sustinuit.
(‘The first troops being thus beaten back, Maharbal, who had been sent with
a larger number of picked men, was likewise unable to withstand the sally of
the cohorts.’ Liv. 23.18.4)
An instance of co-occurrence of scalar etiam and additive quoque is (g).102
101 See Orlandini and Poccetti (2007: 38–45). 102 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2012: 13).
(g) Neque patiar Sibyllam non solum cecinisse quae, dum viveret, prodessent
hominibus, sed etiam quae cum perisset ipsa, et id etiam ignotissimis
quoque hominibus.
(‘And I cannot allow the Sibyl to have uttered prophecies which benefited
mankind not only while she lived, but even after she had passed away, and
this even benefited people whom she never knew as well.’ Var. R. 1.1.3)
Adeo ‘indeed’, ‘just’ is used as a scalar particle from Plautus onwards, although it is not
always easy to determine whether it has a particular constituent in its scope or whether
it belongs to the entire clause. There are instances where it is related to the verb, as
in (h); to a noun (phrase), as in (i); to a pronoun, as in ( j); to an adjective, as in (k),
causing discontinuity of the noun phrase; to an adverb, as in (l).103 It follows the
constituent it has in its scope. This usage is rare in Cicero and in prose in general,
except when related to the second conjoin of a coordinate structure, especially after
atque, as in (m); in that case, adeo precedes.104
(h) Abnuere, negitare adeo me natum suom.
(‘He’d disown me and even deny that I am his son.’ Pl. Mer. 50)
(i) Ibi voster cenat cum uxore adeo et Antipho . . .
(‘There your master is dining, with his wife actually, and Antipho . . .’ Pl. St. 664)
( j) Ille adeo illum mentiri sibi / credet . . .
(‘He indeed (sc. Amphitruo) will believe that he’s (sc. Sosia) telling lies to him . . . ’ Pl.
Am. 468–9)
(k) Verum illuc est. Maxuma adeo pars vostrorum intellegit . . .
(‘That’s true; and most of you know it . . .’ Pl. Mos. 280)
(l) Nimium ego te habui delicatam. Nunc adeo ut facturus dicam.
(‘I’ve spoiled you far too much. Now indeed I’ll tell you what I’m going to do.’ Pl.
Men. 119)
(m) Hoc consilio atque adeo hac amentia impulsi . . . eum iugulandum vobis
tradiderunt.
(‘In pursuance of this plan and indeed this folly, they have handed over to you to
murder the man . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 29)
Vel ‘even’ is used as a scalar particle from Early Latin onwards. Plautus has it several
times with numerals, as in (n), where one might consider taking it as a discontinuous
disjunctive coordinator, but it is also used with other types of constituents, for example
the noun mendico in (o).105
(n) Sequere hac me, faxo iam scies. # Quo gentium? / # Tris unos passus. # Vel
decem.
103 See TLL s.v. adeo 614.43ff. 104 See TLL s.v. adeo 612.41ff.
105 See OLD s.v. vel §§ 5 and 6; Lodge s.v. § A.3; Merguet (Phil.) s.v. vel 738Aff.; (Reden) s.v. vel 836Bf.
(‘Follow me this way. I’ll make sure that you’ll know. # Where on earth? # Only three
steps. # Even if it were ten.’ Pl. Bac. 831–2)
(o) Cum hac dote poteris vel mendico nubere.
(‘With this dowry you’ll be able to marry even a beggar.’ Pl. Per. 396)
Supplement:
Iam hercle vel ducentae fieri possunt praesentes minae. (Pl. Ps. 302); Si arte poteris
accubare. # Vel inter cuneos ferreos. (Pl. St. 619); Huic ducendi interea apscesserit /
lubido. Atque ea condicio huic vel primaria est. (Pl. Trin. 745–6); . . . homo cum gravi-
tate et prudentia praestans, tum vel nimium parcus in largienda civitate? (Cic. Balb.
50); . . . cum viderem ex ea parte homines, cuius partis nos vel principes numera-
bamur . . . (Cic. Red. Pop. 13); . . . in quibus neque manu factum quicquam neque pul-
chritudo erat ulla, sed tantum magnitudo incredibilis de qua vel audire satis esset,
nimium videre plus quam semel . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.125); . . . neque enim falsum percipi
posse neque verum si esset tale quale vel falsum. (Cic. Luc. 77); . . . qui ea possideat
quae secum, ut aiunt, vel e naufragio possit ecferre? (Cic. Rep. 1.28); Tu, quaeso, cre-
bro ad me scribe vel quod in buccam venerit. (Cic. Att. 7.10.1); Tum egregiae muni-
tiones . . . vel sine defensoribus aditum adversariis prohibebant. (B. Afr. 31.7); Arma
vel tribus tantis exercitibus in armamentaria congessisse. (Liv. 42.12.10); Nefas
nocere vel malo fratri puta. (Sen. Thy. 219)
For the use of a number of scalar particles with comparative forms, see § 20.10
Appendix; with the superlative, see § 20.32.
22.23 Exclusive particles
The most common words that can be used as an exclusive emphasizing particle are
modo ‘just’, ‘only’ ‘no more than’, as in (a), and solum ‘only’, ‘merely’, as in (b). They are
usually placed after the word or phrase they have in their scope.106 There is a differ-
ence in meaning between the two: whereas both share the feature ‘exclusion’, modo
excludes ‘worse alternatives’,107 that is, it has a scalar meaning, as is shown in (e):
much more might have disappeared. Tantum, as in (c), and tantummodo (also: tan-
tum modo), as in (d), have more or less the same meaning as solum, but they have,
rarely, individual words or phrases in their scope and are less restricted in their pos-
ition in the clause. Instances of wider scope with modo and tantum are (f) and (g).
Modo is attested from Early Latin onwards; solum and tantum from Cicero’s time
onwards. (For dumtaxat, see § 22.32.)
(a) Cadum modo hinc a me huc cum vino transferam, / postidea accumbam.
(‘I’ll just bring the jar of wine over from my place, then I’ll recline.’ Pl. St. 647–8)
106 For a few non-postpositive instances of modo, see TLL s.v. modus 1298.3f. For solum, see OLD s.v.
solum § 1 fin.
107 The quotation is from Risselada (1994). See also Bertocchi (2001b: 96–8), who describes modo as
‘restrictive’ (109).
(b) . . . ut sapiens solum . . . sine aegritudine possit et sine metu vivere.

(‘Hence only the Wise Man . . . can possibly live untroubled by sorrow and by fear.’
Cic. Fin. 1.44)
(c) Hoc (sc. simulacrum) translatum Carthaginem locum tantum hominesque
mutarat, religionem quidem pristinam conservabat.
(‘Its removal to Carthage was no more than a change of home and worshippers; the
reverence formerly felt for it remained.’ Cic. Ver. 4.72)
(d) Homines enim populariter annum tantum modo solis, id est unius astri,
reditu metiuntur.
(‘For people commonly measure the year by the circuit of the sun alone, that is, of a
single star.’ Cic. Rep. 6.24)
(e) Omnia insunt salva. Una istinc cistella excepta est modo / cum crepundiis
quibuscum hodie filiam inveni meam.
(‘Everything is inside, safe and sound; only one little box with tokens has been taken
out of it; I’ve found my daughter with them today.’ Pl. Rud. 1362–3)
(f) Deos salutabo modo, poste ad te continuo transeo.
(‘I’ll just greet the gods, then I’ll come over to you at once.’ Pl. St. 623)
(g) Ars demonstrat tantum ubi quaeras atque ubi sit illud quod studeas invenire.
(‘Art merely shows you where to look and where what you are trying to find is.’ Cic.
de Orat. 2.150)
Supplement:
Improbae vini modo cupidae estis. (Pl. Ps. 183); I [et] cenam coque / aut abi in
malum cruciatum ab aedibus. # Abi tu modo. (Pl. Aul. 458–9); . . . cur eum beatum
modo et non beatissimum etiam dixerim? (Cic. Tusc. 5.76); Paucas (sc. insulas)
modo constat esse ex adverso Autololm a Iuba repertas . . . (Plin. Nat. 6.201); . . .
dum viri [mei] mihi potestas videndi fuit / noctem unam modo. (Pl. Am. 638–9);
Quid velis, modo id velim me scire. (Pl. Cas. 287—NB: modo precedes); Si opperiri
vellem paulisper modo . . . (Pl. Bac. 486); Potin ut semel modo, / Ballio, huc cum
lucro respicias? (Pl. Ps. 263–4); Quis enim umquam qui paulum modo bonorum
consuetudinem nosset, litteras ad se ab amico missas offensione aliqua interposita in
medium protulit palamque recitavit? (Cic. Phil. 2.7)
Absurdum erat aut etiam in barbaris casibus Graecam litteram adhibere aut recto
casu solum Graece loqui. (Cic. Orat. 160); Quo quidem genere orationis non uterer,
iudices, hoc tempore, si mea solum interesset. (Cic. Sul. 2); . . . ceterae civitates suis
solum incommodis commoventur, Centuripini . . . etiam ceterarum civitatum damna
ac detrimenta senserunt. (Cic. Ver. 3.108); Quia de re una solum dissident, de ceteris
mirifice congruunt. (Cic. Leg. 1.53); Quoniam omnibus rebus ereptis solum mihi
superest animus et corpus, haec ipsa quae mihi de multis sola relicta sunt vobis et
vestrae condono potestati. (Rhet. Her. 4.39—NB: solum precedes)
Sed hoc totum agetur alio loco. Nunc tantum disputo de iure populi . . . (Cic.
Planc. 8); . . . nomen tantum videbitur regis repudiatum, res manebit, si unus omnibus
reliquis magistratibus imperabit. (Cic. Leg. 3.15); Tantum illud vereor, ne quos
privata amicitia Iugurthae parum cognita transvorsos agat. (Sal. Jug. 14.20); Excepit
unum tantum, scire se nihil se scire, nihil amplius. (Cic. Luc. 74)
Itaque illi de quibus ante dixi tantummodo commoditatis habuerunt rationem,
nullam dignitatis. (Cic. Orat. 193); In coniunctis autem verbis triplex adhiberi com-
mutatio potest, non verborum sed tantum modo ordinis. (Cic. Part. 24); Oscula luc-
tanti tantummodo pauca protervus / abstulit . . . (Ov. Ep. 17.27–8); . . . animus belli
ingens domi modicus, lubidinis et divitiarum victor, tantummodo gloriae avidus.
(Sal. Jug. 63.2); Quos tamen Homerus non in pestilentia neque in variis generibus
morborum aliquid adtulisse auxilii sed vulneribus tantummodo ferro et medica-
mentis mederi solitos esse proposuit. (Cels. 1.pr.3)
Modo in this meaning can also be used in imperative sentences, as in (h) (see § 6.29).
Its use in a relative clause is shown by (i). For the use of modo and tantum in stipula-
tive clauses, see § 16.53; for modo in conditional si clauses, see § 16.63.
(h) Tum Crassus ‘perge modo,’ inquit, ‘Antoni.’
(‘ “Just go on, Antonius”, said Crassus.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.209)
(i) Cui porro qui modo populi Romani nomen audivit, Deiotari integritas,
gravitas, virtus, fides non audita est?
(‘Nay, who indeed, who has but heard the name of the Roman people, has
not heard of the incorruptibility, the dignity, the courage, the loyalty, of
Deiotarus?’ Cic. Deiot. 16)
Another expression of exclusivity that can be used with words or phrases in its scope
is non nisi ‘not unless’, as in ( j).108
( j) Ego autem medicamentorum dari potiones et alvum duci non nisi raro
debere concedo.
(‘Now in my opinion medicinal draughts and clysters should only be admin-
istered occasionally.’ Cels. 3.4.3)
22.24 Particularizing particles
Particularizing particles indicate that the content of the clause is predominantly rele-
vant for the word or phrase in its scope. The particles discussed in §§ 22.25–40 are
very diverse. Five sections are distinguished on the basis of the meanings of words,
most of them with subsections. Several of the words discussed in these sections can
also be used as adverbs at the clause level.
22.25 Quidem and equidem

The particle quidem is usually treated together with equidem, since the latter is con-
sidered to be formed from the former by the addition of a prefix ĕ-, the derivation of
which is disputed. Equidem is often described as a stronger form of affirmation than
quidem. In Early Latin comedy, clauses in which the two words are used often also
have one of the swear words ecastor, (ede)pol, and hercle. However, from the syntactic
108 See Bertocchi (2001b: 92).

and semantic points of view they are very different, as can be seen in (a), where they
co-occur in the same clause. Quidem can never be in first position since it has a word
or a phrase in its scope which it emphasizes (the punctuation of (a) probably visual-
izes this close relation). By contrast, equidem has the first position, and this is the case
in roughly half of its occurrences. It adds something to the meaning of the entire
clause, resembling degree-of-truth disjuncts (see § 10.100): the speaker ‘seriously’
regards Epicurus as a pupil of Democritus. Another important distinction between
the two words is that equidem is almost only used in clauses with a first person singu-
lar subject, while for quidem the type of subject makes no difference. For further com-
plications, see below.
(a) Equidem etiam Epicurum, in physicis quidem, Democriteum puto.
(‘For my own part I consider Epicurus also, at all events in natural philosophy, simply
a pupil of Democritus.’ Cic. Fin. 4.13)
22.26 Quidem
The particle quidem (NB: ne . . . quidem is discussed in § 8.14) is used from Early Latin
onwards in all sorts of texts and with great frequency. There is continuous discussion
about what lexical category it belongs to and how one particle can be used in a fairly
broad range of contexts. Thus it also proves to be difficult to translate straightfor-
wardly into modern languages. The position taken in this Syntax is that its function is
to emphasize constituents at the clause level or, less frequently, at the constituent level.
Examples are (a) and (b), respectively.109 For its use as an emphasizer of subordinate
clauses, see below.
(a) Quattuor quadraginta illi debentur minae, / et sors et faenus. # Tantum est,
nihilo plus peto. / # Velim quidem hercle ut uno nummo plus petas.
(‘He’s owed forty-four minas, both principal and interest. # That’s the sum. I don’t ask
for more. # I’d like you to ask for one single coin more.’ Pl. Mos. 630–2)
(b) Eho, an invenisti Bacchidem? # Samiam quidem.
(‘Tell me, have you found Bacchis? # Yes, the one from Samos.’ Pl. Bac. 200)
Obviously, emphasizing a particular constituent may imply that another constituent in

the preceding or following context is less prominent. In this way quidem contributes
to the coherence of a text (see also below). Depending on the semantic relation
between the units that are, so to speak, drawn into a comparison of being ‘more or less
prominent’, the interpretation (and translation) of the contribution of quidem may
vary.110 In (a), for instance, quidem is categorized as ‘restrictive’ by Lodge; in (b), as
‘affirmative’.111 In (c), the relation between the two clauses is called ‘adversative’ by
109 The recent publications that I found most helpful are Solodow (1978), Orlandini (2005: 161–9), and
Kroon (2004a; 2005; 2009b). For a different approach, see Danckaert (2014; 2015).
110 This is essentially the description of K.-St.: I.802. But see also Solodow (1978: 13) and Kroon
(2009b).
111 See Lodge s.v. quidem § III.C.5 and § III.A.2, respectively.
K.–St.: I.803 (note that quidem is in the clause that follows);112 in (d), ‘concessive’
(note that quidem precedes while sed is in the clause that follows; quidem is very com-
monly combined in this way with an adversative, especially sed but also autem, tamen,
and verum).
(c) Cum vero sontes ferro depugnabant, auribus fortasse multae, oculis quidem
nulla poterat esse fortior contra dolorem et mortem disciplina.
(‘But when criminals fought to the death with the sword, for the ears there could
perhaps be many more effective forms of training in facing pain and death, but for
the eyes none.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.41—tr. Douglas)
(d) Nam quod me hortaris . . . facis amice tu quidem . . . sed mihi videris aliud tu
honestum meque dignum . . . iudicare atque ego existimem.
(‘As for urging me . . . that is very friendly of you . . . but you seem to have a different
idea of what is honourable and fitting for me . . . from that which I hold myself.’ Cic.
Att. 8.2.2)
In Sz: 486 quidem is classified as an adversative coordinating particle alongside sed,
at, and autem. In K.-St.: I.802 it is (together with equidem) one of the affirmative
‘Modalitätsadverbien’ (more or less equivalent to ‘sentence adverbs’) alongside nē,
profecto, certe, and scilicet. Solodow (1978) recognizes two major usages, as a ‘focus
particle’ and as a ‘sentence adverb, insisting on the truth of the whole statement’ (98)
(see the discussion of ex. (q) below).113 Orlandini (2005) and Kroon (2005; 2009b)
argue for a discourse-marking function of quidem (Kroon states that it also functions
as a focus particle). Adams (1994b: 3–5) calls it an ‘emphasizing particle’, that is an
‘emphasizer’ in the terminology of this Syntax.
Quidem can follow words of various types, with pronouns of all sorts being the most
prominent. It often behaves as a clitic and forms a prosodic unit with the word it fol-
lows, which may result in a shift of accent of the leading word, as in (e). Occasionally
quidem emphasizes a whole phrase and not necessarily the word it follows. Examples
are the first quidem in (f), a noun phrase, in which quidem is in the middle, and (g), a
prepositional phrase followed by quidem.
(e) Hercle, illéquidem certo adulescens docte vorsutus fuit . . .114
(‘Really, he was certainly a cunningly clever young man . . .’ Pl. St. 561)
(f) Sed quid ego video? # Quid vides? # Nescio quis eccum incedit / ornatu
quidem thalassico. # It ad nos, volt te profecto. / Nauclerus hic quidem est.
112 Dougan ad loc. comments: ‘quidem only lends emphasis. The adversative idea (“but”) is as usual
implied by the contrast of the clauses.’
113 So also Müller (1997: 67–8): ‘Modaladverb’. Working in a different framework Danckaert (2014)
holds that quidem is a marker of ‘emphatic polarity’, which has the whole clause in its scope.
114 See Petersmann ad loc.: ‘illéquidem; so betont . . . weil das quidem enklitisch ist. Vgl. Radford TAPA
35 (1904), 40.’ See also Adams (1994b: 3–4), Questa (2007: 154–61), and Fortson (2008: 51–2).
(‘But what do I see? # What do you see? # Look, someone’s strutting along in a mari-
time outfit. # He’s coming to us, he actually wants to speak to you. This is the captain.’
Pl. Mil. 1281–3)
(g) Inter tot dies quidem hercle iam aliquid actum oportuit.
(‘Within so many days he ought to have performed some deed already.’ Pl. Truc. 510)
Very common is the use of quidem with subordinate clauses of various types, both
relative clauses, as in (h) (connecting), (i) (autonomous) and ( j) (non-restrictive
adnominal), and adjunct and disjunct subordinate clauses, as in (k) and (l).115 Quidem
directly follows the relative pronoun/determiner or the subordinator; sometimes it
forms a prosodic unit with them (notably siquidem and quandoquidem). In cases like
(k) and (l), quidem emphasizes the semantic relation between the subordinate clause
and the main clause, as expressed by the subordinator. Quidem is also common in
epitactic conjoins, where it emphasizes the fact that another piece of information is
added, as in (m) (see § 19.68). In relative clauses quidem emphasizes the semantic
relationship of the clause in its context. In (i), repeated from § 18.16, for example, the
autonomous relative clause qui videat parum functions as a disjunct of qualified truth
with respect to the preceding sentence, comparable with a dativus iudicantis (see
§§ 10.101–2); quidem emphasizes this semantic relation.
(h) Etiam agnum misi. # Quo quidem agno sat scio / magis curiosam nusquam
esse ullam beluam.
(‘I’ve even sent you a lamb. # I know for sure that I haven’t anywhere seen a beast that
it takes more care to find out what’s going on than this lamb.’ Pl. Aul. 561–2)
(i) Eugae, litteras minutas. # Qui quidem videat parum. / Verum qui satis videat,
grandes satis sunt.
(‘Goodness, such tiny letters! # Tiny for someone who doesn’t see well enough. But
for someone who does see well enough they’re big enough.’ Pl. Bac. 991–2)
( j) . . . commendo tibi . . . maxime C. Avianium Hammonium, libertum eius,
quem quidem tibi etiam suo nomine commendo.
(‘. . . I recommend to you especially C. Avianius Hammonius, his freedman, whom I
also recommend to you in his own right.’ Cic. Fam. 13.21.2)
(k) Habeti’n aurum? . . . / # Postquam quidem praetor recuperatores dedit, /
damnatus demum, vi coactus reddidit / mille et ducentos Philippum.
(‘Do you have the gold? . . . # Well, after the praetor appointed arbitrators, he was
finally convicted and forced to return the one thousand two hundred Philippics.’ Pl.
Bac. 269–72)
(l) Eloquar, quandoquidem me oras.
(‘I’ll tell you, since you ask me.’ Pl. Mer. 180)
115 For the use of quidem in disjuncts, see Kroon (2009b: 154). For further examples, see § 16.35,
§ 16.42, and § 16.83. For non-restrictive relative clauses, see § 18.6.
(m) Proinde istuc facias ipse quod faciamus nobis suades. / # Ego vero, et quidem
edepol lubens.
(‘So you should practise yourself what you’re preaching to us. # I will indeed, and
with pleasure.’ Pl. As. 644–5)
In (n), quidem serves to contrast the first accusative and infinitive (argument) clause
with the second, which contains the adversative coordinator sed.116
(n) . . . iudicare sena/tum referendum quidem esse acceptum maxume
discipulinae avi <e>orum et / patrui et Iuliae Aug(ustae) sed tamen
ipsorum quoque nomin<e> laudandum existumare[t].
(‘. . . the Senate judged that this should be ascribed especially to the discipline of their
grandfather and paternal uncle and of Julia Augusta, but that nonetheless on their
account also the Senate considered that it was praiseworthy.’ S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre
148–51, ad 20)
Quidem cannot be used to emphasize prepositions117 and connectors (there are only
a few scattered attestations of nam quidem (most of them emended) and of at quidem
(four in Plautus)). However, it can be used to emphasize utinam (see § 7.58). It is only
attested once with the negator haud ‘not’ in Terence (checked in LLT), four times with
vix ‘hardly’ (once in Plautus), and, given its frequency, rarely with non ‘not’ (some 100
times in PHI corpus), the first two attestations being in Hirtius.118 By contrast, com-
binations of these three words with equidem are more evenly spread. As for personal
pronouns, Cicero does not use the combination ego quidem outside his letters.119
In some instances where quidem follows a pronoun, it is difficult to understand
why the pronoun should be emphasized.120 Among the instances that are discussed in
the literature are (o)–(q). In (o) quidem is said to emphasize carissimum; in (p), to
emphasize paucos. However, it seems preferable to say that in such cases quidem does
not function at the level of constituents, but at the clause level. Thus, in (o), quidem,
together with following sed, underlines the contrast between the two accusative and
infinitive clauses (as in (n)); in (p), quidem underlines the corrective function of the
clause introduced by the alternative coordinator vel. The pronouns function as ‘host’
of the ‘clausal emphasis’. This is also more or less the explanation given by Solodow of
(q): ‘the sense is not so much “boy, you are dumb” as “boy, you really are dumb.” ’
Here, however, there is no balancing clause as in (o) and (p), and in (q) ‘clausal
emphasis’ is difficult to prove. The speaker, a meretrix, has already called the young
lady stulta three times in the same scene, and so maybe tu quidem ‘in comparison
with other girls’ reflects her frustration.
116 Existumare[t] at the end of the sentence is odd.

117 For an exceptional instance of quidem following a preposition, see ex. (d) in § 19.70. Quidem is also
excluded after the degree adverb tam, so: tam efficaciter quidem (Sen. Dial. 10.6.1) (Ludewig 1891: 3).
118 For instances of quidem arranged by lexical category, see the Lexica of Lodge and Merguet.
119 So Burckhardt (1935). Cicero has it six times; his correspondents just as often.
120 ‘. . . emphatic quidem, though attracted to pronouns, does not always emphasize them’ (Solodow
1978: 98—ex. (q) is one of his examples). See also K.-St.: I.804–5, who discuss (o) and (p).
(o) Vale igitur, mi Cicero, tibique persuade esse te quidem mihi carissimum sed
multo fore cariorem, si talibus monitis praeceptisque laetabere.
(‘Farewell, my dear Cicero, and be assured that, while you are the object of my
deepest affection, you will be dearer to me still, if you find pleasure in such counsel
and instruction.’ Cic. Off. 3.121)
(p) Tiberius Gracchus regnum occupare conatus est vel regnavit is quidem
paucos menses.
(‘Tiberius Gracchus tried to obtain regal power—or rather, he actually did reign for a
few months.’ Cic. Amic. 41)
(q) Inscita ecastor tu quidem es.
(‘You really are silly.’ Pl. Mos. 208)
The reason for the use of emphasis is more or less explicitly traceable in the surround-
ing context. This is shown by (r)–(u). In (r), emphatic tum evokes the expectation of
(an)other occasion(s) at which something else was the case; this expectation is ful-
filled in the next sentence and reinforced by verum. In (s), emphatic tum also evokes
an expectation, but here paucis interiectis diebus must be interpreted as the signal for
the expected other occasion.121 In (t), emphatic ceteri creates the expectation of an
exception, which turns out to be Marius in the next sentence. Ex. (u) is part of an
episode about an adventure in which three friends are involved: Ascyltos, Encolpius,
and Giton. The first sentence deals only with two of them, which creates an opening
for emphatic Giton in the following sentence. Noteworthy is Pliny the Elder’s use of
quidem in (v): it marks the change from one example of marvels (animals) to another
(trees).122
(r) Nam tum quidem omnes mortales implorare posses, quod homines in tuo
negotio Latine obliviscerentur, [quod] inermi armati iudicarentur, quod,
cum interdictum esset de pluribus, commissa res esset ab uno, unus homo
plures esse homines iudicaretur. Verum in his causis . . .
(‘For in the imaginary case you might have appealed for pity to all the world because,
in dealing with your suit, the court was forgetting its Latin and holding unarmed
men to be armed men, and because, while the injunction specified more than one
man, and the deed was done by one only, the court was holding one man to be more
than one. But in the present case . . .’ Cic. Caec. 62–3)
(s) Ibi Sex. Tarquinium mala libido Lucretiae per vim stuprandae capit. Cum
forma tum spectata castitas incitat. Et tum quidem ab nocturno iuvenali ludo
in castra redeunt. Paucis interiectis diebus Sex. Tarquinius inscio Collatino
cum comite uno Collatiam venit.
(‘It was there that Sextus Tarquinius was seized with a wicked desire to debauch
Lucretia by force; not only her beauty, but her proved chastity as well, provoked him.
121 Examples (s) and (u) are discussed by Kroon (2009b: 155–6). See also Kroon (2011: 185–6).
122 For Pliny’s usage, see Ludewig (1891: 18–24).
However, for the present they ended the boyish prank of the night and returned to
the camp. When a few days had gone by, Sextus Tarquinius, without letting Collatinus
know, took a single attendant and went to Collatia.’ Liv. 1.57.10–58.1)
(t) Et ceteri quidem alius alio. Marius ab subselliis in rostra recta idque, quod
communiter compositum fuerat, solus edixit.
(‘And while all the rest withdrew, some in one direction, some in another, Marius
went straight from the council-chamber to the rostra and published individually
what had been drawn up by all together.’ Cic. Off. 3.80)
(u) Servavit nos (sc. Ascyltos and Encolpius) tamen atriensis, qui interventu suo
et canem placavit et nos trementes extraxit in siccum. Et Giton quidem iam
dudum se ratione acutissima redemerat a cane.
(‘But the porter by his intervention pacified the dog and saved us, and pulled us
shivering onto dry land. Giton had ransomed himself from the dog some time before
by a very cunning plan.’ Petr. 72.8–9)
(v) Praecipue India Aethiopumque tractus miraculis scatent. Maxima in India
gignuntur animalia. Indicio sunt canes grandiores ceteris. Arbores quidem
tantae proceritatis traduntur, ut sagittis superiaci nequeant . . .
(‘India and the regions of the Ethiopians bubble with marvels. The biggest animals
grow in India; for instance, Indian dogs are bigger than any others. Indeed the
trees are said to be so lofty that it is not possible to shoot an arrow over them . . .’ Plin.
Nat. 7.21)
Translating emphasizing quidem in a modern language is sometimes difficult. Often
a specific word is not necessary, because intonation will suffice. Relative clauses are a good
example of such difficulty, as in (w), where the entire relative clause is emphasized to
restrict the number of orators to those who live now (the so-called restrictive use of
quidem). It is difficult to translate this into English by just emphasizing the relative.
(w) Catonem vero quis nostrorum oratorum, qui quidem nunc sunt, legit?
(‘As for Cato, who of our orators living today reads him?’ Cic. Brut. 65)
The supplement has a selection of examples where specific translations may be useful
for the semantic relation between units containing quidem and the units to which
they are related.123
Supplement:
Restrictive: Mequidem praesente numquam factum est, quod sciam. (Pl. Am. 749);
Stultitia magna est, mea quidem sententia, / hominem amatorem ullum ad forum
procedere / . . . (Pl. Cas. 563–4); Caesar Alexandria se recepit, felix, ut sibi quidem
videbatur, mea autem sententia, qui rei publicae sit hostis, felix esse nemo potest.
(Cic. Phil. 2.64); Sed mehercule, ut quidem nunc se causa habet, etsi hesterno ser-
mone labefacta est, mihi tamen videtur esse verissima. (Cic. Luc. 10); Si enim, ut mihi
quidem videtur, non explet bona naturae voluptas, iure praetermissa est. (Cic. Fin.
5.45); Successus textor amat coponiaes ancilla / nomine Hiredem, quae
123 The organization follows K.-St.: I.803–5, including my version of their labels.
quidem illum / non curat, sed ille rogat, illa comiseretur. (CIL IV.8259.1–3
(Pompeii)); Cui similia sunt illa meo quidem iudicio, in quibus verba decenter pudo-
ris gratia subtrahuntur. (Quint. Inst. 9.3.59); Sed nec ipse ignorasse aut dissimulasse
ultima vitae suae tempora videtur, aliquot quidem argumentis. (Suet. Cl. 46.1)
Adversative: At publice commodasti. Non sine magno quidem rei publicae provin-
ciaeque Siciliae detrimento. (Cic. Ver. 4.20); Id nos fortasse non perfecimus, conati
quidem saepissime sumus. (Cic. Orat. 210); Haec quae dico cogitatione inter se dif-
ferunt, re quidem copulata sunt . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.24)
Concessive: . . . multi iam esse libri Latini dicuntur scripti inconsiderate ab optimis illis
quidem viris, sed non satis eruditis. (Cic. Tusc. 1.6); . . . filiae duae nuptae, Sulpicio maior,
minor C. Licinio Stoloni erat, illustri quidem viro tamen plebeio. (Liv. 6.34.5); Sunt
qui equo non quidem in iecore esse, sed in alvo putent . . . (Plin. Nat. 11.192); Et veneno
quidem occisum convenit. Ubi autem et per quem dato, discrepat. (Suet. Cl. 44)
Explanatory: In his autem ipsis mediocritatis regula optima est. L. quidem
Philippus . . . gloriari solebat se sine ullo munere adeptum esse omnia quae haberentur
amplissima. (Cic. Off. 2.59); Nam cum apud Graecos antiquissimum e doctis genus sit
poetarum, si quidem Homerus fuit et Hesiodus ante Romam conditam, Archilochus reg-
nante Romulo, serius poeticam nos accepimus. (Cic. Tusc. 1.3); . . . certe et deum ipsum et
divinum animum corpore liberatum cogitatione complecti possumus. Dicaearchus qui-
dem et Aristoxenus . . . nullum omnino animum esse dixerunt. (Cic. Tusc. 1.51)
In reactions: Di te perdant. # Vos quidem hercle. (Pl. Poen. 588); Nempe ergo aperte
vis quae restant me loqui? # Sane quidem. (Ter. An. 195); Syre, processisti hodie pul-
chre. # Siquidem porro, Micio, / tu tuom officium facies . . . (Ter. Ad. 979–80)
22.27 Equidem
As stated in § 22.25, equidem is typically used in clauses with a first person singular
subject and is often the first word of its clause. The speaker regularly uses equidem when
expressing his opinion, as in (a), or his source of information, as in (b), or when interact-
ing with another person or himself, as in (c) and (d), respectively. Equidem is therefore
common in dialogical texts and in speeches, or in authorial interventions in other text
types.124 It resembles adverbs that function as degree-of-truth disjuncts (see § 10.100).
(a) Non equidem ullam in publico esse maiorem hac existumo.
(‘I don’t think there’s any bigger than this one on the public street.’ Pl. Mos. 909)
(b) Iam pridem equidem istuc ex te audivi.
(‘I heard that from you long ago.’ Pl. Poen. 156)
(c) Quid stamus? Quin ergo imus atque obsonium / curamus, pulchre ut simus?
# Equidem te sequor.
(‘Why are we standing around? Why don’t we go then and sort out the food in order
to have a lovely time? # I’m following you.’ Pl. Mer. 582–3)
124 Jordan (1879) observes that Cicero’s de Officiis, a non-dialogical treatise, has only two instances of
equidem, whereas they are common in his philosophical dialogues. For the frequency with which authors
use equidem, see TLL s.v. equidem 720.16ff. For the use of ego and equidem in parenthetical clauses, see
Bolkestein (1998a: 27–8).
(d) Quid cogitem? Equidem hercle opus hoc facto existumo / ut illo intro eam.
(‘What should I think about? I believe that what needs to be done is for me to enter
there.’ Pl. Mer. 566–7)
Supplement:
Nam scio equidem nullo pacto iam esse posse haec clam senem. (Pl. Mos. 1054–5);
Equidem, quod ad me attinet, quo me vertam nescio. (Cic. Clu. 4); Haud mediocris
hic, ut equidem (ego quidem P corr.) intellego, vir fuit, qui modica libertate populo
data facilius tenuit auctoritatem principum. (Cic. Rep. 2.55);125 Equidem credo, mea
vulnera restant / et tua progenies mortalia demoror arma. (Verg. A. 10.29–30); Alpes
inde oppositae erant. Quas inexsuperabiles visas haud equidem miror, nulladum
via . . . superatas. (Liv. 5.34.6); Sed prius <mi>rari succurrit . . . (sc. arbores) in tanta
deliciarum pretia venisse, clarissimo, ut equidem arbitror, exemplo L. Crassi atque
Cn. Domiti Ahenobarbi. (Plin. Nat. 17.1)
Alii, Lyde, nunc sunt mores. # Id equidem ego certo scio. (Pl. Bac. 437); Egon’,
quom haec cum illo accubet, inspectem? # Immo equidem pol tecum accumbam . . .
(Pl. Bac. 1192); At ego hanc vicinam dico . . . / # Iam pridem equidem istuc ex te
audivi. (Pl. Poen. 154–6); Sanum te credis esse? # Equidem arbitror. (Ter. Ad. 748);
‘Sed existimo’, inquit, ‘gratum te his, Crasse, facturum . . .’ # ‘Dicam equidem, quoniam
institui, petamque a vobis’, inquit, ‘ne has meas ineptias efferatis’. (Cic. de Orat. 1.110–11)
When followed by an adversative coordinator, connector, or adverb, the clause with

equidem can be interpreted in a concessive sense, as in (e) and (f), comparable with
quidem clauses.
(e) Tu paucis expedi quid postulas. # Dixi equidem, sed si parum intellexti,
dicam denuo.
(‘You, tell me briefly what you demand. # I’ve told you, but if you didn’t understand it
fully I’ll say it again.’ Pl. Rud. 1102–3)
(f) Vellem equidem idem possem gloriari quod Cyrus, sed tamen hoc queo
dicere . . .
(‘Would that I myself could boast as Cyrus did, but still I can say this much . . .’ Cic.
Sen. 32)
The pronoun ego can be used if there is a good reason for it, as in (g) and (h): in (g), it
contrasts with tibi, in (h) with C. Lucilius.
(g) Sed quis istuc tibi / dixit? # Ego equidem ex te audivi . . .
(‘But who told you that? # I heard it from you . . .’ Pl. Am. 763–4)
(h) (sc. ut C. Lucilius) Sic ego, si iam mihi disputandum sit de his nostris studiis,
nolim equidem apud rusticos, sed multo minus apud vos.
(‘So too I, if I should now have to discuss these pursuits of ours, should of course be
sorry to speak before an audience of uneducated people, but far more reluctant to do
so in this present company.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.25)
125 For a discussion of the ms. reading, see Burckhardt (1935).

The fact that ego can co-occur with equidem makes it unattractive to describe its
meaning as de facto equivalent to ego quidem;126 another issue is the fact that equidem
is not restricted to first person singular clauses (see below).
From Antiquity onwards equidem is discussed in relation with ego quidem, as in
Servius’ comment ad Verg. A. 1.576 in (i). This explanation is still current and is
reflected in translations such as ‘I for my part’ and ‘I for one’. Another approach is to
compare the e- with ē-castor and ě-de-pol (so TLL).127 As far as I know, there are no
proposals to derive quidem from equidem, which seems more plausible.
(i) EQVIDEM in omni Vergilio ‘ego quidem’ significat, sed in aliis et pro ‘qui-
dem’ tantum ponitur, ut Tullius ‘equidem ego ceteras tempestates’.
(‘Equidem everywhere in Virgil means ego quidem, but in others it is also
used instead of quidem only, as for instance Cicero’s “I, for one (considered)
all other storms…” ’ Serv. A. 1.576—tr. Bal; NB: the mss. of Cic. Mil. 5, where
the fragment stems from, have only equidem)
In order to prove that equidem is some sort of emphatic ego, some scholars refer to a
number of instances in which a clause with equidem is parallel with a clause with an
explicit second person, as ( j) and (k).128 However, the continuation of the supposedly
contrastive words, here added between curly brackets, makes such an interpretation
very unlikely.
( j) Equidem tam sum servos quam tu {, etsi ego domi liber fui, / tu usque a
puero servitutem servivisti in Alide.}
(‘Yes, I am a slave like you, even if I was free at home and you were a slave in
Elis from childhood.’ Pl. Capt. 543–4)
(k) ‘Equidem probo ista,’ Crassus inquit, ‘quae vos facere soletis {, ut, causa ali-
qua posita consimili causarum earum, quae in forum deferuntur, dicatis
quam maxime ad veritatem accommodate. Sed plerique in hoc vocem
modo, neque eam scienter, et viris exercent suas . . .’}
(‘ “I certainly approve,” replied Crassus, “of what you yourselves are in the
habit of doing, when you propound some case, closely resembling such as are
brought into Court, and argue it in a fashion adapted as nearly as possible to
real life. Most students, however, in so doing, merely exercise their voices (and
that in the wrong way), and their physical strength . . .” ’ Cic. de Orat. 1.149)
In the clauses with a first person singular subject under discussion, equidem is rarely,
if ever, used at the noun phrase level, unlike quidem. Suggested examples are (l) and
(m), both of which are cases of discontinuity and are thus difficult to judge.129
(l) Hac igitur conscientia comite proficiscar, magno equidem cum dolore, nec
tam id propter me . . .
126 So inter alios Jordan (1879) and TLL s.v. 720.62ff.

127 Sihler (1995: 390–1) relates e- in equidem to §- in Greek §upśxz|, with the meaning ‘hither-directed’.
128 Ex. (j) is quoted by TLL s.v. equidem 721.43; (k), by Jordan (1879: 316).
129 Taken from TLL s.v. equidem 720.63f.
(‘So I shall go with this conscience to keep me company, though not without deep
sorrow, not so much for myself . . .’ Cic. Att. 10.4.5)
(m) Tuas litteras hodie exspectabam, nihil equidem ut ex iis novi; quid enim?
Verum tamen.
(‘I am expecting a letter from you today, not to learn any news (what should there
be?), but all the same.’ Cic. Att. 13.2.1)
In light of all these considerations, it is best to conclude that, in the clauses with a first
person singular subject discussed so far, equidem is an adverb that expresses in some
way the personal involvement of the speaker, something like ‘seriously’. It seems to
function as an attitudinal disjunct, but differs from the attitudinal disjuncts profecto
and scilicet, since it co-occurs with them in the same clause in (n) and (o), respectively.
(n) Iam vides? # Profecto nullam equidem illic cornicem intuor.
(‘Do you see it now? # I really can’t spot any crow there.’ Pl. Mos. 836)
(o) Nunc hoc te obsecro . . . / # Scilicet equidem istuc factum ignoscam. Verum,
Sostrata, / male docet te mea facilitas multa.
(‘But now I beseech you . . . I’ll certainly forgive you what you have done. But, Sostrata,
my generosity in many ways sends you the wrong message.’ Ter. Hau. 644–8)
The use of equidem with subjects other than ego is very rare until Apuleius, who, in his
Met., has nine out of eleven instances of equidem with a non-first person singular
subject (the balance is different in his other works). There is variation among authors:
Plautus has 160 first, 9 non-first; Cicero 320 / 1; Sallust 8 / 3.130 Examples are (p)–(s).
Of these examples, the first three are not different from the ones discussed before. In
(p), the second speaker reacts to the preceding statement. Me quidem would also be
possible, but it would mean something different. Ex. (q) is the expression of a personal
opinion and also in (r), in a speech, equidem is perfectly all right. Ex. (s) is simply
bizarre: it is in a question, and seems to relate to the secondary predicate exoptatus.131
(p) Nimis doctus ille <est> ad male faciendum. # Me equidem certo / servavit
consiliis suis.
(‘He’s very clever when it comes to making mischief. # He certainly saved me with his
strategies.’ Pl. Epid. 378–9)
(q) Equidem credibile non est quantum scribam, quin etiam noctibus.
(‘You would not believe how much I am writing, even at night.’ Cic. Att. 13.26.2)
(r) ‘Iam pridem equidem nos vera vocabula rerum amisimus.’
(‘But in very truth we have long since lost the true names for things.’ Sal. Cat. 52.11)
(s) . . . infit ad eum ‘Quam olim equidem exoptatus nobis advenis?’
(‘. . . he said to him: “How long ago did you, who I’ve hoped would come, get here?” ’
Apul. Met. 2.13.6)
130 See TLL s.v. equidem 720.25ff. 131 The example is quoted in OLD s.v. equidem § 2.
The use of equidem is also odd in (t), where ego is the subject of the sentence. Here,
equidem is part of the noun phrase salutares . . . aquas, and it seems to be intended to
emphasize vere. Apuleius is here exploiting for artistic purposes the gradual develop-
ment of using equidem instead of quidem, which can already be detected in Pliny the
Elder’s use of it in quod clauses of qualification, as in (u) (see § 16.83).132
(t) At ego sine ulla mora progressus etiam obvio gradu satis sitienter pronus et
totum caput immergens salutares vere equidem illas aquas hauriebam.
(‘I did not delay at all, but started forward to meet them, leaned down quite thirstily,
immersed my entire head, and gulped down those truly life-giving waters.’ Apul.
Met. 9.4.1)
(u) Aristoteles tradit et simul plures cerni, nemini conpertum alteri, quod equi-
dem sciam, ventos autem ab iis graves aestusve significari.
(‘Aristotle also records that several may be seen at the same time—a fact not observed
by anyone else, as far as I am aware—and that this signifies severe winds or heat.’ Plin.
Nat. 2.91)
There is in principle no reason to assume for clauses with a non-first person subject
another contribution of equidem to the content of the clause simply because it is a
non-first person subject.
22.28 Saltem and related expressions

This section deals with the particle saltem and three related expressions which are
always (saltem) or in some of their uses (certe, utique, and dumtaxat) translated as ‘at
least’. Of these, saltem and dumtaxat are emphasizing particles, while the other two
are adverbs which are sometimes used in a way that resembles emphasizing particles.
22.29 Saltem
From Plautus onwards the emphasizing particle saltem ‘at least’ is used to indicate that
the word or phrase in its scope ‘has a lower value than one or more alternatives that
may be “preferable” but “not practicable” ’.133 The alternative(s) can be explicit, as in
(a), (c), and (d), or implicit, as in (b). Saltem is common in the apodosis of a condi-
tional clause, as in (b), sometimes in combination with the adversative connector at
‘but’. It need not stand immediately next to the word(s) in its scope but may precede
or follow it. Saltem can also be used below the clause level, as in the adjective phrase
in (d). Occasionally the whole clause seems to be in its scope, as in (e), where saltem
comes close to being a subjective evaluation disjunct (see § 10.104). For its use with a
conditional clause in its scope, see the Supplement. In a negative context it corresponds
132 For equidem = quidem in Apuleius, see Callebat (1968: 493–4). For later instances, see TLL s.v.
equidem 722.72ff.
133 Combining the description in OLD s.v. saltem and that by Risselada (2016: 193). So already K.-St.:
I.801. See also Bortolussi and Sznajder (2001).
to English ‘even’, as in (f). In later Latin the combination ne/nec . . . saltem is used in the
sense of ne . . . quidem.134
(a) . . . id optumum esse, tute uti sis optumus. / Si id nequeas, saltem ut optumis
sis proxumus.
(‘. . . that it is the best to be the best yourself; if you can’t be that, at least that you
should be next to the best.’ Pl. Trin. 486–7)
(b) In quibus si moderatio illa quae in nostris solet esse consulibus non fuit, at
fuit pompa, fuit species, fuit incessus saltem Seplasia dignus et Capua.
(‘And if those men were not marked by all that self-restraint which ordinarily charac-
terizes our consuls, there was a presence about them, a magnificence, a lordly gait
that was at least worthy of the Seplasia and of Capua.’ Cic. Pis. 24)
(c) Quam ob rem obsecro te, mi Tite, eripe hunc mihi dolorem aut minue
saltem . . .
(‘So, my dear Titus, I implore you, rid me of this pain or at any rate relieve it . . .’ Cic.
Att. 9.6.5)
(d) Atque utinam quietis temporibus atque aliquo, si non bono, at saltem certo
statu civitatis haec inter nos studia exercere possemus!
(‘If only we could pursue these studies together in peaceful times and at least a settled,
if not satisfactory, state of the community!’ Cic. Fam. 9.8.2)
(e) Saltem aliquid de pondere detraxisset et paulo minoris aestimavisset ea
quam Peripatetici, ut sentire quoque aliud, non solum dicere videretur.
(‘He ought at least to have diminished their importance and to have set a slightly
lower value on them than the Peripatetics, so as to make the difference appear to be
one of meaning and not merely of language.’ Cic. Fin. 4.57)
(f) Tubera haec vocantur undique terra circumdata nullisque fibris nixa aut
saltem capillamentis . . .
(‘The growths referred to are called truffles; they are enveloped all round with earth
and are not strengthened by any fibres or even any filaments . . .’ Plin. Nat. 19.33)
Supplement:
Quis ego sum saltem, si non sum Sosia? (Pl. Am. 438); Istuc sapienter saltem fecit
filius, / quom diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit. (Pl. Bac. 337–8); Ego impe-
trare nequeo hoc abs te, biduom / saltem ut concedas solum. # Siquidem biduom. /
Verum ne fiant isti viginti dies. (Ter. Eu. 181–3); . . . obsecrabo obtestaborque vos,
iudices, si cetera amisimus, hoc nobis saltem ut relinquatur . . . (Cic. Mil. 6); Ac de his
tamen legibus quae promulgatae sunt saltem queri possumus: de eis quae iam latae
dicuntur ne illud quidem licuit. (Cic. Phil. 1.25); . . . saltem populi Romani commoda
respicite si sociis fidelissimis prospicere non laboratis. (Cic. Ver. 3.127); Saltem si qua
mihi de te suscepta fuisset / ante fugam suboles, si quis mihi parvulus aula / luderet
Aeneas qui te tamen ore referret, / non equidem omnino capta ac deserta viderer.
134 For ne/nec . . . saltem = ne . . . quidem in Apuleius and later Latin, see Callebat (1968: 334–5).
(Verg. A. 4.327–30); Saevite in tergum et in cervices nostras. Pudicitia saltem in tuto

sit. (Liv. 3.45.9); Ibi tribuni militum non loco castris ante capto . . . non deorum saltem
si non hominum memores, nec auspicato nec litato, instruunt aciem . . . (Liv. 5.38.1);
In crure aeque ad rem pertinet alterum saltem os integrum manere. (Cels. 8.10.5A);
Non vides quemadmodum in Achaia clarissimarum urbium iam fundamenta con-
sumpta sint nec quicquam extet ex quo appareat illas saltem fuisse? (Sen. Ep.
91.10); . . . nulli contra nos aditum tulerunt ac ne procul saltem ulli comparuerant.
(Apul. Met. 8.16.7)
22.30 Certe
The adverb certe ‘surely’ is normally used as a degree-of-truth disjunct (see § 10.100),
but in explicitly or implicitly contrastive contexts it can be interpreted as indicating a
minimal degree ‘(perhaps more, but) at least’. The contrast can hold between subor-
dinate and main clauses, between sentences, or between words or phrases. When
indicating a minimal degree, certe resembles the emphasizing particle saltem (although
its meaning is different).135 Contrastive clauses are shown in (a) and (b). In (c) and (d)
the contrast is implicit. Note that the contrastive words are in the first position in their
clause, which in (d) results in discontinuity of the noun phrase.
(a) Nam, utut erant alia, illi certe quae nunc tibi domi’st consuleres . . .
(‘If nothing else, you should have at least taken some thought for the girl you have at
home . . .’ Ter. Ph. 468)
(b) Ac si princeps eam sententiam dicerem, laudaretis profecto. Si solus, certe
ignosceretis.
(‘And if I were the first to put forward this opinion, you would assuredly praise me. If
I were the only one to do so, you would no doubt excuse me.’ Cic. Prov. 1)
(c) Quo quid sit beatius, mihi certe in mentem venire non potest.
(‘And what can be happier than this I certainly cannot conceive.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.81)
(d) Ergo id volumus populum Romanum . . . existimare, si senatores iudicent, hoc
certe unum genus infinitae pecuniae per summam iniuriam cogendae nullo
modo posse reprehendi?
(‘Do we then wish the Roman people . . . to think that, if senators are the judges, this
particular manner of extorting immense sums of money with the greatest injustice
will never be in any way chastised?’ Cic. Ver. 3.223)
Supplement:
Atque is tamen aliquis Ligarius non fuit: Varus imperium se habere dicebat. Fasces
certe habebat. (Cic. Lig. 22–3); . . . in causa populari si non moderate at certe popula-
riter apstinenterque versato. (Cic. Sest. 37); . . . ut homines mortem vel optare incipiant
vel certe timere desistant? (Cic. Tusc. 1.117); Redeo e<r>go ad unum illud, me tuum
esse. Fore cum tuis, si modo erunt tui. Si minus, me certe in omnibus rebus satis
nostrae coniunctioni amorique facturum. (Cic. Fam. 4.8.2); In quo si praesens
135 See Risselada (2016: 193–4), with references. For further examples, see TLL s.v. 932.76ff.
periculum non, at certe longinqua obsidione fames esset timenda. (Caes. Gal. 5.29.7);
Numen confessis aliquod patet. Ultima certe / vota suos habuere deos. (Ov. Met.
10.488–9); Eandem multis naturam aut certe similem habere berulli videntur. (Plin.
Nat. 37.76); . . . nec rerum nimiam tenuitatem, ut non dicam pinguioribus, fortioribus
certe verbis miscebimus . . . (Quint. Inst. 12.10.35); Quam ob rem duo quodam modo
sunt testamenta, a<l>iud patris, aliud fili, tamquam si ipse filius sibi heredem
instituisset. Aut certe unum est testamentum duarum hereditatum. (Gaius Inst. 2.180)
22.31 Utique
The adverb utique ‘absolutely’, ‘at any rate’ is mostly used as a degree-of-truth disjunct
(see § 10.100). Cicero has about twenty instances of this usage in his Letters to Atticus,
one of which is (a), and a few in his other works. Livy has more than eighty instances
of utique and he is the first to relate it to a subordinate clause, as in (b), more or less in
the manner of an emphasizing particle. Word order in (c) suggests that utique relates
to ipso . . . Scipione.136 Ex. (d) shows utique in the second conjoin of a coordination
pair. Apuleius is the first to use it with a question word, as in (e). It is almost absent
from verse (only Maur. 592),137 but common in prose authors such as Celsus,
Columella, Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Quintilian, and Tertullian;138 it is avoided by
Tacitus (except in the Dialogus).
(a) Velim ante possis, si minus, utique simul simus cum Brutus veniet in
Tusculanum.
(‘I wish you could manage it before, but if not, let us at any rate be together when
Brutus comes to Tusculum.’ Cic. Att. 13.4.2)
(b) Superbiam, verborum praesertim, iracundi oderunt, prudentes inrident,
utique si inferioris adversus superiorem est.
(‘Arrogance, especially of speech, is hated by the hot-tempered, but laughed at by the
wise, especially if directed by an inferior against his superior.’ Liv. 45.23.18)
(c) . . . quod Numida cum ipso utique congredi Scipione volebat atque eius dextra
fidem sancire.
(‘. . . because the Numidian desired in any case to meet Scipio in person and to ratify
the agreement by clasping his hand.’ Liv. 28.35.1)
(d) In senatu et utique in contionibus eadem ratio quae apud iudices adquiren-
dae sibi plerumque eorum apud quos dicendum sit benivolentiae.
(‘Among the senate and certainly among the people the same methods apply as in the
law courts, and we must aim as a rule at acquiring the goodwill of our audience.’
Quint. Inst. 3.8.7)
136 The OLD s.v. utique § 7a translates ‘expressly’. Sz.: 493 states that it is equivalent to cur + ergo or
igitur. The translation ‘precisely’ in (e) is also from the OLD, § 7b. For utique in Late Latin, see
Langslow (2005).
137 See Axelson (1945: 96). 138 For Apuleius’ usage, see Callebat (1968: 322–3).
(e) (sc. uxor) . . . percontatur de marito cur utique contubernalis artissimi deserta
cenula praematurus adforet.
(‘. . . she inquired of her husband why precisely he had left supper at his best friend’s
house and returned so early.’ Apul. Met. 9.23.3)
Supplement:
Faba quidem Pythagorei utique abstinere, quasi vero eo cibo mens, non venter infle-
tur. (Cic. Div. 2.119); . . . et velim M. Varronis et Olli mittas laudationem, Olli utique.
(Cic. Att. 13.48.2); Rursus Vergini Larcique exemplo haud salubres, utique Larci
putabant sententiam <eam esse> quae totam fidem tolleret. (Liv. 2.30.1); . . . tribuni
rem contra consules saepe temptatam adiutore utique consule obtineri posse rati
suscipiunt . . . (Liv. 3.1.2); Ceterum minime exorabilem alterum utique consulem
M. Porcium Catonem habebant (Liv. 34.1.7); Gangrenam vero, si nondum plane
tenet, sed adhuc incipit, curare non difficillimum est, utique in corpore iuvenili.
(Cels. 5.26.34A); Huic (sc. sapienti) enim propositum est in vita agenda non utique
quod temptat efficere, sed omnia recte facere. Gubernatori propositum est utique
navem in portum perducere. (Sen. Ep. 85.32); Latus cellae vinariae aut certe fenestras
obverti in aquilonem oportere vel utique in exortum aequinoctialem. (Plin. Nat.
14.133); (sc. Cicero) . . . quasdam sententias invenit, utique in iis orationibus quas
senior iam et iuxta finem vitae composuit . . . (Tac. Dial. 22.2); . . . quod enim rebar . . . me
ad alium quempiam utique leviorem laborem legatum iri . . . (Apul. Met. 9.11.5); . . . cum
pater filio posuerit inimicos sub pedes, utique operarios mali. (Tert. Hermog. 11.3)
NB: probably not an instance of utique (one word), but of utei + -que: . . . eademque
omnia quae uteique in tabulas / rettulerit ta in tabulam in album
referundam (sc. curato) . . . (CIL I2.593.14–15 (Lex Iul. Munic., Pisticci, 80–43 bc))139
Appendix: In ex. (c), the placement of utique (and congredi) causes discontinuity of
ipso Scipione and makes ipso emphatic. See also the examples in the Supplement. Livy
uses profecto in a similar way, as in (f) and (g). See also (h). This suggests that profecto
functions as an emphasizing particle.140
(f) Nulla profecto alia gens tanta mole cladis non obruta esset.
(‘Surely there was no other people that would not have been overwhelmed
by a disaster of such vast proportions.’ Liv. 22.54.10)
(g) (sc. Hasdrubal) . . . gener inde ob aliam indolem profecto animi adscitus . . . in
imperio positus.
(‘(Hasdrubal) . . . subsequently selected him as his son-in-law because of
another talent, one of the mind . . . and he was given the command.’ Liv. 21.2.4)
(h) . . . montem perfossum ad lacum Fucinum emittendum inenarrabili pro-
fecto impendio et operarum multitudine per tot annos . . .
(‘. . . the channel that he dug through a mountain to drain the Fucine Lake.
This, I need hardly say, entailed the expenditure of an indescribably large
sum of money and the employment for many years of a horde of workers . . .’
Plin. Nat. 36.124)
139 Analysed as a case of coordination by Rosén (2009: 376).

140 See, with other examples, Rosén (2009: 326). See also TLL s.v. profecto 1675.21ff.
22.32 Dumtaxat
The emphasizing particle dumtaxat ‘only’ has, with few exceptions where it functions
as an adverb,141 a word or phrase in its scope, which it may precede or follow, or, in
the case of noun phrases, may be inserted in between. Dictionaries give two opposite
meanings: non plus (TLL) ‘at most’ (OLD) and non minus (TLL) ‘at least’ (OLD). The
earliest attestation, ex. (a), is interpreted in both ways: ‘at most’ in the TLL and the OLD,
‘at least’ by Enk ad loc. and by de Melo in his Loeb translation. Unlike the three words
discussed above, dumtaxat is used with numbers and measures, in which case it
clearly means ‘no more’, ‘only’, as in (b). See also (c) for a legal context (note the paral-
lelism with tantum). In (d), classified as non minus by the TLL, there is a contrast
between animo and re familiari, a context in which quidem would be appropriate.
‘Only’ would do as well.142 In (e), however, the context is one in which utique might
be expected. Unlike the exclusive particles modo and solum, the combination non
dumtaxat . . . sed etiam is attested only twice (in the Digesta), which is the reason why
dumtaxat is not classified as an exclusive particle in this Syntax. The fact that dumtaxat
can be used in two different senses can be understood from the common feature of
‘limitation’ or ‘restriction’.143 Although very rare in verse,144 it is relatively frequent in
Pliny the Elder and in Christian authors, but most frequent in the jurists.
(a) . . . iubebo ad istam quinque deferri minas, / praeterea opsonari <una> (add.
Bergk) dumtaxat mina.
(‘. . . I’ll have five minae brought over to her, and in addition I’ll have food bought for
at least one mina.’ Pl. Truc. 444–5)
(b) In quo impune progredi licet duo dumtaxat pedes aut paulo plus, ne plane in
versum aut similitudinem versus incidamus.
(‘In this rhythm we may safely continue, but only for two feet or a little more, to avoid
clearly lapsing into verse or something resembling verse.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.182—tr. May
and Wisse)
(c) In conducto et locato . . . et dolum et culpam praestabunt qui servum recepe-
runt. At si cibaria tantum, dolum dumtaxat.
(‘In hire . . . they who receive the slave will be liable for both fraud and fault. But if
they supplied food alone, liability is only for fraud.’ Ulp. dig. 16.3.1.10)
(d) Nos animo dumtaxat vigemus, etiam magis quam cum florebamus. Re familiari
comminuti sumus.
(‘My heart is high, higher even than in my palmy days, but my purse is low.’ Cic. Att.
4.3.6—tr. Shackleton Bailey)
141 Sz.: 618, following TLL s.v. dumtaxat 2240.63, mentions as only exception Lucr. 2.123–4: Dumtaxat
rerum magnarum parva potest res / exemplare dare et vestigia notitiai. Editors deal with it in various
ways. There are, however, more, e.g. Plin. Nat. 3.57 (see the Supplement).
142 See Risselada (2016: 194–6) for discussion. Rosén (2009: 361; 404) has dumtaxat in the group of
what are here called ‘particularizing’ particles.
143 See Bertocchi and Maraldi (2017).
144 See Axelson (1945: 96). The PHI corpus has 586 passages with one or more instances of dumtaxat,
of which 376 are from the Digesta.
(e) Cetera spero prolixa esse, his dumtaxat urbanis competitoribus.

(‘I hope the rest is plain sailing, at any rate as far as these local competitors are con-
cerned.’ Cic. Att. 1.1.2)
Supplement:
Hae rei materiem et quae opus sunt dominus praebebit et ad opus dabit: serram I,
lineam I (materiam dumtaxat succidet dolabit secabit facietque conductor), lapidem,
calcem . . . (Cato Agr. 14.3); Fraudis interpretatio semper in iure civili non ex eventu
dumtaxat, sed ex consilio quoque desideratur. (Papin. dig. 50.17.79); In tertia parti
quis habebat piscinam nisi dulcem et in ea dumtaxat squalos ac mugiles pisces? (Var.
R. 3.3.9); . . . inferiorem esse se patitur, dumtaxat usque eo ne cum bonis, fama for-
tunisque omnibus Sex. Naevi cupiditati crudelitatique dedatur. (Cic. Quinct. 58); . . .
cum is inimicus . . . spiritu dumtaxat viveret, re quidem infra omnes mortuos aman-
datus esset. (Cic. Red. Pop. 10—NB: parallelism with quidem); Sed peditatu dumtaxat
procul ad speciem utitur, equites in aciem inmittit. (Caes. Civ. 2.41.2); Quod ad
Caesarem, crebri et non belli de eo rumores, sed susurratores dumtaxat, veniunt.
(Cael. Fam. 8.1.4); [Quid, si dumtaxat Romae mihi cognitus esses, / adscitus totiens
in genus omne loci?] (Ov. Tr. 1.8.33–4—NB: rejected by Luck ad loc. among other
things because of ‘prosaic’ dumtaxat; Hall prints dum puero); Nec animum dumtaxat
vobis fidelem ac bonum praestitit, sed omnibus interfuit bellis . . . (Liv. 37.53.9); . . . si
quid ex iocinere aut liene aut pulmone dumtaxat extremo dependet . . . (Cels.
5.26.24C); Theophrastus, qui primus externorum aliqua de Romanis diligentius
scripsit—nam Theopompus, ante quem nemo mentionem habuit, urbem (sc.
Romam) dumtaxat a Gallis captam dixit, Clitarc<h>us, ab eo proximus, legationem
tantum ad Alexandrum missam . . . (Plin. Nat. 3.57—NB: parallelism with tantum);
Hi membratim caesi cervice et abdomine commendantur atque clidio, recenti
dumtaxat et tum quoque gravi ru<c>tu. (Plin. Nat. 9.48); Proxima est mensa ecori
dumtaxat mustelarum . . . (Plin. Nat. 9.63); Liberti non multum supra servos sunt,
raro aliquod momentum in domo, numquam in civitate, exceptis dumtaxat iis genti-
bus quae regnantur. (Tac. Ger. 25.2—NB: T.’s only case); Temptavi enim imitari
Demosthenen semper tuum, Calvum nuper meum, dumtaxat figuris orationis. (Plin.
Ep. 1.2.2); Tu, domine, dispice an instituendum putes collegium fabrorum dumtaxat
hominum CL. (Plin. Ep. 10.33.3); Cum tutor non rebus dumtaxat, sed etiam moribus
pupilli praeponatur . . . (Paul. dig. 26.7.12.3)
22.33 Praesertim and related expressions

The following sections deal with the particularizing particle praesertim and related
expressions that indicate that the words or phrases they have in their scope rank rela-
tively high in some respect.
22.34 Praesertim
The particle praesertim ‘especially’ is used in all periods of Latin with words and
phrases to indicate that the constituent in its scope is particularly relevant in its con-
text in comparison with others (which are usually not expressed). It normally pre-
cedes its scope. Its distribution is very uneven. The main user is Cicero with more
than 500 instances.145 TLL mentions no instances of the independent use of praeser-
tim at the clause level, unlike praecipue. Its use with constituents in its scope is shown
in (a)–(e). In (a), it has a beneficiary adjunct in its scope; in (b), an object; in (c), an
ablative absolute functioning as an adjunct of position in time or of circumstances
(see § 16.89); in (d), a temporal/causal cum clause. The last-mentioned combination
is very common. Ex. (e) has a participle functioning as secondary predicate.
(a) Egone istuc ausim facere, praesertim tibi?
(‘Would I dare to do this, especially to you?’ Pl. Poen. 149)
(b) Tum Crassus ‘an me tam impudentem esse existimatis, ut vobis hoc praeser-
tim munus putem diutius posse debere?’
(‘ “Do you really suppose,” Crassus then replied, “that I am so shameless that I think
I can be in your debt any longer, especially concerning this obligation?” ’ Cic. de Orat.
(c) Edepol me uxori exoptatum credo adventurum domum, / . . . praesertim re
gesta bene, / victis hostibus.
(‘I really believe my wife will be waiting eagerly for my arrival. Especially after this
success, after our victory over the enemy.’ Pl. Am. 654–6)
(d) Praesertim quom is me dignum quoi concrederet / habuit, me habere
honorem eius ingenio decet.
(‘It’s only fair that I should respect his inclinations, especially since he felt that I
deserved his confidence.’ Pl. As. 80–1)
(e) . . . longum est dicere mihi, praesertim ad alia properanti.
(‘. . . it would be tedious to relate, especially as I am anxious to pass on to other topics.’
Cic. Clu. 36)
Supplement:
. . . quae forsitan vobis parvae esse videantur, sed magnum et acerbum dolorem com-
movent, mulierculis praesertim . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.47); Deforme etiam est de se ipsum
praedicare, falsa praesertim . . . (Cic. Off. 1.137); . . . nihil est in re praesertim aperta ac
simplici quod excellens ingenium requiratur. (Cic. Caec. 4); . . . ut condiciones ferret,
leges imponeret, reserare nos exteris gentibus Italiam iuberet se praesertim inco-
lumi . . . (Cic. Phil. 7.2); Profecto enim negare non potes te ex lege Rupilia sortiri
iudices debuisse, cum praesertim Heraclius id postularet. (Cic. Ver. 2.44); Si ea
seposita, ut dicis, essent tuque valde spectandi cupidus esses, non dubitares rogare
dominum, ut proferri iuberet, praesertim si esset familiaris. (Cic. de Orat. 1.162); . . .
vos id statuere in gravissima causa, praesertim aliorum auctoritate iam confirmatum,
dubitabitis? (Cic. Ver. 2.109)
145 For frequency data, see TLL s.v. praesertim 864.72ff. and s.v. praecipue 478.56ff. for a comparison
of its frequency with that of praesertim. The article on praesertim gives a detailed classification of its uses.
Hand (1829/45: IV) s.v. praesertim is still worth reading.
Examples of the use of praesertim at the noun phrase level are (f)–(h), an adjective
of amount, a prepositional phrase, and a relative clause, respectively, with all three
functioning as attribute.
(f) Illa, Caecili, contemnendane tibi videntur esse, sine quibus causa sustineri,
praesertim tanta, nullo modo potest?
(‘Do these things appear contemptible to you, without which no cause, especially no
cause of such importance, can by any means be supported?’ Cic. Div. Caec. 35)
(g) . . . haec (sc. castra) etsi erant exigua per se, vix hominum milium septem,
praesertim nullis cum impedimentis, tamen . . .
(‘. . . and small as was the camp itself, as it was for scarce seven thousand men, and
those, too, without baggage, nevertheless . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.49.7)
(h) . . . qui pauperes sunt homines miseri vivont, / praesertim quibus nec quaes-
tus est . . .
(‘. . . people who are poor live wretchedly, especially those who have no trade . . .’ Pl.
Rud. 290–1)
Supplement:
. . . comitiis, praesertim aediliciis, studium esse populi, non iudicium. (Cic. Planc. 10);
Petitorem ego, praesertim consulatus, magna spe, magno animo, magnis copiis et in
forum et in campum deduci volo. (Cic. Mur. 44); Ei me tot tam acerba facere in
corde— # Frugi nunquam eris. / # praesertim quae coniurasset mecum et firmasset
fidem (Pl. Cist. 240–1); . . . ut tantis copiis tam exiguam manum, praesertim fugientem
atque impeditam, adoriri non audeant. (Caes. Gal. 6.8.1)
22.35 Praecipue
The adverb praecipue ‘in an outstanding manner’, ‘to an outstanding degree’ can be
used as a degree adjunct at the clause level, as in the first attestation (a), and as a
degree modifier with adjectives, as in (b); in the latter function the resulting phrase is
sometimes equivalent to a superlative form or serves as a substitute for an uncommon
or non-existing superlative form. In these functions it can be combined with the sca-
lar particle vel (see § 22.22), as in (c).146 As a degree adjunct it can also be used in an
elliptical way, as in (d).
(a) Tu ecastor erras, quae quidem illum expectes unum atque illi / morem prae-
cipue sic geras atque alios asperneris.
(‘You’re indeed making a mistake by waiting on him alone, showing him your special
favour like this, and despising others.’ Pl. Mos. 188–9)
(b) Color autem albus praecipue decorus deo est . . .
(‘However, the colour white is especially suitable for a god.’ Cic. Leg. 2.45)
(c) Haec (sc. aqua) enim vel praecipue lienem coercet.
(‘For this water most pre-eminently reduces the spleen.’ Cels. 4.16.2)
146 For further examples, see TLL s.v. praecipue 481.27ff.

(d) Omnes, inquam, vincere volebamus. Tu certe praecipue (om. l) (sc. vincere
volebas), qui in eum locum venisses ubi tibi esset pereundum, nisi vicisses.
(‘We all, I say, wished for success, you assuredly above all, for you had come into a
place where you must perish unless you succeeded.’ Cic. Lig. 28)
When used with cases of epitactic coordination (both asyndetic, as in (e), and with et,
-que or sed, as in (f)) and of correlative coordination with cum . . . tum, as in (g), prae-
cipue seems to emphasize the constituent which it precedes or follows, resembling the
use of the emphasizing particle praesertim. However, the emphasis is a side effect of
the use of these coordinators and not due to the presence of praecipue (see § 19.67).
Praecipue can also be combined with the adversative connectors vero and autem. By
contrast, praesertim does not occur in these contexts or at least this use is extremely
rare. Another specific feature of praecipue is that it is often used to signal an individual
that ranks higher than others mentioned in the context in some respect, as in (e)
(omnes vs. pius Aeneas) and (g).147
(e) Ergo omnes magno circum clamore fremebant, / praecipue pius Aeneas.
(‘So, with loud lament, all were mourning round him, good Aeneas foremost.’ Verg.
A. 6.175–6)
(f) Tu si nos omnis amas, et praecipue me, magistrum tuum, confirma te.
(‘If you love us all, and especially me, your schoolmaster, get back your strength.’ Cic.
Fam. 16.3.1)
(g) Quod (sc. otium) cum omnibus bonis utile esset, tum praecipue mihi.
(‘Peace is advantageous for all decent men, but particularly for me.’ Cic. Phil. 8.11)
NB: parallelism with maxime and imprimis: Haec una res in omni libero populo
maximeque in pacatis tranquillisque civitatibus praecipue semper floruit semperque
dominata est. (Cic. de Orat. 1.30); . . . fere subeunt lippitudines, tormina, febres,
maximeque in mollioribus corporibus, ideoque praecipue in muliebribus. (Cels.
2.1.14); Quapropter in primis evitandus, et in pueris praecipue, magister aridus . . .
NB: coordination: . . . omnium maxime atque praecipue fidem coluit . . . (Plin. Ep.
20.1.39)
Alongside these instances of coordination there are other instances in which prae-
cipue seems to have a particular constituent in its scope. Exx. (h)–( j) illustrate con-
stituents at the clause level: in (h), a subject constituent; in (i), a quod reason clause; in
( j), a secondary predicate.
(h) Illud cuivis facile est docere, cur praecipue tu dolere nihil debeas.
(‘But anyone may easily show why you ought not specially to distress yourself.’ Cic.
Fam. 6.4.2)
147 See TLL s.v. 478.83ff. The co-occurrence data were checked for the PHI and the LLT ‘patrum’
corpus. Gregory of Tours has twenty-four instances of et praesertim.
(i) Est aliqua mea pars virilis, quod eius civitatis sum quam ille amplam inlus-
trem claramque reddidit, praecipue quod in his rebus pro mea parte versor
quarum ille princeps fuit . . .
(‘In this right I myself have a share, as a citizen of the empire whose proud and glori-
ous fame is due to him; the more so because I do my best to follow him in the path
where he leads the way for us all . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.81)
( j) Quo turpior homini inscitia est fatenti praecipue iumentorum quorundam
in oculis morbos cum luna increscere ac minui.
(‘This makes ignorance all the more disgraceful to man, especially as he admits that
with some cattle diseases of the eyes increase and diminish with the moon.’ Plin. Nat.
2.110)
Supplement:
Quod cum pertimuisset Dolabella, vastata provincia, correptis vectigalibus, prae-
cipue civibus Romanis omnibus crudelissime denudatis ac divenditis, celeriusque Asia
excessisset quam . . . diutius morari aut exspectare praesidium non necesse habui . . .
(Lent. Fam. 12.15.1—NB: praecipuis cj. Rubenius, followed by other editors); Fiunt et
solis lunaeque defectu, quoniam tempestates tunc sopiuntur, praecipue vero cum
sequitur imbres aestus imbresve aestum. (Plin. Nat. 2.195)
Examples of praecipue with a constituent of a noun phrase in its scope are (k)
and (l).
(k) Nam quid foedius nostra vita, praecipue mea?
(‘After all what could be more ignominious than the life we lead, I especially?’ Cic.
Att. 4.6.1)
(l) . . . vocesque etiam miserabiles exaudiebantur, mulierum praecipue . . .
(‘. . . plaintive cries too began to be heard, proceeding chiefly from the women . . .’ Liv.
1.29.5)
Supplement:
Non ullo gravius temptatur Cynthia damno / quam sibi cum rapto cessat amore
decus, / praecipue nostro. (Prop. 1.4.25–7—NB: the mss. have nostri);148 Asclepiades
etiam in recenti vehementique praecipueque ardente febre ad discutiendam eam ges-
tatione dixit utendum. (Cels. 2.15.1); Huic pecudi nocet aestus, sed magis frigus, et
praecipue fetae, quia gelidior hiemps conceptum vitiat. (Col. 7.6.5); . . . inter insulas
Rubri praecipue maris his navigent cumbis. (Plin. Nat. 9.35)
Cicero and his correspondents use praecipue in total about fifty times, Pliny the Elder
almost four times as much. Celsus, Columella, and Quintilian fall somewhere in
between.149
148 For discussion, see Heyworth (2007: 22). 149 See TLL s.v. praecipue 478.56ff.
22.36 Imprimis
The adverb imprimis (or inprimis), also in two words in primis, in its meaning ‘above
all’ resembles praecipue in that it can be used as a degree adjunct and as a degree
modifier, as in (a) and (b), respectively. Just like praecipue, it can be combined with
the scalar particle vel, as in (c).
(a) (sc. civitatem) . . . quam meus frater in primis colit atque diligit.
(‘(that state) . . . which my brother has shown the greatest attachment to and fondness
for.’ Cic. Flac. 52)
(b) L. quidem Philippus, Q. f., magno vir ingenio inprimisque clarus, gloriari
solebat . . .
(‘To be sure, Lucius Philippus, the son of Quintus, a man of great ability and unusual
renown, used to make it his boast . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.59)
(c) . . . Crantor ille, qui in nostra Academia vel in primis fuit nobilis . . .
(‘. . . The famous Crantor, who held the foremost place of distinction in our Academy . . .’
Cic. Tusc. 3.12)
Just like praecipue, in primis can be part of an epitactic conjoin, as in (d), or of other
forms of coordination, as in (e). In such cases it has a particular word or phrase in its
scope.
(d) Quis ergo intererat vestris consiliis? Omnes hi quos vides huic adesse et in
primis Q. Hortensius.
(‘Who, then, was present at your counsels? All these men whom you see here, giving
Sulla the countenance of their presence; and among the first was Quintus Hortensius.’
Cic. Sul. 12)
(e) Verba ponenda sunt quae vim habeant illustrandi nec ab usu sint abhorren-
tia, gravia . . . non vulgata, superlata, in primisque translata.
(‘Words must be employed that are powerfully illuminating without being inconsist-
ent with ordinary usage, weighty, . . . unhackneyed, exaggerated, and above all used
metaphorically.’ Cic. Part. 53)
Other examples in which in primis seems to have a particular constituent in its scope
are (f)–(h).150 In (f) and (g), the phrase has subject constituents in its scope; in (h), a
ne purpose clause.
(f) . . . in hoc elaborandum est ut rem publicam constituas, eaque tu in primis
summa tranquillitate et otio perfruare.
(‘. . . to this must you summon all your powers to plant the constitution firmly, and
you especially to reap the chiefest fruits thereof in peace and tranquillity.’ Cic.
Marc. 27)
150 The TLL article s.v. imprimis has a detailed classification of its use with nouns and pronouns, adjec-
tives, adverbs, and verbs, and clauses, using the term ‘acuuntur’. I think that in many instances we are
dealing with degree adjuncts and modifiers. See also the classification in Merguet (Phil.) s.v. in 283.
(g) Et cupidi omnes et maligni omnes et timidi omnes, illi in primis qui videntur
audaces.
(‘They are all also covetous and spiteful and cowardly especially those who appear to
be bold.’ Sen. Ben. 5.17.3)
(h) Sed tamen multa Caesarem ad id bellum incitabant: iniuria retentorum equi-
tum Romanorum . . . tot civitatum coniuratio, in primis ne hac parte neglecta
reliquae nationes sibi idem licere arbitrarentur.
(‘. . . nevertheless, many considerations moved Caesar to undertake this campaign.
Such were the outrageous detention of Roman knights . . . the conspiracy of so many
states and, above all, the fear that if this district were not dealt with the other nations
might suppose they had the same liberty.’ Caes. Gal. 3.10.1)
Examples of in primis with a constituent at the noun phrase level are (i) and ( j).
(i) . . . ea esse eum opinione et tua et ipsius et in primis mea causa gaudeo.
(‘. . . I am delighted both for your sake and his, and above all for my own, that he
should be so well thought of.’ Lent. Fam. 12.14.8)
( j) . . . nec aetas impedit quominus et ceterarum rerum et in primis agri colendi
studia teneamus usque ad ultimum tempus senectutis.
(‘. . . nor does age offer any hindrance to our pursuit of other activities, and especially
the cultivation of the soil, even to the very end of old age.’ Cic. Sen. 60)
Cicero and his correspondents have more than 200 instances, which is more than a
third of all the instances recorded in the PHI corpus.
22.37 Maxime
The adverb maxime in its meaning ‘most’ resembles praecipue and in primis in the
features mentioned at the beginning of §§ 22.35–6, as is shown in (a)–(c). In (a), it
functions as a degree adjunct; in (b), as a degree modifier (see § 20.32); in (c), it is
used with the scalar particle vel. It is attested abundantly from Early Latin onwards.
(a) Foris aperit, eccere autem / quem convenire maxime cupiebam egreditur
intus.
(‘The door is opening, and look, the man I wanted to meet most is coming out.’ Pl.
Per. 300–1)
(b) Nunc hic occepit quaestum hunc fili gratia / inhonestum et maxume alienum
ingenio suo.
(‘Now for his son’s sake he began this degrading business here, which is completely
out of keeping with his character.’ Pl. Capt. 98–9)
(c) Hoc enim uno praestamus vel maxime feris quod conloquimur inter nos . . .
(‘For the one point in which we have our very greatest advantage over the brute cre-
ation is that we hold converse one with another . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.32)
In (d), we are dealing with an instance of epitactic coordination, where maxume has
Homerum in its scope.
(d) Quae ratio poetas, maxumeque Homerum, inpulit ut principibus heroum . . .

certos deos discriminum et periculorum comites adiungeret.
(‘It was this reason which drove the poets, and especially Homer, to attach to their
chief heroes . . . certain gods as the companions of their perils and adventures.’ Cic.
N.D. 2.166)
Other examples in which maxime has constituents at the clause level and below the
clause level in its scope are shown in (e) and (f), and (g) and (h), respectively.
(e) Tu fecisti ut (sc. via) difficilis foret, / culpa maxume et desidia tuisque stultis
moribus.
(‘You are the one who made it difficult, mostly through your fault, laziness and stupid
habits.’ Pl. Trin. 646–7)
(f) . . . id vi et virtute militum victum atque expugnatum oppidum est / imperio
atque auspicio eri mei Amphitruonis maxume.
(‘. . . this city has been conquered and crushed through the strength and courage of
our soldiers, and chiefly under the command and auspices of my master Amphitruo.’
Pl. Am. 191–2)
(g) Quod ego et mea et rei publicae et maxime tua interesse arbitror.
(‘Which I believe will be in my and the public interest and most of all in your own.’
Cic. Fam. 2.19.2)
(h) In urbe auri, argenti maximeque vini foeda direptio.
(‘In Rome there was an ugly pillaging of gold, silver, and most of all, wine.’ Cic.
Phil. 2.62)
Appendix: Minime is also, but rarely, used in a similar way. Two examples are (i)
and ( j).151
(i) Est id quidem in totam orationem confundendum nec minime in extremam.
(‘Conciliation of the audience must indeed permeate the whole of the
speech, and not least of all the peroration.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.322)
( j) Nam nec in volgum effundenda sunt, et nullius rei, minime beneficiorum,
honesta largitio est.
(‘For, on the one hand, benefits ought not to be showered upon the mob,
and, on the other, it is not right to be wasteful of any thing, least of all of
benefits.’ Sen. Ben. 1.2.1)
22.38 Potissimum
The adverb potissimum ‘preferably’ can be used as a subjective evaluation disjunct (see
§ 10.104), as in (a). However, it is also used from Early Latin onwards and especially
by Cicero with a particular constituent in its scope, both as part of an epitactic con-
join, as in (b)–(d), and otherwise, as in (e)–(g). It then resembles praecipue, in primis,
151 The examples are taken from Hand (1829/45: III) s.v. minime.
and maxime and can be translated as ‘especially’, ‘above all’.152 Unlike these degree
expressions, potissimum does not function as a degree modifier with adjectives and
cannot be combined with the scalar particle vel.
(a) (Artemona is here angrily responding after overhearing her husband’s complaints
about her bad breath.) Nam si domum / redierit hodie, osculando ego ulciscar
potissumum.
(‘For if he returns home today, I will take revenge by kissing him, preferably.’ Pl. As.
902–3)
(b) Decet innocentem qui sit atque innoxium / servom superbum esse, apud
erum potissumum.
(‘A slave who is without guilt and without fault ought to be proud, especially in front
of his master.’ Pl. Ps. 460–1)
(c) Existat igitur ex hac ipsa familia aliquis, ac potissimum Caecus ille.
(‘Let therefore rise up from the dead some member of this very family, above all
Appius Claudius the Blind.’ Cic. Cael. 33)
(d) (sc. Natura) . . . avidam sanguinis et potissimum humani sitim accendit!
(‘(Nature) . . . kindled a greedy thirst for blood and especially human blood!’ Plin.
Nat. 11.3)
(e) . . . multos fore qui vitilitigent, sed ii potissimum qui verae laudis expertes
sunt.
(‘. . . there will be plenty of people to quibble and quarrel, but mostly people quite
devoid of true distinction.’ Cato Mil. 1(J))
(f) Quemquam denique ego iuvarem, a quo et tam crudelis insidias rei publicae
factas, et me potissimum consule constitutas putarem?
(‘Or do you suppose that I would assist anyone by whom I thought that a cruel plot
had been laid against the republic, and most especially against me the consul?’ Cic.
Sul. 45)
(g) Atque ut Homerum potissimum attingam . . .
(‘And to give instances out of Homer, by preference . . .’ Plin. Ep. 9.26.6)
22.39 Demum
The emphasizing particle demum ‘at last’, ‘only’ is particularly common with temporal
expressions, as in (a), where it signals that more time has elapsed before now than
expected (note the contrast with iam dudum).153 With other constituents in its scope
it means that only that specific entity can reach or has reached an adequate level, as in
(b) and (c); here demum functions at the noun phrase level, with a determiner and an
152 So the OLD s.v. potissimum § 1. TLL s.v. potis 355.62ff. paraphrases: ‘i.q. praecipue, imprimis sim.’
153 Kroon and Risselada (2002: 66) use the term ‘evaluative phasal particle’.
attributive noun phrase in its scope, respectively. For other types of scope, see the
Supplement.154
(a) I nunciam ad erum, quo vocas, iam dudum quo volebas. / # Nunc demum?
(‘Go to our master now, which is where you are calling us and where you’ve wanted
to go for some time now. # Now at last?’ Pl. As. 486–7)
(b) Ill’ demum antiquis est adulescens moribus, / quoius numquam voltum tran-
quillavi gratiis.
(‘Only that young man belongs to the old school: I’ve never lightened his counten-
ance without some tangible reward.’ Pl. Capt. 105–6)
(c) Hoc animi demum ratio discernere debet, / nec possunt oculi naturam
noscere rerum.
(‘The reasoning power of the mind alone must decide this, and eyes cannot recognize
the nature of things.’ Lucr. 4.384–5)
Supplement:
Nam id demum lepidum est, triparcos homines, vetulos, avidos, aridos / bene admor-
dere . . . (Pl. Per. 266–7); Hem, modone id demum sensti, Pamphile? (Ter. An. 882); Is
enim demum est mea quidem sententia iustus triumphus ac verus, cum bene de re
publica meritis testimonium a consensu civitatis datur. (Cic. Phil. 14.13); Sic enim
sentio, id demum aut potius id solum esse miserum quod turpe sit. (Cic. Att. 8.8.1—
NB: parallelisms); Postquam quidem praetor recuperatores dedit, / damnatus
demum, vi coactus reddidit / mille et ducentos Philippum. (Pl. Bac. 270–2); Quarta
vix demum exponimur hora. (Hor. S. 1.5.23); M. Cicero demum stabilivit equestre
nomen in consulatu suo Catilinianis rebus . . . (Plin. Nat. 33.34); . . . pontificatum
maximum, quem numquam vivo Lepido auferre sustinuerat, mortuo demum
suscepit . . . (Suet. Aug. 31.1)
As in the examples above, demum usually follows its scope immediately. In (d), the
connector autem follows ita demum in its frequent combination with a conditional
clause; here demum follows its scope ita, which correlates with the si clause. See also
(e), sometimes taken as an instance of independent (that is, adverbial) use of demum;
here demum precedes its scope.155
(d) Ita demum autem committetur stipulatio, cum adversus eam quid fit, si sine
dolo malo stipulantis factum est.
(‘Moreover, the stipulation is infringed only where the act which contravenes it is
done without fraud or malice on the part of the promise.’ Ulp. dig. 4.8.31.1)
(e) Servata res est demum, si illam videro.
(‘Things are safe at last if I see her.’ Pl. Mer. 909)
154 For further instances, see the classification in TLL s.v. demum 515.41ff.
155 See TLL s.v. demum 518.30ff. For a discussion of demum, see Rosén (1993; 2009: 405–6).
In Silver and later Latin demum is also used more or less in the sense of solum, as
in (f).156
(f) Apud nos tria genera eius faciunt et id demum probant cuius radix tus
redoleat.
(‘We Romans distinguish three kinds of it, and the only one esteemed is that of which
the root smells like frankincense.’ Plin. Nat. 25.102)
Appendix: Denique, when used as an adverb (see § 24.46), resembles demum when it
follows a temporal adverb or a cataphoric or anaphoric pronoun or determiner, as in
(g) and (h).157 Conversely, in some instances demum resembles denique, as in (i).158
(g) (sc. ratio) . . . quae non tum denique incipit lex esse quom scripta est, sed tum
quom orta est.
(‘(reason) . . . which did not first become Law when it was written down, but
only then when it first came into existence.’ Cic. Leg. 2.10)
(h) Is enim denique honos mihi videri solet qui non propter spem futuri benefici
sed propter magna merita claris viris defertur et datur.
(‘For this alone seems to me to really be an honour, one which is offered and
given, not in the expectation of future benefit, but to persons whose great
services have made them illustrious.’ Cic. Fam. 10.10.1)
(i) (After a discussion of the rare use of marble with markings) Columnis
demum utebantur in templis, nec lauti<t>iae causa—nondum enim ista
intellegebantur—sed quia firmiores aliter statui non poterant.
(‘Finally, marble columns were used in temples, not however, as an embel-
lishment, since embellishments as such were not yet appreciated, but merely
because there was no way of erecting stronger columns.’ Plin. Nat. 36.45)
22.40 Iam
The adverb iam in its meaning ‘already’ can be used as an adjunct ‘denoting the rela-
tionship between one time and another’ (see § 10.41). Thus, in (a), iam indicates that
at the moment of speaking the audience has a certain knowledge which it did not
possess at an earlier stage; quidem shows that in contrast to vos, unnamed others have
not yet reached that stage. In (b), iam indicates that, in the series of events Alcumena
is going to report, her first mention of kissing already disturbs Amphitruo. In (c)–(e),
iam is not an adjunct at the clause level. In (c), it relates to the secondary predicate
puer and indicates that, on his way from infans to senex, Mnesilochus became a friend
of Pistoclerus at an early age, possibly earlier than one would expect. In (d), iam has
obsoleta in its scope and indicates that the habits referred to had possibly passed the
limit of being fashionable. In (e), iam has tum in its scope, indicating that tum was
156 See TLL s.v. demum 517.30ff.

157 For further examples, see Hand (1829/45: II.275–6) and TLL s.v. denique 534.13ff. See also Rosén
(2009: 331).
158 So TLL s.v. demum 518.43ff.
unexpectedly early. As a side effect of iam’s relating two positions in time and impli-
citly contrasting them, the constituent in its scope is emphasized.159
(a) Nam vos quidem id iam scitis concessum et datum / mi esse ab dis aliis,
nuntiis praesim et lucro.
(‘For you already know that I was put in charge of messages and profit by the other
gods.’ Pl. Am. 11–12)
(b) Aio, adveniensque ilico / me salutavisti, et ego te, et osculum tetuli tibi. / #
Iam illud non placet principium de osculo. Perge exsequi.
(‘I do claim that, and on your arrival you immediately greeted me, and I you, and I
gave you a kiss. # I already dislike that first point about the kiss. Continue your story.’
Pl. Am. 799–801)
(c) Hic sodalis Pistoclero iam puer puero fuit.
(‘He was Pistoclerus’ friend already when the two were boys.’ Pl. Bac. 460)
(d) Vereor ne haec forte cuipiam nimis antiqua et iam obsoleta videantur.
(‘But there are some, I fear, to whom these instances may seem oldfashioned and
already out of date.’ Cic. Ver. 1.56)
(e) Iam tum erat suspicio / dolo malo haec fieri omnia.
(‘Even at that stage I had a suspicion that everything was being done with malice
aforethought.’ Ter. Eu. 514–15—tr. Bal)
Whereas in (c) and (d) iam concerns properties that are changeable over time and in
a sense gradable—that is we are dealing with a temporal scale—,160 this is not the case
in (f)–(i). In (f), the scale is that of acceptable and reasonable behaviour, so a temporal
translation ‘already’ is inappropriate: iam is here an emphasizing particle.161 In (g),
the three solutions differ in their degree of vagueness, the last being the most vague.
In (h), the scale is one of enemies. Ex. (i) shows a subordinate clause in the scope of
iam. In ( j), iam might at first sight be taken as a connector, more or less equivalent to
deinde, but there is already another connector porro, and iam is best taken as an
emphasizing particle.162
(f) . . . hunc ego / cupio excruciari. # Iam istaec insipientia est, / iram in propromptu
gerere. Quanto satius est . . .
(‘. . . him I wish to be tortured. # That now is stupidity, to carry your anger on your
sleeve. How much better it is . . .’ Pl. Ps. 447–9)
159 For a classification of constituents that can be used in the scope of iam when meaning ‘already’, see
TLL s.v. iam 88.17ff.
160 See Kroon and Risselada (2002: 66, 71).
161 For the use of iam as emphasizing particle, see Kroon and Risselada (1998: 438–44; 2002: 73–5).
Rosén (2009: 360), by contrast, regards iam in such instances as a ‘modalizer’, that is, as an adverb func-
tioning as a disjunct, in the terminology of this Syntax. Calaresu and Pieroni (2019) regard the emphasiz-
ing function of iam as due to context. Most of the examples given in the section ‘de elatione et gradu’ of
the TLL s.v. 124.12ff. belong here.
162 For ‘connecting’ iam, see TLL s.v. iam 120.72ff.
(g) Unde erit argentum quod des, quom poscet pater? / # Invenietur, exquiretur,
aliquid fiet. Enicas. / # Iam istuc ‘aliquid fiet’ metuo.
(‘Where will the money you give come from when your father asks for it? # It will be
found, it will be sought, something will happen. You’re killing me. # It’s precisely that
“something will happen” that I’m afraid of.’ Pl. Mer. 492–4—last sentence translated
following Kroon and Risselada (1998: 441))
(h) Non cum senatu modo sed iam cum dis immortalibus C. Flaminium bellum
gerere.
(‘That Gaius Flaminius was waging war not only with the senate but even with the
immortal gods.’ Liv. 21.63.6—tr. Kroon and Risselada (2002: 71))
(i) Id tu, Brute, iam intelleges, cum in Galliam veneris.
(‘This you will, Brutus, understand right then when you come to Gaul.’ Cic. Brut.
171—tr. Kroon and Risselada (2002: 74))
( j) Iam id porro utrum libentes an inviti dabant?
(‘As to this, furthermore, did they pay that willingly or reluctantly?’ Cic. Ver. 3.118—
tr. Kroon and Risselada (2002: 73))
Supplement:
Vel amare possum vel iam scortum ducere. (Pl. Truc. 678); Id ita esse vos iam iudicare
poteritis. (Ter. Eu. 29); . . . villam aedificare in oculis omnium tantam tugurium ut iam
videatur esse illa villa quam ipse tribunus plebis pictam olim in contionibus expli-
cabat . . . (Cic. Sest. 93); Accipite, si vultis, iudices, rem eius modi ut amentiam singu-
larem et furorem iam, non cupiditatem eius perspicere possitis. (Cic. Ver. 4.38); Sed
quod ex utroque (sc. vis and materia), id iam corpus et quasi qualitatem quandam
nominabant. (Cic. Ac. 1.24); . . . si singulos numeremus in singulas, quanta iam repe-
riatur virorum excellentium multitudo! (Cic. Rep. 3.7); C. Arrius proximus est vici-
nus, immo ille quidem iam contubernalis . . . (Cic. Att. 2.14.2); Primum in statua
quam posuit in rostris inscripsit ‘parenti optime merito’, ut non modo sicarii sed iam
etiam parricidae iudicemini. (Cic. Fam. 12.3.1); Multi mortales convenere, studio
etiam videndae novae urbis, maxime proximi quique, Caeninenses, Crustumini,
Antemnates. Iam Sabinorum omnis multitudo cum liberis ac coniugibus venit. (Liv.
1.9.8–9); Sed quamvis egregia illis vita fuerit et carens fraude, non fuere sapientes,
quando hoc iam in opere maximo nomen est. (Sen. Ep. 90.44)
22.41 Suffixes of personal pronouns and possessive adjectives

For the ablative and especially the accusative forms of the personal pronouns me, te,
se, Latin has the alternative forms meme (two instances in the PHI corpus), tete
(twenty-one), and sese (more than 1,600).163 Although certain contexts have been
noted in which there seems to be a preference for sese and which might suggest that
this form was chosen for reasons of emphasis (at the end of a clause, for instance, as
163 For surveys of examples, see K.-H.: 581 and especially Neue-W.: II.354–9, who also have a detailed
classification of the use of sese in Cicero.
in (a), and/or in clauses which also contain ipse ‘self ’, as in (b)), there are also cases like
(c) and (d), where such an explanation is excluded. Consequently, it is difficult to
describe these geminate forms as such as a device used to create emphasis.
(a) . . . in reliquis rebus ita dissimiles erant inter sese, statuere ut tamen non
posses utrius te malles similiorem.
(‘. . . their differences in other respects were such that you could hardly choose which
one you would rather be like.’ Cic. Brut. 148)
(b) . . . ad tribunatum, qui ipse ad sese iam dudum vocat . . . veniamus.
(‘. . . let us come to that tribunate which itself has this long while been calling us to
itself . . .’ Cic. Sest. 13)
(c) Verum utut res sese habet, / pergam turbare porro.
(‘But no matter what he’s up to, I’ll carry on causing trouble.’ Pl. Mos. 545–6)
(d) (sc. Roscius) . . . Romam confugit et sese ad Caeciliam, Nepotis <sororem,
Baliarici> filiam, quam honoris causa nomino, contulit . . .
(‘(sc. Roscius) . . . took refuge in Rome, and betook himself to Caecilia, the sister of
Nepos, the daughter of Balearicus (whose name I mention with respect) . . .’ Cic.
S. Rosc. 27)
The suffix -met can be attached to most forms of the personal pronouns and to
possessive adjectives. The best attested form in Plautus is egomet, but the total number
is very low. There are, for example, eight instances in his Amphitryon (against c.125
instances of ego).164 In Cicero’s orations there are only about fifteen instances, in his
philosophical works only one (in a quotation from Terence). The other forms are all
very infrequent and tu-met is not attested.165 In exx. (e)–(g), it is plausible that the
-met forms are emphatic, but even in Plautus not all the instances are convincing.166
In Cicero’s philosophical works nosmet, nobismet, etc. are in all but one case combined
with a form of ipse (nosmet ipsi, etc.—thirty-three instances).
(e) Tu negas med esse? # Quid ego ni negem, qui egomet siem?
(‘You deny that I am Sosia ? # Why shouldn’t I deny it? I myself am him.’ Pl. Am. 434)
(f) Quis te verberavit? # Egomet memet, qui nunc sum domi.
(‘Who hit you? # I hit myself, the I that is at home now.’ Pl. Am. 607)
(g) Nunc mihi cautio est / ne meamet culpa meo amori obiexim moram.
(‘Now I need to be on my guard so that I won’t delay my love through my own fault.’
Pl. Poen. 445–6)
164 For egomet in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. ego 472B § s.

165 See TLL s.v. -met for references; also s.v. egomet and meusmet. The most complete collection of
examples can be found in Neue-W.: II.361–6; 373. The PHI corpus contains three instances of tutemet. The
etymology of -met is uncertain (de Vaan 2008: 377). See also note 167.
166 See TLL s.v. egomet 277.74ff.
In conclusion, the forms with -met may have been preferred in certain contexts, but
-met is not a prominent device used to emphasize the words to which it is attached.167
The suffix -te is used in combination with tu (tute) in Early Latin and in Cicero in
contrastive contexts, as in (h)–( j). In about 10 per cent of its occurrences it is followed
by ipse. Even in these texts it is rare in comparison with tu, and elsewhere it is almost
non-existent.168
(h) O Tite, tute, Tati, tibi tanta, tyranne, tulisti.
(‘Thyself to thyself, Titus Tatius the tyrant, thou tookest those terrible troubles!’ Enn.
Ann. 109V=104S)
(i) Egone istuc dixi? # Tute istic, etiam adstante hoc Sosia.
(‘Did I tell you about this? # Yes, you there, and Sosia was standing here right next to
you.’ Pl. Am. 747)
( j) Verum ut modo tute dixisti, te esse malo tuum.
(‘I certainly prefer that you be independent, as you have just said.’ Cic. Leg. 2.17)
The suffix -pte can be attached to the ablative singular of the possessive adjectives, as
in (k) (and to a few other forms).169 These forms are clearly understood as emphatic.
It survives throughout Latinity in a few phrases such as suapte natura (see ex. (l) in
§ 22.19) and tuopte ingenio.170
(k) Tute tibi [ea] tuopte ingenio prodes plurumum, / quom servitutem ita fers ut
<eam> ferri decet.
(‘You benefit greatly from your own character since you’re bearing your slavery as
one ought to bear it.’ Pl. Capt. 371–2)
22.42 Preparative expressions as emphasizers

Preparative pronouns and determiners are not only used to enhance the transparency
of complex sentences, but they can also have an emphasizing function. Two examples
are repeated below from § 14.16.
(a) Quid si hoc potis est, ut tu taceas, ego loquar?
(‘What if we do this: you keep quiet, I’ll do the talking.’ Pl. Bac. 35—subject clause)
(b) Habent hunc morem plerique argentarii, / ut alius alium poscant, reddant
nemini . . .
(‘Most bankers have the following custom: they demand money from each other
while they themselves don’t repay anything to anyone.’ Pl. Cur. 377–8)
167 For the etymologies of -met and -te, see Dunkel (2006), who proposes to derive egomet from egom
et, as already Sihler (1995: 370).
168 See Neue-W.: II.363–4. 169 See OLD s.v. -pte.
170 See Neue-W.: II.373–5; TLL s.v. meuspte. Exceptional is mepte in Pl. Men. 1058–9.
Parenthetical clauses and other extraclausal constituents 909
22.43 Parenthetical clauses and other types

of extraclausal constituents
Apart from the extraclausal constituents theme, setting, and tail, which play an
important role in positioning the information of the clauses to which they are joined
in the discourse, there are other types of extraclausal constituents. These include
constituents that play a role in the interaction between the speaker/writer and the
addressee (address, for example) and ones which serve to express the emotional state
of the speaker (certain interjections, for example). Parenthetical sentences, which
either serve as some form of clarification or comment by the speaker or have an inter-
actional function, are yet another type of extraclausal constituent.171
22.44 Parenthetical constituents
A parenthetical constituent (or: parenthesis) is a linguistic unit that is inserted

inside another linguistic unit (its ‘host’), but which does not belong to and has no
influence on the internal syntactic structure of its host, nor is its own internal struc-
ture determined by the host. The host unit is either a clause or a phrase. Various types
of parenthetical constituents can be distinguished, but often the term ‘parenthesis’ is
limited to clausal constituents, such as (a). (Throughout this and following sections
brackets are used to signal parenthetical constituents in the Latin examples; the punc-
tuation of the English translations varies as necessary.)
(a) Sed (balbi non sumus) ad rem redeamus.
(‘But (we are not stammering) let’s return to the matter at hand.’ Cic. Fam. 2.10.2)
Parenthetical constituents belong to various types. Apart from entire sentences and
clauses as illustrated by (a), there are ‘modalizing mental state verbs’172 like opinor ‘I
think’, as in (b), swear words like di immortales, as in (c), and others. These constitu-
ents can also be used in ante- and postclausal positions; these uses are discussed in
separate sections (§§ 22.46–7). See also § 18.27 for autonomous relative clauses func-
tioning as clausal appositions.
(b) Si quidem omnes coniurati cruciamenta conferant, / habeo (opinor) fami-
liarem . . . tergum, ne quaeram foris.
(‘Even if all people formed an alliance and gathered torments, I have a comrade,
I think: my back, no need to look for one outside.’ Pl. As. 318–19)
171 For the following sections I have profited greatly from comments and suggestions by Luis Unceta
(p.c.).
172 The term is Bolkestein’s (1998c: 11–14).
(c) Si hanc emeris, / (di immortales), nullus leno te alter erit opulentior.
(‘If you buy her—immortal gods!—no pimp will be better off than you.’ Pl. Per. 565–6)
Different are illocution converters like amabo, as in (d), which have a verbal origin
but probably were no longer felt as parenthetical by Latin speakers (see § 6.2).
(d) Dic (amabo) an foetet anima uxoris tuae?
(‘Tell me, please, does your wife’s breath smell?’ Pl. As. 894)
22.45 Parenthetical clauses and sentences

In (a)–(c), the parenthetical constituents are fully fledged sentences. In (a), the paren-
thesis is inserted inside a clause. In (b), it is situated at the boundary between two
clauses which together form a multiple (complex) clause.173 In (c), the parenthesis
is inserted inside a compound adjective phrase that functions as modifier of the
noun litteras.
(a) Nam quod egomet solus feci (nec quisquam alius affuit) in tabernaclo, id
quidem hodie numquam poterit dicere.
(‘For what I did alone (and no one else was around) in the tent, that he’ll never be able
to tell today.’ Pl. Am. 425–6)
(b) Dictum hoc inter nos fuit / (ex te adeo ortum’st) ne tu curares meum / neve
ego tuom (sc. adulescentulum)?
(‘Didn’t we agree (and it was your suggestion) that you would not concern yourself
with my son or I with yours?’ Ter. Ad. 796–8)
(c) Raras tuas quidem (fortasse enim non perferuntur) sed suavis accipio litteras.
(‘Your letters, as they reach me, are few and far between (perhaps they are not getting
through) but delightful.’ Cic. Fam. 2.13.1)
In the above examples, we are dealing with syntactically independent sentences.
Ex. (c) shares its subject with its host: litterae must be understood as the subject of
perferuntur; the interactional particle enim indicates that the parenthesis serves as a
possible explanation of the rareness of Caelius’ letters; it has its usual second position
in a sentence. However, these connecting devices do not influence the internal struc-
ture of either unit.
As in modern languages, parenthetical constituents in Latin probably were ‘not
integrated in the intonation contour of the host’s clause or phrase’.174 However, due to
our lack of information in this domain, it is sometimes difficult to decide what to do
with subordinate clauses, for instance with the autonomous relative clause in (d),
which is printed as a parenthesis by most editors but which could plausibly be taken
173 For the terms ‘multiple’, ‘complex’, and ‘compound’, see § 2.2 fin.
174 Quotation from Bolkestein (1998c: 1).
as a normal relative clause.175 Another problem is that some seeming parentheses,

which in the text as transmitted are clearly syntactically independent, need not be
parentheses at all, but instead may be ‘parallel’ texts, as in (e). Here the text between
brackets is most likely an interruption occasioned by interactions between the speakers
that we cannot see: Mercurius’ threatening behaviour while Sosia is speaking.
(d) Si forte morbus amplior factus siet / (quod sane nolim, maxume eri causa
mei), / servom ilico introisse dicent Sostratae.
(‘If for some reason the illness gets more serious (which I certainly hope it doesn’t,
especially for my master’s sake) they’ll immediately say that a slave of Sostrata’s went
inside the house.’ Ter. Hec. 330–2)
(e) Quo id, malum, pacto potest nam (mecum argumentis puta) / fieri nunc uti
tu <et> hic sis et domi?
(‘Damn it, how is it possible—discuss it with me in a rational way—that you’re both
here and at home?’ Pl. Am. 592–3)
Parenthetical clauses and sentences are syntactically independent from their host, but
semantically they are usually closely related. This is often made explicit by the pres-
ence of a connector or interactional particle, as enim in (c) above. Other connectors
that are common in parenthetical sentences are nam, autem, and sed, as in (f)–(h).176
(f) Omni igitur ratione colenda et retinenda iustitia est, cum ipsa per sese (nam
aliter iustitia non esset) tum propter amplificationem honoris et gloriae.
(‘Justice is, therefore, in every way to be cultivated and maintained, both for its own
sake (for otherwise it would not be justice) and for the enhancement of personal
honour and glory.’ Cic. Off. 2.42)
(g) Quod vitium effugere qui volet (omnes autem velle debent) adhibebit ad
considerandas res et tempus et diligentiam.
(‘He who wishes to avoid this error (as all should do) will devote both time and atten-
tion to the weighing of evidence.’ Cic. Off. 1.18)
(h) Nam orationis quidem copia videmus ut abundent philosophi, qui, ut opinor
(sed tu haec, Catule, melius), nulla dant praecepta dicendi . . .
(‘For we notice the overflowing copiousness of the diction of the philosophers who, I
think—though you, Catulus, are better informed on these points—prescribe no rules
for speaking . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.151)
Supplement:177
In his tot et tantis (atque etiam plura possunt accidere) potest esse sapiens. (Cic. Tusc.
5.29); ‘Ferro’, inquit, ‘ferro’ (et hoc dicit in iudicio) ‘te reieci atque proterrui.’ (Cic.
Caec. 24); . . . oneravi vinum (et tunc erat contra aurum), misi Romam. (Petr. 76.3
175 See also Müller (1997: 182–6). Roschatt (1885: 217–18) discusses a number of putative parenthet-
ical relative clauses which he regards as normal relative clauses.
176 For further examples, see TLL s.v. autem 1592.58ff.; s.v. et 891.80ff.; s.v. nam 12.43ff. See also Sz.:
472–3 for a historical survey of the use of connectors in parenthetical clauses.
177 Several examples are taken from K.-St.: Index.
(Trimalchio speaking)); Est enim quiddam (idque intellegitur in omni virtute) quod
deceat. (Cic. Off. 1.95); Et ego ipse, quem tu per iocum (sic enim accipio) divitias
orationis habere dicis, me non esse verborum admodum inopem agnosco
(pÃ{xpp}slt enim non necesse est), sed tamen idem (nec hoc pÃ{xpwpxz|) facile
cedo tuorum scriptorum subtilitati et elegantiae. (Cic. Fam. 4.4.1); O socii (neque
enim ignari sumus ante malorum), / o passi graviora, dabit deus his quoque finem.
(Verg. A. 1.198–9)
Praeclare exigis, Quinte (at ego effugisse arbitrabar), et tibi horum nihil deberi
potest. (Cic. Leg. 2.7); In ripa elephantos (quadraginta autem erant) disponit. (Liv.
21.5.10)
Hunc igitur ut sequerer properavi quem praesentes non sunt secuti, non ut pro-
ficerem aliquid (nec enim sperabam id nec praestare poteram) sed ut, si quid mihi
humanitus accidisset (multa autem impendere videntur praeter naturam etiam
praeterque fatum) huius tamen diei vocem testem rei publicae relinquerem meae
perpetuae erga se voluntatis. (Cic. Phil. 1.10); Quo ex genere si quem forte tui cogno-
sti amantiorem (fieri enim potuit) quam temporis, hunc vero ad tuum numerum
libenter adscribito. (Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.15); Isset ad Iliacas (quid enim deterret amantes?)
/ Penelope gavisa domos, si passus Ulixes. (Stat. Silv. 3.5.46–7); Cum adhuc capillatus
essem (nam a puero vitam Chiam gessi) ipsimi nostri delicatus decessit . . . (Petr. 63.3
(Trimalchio speaking)); Gnatique patrisque, / alma, precor, miserere (potes namque
omnia, nec te / nequiquam lucis Hecate praefecit Avernis), / si potuit manis accersere
coniugis Orpheus . . . (Verg. A. 6.116–19)
Parentheses often contain information that supports, qualifies, rectifies, justifies, or

constitutes an authorial comment on the content (or part of it) of the host clause or
sentence, or, more generally, situates that content in a wider context. Their semantic
contribution to the sentence as a whole resembles that of attitudinal disjunct clauses,
discussed in Chapter 16. They may also appeal to the knowledge of the addressee,
invoke the sympathy of the addressee, or have a text-structuring function, resembling
illocutionary disjunct clauses. Examples are (i)–(k).178
(i) Qua re non equidem iam te rogo ut ad me de te, de rebus istis scribas (num-
quam enim, cum potes, praetermittis), sed hoc te scire volo, nihil fere
umquam me sic exspectasse ut, cum haec scribebam, tuas litteras.
(‘I won’t ask you to write to me about yourself and about what is going on (for you
never lose an opportunity); but I do want you to know that I have never been so
impatient for anything in my life as I am for a letter from you as I write these lines.’
Cic. Q. fr. 3.3.1)
178 For the semantic relation between parenthetical clauses and their host, see Roschatt (1885: 229–44)
on Cicero’s orations and rhetorical works, Bolkestein (1998c) on Cicero’s letters—very detailed—
Häusler (2000) on Pliny’s letters, and Damon (in press) on Caesar. For Terence, see Müller (1997: 177–86);
for Petronius, Rochette (2007: 273–6). For the functions of parentheses in poetry, see above all von
Albrecht (1964) on Ovid, Tarrant (1998) on Virgil and other poets, and Coleman (2010) on Statius. For
the use of parentheses as ‘stage directions’ in Roman epic, see Kohn (2012). For the treatment of paren-
thesis by Roman grammarians, see Panico (2001: 491–6).
( j) Nimium inter vos, Demea, ac / (non quia ades praesens dico hoc) perni-
mium interest.
(‘There’s a big difference between you two, Demea, in fact—and I don’t say that just
because you are present—a very big one.’ Ter. Ad. 392–3)
(k) Ut Quinctius (nihil enim dicam de ceteris) si fuisset homo nobilis, quis eum
cum illa superbia atque intolerantia ferre potuisset?
(‘Suppose that Quinctus (to take no other example) had been of noble birth, who
could have put up with his haughtiness, his unbearable presumption?’ Cic. Clu. 112)
The content of a parenthesis may be relevant to what precedes, as in most of the
examples presented so far, or—less often—to what follows, as in (h) above and in (l)
below. What precedes may be the content of a clause, as in (h) above, but it may
also be a single word, as Quinctius in (k) and divini and Misenum in (m) and (n),
respectively.
(l) Neque enim (sed bonam in partem accipies) si ulla spes salutis nostrae
subesset, tu pro tuo amore in me hoc tempore discessisses.
(‘And indeed—you won’t take this amiss—if there were any lingering hope of my
restoration, caring for me as you do you would not have left Rome at this time.’ Cic.
Att. 3.25.1)
(m) Alterius tribuni plebis, divini hominis (dicam enim quod sentio et quod
mecum sentiunt omnes) divini, insigni quadam inaudita nova magnitudine
animi, gravitate, fide praediti domus est oppugnata ferro, facibus, exercitu
Clodiano.
(‘The house of another tribune of the commons, a divine man—for I am going to say
what I feel and what everyone feels with me—divine, extraordinary for a sort of
greatness of spirit previously unheard, endowed with authority and loyalty, was
attacked with fire and sword by the army of Clodius.’ Cic. Sest. 85)
(n) . . . cum istos libros ad Misenum (nam Romae vix licet) studiosius legerim . . .
(‘. . . after perusing those books rather closely at Misenum (for there was little chance
to do so in Rome) . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.60)
The parenthesis may be complex, as in (m) above and in (o) below, or elliptical, as in
(h) above and in (p) below. It may be short, as in (q),179 or long—especially in Cicero’s
letters, as in (o).180 There may also be more than one parenthesis in the same sentence,
as in (r). For a rare parenthesis within a parenthesis, see (s).181
(o) Nunc, quoniam et tu ita sentis (scribis enim quae <de> nostris officiis ego ad
te scripseram, etsi tibi iucunda fuerint, tamen, quoniam ex alto repetita sint,
179 For parentheses with pudet and nefas in poetry, see Coleman (2010: 297–8).
180 Comber (1976) suggests that a number of seeming digressions consisting of more than one sen-
tence in Tacitus are in fact parentheses, for example Tac. Ann. 1.53.3–4: Nec is libidini finis (traditam . . .
credebantur). Igitur amotus Cercinam . . .
181 For a different punctuation without a parenthesis, see Bömer ad loc. The text is disputed.
non necessaria te putasse) et re vera confirmata amicitia et perspecta fide

commemoratio officiorum supervacanea est, eam partem orationis praeter-
mittam, tibi tamen agam, ut debeo, gratias.
(‘Well, since you feel as you do (you write that, while the remarks in my letter about
our services to one another gave you pleasure, you saw no need to go back so far into
the past), and since reminders of services rendered are in truth superfluous between
firm and tried friends, I shall leave that topic on one side. Nevertheless I shall thank
you as I ought.’ Cic. Fam. 3.5.1)
(p) Postremo nuper (credo iam omnium (sc. meretricum) / taedebat) dixit velle
uxorem ducere.
(‘In the end, just recently (I suppose he was getting bored with the lot of them) he told
me he wanted to take a wife.’ Ter. Ad. 150–1)
(q) . . . quibus ipse solebam / ad sata fontanas (nec pudet) addere aquas . . .
(‘. . . in them I used in person to guide—and I not ashamed to say it—the spring water
upon the plants . . .’ Ov. Pont. 1.8.45–6)
(r) Licet enim de me ut libet existimes (velim quidem quam optime), si haec ita
manant ut videntur (feres quod dicam), me Idus Martiae non delectant.
(‘For, think of me what you like (of course I should wish you to think as well as may
be), if things take the course they seem to be taking (you must bear with what I am
about to say), I find no satisfaction in the Ides of March.’ Cic. Att. 15.4.3)
(s) . . . terris adlabimur illis / quas procul hinc cernis (procul hinc (mihi crede)
videnda / insula visa mihi!) tuque o iustissime Troum . . .
(‘. . . we finally reached that land which you see at some distance yonder (I found it
best, believe me, to see the island at a distance) and you, most righteous Trojan . . .’ Ov.
Met. 14.243–5)
Parenthetical sentences are mostly declarative, but interrogative, imperative, and
exclamatory clauses are not rare either, especially in poetry. Examples are (t)–(u),
(v)–(w), and (x), respectively.
(t) Tuus autem ille amicus (sci’n quem dicam? de quo tu ad me scripsisti, postea
quam non auderet reprehendere laudare coepisse) nos, ut ostendit, admo-
dum diligit . . .
(‘As to that friend of yours (you know whom I mean? The person of whom you write
to me that he began to praise when he no longer dared to criticize), he professes the
highest regard for me . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.13.4)
(u) At regina dolos (quis fallere possit amantem?) / praesensit . . .
(‘But the queen (who may deceive a lover?) divined his guile . . .’ Verg. A. 4.296–7)
(v) Neque haec dico quod diffidam huic causae sed (crede mihi) perire satius est
quam hos videre.
(‘I don’t say all this because I doubt our party’s success. But, believe me, death is better
than the spectacle of these people.’ Cael. Fam. 8.17.1)
(w) Sollicitat (ita vivam) me tua, mi Tiro, valetudo.

(‘On my life, my dear Tiro, I am anxious about your health.’ Cic. Fam. 16.20.1)
(x) Praeterea, castis adolet dum altaria taedis, / et iuxta genitorem astat Lavinia
virgo, / visa (nefas) longis comprendere crinibus ignem . . .
(‘Moreover, while with hallowed torch he kindles the altars, and at her father’s side
stands the maiden Lavinia, she was seen—O horror!—to catch fire in her long
tresses . . .’ Verg. A. 7.71–3)
As for the host units, in Cicero’s orations and rhetorical works parentheses are most
common in main clauses and in declarative sentences, but there are no restrictions on
clause and sentence type.182 As for noun phrases functioning as host for parenthetical
constituents, as in (c) above, they are relatively rare, at least in Cicero’s letters.183 For
Ovid’s Metamorphoses, twelve instances are reported, one of which is (y), where we
are dealing with a discontinuous noun phrase (gelidus . . . tremor).184 The same author
has (z), with the determiner hoc separated from its head telum by a parenthesis, a
form of discontinuity one does not expect outside poetry. As one would expect, there
is no instance attested of a parenthesis within a prepositional phrase.
(y) Gelidus nutricis in artus / ossaque (sensit enim) penetrat tremor . . .
(‘Cold horror stole through the nurse’s frame (for she understood) . . .’ Ov. Met.
10.423–4)
(z) ‘Hoc me, nate dea (quis possit credere?) telum / flere facit facietque diu . . .’
(‘ “It is this weapon makes me weep, thou son of a goddess—who could believe it?—
and long will it make me weep . . .” ’ Ov. Met. 7.690–1)
After a parenthesis, the host unit can be continued in various ways. The simplest way
is shown in (aa), where the host unit continues as if there were no parenthesis. Another
form of continuation is shown by (ab) and (ac), ‘resumptive iteration’,185 the repetition
of one or more words, with or without a parenthetical word like inquam. Repetition is
also regularly combined with the connector igitur, as in (ad).186
(aa) . . . Pompeius, quotienscumque me vidit (videt autem saepe), gratias tibi agit
singularis.
(‘. . . whenever Pompey sees me (he does so often), he expresses his gratitude in the
warmest terms.’ Cic. Fam. 13.41.1)
(ab) Quotiens ego hunc Archiam vidi, iudices, (utar enim vestra benignitate,
quoniam me in hoc novo genere dicendi tam diligenter attenditis) quotiens
ego hunc vidi, cum litteram scripsisset nullam . . .
182 The observations on Cicero are based on Roschatt (1885).

183 See Bolkestein (1998c: 8), who also quotes Cic. Fam. 3.6.4 and 7.32.3.
184 So Bolkestein (1998c: 5). See also von Albrecht (1964: 125–7).
185 The term is taken from Coleman (2010: 312–14). For Cicero, see Roschatt (1885: 220–4).
186 For further examples, see TLL s.v. igitur 266.73ff.
(‘How often, gentlemen, have I seen my friend Archias—I shall presume upon your
kindness, since I see you give so careful a hearing to my unconventional digression—
how often, I say, have I seen him, without writing a single letter . . .’ Cic. Arch. 18)
(ac) Hasta posita pro aede Iovis Statoris bona subiecta Cn. Pompei (miserum me!
consumptis enim lacrimis tamen infixus animo haeret dolor) bona, inquam,
Cn. Pompei Magni voci acerbissimae subiecta praeconis.
(‘A lance was planted in front of the Temple of Jupiter Stator, and the property of
Gnaeus Pompeius—dear me! tears may have run dry, but the pain clings deep in my
heart—the property, I say, of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was subjected to the harsh
voice of an auctioneer.’ Cic. Phil. 2.64)
(ad) . . . sic recta effectio (ul~{s}tx enim ita appello, quoniam rectum factum
ul~{swl) recta igitur effectio . . . crescendi accessionem nullam habet.
(‘. . . so right conduct (for thus I translate katorthōsis, since katorthōma is a single
right action), right conduct, I say . . . is not capable of increase or addition.’ Cic.
Fin. 3.45)
Sometimes after a parenthesis some form of repair of the interrupted host unit
may be required, which then may result in a change of the wording of the host, as
in (ae).187
(ae) Quin etiam, si quis est paulo ad voluptates propensior, modo ne sit ex pecu-
dum genere (sunt enim quidam homines non re sed nomine) sed si quis est
paulo erectior, quamvis voluptate capiatur, occultat et dissimulat appetitum
voluptatis propter verecundiam.
(‘Nay, even if a man is more than ordinarily inclined to sensual pleasures, provided,
of course, that he be not quite on a level with the beasts of the field (for some people
are men only in name, not in fact)—if, I say, he is a little too susceptible to the attrac-
tions of pleasure, he hides the fact, however much he may be caught in its toils, and
for very shame conceals his appetite.’ Cic. Off. 1.105)
As for the position of the parenthetical clauses within their host unit, they precede the
most important focal information of the sentence, at least in the letters of Cicero, and
in this way contribute to the information structure of their host.188
The use of parenthetical clauses is not confined to a particular kind of text, but it
seems to be more frequent in texts of an interactional character. In Petronius, paren-
thetical expressions are relatively frequent in the Cena Timalchionis,189 but that is not
a proof that they were felt to be substandard, only that they were a normal feature of
conversation. They are also quite frequent in Virgil’s Eclogues and in the speeches of
the Aeneid.190
187 Example taken from K.-St.: II.76. 188 See Bolkestein (1998c: 7–11).
189 For Petronius, see Rochette (2007).
190 For the functions of parenthesis in Virgil and in poetry in general, see Tarrant (2002).
22.46 Parenthetical use of verbs and expressions

of perception, cognition, and communication
Verbs and expressions of perception, cognition, and communication can govern vari-
ous types of argument clauses, in particular declarative accusative and infinitives (see
§ 15.98) and imperative finite ut clauses (see, for example, §§ 15.65–7), and they are
found in various ut disjunct clauses (see §§ 16.35–6; 16.49–50). Apart from these uses,
they can also be used as parenthesis.191
In § 6.2, § 6.21, and § 6.29, the performative use of first person verb forms is
discussed in their function as modulators of the illocutionary force of declarative,
interrogative, and imperative sentences, respectively. Three of the examples discussed
there are repeated here as (a)–(c). (For examples of the verbs that are used in impera-
tive and interrogative sentences, see § 6.29 (iv) Supplement.)
(a) Tandem (opinor) / conticuit.
(‘At last he’s fallen silent, I think.’ Pl. As. 447–8)
(b) (Quaeso), hercle, quid istuc est?
(‘Please, by Hercules, what’s that?’ Pl. Cas. 68)
(c) Age (quaeso) mi hercle translege.
(‘Go on now, please, by Hercules, read through it for me!’ Pl. As. 750)
These expressions can be used as a parenthesis sensu stricto, as in (a) and (c), but they
can also precede the clause, as in (b), or follow it, as in (d). In addition, some of them
can be inserted in a phrase, creating discontinuity, as in (e).
(d) Periit potando (opinor).
(‘He’s died of drinking, I think.’ Pl. Rud. 361)
(e) Hoc (opinor) iure et maiores nostri et nos semper usi sumus.
(‘That, I think, is the way in which the law has been worked, both in our fathers’ days
and in our own.’ Cic. Ver. 1.115)
When these expressions are inserted in a clause or a phrase, they usually follow an
emphatic word; so, for example, in (a), after tandem, and in (e), where opinor follows
the emphatic determiner hoc. When they precede or follow the clause, they have the
entire clause in their scope, as in (b) and (d) above and in (f) and (g) below.
(f) (Opinor) leno pugnis pectitur.
(‘I think the pimp is being combed with fists.’ Pl. Rud. 661)
(g) (Credo hercle) hodie devotabit sortis si attigerit.
(‘I believe she’ll bewitch the lots if she touches them.’ Pl. Cas. 388)
191 See Bolkestein (1998a; 1998c) on Cicero’s and Seneca’s letters and Apuleius’ Met., Risselada (1989),
Müller (1997: 178–82) on Terence, Longrée (2002a) on Latin historians, Adams (2003a: 19),
Cabrillana (2004) on Terence, Reinhardt (2010: 224–5) on Lucretius, Barrios-Lech (2016: 144–54) on
Latin comedy.
These expressions can also be used at the boundary of clauses, as in (h) and (i). In that
case they have scope over the clause that follows.192
(h) Sed avunculo eius certe probabitur, praesertim cum senatus consultum
modo factum sit, (puto) postquam tu es profectus, in creditorum causa ut
centesimae perpetuo faenore ducerentur.
(‘But his uncle will certainly accept it, especially as the Senate recently passed a decree
for creditors, after you left Rome, I think, fixing 1 per cent simple interest as the legal
rate.’ Cic. Att. 5.21.13)
(i) In quo ipso multa occultant tuae litterae, (credo) ne vehementius despera-
tione perturber.
(‘In that very regard your letters leave many things obscure, I suppose because you
are afraid of despair throwing me quite off my balance.’ Cic. Att. 3.15.6)
Verbs of cognition vary in the types of expression they can be used in.193 Whereas, for
example, arbitror ‘to judge’, ‘to think’ is, with one exception, not used as a parenthesis
(but regularly in an ut attitudinal disjunct clause), credo ‘to suppose’ is commonly
used as a parenthesis. It seems to have a more ‘particle-like’ status.194
Inside a clause: . . . spiritus meus ex te pependit, sed nunc vere (arbitror) sacro et
venerabili ore trahitur. (Curt. 3.6.10); Pol ea ipsa (credo) ne intro mittatur cavet . . . (Pl.
Aul. 101); Sed (opinor) excipiamus et exspectemus. (Cic. Att. 2.5.1); Tu (puto) hoc
credis. (Cic. Att. 8.9a.2); Si mihi secundae res de amore meo essent, iam dudum
(scio) / venissent. (Ter. Hau. 230–1); Ubi illinc (spero) redieris tamen, hoc ages. (Ter.
Ad. 226); Noster socer (video) venit: puero nutricem adducit. (Ter. Hec. 770)
At the boundary of clauses or sentences: Recte dicit, (censeo). (Ter. Hau. 588); His
tantis malis haec subsidia succurrebant quominus omnis deleretur exercitus, quod
Pompeius insidias timens, (credo) quod haec praeter spem acciderant eius qui paulo
ante ex castris fugientis suos conspexerat, munitionibus adpropinquare aliquamdiu
non audebat equitesque eius . . . ad insequendum tardabantur. (Caes. Civ. 3.70.1);
Quod si luce quoque canes latrent cum deos salutatum aliqui venerint, (opinor) iis
crura suffringantur, quod acres sint etiam tum cum suspicio nulla sit. (Cic. S. Rosc.
56); Si sit aliquis malus, (puto) inprobabitur; si bonus, (puto) probabitur. (Sen. Ep.
76.11)
Inside a phrase: Aut etiam, ut media nocte proficiscamur, addunt, quo maiorem
(credo) licentiam habeant qui peccare conentur. (Caes. Civ. 2.31.7); Cicero tuus nos-
terque summo studio est Paeoni sui rhetoris, hominis (opinor) valde exercitati et
boni. (Cic. Q. fr. 3.3.4); . . . intra (puto) septimas Kalendas mortes hoc tibi quattuor
dederunt. (Mart. 1.99.6–7—NB: inside a prepositional phrase)
192 For the use of credo at clause boundaries, see Bolkestein (1998a: 28–9).
193 For cognition verbs this has been shown by Bolkestein (1998a). For further instances, see Hofmann
(1951: 106–8). For Terence, see Müller (1997: 178–82). See also Barrios-Lech (2016: 142–54) on the use of
these verbs in comedy in the wider context of ‘hedges’ (that is: attitudinal comments); also Rochette (2007:
287–9) on Petronius.
194 For the parenthetic use of credo, see TLL s.v. 1137.19ff.; of opinor, TLL s.v. 723.63ff.; of puto, TLL
s.v. 2769.36ff.
Curses and swear words 919
Verbs of cognition can also be used in a similar way in questions, as in ( j) and (k).
Putasne is relatively common in ecclesiastical writings, where it sometimes corres-
ponds to Gr. {l.195
( j) Cense’n hodie despondebit eam mihi, quaeso?
(‘Do you reckon he’ll betroth her to me today, please?’ Pl. Rud. 1269)
(k) Putasne / perduci poterit tam frugi tamque pudica, / quam nequiere proci
recto depellere cursu?
(‘You think she can be tempted—she so good, so pure, whom the suitors could not
turn from the straight course?’ Hor. S. 2.5.76–8)
Supplement:
Sed (cense’n) plorabit, Dave, relicta? (Pers. 5.168); Adcurrens autem Philippus audi-
vit illum legentem Esaiam prophetam et dixit (putasne) intellegis quae legis? (Vulg.
Act. 8.30); (Putasne) sine istis poteris? (August. Conf. 8.26); (Putamus) non istae sunt
excusationes quae impediunt omnes homines . . . (August. Serm. 112.2)
22.47 Curses and swear words
Curses and swear words are often regarded as belonging to the lexical category of
interjections (see § 22.48), but they have certain characteristics of their own and are
therefore treated separately.196 Two types will be distinguished. The first is a typical
feature of Early Latin comedy, especially of Plautus. The expressions are formally
related to the gods Castor, Pollux, and Hercules: ēcastor, mecastor, edepol, pol, hercle,
and mehercle (in later authors hercule and meherculē(s)).197 These curses cannot be
used as one-word sentences and cannot be followed immediately by the emphasizer
quidem, which shows that they are not adverbs.198 Their primary function is to under-
line the personal conviction or involvement of the speaker, but sometimes they
resemble expressive interjections. They are more integrated in their sentences than
the second type, to be discussed below.
An interesting aspect is the division of these words between men and women, already
observed by Gellius (11.6.1).199 In Early texts Roman women do not swear by Hercules,
nor men by Castor. Edepol and pol are used in Plautus and Terence by men and women,
but in Terence pol is almost exclusively used by women (see Table 22.2). Ecastor and
mecastor, edepol and pol practically disappear after Terence. Cicero uses various
Hercules forms (especially mehercule, rarely hercle) (c.140× in the letters; c.110× in the
195 Extensive material in TLL s.v. puto 2769.33ff.

196 Unceta (2016b) deals with them as ‘secondary interjections’.
197 For the various hercules forms used by the authors who use them frequently and for etymological
considerations, see Ashdowne (2008: 20).
198 See Gagnér (1920: 195). 199 See Adams (1984) and Müller (1997: 139–46).
other works). In later authors the form hercle is also rare and replaced by other
forms.200
Table 22.2 The use of swear words in Plautus and Terence (in absolute numbers)
Plautus Terence
male female male Female
hercle 637 2a 101
mehercle 4 2
ecastor 99 5
mecastor 19 2
pol 159 84 10 45
edepol 338 26 13 10
Source: Ullman (1943: 88). Ullman correctly observes that more plays of Plautus than of Terence have
been preserved, and that men have more lines than women.
a
Pl. Cist. 52; Per. 237. For discussion of these instances, see Stockert (2004), with references.
As for the positions these swear words occupy in their sentences in Plautus and
Terence, some of them are not attested in first position (mehercle, mecastor); the
second position is the most frequent, certainly for hercle, with the swear word
following words of all categories (including coordinators and subordinators),
which are usually emphatic, like the verb perii in (a), for example, or the adverb
numquam in (b), or the subordinator quia in (c). For an exceptionally late
position in the sentence (but second in the line, and after emphatic numquam),
see (d). Plautus is more flexible than Terence.201 When in third position, hercle
often follows a combination of an emphatic word with the emphasizer quidem, as
in (e) (note also the discontinuity mea . . . causa). These swear words are very common
in declarative and exclamatory sentences, but are not excluded from imperative and
interrogative sentences, as can be seen in (f).202
(a) Perii hercle ego, manufesta res [est].
(‘I’m dead! It’s all out.’ Pl. Cas. 893–5)
(b) Numquam edepol erit ille potior / Harpax quam ego.
(‘He’ll never be a better Harpax than me.’ Pl. Ps. 925–5a)
(c) Credo, animo male est / aedibus. # Quid iam? # Quia edepol ipsum lenonem
evomunt.
(‘I believe the house is feeling sick. # How so? # Because it’s vomiting out the pimp
himself.’ Pl. Ps. 952–3)
200 For details on Cicero and other authors, see Gagnér (1920: 31–4; 217–19). For Cicero’s own prefer-
ences, see . . . lubentius dixerim et mehercule quam mehercules. (Cic. Orat. 157).
201 See Gagnér’s conclusions (1920: 195–7).
202 For a discussion of the contexts in which these words are used, see Unceta (2016b: 222–32).
Curses and swear words 921
(d) Peiorem ego hominem magisque vorsute malum / numquam edepol quem-
quam vidi, quam hic est Simia.
(‘I have never seen a worse man and one who is bad in a more wicked way than this
Simia is.’ Pl. Ps. 1017–18)
(e) Mea quidem hercle causa liber esto atque ito quo voles.
(‘As far as I am concerned you can be free and go where you wish.’ Pl. Men. 1029)
(f) Hercle hanc quidem / nil tu amassis.
(‘No, her you mustn’t love.’ Pl. Mil. 1006–7)
The other type of swear words consists of the noun di ‘gods’ in combination with an
adjective, with or without an interjection, either pro or o.203 Examples are (g)–(i). Di
immortales is popular in Plautus and Cicero; di boni, relatively popular in Terence,
Cicero, and Seneca (but not in his tragedies).204 They are sometimes used as inde-
pendent exclamations, and they often come first in the sentence and are then not
always distinguishable from a simple invocation of the gods. They are common in
interrogative and exclamatory sentences. Occasionally di boni is inserted in a phrase
(see the Supplement). Their function is not much different from the former type, with
which they share their resemblance to expressive interjections, but they look more
like parenthetical expressions.
(g) Pro di immortales, cognosci’n tu me saltem, Sosia?

(‘Immortal gods, can at least you recognize me, Sosia?’ Pl. Am. 822)
(h) Sed, o di immortales, non dicerem hoc, audiente Scaevola, nisi ipse dicere
soleret . . .
(‘But, by the immortal gods, I should not say this with Scaevola listening, were he not
himself in the habit of . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.185)
(i) Di boni, boni quid porto?
(‘Good gods, what good news I bring!’ Ter. An. 338)
Supplement:
Pro deum atque hominum fidem: / hocin pacto indemnatum atque intestatum me
abripi? (Pl. Cur. 694–5). Di immortales, / etiam cum uxore non cubet? (Pl. Mer.
537–8); Nam quem ego adspicio? Pro supreme Iuppiter, / erus meus hicquidemst,
mearum alumnarum pater, / Hanno Carthaginiensis. (Pl. Poen. 1122–4); O di
immortales, meus est. (Pl. Rud. 1360); Quam id te, di boni, non decebat! (Cic. Phil.
2.20); Hic autem iratus quae dixit, di boni! (Cic. Phil. 2.80); Pro di boni, et haec
puella hospitio patris excepta est? (Sen. Con. 1.6.1); Omittamus haec magna verba,
sed, di boni, vera. (Sen. Ep. 13.4); Nunc quanta, di boni, ludibria sunt ineunda!
([Quint.] Decl. 1.17)
203 Statistical data in TLL s.v. deus 892.34ff. For a discussion of Plautus’ and Terence’s use of these
expressions, see Müller (1997: 144–8). See also Ashdowne (2008) and Unceta (2016b).
204 See Unceta (2017a).
The expression di vostram fidem is used elliptically for di, obsecro vostram fidem.
Whereas Plautus uses both expressions (seven times against five, respectively) in a
way that can, most of the time, be understood as an invocation of the gods, Terence
has only the elliptical one (ten times), and he uses it more as an affirmative expres-
sion, as in ( j). Both expressions are situated at the beginning of the sentence.
( j) Di vostram fidem, / eamus ad ipsam.
(‘Heaven help us! Let’s go and see her.’ Ter. Ph. 808–9)
Wishes like ita me di ament (see § 7.57) are used by Plautus and Terence as a means
to strengthen the assertion (see § 6.2), as in (k).
(k) Ita me di ament, ut illa me amet malim quam di, Milphio.
(‘As truly as the gods may love me, I’d prefer being loved by her to being
loved by the gods, Milphio.’ Pl. Poen. 289)
Invocations of one or more individual gods (see the use of the vocative case in (m))
are sometimes used as swear words, as discussed above for di immortales, and placed
further on in the sentence, preferably after an emphatic word, as in (m).
(l) Sed pro Iuppiter, / num ego disperii?
(‘But good heavens, am I ruined?’ Pl. Aul. 241–2)
(m) Quae enim res umquam, pro sancte Iuppiter! non modo in hac urbe sed in
omnibus terris est gesta maior?
(‘For was any greater deed ever done in Rome, holy Jupiter, or anywhere else in the
world?’ Cic. Phil. 2.32)
Cicero has some thirty-five instances of me dius fidius (also medius fidius and medius-
fidius), with maybe ten instances in other authors. This phrase is rarely placed at the
beginning of the sentence, as in (n), but rather is almost always in second or later
position, as in (o). This is the case even when it appears within a phrase, as in (p). In
this internal position it follows an emphatic word.
(n) Me dius fidius, ne tu emisti vzx praeclarum!
(‘Well, upon my word you have bought a fine troop!’ Cic. Att. 4.4a.2)
(o) Scripsi de te parce me dius fidius et timide, non revocans me ipse sed paene
refugiens.
(‘I have written about yourself, sparingly and gingerly enough upon my word, not
only keeping myself in check but almost running the other way.’ Cic. Fam. 6.7.3)
(p) Melioris me dius fidius civis et viri putabam quovis supplicio adfici quam illi
crudelitati non solum praeesse verum etiam interesse.
(‘Upon my word I thought that as a man and a citizen it was better to suffer any pun-
ishment rather than take part, let alone a leading part, in such atrocity.’ Cic. Att. 9.6.7)
Malum in (q), repeated from § 22.45, and (r) is an exclamation of anger or frustration.205
205 For the use of malum ‘the deuce!, the devil!’ (OLD s.v. § 8), see Hofmann (1951: 32), Lilja (1965: 39),
and Unceta (2016b: 233–5).
Interjections 923
(q) Quo id, malum, pacto potest nam—mecum argumentis puta— / fieri nunc
uti tu <et> hic sis et domi?
(‘Damn it, how is it possible—discuss it with me in a rational way—that
you’re both here and at home?’ Pl. Am. 592–3)
(r) Quid, malum? Isti Pindenissitae qui sunt?
(‘What the deuce? Those Pindenissitae, who are they?’ Cic. Att. 5.20.1)
22.48 Interjections
Interjections were not recognized as a separate lexical category by Greek grammar-

ians, but the Roman grammarians distinguished them (from adverbs) and they are
mentioned as such by Quintilian Inst. 1.4.20; 1.5.52.206 They were and are described as
adverb-like words which express the emotional state of the speaker. This description
fits some of the interjections that are dealt with in our grammars very well, for example
eheu ‘alas’, as in (a), an expression of grief or pain. Others, though, have an inter-
actional function, such as heus ‘hey!’, which is used to draw the attention of a person
or persons, as in (b).207
(a) Age, Palaestrio, bono animo es. # Eheu, nequeo quin fleam, / quom abs te
abeam.
(‘Come on, Palaestrio, cheer up. # Dear me! I can’t refrain from crying because I’m
leaving you.’ Pl. Mil. 1342–3)
(b) Ecquis in aedibu’st? / Heus, ecquis hic est?
(‘Is anyone in the house? Hey, is anyone here?’ Pl. Bac. 581–2)
Apart from these two types of interjections, some scholars also include the swear
words discussed in § 22.47 and the particle age (see § 6.28). In this Syntax, four types
of interjections will be distinguished: ‘sound-reproducing interjections’ like hahahae
‘hahaha’; summonses, like heus in (b); introductory interjections, like ecce ‘look!’; and
expressive interjections, like eheu in (a).208
Interjections are informationally independent linguistic units which do not play a
role in the structure of other linguistic units and which can be used as independent
sentences, as in (c). Usually they precede another sentence, in conjunction with which
they form a textually complex unit, as in (a) above. In modern languages there is a
206 For the Roman grammarians, see Biville (2003) and Moure Casas (2013).
207 For a very complete list of interjections and discussion, see Neue-W.: II.981–99, K.-H.: 942–3, and
Hofmann (1951: 9–39). For a discussion of the grammatical status of interjections, see Biville (1996).
Unceta (2012) uses the term ‘interjection’ in a restricted sense for what are here called ‘expressive interjec-
tions’ only.
208 This fourfold distinction derives from a threefold division in Tesnière (1959: 96–9), via Müller
(1997: 92), with the addition of introductory interjections as a separate category (usually taken as part of
the summonses), following a suggestion by Luis Unceta (p.c.). Similar terms are also used by Hofmann
(1951: 9–39), Dik (1997: II.384–6), Unceta (2012: 352–3), and others. For the functions of interjections in
various text types, illustrated for Virgil, see Biville (2002).
clear intonational break between the two units, and this was probably also the case in
Latin. Exceptionally, especially in elevated poetry, interjections are inserted in another
sentence, as in (d) and (e). Details will be discussed in the following sections.
(c) Quid faciam tibi? / # Eheu! # Eheu? Id quidem hercle ne parsis. Dabo.
(‘What should I do for you? # Dear me! # “Dear me?” Don’t spare that: I’ll give it to
you.’ Pl. Ps. 78–9)
(d) Quem procul ex alga maestis Minois ocellis, / saxea ut effigies bacchantis,
prospicit, eheu (cj. Bergk), / prospicit et magnis curarum fluctuat undis . . .
(‘At whom afar from the weedy beach with streaming eyes the daughter of Minos, like
a marble figure of a bacchanal, looks forth, alas! looks forth tempest-tost with great
tides of passion . . .’ Catul. 64.60–2)
(e) Quid precer, heu! timeamve prius?
(‘What should I entreat, or alas! what rather fear?’ Stat. Ach. 1.935)
Some interjections can be used in combination with evaluative exclamatory sentences
(see § 6.35), as in (f) (with a so-called accusativus exclamationis). Grammars and
dictionaries sometimes suggest that such an accusative is governed by the interjection,
but this is not the case. Such accusatives can also be used without the interjec-
tion. Different is vae ‘alas’, which is usually combined with a dative personal pronoun
or a noun phrase, as in (g), resembling the use of the dative with adjectives (see
§ 4.100); capiti tuo cannot be used alone.
(f) Heu, me miserum! Misere perii.
(‘O, I’m wretched! I’ve perished wretchedly.’ Pl. Aul. 721)
(g) Vae capiti tuo.
(‘Bad luck to your head!’ Pl. Am. 741)
For understandable reasons, interjections are very unevenly distributed over text
types and authors. They are very rare in narrative texts (there are no interjections in
Caesar, for example) and in didactic texts (including Lucretius), but common in Early
Latin comedy and in Seneca’s tragedies, as well as in poetry in general.209
22.49 Sound-reproducing interjections

Sound-reproducing interjections are almost absent from the regular texts that
we have, and only a few others are mentioned by ancient grammarians. Hahahae
(hahae) as the sound of laughter is used a few times by Plautus and Terence, as in (a).
Plautus also uses once prox, possibly the sound of a fart, as in (b), and once tuxtax, the
sound of blows (Per. 264). For st, see § 22.50.210
209 For their distribution in the LASLA corpus, see Denooz (2005). The interjections attat, au, eu, euax,
eugepae, papae are left out of account because they are too infrequent.
210 See Hofmann (1951: 11–12), Müller (1997: 92–3). For a few other sound-reproducing interjections,
see K.-H.: 943.
Interjections 925
(a) Hahahae. # Quid risisti? # Servi venere in mentem Syri / calliditates.

(‘Hahahahaha! # What are you laughing at? # I was thinking of the craftiness of my
slave Syrus.’ Ter. Hau. 886–7)
(b) . . . dum enitor, prox! iam paene inquinavi pallium.
(‘. . . while I was struggling up, whoops! I almost soiled my mantle.’ Pl. Ps. 1279)
22.50 Summonses
Summonses are expressions that are used by a speaker to draw the attention of an
addressee, which may be a person or a group of persons.211 An example is heus ‘hey’.
(For the use of the imperative forms fac and age as summonses, see § 6.29.)
Summonses are often combined with an address, often also with a form of greeting,
and are often in the initial position and followed by a command or a question. They
are best attested in Early Latin comedy. The expressions discussed in this section vary
in their social function (heus is typically used by men) and in the frequency with
which they are used by Plautus and Terence.212 By decreasing order of the number of
attestations, the following interjections are used as a summons: o (oh), heus, eho, and
st. Of these, only o is attested in all periods of Latin.
By using the interjection eho ‘hey’, ‘hi’ the speaker directs the attention of the
addressee to what he is going to say. It is used by men and women. It most often pre-
cedes an indignant or otherwise emotional question or order, as in (a) and (b), and is
regularly combined with a form of address, as in (b) and (c), or with a modulator of
illocution (see § 22.46), as in (d). It is usually not directed to superiors. Outside of
comedy there is one conjectured instance, which is at Rhet. Her. 4.63.213
(a) Quin etiam nunc intus hic in proxumo est. # Eho, an non domi est?
(‘Actually she’s in here next door even now. # Tell me, she’s not at home?’ Pl. Mil. 301)
(b) Eho istum, puere, circumduce hasce aedis et conclavia.
(‘Hey there, boy, take him around the house and rooms.’ Pl. Mos. 843)
(c) Eho tu, eho tu, quin cavisti ne eam videret, verbero?
(‘Hey you, hey you, why didn’t you guard against him seeing her, you thug?’ Pl.
Mer. 189)
(d) Eho, amabo, quid illo nunc properas?
(‘Hey, please, why are you rushing there now?’ Pl. Poen. 263)
The interjection heus ‘hey’ signals an urgent appeal to a person or persons for their
attention. It is mainly attested in Early Latin comedy, especially Plautus, but con-
tinues to be used by later authors in interactive texts (rarely in other text types), for
211 There are also non-linguistic summonses like knocking on the door, which will be ignored here. See
Hoffmann (1983: 225) and Roesch (2008: 210).
212 For discussion of the social aspects, see Müller (1997: 102–10) and Barrios-Lech (2016: 162–8).
213 For details, see TLL s.v. eho 298.12ff., Müller (1997: 105–6), and Barrios-Lech (2016: 166–8).
example, Cicero in the notable combination (sed) heus tu. It is usually in first pos-
ition and often precedes a form of address. With very few exceptions, it is used by
male speakers. At Rhet. Her. 4.14 it figures in an example of low style (genus adtenu-
atum). It is mainly used by people with a relatively higher social status in the situ-
ation at hand.214 Typical examples are (e)–(h). A few less common ones can be found
in the Supplement.
(e) Heus, Pardalisca! / # Quid est? # Est— # Quid? # Est quod volo exquirere
ex te.
(‘Hey there, Pardalisca! # What is it? # There is— # What? # There is something I want
to ask you.’ Pl. Cas. 688–9)
(f) Aperite hoc. Heus, ecquis hic est?
(‘Open up! Hello, is anyone here?’ Pl. Am. 1020)
(g) Aperite, aperite! Heus, Simoni me adesse aliquis nuntiate!
(‘Open up, open up! Hey, someone announce to Simo that I’m here!’ Pl. Ps. 1284)
(h) Heus, tu, / malo, si sapis, cavebis. / Mea est haec.
(‘Hey, you, watch out for trouble if you’re wise. She belongs to me.’ Pl. Cas. 837–9)
Supplement:
Heus, vos, ecquis haec quae loquor audit? (Pl. Cas. 165–6—Myrrhina speaking);
Filia, heus. # Quid est? Quid agimus? (Pl. Men. 844); Sed heus tu, ecquid vides
Kalendas venire, Antonium non venire? (Cic. Att. 2.2.3); Ac prior ‘heus,’ inquit,
‘iuvenes, monstrate, mearum / vidistis si quam . . . (Verg. A. 1.321–2); M(arcus) ·
Statius / M(arci) · l(ibertus) · Chilo / hic / heus · tu · viator · las/se · qu ·
me · praete/reis . . . (CIL I2.2138.1–6 (Cremona)); Heus tu, peccator, bono animo sis.
(Tert. Paen. 8.3)
The interjection o (also oh, without an observable difference in the context in which it
is used)215 is used both as an expressive interjection (see § 22.52) and as a summons.
In the latter case, it is combined with a form of address. This combination can be used
alone, as in (i), but it can also be combined with a sentence of which the content is to
some extent emotional for the speaker, as in ( j)–(l). In that case, it usually precedes it,
but it can also follow or be inserted. It is used in all periods of Latin but, due to its
function, it is absent from an author like Caesar and is rare in historical and didactic
texts in general. Especially in poetry, the regular order of the combination o + form of
address can be interrupted by other constituents, as in (m), but the order is also
(rarely) inversed, as in (n).216
(i) O mi ocule, o mi anime.
(‘O apple of my eye, o my soulmate.’ Pl. Mil. 1330)
214 For details, see TLL s.v. heus 2675.7ff., Watt (1963), Hoffmann (1983: 222–3), Müller (1997: 102–5),
Berger (2015), Barrios-Lech (2016: 162–3), and Adams (2016: 128).
215 See TLL s.v. o 3.33ff. For Terence’s use of o, see Müller (1997: 123–6).
216 For the variety of word order, see TLL s.v. o 10.1ff.
Interjections 927
( j) O Lyde, es barbarus.
(‘O Lydus, you’re a barbarian.’ Pl. Bac. 121)
(k) Respice, o mi lepos.
(‘Look back at me, my delight.’ Pl. Cas. 235)
(l) Sed, o Palaemon, sancte Neptuni comes, / qui <et> Herculis socius esse
diceris, / quod facinus video!
(‘But, o Palaemon, holy friend of Neptune, you who are also called the companion of
Hercules, what action do I see!’ Pl. Rud. 160–2)
(m) Ut stetit, ‘o’, dixit, ‘non istis digna catenis . . .’
(‘As soon as he had touched down, he said: “Oh! you who do not deserve those
chains . . .” ’ Ov. Met. 4.678—tr. Kline)
(n) ‘Iuppiter o!’, dixi, ‘si te non falsa loquuntur / dicta sub amplexus Aeginae
Asopidos isse . . .’
(‘I said: “O Jupiter, if they do not lie when they say that you were held in Aegina’s
embrace, she, the daughter of Asopus . . .” ’ Ov. Met. 7.615–16—tr. Kline)
The infrequent interjection ohē is used as a signal that the speaker wants to stop what
is going on.
(o) Nolo, inquam, aurum concredi mihi. / Vel da aliquem qui servet me. # Ohe,
odiose facis.
(‘I’m telling you, I don’t want to be entrusted with the gold. Or give me someone to
watch over me. # Hey, you’re getting on my nerves.’ Pl. Bac. 1064–5)
The sound-reproducing interjection st is a signal to the addressee that he should be
silent. In Plautus, who has about twenty instances, it is almost always accompanied
with an imperative of the verb taceo, as in (p). One of the few exceptions, not accepted
by all editors, is (q). After Plautus it is almost non-existent.217
(p) St. / Tace atque abi.
(‘Hush! Be quiet and be off.’ Pl. Cas. 148–9)
(q) St. / Ne pave, restituam iam ego te in gaudio antiquo ut sies.
(‘Hush! Stop being afraid. I’ll restore you to your old joy now.’ Pl. Mer. 884a–5)
22.51 Introductory interjections

Introductory interjections call the attention to something noteworthy in the
communicative situation and have a presentative or introductory function. The par-
ticles in this group are ecce, en, and em, in that order of frequency of attestation. Of
these, ecce is used in all periods of Latin, while en is first attested in a fragment of
217 For Ter. Ph. 743, see Müller (1997: 110). Cicero has one instance at Rep. 6.12.
C. Gracchus and then is infrequently used by Cicero and continues to be found until
Late Latin. Em practically disappears after Early Latin comedy.
The interjection ecce ‘there’, ‘here is X’ is used in two types of contexts. In one
context, it calls the attention of the addressee to an entity in the situation or to a
visible or perceptible event in that situation—its proper attention-calling or ‘demon-
strative’ use, as in (a) and (b). Alternatively, in a narrative or similar type of text, it
serves to signal that something noteworthy is going to happen, often unexpectedly,
as in (c).218 In (a), the entity to which attention is called is in the accusative, com-
parable with the use of the accusative for an object constituent (see also § 6.35,
Appendix). In (b), ecce is the first element in a sentence in which a particular situ-
ation on stage is described. In (c), it introduces the main clause of a complex sen-
tence which is part of a narrative.
(a) Ubi es? # Ecce me.
(‘Where are you? # Here I am.’ Pl. Rud. 241)
(b) Perii hercle. Ecce autem haec abiit. Vae misero mihi.
(‘I’m done for! (turns back) But look, my wife’s left. Poor, wretched me!’ Pl. Mer. 792)
(c) Discubitum noctu ut imus, ecce ad me advenit / mulier . . .
(‘As we went off to bed that night, lo and behold, a woman came to me . . . ’ Pl. Mer.
100–1)
The use of objectlike constituents as in (a) is further illustrated by (d)–(f), the last
being an indirect question. The combination of ecce in its demonstrative function
with a nominative noun or noun phrase is first used by Virgil, as in (g). From Cicero
onwards, ecce can be combined with an illocutionary disjunct in the dative (tibi or
vobis) (a dativus ethicus, see § 10.107), as in (h). Poets especially place ecce in positions
other than the first of its clause or sentence, as in (i).219
(d) Ecce autem alterum! / Nescioquid de amore loquitur. O infortunatum
senem!
(‘Now look, here’s the other one, muttering something about love! The poor old mas-
ter!’ Ter. Eu. 297–8)
(e) ‘En quattuor aras: / ecce duas tibi, Daphni, duas altaria Phoebo.’
(‘ “Lo, here are four altars, mind you, two for you, Daphnis; two for Phoebus!” ’ Verg.
Ecl. 5.65–6)
(f) ‘Ecce ut doleat tibi, ut postea consideratius loquaris!’
(‘ “Look how sorry you are for yourself; next time take more care before you speak!” ’
Sen. Ben. 4.36.1)
218 For the various functions of ecce, see Cuzzolin (1998) and Adams (2013: 465–80), with references.
The text-structuring function of ecce or, as she calls it, the ‘discourse-marking’ function, is discussed by
Dionisotti (2007), especially for Virgil.
219 For further instances and details, see TLL s.v. ecce 23.73ff. For Terence’s use of ecce, see Müller
(1997: 117–18).
Interjections 929
(g) Ventum erat ad limen, cum virgo ‘poscere fata / tempus,’ ait, ‘deus ecce
deus!’
(‘They had come to the threshold, when the maiden cries: “’Tis time to ask the
oracles; the god, lo! the god!” ’ Verg. A. 6.45–6)
(h) Sed cum ex Dolabellae {t}~pjļ (sic enim tu ad me scripseras) magna
†desperatione adfectus† essem, ecce tibi et Bruti et tuae litterae!
(‘But just when Dolabella’s ‘star performance’, as you put it in your letter to me, had
given me fresh heart (?), down comes Brutus’ letter on the one hand and yours on the
other.’ Cic. Att. 14.19.1)
(i) In somnis, ecce, ante oculos maestissimus Hector / visus adesse mihi . . .
(‘In slumbers, behold, I dreamed that Hector, most sorrowful, stood before my eyes . . .’
Verg. A. 2.270–1)
Supplement:
Ecce Gripi scelera. (Pl. Rud. 1178); Vix haec dixerat, cum ecce iste praesto ‘sedes’,
inquit, ‘audax?’ (Rhet. Her. 4.65); Ecce illa tempestas, caligo bonorum et subita atque
improvisa formido . . . (Cic. Prov. 43); Ecce tibi qui rex populi Romani dominusque
omnium gentium esse concupiverit idque perfecerit. (Cic. Off. 3.83); Hic aliud maius
miseris multoque tremendum / obicitur magis atque improvida pectora turbat. /
Laocoon, ductus Neptuno sorte sacerdos, / sollemnis taurum ingentem mactabat ad
aras. / Ecce autem gemini a Tenedo tranquilla per alta / (horresco referens) immensis
orbibus angues / incumbunt pelago pariterque ad litora tendunt. (Verg. A. 2.199–205);
Multa miser timeo, quia feci multa proterve, / exemplique metu torqueor, ecce,
mei. (Ov. Am. 1.4.45–6); Teneo ecce epistulas, in quibus manifesta proditionis
argumenta sunt, in quibus hostium consilia. (Sen. Con. 10.6.1); ‘Quod si utique’,
proclamabat, ‘facinore opus est, nudo ecce iugulum, convertite huc manus, imprim-
ite mucrones.’ (Petr. 80.4); Et ecce illam misericordiam. (August. Serm. 16A.10); Date
elemosynam, et ecce vobis munda sunt omnia. (August. Serm. 16A.12); Ecce quo
modo salubriter mortificat Deus. (August. Civ. 17.4 (l. 138)); Indolis · hic · iacit ·
heu / ecce · sepultus · / cunctis · karus exosus / non · nisi · malivolis · /
Dextrianus · nomine · / vocita[ta]tus in vita . . . (CIL XII.592.1–6 (Aix-en-
Provence)); Hoc autem schema fit aut in sensu aut in verbis. . . . Ecce hoc schema in
sensu est . . . (Pomp. V.300.2–15K.)220
In Plautus and Terence, alongside ecce there are other forms which are compounds of
ecce and accusative forms of demonstrative pronouns, resulting in forms like eccum,
eccas, and eccillam (and once eccistam). These are, in fact, much more frequent in that
corpus than ecce by itself. They can be used to draw the attention of the addressee to
an entity in the situation or to a visible or perceptible event. They are semi-declinable
words which only agree in number and gender with the person or thing they refer to,
as can also be seen in ( j)–(m). Ex. (n) resembles (a) above in having an objectlike
accusative affinem with it.221
220 For the ‘discourse-marking role’ of ecce in the grammarian Pompeius, see Adams (2013: 473–5).
221 For etymological considerations, see de Vaan (2008: 185). For a detailed treatment of these forms in
Plautus, see Perdicoyanni-Paléologou (2002). See also § 11.103, Appendix.
( j) Sed Priamum adstantem eccum ante portam video.

(‘But there I can see Priam standing in front of the gate.’ Pl. Bac. 978)
(k) Nam meus pater intus nunc est eccum Iuppiter.
(‘Well, you see, my father Jupiter is inside now.’ Pl. Am. 120)
(l) Ostende huc manus. # Em tibi, ostendi, eccas.
(‘Show me your hands. # Here you go, I’m showing them to you, look.’
Pl. Aul. 640–1)
(m) Apud nos eccillam festinat cum sorore uxor tua.
(‘Look, your wife is bustling around at our place with her sister.’ Pl. St. 536)
(n) Sed eccum affinem ante aedis.
(‘But look, there’s my relation in front of the house.’ Pl. Aul. 536)
The interjection em ‘here you are’, ‘look at this’, probably an abbreviated form of the
imperative singular of the verb emo, is used to offer ‘some object, fact, situation, etc.
to a person’s attention.’222 When presenting an entity, it is often combined with a noun
or noun phrase in the accusative, as in (o). As with ecce, the objectlike element can
also be a clause, as in (p). It can also be used for presenting a situation. It is usually
placed in first position, as in (q). Em can be combined with an illocutionary disjunct
in the dative (tibi or vobis) (a dativus ethicus, see § 10.107), as in (r). In instances like
(s)—an aside—em resembles expressive interjections.223 There are very few attest-
ations after Early Latin comedy, two of which are in the Supplement.
(o) Em voluptatem tibi, / em mel, em cor, em labellum, em salutem, em savium.
((hitting Milphio) ‘There’s your darling! There’s your honey, there’s your heart, there’s
your lip, there’s your salvation, there’s your kiss!’ Pl. Poen. 382–3)
(p) Em nunc hic quoius est (sc. ager) / ut ad incitas redactu’st!
(‘Look how the present owner has been checkmated!’ Pl. Trin. 536–7)
(q) Em aspecta: rideo.
(‘There, look: I’m laughing.’ Pl. As. 841)
(r) Quid est tibi nomen? . . . # Ausculta ergo, ut scias: / Vaniloquidorus . . .
Quodsemelarripides Numquameripides. Em tibi.
(‘What’s your name? . . . # Then listen so that you may know: Vainspeakerpresent . . .
Whativegrabbedonceson Youllnevergetbackson. There you go.’ Pl. Per. 700–5)
(s) Iamne abiisti? Em, sic datur.
(‘Have you left already? There, that’s how she receives presents.’ Pl. Truc. 634)
Supplement:
Em (en cj. Lambinus) causam cur lex tam egregia . . . ferretur . . . (Cic. Phil. 5.15); Em
tibi illa accusatio iurgiis inita, verbis aucta . . . (Apul. Apol. 25—NB: nominative)
222 Following OLD s.v. em. In the manuscripts there is confusion of em and hem and also of em and en.
For Terence’s use of em, see Müller (1997: 115–17). For Plautus’ usage and for general discussion, see
Unceta (2017b). For a comparative discussion of em and hem, see del Vecchio (2008: 115–22).
223 See Unceta (2017b: 74–5).
Interjections 931
The interjection ēn ‘observe’, ‘see’ is used to call attention either to entities visible in
the situation or in other ways perceptible, or to an event in the situation.224 When
presenting an entity, it is combined with a noun or noun phrase in the accusative or,
more often, in the nominative, as in (t) and (u), respectively. As with ecce and em, the
objectlike element can also be a clause, as in (v), the first attestation of en. When en is
used for presenting a situation, it is more often placed in first position, as in (w), but
can also be inserted elsewhere in the clause or sentence, at least in poetry. It is very
rarely combined with an illocutionary disjunct in the dative (tibi or vobis) (a dativus
ethicus, see § 10.107).225
(t) ‘En vobis’, inquit, ‘iuvenem’ . . .
(‘ “Here,” he cried, “here is a young man . . .” ’ Liv. 5.18.5)
(u) En crimen, en causa, cur regem fugitivus, dominum servus accuset.
(‘Here we have the charge, here the ground which has induced a runaway to arraign
his king, a slave his lord.’ Cic. Deiot. 17)
(v) Considerate, Quirites, sinistram eius. En quoius auctoritatem sequimini . . .
(‘Look, Quirites, at his left hand. There is the man whose authority you must fol-
low . . .’ Gracch. orat. 58)
(w) Tum Quintus ‘en’, inquit mihi, ‘haec ego patior cottidie’.
(‘Quintus said to me “There! This is the sort of thing I have to put up with every day.” ’
Cic. Att. 5.1.4)
The relationship between the attention-getting use of ēn, discussed above, and the
interrogative use of ēn, as in (x), is not clear. As the example illustrates, the latter use
is most visible in the combination with umquam (see § 6.15). Instances of its use in
isolation are very rare, but see (y).
(x) Sed tu enumquam cum quiquam viro / consuevisti?
(‘But have you ever been intimate with any man?’ Pl. Cist. 86–7)
(y) En haec promissa fides est?
(‘Is this how he keeps his promise?’ Verg. A. 6.346)
22.52 Expressive interjections

Latin has a large number of expressive interjections, several of which cover a broad
scale of emotions. This class is, for obvious reasons, best attested in Early Roman com-
edy and relatively frequent in the comedies of Terence. Whereas some of them are not
attested in later periods, others continued into Late Latin and even the Romance
languages. They are presented in alphabetical order.226
224 The etymology of ēn is not clear. Some scholars assume its use was influenced in some way by the
Greek interjection ·x ‘hey’. See de Vaan (2008: 189).
225 Symmachus has the largest number of instances (six).
226 Unceta (2012: 361–89) presents a systematic treatment of this class according to the emotions they
express.
The interjection a (ah, rarely aha) is commonly used in Early Latin comedy and in
poetry (including Seneca’s tragedies). There are only two instances (quotations) in
prose (Cicero). In the comedies, it usually precedes an imperative, interrogative,
declarative, or exclamatory sentence (including an occasional accusativus exclama-
tionis), and it is rarely used independently. Poets use it freely where it fits in best in the
metre. Three examples are (a)–(c). A(h) is used in various emotional contexts,227 but
very rarely to express joy, as in (d).
(a) Apage a me, apage. # Ah, nimium ferus es. # Mihi sum. # Malacissandus es. /
Equidem tibi do hanc operam. # Ah, nimium pretiosa es operaria.
(‘Away from me, away! # Ah, you’re too wild. # For my own benefit. # You need
to be softened. I’ll do this work for you. # Oh, you’re too expensive a worker.’ Pl.
Bac. 73–4)
(b) Non est profecto: sine. # At enim istaec in me cudetur faba. # Ah. / # Flagitium
facimus.
(‘It won’t, I’m sure. Let me. # But I’m the one who’ll pay for it. # Oh! # We’re commit-
ting an outrage.’ Ter. Eu. 381)
(c) Miser, a miser, querendum’st / etiam atque etiam, anime.
(‘ “Unhappy , ah unhappy heart, again, again must thou complain.” ’ Catul. 63.61)
(d) Dic isti. / # Ah. # Quid est? Ecquid lubet? # Lubet.
(‘Tell her that. # Ah! # What is it? Do you like it? # I do like it.’ Pl. Cur. 130–1)
The interjection ehem is ‘an exclamation expressing gratified surprise or recollection,’228
as in (e) and (f), respectively. Terence uses it relatively more often than Plautus to
express surprise at the unexpected arrival of someone. After these authors, there are
only two attestations, in the archaist Apuleius.
(e) Ehem, te hercle ego circumspectabam, nimis metuebam male ne abiisses.
(‘Hey, I was looking around for you. I was very much afraid that you might have
given me the slip.’ Pl. Ps. 912)
(f) Quid? Quid aliud volui dicere? / Ehem, curate istam diligenter virginem.
(‘Well, then, what else did I mean to say? You there, look after that girl with the great-
est care.’ Ter. Eu. 504–5)
The interjection ei is used in Early Latin comedy, rarely alone, usually with the dative
of the first personal pronoun mihi, and usually preceding a sentence. The latter usage
continued until Late Latin, but almost exclusively in poetry. In comedy it is, with one
exception, only used by men, mostly those of a higher social position. It is an expres-
sion of ‘anguish or sim.’ (OLD).229 Examples are (g)–(h).
227 For Terence’s use of ah, see Müller (1997: 126–30).

228 So OLD s.v. ehem. See also TLL s.v. 296.54ff., Müller (1997: 106–8), Unceta (2012: 374–6). For a
different approach (ehem is an indicator of hesitation), see Luck (1964).
229 For Plautus’ use of ei, see Unceta (2012: 362–3); for Terence’s use, see Müller (1997: 138).
Interjections 933
(g) Ei, numnam ego obolui?

(‘Dear me, did I emit that smell?’ Pl. Am. 321)
(h) Ei mihi, / perii hercle.
(‘Dear me, I’m done for!’ Pl. Aul. 391–2)
(i) ‘Ei mihi quantum / praesidium, Ausonia, et quantum tu perdis, Iule!’
(‘ “Ah me! How great a protection is lost to you, Ausonia, how great a one to you,
Iulus!” ’ Verg. A. 11.57–8)
The rare compound oiei (Greek zÇ + ei) is a ‘cry of pain or anguish’ (OLD).
The interjection eia (heia) is infrequently used in Early Latin comedy, expressing
mostly disapproval, astonishment, or urgency. It remained in use, especially in the
third meaning, and mainly in poetry, until Late Latin. It usually precedes a sentence,
in later periods predominantly imperative ones. Examples are ( j)–(l).230
( j) Heia, Megadore, hau decorum facinus tuis factis facis . . .
(‘Really now, Megadorus, you aren’t doing the decent thing by behaving like this . . .’
Pl. Aul. 220)
(k) Vos priores esse oportet, nos posterius dicere, / qui plus sapitis. # Heia vero!
Age dice. # At deridebitis.
(‘You ought to come first, we ought to speak later. You are wiser. # Come off it! Come
on, tell us. # But you’ll laugh at me.’ Pl. Epid. 261–2)
(l) Romae sponsorem me rapis: ‘eia, / ne prior officio quisquam respondeat, urge.’
(‘At Rome thou hurriest me off to be surety: “Come! bestir yourself, lest someone
answer duty’s call before you.” ’ Hor. S. 2.6.23–4)
For some examples of the interjection ēheu ‘alas’, see § 22.48. As an expression of grief
or pain, it is at home in Early Latin comedy and later on in poetry (including Seneca’s
tragedies), where it often functions as a comment by the author. It is attested only
twice in prose. It usually precedes a sentence, as in (m), but see (d) and (e) in § 22.48
and (n). It occasionally precedes an exclamatory sentence with an accusativus
exclamationis, as in (o).231
(m) Eheu, quis vivit me mortalis miserior?
(‘Dear me! Which mortal lives more wretchedly than me?’ Pl. Rud. 520)
(n) Socerum et scelestas / falle sorores, / quae velut nactae vitulos leaenae /
singulos, eheu, lacerant.
(‘Disappoint your father-in-law and my wicked sisters, who, like lionesses having
possessed themselves of calves, alas! tear each of them to pieces.’ Hor. Carm.
3.11.39–42)
230 For Plautus’ use of (h)eia, see Unceta (2012: 379–82—with discussion of the variation in form); for
Terence’s use, see Müller (1997: 131–2).
231 As in one of the two prose instances (Sal. Jug. 14.9).
(o) Eheu me miseram, quor non aut istaec mihi / aetas et forma’st aut tibi haec
sententia?
(‘Oh dear, oh dear! If only either I had your youth and beauty or you had my sense!’
Ter. Hec. 74–5)
For the interjection hem, see § 6.25. It is used for a variety of emotions, ranging from
‘surprise, concern, etc.’ to ‘unhappiness’ (OLD).232 It is usually used in reaction to
another person’s words, as in (p). It is very rare outside of comedy, one example being
(q), where it is not used in a reactive context.
(p) Interemere ait velle vitam, / gladium— # Hem? # Gladium— # Quid eum
gladium? / # Habet.
(‘She says she wants to take his life. A sword— # What? # A sword— # What about
this sword? # She has it.’ Pl. Cas. 659–61)
(q) Hem, mea lux, meum desiderium, unde omnes opem petere solebant, te
nunc, mea Terentia, sic vexari, sic iacere in lacrimis et sordibus . . .
(‘Ah, my beloved, my heart’s longing! To think that you, dearest Terentia, once every-
body’s refuge in trouble, should now be so tormented! There you are, plunged in tears
and mourning . . .’ Cic. Fam. 14.2.2)
The interjection heu ‘alas’ is an expression of ‘sorrow, regret, etc.’ (OLD). It is used by
Plautus and Terence to express a strong emotion of the speaker.233 It is used both
alone, as in (r), and preceding (mainly exclamatory) sentences, including those con-
sisting of an accusativus exclamationis, as in (s). It is rare in prose: Pliny the Elder has
seven instances of the type, exemplified by (t), and it is still used as late as the Vulgate.
It was popular in elevated poetry, often as comment of the author, and was sometimes
positioned quite freely, as in (u) and (v).
(r) Heu heu! # Desine. # Doleo.
(‘Dear o dear! # Stop it! # I’m in pain.’ Pl. Ps. 1320)
(s) Heu me miserum! Misere perii . . .
(‘O, I’m wretched! I’ve perished wretchedly . . .’ Pl. Aul. 721)
(t) Heu dementia ab his initiis existimantium ad superbiam se genitos!
(‘Alas the madness of those who think that from these beginnings they were bred to
proud estate!’ Plin. Nat. 7.3)
(u) Heu me, per urbem—nam pudet tanti mali— / fabula quanta fui, convivio-
rum et paenitet . . .
(‘Ah me! (for I am ashamed of so great a misfortune) what a subject of talk was I
throughout the city! I repent too of the entertainments . . .’ Hor. Epod. 11.7–8)
232 See also Müller (1997: 121–3) and del Vecchio (2008: 115–22).
233 For Plautus’ use of heu, see Unceta (2012: 366–7); for Terence’s use, see Müller (1997: 137).
Interjections 935
(v) . . . Eurydicenque suam iam luce sub ipsa / immemor heu! victusque animi
respexit . . .
(‘. . . and on the very verge of light, unmindful, alas, and vanquished in purpose, on
Eurydice, now regained looked back! . . .’ Verg. G. 4.490–1)
The interjection hui is an expression of positive or negative surprise. Outside of the
comedies of Plautus (three instances) and Terence (fifteen), it is only attested eight
times, in Cicero’s correspondence (six by himself).234 It can be used alone, as in (w),
but can also precede a (mostly exclamatory) sentence, as in (x).
(w) Spero, est simili’ maiorum suom. # Hui! / # Syre, praeceptorum plenu’st isto-
rum ille. # Phy!
(‘He gives me hope. He’s similar to his ancestors. # Wow! # Syrus, he’s full of these
maxims. # Phew!’ Ter. Ad. 411–12)
(x) Hui, babae, basilice te intulisti et facete.
(‘Hey, wow! That was a fantastic, fine movement!’ Pl. Per. 806)
In its expressive use (for its use as summons, see § 22.50), the interjection o expresses
‘various emotions: a. pleasure, satisfaction. b. pain, misery, reproach, or sim. c. sur-
prise’ (OLD), the first two being less common. O is common in all periods of Latin,
but is particularly frequent in poetry. Examples of the three types from Plautus are
(y)–(aa), respectively.235 O is usually the first word of the sequence to which it belongs,
as in (y) and (z). Independent instances like (aa) are very rare.236 In poetry, placement
of o is freer, as in (ab).
(y) [Mihi] certum est efficere in me omnia eadem quae tu in te faxis. / # Oh,
melle dulci dulcior [mihi] tu es.
(‘I’ve set my mind on doing to myself everything you do to yourself. # Oh, you’re
sweeter than sweet honey.’ Pl. As. 613–14)
(z) Indigna digna habenda sunt erus quae facit. # Oh! oh! oh! / # Eiulatione haud
opus est, [multa] oculis aciem minuitis.
(‘The wrongs a master does must be deemed right. # No, no, no! # There’s no need for
wailing; you’re merely diminishing your eyes’ sharpness.’ Pl. Capt. 200–1)
(aa) Respice vero, Thesprio. # Oh, / Epidicumne ego conspicor?
(‘But do look back, Thesprio. # Oh, do I see Epidicus?’ Pl. Epid. 3–4)
(ab) Quare agite, o, proprios generatim discite cultus, / agricolae . . .
(‘Up, therefore, O husbandmen, learn the culture proper to each after its kind . . .’
Verg. G. 2.35–6)
234 For Terence’s use of hui, see Müller (1997: 130–1).

235 Examples taken from Unceta (2012: 388–9). For general discussion, see Dickey (2002: 225–9). See
also Müller (1997: 123–6) on Terence. TLL s.v. has a very detailed classification of the uses of o.
236 TLL s.v. o 4.29 refers to Leo’s explanation of (z): ‘fletur extra metrum’.
O regularly precedes evaluative exclamatory sentences with an accusativus exclama-

tionis, as in (ac) and (ad). Exclamatory sentences with a nominative are less common
and not used by Plautus. Examples are (ae) and (af). See also § 6.35.
(ac) O lepidum diem! / Nam ut dudum hinc abii, multo illo adveni prior . . .
(‘O what a wonderful day! Well, after going away from here, I got there long before
him . . .’ Pl. Aul. 704–5)
(ad) O miserum te, si haec intellegis, miseriorem, si non intellegis hoc litteris
mandari . . .
(‘Oh you wretched fellow, if you realize this! More wretched still, if you do not realize
that it is being recorded by historians . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.54)
(ae) O facinus audax, o Geta / monitor!
(‘O outrageous behaviour! O Geta the guardian!’ Ter. Ph. 233–4)
(af) O scelus, o pestis, o labes!
(‘O wickedness, O plague, O disgrace!’ Cic. Pis. 56)
In (y), oh precedes a declarative sentence; in (aa), an interrogative one. Exx. (ag) and
(ah) have imperative sentences; (ai), an exclamatory sentence. Typical for poetry is
the use of o to introduce a long address, as in (aj).
(ag) O multa tibi di dent bona . . .
(‘O, may the gods give you many good things . . .’ Pl. Poen. 208)
(ah) O salve, insperate, multis annis post quem conspicor.
(‘O, greetings, unhoped-for brother, whom I see after so many years.’ Pl. Men.
1132)
(ai) O qualis tu semper istos!
(‘O, how well you always hit these fellows off!’ Cic. Att. 16.11.5)
(aj) O saepe mecum tempus in ultimum / deducte Bruto militiae duce . . .
(‘O you who have so often carried with me into moments of the utmost peril when
Brutus was in charge of operations . . .’ Hor. Carm. 2.7.1–2)
The interjection vae is used in combination with a dative constituent, usually a pro-
noun, from Early Latin comedy, especially Plautus, onwards in situations of pain or
fear—when the speaker is involved—as in (ak) and (al), or as a threat—when other
entities are involved—as in (am). From Virgil onwards, vae is also used without a
dative constituent, inserted into the sentence as an authorial comment, as in (an).
There are a few attestations of vae with an accusative constituent.237
(ak) Nimia mira vidi. Vae mihi, / Amphitruo, ita mihi animus etiam nunc abest.
(‘I have seen very strange things. Dear me, Amphitruo: I’m beside myself even now.’
Pl. Am. 1080–1)
237 Pl. As. 481; Catul. 8.15; Sen. Apoc. 4.3. For vae in Plautus, see Unceta (2012: 364–5).
Address 937
(al) Vae misero mihi, / propter meum caput labores homini evenisse optumo.
(‘Oh no, I’m so wretched! Because of me the best of men had to suffer!’ Pl. Capt.
945–6)
(am) Vae illi qui tam indiligenter opservavit ianuam.
(‘Bad luck to the man who watched his door so carelessly.’ Pl. As. 273)
(an) . . . Mantua, vae miserae nimium vicina Cremonae . . .
(‘. . . Mantua, alas! too near ill-fated Cremona . . .’ Verg. Ecl. 9.28)
The interjection vah is almost limited to Plautus and Terence,238 where it is used in
various emotional contexts (pain, dismay, vexation, etc.; contempt; admiration,
surprise (see OLD)). It can precede all four types of sentences. Examples are (ao)–(ar),
respectively. But it can also stand alone, as in (as).
(ao) Poti’n coniecturam facere, si narrem tibi / hac nocte quod ego somniavi
dormiens? / # Vah, solus hic homo est qui sciat divinitus.
(‘Can you interpret if I tell you what I dreamed about in my sleep last night? # Bah!
This man’s the only man who knows through divine inspiration.’ Pl. Cur. 246–8)
(ap) Ita fieri iussi. # Ecquid hallecis? # Vah, rogas?
(‘That’s how I’ve had it done. # Is there any fish sauce? # Bah, you even ask?’ Pl.
Per. 107)
(aq) Sati’n hoc plane, sati’n diserte, / ere, nunc videor tibi locutus / esse? # Vah, /
apage te a me.
(‘Don’t you think now that I’ve said this clearly enough and eloquently enough,
master? # Bah, go away from me.’ Pl. Am. 578–80)
(ar) Tempta qua lubet. / # Vah, scelestus quam benigne, ut ne abstulisse intellegam!
(‘Touch me wherever you wish. # Bah, how obliging the thug is, so I won’t realize he’s
taken it.’ Pl. Aul. 647–8)
(as) Tetigistin’? # Tetigi, inquam, et pultavi. # Vah. # Quid est?
(‘You’ve touched it? # I’m telling you, I’ve touched it and I’ve knocked. # Oh no! #
What is it?’ Pl. Mos. 457)
22.53 Address
A speaker can stimulate a (potential) addressee to participate in linguistic interaction

in various ways.239 In Latin, if the communicative situation is clear enough, he can use
the second person verb form in an interrogative or imperative sentence, as in (a).
He can also use the addressee’s name, the second person personal pronoun,240 or a
238 An exception in the PHI corpus is Petr. 58.12 (a freedman speaking).

239 In the following sections I shall use the singular ‘addressee’, but plural ‘addressees’ are implied
as well.
240 For the use of pronouns, see Pinkster (1987). For quid tu and quid vos, see Ricottilli (1978).
common noun or noun phrase that in some way applies to the addressee, either alone,
as in (b), or in combination with a sentence, as in (c)–(e). The term address is used
for the function these three devices fulfil.241
(a) Audire vocem visa sum ante aedis modo / mei Lampadisci servi. # Non surda
es, era: / recte audivisti. # Quid agis hic? # Quod gaudeas.
(‘Just now I seemed to hear the voice of my good slave Lampadio in front of the
house. # You aren’t deaf, mistress: you heard correctly. # What are you doing here? #
Something you’ll be happy about.’ Pl. Cist. 543–5)
(b) Era. # Hem quid est? # Haec est. # Quis <est>? # Quoi haec excidit cistella.
(‘Mistress. # Yes, what is it? # This is her. # Who is it? # The one who dropped the
casket.’ Pl. Cist. 695)
(c) Quid agis, Euclio?
(‘How are you, Euclio?’ Pl. Aul. 536)
(d) Heus tu, / malo, si sapies, cavebis.
(‘Hey, you, watch out for trouble if you’re wise.’ Pl. Cas. 837)
(e) Bonus est hic homo, mea voluptas.
(‘He’s a good man, my darling.’ Pl. Poen. 1214)
Addresses are often accompanied by summonses and/or by greetings and leave-
takings.242
The latter are often conventional, such as salve, vale, and di te ament, as in (f), but
more individualized expressions can be used as well, as in (g).243
(f) Salvos sis, Mnesiloche, salvom te advenire gaudeo. # Di te ament, Philoxene.
(‘Hello, Mnesilochus, I’m glad you’ve arrived safely. # May the gods love you,
Philoxenus.’ Pl. Bac. 456–7)
(g) Cura, mi Tiro, ut valeas. Hoc gratius mihi facere nihil potes.
(‘Look after your health, my dear Tiro. You can do nothing to please me more.’ Cic.
Fam. 16.22.2)
Addresses resemble summonses (see § 22.50) in that they can sollicit the attention of
an addressee, as in (b) above. The difference is that addresses have a lexical meaning
and, in oral communication, usually function as a signal that the speaker wants to
communicate in some way with the addressee; summonses have no lexical meaning.
Summons and address frequently co-occur, especially in comedy, as in (d) above and
in (h).244
241 Janson (2013) distinguishes ‘calls’ as a separate type alongside the traditional four sentence types.
242 For expressions of greeting and farewell, see Forberg (1913), Letessier (2000), Poccetti (2010),
Barrios-Lech (2016: 177–93), Unceta (2016a), and Berger (2017a).
243 For di te ament greeting expressions in Plautus and less conventionalized variants, see Hanson (1959)
and Berger (2017a).
244 For Early Latin, see Bennett: II.268–70; 278.
Address 939
(h) Heus, Staphyla, te voco.

(‘Hey! Staphyla! It’s you I’m calling!’ Pl. Aul. 269)
Addresses are not only used to start linguistic interaction. This is illustrated by (i) and
( j). In (i), Megadorus meets Euclio on the street. The two know each other and
Megadorus tries to start a conversation with Euclio, who is talking to himself. After
his solemn opening words, he probably uses the name Euclio not only to insist on
inviting Euclio to take part in the conversation, but also as part of a greeting conven-
tion, and that is certainly the case for Megadore in Euclio’s (unwilling) reaction. A few
lines later, after Euclio has complained about his poverty, Megadorus uses Euclio
again, this time probably to enhance the credibility of his promise to help.245
(i) Salvos atque fortunatus, Euclio, semper sies. / # Di te ament, Megadore.
(‘May you always be well and blessed, Euclio. # May the gods love you, Megadorus.’
Pl. Aul. 182–3)
( j) Tace, bonum habe animum, Euclio. / Dabitur, adiuvabere a me. Dic, si quid
opu’st, impera.
(‘Calm down and cheer up, Euclio. You’ll receive money, you’ll be helped by me. Tell
me if you need anything, command me.’ Pl. Aul. 192–3)
Addresses are used in all periods of Latin, more often in some types of text, for obvi-
ous reasons, than in others, and they are used for a variety of reasons. The following
sections present details on the functions, forms, and syntax of addresses.246
I use the term ‘vocative’ only to designate the vocative case form, a special form in
part of the nominal system which is used to mark the relevant nominal constituents
as address (see § 12.22). Sometimes the term ‘vocative’ is used as more or less equiva-
lent to what is called ‘address’ in this Syntax.
22.54 The functions of address

As is shown in the previous section § 22.53, there may be various reasons for a speaker
to use an address. This section presents further details. To start with, it is important to
make a distinction between the types of texts in which addresses are used. In a scene
on the stage (in Plautus, for example), in a dinner conversation (the Cena Trimalchionis,
for example), in a dialogue, or in a public speech with three or more people present,
an address may be necessary to single out a person for whom a specific communica-
tive act (a statement, an order, or a request) is intended. Examples are (a)–(c).247 With
only two persons present an address may be necessary to draw the attention of the
245 Ctibor (2017a: 53) uses the term ‘vocative of sincerity and guarantee’.
246 A monograph on ‘address’ in Latin is Dickey (2002), with discussion of previous literature, espe-
cially from a sociolinguistic point of view. Svennung (1958) remains worth consulting. More recent dis-
cussions can be found in Cabrillana (2008), Bodelot and Verdier (2011), and Ctibor (2017a). For explicit
addresses to the audience in Roman comedy, see Kraus (1934).
247 See Cabrillana (2008). See also § 9.2 on tu ‘you’.
other person, as in (d), but it may also be used for pragmatic reasons (comforting,
flattering, reproaching, insulting, etc.), especially if the two persons know each other,
as in (e).248 If only one person is involved, the use of an address often has an emotional
function (for example, when addressing the gods, or in combination with exclam-
ations), as in (f).249 In drama, the use of an address may also serve the purpose of
making a character known to the public, as in (g).250
(a) Nomen mulieri’ cedo quid sit, ut quaeratur. # Philterae. / # Ipsa’st. Mirum ni
illa salva’st et ego perii. # Sostrata, / sequere me intro hac.
(‘Tell me the woman’s name, so that we can make enquiries. # Philtera. # It’s her. It
looks as if the girl’s saved and I’m lost. # Sostrata, follow me inside.’ Ter. Hau. 662–4)
(b) Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?
(‘In heaven’s name, Catiline, how long will you take advantage of our forebearance?’
Cic. Catil. 1.1)
(c) Videris mihi, Agamemnon, dicere: ‘Quid iste argutat molestus?’
(‘Now, Agamemnon, you look as if you were saying, “What is this bore chattering
for?” ’ Petr. 46.1 (Echion speaking))
(d) Epidice! # Epidicum quis est qui revocat? # Ego sum, Periphanes. / # Et ego
quidem Apoecides sum. # Et ego quidem sum Epidicus.
(‘Epidicus! # Who is it that’s calling back Epidicus? # It is I, Periphanes. # And I am
Apoecides. # And I am Epidicus.’ Pl. Epid. 201–2)
(e) Unum hoc scio, hanc meritam esse ut memor esses sui. / # Memor essem? O
Mysis, Mysis, etiam nunc mihi / scripta illa dicta sunt in animo Chrysidis /
de Glycerio.
(‘All I know is that she doesn’t deserve to be forgotten. # Forgotten? Oh Mysis, Mysis,
even now Chrysis’ words about Glycerium are engraved on my heart.’ Ter. An. 281–4)
(f) O Fortuna, ut numquam perpetuo’s data!
(‘Oh Fortune, how impermanent a gift you are!’ Ter. Hec. 406)
(g) Aeschine, audi ne te ignarum fuisse dicas meorum morum. / Leno ego sum.
(‘Listen, Aeschines, so you can’t say you’re unaware of my character. I’m a pimp.’ Ter.
Ad. 160–1)
Some of the pragmatic functions mentioned can also be used in types of text other
than (fictive) oral texts, for example in letters. In longer and well-prepared texts,
addresses can moreover fulfil a discourse function. In speeches, for example, they
may contribute to the organization of the text in paragraphs, as in Catiline’s sec-
ond speech to his followers in Sallust (h).251 In dialogues the use of addresses also
248 For this function of addresses, see Bennett: II. 262–78 (with a detailed classification), Cabrillana
(2008), Monserrat Roig (2010), Ctibor (2017a).
249 Exx. (a)–(g) are taken from Cabrillana (2008) and Ctibor (2017a).
250 See Cabrillana (2008). 251 For discussion, see Ctibor (2017a: 51–3).
Address 941
contributes to the structuring and the coherence of the text (they perform a ‘bridging’
function).252
(h) Itaque contione advocata huiusce modi orationem habuit (sc. Catilina).
(1) Conpertum ego habeo, milites, verba virtutem non addere . . .
(2) Scitis equidem, milites, socordia atque ignavia Lentuli quantam ipsi
nobisque cladem adtulerit . . .
(3) Praeterea, milites, non eadem nobis et illis necessitudo inpendet.
(4) Quom vos considero, milites, et quom facta vostra aestumo, magna me
spes victoriae tenet.
(‘Accordingly he assembled his troops and addressed them in a speech of the fol-
lowing purport: (1) “I am well aware, soldiers, that words do not supply
valour . . . (2) You know perfectly well, soldiers, how great is the disaster that the
incapacity and cowardice of Lentulus have brought upon himself and us . . . (3)
Moreover, soldiers, we and our opponents are not facing the same exigency. (4)
When I think of you, my soldiers, and weigh your deeds, I have high hopes of victory.’
Sal. Cat. 57.6–58)
Likewise in Cicero’s speeches the address iudices ‘judges’ helps to structure the speech,
while at the same time ensuring that the judges keep listening and remain aware of
their important role. Address constituents have been shown to contribute to the
structuring of clauses and sentences by being situated at syntactic borderlines,253 as
in (i):
(i) Indiciis expositis atque editis, Quirites, senatum consului . . .
(‘When the evidence had been produced and read out, citizens, I asked the Senate . . .’
Cic. Catil. 3.13)
Here the ablative absolute clause indiciis . . . editis is set apart by the address expression
Quirites (‘fellow-citizens’).254 Another effect aimed at by putting an address constitu-
ent in a specific position in its clause or sentence is marking one or more surrounding
constituents as salient. Examples include ( j)–(l) (the salient elements are in italics):
( j) . . . aliquando, per deos immortalis, patres conscripti, patrium animum vir-
tutemque capiamus . . .
(‘. . . by the immortal gods, Members of the Senate, let us at last take our fathers’ spirit
and courage . . .’ Cic. Phil. 3.29)
(k) Ea erat, iudices, pergrandis pecunia.
(‘This legacy, gentlemen, was a very large sum of money.’ Cic. Ver. 2.20)
(l) Tamen ego hoc quod ferri nego posse, Verri, iudices, concedo et largior.
(‘Nevertheless I will let this thing, which I say is intolerable, be freely allowed, gentle-
men, to Verres.’ Cic. Ver. 3.194)
252 See Shalev (1998). 253 See Fraenkel (1965: 50ff.).

254 For the functions of Cicero’s use of Quirites, especially in his speeches addressed to the people, see
Léovant-Cirefice (2000).
Supplement:
Ego, Nausistrata, esse in hac re culpam meritum non nego, / sed ea qui sit ignos-
cenda? (Ter. Ph. 1014–15); Dos, Pamphile, est / decem talenta. (Ter. An. 950–1);
Alia civitas nulla, iudices, publico consilio laudat. (Cic. Ver. 2.13); Verum
mehercule hoc, iudices, dicam. Memini Pamphilum . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.32); Ego vero,
iudices, ipse me existimarem nefarium si amico, crudelem si misero, superbum si
consuli defuissem. (Cic. Mur. 10); Quis globus, o cives, caligine volvitur atra?
(Verg. A. 9.36)
Verum hoc saepe, Phormio, / vereor, ne istaec fortitudo in nervom erumpat
denique. (Ter. Ph. 324–5); Cum hoc, patres conscripti, bello, inquam, decertandum
est, idque confestim; legatorum tarditas repudianda[s] est. (Cic. Phil. 5.33); Non ulla
laborum, / o virgo, nova mi facies inopinave surgit. (Verg. A. 6.103–4)255
Finally, an address can also be used at the end of an exchange, in combination with an
expression of leave-taking, as in (m).
(m) Di bene vortant. # Idem ego spero. # Quid me? Num quid vis? # Vale. / # Et
tu, frater.
(‘May the gods bless your plan. # I hope so too. # What about me? Is there anything
else I can do for you? # Be well. # You too, dear brother.’ Pl. Aul. 175–6)
22.55 The forms of address

If a speaker knows his addressee, a common way to address him when opening or
continuing an exchange is by using his name or the second person pronoun tu, as in
(a), where Daemones addresses his slave Gripus and a girl. Alternatively, a person can
use a noun that indicates the social relation between the interlocutors, as in (b), a kin-
ship term, as in (c), or, especially if the addressee is unknown to the speaker, a noun
indicating age or profession, as in (d) and (e). The use of titles, e.g. domine and
imperator, is rare until the Imperial period.256
(a) Gripe, accede huc. Tua res agitur. Tu, puella, istinc procul / dicito quid insit
et qua facie, memorato omnia.
(‘Gripus, come here; it’s your case that’s on. You, girl, say from there, from a distance,
what’s inside and what it looks like; state everything.’ Pl. Rud. 1148–9)
(b) Ere, mane, eloquar iam, ausculta.
(‘Master, wait, I’m going to tell you this instant, listen.’ Pl. Aul. 820)
(c) Satis dicacula es amatrix. # Mater, is quaestus mihi est.
(‘You’re quite a glib little hussy. # That’s my job, mother.’ Pl. As. 511)
(d) Fores paene exfregisti. Quid nunc vis tibi? / # Adulescens, salve. # Salve. Sed
quem quaeritas? # Bacchidem.
255 The examples are taken from Fraenkel (1965: 60ff.). Some of the examples in which two constitu-
ents on both sides of the address constituent are taken as salient may not convince everybody.
256 I follow more or less the classification used by Dickey (2002). For titles, see her Chapter 2.
Address 943
(‘You almost broke the door out of its frame. What do you want now? # Hello, young
man. # Hello. But whom are you looking for? # Bacchis.’ Pl. Bac. 586–8)
(e) Quid cessas, miles, hanc huic uxorem dare?
(‘Soldier, why are you hesitating to give her to him as his wife?’ Pl. Cur. 672)
Apart from these ‘objective’ expressions a speaker can use more subjective expressions
that describe a quality he considers applicable to the person addressed. The positively
oriented expressions comprise ‘terms of endearment, affection, and esteem’;257 the
negatively oriented, insults. These expressions can consist of an appropriate noun, as
in (f) and (g), a common noun with an appropriate adjective, as in (h) and (i), or an
appropriate substantive adjective, as in ( j) and (k).258 As the examples show, it is espe-
cially the superlative form of the adjective that is used as address. Subjective qualifica-
tions are very common in drama and in poetry.
(f) ‘Da mihi hoc, mel meum, si me amas, si audes.’ / Ibi ille cuculus: ‘Ocelle mi,
fiat . . .’
(‘ “Give me this, my honey, if you love me and if you want to.” Then that cuckoo says:
“Yes, apple of my eye, you’ll get that . . .” ’ Pl. Trin. 245–6)
(g) At etiam, furcifer, / male loqui mi audes?
(‘You good-for-nothing, you even dare abuse me?’ Pl. Capt. 563–4)
(h) Salve, vir lepidissime, / cumulate commoditate, praeter ceteros / duo di
quem curant.
(‘My greetings, most charming man, teeming with timeliness, whom two gods favour
beyond the others.’ Pl. Mil. 1382–4)
(i) Quid nunc, sceleste leno?
(‘Well then, crooked pimp?’ Pl. Poen. 798)
( j) Dicam enim, mea mulsa: de istac Casina huic nostro vilico / gratiam facias.
(‘I’ll tell you, my honey: do our overseer here a favour about that Casina of yours.’ Pl.
Cas. 372–3)
(k) Scelestissume, audes mihi praedicare id, / domi te esse nunc qui hic ades?
(‘You hardened criminal, you dare tell me that you, who are here, are at home now?’
Pl. Am. 561–2)
The use of a proper name as address is complicated by Roman nomenclature,
which gradually developed into a system by which a free Roman man had three
names (a praenomen, e.g. Marcus, a nomen gentilicium, e.g. Tullius, and a cognomen,
e.g. Cicero), and sometimes also an agnomen. That was the situation in the first cen-
tury ad. The use of one name is statistically predominant, but two and three are also
possible, in various combinations. In Cicero, the number of names correlates with the
257 Terms taken from Dickey (2002).

258 For a list of adjectives expressing affection and/or respect, see Dickey (2002: 131–3); for a collection
of insults, ibid.: 173–6, Lilja (1965), Opelt (1965), and Dubreuil (2013). For a sociolinguistic approach to
insults in Plautus, see Bork (2018). For Terence, see Müller (1997: 266–80).
level of formality: more formal means more names.259 In Cicero the single name is
usually the cognomen, certainly for addressees of high status. The nomenclature for
Roman women was less complicated. In the classical period the name of a woman is
the gentilicium: Terentia (e.g. Cicero’s wife), Tulliola (diminutive of Tullia, used by
Cicero for his daughter).260
The use of abstract nouns as address for human beings is common from Plautus
onwards, as in (e) in § 22.53 (mea voluptas). In later times this results in quite exalted
expressions in letters, such as honorificentia tua.261
The actual form of the address chosen by a speaker to address another person depends
on a number of factors, such as his perception of the character of his interlocutors,
the circumstances under which the exchange takes place (personal or official, formal
or informal, relaxed or in a hurry and under pressure), and social considerations,
such as
(i) do the interlocutors know each other and how well do they know one
another?
(ii) are the interlocutors relatives, spouses, or lovers?
(iii) have the interlocutors the same status in their society?
(iv) is there a difference in authority between the interlocutors?
(v) are the interlocutors of the same age and/or the same sex?
(vi) the communicative goals of the interlocutors: what do they want to achieve
in their exchange?
As a result of all this, the interlocutors will make the form of their address and their
contribution to the exchange in general more or less polite. As an illustration, a few
details follow.262
The standard form of address between acquainted adult men and women ‘without
any special attachment to one another’263 is by name, independent of status and
power. Children (non-relatives) were more often addressed by reference to their age
( puer, puella, virgo). For strangers the use of a name was obviously excluded and
another form of address, for example, miles in (e) above, had to be used. Using an
address was an obligatory part of the greeting procedure in Rome.264
Relatives are usually addressed with a kinship term. In Cicero’s letters to his brother
Quintus, the common address is mi frater, as in (l), and exceptionally mi Quinte. The
combination Quinte frater, as in (m), and Quinte alone is used in his dialogues, which
are intended for outsiders.
259 The fundamental publication is Adams (1978). A more general discussion can be found in Dickey
(2002: 46–73), to which the reader is referred for details.
260 For discussion and details, see Dickey (2002: 73–6).
261 See Zilliacus (1949: 51–7) and Coleman (2012: 194–9).
262 For further details and discussion, see Dickey (2002: Part II, Interactions). For politeness in forms
of address, see also Ferri (2008).
263 I use Dickey’s words (2002: 233–45).
264 See Dickey (2002: 250), with reference to Adams (1978: 163).
Address 945
(l) MARCUS QUINTO FRATRI SALUTEM. Mi frater, mi frater, mi frater,

tune id veritus es ne ego iracundia aliqua adductus pueros ad te sine litteris
miserim . . .?
(‘From Marcus to his brother Quintus greetings. My brother, my brother, my brother!
Were you really afraid that I was angry with you for some reason and on that account
sent boys to you without a letter . . .?’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.3.1)
(m) ‘. . . tenebimus hanc consuetudinem a Socrate traditam eaque inter nos, si tibi,
Quinte frater, placebit, quam saepissime utemur.’ ‘Mihi vero’, inquit ille,
‘nihil potest esse iucundius.’
(‘ “. . . That same method, which by the way we inherited from Socrates, I shall, if
agreeable to you, my brother Quintus, follow as often as possible in our future discus-
sions.” “Nothing could please me better,” Quintus replied.’ Cic. Div. 2.150)
More intimately known persons such as spouses are addressed by name, by a term of
endearment, as in ( j) above, or by uxor or vir + attribute, as in (n).265
(n) Opsecro, ecastor, quor istuc, mi vir, ex ted audio?
(‘Good heavens, please, why must I hear that from you, my man?’ Pl. Am. 812)
Addresses to groups are mostly plural nouns indicating the social position of the
addressee, such as Quirites ‘(Roman) citizens’, patres conscripti ‘enrolled fathers’, ‘sena-
tors’, iudices ‘members of the jury’, or ethnicity, such as Romani; a commander could
address his soldiers as milites. Collective nouns could be used as well, especially in
poetry, both the inherently collective ones like populus ‘people’, and collectively used
singular nouns like miles ‘soldier’. Examples are (o) and (p), respectively.266 Subjective
qualifications are rare outside of poetry.
(o) I, pete virginea, populus, suffimen ab ara.
(‘Ye people, go and fetch materials for fumigation from the Virgin’s altar . . .’ Ov. Fast.
4.731)
(p) ‘Hunc imitare, miles’, aiebat, ‘et circa iacentem ducem sterne Gallorum
catervas.’
(‘He cried: “Here is your pattern, soldiers! Bring down the Gauls in troops around
their prostrate leader!” ’ Liv. 7.26.7)
265 For Terence’s forms of address for relatives, see Müller (1997: 280–5). In Plautus and Terence,
women use mi more often than men (Adams 1984: 68–73). Trajan uses mi in his letters to Pliny. See
Dickey (2002: 217–20) and Coleman (2012: 198).
266 There is extensive discussion about the (non-existent) vocative form of populus and the inter-
pretation of cases like (p). See Sz.: 24, Svennung (1958: 284–6), Dickey (2002: 295), TLL s.v. populus
2714. 30ff.
22.56 The syntax of address

Addresses are usually short. If the address is a noun phrase, the noun phrase can be
modified by the possessive adjective meus (examples can be found in the preceding
paragraphs), by a descriptive adjective, as bone in (a), or by another noun in the geni-
tive, as adulescentum in (b).267 The adjective agrees with its head in the usual way, as
in (a) and (c). The use of the possessive adjective reflects ‘intimacy and affection’.268
(a) Bone serve, salve. Quid fit?
(‘Hello, my good slave. What’s up?’ Pl. Bac. 775)
(b) . . . capitis te perdam ego et filiam, / perlecebrae, permities, adulescentum
exitium.
(‘I’ll destroy you and your daughter utterly, you allurements, you ruins, you destruc-
tions of young men.’ Pl. As. 132–3a)
(c) Euge, homo lepidissume.
(‘Hurray, most charming man!’ Pl. Ps. 323)
More complex addresses are typical of poetry. In (d) there are two modifiers, and in
(e) the adjective carus governs dative mihi. Parallels are attested from Plautus onwards
but are rare. In (f), the address contains the object complement (subject in the pas-
sive) amice in the vocative. An address built on a passive perfect participle is used in
(g); an autonomous relative clause, (h). In such complex examples the expressive
interjection o (see § 22.52) can be taken as a signal of the address function.269
(d) Amabo, mea dulcis Ipsitilla, / meae deliciae, mei lepores / iube ad te veniam
meridiatum.
(‘I entreat you, my sweet Ipsitilla, my darling, my charmer, bid me come and spend
the afternoon with you.’ Catul. 32.1–3)
(e) Hos tu, care mihi, cumque his genus omne ferarum, / quod non terga fugae,
sed pugnae pectora praebet, / effuge . . .
(‘These beasts, and with them all other savage things which turn not their backs in
flight, but offer their breasts to battle, do you, my dear boy, avoid . . .’ Ov. Met.
10.705–7)
(f) Rufe, mihi frustra ac nequiquam credite amice (amico X) / . . . / sicine surrep-
sti mi . . .?
(‘Rufus, in vain and worthlessly believed by me a friend . . . have you thus stolen upon
me . . .?’ Catul. 77.1–3)
(g) O saepe mecum tempus in ultimum / deducte Bruto militiae duce, / quis te
redonavit Quiritem / dis patriis . . .?
267 See Ashdowne (2002: 145–6). 268 On mi, see Dickey (2002: 214–24).
269 See Dickey (2002: 228–9), from whom the two examples are taken, Goold (1965: 32), Nisbet and
Hubbard ad (g), and Müller (1997: 108–10) on Terence.
Address 947
(‘O you who have so often been carried with me into moments of the utmost peril
when Brutus was in charge of operations, who has restored you as a citizen to your
father’s gods . . .?’ Hor. Carm. 2.7.1–4)
(h) O qui res hominumque deumque / aeternis regis imperiis et fulmine terres, /
quid meus Aeneas in te committere tantum, / quid Troes potuere . . .?
(‘You that with eternal sway rule the world of men and gods, and frighten with your
bolt, what great crime could my Aeneasࡤcould my Trojansࡤhave wrought against
you . . .?’ Verg. A. 1.229–32)
Addresses are syntactically independent linguistic units, as appears from the fact that
they can be used alone. When they are used in combination with a sentence, also
when they are inserted in it, as in (i), they are semantically and pragmatically closely
related to that sentence by the very reason that they are coreferential with the
addressee, whether this is explicit, as in (i), or not. Sometimes the presence of a voca-
tive indirectly contributes to the identification of an agent in agentless sentences of
various types. An example is ( j).270
(i) Nunc, Calidore, te mihi operam dare volo.
(‘Now, Calidorus, I want you to assist me.’ Pl. Ps. 383)
( j) Ehem Demipho, / iam illi datum’st argentum? # Curavi ilico.
(‘Oh Demipho! Have you given him the money yet? # I saw to it at once.’ Ter. Ph.
795–6)
In poetry the vocative is sometimes used to mark a constituent that must be interpreted
as a secondary predicate, as in (k) and (l). Greek examples and metrical convenience
will have contributed to this development.271
(k) Quibus, Hector, ab oris / exspectate venis?
(‘From what shores, Hector, long looked for, do you come?’ Verg. A. 2.282–3)
(l) Tu quoque . . ., miserande, iaceres, / ni fratrum stipata cohors foret obvia . . .
(‘You too . . . would have lain, a piteous sight, had not the serried band of your broth-
ers met the foe . . .’ Verg. A. 10.324–8)
270 See Shalev (2001).

271 For Virgil, see Görler (1985: 265). For further instances, see K.–St.: I.255–6. Also Svennung (1958:
407–8).
CHAPTER 23
Word order
In English, if someone opens a conversation with ‘You know what happened? John
killed Bill,’ spoken with a neutral intonation, the relative order of John and Bill makes
it clear that John is the subject and Bill the object of the action of killing. The finite
verb form killed has to be in the middle between them. The sequence ‘Bill killed John’
spoken with the same neutral intonation describes another situation in which the
roles of the participants are inversed. In Latin, word order works differently. Sentence
(a) describes a commonly known historical fact, which in its context is presented in
isolation to serve as a case to be analysed: ‘Let’s take this case, a case of killing’:
(a) Interfecit Opimius Gracchum.
(‘Opimius killed Gracchus.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.132)
In this sentence, Opimius is the subject, Gracchum the object of interfecit. This does
not appear from their relative order, nor from their position with respect to the verb.
It is clear because they are marked as nominative and accusative, respectively, and are
required by the two-place verb interfecit. In fact, all six orders of these words are pos-
sible. The order shown in (a) is typical for information that is presented as new (for
the occasion). For the other orders also certain tendencies can be established which
are related to the status of the information in the verbal context and/or non-verbal
situation. Obviously in English, too, some degree of freedom of placement exists,
accompanied by other intonation patterns, but there are many syntactic constraints,
which are, by contrast, rare in Latin. This is not to say that in Latin word order is ‘free’
and that anything goes. In the remainder of this chapter it will become clear that there
are quite a few pragmatic constraints.
At the beginning of this chapter a warning to the reader seems necessary. It is an
illusion to think that we would ever be able to fully explain the actual order of the
words and constituents in our written Latin texts as they have come down to us. Even
if we could know how the sentences and clauses of these texts were articulated, as we
do know to some extent in the case of modern spoken languages, the speaker/writer
must have had considerable freedom in ordering those words and constituents that do
not fulfil a specific syntactic and/or pragmatic function in their clause or sentence. We
must not try to achieve what even linguists working on contemporary languages with
much better data for this type of research have not been able to achieve (so far).
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0023
Methodological preliminaries 
23.1 Methodological preliminaries

I shall use the traditional term word order (and not, for example, ‘constituent
order’),¹ although in Latin, as in other languages, often words do not function as
separate entities as far as linear order is concerned. Rather, they function as parts of
larger constituents that operate as ‘blocks’ in their sentences or clauses, and as blocks
they obey certain rules for their placement in relation to other constituents. Examples
of constituents are noun phrases, prepositional phrases, complex verb forms, and
subordinate clauses. However, Latin shows considerably more flexibility than English,
for example, in that words need not be adjacent to the other word(s) with which they
form a constituent. Discontinuity (or: ‘hyperbaton’) of constituents is very common
in poetry, where it was an accepted and acclaimed linguistic feature, but it is not rare
in prose either. Also, the internal order of the component words inside these ‘blocks’
is in many cases not fixed. I therefore maintain the traditional label ‘word order’.
Word order is one of the most difficult and intriguing parts of Latin grammar. Its
study is difficult for a number of reasons. To start with, although we have ancient
statements about word order (especially about the position of the verb—see § 23.2)
that are often accepted by scholars as reliable evidence for a more or less fixed order,
these statements were, in fact, either biased by aesthetic or rhetorical concerns (which
order is the most effective?) or based on extralinguistic considerations of how words
ought to be ordered.² Secondly, it is difficult to decide what data are decisive.³ Most of
our texts are either written in a particular literary, aesthetic tradition and/or belong to
a particular type of text (for example poetry)⁴ for which, on the analogy of word order
in modern languages, separate rules or tendencies must have existed. We have a con-
siderable amount of quantitative data about many authors and their works. The only
conclusion those studying this data would agree on is that it demonstrates an enor-
mous variety in word order in Latin texts—over time, between authors, between the
works of a single author, and even between different parts of one work by the same
author. In Caesar’s Gallic War, for example, the finite verb is overwhelmingly often
placed at the end of the sentence or clause, but this is not the case in his geographical
description of Britain (Caes. Gal. 5.12).⁵ How do we account for this, and which order
is decisive for formulating a rule about Caesar’s word order, let alone Latin word order
in general? Or are both orders all right, and if so why? Nor does this problem only
arise in Classical Latin. In the late fourth-century Peregrinatio Egeriae, often cited for
its putative pre-Romance placement of the finite verb away from the final position,
there are significant differences in word order between the two parts.⁶
¹ As in the volumes edited by Siewierska (1998) and by Spevak (2010a), and others.
² See Reynolds (1996: 111).
³ For some illustrations of variation in word order in manuscripts, see Devine and Stephens (2006:
31–2). For Caesar, see Damon (2015: 57).
⁴ See, for example, Bortolussi (2016) on Ovid. ⁵ See Panhuis (1981).
⁶ On the Peregrinatio, see Spevak (2005a); on the Peregrinatio and the Mulomedicina Chironis, see
Cabrillana (1999b).
 Word order
A special problem is how to deal with metrical texts (drama and poetry) and with
rhythmic prose. It is clear that poets were allowed considerable freedom of word
order. Take the interlaced order of adjectives and nouns in (a), a so-called ‘golden line’.
Was Ovid forced by metrical considerations (metri causa) to distribute the adjectives
and nouns as he did, or was he competent enough to avoid metrical problems and did
he write this line because he liked it and could count on the cooperation of his readers/
listeners? I assume, with most scholars, the latter.⁷
(a) Grandia per multos tenuantur flumina rivos . . .
(‘Great rivers are diminished by much channelling . . .’ Ov. Rem. 445)
Thirdly, the quantitive data that we have is not based on a uniform analysis of the
text(s) under examination. Statements about word order, such as the well-known
claim that in Classical Latin the order is S(ubject), O(bject), V(erb), are rarely based
on a careful description of which types of subjects, objects, and verbs are counted: all
subjects and objects, or only nominal subjects and objects (subject and object clauses
excluded)? If only nouns and noun phrases (pronouns excluded), do they include
noun phrases with an anaphoric determiner or with a relative clause, etc.? If only
unmodified nouns, all nouns, both animate and inanimate? And so on.⁸ What one
would like to have is a sufficient number of ‘minimal pairs’ with more or less the same
semantic and syntactic structure which serve different pragmatic purposes. This is
difficult to achieve in a closed corpus such as our Latin corpus.⁹ I shall try to be as
precise as possible in the following sections.
Fourthly, there is no unified approach to the interpretation of statistical data. For
example, if we see that in Cicero’s de Inventione the final position is occupied by a finite
verb in 50 per cent of main clauses,¹⁰ is that a significant percentage? It looks like it is,
considering that finite verb forms constitute only c.10 per cent of the words in that text.
But there are a few complications. In the first place, there is a large number of words
that cannot stand at the end of a clause (prepositions, coordinators, connectors, subor-
dinators, relative pronouns, etc.), and in finite subordinate clauses the finite verb can-
not stand at the beginning. Thus we must first determine which words actually compete
for the final position before we can use the data. We must also ask ourselves how com-
plex these clauses are in terms of arguments, satellites, and finite verbs. Is the finite verb
in final position in a clause with three constituents as frequent as in one with four? What
is the average complexity of such a clause anyhow? Even if the 50 per cent were a reli-
able figure, could we, on the basis of the statistical predominance of finite verbs in that
⁷ For discussion, see Dik (2007: 1–3). Habinek (1985b), discussing Virgil, shows that by using the
interlaced (he uses the term ‘interlocked’) order a colon boundary inside the hexameter is avoided. For the
role of metre in the placement of possessive adjectives in Plautus, see de Melo (2010: 72–8).
⁸ Exceptions are e.g. Koll (1965) and, more recently, Cabrillana (1996; 1999b), Spevak (2010a), and
Hoffmann (2010b, also in 2018a: 111–32). For the diversity of the approach of earlier studies, see Baños and
Cabrillana (2009: 689); for a discussion of the problematic notion of ‘basic order’, see Siewierska (1988: 8–14).
⁹ Pinkster (1995) deals with minimal pairs in the Late Latin Gesta conventus Carthaginiensis. See also
Spevak (2005a, on the Peregrinatio; 2010a, in general).
¹⁰ So Linde (1923: 155).
Methodological preliminaries 
position, conclude that (at least in (this work of) Cicero) there is a rule of grammar of
the type: ‘the “basic” order is finite verb at the end’? Are finite verb forms in final position
because they are finite verb forms, in the same way that in the Germanic languages
finite verb forms are regularly in second position in declarative sentences? Or is there
a deeper, underlying explanation for this statistical outcome? I take it that the statistical
outcome is not an explanation itself, but that the statistical outcome itself needs an
explanation. For further discussion, see § 23.39.
Fifthly, whereas there exists among Latinists a certain uniformity in analysing sen-
tences and clauses syntactically, there is no broadly accepted terminology for prag-
matic properties of words and constituents, even among those Latinists who recognize
that it is impossible to describe Latin word order in (purely) syntactic terms. I shall
use the terminology that is presented in Chapter 22. In summary, the following con-
cepts are used for describing the information structure of Latin clauses and sentences:
(i) Topic: the element of a clause about which the speaker chooses to present
further information to the addressee, as Terentia in (b) (see § 22.1);
(ii) Focus: the part of a clause that provides information about the topic of that
clause which the speaker considers in some way noteworthy for the addressee,
as eri concubina in (c) (see § 22.7);
(iii) Complex focus: two or more constituents of a clause that together answer
the underlying question regarding what the topic does or what happens to
the topic, as magnos articulorum dolores habet in (b) (see § 22.9);
(iv) All-new sentences, including presentative sentences, as in (d) (see § 22.1 and
§ 22.11).
(b) Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet.

(c) Quis illaec est mulier? # Pro di immortales, / eri concubina est haec quidem.
(d) Et incipit: ‘Erant in quadam civitate rex et regina.’
(‘And she began: “In a certain city there were a king and queen.”’ Apul. Met. 4.27.8–28.1)
The concepts of contrast (see § 22.18) and emphasis are also used, the latter defined
as ‘a means that serves the speaker or writer to express his personal evaluation of
information’ (see § 22.19). At this point it is important to stress that in this Syntax
‘emphasis’ and ‘focus’ are two different concepts.
Because some word order patterns or tendencies are related to sentence type, special
attention is given to the four sentence types that are described in Chapter 6. In imperative
sentences, for example, verbs are more often in an initial position than in declarative
sentences. In interrogative sentences, the first position is normally taken by a focus
constituent (see § 23.51 and § 23.53). The frequency with which these four sentence
types are used varies, mostly depending on the type of text: questions, for example,
are rare in historical prose, except in speeches. For that reason, generalizations about
 Word order
the constituent order in a certain text or in a certain author that do not take into
account sentence type make no sense.¹¹
. Roman ideas about word order
In addition to what is said in the second paragraph of § 23.1, a few citations from
Latin writers can indicate that the Romans were well aware of the possible effects of
word order on the interpretation of sentences.¹² In his chapter on compositio ‘compos-
ition’, ‘the artistic arrangement of words’ (Inst. 9.4), Quintilian mentions three neces-
sary elements: ordo ‘order’, iunctura ‘linkage’, and numerus ‘rhythm’ (9.4.22). As for
order, he observes that the final position of a sentence is best given to the verb, because
of its high communicative potential: see (a). Apart from rhythmic considerations
which might cause a writer/speaker to deviate from this best order, it may also be the
case that there is a better candidate for this important position: see (b). Quintilian
continues: ‘This is the sharp end of the whole passage, as it were: Antony’s need to
vomit, disgusting in itself, acquires the further hideousness—not expected by the
audience—that he could not keep his food down the day after.’¹³ Note also final
numeris and frequentissime in (a).
(a) Verbo sensum cludere multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est: in verbis
enim sermonis vis est. Si id asperum erit, cedet haec ratio numeris, ut fit
apud summos Graecos Latinosque oratores frequentissime.
(‘If Composition allows, it is much the best to end with a verb, for the force of lan-
guage is in the verbs. If this proves harsh, the principle will give way to Rhythm, as
very often happens in the greatest orators, both Greek and Latin.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.26)
(b) Saepe tamen est vehemens aliquis sensus in verbo, quod si in media parte
sententiae latet, transire intentionem et obscurari circumiacentibus solet, in
clausula positum adsignatur auditori et infigitur, quale illud est Ciceronis: ‘ut
tibi necesse esset in conspectu populi Romani vomere <postridie>.’¹⁴
(‘However, there is often a powerful significance in a single word; if this is then con-
cealed in the middle of a sentence, it tends to escape attention and be overshadowed
by its surroundings, whereas if it is placed at the end it is impressed upon the hearer
and fixed in his mind, as in Cicero’s “so that you were obliged to vomit in the sight of
the Roman people the day after.”’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.29 (cf. 9.4.107))
¹¹ A systematic bibliography of the literature on Latin word order until 1953 can be found in
Marouzeau (1953: 129–46). For more recent bibliographical data, see the bibliography in Spevak (2010a;
2014a; 2016a).
¹² For a discussion of ancient ideas about word order, see Scaglione (1972: 74–96). See also de
Jonge (2008: Ch. 5) on Dionysius of Halicarnassus and ancient theories of word order in general. Dionysius
claims a special position for the verb at the end of the sentence in Greek. Furthermore, see Spevak (2016a:
123–8) on Quintilian.
¹³ The translation is taken from Russell’s Loeb edition.
¹⁴ Cic. Phil. 2.63, where the manuscripts read in populi Romani conspectu. The addition of postridie in
Quintilian’s text is certain.
Methodological preliminaries 
As an illustration of the misuse of the final position Quintilian quotes Maecenas, (c),
who is also criticized by Seneca (Ep. 114.4–5) for his ostentatious composition. What
(c) shows is an extreme case of discontinuity (or: ‘hyperbaton’) of the noun phrase
exequias meas. Excessive discontinuity is a point of concern of several Roman authors.
(c) Ne exequias quidem unus inter miserrimos viderem meas.
(‘May I never, alone amidst the most miserable of men, behold my own funeral rites.’
Quint. Inst. 9.4.28)
Quintilian rejects the idea ‘that nouns should precede verbs’ (and the corollary claims
that verbs should precede adverbs and nouns should precede adjectives and pro-
nouns), because ‘the contrary order is often excellent’ (9.4.24). That rejected idea is
still sustained by Priscian in (d), although he also indicates that there are many excep-
tions in the literature. This idea of a ‘correct order’ is based on the consideration that
one first has to mention the entity about which one wants to say something and then
say it, a logical approach as opposed to Quintilian’s stylistic and communicative
approach.
(d) Sciendum tamen quod recta ordinatio exigit ut pronomen vel nomen prae-
ponatur verbo, ut ‘ego et tu legimus, Virgilius et Cicero scripserunt’, quippe
cum substantia et persona ipsius agentis vel patientis, quae per pronomen vel
nomen significatur, prior esse debet naturaliter quam ipse actus, qui accidens
est substantiae. Licet tamen et praepostere ea proferre auctorum usurpatione
fretum.
(‘Now it is good to know that the correct ordering requires that the pronoun or noun
is placed before the verb, as in “you and I read”, “Virgil and Cicero have written”,
because the substance and person of the actor or undergoer, which are indicated by
the pronoun or noun, by law of nature must precede the action, which is a contingent
attribute of the substance. However, one may position them in the reverse order, rely-
ing on the actual practice of writers.’ Prisc. 17.105(III.164.16–21K))
The position of a constituent in its sentence may cause ambiguity, as illustrated by
Marcus Aurelius’ self-correction in (e).¹⁵
(e) Loti igitur in torculari cenavimus (non loti in torculari, sed loti cenavimus) et
rusticos cavillantes audivimus libenter.
(‘So after we had bathed in the oil-press room we had supper; I do not mean
bathed in the oil-press room, but after we had bathed we had supper there and
we enjoyed hearing the yokels chaffing one another.’ Fro. Ep. ad M. Caes. 4.6.2)
Roman authors (and their Greek sources) show no awareness of grammatical, seman-
tic, or pragmatic determinants of the sequencing of words, such as the position of the
subject or the best place for topic constituents. Their main concerns were clarity,
euphony, symmetry, and rhythm.¹⁶
¹⁵ I owe the reference to Guus Bal. ¹⁶ See De Neubourg (1978: 362–72).

 Word order
. Factors that determine the linear order of words

and larger constituents
The linear order of words and larger constituents is determined by a number of inter-
acting and competing factors.¹⁷ The most important ones are:
sentence type
text type
categorial factors
‘domain integrity’
semantic factors
syntactic factors
pragmatic factors
euphonic and rhythmic factors
complexity
iconicity
artistic factors.
To these some typological considerations can be added.
In the sections that follow attention will be given to constraints on the flexibility of
placement of words and larger units. Later many of these constraints will be shown not
to be respected in poetry and in poeticizing prose.
. Sentence type

Sentence type is a major factor in the ordering of constituents at the clause or sentence
level. This is best illustrated by interrogative sentences, where question words such as
the pronoun quis ‘who’ and the determiner qui ‘which’ must occupy the first position,
as with quis in (a), whatever their syntactic function in the clause. Such words will
occupy the first position unless they are preceded by a competing expression such as
a connector, as in (b), or a pragmatically prominent constituent, as in (c).
(a) Quis te verberavit?
(‘Who hit you?’ Pl. Am. 607)
(b) Nam quem ego aspicio?
(‘For whom do I see?’ Pl. Poen. 1122)
(c) Cohors ista quorum hominum est?
(‘That retinue of yours, of what men is it composed?’ Cic. Ver. 3.28)
There are no comparable constraints on declarative, imperative, and exclamatory

sentences.
¹⁷ See Siewierska (1988: 29), Firbas (1992: 117–20), Rosén (1999: 152–3), and Spevak (2010a: 8–11, 13–26).
Methodological preliminaries 
Another major factor is the distinction between main and subordinate clauses. In
finite subordinate clauses the first position of the clause is restricted to subordinating
devices (subordinators, question words or particles, relative expressions), unless there
are pragmatically prominent competing expressions, as in (d), where huius, the sup-
posed bride, is present on the stage.
(d) Venus multipotens, bona multa mihi / dedisti, huius quom copiam mihi dedisti.
(‘Mighty Venus, you gave me many good things when you gave me possession of her.’
Pl. Cas. 841–2)
. Text type

Text type indirectly influences the ordering of words and other constituents in the clauses
and sentences of a text. In a narrative text, for example, there is as a rule more continuity
in the flow of information in accordance with the order of the events of the story and the
relations between the entities involved. In a didactic text, such as those of Celsus and
Pliny the Elder, there is as a rule no such thing as ‘order of events’. It is the author who is
responsible for organizing the information he wants to convey in a coherent way. These
differences between text types lead among other things to different forms and sequences
of sentences, different forms of linkage, different involvement of the authors (see § 24.3).
Text type is also important in that it has some consequences for the register chosen
by the speaker/writer, including his attention to rhythmic structure, as described by
Quintilian in (a).
(a) Est igitur ante omnia oratio alia vincta atque contexta, soluta alia, qualis in
sermone et epistulis, nisi cum aliquid super naturam suam tractant, ut de
philosophia, de re publica, similibusque.
(‘In the first place, formal speech is either bound and woven together, or of a looser
texture, like that of dialogues or letters, except when these deal with matters above
their normal scope, like philosophy, public affairs, or the like.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.19)
. Categorial factors

For the description of word order it is useful to make a distinction between two types
of words, mobile and non-mobile.¹⁸ Words of the first type can in principle be placed
in any position (initial, final, or somewhere in between) of the clause, whereas words
of the second type are restricted as far as their position is concerned. Such restrictions
hold both at the level of the clause and at lower levels. Obviously, non-mobile words
restrict the mobility of mobile words.
Words that are restricted in their placement at the clause level belong to the cat-
egories of connectors, subordinators, interrogative and relative pronouns, and related
¹⁸ The distinction was introduced by Dover (1960: 12ff.) for Greek word order and applied by
Dik (1995) and (2007).
 Word order
words. This is illustrated in (a) and (b) with the connector at. The connector at ‘but’
must be placed in the very first position of the clause or sentence, as in (a), although
there are quite a few exceptions in poetry, as in (b).¹⁹ By contrast, the interactional
particle enim must be placed second in its clause or sentence.²⁰ Further details for
these categories can be found in later sections.
(a) Mentire nunc. / # At iam faciam ut verum dicas dicere.
(‘You’re lying now. # But in a second I’ll make sure that you say I’m telling the truth.’
Pl. Am. 344–5)
(b) Saucius at quadripes nota intra tecta refugit . . .
(‘But the wounded quadruped fled under the familiar roof . . .’ Verg. A. 7.500)
Non-mobile words at the constituent level include the bound clitics -ne, -que, and -ve,
which are attached to a host word, and the emphasizing particle quidem, which must
follow the word in its scope (see § 22.26). Prepositions and postpositions are also
restricted in their position: they must immediately precede or follow their complement.
Another constraint concerns the adjacency of two words. In Latin a preposition
cannot have another prepositional phrase as its complement, unless that phrase is an
idiom, as in (c).
(c) Dixi ego idem in senatu caedem te optimatium contulisse in ante diem V
Kalendas Novembris.
(‘I also said in the Senate that you had postponed the massacre of leading citizens
until the 28th of October.’ Cic. Catil. 1.7)
Further details for the elements that are mentioned here are given in separate sections.
The other side of the coin is that certain words are excluded from the final position
of the clause or sentences. These include prepositions, coordinators, connectors, sub-
ordinators, and relative pronouns. For details, see § 23.20ff.²¹
. Domain integrity

At the constituent level (especially that of noun and adjective phrases and prepos-
itional phrases), the freedom of placement of the words that belong to a constituent is
in principle restricted by the rules of domain integrity and head proximity: elem-
ents that belong together structurally are preferably placed next to each other.²² In
Latin, these rules are not as strictly observed as in other languages. In prose, they are
‘violated’ by discontinuity of modifiers, which is quite common. Poetry is even more
¹⁹ For further instances, see TLL s.v. at 992.66ff.

²⁰ See Spevak (2006a: 256; 2012b). For (disputed) exceptional instances of enim in first position, see
TLL s.v. enim 574.83ff.
²¹ Out of a total of 457 words in Cic. Att. 1.5, 112 are not allowed in final position (of the clause or
sentence), that is 25 per cent.
²² See Spevak (2010a: 22–3), with references. This phenomenon is also known as the ‘first law of
Behaghel’ (Behaghel 1932: 4).
Methodological preliminaries 
flexible.²³ For tam this is illustrated by (a), where the second tam precedes the remain-
der of the ex prepositional phrase for reasons of emphasis. For discontinuity of adjec-
tives, see (b). The traditional term for this phenomenon is ‘hyperbaton’ (see the note
below). The relative freedom of position of the constituents of noun and adjective
phrases diminishes in the course of time.²⁴
(a) . . . viri fortes et fideles, sed nequaquam ex tam ampla (sc. civitate) neque tam
ex nobili civitate.
(‘. . . stout and trustworthy folk, though they are not from so large nor so renowned a
community.’ Cic. Ver. 4.96)
(b) Civilis quaedam ratio est, quae multis et magnis ex rebus constat.
(‘There is a scientific system of politics which includes many important departments.’
Cic. Inv. 1.6)
Discontinuity of constituents has been a point of interest from ancient writers on rhet-
oric onwards. Together with the inversion of constituents some writers, inter alios the
Auctor ad Herennium, regarded it as a means to produce smooth periods and other
sequences, which was acceptable in prose if obscurity was avoided (see § 23.2).²⁵ The
two illustrations given by the Auctor of what he calls transiectio are (c) and (d). Both
sentences end with a preferred clausula. In (d), the noun phrase is interrupted twice.
(c) Instabilis in istum plurimum fortuna valuit.
(‘Unstable Fortune has exercised her greatest power on this creature.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)
(d) Omnes invidiose eripuit bene vivendi casus facultates.
(‘All the means of living well Chance has jealously taken from him.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)
The above examples have discontinuous noun phrases. Discontinuity is also present
in other types of phrases (see § 23.96).
The usual term for ‘discontinuity’ or, in Latin, transiectio, is ‘hyperbaton’. In the ter-
minology of the Auctor ad Herennium, transiectio (or traiectio), together with perver-
sio, the inversion of constituents, are subtypes of transgressio, which corresponds to
the Greek term à.p{ml~x. At 4.18 the Auctor criticizes Coelius Antipater for using
assiduus ‘constant’ discontinuity, as in (e), where the name Luci Aeli is split by the
verb form misimus (an instance of ‘verbal hyperbaton’), resulting in a sequence that
constitutes the second half of a hexameter.²⁶
(e) In priore libro has res ad te scriptas, Luci, misimus, Aeli.
(‘In the previous book, Lucius Aelius, I dedicated to you the account of these
events.’ Coel. hist. 24B=46C)
²³ In Classical Latin prose on average some 20 per cent (see Spevak 2010a: 275). In the Annals of Ennius
one out of four noun phrases is discontinuous, in Virgil’s Aeneid one out of two (Skutsch 1985: 67).
²⁴ See Herman (1985).
²⁵ For the ‘Asianist’ position of the Auctor ad Herennium concerning the use of discontinuity, see
Calboli ad Rhet. Her. 4.44.
²⁶ For this line, see Briscoe ad loc.
 Word order
. Semantic factors

In the literature on word order, two semantic principles are mentioned that influence
the relative order of constituents: one is called the personal hierarchy, the other
the semantic role hierarchy.²⁷ The personal hierarchy states, among other things,
that first person has precedence over second person and human entities over other
animate and over inanimate entities. The regular order is ego et tu, as in (a).
Animateness is a factor in the choice between active and passive (see § 5.10); in the
domain of word order it may explain the relative order of Messalla consul and
Autronianam domum in (b), where both entities must have been known to Atticus
and both are new in their context.²⁸ In general in declarative sentences with a two-
place verb ‘animate entities manifest more mobility . . . than inanimate ones’ and
‘inanimate entities are mostly not contextually given.’²⁹
(a) Quid? Auspicia, quibus ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute
praesumus?
(‘What of augury, over which you and I, Crassus, preside, greatly to the welfare of the
(b) Messalla consul Autronianam domum emit HS |CXXXIIII |.
(‘Consul Messalla has bought Autronius’ house for 13,400,000 sesterces.’ Cic. Att. 1.13.6)
The semantic role hierarchy predicts, among other things, that all things being equal
the agent precedes the patient. There is no evidence to suggest that this hierarchy
works in Latin. Quintilian’s example (c) can be cited as counterevidence.³⁰ See also
§ 23.62.
(c) Accusativi geminatione facta amphibolia solvitur ablativo, ut illud ‘Lachetem
audivi percussisse Demean’ fiat ‘a Lachete percussum Demean’.
(‘Ambiguity resulting from the use of two accusatives may be removed by the substi-
tution of the ablative: for example, “I heard that Demea struck Laches/Laches struck
Demea” may be rendered clear by writing “that Demea was struck by Laches”.’ Quint.
Inst. 7.9.10 (cf. 8.2.16))
A semantic consideration of a different type is Quintilian’s advice to avoid asyndeti-

cally coordinated sequences of words in which a ‘weaker’ expression follows a
‘stronger’: ‘Sentences should grow and rise. Cicero does it very well.’
(d) Tu istis faucibus, istis lateribus, ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate.
(‘You, with that gullet of yours, that chest, that robust physique befitting a gladiator.’
Quint. Inst. 9.4.23 (quoting Cic. Phil. 2.63))
‘If he had begun with the whole physique, it would have been an anticlimax to come
down to the lungs and the throat.’ (Quint. Inst. 9.4.23).
²⁷ See Siewierska (1988: 30; 1999: 415–16) and Spevak (2010a: 9).
²⁸ See the discussion of ex. (e) in § 22.1.
²⁹ See Spevak (2010a: 118–19; 125). ³⁰ See Spevak (2010a: 117).
Methodological preliminaries 
. Syntactic factors

Apart from the categorial constraints that are discussed in § 23.6, there are no syntac-
tic constraints on words and constituents as far as their placement in a clause or sen-
tence is concerned. Clausal constituents (arguments, adjuncts, and disjuncts) and
subclausal ones (modifiers at the noun and adjective phrase levels such as adjectives,
determiners, and—to some extent—degree adverbs) can be placed in any position of
the clause, whatever their syntactic function. A few examples may suffice. Further
details can be found in later sections. In (a)–(c), profecto, a degree-of-truth disjunct
(see § 10.100), can be seen in initial, medial, and final position in its clause. Exx. (d)–(f)
show the same variety of placement for the attribute argenti.
(a) Profecto expediet fabulae huic operam dare.
(‘It’ll definitely be worth paying attention to this play.’ Pl. Capt. 54)
(b) . . . nec quicquam stupri / faciet profecto in hac quidem comoedia.
(‘. . . and indeed she won’t commit anything in the way of fornication, at least not in
this comedy.’ Pl. Cas. 82–3)
(c) Virtus omnibus rebus anteit profecto.
(‘Courage does indeed outdo everything.’ Pl. Am. 649)³¹
(d) Argenti viginti minas, si adesset, accepisset.
(‘If he were here, he’d have received twenty silver minas.’ Pl. As. 396)
(e) Si mihi dantur duo talenta argenti numerata in manum . . .
(‘If two silver talents are handed over to me in cash . . .’ Pl. As. 193)
(f) . . . id pro tuo capite quod dedit perdiderit tantum argenti.
(‘. . . he’ll have wasted that great sum of money that he gave for you.’ Pl. Mos. 211)
For the three main functions subject, object, and verb, all six possible orders are used
(see § 23.39). Here it is relevant to observe that in 40–50 per cent of clauses there is no
explicit subject, with variation depending on text type and personal style.³²
. Pragmatic factors

Pragmatic factors are important both at the clause or sentence level and at lower
levels, as will become clear further on. The first position of the sentence, for example,
is often occupied by a constituent with the function topic or by an emphatic word.
However, there is no fixed position for topic or focus constituents nor is there a fixed
relative order of these constituents.
³¹ Christenson ad loc. notes: ‘the final position is the most emphatic’, with a few parallels from Plautus.
³² Knoth (2006: 165–6) has the following percentages of implicit subjects for her three corpora: biog-
raphy: 54 per cent, speeches (Cicero): 42 per cent, letters: 49 per cent.
 Word order
. Euphonic and rhythmic factors

Euphony and rhythm are important topics in the Greek and Roman rhetorical trad-
ition, as seen, for example, in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, in Cicero’s Orator, and in
Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria. The last-mentioned, in his section on iunctura ‘link-
age’ observes that ‘the hiss produced by the collision of s with s . . . is even more disa-
greeable’ (than the sequence s x), as in ars studiorum ‘art of studies’.³³ Another point
of attention was the avoidance of the sequence of the subordinator cum and the
preposition cum, as in (a), or the repetition of syllables in adjacent words, as in (b), a
fragmentary text from Cicero, criticized by Quintilian.³⁴
(a) Idem ego, cum L. Clodium Corcyrae convenissem, hominem ita tibi
coniunctum ut mihi cum illo cum loquerer tecum loqui viderer, dixi . . .
(‘Then, when I met L. Clodius in Corcyra, a person so close to you that in talking to
him I felt I was talking to yourself, I told him . . .’ Cic. Fam. 3.6.2)
(b) Res mihi <invisae> visae sunt, Brute.
(‘Things unseen (or hated) have been seen by me, Brutus.’ Cic. Ep. fr. VII.13W)
However, the degree to which the actual practice of authors reflects such consider-
ations must not be over-estimated, and there is also much variation among authors.³⁵
Rhythm is another topic that is much discussed in Greek and Roman rhetorical
works. Apart from the clausulae (see § 23.18), it is very difficult to deduce any rules
from the observations. One interesting remark by Quintilian is (c), which is identical
to an observation by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.³⁶
(c) Non enim ad pedes verba dimensa sunt, ideoque ex loco transferuntur in
locum, ut iungantur quo congruunt maxime, sicut in structura saxorum
rudium etiam ipsa enormitas invenit cui adplicari et in quo possit insistere.
(‘The point is that words are not measured according to metrical feet; they are there-
fore moved from one place to another so as to join where they fit best, just as, in
constructions made of unhewn stones, the irregularity itself suggests the right stones
which each piece can fit or rest upon.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.27)
. Complexity
The relative length and complexity of constituents play a role in their order. Generally
speaking ‘heavier’ constituents follow ‘lighter’ constituents. An example is (a), where
the subject, made heavy by a relative clause and an apposition, follows the verb.³⁷ An
³³ Quint. Inst. 9.4.36.

³⁴ Quint. Inst. 9.4.41. See also: . . . ea nescio quomodo quasi pleniore ore laudamus (‘. . . we somehow or
other praise this in more eloquent strain’ Cic. Off. 1.61) and Wilkinson (1963: 29).
³⁵ See K.-St.: II.595–7 and Sz.: 699–700.
³⁶ See Pinkster (1993) and de Jonge (2008: 326–7).
³⁷ This is the so-called ‘second law of Behaghel’ (1932: 6). See also Dik (1997: I.411) and Spevak (2010a:
8–9), from whom the example is taken.
Methodological preliminaries 
alternative solution is to postpose the relative clause and put it at the end, as in (b).
However, in our texts there are also many cases in which an entire complex constitu-
ent precedes the final verb, as in (c).³⁸
(a) In quis fuit M. Scaurus, de quo supra memoravimus, consularis et tum sena-
tus princeps.
(‘Among them was Marcus Scaurus, of whom I have already spoken, an ex-consul
and at the time the leader of the senate.’ Sal. Jug. 25.4)
(b) Allata est enim epistula Athenis ab Archino uni ex his Archiae, qui tum
maximum magistratum Thebis obtinebat, in qua omnia de profectione
eorum perscripta erant.
(‘For a letter was brought from Athens, written by Archinus to one of their number,
Archias, who at the time was the chief magistrate in Thebes, in which full details of
the expedition were given.’ Nep. Pel. 3.2)
(c) . . . sed filii familiarum, quorum ex nobilitate maxuma pars erat, parentis
interficerent.
(‘. . . the sons of families, most of whom belonged to the nobility, were to slay their
fathers.’ Sal. Cat. 43.2)
As a rule, accusative and infinitive clauses are less heavy than more or less synonym-
ous finite clauses with ut or with quod—a relatively common alternative with verbs of
perception, cognition, and communication in Late Latin (see § 15.113). They are also
less frequent in a postverbal position than the finite clauses. Deverbal nouns are even
less frequently postverbal.³⁹
. Iconicity
Sometimes the ordering of constituents is ‘in line with actual temporal succession’.⁴⁰
For Latin, attention has been drawn to the ordering of arguments with verbs of ‘fol-
lowing’, as in (a).⁴¹ However, in this and other examples the first constituent is topic
and the second focus, so a pragmatic explanation works just as well. A more convin-
cing case is (b), where the plants are ordered after their period of blossoming. Another
example is (c). The reader of Caesar’s work knew that Luceria, Canusium, and
Brundisium were the natural stations along the via Minucia, which Pompeius took to
Brundisium, so the source adjunct precedes the goal adjuncts.
(a) Pacem Punicam bellum Macedonicum excepit . . .
(‘The Punic peace was followed by the Macedonian war . . .’ Liv. 31.1.6)
³⁸ See LSS § 9.2.2. ³⁹ For data from Livy, see Bolkestein (1989a: 23–5).
⁴⁰ The formulation is taken from Siewierska (1999: 416). See also Spevak (2010a: 10), who has ex. (b).
⁴¹ The concept of iconicity is applied to Latin by Hoffmann (1991). The examples of verbs of ‘following’
are taken from her article. See also Cabrillana (2017b) on word order in clauses with the verb fio ‘to occur’.
 Word order
(b) In Italia violis succedit rosa, huic intervenit lilium, rosam cyanus excipit,
cyanum amarantus.
(‘In Italy, the violet is succeeded by the rose, the lily comes on while the rose is still in
flower, the rose is followed by the blue cornflower, and the blue cornflower by the
amaranth.’ Plin. Nat. 21.68)
(c) Pompeius . . . Luceria proficiscitur Canusium atque inde Brundisium.
(‘Pompey set out from Luceria for Canusium and from there for Brundisium.’ Caes.
Civ. 1.24.1)
Inde me commodum egredientem continatur Pythias . . . (Apul. Met. 1.24.5); . . . re
cognita tantus luctus excepit ut urbs ab hostibus capta eodem vestigio videretur.
(Caes. Civ. 2.7.3); ‘Immo ego vos, cui sola salus genitore reducto,’ / excipit
Ascanius . . . (Verg. A. 9.257–8); Orationem Tulli exceperunt preces multitudinis . . .
(Liv. 7.13.11); Sequitur hunc annum nobilis clade Romana Caudina pax T. Veturio
Calvino Sp. Postumio consulibus. (Liv. 9.1.1)
Quintilian has an interesting remark on this topic: Nec non et illud nimiae supersti-
tionis, uti quaeque sint tempore, ea facere etiam ordine priora, non quin frequenter sit
hoc melius, sed quia interim plus valent ante gesta ideoque levioribus superponenda
sunt. (‘Another piece of gross superstition is the idea that as things come first in time,
so they should also come first in order. It is not that this is not frequently the better
course, but earlier events are sometimes more important and so have to be given a
position of climax over the less significant.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.25).
. Artistic factors

In Kühner and Stegmann (II.616–25) and other grammars attention is paid to so-called
‘rhetorical’ patterns of word order, the placement of words to achieve a particular
effect. One such pattern concerns the placement of two or more formally or semantic-
ally related words next or close to each other, as in (a)–(c), a phenomenon called
parataxis.⁴²
(a) Nam iustae (sc. rei) ab iustis iustus sum orator datus.
(‘For I was appointed as a just pleader pleading with the just for a just cause.’ Pl. Am. 34)
(b) Sed ut tum ad senem senex de senectute, sic hoc libro ad amicum amicissi-
mus scripsi de amicitia.
(‘But as in that book I wrote as one old man to another old man on the subject of old
age, so now in this book I have written as a most affectionate friend to a friend on the
subject of friendship.’ Cic. Amic. 5)
⁴² See K.-St.: II.617–18; Sz.: 707–8. For a large collection of instances from all periods of Latin, see
Landgraf (1888); for poetry, Kellermann (1909); for Cicero, Parzinger (1910: 37–57), with statistical data
on Cicero’s use in various text types. Unfortunately, the term ‘parataxis’ is also used in another sense for
the opposite of hypotaxis.
Methodological preliminaries 
(c) . . . pecunia . . . inter se ducem in ducem, militem in militem rabie hostili

vertit.
(‘. . . money . . . mutually turned commander against commander, soldier against sol-
dier, with the frenzy of enemies.’ Liv. 29.8.11)
Supplement:
Nouns and adjectives by case or preposition:
One is genitive: Dubium nemini est quin omnes omnium pecuniae positae sint in
eorum potestate qui iudicia dant . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.30); Eademque ratio fecit hominem
hominum appetentem . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.45); Nec lact’ lactis magis est simile quam ille
ego simil’est mei. (Pl. Am. 601)
One is dative: Non enim res tota totae rei necesse est similis sit . . . (Rhet. Her. 4.61);
Nam cum aut par pari refertur aut contrarium contrario opponitur . . . (Cic. Orat.
220); In qua intellegi necesse est eam esse naturam ut omnia omnibus paribus paria
respondeant. (Cic. N.D. 1.50); Cum lex assiduo vindicem assiduum esse iubeat, locu-
pletem iubet locupleti. (Cic. Top. 10); Postquam vero castra castris contulit, despectis
eius copiis omnem timorem deponit. (B. Afr. 48.3)
One is accusative: Concedetur profecto verum esse, ut bonos boni diligant . . . (Cic.
Amic. 50); Morere et fratrem ne desere frater. (Verg. A. 10.600); Et apud illum qui-
dem ratio rationem, apud alios timorem timor vicit. (Plin. Ep. 6.16.16)
One is ablative: Conteris / tu tua me oratione, mulier, quisquis es. (Pl. Cist. 609–10);
Aut num ante tempus praemium petat et spem incertam certo venditet pretio. (Cic.
Inv. 2.113); . . . errat in eo, quod ullum aut corporis aut fortunae vitium vitiis animi
gravius existimat. (Cic. Off. 3.26); Mors morte pianda est, / in scelus addendum sce-
lus est, in funera funus. (Ov. Met. 8.483–4); Iam clipeus clipeis, umbone repellitur
umbo, / ense minax ensis, pede pes et cuspide cuspis. (Stat. Theb. 8.398–9)
Prepositions: Quae causa hominem adversus hominem in facinus coegit? (Sen.
Con. 2.1.10) Uxor virum si clam domo egressa est foras . . . (Pl. Mer. 821); . . . ignosci
adulescentibus posse, senibus non posse qui bella ex bellis sererent. (Liv. 2.18.10); Ex
hoc nascitur ut etiam communis hominum inter homines naturalis sit commenda-
tio . . . (Cic. Fin. 3.63)
Verbal forms: Item vitiosum est id, quod adversarii factum esse confiteantur, de eo
argumentari et planum facere factum esse. (Rhet. Her. 2.46); . . . eumque iudicem fal-
sum iudicasse iudicavit. (Cic. Ver. 2.66); . . . qui musicorum cantibus ait mutatis
mutari civitatum status. (Cic. Leg. 3.32)
A second pattern, called parallelism, is illustrated by (d) and (e) (see also § 22.18 on
parallel focus).
(d) Superavi tamen dignitate Catilinam, gratia Galbam.
(‘Yet I defeated Catiline in merit and Galba in popularity.’ Cic. Mur. 17)
(e) . . . quos neque armis cogere neque auro parare queas.
(‘. . . whom you can neither acquire by force of arms nor buy with gold.’ Sal. Jug. 10.4)
Still another pattern is the chiasmus, illustrated by (f)–(h). In (f), the first noun
phrase has the adjective before the noun; in the second the adjective follows. In this
example, the chiasmus concerns two argument constituents in the same clause; in (g),
 Word order
two pairs of asyndetically coordinated clauses; in (h), the chiastic ordering concerns
subordinate and main clauses.
(f) Et ut mundum ex quadam parte mortalem ipse deus aeternus, sic fragile
corpus animus sempiternus movet.
(‘And just as the eternal God moves the universe, which is partly mortal, so an
immortal spirit moves the frail body.’ Cic. Rep. 6.26)
(g) (sc. philosophia) Medetur animis, inanes sollicitudines detrahit, cupiditati-
bus liberat, pellit timores.
(‘It (sc. philosophy) heals souls, takes away the load of empty troubles, sets us free
from desires and banishes fears.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.11)
(h) Si hostium fuit ille sanguis, summa militum pietas: nefarium scelus, si civium.
(‘If that blood was the blood of our country’s foes, its shedding by our soldiers was
the highest patriotism, but an abominable crime if it was the blood of fellow citizens.’
Cic. Phil. 14.6)
A fourth pattern that is usually discussed in this context is discontinuity, usually

called hyperbaton. It is dealt with in detail in § 23.87, where the pragmatic motiv-
ation for its use is shown. However, especially in poetry, it is also used for artistic
reasons. Instances of double hyperbaton represent a special case. Here, two noun
phrases of a clause are both discontinuous and interlaced, as in the ‘golden lines’
(i)—repeated from § 23.1—( j), and (k).⁴³ Another play with the position of adjectives
is shown in (l).
(i) Grandia per multos tenuantur flumina rivos . . .
(‘Great rivers are diminished by much channelling . . .’ Ov. Rem. 445)
( j) (sc. agricola) . . . gravibus rastris galeas pulsabit inanis / grandiaque effossis
mirabitur ossa sepulcris.
(‘(the farmer) . . . with his heavy hoe will strike empty helmets and will marvel at
gigantic bones in the upturned graves.’ Verg. G. 1.496–7)
(k) Quocirca vivite fortes / fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus.
(‘Live, then, as brave men, and with brave hearts confront the strokes of fate.’ Hor. S.
2.2.135–6)
(l) Cnosius haec Rhadamanthus . . . / . . . subigitque fateri / quae quis apud superos
furto laetatus inani / distulit in seram commissa piacula mortem.
(‘Cretan Rhadamanthus . . . exacts confession of crimes whenever in the world above
any man, rejoicing in vain deceit, has put off atonement for sin until death’s late hour.’
Verg. A. 6.566–9)
⁴³ For discussion, see Wilkinson (1963: 215–18), Nisbet (1999: 137–41), and Dainotti (2015: 239–63).
For further instances, see Norden (1927: 393–8). The German term for ‘interlacing’ is ‘Verschränkung’
(Sz.: 691).
Methodological preliminaries 
Cases like (i)–(l) have to be distinguished from instances like (m), which has the
same sequence adjective, adjective, noun, noun, but is structurally different: here we
have one noun phrase in which permagnum modifies optimi pondus argenti, where
optimi is placed away from argenti and before pondus for reasons of emphasis.⁴⁴ Also
different are instances like (n), where simulatam is an infinitive (without esse).
(m) Maximus vini numerus fuit, permagnum optimi pondus argenti, pretiosa
vestis, multa et lauta supellex et magnifica multis locis, non illa quidem luxu-
riosi hominis, sed tamen abundantis.
(‘There was a great quantity of wine, a very large weight of the finest silver
plate, costly draperies, much elegant and magnificent furniture, variously
located, the appointments not indeed of a luxurious man, but of an affluent
one.’ Cic. Phil. 2.66)
(n) Dicebatur contra: . . . corruptas consulis legiones, simulatam Pompeianarum
gratiam partium.
(‘On the other side it was argued that . . .“he seduced the legions of a consul,
and affected a leaning to the Pompeian side.”’ Tac. Ann. 1.10.1)
Another type of artistic arrangement is shown in (o), where the ordering of the sub-
ordinate clauses and the superordinate clause results in a sequence of three verbs.⁴⁵
(o) Atque haec non ut vos, qui mihi studio paene praecurritis, excitarem, locutus
sum sed ut mea vox, quae debet esse in re publica princeps, officio functa
consulari videretur.
(‘I have spoken in this way not to stir you, whose energy usually surpasses mine, to
action, but so that my voice, which ought to be first to speak upon affairs of state, is
regarded as having fulfilled my obligations as a consul.’ Cic. Catil. 4.19)
. Typological considerations

Since the pioneering article by Greenberg (1963) on universals ‘with particular refer-
ence to the order of meaningful elements’, scholars have tried to establish for each lan-
guage a ‘basic order’ which manifests itself at various levels of the clause (for example,
in the order of (subject), object, and finite verb), at the noun phrase level (for example, in
the order of a head noun and its attribute), and in prepositional phrases.⁴⁶ In his original
sample of thirty languages, for example, Greenberg observed a parallelism between the
order OV (object verb) and the order N(oun) Postp(osition). For Latin, which accord-
ing to a long-standing belief was thought to have OV, this resulted in an inconsistency:
Latin has prepositions. In order to explain this inconsistency, it was suggested
that alongside a conventional pattern SOV maintained in more formal writing by
authors such as Caesar, in informal Latin already in Plautus’ time the order was SVO,
⁴⁴ See Nisbet (1999: 137). ⁴⁵ For discussion of this example, see Courtney (1999: 1).
⁴⁶ For a discussion of the notion ‘basic order’, see Siewierska (1988: 8–14) and Siewierska and Uhlířová
(1998: 107).
 Word order
which is the majority order in the Romance languages.⁴⁷ The Latin data shows, so to
speak, a ‘language in transition’.⁴⁸ However, there are other languages in which OV and
PrepN occur together,⁴⁹ and, more importantly, as indicated in § 23.1 and § 23.9, it is
impossible to define for Latin a syntactically determined basic order, so the whole line
of argumentation does not apply. There is no evidence for a SOV status of Latin.⁵⁰ In a
comparative study of the languages of Europe using twelve constituent order variables,
Latin comes out as the most flexible and as one of the least uniform languages.⁵¹
Similarly, scholars have looked for parallels between the order of elements within
compound nouns and the order of clause constituents. From this perspective it has
been observed that in Latin compound nouns built on a nominal and a verbal stem
much more often have the order nominal element–verbal element (NV), e.g. tibi-cen
‘piper’, than the other way around (VN), e.g. Verti-cordia ‘changer of hearts’. However,
the latter order (VN) is much more common and fully productive in the Romance
languages.⁵²
. Syntactic structure and intonation structure
In the oral production of utterances the speaker has various techniques at his disposal
to add information to the grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic information already
contained in the clauses and sentences he is producing. A falling intonation is often a
sign that a sentence is approaching its end. Tempo and specific rhythmic sequences at
the end of a sentence or clause may likewise serve as a signal for the hearer (the use of
clausulae and, in later times, the cursus are good examples). Stress and pitch can be
used to indicate that a particular word in a sequence is of special interest for the
speaker, and therefore for the hearer as well. Variations of tempo may fulfil a similar
role. Pauses (apart from the need to take breath at regular intervals) can also fulfil
various functions, among them the function of indicating major boundaries—which
are not necessarily syntactic—in the flow of words. All these techniques were used as
they are in our modern languages and the ancient authors and theoreticians were well
aware of them and wrote about them (in a manner that is more or less understandable
for modern scholars).
Two of these techniques can be studied on the basis of the written material that has
come down to us, viz. the use of clausulae and cursus and the use of pauses. The other
⁴⁷ See Arnaiz (1998: 48–9). ⁴⁸ So Adams (1976a).

⁴⁹ See Sörés (2004) on Hungarian and Dryer (1992), in general.
⁵⁰ See also LSS § 9.6, Hoffmann (2010b), and Spevak (2010a: 2–3; 115). Dryer (2005: 331) incorrectly
classifies Latin as SOV. See Hoffmann (2010b: 278).
⁵¹ See Bakker (1998: 384–5; 391; 408; 417–19). See also Song (2010: 255): ‘The concept of basic word
order (at the clausal level) is irrelevant to flexible word order languages, just as the concept of tone is to
non-tonal languages.’
⁵² A monograph on the subject is Bork (1990). For typological considerations, see Adams (1976a:
91–2). For the relation between Latin formations and those in the Romance languages, see also
Gather (2001: 192–209).
Methodological preliminaries 
techniques are not independently accessible for us. It is very likely that the written
material that we have, just as written language in modern times,⁵³ has certain linguis-
tic features of its own that compensate to some extent for the absence of oral produc-
tion. What is left of the forms of punctuation the Romans used is of little use. See § 2.3
and § 23.17.
. Pause and the determination of sense boundaries

Quintilian and other authors on rhetoric (both Greek and Latin) pay considerable
attention to the oral production of sentences and texts, including the segmentation of
sense units and the use of pauses of variable length at the appropriate sense boundar-
ies.⁵⁴ This topic does not belong to the domain of syntax, strictly speaking, but is not
without relevance for it when it comes to the study of word order. The relevance of
intonation units for the syntactic analysis and description of sentences can be illus-
trated by two passages from Quintilian.
The first is Quintilian’s discussion of the opening lines of Virgil’s Aeneid (1.1–7).⁵⁵
In this discussion, Quintilian distinguishes three forms of marking sense units: the
suspensio, where there is no real pause, the distinctio, a brief pause, and the depositio,
a real stop. The first unit in Virgil’s text until the depositio can be graphically repre-
sented as in (a), where | marks a suspensio and || a distinctio. Note that the suspensio
after oris (end of the line) does not correspond to a syntactic boundary and that the
secondary predicate fato profugus, which interrupts a coordinate structure, is marked
by intonation. The depositio comes at the very end of the period, marked |||.
(a) Arma virumque cano, | Troiae qui primus ab oris | / Italiam | fato profugus |
Lavinaque venit / litora, || multum ille et terris iactatus et alto / vi superum,
saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram, || / multa quoque et bello passus, dum
conderet urbem / inferretque deos Latio; || genus unde Latinum / Albanique
patres atque altae moenia Romae. |||
(‘Arms and the man I sing, who first from the coasts of Troy, exiled by fate, came to
Italy and Lavinian shores; much buffeted on sea and land by violence from above,
through cruel Juno’s unforgiving wrath, and much enduring in war also, till he should
build a city and bring his gods to Latium; whence came the Latin race, the lords of
Alba, and the lofty walls of Rome.’ Verg. A. 1.1–7)
Observandum etiam quo loco sustinendus et quasi suspendendus sermo sit, quod
Graeci à.zotl}~zvix vel à.z}~tnwix vocant, quo deponendus. Suspenditur ‘arma
virumque cano’, quia illud ‘virum’ ad sequentia pertinet, ut sit ‘virum Troiae qui pri-
mus ab oris’, et hic iterum. Nam etiam si aliud est unde venit quam quo venit, non
distinguendum tamen, quia utrumque eodem verbo continetur ‘venit’. Tertio ‘Italiam’,
⁵³ See Quirk et al. (1985: 24–5).

⁵⁴ For a discussion of Quintilian’s and other classical authors’ treatment of pause, see Luque (2006:
328–39) and Cavarzere (2011: Ch. 5 ‘Il ritmo della voce’). See also Chafe (1994: Ch. 5 ‘Intonation units’).
⁵⁵ For discussion, see Cavarzere (2011: 199–204), from whom I have taken the graphical representa-
tion. See also Luque (2006: 328–39).
 Word order
quia interiectio est ‘fato profugus’ et continuum sermonem, qui faciebat ‘Italiam
Lavinaque’, dividit. Ob eandemque causam quarto ‘profugus’, deinde ‘Lavinaque venit
litora’, ubi iam erit distinctio, quia inde alius incipit sensus. Sed in ipsis etiam distinc-
tionibus tempus alias brevius, alias longius dabimus: interest enim sermonem finiant
an sensum. Itaque illam distinctionem ‘litora’ protinus altero spiritus initio insequar;
cum illuc venero: ‘atque altae moenia Romae’, deponam et morabor et novum rursus
exordium faciam. (‘We must also note where our speech should be held up and as it
were left in the air (the Greeks call this hypodiastolē or hypostigmē), and where it
should be brought to rest. Arma virumque cano (“Arms and the man I sing”) is left in
the air, because virum belongs to what follows, giving us virum Troiae qui primus ab
oris (“the man who first from the shores of Troy”), after which there is another sus-
pension; for, although where he came from and where he arrived are two different
things, yet we do not need punctuation here, because both are covered by the same
verb, venit (“came”). There is a third pause at Italiam, because fato profugus (“exiled
by fate”) is parenthetical and interrupts the continuity of Italiam Lavinaque. For the
same reason, there is a fourth pause at profugus, after which comes Lavinaque venit
litora (“and came to Lavinian shores”), where we do at last need punctuation, because
a new sentence begins from this point. Even when there is punctuation, the time we
give to it may be shorter or longer, according to whether it marks the end of a phrase
or of a thought. Thus I shall take a new breath immediately after the punctuation at
litora, but when I come to atque altae moenia Romae (“and the walls of lofty Rome”),
I shall pause and wait and make a fresh beginning.’ Quint. Inst. 11.3.35–8)
The other relevant passage from Quintilian is (b). He segments the beginning of
Cicero’s speech pro Cluentio until quarum in the way indicated.⁵⁶ Note that the address
iudices forms an intonation unit with animadverti and not one of its own,⁵⁷ and that
the discontinuity of in duas partes is reflected in the intonation.
(b) Animadverti, iudices, | omnem accusatoris orationem | in duas | divisam esse
partes: || quarum altera mihi niti | et magno opere confidere videbatur |
invidia iam inveterata iudicii Iuniani, || altera tantum modo consuetudinis
causa | timide et diffidenter attingere | rationem veneficii criminum, | qua de
re lege est haec quaestio constituta. |||
(‘I noticed, gentlemen, that the prosecutor’s entire speech was divided into two parts,
in one of which he seemed to me to be relying with all confidence upon the now
time-honoured prejudice felt against the trial before Junius; while in the other he
seemed to make his reluctant and diffident approach, for form’s sake only, to the
question of the charge of poisoning, to deal with which this court has been by law
established.’ Cic. Clu. 1)
Quis enim dubitet unum sensum in hoc et unum spiritum esse: ‘animadverti, iudices,
omnem accusatoris orationem in duas divisam esse partis’; tamen et duo prima verba
⁵⁶ For discussion, see Cavarzere (2011: 212–14), from whom I have taken the continuation of the
marking.
⁵⁷ Cf. Etsi vereor, iudices ‘Although I am afraid, gentlemen of the jury’, at the beginning of Cic. Mil. 1
(Cavarzere 2011: 216–20).
Methodological preliminaries 
et tria proxima et deinceps duo rursus ac tria suos quasi numeros habent: spiritum
sustinemus sicut rhythmis aestimatur.
(‘Who can doubt that there is only one thought and one breath in animadverti iudices
omnem accusatoris orationem in duas divisam esse partes? Yet the two first words, the
next three, and then again the next two and three, have their own special rhythms;
and we maintain our breathing as determined by the rhythm.’ Quint. Inst. 9.4.68)
Sense units thus distinguished (colon, comma, and periodus) were sometimes marked
in writing by punctuation, as, for example, in the Vindolanda Tablets and other docu-
ments.⁵⁸ Readers or teachers sometimes inserted oblique strokes (virgulae) as a prep-
aration for reading the text aloud. This system of marking the text was adopted from
the Greeks in the second century bc and partly replaced, partly added to the older
punctuation system to mark word boundaries, which ‘seems to have died out by the
end of the first century ad’.⁵⁹
The division of texts into sense units per cola et commata, that is by starting a new sense
unit on a new line, is found in the older Vulgate manuscripts and is attributed to Jerome,
but people have also found traces of it in later manuscripts of, for example, works of
Cicero. The length of the cola varies between thirty and six syllables, with twenty to ten
syllables being the most frequent length, more or less equivalent to the length of a hex-
ameter line, which allows combining a sense unit with breathing space.⁶⁰
In the 1920s, Eduard Fraenkel developed a method to identify smaller segments

within clauses and sentences. For these he used the term ‘colon’, not in the ancient
sense of ‘sense unit’, but for syntactic units, for example, an ablative absolute clause or
a prepositional phrase.⁶¹ One of his observations was that so-called unstressed words
often occupy the second position of a colon, as do the personal pronouns in (c) and
(d) (see also § 23.32) (‘॥ ’ marks a colon boundary).⁶² For the use of forms of address to
structure sentences, see § 22.54.
(c) . . . Roma puer a sorore tua missus | epistulam mihi abs te adlatam dedit . . .
(‘. . . a boy sent from Rome by your sister brought me a letter which had come in from
you . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.10.1)
(d) His rebus gestis | Curio se in castra ad Bagradam recipit . . .
(‘After these successes Curio went back to the camp at the Bagradas . . .’ Caes.
Civ. 2.26.1)
⁵⁸ See Parkes (1992: 10–12) and Adams (1996; 2016: 254, 308).
⁵⁹ The Roman grammarians used the term distinctio for ‘punctuation mark’. See TLL s.v. distinctio
1521.28ff. For the marking of texts in the Classical period, see Wingo (1972). The quotation is from
Parkes (1992: 263).
⁶⁰ Müller (1964: 28–33).
⁶¹ For the colon approach, see Fraenkel (1932, 1933, 1965, 1968), Müller (1964: 124–31), Habinek (1985a),
and Nisbet (1990). Also Adams (1994b). For the role of intonation to avoid confusion between the subor-
dinator cum and the preposition cum, see Jones (1990).
⁶² Fraenkel (1933). See also Habinek (1985a: 6–7), from whom (c) and (d) are taken.
 Word order
. Clausulae
Rhythm was a pervasive element of high-register prose in general (see § 23.11), but
most important was its use at the end of sentences and other sense units. For these
rhythmic endings the term clausula has been current from Cicero onwards.⁶³
The rhythm is based on the quantity of syllables which may be heavy (marked –), or
light (marked ཱི); in certain circumstances, notably at the end of a rhythmic sequence,
the quantity of the syllable may be indifferent, which is best marked ‘ཱི’ (scholars
often use the sign ‘×’ and the term syllaba anceps).⁶⁴ NB: a distinction must be made
between the quantity (heavy and light) of syllables and the length (long and short) of
vowels.⁶⁵
The endeavour to arrive at certain rhythmic endings entails selecting fitting words,⁶⁶
and for that reason clausulae are relevant for word order. Cicero himself (at Orat.
232–3) gives a number of illustrations, showing the damaging effect of the permuta-
tion of the order of words in a passage from his lost speech pro Cornelio, as seen in (a)
and (b). If in (a) the end is changed to ‘multi superarunt mercatores venālĭcĭ|īquĕ,’ ‘the
whole thing is spoiled’, as it is also in (b), if the text of the speech is changed to ‘vice-
runt eunuchi e Syria Aēg݉p|tōquĕ.’⁶⁷ In (a), the clausula is formed by a cretic (– ཱི –)
(resolved) + spondee (– –), Cicero’s favoured formula (also known as ‘esse videatur’),
which occurs in about one-third of the endings in his speeches. In the permutation
rejected above, this clausula is replaced by a dactylic end (– ×), as in the poetic hex-
ameter (the clausula heroa, which is very rare in Cicero);⁶⁸ in (b), the clausula is cretic
+ spondee as well, replaced by a much less favoured spondee + trochee (– – | – ཱི).
(a) Neque me divitiae movent, quibus omnes Africanos et Laelios multi venalicii
mercatorēsquĕ sŭpĕr|ārūnt . . .
(‘I am not moved by his wealth, in which many traders and slave dealers have sur-
passed all the Africani and Laelii . . .’ Cic. Corn. fr. II.9)
(b) . . . neque vestis aut caelatum aurum et argentum, quo nostros veteres
Marcellos Maximosque multi eunuchi e Syria Aegyptōquĕ vī|cērūnt.
(‘. . . nor by raiment or gold and silver plate in which our ancient heros, Marcelli and
Maximi, were outdone by many eunuchs from Syria and Egypt.’ Cic. Corn. fr. II.9)
The importance of the clausula for Cicero’s practice appears also from the fact that in his
pro Sulla the three most frequent combinations constitute c.90 per cent of all endings:
⁶³ For example: Sed sunt clausulae plures quae numerose et iucunde cadant. (‘There are many clausulae
which have a pleasing rhythmic cadence.’ Cic. Orat. 215) For an overview with statistical data on clausulae,
see Orlandi (1994). For ‘the development of rhythmic prose’ and its introduction in Rome, see
Hutchinson (2018: 5–12).
⁶⁴ For the use of ‘৐’, see Zgoll (2012: 45–6).
⁶⁵ See Allen (1978: 89–92).
⁶⁶ An example is the use of the coordinator atque by Cicero. See Hutchinson (1995).
⁶⁷ The ‘॥’ sign indicates the boundary between the feet.
⁶⁸ However, Cicero recommends it at Orat. 217. Quintilian at Inst. 9.4.102 condemns it. For discussion,
see Aili (1979: 63–4) and Oberhelman (2003: 27–67).
Methodological preliminaries 
the cretic + trochee/spondee (– ཱི – | – ཱི), the cretic/molossus + double trochee

(– × – | – ཱི – ཱི), and the cretic/molossus + cretic (– × – | – ཱི ৐).⁶⁹ Other authors had
other preferences.⁷⁰
A problem with the research on clausulae is how to determine whether the order
observed is due to chance or to purpose. Thus, in (a) and (b), are the verbs in final
position to achieve the required rhythmic sequence or is the rhythmic sequence
the natural outcome of positioning the verbs with their syllabic structure at the
end? If one linearizes a clause in Latin, what are the chances of words at the end
having a certain rhythmic sequence, given the rules of syllable structure and vowel
length?⁷¹
Whereas in Classical Latin the clausulae were based on the quantity of syllables, word
accent played an ever more important role from the third and fourth century onwards,
due to the loss of the distinction between heavy and light syllables. This resulted in
three favourite endings, called cursus, viz. the cursus planus, consisting of a sequence
accented / unaccented / unaccented / accented / unaccented (´ u u ´ u), as in (c); the
cursus tardus (´ u u ´ u u), as in (d), and the cursus velox (´ u u u u ´ u), as in (e).
(c) (sc. scio) . . . quas rerum acerbitates iam conclamatas et perditas concordia
vicissim sibi cedentium principum meliorem revocávit in státum . . .
(‘I know . . . what wretched conditions, even when everything seemed already lost and
without remedy, have, by the harmony of rulers yielding in turn to each other, been
brought to a better state . . .’ Amm. 20.8.17)
(d) Impositusque scuto pedestri et sublátius éminens nullo silente Augustus
renuntiatus . . .
(‘And being placed upon an infantryman’s shield and raised on high, he was hailed by
all as Augustus . . .’ Amm. 20.4.17)
(e) . . . receptaque oppida Gallicana ante direpta a barbaris et excisa, quos tribu-
tarios ipse fécit et vectigáles.
(‘. . . and the recovery of the Gallic towns, which before had been destroyed and
plundered by the savages whom he himself had made tributaries and subjects.’
Amm. 20.4.1)
In (c), the use of the indicative in the indirect question instead of a subjunctive may
have been influenced by the cursus, as may have been the use of the comparative in (d)
and the use of the perfect instead of a pluperfect in (e).⁷²
⁶⁹ See Berry in his Commentary (1996: 49–54). This percentage is slightly higher than Zieliński (1904,
1914) found in his studies of Cicero’s speeches. For the importance of clausulae for the word order of
clauses, see also Spevak (2016a: 123–5).
⁷⁰ For a comparison of Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Velleius, and Tacitus, see Aili (1979).
⁷¹ For a discussion of the methodological problems, see Janson (1974), Aili (1979: 17–50),
Orlandi (2005), and Keeline and Kirby (2019: 163–8).
⁷² See den Boeft et al. ad locc.
 Word order
23.19 The order of constituents at the clause

and sentence levels
The following sections concern the order of constituents at the clause and sentence
levels. The relative order of constituents at lower levels, for example the noun phrase
and the prepositional phrase levels, are dealt with in separate sections.
A first distinction is made between the order of constituents in simple, syntactically
independent sentences (and, to some extent, in main clauses of complex sentences)
on the one hand (§ 23.39) and in complex sentences with subordinate clauses on the
other (§ 23.64). The possibility that the order of constituents in main clauses varies
with the relative order of main and subordinate clauses and possible forms of inter-
lacing between them is ignored for the moment (but see § 14.19). Depending on the
type of text the proportion between simple and complex sentences varies considerably.
In most prose texts complex sentences are much more frequent and sequences such as
(a) are relatively rare: in the letter they are taken from there are four such simple
sentences (of which the last one in (a) contains two coordinated clauses) as opposed
to twenty-one complex ones, fifteen of which contain two or more subordinate
clauses.⁷³
(a) Quintum fratrem cottidie exspectamus. Terentia magnos articulorum
dolores habet. Et te et sororem tuam et matrem maxime diligit salutemque
tibi plurimam adscribit et Tulliola, deliciae nostrae.
(‘We are expecting brother Quintus back any day. Terentia has a bad attack of
rheumatism. She is very fond of you and of your sister and mother, and sends you her
best love, as does my darling little Tullia.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)
A number of factors are relevant to the placement of constituents. The most import-
ant are:
(i) the internal complexity of the sentence/clause;
(ii) the distinction active/passive;
(iii) the distinction first/second vs. third person arguments;
(iv) the categorial status of the constituents;
(v) the internal complexity of the constituents.
(i) The internal complexity of the sentence or clause in terms of the number of argu-
ments and satellites there are alongside the verb is an important factor. This depends
to a considerable extent on the valency of the verb, the second important factor. On
the basis of the valency of the verb both the number of arguments (whether explicit
or not) and their semantic characteristics (e.g. animate or inanimate) are determined.
⁷³ The fourth simple sentence is De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor. (Cic. Att. 1.5.3). Some
of these sentences are discussed in § 23.46.
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(ii) Additionally, for those verbs for which this is relevant, it makes a difference
whether the sentence or clause is active or passive, that is, whether the state of affairs
is presented from the perspective of the agent or that of the patient (see § 5.10): in
passive sentences the number of arguments is usually reduced.
(iii) First and second person arguments are marked on the finite verb forms. For the
use of explicit first and second person pronouns in the nominative special conditions
hold (see § 9.2).
(iv) Apart from the meaning of the individual constituents, another factor is their
categorial status (e.g. noun phrase, pronoun, or clause). (For non-mobile words, see
§ 23.6 and § 23.20.)
(v) For the position of nouns (and adjectives) it makes a difference whether they are
used by themselves or are accompanied by optional and/or obligatory modifiers.
Then, finally, when all these factors have been taken into account it is necessary to
determine what the communicative contribution is of the individual constituents and
of the sentence as a whole in its wider context and to what extent this is reflected in
the relative order of the constituents.
Although in recent time several studies have more or less proceeded along these
lines, using different samples from different periods,⁷⁴ it is at this stage impossible to
give any absolute rules, in such a way that a clear picture arises of ‘word order in Latin’.
In what follows a number of the factors mentioned above will be explored.
. Categories of constituents with a more or less fixed position
The sections that follow contain details about the words called ‘non-mobile’ in § 23.6,
that is, the categories of words and related elements that are restricted with respect to
their position in the clause or at a lower level. Included is a discussion of bound clitics,
which are not ‘words’ in the technical sense.
. Connectors and interactional particles

Connectors are, in conformity with their function, usually placed in the initial part of
the sentence or clause. Some are regularly placed in the very first position, others are
regularly placed after the first word or constituent. To the first category belong at,
atque, atqui, et, etenim, itaque, nam, namque, sed, and verum; to the second category
autem and igitur. Also regularly placed in second position are the interactional par-
ticles enim and ergo. However, there are both individual differences between authors—or
⁷⁴ Most extensively Panhuis (1982) on Plautus and Caesar, Devine and Stephens (2006) on data taken
from various prose authors, and Spevak (2010a) on a well-defined prose corpus that consists of Cic. Tusc.
I and III; Dom.; Phil. I and IV; Att. 13.50–16; Caes. Civ. 1–3.30; Sal. Jug. (supplemented with data from
other sources on certain occasions).
 Word order
even among a single author’s texts, which may have to do with variations in the
semantic value of the words involved—and diachronic differences.⁷⁵ Igitur and ergo
are a case in point. When Cicero uses them in logical inferences within a line of argu-
mentation they are usually clause-initial, whereas overall they are predominantly in
second position.⁷⁶
Examples of sentence-initial position of the first category of connectors can be
found in §§ 24.22–45. In poetry, from Catullus onwards, these regular sentence-initial
connectors are sometimes found further on in the sentence if another constituent
takes its place for some pragmatic reason. Examples are (a)–(e). This occurs also in
prose from Livy onwards.
(a) Immemor at iuvenis fugiens pellit vada remis . . .
(‘But the heedless youth, flying away, beats the waves with his oars.’ Catul. 64.58—tr.
Smithers)
(b) Lenibus atque utinam scriptis adiuncta foret vis . . .
(‘But would that your soft verses had force as well . . .’ Caes. poet. 1.3)
(c) Prohibent nam cetera Parcae / scire Helenum . . .
(‘For the Fates forbid Helenus to know more . . .’ Verg. A. 3.379–80)
(d) Non me impia namque / Tartara habent tristes umbrae . . .
(‘For impious Tartarus, with its gloomy shades, holds me not . . .’ Verg. A. 5.733–4)
(e) Tertia sed postquam congressi in proelia totas / implicuere inter se acies
legitque virum vir, / tum vero . . .
(‘But when, clashing in the third encounter, the lines stood interlocked along their
whole length, and man marked man, then . . .’ Verg. A. 11.631–3)⁷⁷
Namque is also found postposed in prose and this becomes regular in Late Latin.⁷⁸ In
Lucretius itaque is only found in second position. Livy is the first prose writer with a
considerable proportion of itaque in second position (especially in the first pentad).
Seneca has about half in second position. That position is dominant in Apul. Met., the
Vulgate, and August. Civ. Postposed et (‘and’) is found in poetry from Virgil onwards,
in prose from Arnobius onwards.⁷⁹
Supplement (in alphabetical order):

Vinxerat et post terga manus . . . (Verg. A. 11.81); Divinare etenim magnus mihi donat
Apollo. (Hor. S. 2.5.60); Constitutiones itaque, ut ante diximus, tres sunt: coniectura-
lis, legitima, iuridicialis. (Rhet. Her. 1.18); Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina
⁷⁵ For the differences between the individual connectors, see Spevak (2006a).
⁷⁶ Similar observations could be made about ‘therefore’ in English and ‘dus’ in Dutch. Very detailed
information in TLL s.v. ergo 760.26ff. and s.v. igitur 253.42ff. A still very useful survey is Neue-W.:
II.973–80.
⁷⁷ For more examples of postposition of sed, see OLD s.v. sed, introduction. See also Norden, Anhang
IIIB3 and § 23.101 fin.
⁷⁸ See TLL s.v. nam 38.9ff. and Schrickx (2009: 260–3), also on itaque and etenim.
⁷⁹ TLL s.v. et 898.52ff.
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
campo / lanigerae pecudes . . . (Lucr. 2.660–1;⁸⁰ Nec mirum: bene nam valetis
omnes . . . (Catul. 23.7); Sic nam fore bello / egregiam et facilem victu per saecula
gentem. (Verg. A. 1.444–5); . . . (dextra sceptrum nam forte gerebat) . . . (Verg. A. 12.206);
Praesentes namque ante domos invisere castas / heroum . . . (Catul. 64.384–5); . . . pro-
rogatae namque consulibus iam in annum provinciae erant . . . (Liv. 41.6.2); Magnum
reginae sed enim miseratus amorem / Daedalus ipse dolos tecti ambagesque
resolvit . . . (Verg. A. 6.28–9); Amisit verum vetus Albula nomen. (Verg. A. 8.332)
The usual second position of the second category of connectors and of interactional
particles needs some specification. In the first place, the connectors and interactional
particles mentioned are not a homogeneous group. Ergo, for instance, is relatively
often found in first position if compared to igitur, but Sallust and Tacitus show an
idiosyncratic preference for having both of them in first position.⁸¹ Autem and vero,
by contrast, are never found in first position, and enim rarely, in Plautus and Terence,
in its affirmative meaning (see § 24.40).⁸²
Second position usually means ‘after the first word of the sentence or clause’, as in
(f), but it is not rare to find connectors after the first full constituent, as in (g) and (l),
or, rarely, after more than one constituent, as in (h) and (i). Of the instances of enim
in third position a considerable portion is after a form of sum (copula or auxiliary)
and/or a pragmatically prominent word in first position, as in ( j).⁸³ The normal situ-
ation for these words is that in sentences which start with a noun phrase or prepositional
phrase, they split the noun phrase, as in (k).⁸⁴ They are not found after initial prepos-
itions, as is shown by enim in (l).
(f) I sane cum illo, Phrygia. Tu autem, Eleusium, / huc intro abi ad nos.
(‘Go with him now, Phrygia. But you, though, Eleusium, come in here to us.’ Pl. Aul.
333–4)
(g) . . . anno ipso ante quam natus est Ennius, post Romam conditam autem
quarto decumo et quingentesimo . . .
(‘. . . in the very year before the birth of Ennius, five hundred and fourteen years after
the founding of Rome . . .’ Cic. Brut. 72)
(h) Ego ad forum autem hinc ibo, ut solvam militi.
(‘But I’ll go to the market to pay off the soldier.’ Pl. Bac. 1060)
⁸⁰ More references in K.-St.: II.130.

⁸¹ See the table in TLL s.v. ergo 760–1, with comparative figures for ergo, igitur, and itaque.
⁸² See Spevak (2012b: 336–40). First position of autem and enim was regarded as ungrammatical:
(soloecismus fit) . . . transmutatione, qua ordo turbatur . . .: ‘enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit’. Ex quo genere
an sit ‘igitur’ initio sermonis positum dubitari potest, quia maximos auctores in diversa fuisse opinione video,
cum apud alios sit etiam frequens, apud alios numquam reperiatur. (‘Solecisms are brought about . . . by
transposition as in enim hoc voluit, autem non habuit. Under this last head comes the question whether
igitur can be placed first in a sentence: for I note that authors of the first rank disagree on this point, some
of them frequently placing it in that position, others never.’ Quint. Inst. 1.5.39); TLL s.v. enim 574.83ff. For
a discussion of the position of enim in Lucr. 6.1277, see Deufert (2018: 487–8).
⁸³ For the position and the diachronic development of autem and enim, see Spevak (2012a; 2012b). For
Cicero’s use of enim in a position later than second and the words that precede, see Watt (1980).
⁸⁴ More examples in TLL s.v. autem 1576.84ff. See also s.v. enim 574.60ff., s.v. itaque 528.59ff.
 Word order
(i) Ego illic me autem sic assimulabam.

(‘But there I pretended to be such.’ Pl. Epid. 420)
( j) Sic est enim intemperans militaris in forti viro gloria.
(‘So unrestrained is the appeal of military glory to a brave man.’ Cic. Tusc. 2.39—tr.
Douglas)
(k) Geminum autem fratrem servire audivi hic meum.
(‘I’ve heard, moreover, that my twin brother is a slave here.’ Pl. Per. 695)
(l) De C. Tuditano enim quaerebam, quem ex Hortensio audieram fuisse in
decem.
(‘For I was enquiring about C. Tuditanus, who I heard from Hortensius was one of
the ten.’ Cic. Att. 13.32.3)
The regular second position of these words is often explained as due to Wackernagel’s
law (see § 23.31). In some of the examples above the word in first position is prag-
matically prominent, for example in (f), where there is a change of topic (tu). However,
most of the time this is not the case. These words behave as clitics in the same way the
emphasizing particle quidem does. The fact that these words are not found after (espe-
cially monosyllabic) prepositions is understandable: prepositions are not autonomous
words themselves.
Supplement (in alphabetical order):
Quae res te sollicitat autem? (Ter. Hau. 251); Non est enim philosophia similis artium
reliquarum. (Cic. de Orat. 3.79); Servisne mulieris? Sic est enim obiectum. (Cic. Cael.
57); Cum in omnibus enim rebus, tum maxime etiam in architectura haec duo insunt:
quod significatur et quod significat. (Vitr. 1.1.3); Ornatissimae sunt igitur orationes
eae quae latissime vagantur . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.120); Hoc sentire prudentiae est, facere
fortitudinis. Et sentire vero et facere perfectae cumulataeque virtutis. (Cic. Sest. 87)
. Anaphoric constituents

Anaphoric constituents (pronouns, adverbs, noun phrases containing an anaphoric
determiner) are by their nature often found in the initial part of their sentence or
clause (especially if the entity they refer to is a focus constituent in the preceding sen-
tence or clause—see § 22.4, ex. (t)), but they may be preceded by other constituents
that have a right to the initial position such as connectors and question words and/or
by one or more of the usual pragmatically prominent words or constituents. The ana-
phoric determiner/pronoun is may serve as an example.⁸⁵ In Mercurius’ summary of
the plot of Plautus’ play Amphitruo, he introduces Iuppiter and Amphitruo and, once
introduced, they are referred to by is, usually in first position as subject of the clause,
as in the beginning of (a). It is not repeated in the following clause, but reappears,
⁸⁵ Some statistical information about placement of the pronoun is in object position in Classical Latin
prose (within an entirely different framework) can be found in Luraghi (2016: 249).
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
juxtaposed with the object eam, after the focus gravidam fecit (she was already preg-
nant by Amphitruo, the spectators have been told, so this was quite surprising).
Another example is (b), with three instances of is functioning as a subject comple-
ment. The second instance is placed after emphatic certe. In (c), interrogative quantae
is separated from curae for the normal pragmatic reason. Tibi is the changed topic of
the interrogative clause. The subject noun phrase ea res with the determiner ea is in
third position.
(a) Is (sc. Iuppiter) amare occepit Alcumenam clam virum / usuramque eius cor-
poris cepit sibi, / et gravidam fecit is eam compressu suo.
(‘He fell in love with Alcumena behind her husband’s back and enjoyed her body, and
he made her pregnant through his embrace.’ Pl. Am. 107–9)
(b) Estne ipsus an non est? Is est, / certe is est, is est profecto.
(‘Is this he himself or not? This is him, this is certainly him, this is him indeed.’ Pl.
Trin. 1071–2)
(c) Expectant omnes quantae tibi ea res curae sit . . .
(‘The public waits eagerly to see how great a concern this matter is to you . . .’ Cic. Ver.
3.137)
The neuter singular form id is often used to refer to the content of the preceding con-
text and for that reason frequently occupies the first position in its clause, as in (d),
where id, the subject in its clause, refers to pendes. However, it may also occupy a later
position in the clause, as in (e), where the first position after the question word is
taken by contrastive mihi.
(d) Faci’n iniuriam mi [an non]? # Fateor, quia non pendes, maxumam. / Atque
id quoque iam fiet, nisi fatere.
(‘Aren’t you doing me an injustice? # Yes, I admit it, an enormous injustice, because
you aren’t hanging. And that too will soon happen unless you admit it.’ Pl. Aul. 643–4)
(e) . . . reppuli, reieci hominem. # Quid mihi id prodest?
(‘. . . I drove and chased him away. # How does that help me?’ Pl. Bac. 633)
Examples of non-nominative forms of the anaphoric pronoun is are (f)–(i). In (f), the
object eum refers to puer ille and it takes the first position. Id in (g), which refers to te
accuso in the preceding clause, is similar. In (h), both id, referring to aurum three lines
before, and eum, referring to filio in the preceding clause, are postposed in their clause
to the third and fourth position, respectively. It is not easy to claim a special pragmatic
prominence for all the constituents that precede them. For an example of postverbal
position later in the clause, see (i).
(f) Sed puer ille quem ego lavi, ut magnu’st et multum valet! / Neque eum quis-
quam colligare quivit incunabulis.
(‘But the boy I washed, how big and strong he is! No one could strap him down in his
cradle.’ Pl. Am. 1103–4)
 Word order
(g) Neque edepol te accuso neque id me facere fas existumo.

(‘I’m not accusing you, nor do I think it would be right for me to do so.’ Pl. As. 514)
(h) . . . numquam indicare id (sc. aurum) filio voluit suo / inopemque optavit
potius eum relinquere / quam eum thesaurum commonstraret filio.
(‘. . . he didn’t even want to make this known to his own son and he wished to leave
him penniless rather than to show this treasure to his son.’ Pl. Aul. 10–12)
(i) Interim Oscenses et Calagurritani, qui erant [cum] Oscensibus contributi,
mittunt ad eum (sc. Caesarem) legatos . . .
(‘Meanwhile the people of Osca and those of Calagurris, who paid tribute to Osca,
sent delegations to him . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.60.1)
. Subordinating devices

The regular position of subordinators and relative determiners, pronouns, adjectives,
and adverbs is the very first position of their clause, but other words, to be specified
below, can precede. This phenomenon—often called prolepsis—is regular from Early
Latin onwards. It is extremely common in poetry, where it is often difficult to find
either a formal or a pragmatic explanation. Artistic considerations, including metre,
are decisive. Among prose authors Varro and Apuleius have abundant instances.⁸⁶
. Subordinators
Subordinators are, by their nature, regularly used in the first position of their clause.
However, they may be preceded by one or more words or constituents, both words
that also have a right to the first position (connectors, coordinators, and relative pro-
nouns, for example) and words (or constituents) with a specific pragmatic function in
the clause (see also § 14.20). This holds both for sentence-initial and sentence-internal
clauses. This phenomenon is found in all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts, with
individual variation from author to author.⁸⁷ This is illustrated by a few examples of
the subordinators ut—with which this phenomenon is quite common—and post-
quam. The subordinate clause in (a) starts with nunc in its non-temporal meaning
serving as a connector (see § 24.46) followed by the focus of the clause internosse. Ex.
(b) has nihil, which is in contrast with the quod clause, in first position. Ex. (c) has
consul as changed topic in first position. Exx. (d) and (e) show (connective) relative
clauses (for more examples, see § 18.28). The phenomenon of constituent(s) preced-
ing subordinators is not restricted to subordinate clauses that precede their main
⁸⁶ See Krumbiegel (1892), Laughton (1960) on Varro; Pennell Ross (1987; 1991) on Classical narrative
prose; Spevak (2010a); Danckaert (2012); Schünke (1906) on poetry. As for the terminology, the following
terms are used in the literature: ‘fronting’, ‘extraction’, ‘displacement’, and ‘left-dislocation’ for the constitu-
ents that precede the subordinating device; ‘postposition’ and ‘anaphora’ for the subordinating device.
⁸⁷ For quantitative data on Caesar, Sallust, and Livy, see Pennell Ross (1987; 1991: 455); for Caesar and
Tacitus, see Longrée et al. (2012; 2013); for Latin poets, see Ambrosini (1992); also for general discussion.
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
clauses (or are embedded in it), but is also found in subordinate clauses that follow
their main clauses, as is shown in (f) and (g).
(a) Nunc internosse ut nos possitis facilius, / ego has habebo usque in petaso
pinnulas.
(‘Now in order that you can tell us apart more easily, I’ll have these little wings here
on my hat throughout.’ Pl. Am. 142–3)
(b) Ti. Gracchus convellit statum civitatis, qua gravitate vir, qua eloquentia, qua
dignitate! Nihil ut a patris avique Africani praestabili insignique virtute,
praeterquam quod a senatu desciverat, deflexisset.
(‘The stability of the community was shattered by Tiberius Gracchus, so distin-
guished by strength of character, by eloquence, and by reputation, that he had
swerved not in the least degree from the eminent and remarkable qualities of his
father and his grandfather Africanus, save for his desertion of the senatorial cause.’
Cic. Har. 41)
(c) Consul postquam detractari certamen vidit, postero die in consilium advo-
cavit quid sibi faciendum esset . . .
(‘When the consul saw the enemy refusing to engage, he called a meeting the follow-
ing day to discuss what he should do . . .’ Liv. 37.39.1)
(d) Ad quem ut veni conplexus me senex conlacrimavit . . .
(‘When I came into his presence the aged man embraced me and wept copiously . . .’
Cic. Rep. 6.9)
(e) In quem postquam omnium ora conversa sunt . . .
(‘After all eyes were turned towards him . . .’ Liv. 26.18.8)
(f) Eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam <iam> ex tragoedia / comoedia ut sit omnibus
isdem vorsibus.
(‘If you want, I’ll immediately turn this same play from a tragedy into a comedy with
all the same verses.’ Pl. Am. 54–5)
(g) Fac is homo ut redimatur.
(‘Have this man ransomed.’ Pl. Capt. 337)
Supplement:
. . . senatuosque · sententiam · utei · scientes · esetis · eorum / sententia · ita ·
fuit . . . (CIL I2.581.23–4 (SCBac., Tiriolo, 186 bc)); At te ego faciam hodie proinde
ac meritus es / ut minus valeas et miser sis, salvos domum si rediero iam. (Pl. Am.
583–4); . . . neu persentiscat aurum ubi est apsconditum . . . (Pl. Aul. 63); Nunc hoc ubi
abstrudam cogito solum locum (Pl. Aul. 673); Quod cum scibitur, per urbem irride-
bor. (Pl. Capt. 785); Id huc / missa sum tibi ut dicerem, / ab ea uti caveas tibi. (Pl. Cas.
680–2); Ipsum gestio / dari mi in conspectum, nunc sua culpa ut sciat / lenem patrem
illum factum me esse acerrimum. (Ter. Ph. 260–2); De multitudine quoniam quod
satis esset admonui, de obscuritate pauca dicam (Var. L. 6.40); Nam accersitus ab
aedile, cuius procuratio huius templi est, nondum rediit et nos uti expectaremus se
 Word order
reliquit qui rogaret. (Var. R. 1.2.2); Quorum si alterutrum decolat . . . (Var. R. 1.2.8);
Multi autem Gnathonum similes cum sint loco fortuna fama superiores, horum est
adsentatio molesta . . . (Cic. Amic. 94); Cuius etsi incerta sunt tempora, tamen annis
multis fuit ante Romulum. (Cic. Brut. 40); Fatetur enim libellos Alfenum deiecisse,
vadimonium promisisse, iudicium quin acciperet in ea ipsa verba quae Naevius ede-
bat non recusasse . . . (Cic. Quinct. 63); Eos enim sanos quoniam intellegi necesse est,
quorum mens motu quasi morbo perturbata nullo sit, qui contra adfecti sint, hos
insanos appellari necesse est. (Cic. Tusc. 3.11); Ceteros quod purgas, debent mihi
probati esse tibi si sunt. (Cic. Att. 3.15.2); . . . is arma, quae cuique <h>abi[ta]lia atque
apta essent, comparat, prorsus ut quivis intellegeret non eos ad rem rusticam, verum
ad caedem ac pugnam comparari. (Cic. Tul. 18); Itaque exaruerunt, vix iam ut appa-
reant. (Cic. Brut. 82); . . . sed suum illud, nihil ut adfirmet, tenet ad extremum. (Cic.
Tusc. 1.99); Apud quos cum proficere nihil posset, quibusdam solutis ergastulis
Compsam in agro Hirpino oppugnare coepit. (Caes. Civ. 3.22.2); Caesar cum ab
hoste non amplius passuum XII milibus abesset, ut erat constitutum, ad eum legati
revertuntur. (Caes. Gal. 4.11.1); Compluribus navibus fractis reliquae cum essent
funibus ancoris reliquisque armamentis amissis ad navigandum inutiles, magna . . .
totius exercitus perturbatio facta est. (Caes. Gal. 4.29.3); Altero die cum ad oppidum
Senonum Vellaunodunum venisset, ne quem post se hostem relinqueret, quo expedi-
tiore re frumentaria uteretur, oppugnare instituit eoque biduo circumvallavit. (Caes.
Gal. 7.11.1); Cuius in adventum praesidii causa Caesar cum plura castella occupas-
set . . . hic in adventu Pompei incidit ut matutino tempore nebula esset crassissima.
(B. Hisp. 6.3); Qualem si cuncti cuperent decurrere vitam . . . (Prop. 2.15.41); Livius . . .
dicitur, cum saepius revocatus vocem obtudisset, venia petita puerum ad canendum
ante tibicinem cum statuisset, canticum egisse aliquanto magis vigente motu quia
nihil vocis usus impediebat. (Liv. 7.2.9); Quam rem cum laeto animo Romanus
accepisset . . . (Liv. 26.17.6); Romanis etsi quietae res ex Etruria nuntiabantur, tamen
quia omnibus conciliis eam rem agitari adferebatur, ita muniebant ut ancipitia muni-
menta essent. (Liv. 5.1.8); Tres duces discordantes prope ut defecerint alii ab aliis
trifariam exercitus in diversissimas regiones distraxere. (Liv. 26.41.20); Causam
abscessus quamquam secutus plurimos auctorum ad Seiani artes rettuli . . . (Tac. Ann.
4.57.1)
It is not always easy to determine whether some or all of the constituents preced-
ing the subordinator belong to the subordinate clause. In (h), for example, where
does extemplo belong? Nor is it always easy to decide whether we are dealing with
one continuous sentence or a change of construction. An example is (i), where
postquam might have been omitted entirely, still leaving us with a perfect
sequence of clauses. This might be an example of a change of communicative
strategy after the sentence has already begun, an anacoluthon, which is typical
of spoken discourse.
(h) Sese extemplo ex ephebis postquam excesserit, / non, ut ego, amori neque
desidiae in otio / operam dedisse . . .
(‘Immediately after he had passed his teenage years, he had not, like me,
devoted himself to love and laziness in leisure . . .’ Pl. Mer. 61–3)
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(i) Nam erus me postquam rus misit filium ut suom arcesserem, / abii . . .
(‘For after my master sent me to the farm to fetch his son, I went . . .’ Pl. Mos.
1043–4)
In ( j), four constituents that belong to the subordinate clause precede the subordina-
tor. It is difficult to give a pragmatic justification for each of them being anteposed.
( j) . . . Chremes / ultro ad me venit, unicam gnatam suam / cum dote summa filio
uxorem ut daret.
(‘. . . Chremes came to me of his own accord to offer his only daughter in marriage
with a substantial dowry.’ Ter. An.100–1)
Supplement:
Trecentos equites Attalus praesidii causa cum adduxisset, iact<at>ae sunt pacis con-
diciones. (Liv. 38.25.5)
. Relative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners
The regular position of relative pronouns, determiners, adjectives, and adverbs is

clause-initial (unless the first three are governed by a preposition). When the relative
clause is in sentence-initial position connectors may of course precede. Pragmatically
prominent constituents belonging to a relative clause can precede the relative element
as well. Instances are found from Early Latin onwards, as in (a)–(c). An example with
more constituents preceding the relative pronoun is (d). It is difficult to find a prag-
matic justification for the position of the temporal clauses.
(a) Sat habet favitorum semper qui recte facit . . .
(‘A man who always acts correctly has enough supporters . . .’ Pl. Am. 79)
(b) . . . idem dicetur ab illis modo quos nominavi.
(‘. . . it will also be maintained by those whom I just now mentioned.’ Cic. Fin. 4.45)
(c) Hic, exeuntem me unde aspexisti modo.
(‘Here, where you just saw me come out from.’ Pl. Bac. 204)
(d) . . . et quod optimum faenum erit seorsum condito, per ver cum arabunt,
antequam ocinum des, quod edint (<bubus> or <boves> add. edd.).⁸⁸
(‘. . . and store the best hay by itself for the oxen to eat during the spring ploughing,
before you feed clover.’ Cato Agr. 53)
Supplement:
Atque hic pater est—ut ego opinor—huius erus quam amat <virginis>. (Pl. Aul. 619);
Heus, senex, quid tu percontare ad te quod nihil attinet? (Pl. Mos. 940); Si quid eo fuerit,
certe illius filiae, / quae mihi mandata est, habeo dotem unde dem. (Pl. Trin. 157–8);
Hostem qui feriet mihi erit (†erit (inquit) mi†, Skutsch) Carthaginiensis / quisquis erit.
(Enn. Ann. 8.280–1V= 7.234–5S); ); Nam idcirco accersor, nuptias quod mi adparari
⁸⁸ Editors vary in the way they punctuate the sequence.

 Word order
sensit. (Ter. An. 690); Mihi nunc relictis rebus inveniundus est / aliquis, labore inventa
mea quoi dem bona. (Ter. Hau. 840–1); . . . ipsi illi maiorum gentium dii qui habentur
hinc nobis profecti in caelum reperientur. (Cic. Tusc. 1.29); Sanguine quae vero non
rubet, arte rubet. (Ov. Ars 3.200); Item / placere · uti · Cn. · Piso pater · super ·
Portam Fontinalem quam · inaedificasset / . . . ea . . . · dimolienda curarent.
(S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre 106–8 (ad 20)—NB: quam must be understood as quae)
. Question words

Unless preceded by a connector or a coordinator or a pragmatically prominent word
or constituent (sometimes more of them), question words are regularly placed in the
first position. This applies both to question particles introducing sentence questions
or indirect questions and to interrogative words introducing constituent questions.
. Interrogative particles
Particles can be preceded by a coordinator (also when functioning as a connector).

An example is (a). Pragmatically prominent constituents can also precede, but there
are not many instances of this. In (b), the object accusative and infinitive clause pre-
cedes num.
(a) Sed num fumus est haec mulier quam amplexare?
(‘But is the girl you’re embracing smoke?’ Pl. As. 619)
(b) Sed te moneri num nevis?
(‘But you don’t mind getting advice, do you?’ Pl. Poen. 1079)
(c) Nominis inscriptio tibi num aliud videtur esse ac meorum bonorum direptio?
(‘Does your posting of your name seem to you to be anything short of plundering of
my property?’ Cic. Dom. 51)
(d) Quid? Canis nonne similis lupo?
(‘Why, does not a dog resemble a wolf?’ Cic. N.D. 1.97)
Preceding coordinators: Aut num ipse ego pulmento utor magis / unctiusculo? (Pl.
Ps. 220–1); Aut de immutatione, ut si disputetur: num interire virtus in homine aut
num in vitium possit convertere? (Cic. de Orat. 3.114); De Rutilia quoniam videris
dubitare, scribes ad me cum scies, sed quam primum, et num Clodia D. Bruto con-
sulari, filio suo, mortuo vixerit. (Cic. Att. 12.22.2); Malae condiciones erant, fateor,
sed num quid hoc peius? (Cic. Att. 8.3.3)
Pragmatically prominent constituents: Exemplo tuo bona tua nonne L. Ninnius, vir
omnium fortissimus atque optimus, consecravit? (Cic. Dom. 125); Tu contra et patris
nobilitate et dignitate et per te ipse satis animi magnitudine diligentiaque praeditus
nonne eniteris et proficisceris ad paternas clientelas auxilium tibi reique publicae
atque optimo cuique efflagitatum? (B. Afr. 22.5)
Nunc tu num nevis me, voluptas mea, / quo vocatus sum ire ad cenam? (Pl. Truc.
546–7); Quid? Talpam num desiderare lumen putas? (Cic. Luc. 81)
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
. Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners
Interrogative pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, and determiners can be preceded by con-

nectors as well as by pragmatically prominent words or constituents of the interroga-
tive sentence or clause. This is found in all periods of Latin. Examples are (a)–(c), the
first two showing constituents from subordinate clauses of various types preceding
the question word; (c) shows a direct question with the topical subject in first pos-
ition. NB: legiones hostium in (b) can also be taken as a pseudo-object (see § 9.17).
(a) Epidicum quis est qui revocat?
(‘Who is it that’s calling back Epidicus?’ Pl. Epid. 201)
(b) Ibi nunc meus pater / memorat legiones hostium ut fugaverit . . .
(‘In there my father’s now telling how he put the enemies’ legions to flight . . .’ Pl.
Am. 135–6)
(c) Adventus meus atque introitus in urbem qui fuit?
(‘My arrival at and entry into the city: what was its character?’ Cic. Dom. 75)
Supplement:
Sed ea huc quid intro ierit impulsu meo / accipite. (Pl. Trin. 10–11); Ego pol hodie, si
vivo, tibi / ostendam erum quid sit pericli fallere et illi patrem. # Ah, ne saevi tanto
opere. (Ter. An. 867–9); Repulsos videamus. Nam deteriores qui sint, post docebo.
(Cic. Har. 56); Lucceius quid agat scribam ad te, cum . . . (Cic. Att. 2.1.9)
Nescis quid ego acturus sim nec facinus quantum exordiar. (Pl. Bac. 722);
Cognoscentur enim omnia istius aera illa vetera, ut non solum in imperio, verum
etiam in stipendiis qualis fuerit intellegatis. (Cic. Ver. 5.33)
Cf.: exclamatory sentence: Sed veniam mi quam gravate pater dedit de Chrysalo.
(Pl. Bac. 532)
. Categories of constituents that tend to be

placed after another constituent
A number of categories of words have no special position in the clause, but tend to
follow another word to which they are more or less closely attached. In the first three
sections that follow, the words are discussed which behave as clitics but which do not
as a rule form a phonetic unit with the word to which they are attached. The fourth
section, in turn, deals with bound clitics, which do form a phonetic unit with the
word to which they are attached.
. Indefinite determiners and pronouns
The indefinite determiners qui, quae, quod (see § 11.110) and pronouns quis, qua,
quid (see § 11.149) cannot be placed in the initial position of a clause or sentence. The
same holds for the indefinite adverbs quando ‘at any time’, qui ‘in any way’, ubi ‘anywhere’,
 Word order
and unde ‘from any place’. They are relatively rare in main clauses, but see (a), where
quid follows the question particle num. In subordinate clauses they normally follow the
subordinating device immediately, as in (b)–(d). For later placements, see (e) and (f).
(a) Num quid simile populus Romanus audierat aut viderat?
(‘Had the Roman people ever heard of or experienced such a thing before?’ Cic.
Amic. 41)
(b) Verum irae si quae forte eveniunt huius modi / inter eos . . .
(‘But if by chance any argument of this sort arises between them . . .’ Pl. Am. 941–2)
(c) Ubi quid credideris, citius extemplo a foro / fugiunt quam . . .
(‘When you entrust something to them, they immediately run away from the forum
faster than . . .’ Pl. Per. 435–6)
(d) Ponere iubebam de quo quis audire vellet.
(‘I called upon my friends to put forward any subject which any of them wished to
hear discussed.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.7)
(e) Fieri autem potest ut recte quis sentiat . . .
(‘Now it is possible for anyone to hold right views . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.6)
(f) Quid enim interest utrum ex homine se convertat quis in beluam an . . .
(‘For what difference does it make whether a man is actually transformed into a beast
or whether . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.82)
Supplement:
. . . —fit enim plerumque ut ei qui boni quid volunt adferre adfingant aliquid . . . (Cic.
Phil. 1.8); Quid autem est non miserius solum, sed foedius etiam et deformius quam
aegritudine quis adflictus debilitatus iacens? (Cic. Tusc. 4.35); Mulieres vero in India,
cum est cuius earum vir mortuus, in certamen iudiciumque veniunt . . . (Cic. Tusc.
5.78); Qui horum quid acerbissime crudelissimeque fecerat, is et vir et civis optimus
habebatur. (Caes. Civ. 3.32.3); Si mala condiderit in quem quis carmina, ius est /
iudiciumque. (Hor. S. 2.1.82–3)
Existit autem hoc loco quaedam quaestio subdifficilis, num quando amici novi,
digni amicitia, veteribus sint anteponendi . . . (Cic. Amic. 67); Ei rei operam dare te
fuerat aliquanto aequius, / si qui probiorem facere posses . . . (Pl. Trin. 119–20); Mi,
sicunde potes, erues qui decem legati Mummio fuerint. (Cic. Att. 13.30.2); . . . dispositis
exploratoribus, necubi effecto ponte Romani copias traducerent . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.35.1)
. Personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum
In 1892 Wackernagel published an influential article in which he argued that in the

older Indo-European languages so-called enclitic words had a tendency to occur in
second position in their clause (this is called ‘Wackernagel’s law’). Most of the evi-
dence he presents is from Greek, but he quotes instances from Latin as well. This
tendency is said to affect especially the particles mentioned in the preceding sections
and (personal) pronouns, but other words, especially monosyllabic ones, are mentioned
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
as well, including forms of the verb sum and indefinite pronouns. The words which
they follow are said to be stressed, while the so-called enclitic words themselves are
unstressed. A difficulty in Wackernagel’s observation is the notion of ‘enclitic words’.
Some of the words mentioned in this framework show all the properties of other ‘nor-
mal’ words. Personal pronouns, for example, can be found in all positions in the
clause, (bound) clitics can be attached to them, and they occur in pragmatic con-
figurations in which they must have been stressed (for example when in contrastive
opposition—see below).⁸⁹
It had been observed before Wackernagel’s article, and was also observed later, that
the tendency of personal pronouns and forms of sum to follow other words is not
restricted to the beginning of clauses, but that they are also found after words and
phrases further on in the sentence.⁹⁰ Fraenkel (see § 23.17) has argued that the ‘enclitic
words’ are regularly placed in the second position of a colon. There are, however, also
many instances of clitics coming later within such units.
In recent studies much attention has been paid to determining which words may
serve as ‘host’ for personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum. It turns out that the
hosts are often pragmatically prominent in their clause or in the constituent to which
they belong. There may be more pragmatically prominent entities in one sentence or
clause, which are usually placed at the beginning of their colon. The personal pro-
nouns and the forms of sum may therefore also occur in another colon than the first,
although this is less common. So, there is no mechanical rule requiring personal pro-
nouns and forms of sum to occur in the second position of their sentence or clause.
Attachment of personal pronouns and forms of the verb sum to pragmatically prom-
inent hosts can be seen from the oldest texts onwards and it is still common in the
letters of Claudius Terentianus.
Recently the term preferential host has been introduced to refer to various
types of constituents that are said to ‘attract’ personal pronouns and forms of the verb
sum, which are as a consequence positioned immediately next to them.⁹¹ The label
‘preferential hosts’ covers at least five types of words and constituents. First of all there
are words which are, on account of their meaning and function, mostly found in the
initial position (for instance relative and interrogative pronouns discussed above,
§ 23.25 and § 23.28) and for that very reason can most of the time only be followed by
other constituents. Then there are words and constituents that derive their pragmatic
prominence from their context (contrastive words or phrases, for example). A third
category are temporal adverbs like iam (‘at this point of time, now (as opposed to
another time)’).⁹² Fourthly, there are words that are intrinsically emphatic on account
⁸⁹ Torrego (2017b: 171–3) discusses some noteworthy instances of ad me in sentence-initial position in

Aug. Anc. 31–3.
⁹⁰ See, for example, K.-St.: II.593, Anm. 2. Some scholars have assumed that in Indo-European verbs in
general behaved like clitics. For discussion, see Marouzeau (1938: 93–6).
⁹¹ The term is taken from Adams. For clitics and host words, see in particular Adams (1994a; 1994b)
and Janse (1994; 1997), Kruschwitz (2004) for Republican inscriptions, and Spevak (2006a).
⁹² The paraphrase is taken from OLD s.v. iam § 1.
 Word order
of their meaning. This category comprises demonstrative pronouns and adverbs,

adjectives and adverbs of dimension (size and quantity) and value (including superla-
tives), intensifiers, and negatives. Note that the adjectives of dimension and value
involved more often precede their head nouns than other adjectives and are often
discontinuous from their head nouns (see § 23.79). The same holds for demonstrative
determiners (see § 23.72). Finally, there are imperative forms, when used in the initial
position (see § 23.55). Some of these preferential hosts are often found in the first
position of a colon that is not the first colon of the sentence or clause.
In Cic. Catil. (books 1 and 2) 86.4 per cent of accusative and dative personal pro-
nouns (not being part of a prepositional phrase) have the second position in a colon,
the large majority of which are in the first colon, and of these pronouns in second
position 62 per cent follow one of the preferential hosts mentioned above. In another
corpus (Cic. Catil. 1, Petr. 1–62, Apul. Met. 3–4), 50 out of 56 accusative and dative
personal pronouns immediately follow the relative pronouns in their clause.⁹³
The main question to be answered is whether the order that we find (personal pro-
nouns and forms of the verb sum following the items mentioned) has to be regarded
as the outcome of one and the same rule or tendency or as the outcome of two differ-
ent rules or tendencies: one in which these words follow other words that are normally
restricted to an initial position (relative pronouns, for example) and one in which they
are preceded by pragmatically prominent words. The assumption of this second rule
or tendency is attractive since these pragmatically prominent words also precede the
words that are normally restricted to the initial position, such as relative pronouns
and subordinators. We find, for example, combinations with the discontinuous modi-
fier nullus such as (a)–(d).
(a) . . . si tibi ita penitus inhaesisset ista suspicio, nullo ut evelli modo posset . . .
(‘. . . should your suspicion prove to be so deeply engrained in your mind that it can by
no means be eradicated . . .’ Cic. Mil. 68)
(b) ‘Hic nodus’, inquit, ‘nulla quem cepit manus, / mecum per ignes flagret.’
(‘ “Let this club,” he said, “which no hand but mine has wielded, burn in the flames
with me.”’ Sen. Her. O. 1661–2)
(c) Sed, ut supra dixi, nulla me ingenii, sed magna vis animi inflammat ut me
ipse non teneam.
(‘But, as I said before, it is no great intellectual gift, but a vigorous spirit which
inflames me to such an extent that I am beside myself.’ Cic. Orat. 132)
(d) Nullum est in hac urbe collegium . . .
(‘There is no guild in this city . . .’ Cic. Dom. 74)
In addition, pragmatically prominent modifiers such as nullus may precede personal

pronouns, but they do not have to. Sequences such as (e), where me precedes the noun
⁹³ Adams (1994a: 145; 151–5).

Constituents with more or less fixed position 
phrase nulla vis, and (f), where the noun phrase nullus dolor precedes me, as well as a
sequence such as (g), where me separates the noun phrase nulla res, are attested (the
last order is more frequent in Cicero than the other two).⁹⁴
(e) Quod profecto, cum me nulla vis cogeret, facere[t] non auderem . . .
(‘And that, since no force compels me, is something that I obviously should not dare
to do . . .’ Cic. Phil. 5.51)
(f) Nullus dolor me angit unum omnia posse.
(‘It does not give me a pang that one man absorbs all power.’ Cic. Att. 4.18.2)
(g) A curia autem nulla me res divellet . . .
(‘But nothing shall separate me from the House . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.20.3)
23.32 The position of personal pronouns

The personal pronouns ego, tu, nos, and vos and the oblique forms have on account of
their meaning a high degree of topicality: the referents of these words are by defin-
ition ‘known’. It follows that they are excellent candidates for an early position in the
sentence or clause, including the initial position, unless there are other candidates for
that position. Such candidates have been mentioned in the preceding section.
Nominative forms of Latin personal pronouns are only used under well-defined prag-
matic conditions (see § 9.2), but as far as their position is concerned, they are not
essentially different from the oblique forms functioning as second or third argument
in their clause.⁹⁵ Contrastive ego and mihi are both found in the initial position, as in (a)
and (b). In (c) and (d) they are preceded by emphatic nullum and nullae, respectively
(thus contributing to discontinuity of the respective noun phrases); ‘|’ = colon boundary.
(a) In id redactu’ sum loci, / ut quid agam cum illo nesciam prorsum. # Ego scio.
(‘I’m reduced to such a state that I have no idea at all what to do. # I have.’ Ter. Ph.
979–80)
(b) Sed quae ex statu contentio efficitur, eam Graeci u{txwpxzx appellant, mihi
placet id, quoniam quidem ad te scribo, QUA DE RE AGITUR vocari.
(‘The debate which arises from the issue (status) is called by the Greeks u{txĄwpxzx
(the thing being decided), but I prefer to call it qua de re agitur (the question at stake)
especially in writing to you.’ Cic. Top. 95)
(c) Quibus pro tantis rebus, Quirites, | nullum ego a vobis praemium virtutis,
nullum insigne honoris, nullum monumentum laudis postulabo praeter-
quam huius diei memoriam sempiternam.
(‘In recognition of such great services, citizens, I shall demand of you no reward for
my valour, no signal mark of distinction, no monument in my honour except that
this day be remembered for all time.’ Cic. Catil. 3.26)
⁹⁴ In Cicero the sequences ‘me null* noun’, ‘null* noun me’ and ‘null* me noun’ have three, two, and
nine instances, respectively.
⁹⁵ See Adams (1994a: 141–51; 1999a).
 Word order
(d) Nam ut Brundisio profectus es, | nullae mihi abs te sunt redditae litterae.
(‘For since you left Brundisium, not a single letter from you has been delivered to me.’
Cic. Att. 1.15.2)
The actual position of personal pronouns in their clause depends on how many other
constituents are candidates for the first or an early position, as well as the size of these
constituents. When personal pronouns are placed in a later position in the clause, they
are often, but not necessarily, second in their colon. Exx. (e)–(h) have both a thematic or
topical and an emphatic constituent preceding the personal pronouns, as well as connect-
ing words. Nulla in (e) is emphatic. Voluntatem in (f) is in contrast with rem ipsam in the
following clause. Equidem in (g) is another emphatic host. In (h), tibi splits hac epistula
(a case of hyperbaton); hac is in contrast with reliquis. In (i), however, after the topic ipsi
Leontini there is no clear colon boundary that might explain the position of me.
(e) De triumpho autem | nulla me cupiditas umquam tenuit . . .
(‘With regard to the Triumph, no desire ever took hold of me . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.2.6)
(f) Ego autem | voluntatem tibi profecto emetiar, sed rem ipsam nondum posse
videor.
(‘I am prepared to make payment of goodwill in full measure, but the debt itself I do
not now seem able to pay.’ Cic. Brut. 16)
(g) In cotidianis autem commentationibus | equidem mihi adulescentulus pro-
ponere solebam illam exercitationem . . .
(‘As for my daily exercises, in my youth I, for my part, would set myself that task . . .’
(h) Qua re Cuspianorum omnium commendationis causam | hac tibi epistula
exponendam putavi, reliquis epistulis tantum faciam ut . . .
(‘I have therefore deemed it proper in this letter to set before you the general position
as regards my recommendation of Cuspius’ people. In future letters I shall simply . . .’
Cic. Fam. 13.6.2)
(i) Meae diligentiae pensum magis in Leontino agro est exigendum propter
hanc causam quod ipsi Leontini publice non sane me multum (multum me
O) adiuverunt.
(‘In dealing with the land of Leontini, a larger measure of earnest care must be
required of me; for, I must confess, the people of Leontini have not, as a corporate
body, helped me a great deal.’ Cic. Ver. 3.109)
Personal pronouns are also found in final position, when they are the focus of the
sentence or clause, as in ( j) and (k).
( j) Quem aequiu’st nos potiorem habere quam te?
(‘Who would it be right for us to treat better than you?’ Pl. St. 97)
(k) Ne optandum quidem est in amicitia, ut me ille plus quam se, ego illum plus
quam me.
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(‘It is not to be desired in friendship either that my friend should love me more than
himself, or I love him more than myself.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.73)
The fact that a personal pronoun is preceded by an emphatic word or is otherwise pre-
ceded by pragmatically prominent constituents need not imply that the pronoun is not
itself a pragmatically prominent constituent in its clause. This becomes clear from (l)
and (m). In (l), mihi (governed by pergratum and therefore immediately juxtaposed) is
in contrast with Scaevolae (and probably was stressed in pronunciation). A few lines
further on in the text Scaevola reacts to Fannius’ words: ‘Mihi vero erit gratum . . .’ (Cic.
Amic. 16). In (m), the topic of the si clause servi mei is in contrast with omnes cives tui,
and for that reason precedes the subordinator si. Me is in contrast with te.
(l) . . . pergratum mihi feceris, spero item Scaevolae, si . . .
(‘. . . it would be very agreeable to me—and to Scaevola, too, I hope, if . . .’ Cic. Amic. 16)
(m) Servi mehercule mei si me isto pacto metuerent, ut te metuunt omnes cives
tui, domum meam relinquendam putarem.
(‘If, by Hercules, my slaves feared me as much as all your countrymen fear you, I
would think that I should get out of my house.’ Cic. Catil. 1.17)
Personal pronouns are also involved in tmesis, as in (n) (see § 23.102). Per is emphatic.
(n) Per mihi, per, inquam, gratum feceris . . .
(‘You’ll do me a great, a very great pleasure indeed . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.20.7)
The fact that personal pronouns are so often found in second position is sometimes
interpreted as a sign of these pronouns being ‘enclitic’, ‘unstressed’, ‘weak’, ‘ton-
schwach’, etc. Scholars have also tried to relate this observation to the fact that in
Modern French, for example, there is a distinction between me and moi. There is no
reason to interpret the Latin data in this way.⁹⁶ Apart from the flexibility of their pos-
ition, as shown above, one may point to their use in metrical texts, where they occur
in the position of the ‘longa’, as in (o).⁹⁷ The use of punctuation after expressions like
misi tibi in the Wâdi Fawâkhir ostraca and in the Vindolanda Tablets suggests that
they were considered as units.⁹⁸
(o) Sed sine me dum hanc compellare.
(‘But let me address her.’ Pl. Men. 378)
As for the actual position of the oblique personal pronouns (not governed by pre-
positions) in their clause, in a sample from Cicero Tusc. and Att. Spevak (2006a: 270)
gives the following percentages for the positions of me, mihi, te, and tibi (Table 23.1):
⁹⁶ ‘Weak’ or ‘enclitic’ use of the oblique personal pronouns prefiguring the Romance situation is not-
ably proposed by Wanner (1987) and Salvi (2004). A more nuanced approach can be found in
Adams (1994a; b). For a critical discussion, see Spevak (2006a). For the position of nobis and vobis, see
Fraenkel (1966).
⁹⁷ For metrical considerations, see Spevak (2006a: 268–9). The fundamental study on monosyllables
in verse is Hellegouarc’h (1964).
⁹⁸ Adams (1996) draws attention to the use of punctuation in the Wâdi Fawâkhir ostraca and in the
Vindolanda Tablets.
 Word order
Table . Position of oblique personal pronouns in their clause (percentages)

1 2 3 4 5 other total (absolute number)
15 37 25 12 6 5 100% (326)
As for their position with respect to the finite verb, 40 per cent are immediately next
to the finite verb (26 per cent preceding, 14 per cent following), 60 per cent are not
contiguous. There is no reason to assume that in Cicero’s time there was a tendency
for personal pronouns to be attached to the verb, as is the case in Modern French.
In a number of ‘informal’ texts (the Letters of Terentianus and the Passio Perpetuae)
oblique pronouns mostly follow the finite verb in main clauses and are mostly juxta-
posed to it.⁹⁹
The Supplement contains a number of examples of personal pronouns, first those fol-
lowing words which are emphatic on account of their meaning,¹⁰⁰ then those follow-
ing pragmatically prominent ones.
Supplement:
Demonstratives: Huius te cupiditati obsequi, sicuti ego fecissem in collega meo. (Cic.
Pis. 12); Itaque istum ego locum totidem verbis a Dicaearcho transtuli. (Cic. Att. 6.2.3);
Sed, ut coeperam dicere, ad hanc me fortunam frugalitas mea perduxit. (Petr. 75.10)
Relatives: Cognoscite nunc id quod ad vestrum ius iurandum pertinet, quod vestri
iudicii est, quod vobis oneris imposuit ea lex qua coacti huc convenistis . . . (Cic. Clu.
164); Quorum vobis pro vestra sapientia, Quirites, habenda est ratio diligenter. (Cic.
Man. 17)
Adjectives and adverbs of dimension (size and quantity): Iam intelleges multo me
vigilare acrius ad salutem quam te ad perniciem rei publicae. (Cic. Catil. 1.8); Tantane
vobis inopia videor esse amicorum, ut . . . (Cic. Div. Caec. 50); . . . ad quos omnis nobis
aditus, qui paene solis patuit, obstructus est. (Cic. Brut. 16); Summum me eorum
studium tenet . . . (Cic. Att. 1.11.3); Nunc ad rem ut redeam, ‘inhibere’ illud tuum,
quod valde mihi adriserat, vehementer displicet. (Cic. Att. 13.21.3); bis me im
mensem calcio (CEL 142.26 (Karanis, 2nd cent. ad (early)))
Adjectives and adverbs of value: Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam quidem
tam praeclarum mihi dedisti iudicii tui testimonium. (Cic. Leg. 3.1); Mirum me desi-
derium tenet urbis . . . (Cic. Fam. 2.11.1)
Superlatives: Quae dum erit in vestris fixa mentibus, tutissimo me muro saeptum esse
arbitrabor. (Cic. Catil. 4.23); In quo maximum nobis onus imposuit. (Cic. Phil. 11.19)
Negatives: Ephesum ut venerim nosti, qui etiam mihi gratulatus es illius diei celebri-
tatem, qua nihil me umquam delectavit magis. (Cic. Att. 5.20.1); . . . hoc existimans,
neminem te tui amantiorem habere. (Cic. Fam. 5.10b)
Pragmatically prominent pronouns: Te ego ulciscar, te ego ut digna es perdam atque
ut de me meres. (Pl. As. 148); Ut meque teque maxume atque ingenio nostro decuit.
(Pl. As. 577); Numquam hercle iterum defrudabis me quidem post hunc diem.
⁹⁹ For details, see Adams (2016: 324–46).

¹⁰⁰ Most of the examples are taken from Adams (1994a). For the various contexts in which ‘weak’ pro-
nouns occur, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 277–312). For Petronius, see Janse and de Melo (2013).
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(Pl. Rud. 1416); In quo ego accusatore, iudices, primum illud deprecabor ne quid
L. Murenae dignitas illius . . . noceat . . . (Cic. Mur. 58—contrast with illius?); Quid fit?
Quamquam non debebam ego abs te has litteras poscere. Me enim tabulas tuas
habere et proferre oportebat. (Cic. Ver. 4.36)
Sz.: 400 discusses instances of ‘clustering’¹⁰¹ of pronouns in the initial part of a clause,
as in (p) and (q), which he regards as a trace of Indo-European. Such cases seem to
be rather a specific pragmatic constellation than a rule-governed form of clustering.
(p) Verum hoc ego te multabo bolo: / sex talenta magna dotis demam . . .
(‘But I’ll punish you with this fine: I’ll deduct six great talents from your
dowry . . .’ Pl. Truc. 844–5)
(q) Sed erile scelus me sollicitat, eius me impietas male habet.
(‘But it’s my master’s crime that’s troubling me, it’s his wickedness that’s dis-
tressing me.’ Pl. Rud. 198)
23.33 The position of forms of the verb sum

Forms of the verb sum ‘to be’, especially the monosyllabic second and third person
forms es and est and the infinitive esse, are often found in the ‘shadow’ of constituents
with a more prominent (pragmatic) role in the clause. The examples cited below follow
the order of the ‘preferential hosts’ mentioned in § 23.31. In (a), est follows the ana-
phorically used determiner huius. As a result the noun phrase huius urbis, which con-
trasts with Atticorum in the parallel clause, is separated (a case of hyperbaton, as several
below). In (b), esse follows the relative pronoun. The placement of forms of sum imme-
diately after the relative pronoun is particularly common.¹⁰² In (c), the adjective libero-
rum, which is in contrast with foederatorum, precedes est. In (d), contrast is implied. In
(e), est follows the discourse topic of the entire work. In (f), the adjective of dimension
ingentem precedes esse. In (g), a degree modifier precedes est. In (h), the intensifying
prefix per precedes fore, causing tmesis (on which, see § 23.102).¹⁰³
(a) (sc. suavitas) Quae quidem ut apud Graecos Atticorum, sic in Latino ser-
mone huius est urbis maxime propria.
(‘A merit which as among the Greeks it is peculiar to Attica so in Latin speech is spe-
cially the attribute of this city.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.42)
(b) Esse etiam debent in re publica proxime hos cari qui studiorum tuorum sunt
aemuli, quorum esse cupio tibi copiam.
(‘Next to them in your affections should stand those who emulate your patriotic
ideals. I wish you to have many such.’ Cas. Fam. 12.13.2)
(c) . . . quod commune liberorum est populorum, non proprium foederatorum . . .
(‘. . . a principle which applied to free peoples and was not restricted to those bound to
us by treaty . . .’ Cic. Balb. 27)
¹⁰¹ ‘Paarweise Zusammenordnung’. ¹⁰² See Adams (1994b: 44–53).

¹⁰³ For full discussion, see Adams (1994b). Most of the examples are taken from this study.
 Word order
(d) Catilina, si iudicatum erit meridie non lucere, certus erit competitor.
(‘If Catiline’s jury finds that the sun doesn’t shine at midday, he will certainly be a
candidate.’ Cic. Att. 1.1.1)
(e) Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres . . .
(‘The whole territory of Gaul is divided into three parts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)
(f) Dici gladiorum ingentem esse numerum ad eum convectum.
(‘It was said that a great quantity of swords had been carried to him.’ Liv. 1.51.6)
(g) . . . patria, quae mihi vita mea multo est carior . . .
(‘. . . my country, which means much more to me than my own life . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.27)
(h) . . . per fore accommodatum tibi si ad Sidam [maritimam partem provinciae]
navibus accessissem.
(‘. . . that it would therefore be very much to your convenience if I made my approach
by sea and landed at Side.’ Cic. Fam. 3.5.3)
Supplement:
Demonstratives: . . . iam non possum oblivisci meam hanc esse patriam, me horum
esse consulem . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.27); Cum ille is sit orator ut nihil eo possit esse
praestantius, ego autem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.32); Populi Romani hanc esse consuetudi-
nem ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.43.8)
Relatives: . . . positum caput illud fuit a quo erant multorum civium capita servata.
(Cic. de Orat. 3.10); Ad alteram partem succedunt Ubii, quorum fuit civitas ampla
atque florens, ut est captus Germanorum. (Caes. Gal. 4.3.3)
Adjectives and adverbs of dimension (size and quantity): . . . qui si diutius vixissent,
magnam essent eloquentiae laudem consecuti. (Cic. Brut. 279); Quae si longior fue-
rit oratio cum magnitudine utilitatis comparetur. (Cic. Off. 2.20); Quintus frater
cum . . . Athenas venisset Id. Mai., valde fuit ei properandum . . . (Cic. Att. 3.9.1);
Omnium esse militum paratissimos animos. (Caes. Civ. 1.71.2); Ex his omnibus
longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.14.1); Inter quos
magna fuit contentio, utrum moenibus <se> defenderent an . . . (Nep. Milt. 4.4)
Adjectives and adverbs of value: Tanta malorum est multitudo civium (malorum
civium est multitudo H) ut tibi ego hoc confirmem . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.269)
Superlatives: M. Crassus . . . ab eadem illa peste infestissimus esse meis fortunis praedi-
cabatur. (Cic. Sest. 39); . . . cum saepissime tibi senatus breviter impoliteque dicenti maxi-
mis sit de rebus adsensus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.214); . . . qua optimum esse egressum superiore
aestate cognoverat. (Caes. Gal. 5.8.3); Summo esse in periculo rem . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.32.3)
Negatives: Non est enim consilium in volgo, non ratio . . . (Cic. Planc. 9); Quia nihil est
victoria dulcius, nullum est autem testimonium victoriae certius quam . . . (Cic. Ver.
5.66); Mearum epistularum nulla est }xlnni. (Cic. Att. 16.5.5)
Forms of the verb sum are often regarded as clitic, especially the forms es and est.¹⁰⁴
However, all forms of sum in its three different functions of existential (incl. locative)
verb, copula, and auxiliary are found both in sentence-initial position and in final
¹⁰⁴ Forms of the fu-stem behave differently from those of the es-stem (Adams 1994b: 46f.).
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
position. Bound clitics are attached to them. They are followed by connectors like
autem and igitur, as is illustrated by a few periphrastic expressions with auxiliary est
in (i)–(l). They also behave as independent units in verse, as demonstrated by (m).
These are all clear proofs that these forms are not clitic.
(i) Undeviginti annos natus erat eo tempore. Est autem L. Paullo C. Marcello
consulibus mortuus.
(‘He was then only nineteen years of age. His death occurred in the consulship of
Lucius Paullus and Gaius Marcellus.’ Cic. Brut. 229)
( j) Nihil est damni factum novi, sed quod erat inventum est.
(‘No fresh harm has been done, but harm already there has come to light.’ Cic. Att.
1.16.9)
(k) Estque in ea quaedam paulo subtilior observatio adhibenda.
(‘And so a somewhat closer consideration may be given to the matter.’ Cels. 1.3.18)
(l) Quid est autem umquam questus nisi cum a sociis et a se iniuriam propul-
saret?
(‘And when did he ever raise his voice in protest, save to protect himself and his part-
ners from wrong?’ Cic. Planc. 34)
(m) Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis.
(‘Whatever it be, I fear the Greeks, even when bringing gifts.’ Verg. A. 2.49)
On the other hand, the close attachment of the forms est and es to a preceding word is
apparent from their contraction (or: prodelision) after participles and subject
complements ending in a vowel, -m, or -s—that is, when sum is an auxiliary verb or a
copula—especially at the end of a clause. This is particularly common in poetry but
also frequent in prose. It is also found in inscriptions. Illustrations are (n), following a
vowel, (o), following a final -m, and (p), after a final -s.¹⁰⁵
(n) . . . raptusque · a · fatis · conditus · hoc · tumulo’st
(‘. . . and snatched away by Fate he’s buried in this grave.’ CIL XII.882.6 (Arles, 1st
cent. ad))
(o) . . . et certa ratione probatum’st.
(‘. . . and proved by irrefutable reasoning.’ Lucr. 2.94)
(p) Usus, fructus, victus, cultus iam mihi harunc aedium / interemptu’st,
interfectu’st, alienatu’st. Occidi!
(‘The ability to use, enjoy, live in, and inhabit this house is now taken away from me,
ruined, removed. I’m done for!’ Pl. Mer. 832–3)
¹⁰⁵ The examples are taken from Allen (1973: 148–9). For poetry, see Soubiran (1966); for Caesar,
Vogel (1938: 10). For the clitic characteristics of sum in general, see Adams (1994b: 86–8) and
Spevak (2006a: 261–5). The fullest account of the evidence for contraction can be found in Pezzini (2015:
27–97), where a full discussion of the factors involved can be found as well.
 Word order
. Emphasizing particles
Emphasizing particles often follow the constituent they have in their scope. Here it
will suffice to give a few illustrations of quidem and quoque, for both of which this
position is the rule. For the other particles, see the relevant sections in Chapter 22.
The particle quidem (see § 22.26) normally follows the constituent it has in its scope,
whatever the position of that constituent, as in (a) and (b). If the constituent in its
scope is a noun phrase, quidem follows the first word of the phrase and so causes
discontinuity, as in (c)—repeated from § 22.20. Here, quidem marks the contrast
between the entire noun phrase vestros . . . animos and oratione nostra and humani-
tate vestra.¹⁰⁶
(a) Loquacitati . . . quae . . . me levat ad te quidem scribentem . . .
(‘Garrulity . . . which relieves me, writing to you . . .’ Cic. Att. 7.13.4)
(b) Venisti Brundisium, in sinum quidem et in complexum tuae mimulae.
(‘You arrived in Brundisium, into the bosom and arms, that is to say, of your little
mime actress.’ Cic. Phil. 2.61)
(c) Sed si certorum hominum mentis nulla ratione, iudices, placare possumus,
vestros quidem animos certe confidimus non oratione nostra, sed humani-
tate vestra esse placatos.
(‘But if, gentlemen, there are no means by which we can appease the feelings of cer-
tain men, I am fully confident that your minds have been appeased, not by words of
mine but by your own human feelings.’ Cic. Balb. 62)
When quidem is less evidently emphasizing a particular constituent it often is attracted

to demonstrative or relative pronouns, as in (d).
(d) Verbis non ille quidem ornatis utebatur, sed . . .
(‘His vocabulary was not elaborate, but. . .’ Cic. Brut. 227)
The scalar negator ne . . . quidem usually surrounds the constituent it has in its scope,
but subordinators and relative pronouns are sometimes included as well, as in (e). If
the constituent is a noun phrase only the first word of the phrase is surrounded by
ne . . . quidem, as in (f). See also § 8.3 fin. and § 8.14.¹⁰⁷
(e) In qua curia statua tua stabat et nuda filii, in ea nemo fuit ne quem nudus
quidem filius nudata provincia commoveret.
(‘There in the senate-house stood your statue and the naked figure of your son; and
there was no one in that senate-house who was moved even by your naked son, in
that province that was itself stripped naked.’ Cic. Ver. 4.143)
¹⁰⁶ See Spevak (2010a: 52–3), from which ex. (f) is taken. For the clitic use of quidem, see Questa (2007:
153–61).
¹⁰⁷ For the ordering patterns of ne . . . quidem, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 266–72), Spevak (2010a:
53), and TLL s.v. ne (. . . quidem) 331.67ff.
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(f) Ne eo quidem tempore quisquam loco cessit . . .

(‘Not even then did any man yield his ground . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.62.7)
The additive particle quoque (see §§ 22.21–2) usually follows the constituent it has in
its scope, or an emphasized part of it, as in (g), but sometimes it is inserted in a phrase
without emphasizing only the preceding word, as in (h). In (i), a poetic text, contrast-
ive te is placed before the subordinator si although it is in the scope of quoque.¹⁰⁸
(g) Tametsi . . . scio . . . quam omnibus peregrinantibus gratum sit minimarum
quoque rerum quae domi gerantur fieri certiores.
(‘However, I know how . . . much everybody abroad likes to be told of even the most
trifling happenings at home.’ Cael. Fam. 8.1.1)
(h) . . . non solum hortabor ut elaboret sed etiam, si vir quoque bonus mihi
videbitur esse, obsecrabo.
(‘I shall not merely encourage him to work out his purpose but, provided that I also
think his character sound, I shall positively implore him to do so.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.85)
(i) A, ego non aliter tristes evincere morbos / optarim quam te si quoque velle
putem.
(‘Ah, I would not pray to triumph over the drear disease if I thought not that thou
wouldst wish it too.’ [Tib.] 3.17(4.11).3–4)
. Bound clitics
Bound clitics form a phonetic unit with the host to which they are attached. The com-
bination functions as one word as far as accentuation is concerned.
23.36 The position of the coordinators -que and -ve

The coordinating clitics -que and -ve are usually attached to the first word of the sec-
ond or later conjoin. Examples are (a)–(f). In (b) and (c) -que splits up the constitu-
ents regi Thebano Creoni and summam inopiam, as does -ve in (e) with quam insaniam
and in (f) with numen divinum.
(a) Nunc quoius iussu venio et quam ob rem venerim, / dicam simulque ipse
eloquar nomen meum.
(‘And now I’ll tell you on whose command and for what reason I’ve come, and at the
same time I’ll tell you my name.’ Pl. Am. 17–18)
(b) . . . regique Thebano Creoni regnum stabilivit suom.
(‘. . . and he has secured the kingship for the Theban king, Creon.’ Pl. Am. 194)
(c) Difficultatem annonae summamque inopiam rei frumentariae . . . nemo negat.
(‘The oppressive prices of grain and the great scarcity of provisions . . . are denied by
none.’ Cic. Dom. 12)
¹⁰⁸ For this example and parallels, see Tränkle ad loc. For the ordering patterns of quoque, see Devine
and Stephens (2006: 265–6).
 Word order
(d) Videti’n viginti minae quid pollent quidve possunt?

(‘Can you see what power and what might twenty minas has?’ Pl. As. 636)
(e) Noenum mecastor quid ego ero dicam meo / malae rei evenisse quamve
insaniam / queo comminisci.
(‘I simply cannot imagine what misfortune or what madness I should say has come
over my master.’ Pl. Aul. 67–9)
(f) . . . nisi qui nullam vim esse ducit numenve divinum . . .
(‘. . . unless there be any who thinks that there is no such thing as divine power and
control . . .’ Cic. Mil. 83)
The coordinating clitics -que and -ve are not attached to connectors, interactional
particles, or interrogative particles, nor to the negator non, but they are found with all
other word classes. They are usually not attached to monosyllabic adverbs like iam,
tam, and quam, but to another word of the constituent to which these monosyllables
belong, as in (g)–(i). Attachment of these clitics to the monosyllabic prepositions is
rare and for some not attested at all (see Table 23.2). Examples are ( j) and (k). Examples
of attachment of -que to other words of a conjoin are (l)–(o). Very rare is (p).¹⁰⁹ For
the position of -que, see also § 19.25 fin.
Table . Use of the coordinators -que and -ve with a number of prepositions
(in the PHI corpus)
a ab ob sub ad in de apud sine contra trans
a b c
-que 9 – – – 4 >300 205 – 5 72 9
-ve – – – 1 – 1 5 – – 1 –
a
Only Virgil (once) and Ovid.
b
Especially in poetry (and often in Ovid).
c
Many in Gellius.
(g) Ut iam liceat una comprehensione omnia complecti non dubitantemque

dicere omnem naturam esse servatricem sui . . .
(‘So that finally we may embrace all animate existence in one broad generalization,
and without hesitation say, that all nature is self-preserving . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.26)
(h) In hoc igitur tanto tam immensoque campo cum liceat oratori vagari libere . . .
(‘Consequently as the orator has the liberty to roam freely in so wide and so measure-
less a field . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.124)
(i) Fac, mi frater, ut valeas quam primumque venias.
(‘Be sure to keep well, my dear brother, and come as soon as you can.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.6.4)
( j) Is . . . Cumas contulisse se dicitur inque ea urbe senio et aegritudine esse
confectus.
¹⁰⁹ For Lucretius, see Deufert (2018: 349–50).

Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(‘He . . . withdrew, we are told, to Cumae and in that city was brought to the grave by
old age and distress of mind.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.27)
(k) . . . unum illud spectavi, quod Chrysogonus aiebat . . . de bonorum emptione
deque ea societate neminem esse qui verbum facere auderet hoc tempore.
(‘. . . my only consideration has been the assertion of Chrysogonus that . . . no one in
times like these would dare to utter a word about the purchase of the goods and about
this partnership.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 58)
(l) Rerum est silva magna, quam cum Graeci iam non tenerent ob eamque
causam iuventus nostra dedisceret paene discendo, etiam Latini, si diis
placet, hoc biennio magistri exstiterunt.
(‘There is a large stock of ideas, which were no longer kept to themselves by the
Greeks and which, for this reason, our young students virtually unlearned in the
process of learning them, so that in the last two years there actually arose, heaven
help us! Latin professors of rhetoric.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.93)
(m) Scripserat etiam Messalla Q. Salasso P. Curtium . . . interfectum, quod con-
sensisset . . . eum comprehendere ad Caesaremque deducere.
(‘Messalla too has written to Q. Salassus that P. Curtius . . . has been executed, because
he conspired . . . to seize him (sc. Pompey) and hand him over to Caesar.’ Cic. Fam.
6.18.2)
(n) . . . summam fuisse eius in victu temperantiam in rebusque gerundis virum
acrem et industrium . . .
(‘. . . that this man was exceedingly temperate in his way of life and in conducting
affairs showed untiring energy . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 5.57)
(o) . . . si . . . pluris esse contendat dulcedinem corporis ex eave natam laetitiam
quam gravitatem animi atque constantiam.
(‘. . . if she . . . maintained that bodily enjoyment or the mental gratification which
springs from it is of higher value than firmness and dignity of character.’ Cic. Fin. 3.1)
(p) . . . primordia ferri / in vacuum prolapsa cadunt coniuncta, fit utque / anulus
ipse sequatur eatque ita corpore toto.
(‘. . . first-beginnings of the iron start forward and fall into the void, all joined together,
and it comes to pass that the ring itself follows and advances in this way with its
whole body.’ Lucr. 6.1005–7)
Supplement:
Instances of -que immediately following monosyllabic adverbs: Qui facinus tantum
tamque indignum feceris? (Pl. Mil. 498); Neque tu eras tam excors tamque demens
ut . . . (Cic. Dom. 48); Est autem fidei pietatisque nostrae declarare fortissimis militibus
quam memores simus quamque grati. (Cic. Phil. 14.29)
Instances of -que and -ve attached to monosyllabic and polysyllabic prepositions
(in alphabetical order by preposition): . . . aque Chao densos divom numerabat amores.
(Verg. G. 4.347); Marius ostio Liris evehitur adque Aenariam suos continuatur. (Sis.
hist. 125=131C); Sex. Pompeius et Sex. Apuleius consules primi in verba Tiberii
 Word order
Caesaris iuravere, apudque eos Seius Strabo et C. Turranius, ille praetoriarum cohor-
tium praefectus, hic annonae; mox senatus milesque et populus. (Tac. Ann. 1.7.2);
Periphanem, per omnem urbem quem sum defessus quaerere. / . . . per myropolia et
lanienas circumque argentarias. (Pl. Epid. 197–9); Ac si quando erit narrandum, ne
illa, quae suspicionem et crimen efficient contraque nos erunt, acriter persequamur,
et quicquid potuerit, detrahamus. (Cic. de Orat. 2.330); Nam iam Antiphonem con-
veni affinem meum / cumque eo reveni ex inimicitia in gratiam. (Pl. St. 408–9); Si
quam legem de actis Caesaris confirmandis deve dictatura in perpetuum tollenda
deve coloniis in agros deducendis tulisse M. Antonius dicitur, easdem leges de inte-
gro ut populum teneant salvis auspiciis ferri placet. (Cic. Phil. 5.10); . . . inque tanta
libertate canes etiam et equi, aselli denique libere [sint] sic incurrant ut iis de via
decedendum sit. (Cic. Rep. 1.67); ‘Qui ab A. Postumio Q. Fulvio censoribus postve ea
testamentum fecit fecerit.’ (Cic. Ver. 1.106); Multa autem impendere videntur praeter
naturam etiam praeterque fatum. (Cic. Phil. 1.10); Non pedibus termento fuit, praeut
ego erum expugnabo meum / sine classe sineque exercitu et tanto numero militum.
(Pl. Bac. 929–30); . . . castra plena omnis fortunae publicae privataeque relinquit
transque proximos montes laeva pedites instructos condit, dextra equites . . . (Liv.
22.41.6–7)
Instances of -que and -ve attached to another word belonging to a prepositional
phrase (in alphabetical order by preposition): Ac si restituor, etiam minus videbimur
deliquisse abs teque certe, quoniam nullo nostro, tuo ipsius beneficio diligemur. (Cic.
Att. 3.15.4); . . . quod consensisset cum Hispanis quibusdam . . . eum comprehendere ad
Caesaremque deducere. (Cic. Fam. 16.18.2); Deinde effundas repente ut ante conses-
sum meorum iudicum videam quam potuerim qui essent futuri suspicari, apud
eosque me . . . cogas causam de fortunis omnibus dicere? (Cic. Planc. 40); Explorato
cum firmisque praesidiis tuto receptu praedatum ierat . . . (Liv. 23.43.7); Itaque illi
Syracusani statuam postea statuerunt, et is ut primum potuit, istum reliquit de provin-
ciaque decessit. (Cic. Ver. 2.48); . . . eodem sub tegmine caeli / ex unoque sitim sedantes
flumine aquai / dissimili vivont specie . . . (Lucr. 2.632–4); In eodemque omnes mihi
videntur ludo doctae ad malitiam. (Ter. Hec. 203); Post paucosque dies . . . exercitus
Thermopylas reductus . . . (Liv. 36.21.3); Nam cum suspicimus magni caelestia mundi /
templa super stellisque micantibus aethera fixum . . . (Lucr. 5.1204–5)
-Que and -ve are usually attached not to the auxiliary part of a complex verb form, but
to the lexical part. Examples are (q) and (r). Instances with the clitics attached to the
auxiliary are (s)–(v).
(q) Iam vero venae et arteriae micare non desinunt . . . animadversumque saepe
est cum cor animantis alicuius evolsum ita mobiliter palpitaret ut . . .
(‘Again, the veins and arteries never cease throbbing . . . and frequent cases have been
observed when the heart of an animal on being torn out of its body has continued to
beat with a rapid motion . . .’ Cic. N.D. 2.24)
(r) (sc. Caesar) . . . contionem apud milites habuit hortatusque est ne ea quae
accidissent graviter ferrent . . .
(‘Caesar . . . addressed his soldiers and urged them not to be troubled by what had
happened . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.73.2)
Constituents with more or less fixed position 
(s) (sc. Karthaginem) Ad quam tu oppugnandam nunc venis paene miles, hanc
hoc biennio consul evertes, eritque cognomen id tibi per te partum quod
habes adhuc hereditarium a nobis.
(‘Carthage, that city to which you now come to lay siege, with a rank little above that
of a common soldier, within two years you as consul shall overthrow it and you will
win by your own efforts the surname which till now you have as an inheritance from
me.’ Cic. Rep. 6.11)
(t) Estque in ea quaedam paulo subtilior observatio adhibenda.
(‘And so a somewhat closer consideration may be given to the matter.’ Cels. 1.3.18)
(u) Et mihi siquis erat ducendi carminis usus, / deficit, estque minor factus
inerte situ.
(‘For me, too, whatever skill I had in shaping song is failing and is diminished by
inactive sloth.’ Ov. Pont. 1.5.7–8)
(v) Et quidem, si tibi constare vis, omnes quicumque nati sunt eruntve non
solum miseri, sed etiam semper miseri.
(‘And in fact, if you wish to be consistent, everyone who has been born or will be born
is not only wretched but will always be wretched as well.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.9)
23.37 The position of the interrogative particle -ne

The interrogative particle -ne is regularly attached to the first word of the sentence or
clause to emphasize it (see § 22.19 (iii)). An example is (a). In (b), it is used in an
exclamation. It can (in Cicero in 10–15 per cent of cases)¹¹⁰ also be attached to a prag-
matically prominent host word later in the sentence or clause, as in (c) and (d). In (d),
one is tempted to pause after the colon de reliquis rei publicae malis, which may be
regarded as a theme constituent. Then, obviously, -ne is in its regular post-initial pos-
ition. Other conditions under which the host word to which -ne is attached is not the
first word in its sentence or clause are when the sentence starts with a connector (e) or
a setting constituent, such as the ablative absolute clause in (f).
(a) Egone istuc dixi? # Tute istic, etiam adstante hoc Sosia.
(‘Did I tell you this? # Yes, you were there and Sosia here was standing right next to
you.’ Pl. Am. 747)
(b) Huncine hominem, hancine inpudentiam iudices, hanc audaciam!
(‘Look at this fellow, look at this unscrupulous impudence, gentlemen, this audacity!’
Cic. Ver. 5.62)
(c) Ai’n tu tandem? Is ipsusne’s? # Aio.
(‘Do you really say so? Are you the one yourself? # Yes.’ Pl. Trin. 987)
(d) Quid? De reliquis rei publicae malis licetne dicere?
(‘What then? Is it permitted to speak of the other public ills?’ Cic. Phil. 1.14)
¹¹⁰ See Spevak (2006a: 253).

 Word order
(e) Facio, inquit, equidem, sed audistine modo de Carneade?

(‘I do so, he replied, but have you heard any lectures on Carneades lately?’ Cic.
Fin. 5.6)
(f) Hac lege sublata videnturne vobis posse Caesaris acta servari?
(‘When this law is abolished, does it seem possible to you that Caesar’s acts be main-
tained?’ Cic. Phil. 1.19)
Supplement:
Argenti viginti minas habesne? (Pl. As. 579); Utrum ego istuc iocon’ assimulem an
serio? (Pl. Bac. 75);¹¹¹ Utrum igitur tandem perspicuisne dubia aperiuntur, an dubiis
perspicua tolluntur? (Cic. Fin. 4.67); Quid? Liberalitas, gratuitane est an mercen-
naria? (Cic. Leg. 1.48); Lege autem carens civitas estne ob <id> ipsum habenda nullo
loco? (Cic. Leg. 2.12); Romanos in illis ulterioribus munitionibus animine causa coti-
die exerceri putatis? (Caes. Gal. 7.77.10); Ornabat niveas nullane gemma manus?
(Prop. 3.6.12)
The particle -ne is not attached to connectors (understandably) and almost never to
prepositions. It is attached to another word of the prepositional phrase instead, as in
(g) and (h). Ex. (i) is a very rare exception.
(g) Extra ordinemne pecunia est data?
(‘Was any money paid irregularly?’ Cic. Font. 4)
(h) . . . et ignoras Domitius cum fascibusne sit.
(‘. . . and you don’t know whether Domitius has the fasces with him.’ Cic. Att. 8.15.1)
(i) ‘Contrane lucrum nil valere candidum / pauperis ingenium?’ querebar
adplorans tibi . . .
(‘I made my complaints, lamenting to you, “Has the fairest genius of a poor man no
weight against wealthy lucre?”’ Hor. Epod. 11.11–12—tr. Smart)
Supplement:
Quid ego? Sub gemman’ abstrusos habeo tuam matrem et patrem? (Pl. Cur. 606); Sed
ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers? (Cic. Fin. 2.107); Primum in nostrane potestate est,
quid meminerimus? (Cic. Fin. 2.104); In meane potestate ut sit spectrum tuum, ut,
simul ac mihi collibitum sit de te cogitare, illud occurrat? (Cic. Fam. 15.16.2); In quo
quaesitum est in totone circumitu illo orationis . . . an in principiis solum an in
extremis an in utraque parte numerus tenendus sit. (Cic. Orat. 204); . . . omnia sub
verbone creat natura paratque? (Lucr. 4.785); Contrane institutum fiebat antiquae
disciplinae tam probabile? (Gel. 1.11.9)
. The position of negation adverbs

The position of the negation adverbs non and haud is discussed in § 8.49. In finite
sentences the regular position of non as a sentence negator is in front of the finite verb
¹¹¹ Data on the position of -ne in Plautus can be found in Lodge s.v. 123B.
Word order in declarative sentences 
and instances of intervening constituents are rare, except in the circumstances

described in § 8.49. Examples are (a) and (b).¹¹²
(a) Corbulo cum suis copiis apud ripam Euphratis obvius non eam speciem
insignium et armorum praetulit ut diversitatem exprobraret.
(‘Corbulo with his own forces, encountering them on the bank of the Euphrates, did
not make such a display of insignia and arms as to reproach the others for their dis-
similarity.’ Tac. Ann. 15.16.4)
(b) Sed non Tiberius omisit incepta.
(‘But Tiberius did not abandon his undertaking.’ Tac. Ann. 6.32.3—tr. Woodman)
. The relative position of arguments, satellites,

secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs
Studies in which attention is paid to the relative order of arguments, satellites, second-
ary predicates, and verbs within a sentence or clause are relatively recent (and in none
of them are satellites and secondary predicates systematically included). Most older
studies (and also more recent ones) concentrate on the first and last position of sen-
tences and clauses and the type of constituents or words in these positions, with par-
ticular attention to the finite verb (from Roman times onwards, see § 23.2).¹¹³ This
line of approach is taken up later on in this chapter also. At a later stage scholars
looked at the relative order of object constituents and the (finite) verbs that govern
them. One stimulus for this approach was the interest in the difference between the
order of these constituents in Latin and in certain Romance languages.¹¹⁴
Scholars who concentrate on the relative order of arguments and verbs are con-
fronted with a number of methodological problems, some of which are discussed in
§ 23.1.¹¹⁵ In addition, there are two other issues to be solved:
(i) What precisely is meant by ‘sentence or clause’, as it is vaguely described
above? Some studies look at the relative order in sentences that are neither
complex nor compound (for these terms, see § 2.2) and in main clauses of
complex sentences, leaving subordinate clauses and complex sentences out of
account;¹¹⁶ others use any sequences of verbs and their arguments.¹¹⁷
(ii) How much attention is paid to the individual characteristics of the verbs in
these sentences or clauses, in terms of their valency and lexical meaning?
¹¹² Taken from Danckaert (2012: 13).

¹¹³ So, for example, K.-St.: II.597–603. They also look at the ‘intermediate’ positions. For the position
of the verb, see Linde (1923). For the position of the verb in Apuleius’ Met., see Bortolussi (2019).
¹¹⁴ For example, Richter (1903). In recent times Adams has paid much attention to the order OV/VO
in a number of publications, among them (2016). See § 23.104.
¹¹⁵ Relative order of arguments and verbs plays an important role in studies by Pinkster (1991b),
Cabrillana (1999b), Devine and Stephens (2006), Spevak (2010a), Hoffmann (2010b), and others.
¹¹⁶ So, for example, Spevak (2010a).
¹¹⁷ So, to some extent, Devine and Stephens (2006).
 Word order
Some studies are very detailed,¹¹⁸ while others limit themselves to two-place
verbs without further specifics or more or less ignore valency.¹¹⁹
Whatever position one takes on these issues, refining the analysis along those lines
results in a decrease of the number of comparable cases due to the fact that the number
of available texts and corpora is limited. Thus, if in a study on the arguments of three-
place verbs one wants to pay attention to the valency and the semantics of the verb
mitto ‘to send’ and one selects sequences containing ad te/tibi, litteras, and misi, there
appear to be only thirty-one of them in Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, with seven different
orderings.¹²⁰ Generalizations based on such small numbers are difficult to make.
As far as issue (i) is concerned, this Syntax will add a slightly different approach in
using the term ‘simple sentence’. Following the distinctions between a ‘sentence’
(‘a complete unit of communication’) and a ‘clause’ (‘a complete grammatical struc-
ture’) (see § 2.3) and between ‘simple clauses’ and ‘combined clauses’ (see § 2.2 and
§ 14.1), the term simple sentence is used for ‘a complete unit of communication
without subordinate clauses of whatever sort’.
Examples of simple sentences, all of which are declarative, are (a)–(f), of which (a)–(c)
follow each other immediately in the text.¹²¹ In the second sentence of (a), two
arguments of imperat are understood from the context (they are given topics); the
order of the explicit constituents is A2 V (or, in syntactic terms, O V); milites is (com-
pletive) focus. Not much of interest can be said about (b) in terms of word order. In (c),
the sentence starts with a setting constituent (interea). The order of the other constitu-
ents is A1 A2 V (or: S O V) (for further discussion of this example, see § 23.42). In (d),
the order of the second sentence is V A1 A2 (or: V S O) ^ (satellite), the latter probably
being focus (in contrast with ex litteris). In (e), the anaphoric adverb sic serves as a
manner ^. The sentence continues with another ^ (three asyndetically coordinated
cause adjuncts—see § 10.79), the A1 plerique, a P (in fact, three coordinated secondary
predicates), the A2 and the V (^ A1 P A2 V, or: ^ S P O V). The passive sentence in (f)
presents all-new information. The order A1 V (or: S V) can be explained as the natural
outcome of starting with a generally known concept. Permiscentur is focus.¹²²
(a) (. . . ad eum legati veniunt quaeque imperaverit se cupidissime facturos polli-
centur.) Milites (sc. A1 Caesar; sc. A3 eis) imperat.
(‘(. . . representatives (from Cingulum) came to him and promised to do his bidding
with great eagerness.) He requisitioned soldiers.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.2–3)
(b) Mittunt (sc. A1 Cingulani; sc. A2 milites).
(‘They sent them.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.3)
¹¹⁸ So, for example, Devine and Stephens (2006) and Spevak (2010a).
¹¹⁹ So, for example, LSS § 9.3.2.4 and Hoffmann (2010a).
¹²⁰ See Spevak (2010a: 138–41). For his study of an extended corpus on the relative order of subject,
object, and verb Hoffmann (2010a) could collect only 474 sequences. Panhuis (1982: Ch. 6) studies fifty-
seven occurrences of the verbs mitto and dimitto in Caesar’s de bello Gallico.
¹²¹ A = argument; A1 = first argument; A2 = second argument; A3 = third argument; V = (finite) verb;
^ = satellite; P = secondary predicate; S = subject; O = object.
¹²² I follow the punctuation of Damon’s OCT (on which see the Preface to the edition, p. lxiii).
Word order in declarative sentences 
(c) Interea legio XII Caesarem consequitur.

(‘Meanwhile the twelfth legion reached Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.3)
(d) Ut vero ex litteris (sc. Caesaris) ad senatum referretur impetrari (sc. a consu-
libus) non potuit. Referunt consules de re publica infinite.
(‘Consent could not be obtained (sc. from the consuls) for a motion on the letter’s
content. The consul’s motion initiated a general debate about public affairs.’ Caes.
Civ. 1.1.1)
(e) Sic vocibus consulis, terrore praesentis exercitus, minis amicorum Pompei
plerique compulsi inviti et coacti Scipionis sententiam sequuntur.
(‘Thus, due to the consul’s language, fear of the nearby army, and threats from
Pompey’s friends, the majority—under compulsion, unwilling, and coerced—backed
Scipio’s proposal.’ Caes. Civ. 1.2.6)
(f) Omnia divina humanaque iura permiscentur.
(‘All rights, divine and human, were thrown into confusion.’ Caes. Civ. 1.6.8)
As these examples show, there is great variation in the number of constituents, in both
their explicit presence in the text and in their internal complexity. Table 23.3 contains
some data concerning 100 simple declarative sentences in a number of texts, a tiny
minority in comparison with the other sentential and clausal structures of these texts.
These sentences contain on the average two to two and a half constituents alongside
the finite verb, including one or more satellites, depending on the type of text. In add-
ition, some contain connectors and other elements without a clausal status. In some
texts, the V is absent in a number of sentences. All orders of constituents occur, with
V most often in final position in Caesar (as is his practice in general), but not else-
where. Constituents with an anaphoric element are relatively common in most texts,
almost all of which are in the first position. Note that V includes complex verb forms
with a form of auxiliary sum (see § 4.83) and combinations of infinitives with proper
auxiliaries like possum ‘I can’ (see § 4.98).¹²³
. The position of arguments, satellites, secondary

predicates, and ( finite) verbs in declarative sentences
Although in principle there is no limit to the number of constituents a sentence may
contain (certainly in written texts), the discussion below will take into account argu-
ments, satellites, secondary predicates, and (finite) verbs in only three positions,
first, intermediate, and last. The first and last positions of the sentence are usually
occupied by constituents that have a prominent role in the structuring of the infor-
mation in the sentence. The first position is important because its occupant fulfils an
orienting function for the addressee. The final position must be occupied by a con-
stituent that clearly marks the end of the information contained in the sentence.
¹²³ Cato Agr. has only sixty-three simple sentences.

Table . Data concerning 100 ‘simple declarative sentences’ in a number of prose texts
Texts Number of constituents Average number A1 understood + 1 connectors anaphoric elements
per sentence of constituents and 2 person
per sentence
1 2 3 4 5 ≥6
Cato Agr. 14 (22%) 33 (53%) 15 (24%) – – 3 11+1+4 2 16
N=62
Cicero Phil. 4 30 41 20 4 1 3 6+22+12 28 28
Cicero Off. 1 18 50 27 3 1 2.5 6 75 29
Caesar Civ. 1 15 40 31 10 3 3 33 13 32
Texts Number of explicit constituents per type and their position
A1 A2 A3 Σ V
total first last total first last total first last total first last total first last
Cato Agr. 35 29 2 21 11 1 0 – – 55 16 12 61 1 42
Cicero Phil. 49 14 14 57 24 15 14 1 4 57 16 7 88 26 46
Cicero Off. 77 16 30 42 11 5 4 1 – 59 17 9 90 14 30
Caesar Civ. 49 21 7 84 32 11 14 3 1 99 27 9 99 16 62
Word order in declarative sentences 
Constituents in an intermediate position often fulfil no special pragmatic function,

and it is difficult to tell why they are in the specific position they are in.
The term ‘first position’ needs some comment. In this Syntax it is used for the pos-
ition of constituents that fulfil a function at the clause level and are not constrained in
one of the ways discussed in § 23.6. Constituents in first position may be preceded by
non-mobile words, such as the connector nam in (a), an independent sentence, or the
subordinator ut in the subordinate clause of (b). In (a), tu will be regarded as the con-
stituent in first position; in (b), pater.
(a) Leges pellege. / Nam tu poeta es prorsus ad eam rem unicus.
(‘Read over the terms. For you are the one and only artist for this sort of thing.’
Pl. As. 747–8)
(b) Nam propterea <te> volo / scribere, ut pater cognoscat litteras quando legat.
(‘For I want you to write for the simple reason that your father may recognize your
handwriting when he’s reading it.’ Pl. Bac. 729–30)
The use of the term ‘last position’ is less problematic. In older studies on the position
of finite verbs in final position, a distinction is sometimes made for complex verb
forms (see § 3.11) between, for example, the orders factus est and est factus. For the
latter order, German scholars use the term ‘gedeckte Endstellung’ (‘covered final pos-
ition’). The same distinction is used for the order of finite auxiliary verb forms and the
infinitive with which they are combined, as in esse videtur and videtur esse ‘seems to
be’. See also §§ 23.97–100.
. The first position in declarative sentences
For the occupation of the first position of a sentence, pragmatic factors are predomin-
ant. In a prose corpus with 1,620 initial positions in all sentence types (and not only
simple sentences as defined above), almost 40 per cent of the constituents in that
position are topic, 38 per cent focus, and 15 per cent setting or theme; 7 per cent are
presentative sentences with a verb in initial position.¹²⁴ Examples of topic, focus, and
setting are (a)–(c), respectively.
(a) Decem dies sunt ante ludos votivos quos Cn. Pompeius facturus est. Hi ludi
dies quindecim auferent.
(‘It is only ten days to the Votive Games that Gnaeus Pompeius is to hold; these games
will occupy fifteen days.’ Cic. Ver. 31)
(b) Quid est in Antonio praeter libidinem, crudelitatem, petulantiam, audaciam?
(‘What is there in Antonius save lust, cruelty, insolence, audacity?’ Cic. Phil. 3.28)
¹²⁴ See Knoth (2006: 212). Using pragmatic and syntactic functions in the sense of Dik’s (1997) Functional
Grammar she analyses constituents in first position in 1,620 periodic sentences, of which 13 per cent have a
subordinate clause as their first constituent. The corpus consists of Nep. Att., Aug. Anc., Suet. Gal. (biography),
Cic. Ver., Cic. Catil. III, Cic. Phil. III (speeches), and selections from Cic. Att., Sen. Ep., Plin. Ep. (letters). The
percentages of the pragmatic functions mentioned in this section naturally depend upon the analysis of the
corpus by the author and are for the purpose of this discussion better taken as tendencies than as hard facts.
 Word order
(c) Postero die dixit pro Mario Salvius Liberalis, vir subtilis dispositus acer disertus.
(‘On the next day Salvius Liberalis, a precise and methodical speaker with a forceful
command of words, spoke in defence of Marius.’ Plin. Ep. 2.11.17)
The constituents in first position have various syntactic functions. For a distribution
of the syntactic functions in the same corpus a distinction was made between sen-
tences with and without an explicit subject. Third person first arguments in particular
are often not expressed if they are sufficiently known from the context or the situ-
ation. In sentences with a one-place verb, c.20 per cent of the first arguments are not
expressed. In sentences with two-place verbs, this may be the case in 50 per cent or
more of the first arguments, depending on the type of text.¹²⁵ Obviously, the absence
of arguments has consequences for the pragmatic function and the position of other
arguments and for that of the other constituents of the sentence in general.
As can be seen in Table 23.4, in half of the sentences with an explicit subject, the sub-
ject occupies the first position, but this is only the case in one-quarter of all sentences.
Of the explicit subjects, 60 per cent are topic, 40 per cent focus.¹²⁶ Conversely, 39 per
cent of the topic constituents are subject. Of the objects, 42 per cent are topic, 58 per cent
focus. Of the topic constituents 19 per cent are object. The high percentage of satellites in
first position is largely due to the fact that 45 per cent of them are setting constituents.¹²⁷
Table . Syntactic function and first position (percentages)

with an explicit with an implicit
subject (857=53%) subject (763=47%)
verb 12.5 23.7
subject 49.5 0
object 8.6 29.5
third argument 2.3 3.2
subject complement 4.2 3.2
object complement 0.1 0.1
secondary predicate 1.3 4.7
satellite 21.5 35.6
Based on Knoth (2006: 174).
23.42 Arguments in first position in declarative sentences

This section deals with arguments that occupy the first position of their sentence.¹²⁸ It
starts with the position of arguments of ‘regular’ one-, two-, and three-place verbs.
Constituents that function as subject or object complement with the verb sum and
¹²⁵ See Spevak (2006d: 368–9; 2010a: 133). ¹²⁶ See Knoth (2006: 251).
¹²⁷ See the graph in Knoth (2006: 293).
¹²⁸ This may be either a ‘simple’ sentence as defined in § 23.39 or a main clause that opens a complex
sentence.
Word order in declarative sentences 
other verbs are discussed separately. In declarative sentences the first constituent is
usually an argument with topic function, but satellites are not uncommon, especially
if they contain an anaphoric element or an attribute that is topical.
Examples of arguments with topic function with a monovalent verb are (a)–(c). In
(a), Micipsa is a discourse topic. The sentence is about what happened to him. In (b),
L. Manlius and Rutilius Lupus are mentioned here for the first time as individuals, but
officials are not unexpected in the narrative after Pompey’s general order to concen-
trate troops near him; they function as contrastive topics in their clauses.¹²⁹ In (c),
magna copia pabuli is a subtopic which continues the more general omnium rerum . . .
copia. In (d), huius rei totum consilium is presented as the topic of the sentence through
its anaphoric attribute huius rei; in (e), narium duo foramina is the topic through the
attribute narium which is introduced into the discourse earlier. As the examples show,
the attributes can occupy the actual first position (see also § 23.79).
(a) Micipsa paucis post diebus moritur.
(‘Micipsa died a few days later.’ Sal. Jug. 11.2)
(b) L. Manlius praetor Alba cum cohortibus sex profugit, Rutilius Lupus prae-
tor Tarracina cum tribus.
(‘The praetor Lucius Manlius fled from Alba with six cohorts, the praetor Rutilius
Lupus from Tarracina with three.’ Caes. Civ. 1.24.3)
(c) At exercitus Afrani omnium rerum abundabat copia . . . Magna copia pabuli
suppetebat.
(‘Afranius’ army, however, had an abundance of everything . . . A large supply of fod-
der was available.’ Caes. Civ. 1.49.1)
(d) . . . considera ne in alienissimum tempus cadat adventus tuus. Huius rei
totum consilium tuum est.
(‘. . . take care lest you arrive at the least favourable moment. This matter is entirely for
you to judge.’ Cic. Fam. 15.14.4)
(e) Foramina autem intra caput maxima oculorum sunt, deinde narium, tum
quae in auribus habemus . . . Narium duo foramina osse medio discernuntur.
(‘Now the largest passages leading into the head are those of the eyes, next the nos-
trils, then those of the ears . . . The two nasal passages are separated by an intermediate
bone.’ Cels. 8.1.5)
In the corpus of sentences and clauses with two-place verbs on which Table 23.5 is
based those with an explicit first argument are in the minority.¹³⁰ In these cases, the
first argument usually precedes the other argument, and it is usually a topic of the
same type as in (a) above, as is shown in (f), in which the first argument is a discourse
topic. In (g), is serves to continue a newly introduced topic (see § 22.4, ex. (t)).
¹²⁹ Following the analysis of Spevak (2010a: 175–7).

¹³⁰ Table 23.5 is taken from Spevak (2010a: 118). For the corpus see note 74 and Spevak (2010a: 12).
 Word order
Table . The relative order of first and

second arguments (A1 and A2) and verbs (V)
Pattern Total Percentage
1 A1>A2>V 40 21
2 A2>V 117 60
3 A1>V>A2 5 3
4 V>A2 18 9
5 A2>A1>V 13 7
6 V>A2>A1 1 0
7 A2>V>A1 1 0
Total 195 100
> = precedes
(f) At Caesar milites Attianos conlaudat, Pupium dimittit . . .

(‘Caesar for his part praised Attius’ soldiers, dismissed Pupius . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.13.5)
(g) (sc. Metellus) . . . facile Numidae (sc. Bomilcari) persuadet . . . Is, ubi primum
opportunum fuit, Iugurtham anxium ac miserantem fortunas suas adcedit . . .
(‘He persuaded the Numidian without difficulty . . . As soon as an opportune time
came, when Jugurtha was worried and lamenting his fate, he approached him.’ Sal.
Jug. 61.5–62.1)
In (h), repeated from § 23.39, by contrast, the first argument legio XII is focus.
Although the potential arrival of more troops in addition to Caesar’s own thirteenth
legion is mentioned in the preceding text,¹³¹ this particular legion is introduced here
for the first time. Note the continuation with the anaphoric expression his duabus (the
twelfth and thirteenth legions).
(h) . . . ad eum legati veniunt quaeque imperaverit (sc. Caesar) se cupidissime fac-
turos pollicentur. Milites (sc. Caesar; sc. eis) imperat. (sc. Cingulani) Mittunt
(sc. milites). Interea legio XII Caesarem consequitur. Cum his duabus
Asculum Picenum proficiscitur (sc. Caesar).
(‘. . . representatives (from Cingulum) arrived and promised to do his bidding with
great eagerness. He requisitioned soldiers. They sent them. Meanwhile the twelfth
legion reached Caesar. With these two legions he set out for Asculum in Picenum.’
Caes. Civ. 1.15.2–3)
As Table 23.5 shows, when both arguments are expressed, the second argument can
precede the first. This is the case in (i)–(l). Here, as well as when the second argument
alone is expressed, as in (m), the second argument usually has topic function. In (n),
though, it is focus.
(i) Erat praeterea in exercitu nostro Numida quidam nomine Gauda . . . Hunc
Marius anxium adgreditur atque hortatur ut . . .
¹³¹ Caes. Civ. 1.7.8; 1.12.3.

Word order in declarative sentences 
(‘Furthermore, there was in our army a Numidian named Gauda . . .While he was
upset, he was approached by Marius, who urged him to . . .’ Sal. Jug. 65.1–3)
( j) Adherbalem omnisque qui sub imperio Micipsae fuerant metus invadit.
(‘Fear seized Adherbal and all the former subjects of Micipsa.’ Sal. Jug. 13.1)
(k) Tuas iam litteras Brutus exspectabat. Cui quidem ego [non] novum attuleram
de Tereo Acci.
(‘Brutus is now awaiting your letter. I brought him news about Accius’ Tereus.’ Cic.
Att. 16.5.1)
(l) Caput autem spina excipit.
(‘Now the spine is the support of the head.’ Cels. 8.1.11)
(m) . . . Domitium Massiliensisque de suo adventu certiores facit eosque
magnopere hortatur (sc. Caesar) ut . . .
(‘. . . he informed Domitius and the people of Marseilles about his approach and urged
them strongly to . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.3.3)
(n) Id ubi vident, mutant consilium. Cupas taeda ac pice refertas incendunt
easque de muro in musculum devolvunt.
(‘Seeing this, the enemy changed their plan. They set on fire barrels filled with pine-
wood and pitch and rolled these off the wall onto the gallery.’ Caes. Civ. 2.11.2)
In the corpus mentioned above, the first argument is usually not expressed with three-
place verbs like mitto ‘to send’ and do ‘to give’.¹³² If it is expressed, it need not be in the
initial position, which may be occupied by one of the other arguments, which func-
tions as topic. In (o), Helvetii is in first position because it marks a topic change. In (p),
pecuniam, the second argument, is the topic of the sentence (‘What was the purpose
of the money?’). Oppianicus is a discourse topic and is, as often, placed further on,
followed by the focus constituent. In (q), the third argument, two historically well-
known people, is the topic. Here, too, the discourse topic senatus comes later. In (r),
Q. Ciceronis epistulam is the topic through its attribute Q. Ciceronis.
(o) Helvetii repentino eius adventu commoti, cum . . . intellegerent, legatos ad
eum (sc. Caesarem) mittunt. Cuius legationis Divico princeps fuit . . .
(‘The Helvetii, alarmed at his sudden approach, for they perceived that . . . , sent
deputies to him. The leader of the deputation was Divico . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.13.2)
(p) At enim pecuniam Staieno dedit Oppianicus non ad corrumpendum iudi-
cium sed ad conciliationem gratiae.
(‘But, you may say, Oppianicus gave Staienus the money not to bribe the court, but to
effect a reconciliation with Cluentius.’ Cic. Clu. 84)
(q) Ad propiora veniamus. C. Mario L. Valerio consulibus senatus rem publicam
defendendam dedit. L. Saturninus tribunus plebis, C. Glaucia praetor est
interfectus.
¹³² Three-place verbs are discussed by Panhuis (1982), Devine and Stephens (2006: 40–54), and
Spevak (2010a: 132–44). See also § 23.39 for the relative order of arguments of three-place verbs.
 Word order
(‘Let us come to events closer to our own time. The Senate committed the defence of
the State to Consuls Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius; Tribune of the plebs Lucius
Saturninus and Praetor Gaius Glaucia were killed.’ Cic. Phil. 8.15)
(r) <Q.> Ciceronis epistulam tibi remisi.
(‘I am sending you back Quintus’ letter.’ Cic. Att. 13.29.3)
If the first argument is not expressed, the second argument or—less often—the third
is placed in the first (or first available) position and is topic, as in (s) and (t), respectively.
In (s), the second argument filium suum, which can be inferred from the context, is
the topic. In (t), Clazomeniis, one of a series of changing topics, is in first position.
(s) (sc. Philodomus) Etiam filium suum, lectissimum adulescentem, foras ad
propinquum suum quendam mittit ad cenam.
(‘Even his son, an extremely nice boy, he sent out to supper with a relative.’ Cic. Ver. 1.65)
(t) (sc. legati) Nominatim praeterea Colophoniis . . . immunitatem concesserunt.
Clazomeniis super immunitatem et Drymussam insulam dono dederunt et
Milesiis quem sacrum appellant agrum restituerunt et Iliensibus Rhoeteum
et Gergithum addiderunt . . .
(‘In addition, they granted freedom from taxation expressly to the Colophonians; to
the Clazomenians, in addition to immunity, they gave the island of Drymussa as a
gift, and to the Milesians they restored what they call the “sacred land,” and to the
people of Ilium they added Rhoeteum and Gergithus . . .’ Liv. 38.39.8–10)
In contextually unrelated sentences, the first place is occupied by the topic (and sub-
ject) of the sentence, if the addressee can be supposed to be able to identify the entity.
This is for example the case in dedications of buildings by the Roman emperors. They
are mentioned first, as in (u).¹³³
(u) Imp(erator) Caesar(is) <D>ivi · f(ilius) · Augu<s>tus · . . . / portas ·
murosq(ue) · col(oniae) · dat.
(‘Emperor Augustus, son of divine Caesar, bestows gates and walls upon the colony.’
CIL XII.3151 (Nîmes, 15 bc))
We now turn to arguments that function as subject or object complement. The copula
sum (see § 4.92) and other copular verbs like maneo ‘to remain’ (see § 4.97) have two
arguments, the first of which need not be expressed in an appropriate context.¹³⁴ The
second argument functions as subject complement; it can belong to various categories
(see Table 9.6 in § 9.21). Here, only adjectives and nouns and noun phrases showing
agreement with the subject are taken into account. Examples are (v) and (w),
respectively. When A1 is expressed, as in (v), six different orders are possible and attested.
¹³³ See Horster (2001: 41). Esperanza Torrego (p.c.) suggests that the building is topic and the donor
focus.
¹³⁴ In the corpus used by Spevak (2010a: 181–2) one-third of the A1’s are not expressed.
Word order in declarative sentences 
The most common order is A1 / subject complement / form of sum.¹³⁵ The subject
complement may be contiguous to the verb, as in (v) and (w), or not, as in (x).¹³⁶ The
A1 is usually topic and mostly sentence-initial, the subject complement focus. The verb
can be in first position for one of the reasons mentioned in § 23.45, as in (x). The sub-
ject complement can be sentence-initial for reasons of emphasis, as in (y) and (z).¹³⁷
If the subject complement is complex, discontinuity of its members is possible (see the
Supplement).
(v) Homo hic ebrius est, ut opinor.
(‘This man’s drunk, I think.’ Pl. Am. 574)
(w) Inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium quae . . .
(‘Invention is the discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments which . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.9)
(x) Est tuum nomen utraque familia consulare.
(‘Your name is of consular rank both on your father’s and your mother’s side.’ Cic.
Planc. 18)
(y) Homines enim sumus et occupati officiis . . .
(‘For we are but human and beset with duties . . .’ Plin. Nat. pr. 18)
(z) Itaque stulta iam Iduum Martiarum est consolatio.
(‘So there’s no sense any longer in consoling ourselves with the Ides of March.’ Cic.
Att. 15.4.2)
Supplement (subject complements in initial position):
Adjectives: Praeclara tum oratio M. Antoni, egregia etiam voluntas. (Cic. Phil. 1.2—
NB: nominal sentence without the copula); Magnus est in re publica campus, ut sapi-
enter dicere Crassus solebat, multis apertus cursus ad laudem. (Cic. Phil. 14.17);
Misera est ignominia iudiciorum publicorum, misera multatio bonorum, miserum
exsilium. (Cic. Rab. Perd. 16); Credo te negaturum. Turpis enim est et periculosa
confessio. (Cic. Ver. 3.165–6); Ornatissimae sunt igitur orationes eae quae latissime
vagantur . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.120); Similisque est privatarum possessionum discriptio.
(Cic. Off. 1.21); Plena erant omnia timoris et luctus. (Caes. Civ. 2.41.8); Talis ea tem-
pestate fama de Cassio erat. (Sal. Jug. 32.5); Ingens erat magistratus eius terror. (Liv.
9.26.7); Magna autem debet esse eloquentia quae invitis placeat . . . (Sen. Con. 10.pr.4)
Nouns and noun phrases: Fortis et constans in optima ratione civis P. Popilius sem-
per fuit. (Cic. Dom. 87); Causa fuit ambulatio et monumentum et ista Tanagraea
oppressa libertate Libertas. (Cic. Dom. 116); Princeps enim omnium Pansa proeli
faciendi et cum Antonio confligendi fuit. (Cic. Phil. 14.26); Sed dux atque imperator
vitae mortalium animus est. (Sal. Jug. 1.3)
¹³⁵ Both in the corpus used by Adams (1994b: 14; 82–3) (Cato, Cicero, and Celsus) and in the corpus
used by Spevak (2010a: 180–7). For further statistical details, see these two publications.
¹³⁶ In the corpus used by Spevak (2010a: 181–2) one-third of the sequences are not contiguous.
¹³⁷ Sz.: 409 observes that the A1 normally precedes the subject complement and likewise the A2 the
object complement; the reverse order is used for reasons of emphasis: . . . cur mortalem fecerit mun-
dum . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.20).
 Word order
With three-place verbs that require an object complement, like appello ‘to call’ (see
§§ 4.87–8), the object complement is usually focus. It can be put in first position of the
sentence if it is emphatic, as in (aa). For a passive equivalent (subject complement),
see (ab).
(aa) Saltatorem appellat L. Murenam Cato.
(‘Cato calls Murena a dancer.’ Cic. Mur. 13)
(ab) Princeps in senatu tertium lectus P. Scipio Africanus.
(‘Publius Scipio Africanus was for the third time selected to be leader in the senate.’
Liv. 38.28.2)
Supplement:
Sapiens existimari nemo potest in ea prudentia quae neque extra Romam usquam
neque Romae rebus prolatis quicquam valet. (Cic. Mur. 28); Levis hos semper nostri
homines et audaces et malos et perniciosos cives putaverunt. (Cic. Sest. 139); Inimicos
habeo civis Romanos, quod sociorum commoda ac iura defendi. (Cic. Ver. 2.166);
Superiore omni oratione perattentos vestros animos habuimus. (Cic. Ver. 3.10)
23.43 Satellites in first position in declarative sentences

In Chapter 10, several classes of satellites are distinguished: space and time adjuncts,
process adjuncts, contingency adjuncts, respect adjuncts, and disjuncts (see § 10.1).
Of these, process adjuncts are more closely related to the action or process described
by the verb, whereas the others are more peripheral. Process adjuncts are rarely placed
in first position, unless they contain topical information or are focus, as are the
prepositional phrases with cum (with different meanings) in (a) and (b), respectively.¹³⁸
In (a), illis refers to people who have been introduced in the preceding context. It is
also contrastive (therefore illis, not simply anaphoric eis) with following tua, Cicero’s
opponent. By contrast, the cum phrase in (b) is focus, as appears from the continu-
ation in what follows. Magna is placed in an emphatic position. Satellites that are
common in first position without such a pragmatic justification are space and time
adjuncts, as in (c): they resemble settings. Most other satellites are placed in an inter-
mediate position. (For satellites with focus function in final position, see § 23.48.)¹³⁹
(a) Sed cum illis possum tamen aliquid disputare: tua vero quae tanta impuden-
tia est ut . . .
(‘With these I have at all events some common ground whereon to dispute; but what
impudence can rival yours . . .?’ Cic. Dom. 20)
(b) Magna cum cura ego illum curari volo. / # Quin suspirabo plus sescenta in
die: / ita ego eum cum cura magna curabo tibi.
¹³⁸ Merguet in his various lexica has a convenient section: ‘zum ganzen Satz gehörige Bestimmungen’.
For a suggestion of the frequency of satellites in first position, see Tables 23.1 on p. 990 and 23.3 on p. 1004.
¹³⁹ For the position of various types of adjuncts, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 64–79; 249–62) and
Hoffmann (2010b: 275–6). Out of 144 satellites in his corpus, 49 are in first position, 86 in an intermediate
position, 9 in final position.
Word order in declarative sentences 
(‘I want him to be taken care of with great care. # Yes, I’ll sigh more than six hundred
sighs a day: in this way I’ll take care of him with such great care for you.’ Pl. Men.
895–7)
(c) Proximis diebus habetur extra urbem senatus.
(‘On the following days the Senate met outside the city.’ Caes. Civ. 1.6.1)
Supplement:
Disjunct: Etenim sine dubio, iudices, in hac causa ea res in discrimen adducitur. (Cic.
Ver. 1.6); Sed profecto tanta fuit in eo vis ingenii atque virtutis ut . . . (Cic. Rep. 2.20)
Accompanying circumstances adjuncts: Magno cum dolore parricidarum (sc.
Lentuli et Antonii) elapsus sum iis. Veniebant enim eodem furore in me quo in
patriam incitati . . . (Planc. Fam. 10.23.5)
Associative adjuncts: Cum his ad Domitium Ahenobarbum Corfinium magnis
itineribus pervenit. (Caes. Civ. 1.15.6)
Frequency adjuncts: Numquam enim iste cuiquam est mediocriter minatus. (Cic. Ver.
5.110); Saepe aliquis testis aut non laedit aut minus laedit, nisi lacessatur. (Cic. de
Orat. 2.301); Saepe enim hoc de maioribus natu audivimus et ita intellegimus vulgo
existimari. (Cic. Rep. 2.28); Semper oratorum eloquentiae moderatrix fuit auditorum
prudentia. (Cic. Orat. 24)
Manner adjuncts: Sic triduum disputationibus excusationibusque extrahitur. (Caes.
Civ. 1.33.3); Acriter utrimque usque ad vesperum pugnatum est. (Caes. Gal. 1.50.3);
Celeriter ad omnes Galliae civitates fama perfertur. (Caes. Gal. 7.3.2); Clam cum
Ariobarzane facit amicitiam, manum comparat, urbes munitas suis tuendas tradit.
(Nep. Dat. 5.6)
Means and instrument adjuncts: Non fuga delatos nec inertia relictos hic vos cir-
cumvenit hostis. Virtute cepistis locum, virtute hinc oportet evadatis. (Liv. 7.35.3)
Purpose adjuncts: Proximo die praesidio in castris relicto universas ad aquam copias
educunt. Pabulatum emittitur nemo. (Caes. Civ. 1.81.5)
Space and time adjuncts: Fremebat tota provincia. Nemo id tibi renuntiabat? Romae
querimoniae de tuis iniuriis conventusque habebantur. Ignorabas haec? (Cic. Ver.
3.132); Eadem nocte V legionis pilorum acumina sua sponte arserunt. (B. Afr. 47.6);
Tum ex consilio patrum Romulus legatos circa vicinas gentes misit . . . (Liv. 1.9.2); Nec
in Italia segnius Ligurum bellum crescebat. (Liv. 35.3.1)
Reason adjuncts: His de causis aguntur omnia raptim atque turbate. (Caes.
Civ. 1.5.1)
Multiple adjuncts: Ita consiliis diligentiaque nostra celeriter de manibus audacissi-
morum civium delapsa arma ipsa ceciderunt. (Cic. Off. 1.77)
23.44 Secondary predicates in first position in declarative sentences

It is difficult to formulate rules or tendencies about the position of secondary predi-
cates in general.¹⁴⁰ In the first place, this has to do with the very nature of secondary
¹⁴⁰ As far as I know there are no detailed studies about the position of secondary predicates. K.-St.:
II.611 has a very general observation about ‘Prädikative’ (which includes subject and object comple-
ments). For a comparative study of subject complements and secondary predicates with the verbs maneo,
permaneo, remaneo, and sto, see Cabrillana (in prep.).
 Word order
predicates: they differ from the argument and satellite constituents of the preceding
sections in that they are not constituents at the clause level themselves, but are related
to another constituent that operates either at the clause level or at a lower level (see
§ 21.1). Secondly, they belong to very heterogeneous categories (see § 21.2). Thirdly, if
they are related to the subject of the clause, that subject can be explicit, as in (a), or
contextually understood or expressed morphologically, as in (b) and (c) respectively. If
related to a non-subject constituent, that constituent is almost always explicit, as in (d).
(a) Civitatem vero nemo umquam ullo populi iussu amittet invitus.
(‘But no one by any decree of the people will ever lose his liberty against his will.’ Cic.
Dom. 78)
(b) Vexasti negotiatores. Inviti enim Romam raroque decedunt.
(‘You have wrought havoc among the businessmen: for only unwillingly and rarely do
they leave for Rome.’ Cic. Ver. 3.96)
(c) Invitus dico, sed dicendum est.
(‘I say it with reluctance, but say it I must.’ Cic. Phil. 8.9)
(d) Quod cum ita sit, mihi crede, neminem invitum invitabis.
(‘In this condition of affairs, believe me, you will not have to call an unwilling pros-
ecutor to his task.’ Cic. Pis. 94)
Secondary predicates are usually focus. Judging from a number of adjectives used as
secondary predicates with subjects and objects in Caesar and Cicero, the intermediate
position is the most common, certainly for those related to objects, but invitus ‘reluc-
tant’ is remarkably often in final position, as in (a). First position, as in (b), is rare and
always emphatic.
Incolumem te cito ut spero, vel potius ut perspicio, videbimus. (Cic. Fam. 6.6.13);
Quae cum libenter commemoro, tum non invitus non nullorum in me nefarie com-
missa praetereo. (Cic. Red. Sen. 23); Primus enim ego leges Antonias fregi, primus
equitatum Dolabellae ad rem publicam traduxi Cassioque tradidi, primus dilectus
habui pro salute omnium contra coniurationem sceleratissimam, solus Cassio et rei
publicae Syriam exercitusque qui ibi erant coniunxi. (Lent. Fam. 12.14.6); Neque
solum vivi atque praesentes studiosos discendi erudiunt atque docent, sed hoc idem
etiam post mortem monumentis litterarum assequuntur. (Cic. Off. 1.156)
Participles functioning as secondary predicate are sometimes used to summarize a

preceding activity and can then be placed at the beginning of their sentence, as in (e),
with the object of interficiunt understood.
(e) Edicunt penes quem quisque sit Caesaris miles ut producat. Productos
palam in praetorio interficiunt.
(‘They issued an edict that anyone who had a Caesarian soldier with him had to
bring him forward. They openly killed those brought forward at headquarters.’ Caes.
Civ. 1.76.4)
Word order in declarative sentences 
Supplement:
Romani milites circumveniuntur, circumventi repugnant. Fit proelium diu anceps.
(Cato hist. 83.14–15=76C); Patrem meum, cum proscriptus non esset, iugulastis,
occisum in proscriptorum numerum rettulistis . . . (Cic. S. Rosc. 32); Duasque naves
cum militibus, quae ad moles Caesaris adhaeserant, scaphis lintribusque reprehen-
dunt. Reprehensas excipiunt. (Caes. Civ. 1.28.4)
Laughton (1964: 46–50) discusses the position of participles functioning as second-

ary predicate in relation to the constituent to which they belong. They normally fol-
low, except when they are emphatic or contrastive, as in (f) and (g), or are related to
another constituent which has to come early in the clause or sentence, as in (h).
(f) . . . ne a me defensa res publica per eundem me extremum in discri-

men vocaretur.
(‘. . . in order that the state which I had defended might not on my account be
brought into the extremest peril.’ Cic. Red. Sen. 36)
(g) Venientem in forum virum optimum et constantissimum, M. Cispium,
tribunum plebis, vi depellunt . . .
(‘As that excellent and most steadfast man, Marcus Cispius, a tribune of the com-
mons, was coming into the Forum, they drove him away by force . . .’ Cic. Sest. 76)
(h) Hoc sonitu oppletae aures hominum obsurduerunt.
(‘Men’s ears, ever filled with this sound, have become deaf to it.’ Cic. Rep. 6.19)
23.45 Finite verbs in first position in declarative sentences

Finite verbs can be placed in the first position of declarative sentences. In Table 23.5
on p. 1008, this occurs in 10 per cent of the orders observed. Table 23.4 on p. 1006
shows that the first position of finite verbs is much more common if the sentence has
an implicit subject. This placement is common, though not obligatory, in a number of
contexts. It is common, first, in the context of presentative sentences, as in (a).¹⁴¹ For
further examples, see § 22.11.
(a) Est autem C. Herennius quidam, tribunus pl., quem tu fortasse ne nosti quidem.
(‘There is a Tribune called C. Herennius, whom perhaps you don’t even know.’ Cic.
Att. 1.18.4)
A second type of context in which an initial verb is common occurs when the factual-
ness or correctness of a certain statement is asserted from someone’s personal point of
view. Examples of this ‘assertive’ or ‘veridical’ use are (b) and (c).¹⁴² The context often
contains elements that fit in with the argumentative character of such sentences, such
as sed ‘but’ and enim ‘for’ (see the Supplement).
¹⁴¹ For presentative and what-happens sentences, see Spevak (2010a: 41–4; 187–93), with references.
¹⁴² For verum focus, see Bolkestein (1995; 1996c: 17), Devine and Stephens (2006: 147), and
Spevak (2010a: 46–7). For the veridical use of forms of the verb sum, see Adams (1994b: 69–76). For inver-
sion of subject and verb in the Late Latin Anonymus Valesianus, see Adams (1976b: 121–9).
 Word order
(b) Evolve diligenter eius (sc. Platonis) eum librum qui est de animo. Amplius
quod desideres nihil erit. # Feci mehercule, et quidem saepius.
(‘Turn over with attention the pages of his book upon the soul. You will be conscious
of no further need. # I have done so, be sure, and done so many times.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.24)
(c) Num negare audes (sc. Catilina)? Quid taces? Convincam, si negas. . . . Fuisti
igitur apud Laecam illa nocte, Catilina, distribuisti partis Italiae . . .
(‘You do not have the effrontery to deny it, do you? Why are you silent then? If you
deny it, I shall prove it . . .You were, then, at the house of Laeca on that night, Catiline;
you allocated the regions of Italy . . .’ Cic. Catil. 1.8–9)
Supplement:
Scio, fui ego illa aetate et feci illa omnia, sed more modesto. (Pl. Bac. 1080); Erit lorea
familiae quod bibat. (Cato Agr. 25); Movet me quippe lumen curiae! (Cic. Mil. 33);
Erit, erit illud profecto tempus et illucescet ille aliquando dies cum . . . (Cic. Mil. 69);
Est autem gloria laus recte factorum magnorumque in rem publicam merito-
rum . . . (Cic. Phil. 1.29); T. Flamininum, qui cum Q. Metello consul fuit, pueri vidi-
mus. Existumabatur bene Latine, sed litteras nesciebat. (Cic. Brut. 259); Sed ut homo
neque doctus neque maxime aptus ad dicendum, sicut potuit, dolavit. Vicit tamen, ut
dicis, superiores. (Cic. de Orat. 2.54); Est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis
virtutibus. (Cic. de Orat. 3.55); Sunt ista, Laeli. Nec enim melior vir fuit Africano
quisquam nec clarior. (Cic. Amic. 6); Est enim hiberna navigatio odiosa . . . (Cic. Att.
15.25.1); Conatus est Caesar reficere pontes, sed nec magnitudo fluminis permitte-
bat . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.50.1); Erat multo inferior numero navium Brutus. Sed elec-
tos . . . Caesar ei classi attribuerat, qui . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.57.1); Incitabant praeterea
corrupti civitatis mores . . . (Sal. Cat. 5.8); . . . victores morantibus victoriam irati tru-
cidarent quos pellere non poterant. Pepulerunt tamen iam paucos superantes et
labore ac volneribus fessos. (Liv. 22.49.4–5); Est equos perpulcer, sed tu vehi
non potes istoc. (CIL I2.2177 (Padua?, 1st cent. bc))
A third type of context for verbs in an initial position is one in which they serve to
create coherence or mark the progress between the preceding context and what fol-
lows, as in (d)–(f).¹⁴³ In (d), one of the interlocutors, Stolo, interrupts the main
speaker; in (e), the sentence with exit contains Crassus’ reaction to Caesar’s order; in
(f), the sentence with augebatur explains why it was supposed that the enemies would
not take the risk of crossing the river: they were waiting for reinforcements. List of
gains and losses in military texts belong here also.¹⁴⁴
(d) (reacting to Varro’s words) Suscipit Stolo, ‘Tu’, inquit, ‘invides tanto scriptori
et obstrigillandi causa figilinas reprehendis . . .’
¹⁴³ See K.-St.: II.599–601, from where most examples are taken. For the use of sentence-initial verb
forms by historians to make the story more ‘dramatic’, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 347–68). For sen-
tence-initial verbs in Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 42–62), Luraghi (1995), and Gaertner and
Hausburg (2013: 65–6), with references. For what they call the ‘thetic perspective’ as a factor that pro-
motes initial position of verbs in general, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 149–57).
¹⁴⁴ See Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 65–6) on the Bellum Alexandrinum.
Word order in declarative sentences 
(‘Stolo interrupted: “You are jealous of that great writer and you attack his potteries
carpingly . . .” Var. R. 1.2.24)
(e) (sc. Caesar) Iubet media nocte legionem proficisci celeriterque ad se venire.
Exit cum nuntio Crassus.
(‘He bade the legion start at midnight and come speedily to him. Crassus marched
out on receipt of the message.’ Caes. Gal. 5.46.2)
(f) Hoc (sc. flumen) neque ipse (sc. Labienus) transire habebat in animo neque
hostes transituros existimabat. Augebatur auxiliorum cotidie spes. Loquitur
in consilio palam . . .
(‘He had no intention of crossing this (river) himself, nor did he suppose that the
enemy would cross it. Their hope of auxiliaries was increasing daily. He declared
openly in the council of war that . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.7.5–6)
Supplement:
Offendi ibi C. Fundanium, socerum meum, et C. Agrium . . . (Var. R. 1.2.1);
Simulatque ego in Siciliam veni, mutatus est. Venerat ad eum illo biduo Laetilius
quidam, homo non alienus a litteris . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.63–4); Iste (sc. Verres) tum petere
ab illis, tum minari, tum spem, tum metum ostendere. Opponebant illi nomen
interdum P. Africani. (Cic. Ver. 4.75); Est enim difficilis cura rerum alienarum. (Cic.
Off. 1.30); Dabant enim hae feriae tibi opportunam sane facultatem ad explicandas
tuas litteras. (Cic. Rep. 1.14); Intercedit M. Antonius Q. Cassius tribuni plebis.
(Caes. Civ. 1.2.7); Tum suo more conclamaverunt, uti aliqui ex nostris ad conlo-
quium prodiret . . . Mittitur ad eos conloquendi causa Gaius Arpinius eques
Romanus, familiaris Quinti Titurii . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.26.4–27.1); Inopinantes nostri
re nova perturbantur, ac vix primum impetum cohors in statione sustinet.
Circumfunduntur hostes ex reliquis partibus, si quem aditum reperire possint.
(Caes. Gal. 6.37.3–4—NB: this is the reading of β. l has ex reliquis hostes partibus);
Conspicati ex oppido caedem et fugam suorum desperata salute copias a munitio-
nibus reducunt. Fit protinus hac re audita ex castris Gallorum fuga. (Caes. Gal.
7.88.5); Quae (sc. quadrigae) tamen celeriter multitudine telorum opprimuntur.
Capitur hoc proelio quinqueremis una et biremis cum defensoribus remigibusque
et deprimuntur tres nostris incolumibus omnibus. (B. Alex. 16.6); Insequitur has
(sc. quadrigas) acies hostium . . . (B. Alex. 75.2–3); Conversa subito fortuna est. (Nep.
Att. 10.1—NB: auxiliary separated); Recipit extemplo animum pedestris acies . . . (Liv.
2.20.11); Sustinebat tamen Appius pertinacia tantam tempestatem . . . (Liv. 2.56.14);
Hic pudor malignitatem vicit triumphumque frequentes decreverunt. Oppressit
deinde mentionem memoriamque omnem contentionis huius maius et cum maiore
et clariore viro certamen ortum. (Liv. 38.50.3–4); Mittam itaque ipsos tibi
libros . . . (Sen. Ep. 6.5); Laudavimus dictum [Trimalchionis] et circumeuntem
puerum sane perbasiamus. (Petr. 41.8); Celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum
apud illos memoriae et annalium genus est, Tuistonem deum terra editum. (Tac.
Ger. 2.2); Infecit ea tabes legionum quoque et auxiliorum motas iam mentis post-
quam vulgatum erat labare Germanici exercitus fidem. (Tac. Hist. 1.26.1); Nam
ostenderunt nobis speluncam illam ubi fuit sanctus Moyses . . . (Pereg. 3.7); Functus
est autem sacerdotio annis tribus. (Vict. Vit. 1.27)
 Word order
Sentences with an unexpressed topical subject that contain complex information,

answering the question ‘what did he do?’, are a last type of context for initial verbs, as
in (g)–(i). This resembles, and is sometimes difficult to distinguish from, cases like ( j),
a sequence of asyndetically coordinated complex focus units. See also the instances of
coordination in § 19.15.¹⁴⁵
(g) Hic Verres hereditatem sibi venisse arbitratus est, quod in eius regnum ac
manus venerat is quem iste et audierat multa secum praeclara habere et sus-
picabatur. Mittit homini . . . Deinde ipsum regem ad cenam vocavit. Exornat
ample magnificeque triclinium. Exponit ea quibus abundabat, plurima et
pulcherrima vasa argentea . . .
(‘It made Verres feel as if a legacy had come to him, when he saw come into his domin-
ions, and under his power, a man who, as he had been told and was ready to believe, had
with him many valuable treasures. He sent to the man . . . Then he invited the prince
himself to dinner. He decorated the dining-room with lavish splendour. He set out the
numerous lovely silver vessels of which he had so ample a stock . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.62)
(h) Dicat (sc. Verres) se licet emisse. Etenim hic propter magnitudinem furti
sunt, ut opinor, litterae factae. Iussit Timarchidem aestimare argentum . . .
(‘Verres may, if he chooses, claim to have bought them; for in this case, the theft being
so considerable, something was, I believe, set down in writing. He told Timarchides
to reckon up the value of the silver . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.35)
(i) Hic diffisus suae atque omnium saluti inermis ex tabernaculo prodit. Videt
imminere hostes atque in summo esse rem (rem esse β) discrimine. Capit
arma a proximis atque in porta consistit.
(‘Doubtful of his own and the general safety, he came forth from his tent unarmed.
He saw that the enemy were threateningly close and that the issue was in the greatest
danger. He took arms from the nearest men and stationed himself in the gate.’ Caes.
Gal. 6.38.2)
( j) Eorum una pars, quam Gallos obtinere dictum est, initium capit a flumine
Rhodano, continetur Garunna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum, attingit
etiam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum, vergit ad septentriones.
(‘The separate part of the country which, as has been said, is occupied by the Gauls,
starts from the river Rhone, and is bounded by the river Garonne, the Ocean, and the
territory of the Belgae; moreover, it touches the river Rhine on the side of the Sequani
and the Helvetii; and its general trend is northward.’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.5)
Sentence-initial forms of the verb sum, in its various meanings,¹⁴⁶ have received par-
ticular attention in the literature, among other things because the verb sum is often
regarded as one of the lexical items to which Wackernagel’s law applies (see § 23.31).¹⁴⁷
¹⁴⁵ Marouzeau (1938: 71–2) and Devine and Stephens (2006: 163–6) pay attention to the different
orderings of verbs (e.g. initial capit and final consistit in (i)) in such coordinate clauses.
¹⁴⁶ See § 4.92. Auxiliary sum used in complex forms is different (see § 4.93 and § 23.97).
¹⁴⁷ See Adams (1994b: 69ff.) and Kruschwitz (2004: 61–6). See also Spevak (2010a: 183–4).
Word order in declarative sentences 
Apart from the above mentioned factors that are relevant to other initial verb forms,
as in (k) and (l), the initial position of forms of sum may also indicate focus on the
tense or mood of the form of sum, as in (m) and (n).
(k) . . . is erit ex iis qui aut illos non audierit aut iudicare non possit. Nam fuit
uterque . . . studio atque ingenio . . . praestans omnibus . . .
(‘. . . he will belong to the class of people who either never heard these orators or else
lack the capacity to judge them. For in point of fact each of them was . . . superior to
everybody else . . . in devotion to oratory and natural talent . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.16)
(l) . . . non video cur esse divinationem negem. Sunt autem ea quae posui.
(‘. . . I do not see any reason for denying the existence of divination. But these prem-
ises are in fact true.’ Cic. Leg. 2.32–3)
(m) Est idem Verres qui fuit semper.
(‘He is the same Verres as he always was.’ Cic. Ver. 1.2)
(n) Sit Ennius sane, ut est certe, perfectior.
(‘Grant that Ennius is more accomplished, as undoubtedly he is.’ Cic. Brut. 76)
Noteworthy is the position of est in the following inscription: Est · hoc · monimen-
tum · Margei · Vergilei · Eurysacis / pistoris · redemptoris · apparet (CIL
I2.1204 (Rome, 1st cent. bc (late)). The huge monument shows ‘various stages of
bread making in a large-scale commercial setting’ and is indeed a fitting monument
to the baker who built it.¹⁴⁸
With two- and three-place verbs that allow passivization, the relative order of the
second argument and the verb may vary. In (o), the active verb mittit, with a first argu-
ment understood, is in first position and is followed by a complex focus unit. Valerius
is mentioned here for the first time. Conversely, with the similarly active form mittit
in (p), the first position is taken by a discourse topic, the first of a series of persons to
receive assignments. In (q), the unknown Decidius is introduced into the discourse.
The passive verb mittitur is in initial position in a way that resembles presentative
sentences.¹⁴⁹ The underlying question is ‘who was sent?’ In (r), by contrast, the under-
lying question is ‘what happened?’; legati is an inferrable topic and therefore a good
candidate for the first position.
(o) Mittit (sc. Caesar) in Sardiniam cum legione una Valerium legatum, in
Siciliam Curionem pro praetore cum legionibus III . . .
(‘He sent to Sardinia his officer Valerius with a single legion, to Sicily Curio as pro-
praetor with three legions . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.30.2)
(p) Itaque Titum Labienum legatum in Treveros, qui proximi flumini Rheno
sunt, cum equitatu mittit (sc. Caesar).
¹⁴⁸ See Petersen (2003: 232).

¹⁴⁹ For discussion, see Spevak (2010a: 145–9), with references; also Devine and Stephens (2006: 154).
 Word order
(‘Accordingly he dispatched Titus Labienus, lieutenant-general, with the cavalry to

the territory of the Treveri, who live next the river Rhine.’ Caes. Gal. 3.11.1)
(q) Hoc idem fit ex castris Caesaris. Mittitur L. Decidius Saxa cum paucis qui
loci naturam perspiciat.
(‘The same was done from Caesar’s camp: Lucius Decidius Saxa was sent with a few
men to reconnoitre the character of the terrain.’ Caes. Civ. 1.66.3)
(r) . . . decernitur ut societas cum Samnitibus renovaretur, legatique ad eam rem
mittuntur.
(‘. . . it was voted to renew the alliance with the Samnites, and ambassadors were sent
off to arrange it.’ Liv. 8.27.9)
Verbs are regularly placed in the initial position of main clauses that follow a subor-
dinate, especially a temporal, clause. An example is (s).¹⁵⁰
(s) Quos cum omnis salutavisset, convertit se in porticu et coniecit in medium
Laelium.
(‘After he had greeted them all he turned about in the portico and gave
Laelius the place in the centre.’ Cic. Rep. 1.18)
. The last position in declarative sentences
The last position in the sentence is not reserved for special categories of words, and
certain words are excluded from that position (see § 23.6). Although in certain authors
and in certain texts finite verb forms and infinitives often occupy the last position of
a sentence, there is no syntactic constraint which requires this. It is not reserved for any
specific pragmatic purpose. When the final constituent is an argument or a satellite it
is usually focus, as in (a)–(c). There is, however, no rule that requires such focus con-
stituents to be placed in the last position. See, for example, sine causa in (d). For a final
topic, see (e), repeated from § 22.4, ex. (v). Although verbs in final position are some-
times the focus, as in (g), they usually are not, as is shown by an examination of ex. (f),
where the combination dolores habet is actually a complex focus unit.¹⁵¹ For the
distribution of various types of constituents in final position, see Table 23.3 on p. 1004.
(a) Quintus frater . . . secum habebat hominem {r}~zwlsō, D. Turranium.
(‘My brother Quintus . . . has with him one D. Turranius, a scholarly person.’ Cic. Att.
1.6.2)
(b) Pater nobis decessit a. d. VIII Kal. Dec.
(‘We lost our father on 23 November.’ Cic. Att. 1.6.2)
(c) . . . coliturque ea pars et habitatur frequentissime.
(‘. . . and is also a crowded and thickly inhabited part of the city.’ Cic. Ver. 4.119)
¹⁵⁰ See Linde (1923: 160–1) and, for Apuleius, Möbitz (1923: 120). In the Peregrinatio 40 per cent of the
verbs in such main clauses are in the initial position (Haida 1928: 15). In Augustine it occurs ‘frequently’
(Muldowney 1937: 111–12).
¹⁵¹ See also LSS § 9.3.2.3.
Word order in declarative sentences 
(d) De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor.

(‘About letter dispatches, I am reproached by you without cause.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.3)
(e) Exit cum nuntio Crassus.
(‘Crassus marched out on receipt of the message.’ Caes. Gal. 5.46.2)
(f) Terentia magnos articulorum dolores habet.
(g) Quintum fratrem cottidie exspectamus.
(‘We are expecting brother Quintus back any day.’ Cic. Att. 1.5.8)
23.47 Arguments in final position in declarative sentences

Subject (A1) constituents in final position are not uncommon with one-place verbs if
the underlying question is ‘who?’ or ‘what?’ and the subject is focus of the sentence, as
in (a) and (b). The same is true in sentences with a copula and a subject complement,
as in (c). For a final discourse topic, see (e) in § 23.46. Final subjects of passive sen-
tences (A2’s) are not uncommon either, as in (d).
(a) Intercedit M. Antonius Q. Cassius, tribuni plebis.
(‘This was vetoed by the tribunes Mark Antony and Quintus Cassius.’ Caes. Civ. 1.2.7)
(b) Stabant deligati ad palum nobilissimi iuvenes.
(‘Bound to the stake stood youths of the highest birth.’ Liv. 2.5.6)
(c) Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix.
(‘Among the Helvetii the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix.’
Caes. Gal. 1.2.1)
(d) Vulnerantur amplius DC.
(‘More than six hundred were wounded.’ Caes. Civ. 1.46.4)
Supplement:
Active: Ad singulare enim M. Antoni factum festinat oratio. (Cic. Phil. 1.3); Serpit
enim nescio quo modo per omnium vitas amicitia nec . . . (Cic. Amic. 87); Circa
Larisam erat rex. (Liv. 33.6.3); Ad mare patebat omnibus exitus. (Liv. 34.9.7)
Passive: Atque in re publica maxime conservanda sunt iura belli. (Cic. Off. 1.34);
Recte etiam a Theophrasto est laudata hospitalitas. (Cic. Off. 2.64); In eo proelio ex
equitibus nostris interficiuntur quattuor et septuaginta, in his . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.12.4);
Augur in locum eius inauguratus Q. Fabius Maximus filius. (Liv. 30.26.10)
Examples of final position of the subject (A1) with two- and three-place verbs with
another argument expressed are (e), where hominum verecundia is focus, and (f),
where Caesar is (discourse) topic. In such cases, the subject is sometimes said to be
added just for the sake of clarity.¹⁵² (In (f), the verb is in sentence initial position
because the sentence describes a new phase in the course of events—see § 23.45.)
¹⁵² This is the reading of l, which is printed by Hering and other editors; Caesar . . . dimittit β. For cor-
rections of the word order in β, see Hering’s edition XII–XIII. It is the only instance of Caesar as subject in
 Word order
(e) Hanc naturae tam diligentem fabricam imitata est hominum verecundia.
(‘Man’s modesty has followed this careful contrivance of Nature’s.’ Cic. Off. 1.127)
(f) Dimittit ad finitimas civitates nuntios Caesar.
(‘Caesar sent messengers round to the neighbouring states.’ Caes. Gal. 6.34.8)
Supplement:
Probably focus: Eos quoque vobis eripuit Antonius. (Cic. Phil. 2.55); . . . et hunc locum
satis, ut mihi videtur, in eis libris quos legistis expressit Scipio. (Cic. Leg. 1.27); Nec
enim quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina. (Cic. Off. 1.150); Huic in tua pro-
vincia pecuniam debet P. Cornelius. (Cic. Fam. 13.14.1); Ceterum omnia mutavit
repente consulis adventus. (Liv. 9.27.13); Eorum forti fidelique opera in eo bello usi
sunt saepe Romani. (Liv. 23.46.7); Venientes regio apparatu et accepit et prosecutus
est rex. (Liv. 37.7.15)
Discourse topic: . . . multo tamen vetustior et horridior ille (sc. Laelius) quam Scipio;
et, cum sint in dicendo variae voluntates, delectari mihi magis antiquitate videtur et
lubenter verbis etiam uti paulo magis priscis Laelius. (Cic. Brut. 83)¹⁵³
Rosén (1994: 140–5) discusses clauses with two-place verbs in which the subject fol-
lows a subject complement or an object, as in (g). Augustine uses the determiner ille
remarkably often to mark a noun as definite (or rather, in the terminology of this
chapter, as discourse topic).
(g) (sc. fluctus temptationum) . . . noverat eos iam illa mater . . .
(‘(floods of temptations) . . . that mother of mine knew of them already . . .’
August. Conf. 1.18)
Second arguments can be placed in final position if they are focus. See ex. (a) in
§ 23.46 and (h)–( j) below. In (h), Qßwzv.toŷx .g~{tl must have been entirely unex-
pected for Atticus. In (i), the amicitia between Datames and Ariobarzanes is unex-
pected after the latter’s desertion mentioned at Dat. 2.5. In ( j), the formation of a
battle-line is the predictable thing to do in a war situation, but in the desperate situ-
ation the Samnites are in it is a remarkable feat, hence the unusual order, with aciem
following the verb.
(h) Thyillus te rogat et ego eius rogatu Qßwzv.toŷx.g~{tl.
(‘Thyillus requests you, and so at his request do I, for information about “the rites
ancestral of Eumolpus’ clan”.’ Cic. Att. 1.9.2)
(i) (sc. Datames) Clam cum Ariobarzane facit amicitiam, manum comparat,
urbes munitas suis tuendas tradit.
the final position of a simple sentence in Caesar’s work. For the common postverbal position of Caesar
and other discourse topics in general, see Schneider (1912: 67–9; 74) and K.-St.: II.598.
¹⁵³ K.-St.: II.598 also mention Cic. Mil. 59, where some of the mss. have Proxime deos accessit Clodius.
Most editors follow the other manuscripts in reading Proxime deos Clodius accessit. It has also been pro-
posed to delete Clodius.
Word order in declarative sentences 
(‘He secretly came to an understanding with Ariobarzanes, gathered a band of

soldiers, and entrusted the fortified cities to the protection of his friends.’ Nep.
Dat. 5.6)
( j) (sc. Samnites) Armati suis quisque ordinibus instruunt aciem.
(‘Being armed, they went every man to his own place in the ranks, and formed the
battle-line.’ Liv. 10.36.2)
Supplement:
Ille sensim dicebat quod causae prodesset. Tu cursim dicis aliena. (Cic. Phil. 2.42);
Utitur in re non dubia testibus non necessariis. (Cic. Off. 2.16); Evocat ad se Caesar
Massilia XV primos. (Caes. Civ. 1.35.1); Philippus impigre terra marique parabat
bellum. (Liv. 31.33.1)
Second arguments, however, can also be in final position without a clear focus func-
tion, as is hostem in (k), which refers to the Carthaginian opponent of the Romans
whose existence is presupposed: it is a discourse topic.¹⁵⁴
(k) Is demum equitum impetus perculit hostem.
(‘That charge of the cavalry finally worsted the enemy.’ Liv. 30.35.2)
Supplement:
Itaque equestribus proeliis lacessebant hostem. (Liv. 23.46.11)
Third arguments in sentence-final position are rare. An example of one with focus
function is (l).
(l) Completur urbs et †ius† comitium tribunis [plebis], centurionibus, evocatis.
(‘The city and the assembly place itself were full of staff officers, centurions, re-enlisted
men.’ Caes. Civ. 1.3.3)
Supplement:
(sc. cives Romani) . . . laeti gratias agunt Caesari. (B. Afr. 90.3); (sc. Consul) Neque
immemor . . . reconciliandi animos plebis, saucios milites curandos dividit patribus.
(Liv. 2.47.12); (sc. Camillus) Terrorem ingentem incusserat plebi. Ducibus plebis
accendit magis certamine animos quam minuit. (Liv. 6.38.9)
Examples of subject complements in sentence-final position are (m)–(o), functioning as

focus, with in (o) also an emphatic adjective.¹⁵⁵ An object complement is shown in (p).
(m) Erant quidem illa castra plena curae.
(‘That camp was full of anxiety.’ Cic. Phil. 2.39)
(n) Caesaris autem erat in barbaris nomen obscurius.
(‘For Caesar’s name was comparatively unfamiliar to the natives.’ Caes. Civ. 1.61.3)
¹⁵⁴ For postverbal (most of them not sentence-final) second arguments which are already present in
the discourse, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 127–36) and Danckaert (2012: 328–30).
¹⁵⁵ Adams (1994b: 75–7) discusses a number of sentence-final subject complements containing a noun
phrase with an emphatic adjective.
 Word order
(o) Est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis virtutibus.

(‘Eloquence, after all, is one of the supreme virtues.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.55)
(p) Equidem invitus, sed iniuriae dolor facit me praeter consuetudinem gloriosum.
(‘It is against my will, to be sure, but a sense of injury makes me, contrary to my habit,
vainglorious.’ Cic. Phil. 14.13)
Supplement:
Subject complements: Haec erunt vilici officia. (Cato Agr. 5.1); Id vinum erit lene et
suave et bono colore et bene odoratum. (Cato Agr. 109); Superiore omni oratione per-
attentos vestros animos habuimus. Id fuit nobis gratum admodum. (Cic. Ver. 3.10); Est
enim hiberna navigatio odiosa. (Cic. Att. 15.25.1); Est enim res profecto maxima. (Cic.
Fam. 5.19.2); Esse homines feros magnaeque virtutis. (Caes. Gal. 2.15.5)
Object complements: Eademque ratio fecit hominem hominum appetentem
cumque iis natura et sermone et usu congruentem . . . (Cic. Fin. 2.45); . . . etsi illi qui-
dem etiam voluptates faciunt interdum gloriosas. (Cic. Fin. 4.51); Pontes etiam lex
Maria fecit angustos. (Cic. Leg. 3.38)
23.48 Satellites in final position in declarative sentences

Satellites in sentence-final position, where they usually function as focus, are rare.
Examples are (a) and (b).¹⁵⁶
(a) Referunt consules de re publica infinite.
(‘The consuls’ motion initiated a general debate about public affairs.’ Caes. Civ. 1.1.1)
(b) Sed haec explanata sunt in Academicis nostris satis ut arbitror diligenter.
(‘But this subject has been, I think, quite fully set forth in my “Academics”.’ Cic. Off. 2.8)
Supplement:
Associative adjuncts: Eo (sc. Caesar) proficiscitur cum legionibus. (Caes. Gal.
5.21.4); Secutus consul Servilius cum delecta peditum manu. (Liv. 2.26.3); Eo anno
rex Prusias venit Romam cum filio Nicomede. (Liv. 45.44.4)
Degree adjuncts: Metuoque et timeo ne hoc tandem propalam fiat nimis. (Pl. Mil.
1348); Pernovi equidem, Lesbonice, ingenium tuom ingenuom admodum. (Pl. Trin.
665); Huic legioni Caesar et indulserat praecipue et propter virtutem confidebat
maxime. (Caes. Gal. 1.40.15)
Frequency adjuncts: Qui te et diligunt et retinent retinebuntque semper nec . . . (Cic.
Sul. 35); Qui consulatum petivit numquam factus consul est bis, primum ante tem-
pus, iterum sibi suo tempore . . . (Cic. Amic. 11); “Isti Pindenissitae qui sunt?” inquies.
“Nomen audivi numquam.” (Cic. Att. 5.20.1)
Manner adjuncts: Nulla est mihi, nam quam habui apsumpsi celeriter. (Pl. Cur. 600);
Teneo omnia, in pectore condita sunt, meditati sunt mihi doli docte. (Pl. Ps. 941);
Multo etiam adrisum est vehementius. (Cic. de Orat. 2.262); . . . parens est educa-
trixque sapientia. # Laudata quidem a te graviter et vere. (Cic. Leg. 1.62–3); (sc. stel-
lae) . . . quae globosae et rotundae, divinis animatae mentibus, circulos suos orbesque
¹⁵⁶ In Hoffmann’s corpus of satellites only nine out of 144 are in final position (2010b: 275–6). On
infinite (an emendation), see Damon (2015: 123). Several examples in the Supplement are taken from
K.-St.: II.613.
Word order in declarative sentences 
conficiunt celeritate mirabili. (Cic. Rep. 6.15); Eam (sc. wlxjlx) tamen ipsam distin-
guimus nos melius quam illi. (Cic. Tusc. 3.11); Brutus amicus. In causa versatur
acriter. (Cic. Att. 11.4a.1); Pugnatum est ab utrisque acriter. (Caes. Gal. 4.26.1); (sc.
Hannibal) Navem ascendit clam atque in Syriam ad Antiochum profugit. (Nep. Han.
7.6); Hic manebimus optime. (Liv. 5.55.2)
Means and instrument adjuncts: Victa igitur est causa rei publicae, et victa non aus-
piciis, non intercessione, non suffragiis, sed vi, manu, ferro. (Cic. Sest. 78)
Price adjuncts: Ii emuntur ad Rufri macerias HS CXXC, temperantur HS XXX.
(Cato Agr. 22.3)
Space and time adjuncts: E Pompeiano navi advectus sum in Luculli nostri hospi-
tium VI Id. hora fere tertia. (Cic. Att. 14.20.1); Hac re cognita Caesar mittit com-
plures equitum turmas eodem media nocte. (Caes. Gal. 7.45.1);¹⁵⁷ Et illa quidem
nocte nihil (sc. actum est) praeterquam vigilatum est in urbe. Postero die dicta-
tor . . . (Liv. 3.26.12)
Reason adjuncts: (sc. Favonius) Nunc tamen petit iterum rei publicae causa. (Cic.
Att. 2.1.9); Multi artifices ex Graecia venerunt honoris eius causa. (Liv. 39.22.2)
Respect adjuncts: Tiribazus . . . Cononem evocavit simulans ad regem eum se mittere
velle magna de re. (Nep. Con. 5.3)
23.49 Finite verbs in final position in declarative sentences

The important role of finite verbs as final constituents of clauses and sentences was
already recognized in Antiquity (see § 23.2) and has been stressed by Latinists ever since.
Indeed, no constituent can be found as often in that position as the (finite) verb. But
there is much variation from one text or author to another and even within a single text
of the same author. In Plautus the verb is often followed by other constituents, whereas
Caesar, the ‘fanatic of the final position’,¹⁵⁸ has the verb at the end in 84 per cent of sen-
tences and main clauses (in subordinate clauses it is 90 per cent The percentage varies
in Cicero between 32 per cent and 52 per cent and is as low as 33 per cent in Varro. In
the Peregrinatio the overall percentage is 25 per cent.¹⁵⁹ For the interpretation of these
statistical data at least two factors must be taken into consideration: firstly, the number
of constituents in the clause or sentence (to see whether there is a choice); secondly the
pragmatic status of the verb (it may or may not carry focus). Table 23.3 on p. 1004 shows
that with a more precise definition of ‘simple’ declarative sentence the percentage of final
finite verbs in the examined passage of Caesar is lower (62 per cent), including cases
where there seems to be little choice, such as sentences with only two constituents, as in
(a). Here, postulata Caesaris is the topic and therefore it occupies the first position. Both
the agent and the addressee of renuntiat are known from the context. The sentence tells
us what Roscius did with the postulata, so in this case renuntiat is in final position not
only because there is no choice, but also because it is carrying the focus. Likewise, in (b),
consequitur is the most salient information. In (c), by contrast, it is difficult to find a
¹⁵⁷ Hering punctuates: . . . eodem. Media nocte . . .

¹⁵⁸ So Linde (1923: 154), who uses the term ‘ein Fanatiker der Endstellung’.
¹⁵⁹ These data are taken from Linde (1923: 154–6) and widely used. For a survey of statistical data, see
Baños and Cabrillana (2009: 688–93), Meyer-Hermann (2011: 11–15—very complete), and Ledgeway
(2012: 228–9). See also LSS § 9.3.1.
 Word order
pragmatic justification for the position of mittit: all of the information M. Antonium
cum cohortibus V Arretium mittit is new (a complex focus unit), with Arretium prob-
ably being the least predictable and therefore most salient element. For most of the
finite verbs in final position in Caesar a pragmatic justification is difficult to find. At
the same time, in Cicero’s de Officiis, where verbs in final position are in the minority,
it is also often difficult to find a pragmatic justification for this, as for (d), where (in
rationem) utilitatis seems the most salient information, not cadit.
(a) (sc. Roscius) Postulata Caesaris renuntiat (sc. consulibus Pompeioque).
(‘He presented Caesar’s demands.’ Caes. Civ. 1.10.1)
(b) Interea legio XII Caesarem consequitur.
(‘Meanwhile the twelfth legion reached Caesar.’ Caes. Civ. 1.15.3)
(c) (sc. Caesar) Itaque ab Arimino M. Antonium cum cohortibus V Arretium
mittit.
(‘Caesar therefore sent Marcus Antonius from Ariminum to Arretium with five
cohorts.’ Caes. Civ. 1.11.4)
(d) Quae deliberatio omnis in rationem utilitatis cadit.
(‘This whole matter turns upon a question of expediency.’ Cic. Off. 1.9)
A considerable portion of the finite verb forms in sentence-final position is constituted

by auxiliary verb forms, both forms of sum in its auxiliary use in complex verb forms
(see § 4.93) and auxiliary verbs proper (see § 4.98), as in (e) and (f), respectively.
There is as a rule no pragmatic justification for their own position (for the internal
ordering of the unit they are part of, see §§ 23.97–9; for sum, see also § 23.33).
(e) Pax denique per eum et per liberos eius cum praestantissimis civibus confir-
mata est.
(‘Finally, through him and his son, peace with our most distinguished fellow coun-
trymen was established.’ Cic. Phil. 1.2)
(f) Aliquid enim salis a mima uxore trahere potuisti.
(‘You could have picked up a little humour from your mime-actress spouse.’ Cic.
Phil. 2.20)
It seems then that there is a default rule which holds that if there are no other obvious
salient candidates for the final position of the sentence the finite verb is a suitable
candidate. The reason for this rule need not be ‘stylistic’ in the sense that it is a purely
individual decision of the language user. After all, the verb is the central building
block of the clause, whether it is salient information or not, and may thus serve as a
boundary signal, at least in writing. Some authors show more variation than others.¹⁶⁰
Considerations of clausulae may play a role as well.
¹⁶⁰ Celsus is one of the authors who prefers to put forms of sum at the very end of the clause or sentence
(Adams 1994b: 56).
Word order in interrogative sentences 
. Intermediate positions in simple declarative sentences
Obviously, in sentences of three or more constituents, those constituents that are not
in the initial or final position end up in between. For the preference of certain pro-
nouns, forms of sum, and a few others for a position after a pragmatically prominent
constituent, see §§ 23.30–3. Verbs can end up in an intermediate position when they
are used to create discontinuity. In (a), the position of abundabat lends prominence to
the modifier of the noun phrase omnium rerum copia. In (b), attulit is used in com-
bination with the third argument nostris and a satellite ad salutem to lend prominence
to the modifier of the focus constituent magnum momentum. In addition to, or some-
times instead of, pragmatic considerations prosodic considerations may be relevant as
well. For further details, see § 23.87.
(a) At exercitus Afrani omnium rerum abundabat copia.
(‘Afranius’ army, however, had an abundance of everything.’ Caes. Civ. 1.49.1)
(b) Hoc pugnae tempus magnum attulit nostris ad salutem momentum.
(‘The time they spent fighting was of great consequence for the safety of our people.’
Caes. Civ. 1.51.6)
. Word order in interrogative sentences

Interrogative sentences are much less attested in our texts than declarative sentences
and also very unevenly distributed over the various text types. They are only used with
some frequency in interactive texts, such as drama, orations, dialogues, and letters. As
with declarative sentences, the number of simple interrogative sentences is limited,
even though the proportion of simple sentences among interrogative sentences in gen-
eral is high. Word order in interrogative sentences has received little systematic atten-
tion.¹⁶¹ For the description of the order of constituents in interrogative sentences that
follows, the distinction between simple and multiple questions and between sentence
questions and constituent questions (see §§ 6.6–7) will be maintained.
. Word order in sentence questions
In § 6.8, two types of sentence questions (or ‘yes/no questions’) have been distin-
guished, those with and without a question particle. For an utterance without a ques-
tion particle to be recognized as a sentence question (and not as a declarative sentence),
the order of constituents is often not very helpful (see § 6.9). In the absence of infor-
mation about intonation, we need to rely on our interpretation in the given context.
In sentences without a question particle in which the scope of the question is on the
verb that verb is less often in first position than in sentences with the question particle
¹⁶¹ Exceptions are Devine and Stephens (2006: 235–42) and Spevak (2010a: Ch 4).
 Word order
-ne.¹⁶² Examples are (a) and (b). The position of the verbs in these examples resembles
the assertive or veridical use of the first position in declarative sentences (see § 23.45).
Here the responses to the questions also contribute to a correct interpretation.
(a) Periisti iam nisi verum scio. / Prompsisti tu illi vinum? # Non prompsi. #
Negas? / # Nego hercle vero.
(‘You are dead this instant unless I know the truth. Did you draw wine for him? # No,
I didn’t. # You deny it? # I do indeed deny it.’ Pl. Mil. 828–30)
(b) Infirmas igitur tu acta C. Caesaris, viri fortissimi? # Minime.
(‘Do you then invalidate the gallant Caesar’s proceedings? # By no means.’ Cic. Dom. 39)
Supplement:
Ibo igitur intro? # Quippini? Tam audacter quam domum ad te. (Pl. Truc. 205);
Ceterum / placet tibi factum, Micio? # Non, si queam mutare. (Ter. Ad. 736–8); Intueris
illas potentium domos, illa tumultuosa rixa salutantium limina? (Sen. Ep. 84.12)
As in declarative sentences, contrastive constituents are placed in the initial position,

as the topic constituent isti ordini in (c) and the focus constituents timor and ratio in
(d). In (c), the preceding question Quid? contributes to the correct interpretation of
the sentence as interrogative. Emphatic modifiers are placed in the initial position as
well, as in (e), where hanc is separated from the remainder of the topic constituent
tam . . . cupiditatem.
(c) Quid? Isti ordini iudicatus lege Iulia, etiam ante Pompeia, Aurelia non
patebat?
(‘Indeed? Service as a juror was not open to that class under the Julian law, and even
earlier under the Pompeian and Aurelian?’ Cic. Phil. 1.20)
(d) Timor igitur ab his aegritudinem potuit repellere, ratio ab sapienti viro non
poterit?
(‘Therefore fear had the power to drive away their distress, and shall not reason have
power to drive it away from the wise man?’ Cic. Tusc. 3.66)
(e) Hanc vos, pontifices, tam variam, tam novam in omni genere voluntatem,
impudentiam, audaciam, cupiditatem comprobabitis?
(‘And will you, gentlemen, set the seal of your sanction upon this desire, so shifting
and so unusual in every respect, this impudence, effrontery, and covetousness?’ Cic.
Dom. 116)
Supplement:
Ergo histrio hoc videbit in scena, non videbit sapiens vir in vita? (Cic. Off. 1.114); Tu
illum premi putas malis? (Sen. Ep. 85.40)
Of sentence questions with a question particle, those with -ne, nonne, and num
deserve attention from the point of view of word order because they (or in the case
¹⁶² See Schrickx (2017: 243).

Word order in interrogative sentences 
of -ne the constituent to which it is attached) may be preceded by a connector or by a

pragmatically marked, usually topical, constituent.
The particle -ne is normally attached to an initial constituent to mark the scope of
the question, often a constituent with focus function (see § 23.37 and also § 6.11).¹⁶³
In (f), the constituent to which -ne is attached is preceded by a connector; in (g), by
the topic of the sentence; in (h), by a contrastive topic.
(f) Ipsus, inquam, Charmides sum. # Ergo ipsusne es? # Ipsissimus.
(‘I’m telling you, I am Charmides myself. # Then are you him yourself? # My selfest
self.’ Pl. Trin. 988)
(g) Scyphos quos utendos dedi Philodamo, rettulitne? / # Non etiam.
(‘And the goblets I lent to Philodamos, has he returned them? # He still hasn’t.’ Pl.
As. 444–5)
(h) Tibi omnisne animi commotio videtur insania? # Non mihi quidem soli . . .
(‘Do you regard every agitation of the soul as unsoundness of mind? # It is not my
opinion only . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.8)
Supplement:
Argenti viginti minas habesne? (Pl. As. 579); Sed videone ego Pamphilippum cum fra-
tre Epignomo? (Pl. St. 582); Illa, Caecili, contemnendane tibi videntur esse, sine quibus
causa sustineri, praesertim tanta, nullo modo potest? (Cic. Div. Caec. 35); Pro te ipso,
Piso, nemone mutabit (sc. vestitum)? (Cic. Sest. 33); ‘Sed quid ago’ inquit ‘aut sumne
sanus qui haec vos doceo?’ (Cic. Ac. 1.18); Facio, inquit, equidem, sed audistine modo
de Carneade? (Cic. Fin. 5.6); In mancipio vendundo dicendane vitia . . .? (Cic. Off. 3.91)
In the large majority of the sentences in Cicero’s orations in which -ne is attached to a
constituent other than the verb the final position is occupied by a verb, as in (i).¹⁶⁴
However, other constituents can be placed in final position as well, as in (h) above and
in ( j) and (k).
(i) Bellumne populo Romano Lampsacena civitas facere conabatur? Deficere ab
imperio ac nomine nostro volebat?
(‘Was the town of Lampsacum aiming at making war upon Rome? Did it mean to
revolt from its allegiance to our rule?’ Cic. Ver. 1.79)
( j) Verresne habebit domi suae candelabrum Iovis e gemmis auroque perfectum?
(‘Shall Verres include in his furniture this lamp-stand, wrought in gold and precious
stones, that belongs to Jupiter himself?’ Cic. Ver. 4.71)
(k) Parumne haec significant incredibiliter consentientem populi Romani uni-
versi voluntatem?
(‘Is not all this enough to signify a truly extraordinary consensus of the entire Roman
people?’ Cic. Phil. 1.36)
¹⁶³ For the decrease in use of -ne, see § 6.8. See also TLL s.v. -ne 261.25ff.
¹⁶⁴ Source: Merguet (Reden) s.v. -ne 255–8. In about one-third of the sentences the first position is
taken by a verb.
 Word order
Sentence questions with nonne are relatively often preceded by a connector, as in (l),
or by a topic constituent, as in (m). A rather complex case with more constituents
preceding nonne is (n). There seem to be no instances of nonne preceded by a finite
verb. See also § 23.27 and § 6.12.¹⁶⁵
(l) Sed nonne meministi licere mihi ista probare, quae sunt a te dicta?
(‘But don’t you remember that it is quite open to me to approve the doctrines you
have stated?’ Cic. Fin. 5.76)
(m) Quid? Eundem in septemviratu nonne destituisti?
(‘Well? Did you not also let him down in the matter of the Board of Seven?’ Cic. Phil. 2.99)
(n) Quid? Cn. Pompeius pater rebus Italico bello maximis gestis P. Caesium,
equitem Romanum, virum bonum, qui vivit, Ravennatem foederato ex
populo, nonne civitate donavit?
(‘Again, did not Gnaeus Pompeius (sc. Strabo), the father of Pompeius, after great
exploits in the Italian War, bestow citizenship on Publius Caesius, a Roman Knight, a
worthy man still living, who was a citizen of Ravenna and a member of a federate
state?’ Cic. Balb. 50)
Supplement:
Quaeso, nonne intellegis? (Pl. Am. 625); Ad senatum nostrum me consule nonne
legati Apollonidenses omnia postulata de iniuriis unius Deciani detulerunt? (Cic.
Flac. 79); Idem iste Mithridates nonne ad eundem Cn. Pompeium legatum usque in
Hispaniam misit? (Cic. Man. 46); Bello Punico secundo nonne C. Flaminius consul
iterum neglexit signa rerum futurarum magna cum clade rei publicae? (Cic. Div.
1.77); Quid? Nostros Gracchos, Ti. Gracchi summi viri filios, Africani nepotes,
nonne agrariae contentiones perdiderunt? (Cic. Off. 2.80); Ea plaga nonne ad multos
bonos viros pertinet? (Cic. Att. 2.1.10)
The large majority of simple interrogative sentences containing nonne in Cicero’s ora-
tions have a verb in final position, as in (m) and (n) above. However, other constituents
may be placed there as well, as (o), with a contrastive focus in final position, and (p).
(o) Nonne te mihi testem in hoc crimine eripuit non istius innocentia, sed legis
exceptio?
(‘Did not the exemption the law gives you, and not your client’s innocence, deprive
me of calling you yourself as a witness to the truth of this charge?’ Cic. Ver. 2.24)
(p) (sc. Pompeius) Nonne compensavit cum uno versiculo tot mea volumina
laudum suarum?
(‘Did he not set off against one poor verse all those volumes of mine that sing his
praises?’ Cic. Pis. 75)
Examples of constituents preceding sentence questions with num, as in (q) and (r), are
less common. See § 23.27 and also § 6.13.
¹⁶⁵ For the limited distribution of nonne, see § 6.8.

Word order in interrogative sentences 
(q) Sed num quo foras / vocatus <es> ad cenam?

(‘But have you been asked out for dinner anywhere?’ Pl. Capt. 172–3)
(r) Ex aede Liberae †parimum† caput illud pulcherrimum, quod visere sole-
bamus, num dubitasti tollere?
(‘And did you hesitate to remove from the temple of Libera that lovely head of . . . which
we used to go there to see?’ Cic. Ver. 4.128)
Supplement:
Haec cistella numnam hinc ab nobis domo est? (Pl. Cist. 658); Iam num me decet
donari / cado vini veteris? (Pl. Poen. 258–9); Quid ergo? Istius vitii num nostra culpa
est? (Cic. Luc. 92); Quid? Deum ipsum numne vidisti? (Cic. N.D. 1.88)
The large majority of interrogative sentences in Cicero’s orations containing num have
a verb in final position, as in (s). Different are (t), with the focus in final position, and
(u), with te in final position because the beginning of a new phase of the discussion
favours the initial position of the verb conturbo (for the verb in initial position in
declarative sentences, see § 23.45).
(s) Num etiam de L. Papinio, viro primario, locupleti honestoque equite
Romano, turibulum emisti?
(‘What of the censer belonging to Lucius Papinius, that well-known gentleman, that
wealthy and highly-respected knight? Did you also buy that?’ Cic. Ver. 4.46)
(t) Sed si parum multi sunt qui nobilitatem ament, num ista est nostra culpa?
(‘If, then, those who love nobility are less numerous than you would have them, is
this our fault?’ Cic. Planc. 18)
(u) Quid est? Num conturbo te?
(‘What is it? Can it be that I am confusing you?’ Cic. Phil. 2.32)
. Word order in constituent questions
Constituent questions (or ‘nominal questions’) contain a question word which either
functions on its own as argument or satellite of the sentence, as in (a) and (b), or func-
tions as modifier of a noun, adjective, or adverb phrase, as in (c) and (d) (see § 6.19).
As the examples show, the regular position of such question words, which are the
focus in their sentence, is at the beginning. Modifiers can be separated from their
heads for reasons of emphasis, as in (c).
(a) Quis enim meum in ista societate gloriosissimi facti nomen audivit?
(‘Who ever heard my name linked with that partnership in a most glorious deed?’
Cic. Phil. 2.25)
(b) Cur autem ea comitia non habuisti?
(‘Why then did you not hold that election?’ Cic. Phil. 2.99)
(c) Qui tum inde reditus aut qualis?
(‘What sort of return did he make at that time, what was its nature?’ Cic. Phil. 2.48)
 Word order
(d) Quam longe est hinc in saltum vestrum Gallicanum?

(‘How far is it from here to your pastures in Gaul?’ Cic. Quinct. 79)
Question words can be preceded by connectors and by pragmatically prominent

words or constituents (see § 23.28). In Spevak’s corpus, this is the case in less than
10 per cent of constituent questions. This phenomenon mainly occurs with constitu-
ents that function as topics or settings. Some additional examples of pragmatically
prominent constituents are (e)–(i). In (e), Stalagmus is mentioned in the preceding
context and is the topic of the sentence. In (f), tu is a contrastive topic. In (g), repeated
from § 23.28, Cicero’s arrival in Rome is a subtopic, part of his spectacular return
from exile. Another way of putting a constituent in front of a question word is shown
in (h) and (i). Here the regular order of the constituents of a noun phrase is reversed
for pragmatic purposes. In (h), de collegio continues collegium in the preceding sen-
tence. In (i), mali is a contrastive topic.
(e) Sed Stalagmus quoius erat tunc nationis, quom hinc abit?
(‘But what was Stalagmus’ nationality when he went away from here?’ Pl. Capt. 887)
(f) Atque ille tamen ad collegium rettulit, tu ad quem rettulisti?
(‘Yet he submitted his dedication to the Sacred College; and to whom did you submit
yours?’ Cic. Dom. 132)
(g) Adventus meus atque introitus in urbem qui fuit?
(‘As for my arrival at and entry into the city: what was its character?’ Cic. Dom. 75)
(h) Esto, collegium non adhibuisti. Quid? De collegio quis tandem adfuit?
(‘Very well, you did not call in the College. And of the College, who, pray, was pre-
sent?’ Cic. Dom. 117)
(i) Video nos, si ita sit, privari spe beatioris vitae. Mali vero quid adfert ista
sententia?
(‘I see that in that case we are deprived of the hope of a happier life. But what evil does
such a view imply?’ Cic. Tusc. 1.82)
Supplement:
Quid? Pompei tertius consulatus in quibus actis constitit? (Cic. Phil. 1.18); Etsi in
rebus iniquissimis quid potest esse aequi? (Cic. Phil. 2.75); Criminatio tua quae est?
Roscium cum Flavio pro societate decidisse. . . Defensio mea quae est? (Cic. Q. Rosc.
37); Si damnatus eris, atque adeo cum damnatus eris—nam dubitatio damnationis
illis recuperatoribus quae poterat esse?—virgis te ad necem caedi necesse erit. (Cic.
Ver. 3.70); Elephanto beluarum nulla prudentior. Ad figuram quae vastior? (Cic.
N.D. 1.97); Tu enim quam celebritatem sermonis hominum aut quam expetendam
consequi gloriam potes? (Cic. Rep. 6.20); Quid? Ante avum tuum quis istum agrum
tenuit? (Sen. Ep. 88.12); Populus Romanus cum quibus gentibus bella conseruit et
quibus de causis. (Amp. 28.1—NB: heading of a section); Nomen quid est? # Pars
orationis . . . (Don. min. IV.355.5K [= 585.7H])¹⁶⁶
¹⁶⁶ This order is quite normal in didactic grammatical treatises with question and answer pairs. See
Flobert (2002).
Word order in imperative sentences 
As for the position of the other constituents in constituent questions, no systematic

research seems to have been done. In Cic. Phil. 1 and 2 there are twenty simple sen-
tences with an initial question word that contain a two-place verb. Nineteen sentences
have the finite verb at the end, as in ( j), and only one, (k), ends with another constitu-
ent, possibly to emphasize it.
( j) Quis autem umquam tanto damno senatorem coegit?
(‘Who ever compelled a senator’s attendance by so heavy a forfeit?’ Cic. Phil. 1.12)
(k) Cur homines omnium gentium maxime barbaros, Ityraeos, cum sagittis
deducis in forum?
(‘Why do you bring into the Forum the most barbarous men of all nations, Ituraeans,
with arrows?’ Cic. Phil. 2.112)
. Word order in multiple questions
As with simple questions, topic constituents can be put in an initial position of a sen-
tence that contains multiple (or ‘alternative’ or ‘disjunctive’) questions if that constitu-
ent belongs to both parts of the multiple question, as in (a) and (b). Note that (c) is
different: here, Albiana pecunia only belongs to the first part.
(a) Haec utrum tandem lex est an legum omnium dissolutio?
(‘Is this a law or the cancellation of all laws?’ Cic. Phil. 1.21)
(b) In plebem vero Romanam utrum superbiam prius commemorem an
crudelitatem?
(‘As to his behaviour towards ordinary people in Rome, should I speak first of its
snobbery or its cruelty?’ Cic. Ver. 1.122)
(c) Quid? Albiana pecunia vestigiisne nobis odoranda est an ad ipsum cubile
vobis ducibus venire possumus?
(‘What then? Does Albius’ money need to be sniffed out along your tracks or with
your guidance can we come straight to his lair?’ Cic. Clu. 82)
There is little to say with certainty about other aspects of word order in multiple ques-
tions. It seems to be the same as in declarative sentences.¹⁶⁷
. Word order in imperative sentences

It is a widespread opinion among Latinists that in imperative sentences the verb regu-
larly occupies the first position of the sentence.¹⁶⁸ On closer inspection, this is only
partly true. Following the distinction between imperative sentences with a ‘directive’,
¹⁶⁷ So Devine and Stephens (2006: 241).

¹⁶⁸ For discussion, see Spevak (2010a: 205–6) and Cabrillana (2017a: 122–3).
 Word order
an ‘optative’, and a ‘concessive’ illocutionary force made in Chapter 6, the word order
in these three types is dealt with separately.¹⁶⁹
. Word order in imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force
Imperative sentences with a directive illocutionary force include both the prototypical
directives addressed to a second person addressee (where the subject is normally not
expressed) and various expressions with first and third person subjects (see § 6.28).
Second person directives are discussed first.
It is necessary to make a distinction between various types of second person direct-
ives. Alongside ‘regular’ directives like (a) and (b), there are ‘metadirectives’ like fac in
(c) (see § 6.29) and interactional expressions like dic mihi in (d).¹⁷⁰
(a) Sequere me hac intro. # Sequor.
(‘Follow me inside this way. # I’m following you.’ Pl. Cur. 370)
(b) Hoc animum advorte. Pacem ab Aesculapio / petas, ne fort’ tibi eveniat mag-
num malum . . .
(‘Mark my words: seek peace from Aesculapius, so that you won’t by chance end up
with the great disaster . . .’ Pl. Cur. 270–1)
(c) Ipse vero utique fac venias, si potes in his locis adhaerescere, et Piliam adducas.
(‘As for yourself, do come without fail, if you can bear to stick down here for a while,
and bring Pilia.’ Cic. Att. 4.4a.2)
(d) Sed dic mihi, / benene ambulatum est?
(‘But tell me, did you have a good trip?’ Pl. Truc. 368–9)
A considerable portion of imperative sentences are of the metadirective or inter-

actional type. These imperatives are almost always in an early position. With the regu-
lar directives, however, there is some variation. In a corpus of 116 imperative sentences
with two-place verbs, Spevak (2010a: 213–16) found the order verb–second argument
in 75 per cent of cases, the reverse order in 25 per cent. More importantly, the orders
can usually be accounted for in terms of the distribution of topic and focus. This is
illustrated by (e) and (f), which both contain the forms hanc and tollite.¹⁷¹ In (e), hanc
prepares causam in the following sentence and is the focus. The command is about
what to remove. In (f), hanc refers to crudelitate in the preceding context and is thus
the topic. The command is about what to do with the crudelitas. In (g), sentence-final
diligentiam is the focus of the sentence. In (h), totam vitam, naturam moresque homi-
nis is the focus of the sentence (even though hominis is known information,
¹⁶⁹ For a more detailed subclassification of imperative sentences and their word order, see
Cabrillana (2017a: 116–21). Her study concentrates on the verbs sum and fio.
¹⁷⁰ Instead of ‘metadirective’ Spevak (2010a: 208–9) uses the term ‘periphrastic’.
¹⁷¹ The examples are cited by Spevak.
Word order in imperative sentences 
sc. Capitonis), placed in initial position for reasons of emphasis (totam). Ex ipsa lega-
tione is an (emphatic: ipsa) topic, which leaves cognoscite at the end.¹⁷²
(e) Tollite hanc: nullam tam pravae sententiae causam reperietis.
(‘Take away this reason: you will find no reason at all for so misguided a proposal.’
Cic. Phil. 14.3)
(f) Hanc (sc. crudelitatem) tollite ex civitate, iudices, hanc pati nolite diutius in
hac re publica versari.
(‘Banish this cruelty from the State, gentlemen; do not allow it to stalk abroad any
longer in this republic.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 154)
(g) P. Servilius . . . signa . . . in tabula publica ad aerarium perscribenda curavit.
Cognoscite ex litteris publicis hominis amplissimi diligentiam. Recita.
(‘P. Servilius . . . took care to enter the statues in full in the official catalogue of the
public Treasury. Learn of the scrupulous care shown by this eminent man from the
national records. Read them, please.’ Cic. Ver. 1.57)
(h) Venit in decem primis legatus in castra Capito. Totam vitam, naturam
moresque hominis ex ipsa legatione cognoscite.
(‘Capito came to the camp as one of the deputies among the ten heads of the decuri-
ons. Now learn thoroughly the manner of life, the nature and character of the man
from his behaviour on the deputation alone.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 109)
The first position of the verb may also be related to emphasis, as in (i) and ( j).
(i) Obsecro, populares, ferte misero atque innocenti auxilium, / subvenite inopi.
(‘I beg you, fellow citizens, come to the rescue of a poor innocent man, help a defence-
less man!’ Ter. Ad. 155–6)
( j) Retinete, retinete hominem in civitate, iudices, parcite et conservate . . .
(‘Save the man, save him for Rome, gentlemen! Spare him and keep him safe!’ Cic.
Ver. 2.76)
Second person directives in the subjunctive (both commands and prohibitions) have not
been investigated from the point of view of word order. For examples, see § 7.53. First
person directives in the ‘adhortative’ subjunctive have not received special attention either.
See § 7.52. Third person directives in the ‘jussive’ subjunctive (see § 7.54) are not relevant
here, because the subject is often expressed or inferrable from the context, as in (k).
(k) Vilicus ne sit ambulator, sobrius siet semper, ad cenam nequo eat.
(‘The overseer must not be a gadabout, he must always be sober, and must not go out
to dine.’ Cato Agr. 5.2)
¹⁷² For a different analysis, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 170–1). In his orations, Cicero addresses
the judges with cognoscite about eighty times, of which about one-third are in sentences with three or
more constituents. In these sentences final position of the verb is more frequent. For the initial placement
of the verb in imperative sentences in Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 47–8). In legal and religious texts the
verb is very often in final position, including in imperative sentences. See Panhuis (1982: Ch. 5).
 Word order
With the future imperative the subject can be second or third person. In (l) it is sec-
ond person, as the preceding imperatives show; in the fictitious law in (m) it is third
person.
(l) Stercilinum magnum stude ut habeas. Stercus sedulo conserva. Cum
exportabis, purgato et comminuito. Per autumnum evehito.
(‘See that you have a large dunghill; save the manure carefully, and when you
carry it out, clean it of foreign matter and break it up. Autumn is the time to
haul it out.’ Cato Agr. 5.8)
(m) Meretrix coronam auream ne habeto. Si habuerit, publica esto.
(‘A prostitute shall not wear a crown of gold; if she does, the penalty shall be
confiscation as public property.’ Cic. Inv. 2.118)
. Word order in imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force
Imperative sentences with an optative illocutionary force in the subjunctive can

have a first, second, or third person subject. In the last case, the subject is usually
expressed. Examples can be found in § 6.33 and §§ 7.56–8. There are no special
studies concerning the word order in these expressions. Wishes can contain the
particle utinam, which usually occupies the first position, as in (a). However, it may
be preceded by a connector or a pragmatically prominent word or constituent, as in
(b) and (c), respectively.
(a) Utinam P. Clodius non modo viveret sed etiam praetor, consul, dictator esset
potius quam hoc spectaculum viderem!
(‘Would that Publius Clodius not merely lived, but were praetor, consul, ay, dictator,
rather than that I should live to see that sight!’ Cic. Mil. 103)
(b) Sed utinam meo solum capite decernerem!
(‘But if only it was just my own life I was staking!’ Cic. Att. 10.9.2)
(c) Pecunia utinam ad Opis maneret!
(‘If only the money were still in the Temple of Ops!’ Cic. Phil. 1.17)
. Word order in imperative sentences with a concessive

illocutionary force
In imperative sentences with a concessive illocutionary force, the verb is usually in the
first position of the sentence. This resembles the assertive or veridical use of the first
position in declarative sentences (see § 23.45). For examples, see § 6.34 and § 7.59.
Another illustration is (a). In (b), the connector sed precedes the verb. In (c), the con-
trastive topic haec has the first position.
(a) Esto, concedatur haec quoque acerbitatis et odii magnitudo.
(‘Well, let us even allow that the magnitude of your acrimony and your hatred is jus-
tified.’ Cic. Deiot. 30)
Word order in subordinate clauses 
(b) Sed sint falsa quaedam. Contra vera quid dicimus?

(‘But grant that some are untrustworthy. Why do we declaim against those that are
trustworthy?’ Cic. Div. 1.60)
(c) Age, haec probabilia sane sint. Num etiam illa, numquam timere numquam
dolere?
(‘Well, granted that this may be probable, surely the following tenets are not so too,
that he never feels fear and that he never feels pain.’ Cic. Luc. 135)
. Word order in superordinate (main) clauses

In studies on Latin word order main clauses and superordinate clauses in general are not
treated separately from simple sentences. Also, no distinction is made between
superordinate clauses that precede their subordinate clause and those that follow. A few
observations will suffice.¹⁷³ If the preceding subordinate clause is a setting, as in (a), the
superordinate clause regularly starts with a topic constituent. In (a), faber can be inferred
from the action of building (it is a ‘subtopic’—see § 22.4); similarly, oppidum in (b) can be
inferred from the town Salonae. In (c), subito is emphatic and for that reason precedes
anaphoric illi. Verbs in initial position are rare, but they are inevitable in cases like (d),
with an implicit subject and an accusative and infinitive clause as focal second argument.
(a) Villam aedificandam si locabis novam ab solo, faber haec faciat oportet:
parietes omnes . . .
(‘If you are contracting for the building of a new steading from the ground up, the
contractor should be responsible for the following: all walls . . .’ Cato Agr. 14.1)
(b) Conventum Salonis cum neque pollicitationibus neque denuntiatione
periculi permovere posset, oppidum oppugnare instituit.
(‘Unable to influence the association of Roman citizens at Salonae either by promises
or by heralding danger, he began to besiege the town.’ Caes. Civ. 3.9.2)
(c) Et cum cotidiana consuetudine Q. Varus, praefectus equitum Domiti, venisset,
subito illi ex insidiis consurrexerunt.
(‘And when Quintus Varus, Domitius’ cavalry commander, arrived following the
regular routine, the enemy suddenly burst out of their ambush.’ Caes. Civ. 3.37.5)
(d) Haec cum dixisset, iuravit se nisi victorem in castra non reversurum reli-
quosque ut idem facerent hortatus est.
(‘After speaking thus, he took an oath that he would not return to camp except as a
victor, and he urged the rest to do the same.’ Caes. Civ. 3.87.5)
. Word order in subordinate clauses

There are not many detailed studies on the order of constituents in subordinate
clauses. In finite subordinate clauses the finite verb is more often placed at the end
¹⁷³ These observations are based on an examination of cum clauses in Caes. Civ. which open the com-
plex sentence to which they belong. Further research is required.
 Word order
than in main clauses. Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses has received
some attention because ambiguity can arise when the subject and object are formally
identical and the relative order is not fixed. In the following sections only a few finite
and non-finite subordinate clauses are discussed separately. Subordinate clauses may
be complex themselves. Cum clauses are a good example, especially those closing the
sentence. In the Ciceronian sample about one-third are complex, in the Caesarian
almost a quarter. The discussion will only concern ‘simple’ clauses. The term ‘simple’
is used in the same way as it is for sentences (see § 23.39).
. Word order in finite subordinate clauses
What most finite subordinate clauses have in common is the presence of a subordin-
ating device (see § 14.6), for example a subordinator, a question particle, or a relative
pronoun, which usually occupies the first position of the clause. Other orders, mainly
for pragmatic reasons, are discussed in §§ 23.23–8.
There is little systematic research on word order in subordinate clauses, neither on the
individual types of clauses, nor on how it may differ from word order in main clauses and
simple sentences.¹⁷⁴ The examination below of two samples of ‘simple’ cum adjunct clauses
in Cic. Phil. and Caes. Civ. will serve as an illustration of the relevant issues. Cum clauses
may precede, be incorporated in, or follow their superordinate clauses, with potentially
different interpretations of the cum relations, which are here ignored. One or more argu-
ments or satellites can precede cum, as in (a), with a connective relative pronoun. A rare
instance of a preceding verb form is (b), with separation of the infinitive and the auxiliary
vellent. Within the cum clause the first position is most often taken by a topical first or
second argument (also in passive clauses), as in (c), but a verb is not uncommon either, as
in (d), a clause expressing a position in space. In clauses with two or more constituents in
addition to the verb, the verb is regularly the last constituent, as in (e), but arguments and
satellites are not excluded, as impunitas in (f), the focus of the clause. Constituents other
than the verb in final position can usually be explained on pragmatic grounds.¹⁷⁵ Proper
names are relatively common in final position when they are discourse topic, as in (g)
(further examples in the Supplement—see also § 23.47 for declarative sentences).
(a) Apud quos cum proficere nihil posset, quibusdam solutis ergastulis Compsam
in agro Hirpino oppugnare coepit.
(‘Since he was unable to make any progress with these, he opened the slave lock-ups
and began to blockade Compsa in the territory of the Hirpini.’ Caes. Civ. 3.22.2)
(b) Hinc se recipere cum vellent, rursus illi ex loco superiore nostros premebant.
(‘When our men wanted to withdraw from this position, the enemy put pressure on
them from above.’ Caes. Civ. 1.45.3)
¹⁷⁴ For the position of the verb in subordinate clauses, often clause-initial, in the Peregrinatio, see
Linde (1923: 168) and Haida (1928: 34). For Augustine, see Muldowney (1937: 115–16), with detailed
statistics. Initial position is particularly common in his less elevated writings, including his Confessions.
¹⁷⁵ This is also the case in the corpus (Caes. Gal. and Tac. Ann.) used by Longrée et al. (2019).
Word order in subordinate clauses 
(c) Cum cohortes ex acie procucurrissent, Numidae integri celeritate impetum

nostrorum effugiebant . . .
(‘When our cohorts advanced at a run from the line, the Numidians would flee before
their attack at full speed . . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.41.6)
(d) Accessit ut Caesare ignaro, cum esset ille Alexandriae, beneficio amicorum
eius magister equitum constitueretur.
(‘On top of all, he was appointed Master of the Horse by favour of Caesar’s friends
without Caesar’s knowledge, since he was in Alexandria.’ Cic. Phil. 2.62)
(e) Itaque . . . milites misit, cum repente a te praeclara illa tabula prolata est.
(‘And so, he sent soldiers to you; at which point you suddenly posted that magnificent
notice announcing a sale.’ Cic. Phil. 2.73)
(f) Video autem quam sit odiosum habere eundem iratum et armatum, cum
tanta praesertim gladiorum sit impunitas.
(‘And I am well aware how disagreeable it is to have a man angry when he carries a
weapon, especially in times when swords are used with so much impunity.’ Cic.
Phil. 1.27)
(g) Cum in Italiam proficisceretur Caesar, Servium Galbam . . . misit . . .
(‘When Caesar was setting out for Italy, he sent Servius Galba . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.1.1)
Table 23.6 (page 1040) contains some numerical data.¹⁷⁶

In the Caesarian sample, the number of constituents, other than the verb, per
cum clause is lower than in simple sentences, so it is not surprising to have a higher
ratio of final verbs. In both samples the number of final constituents other than
verbs, as in (f) above, is lower than in simple sentences. This may be a side-effect of
the higher number of anaphoric constituents in simple sentences, which usually
occupy the first position in their sentence. About one-fifth of verbs are in the first
available position. In addition to (d) above, see (h), where the cum clause resembles
a presentative sentence.
(h) Nam cum serperet in urbe infinitum malum idque manaret in dies latius . . .
talis animadversio fuit Dolabellae . . .
(‘For when a boundless infection was gaining ground in Rome and spreading wider
and wider day by day . . . such was the action taken by Dolabella in punishing . . .’ Cic.
Phil. 1.5)
K.-St.: II.598 give instances of what they call a certain ‘mannerism’ in ‘unclassical’
authors, which consists in putting a subject which is not ‘betont’ (more or less:
‘stressed’) in final position. Examples quoted from Varro are (i) and ( j). Columella
and Pliny the Elder are said to do this ‘often’. Some examples can be explained on
pragmatic grounds, as focus ((i)) or topic (( j)—is referring to Meli).
¹⁷⁶ The Ciceronian sample concerns Cic. Phil. 1 and 2.1–80; the Caesarian, Caes. Civ. 1–3.35.
Table . Data concerning 50 ‘simple’ cum clauses in a number of texts
Texts Number of constituents Average number A1 understood + 1 connectors anaphoric elements
per cum clause of constituents and 2 person
per clause
1 2 3 4 5
Cic. Phil. 3 9 21 14 3 3.1 5+3+8 4 9
Caes. Civ. 2 15 26 6 2.6 18 + 1 + 0 2 13
A1 A2 A3 ^ finite V/Aux
before first last before first last before first last before first last before first last
cum cum cum cum cum
Cic. Phil. (27)a 4 14 3 (35) 5 10 4 (4) 2 1 – (29) 4 8 3 (50) – 8 36
Caes. Civ. (20) 3 7 3 (28) 10 7 1 (3) – – – (31) 8 11 1 (50) 1 9 36
a
The numbers between brackets are the totals, in this case the total number of A1 constituents.
Word order in subordinate clauses 
(i) . . . in Lusitania ad Oceanum . . . quaedam e vento concipiunt certo tempore

equae . . .
(‘. . . on the shore of the ocean in Lusitania certain mares at a particular time
of year are impregnated by the wind . . .’ Var. R. 2.1.19—NB: discontinuity)
( j) Aequimelium, quod a<e>quata Meli domus publice, quod regnum occupare
voluit is.
(‘The Aequimelium (“Maelius-Flat”), because the house of Maelius was
aequata (“laid flat”) by the state since he wished to seize the power and be
king.’ Var. L. 5.157)
Supplement:
Si igitur [sequitur] idem sequitur in similitudine verborum quis, reprehendundus non
est. (Var. L. 9.94); Hic complures annos moratus, cum et rei familiari tantum operae
daret, quantum non indiligens deberet pater familias . . . (Nep. Att. 4.3); . . . quoniam
pastinationis expertes sunt exterarum gentium agricolae . . . (Col. 5.4.2)
Proper names: Nisi vero illud dicet, quod et in Tetti testimonio priore actione inter-
pellavit Hortensius . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.71); Fuit enim hoc in amicitia quasi quoddam ius
inter illos, ut militiae . . . Africanum ut deum coleret Laelius, domi vicissim Laelium . . .
observaret in parentis loco Scipio. (Cic. Rep. 1.18)
. Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses
Table 23.7 (page 1043) has some data on simple accusative and infinitive clauses in
Cicero and Caesar, which show some common features but also some differences due
to individual preferences and/or the content of the texts (philosophy vs. history).¹⁷⁷ In
both authors c.60 per cent of the infinitives are the final constituent of the accusative
and infinitive clause, whereas initial infinitives are rare—but see (a). When there are
two arguments expressed the order is more often A1/A2, as in (b), but the reverse is
very well possible, as in (c).¹⁷⁸ Satellites are not uncommon in the initial position, as
in (d). Final arguments and satellites are rare—but see (a) and (e). In short, in accusa-
tive and infinitive clauses which contain only one argument and which follow the main
verb, a situation which is quite common in non-literary texts, the subject of the
accusative and infinitive clause often immediately follows the governing verb, as in (f).¹⁷⁹
(a) Sed tantus fuit omnium terror ut alii adesse copias Iubae dicerent, alii cum
legionibus instare Varum iamque se pulverem venientium cernere . . .
(‘But so great was the universal terror that some were saying that Juba’s forces were at
hand, others that Varus and his legions were imminent and that the dust cloud of
their approach was already visible to them. . .’ Caes. Civ. 2.43.2)
¹⁷⁷ Using Merguet’s lexica (s.vv. dico and reperio) fifty clauses were collected in Cic. Off. and N.D. and
Caes. Civ. and Gal. Fifteen clauses in Caesar are not directly governed by a verb of communication but
form part of a sequence of accusative and infinitive clauses.
¹⁷⁸ Rosén (1999: 154) states that in active transitive accusative and infinitive clauses the relative order
of subject and object is ‘rather consistently’ S–O, but that is exaggerated.
¹⁷⁹ See Adams (2005a) and Greco (2018).
 Word order
(b) Themistocles . . . dixit in contione se habere consilium rei publicae salutare . . .

(‘Themistocles announced in the Assembly that he had a plan for the welfare of the
state . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.49)
(c) Praeterita se Diviciaco fratri condonare dicit (sc. Caesar).
(‘He said that he excused the past in consideration for his brother Diviciacus.’ Caes.
Gal. 1.20.6)
(d) Mihi . . . Cn. Pompeius . . . hoc tribuit ut diceret frustra se triumphum tertium
deportaturum fuisse, nisi . . .
(‘To me . . . Gnaeus Pompeius . . . paid this tribute when he said that his third triumph
would have been gained in vain, if not . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.78)
(e) Quibus detractis deum tamen nosse te dicis, modo liniamenta maneant.
(‘Yet you say that you can recognize god even with all these attributes stripped off,
provided that the outward form remains.’ Cic. N.D. 1.98)
(f) Negabit (= negavit) se abiturum (= habiturum).
(‘He said he would not have any.’ CEL 146.32 (Karanis, 2nd cent. ad (early)))¹⁸⁰
For the initial position of the constituents in (a)–(d) the usual pragmatic explanations
hold: In (a), copias Iubae and Varum are focus; in (b), se is topic; in (c), praeterita is a
change of topic (and contrastive) after the preceding warning by Caesar for the future;
in (d), frustra is emphatic. In (e) initial deum is understandable (contrast with the
preceding context), but final te is puzzling (the result is a good clausula).
From Cicero onwards Ennius’ oracle text in (g) has served as an illustration of ambi-
guity (amphibolia). The two arguments of the accusative and infinitive clause, te and
Romanos, refer to two (groups of) human beings who can fulfil the same role with respect
to the two-place verb vincere and are in a sense interchangeable. Quintilian strongly
advises avoidance of ambiguity in general, but especially the type illustrated by (h).
(g) Quis enim est, qui credat Apollinis ex oraculo Pyrrho esse responsum: ‘Aio
te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse.’?
(‘For who could believe that the response of Apollo’s oracle to Pyrrhus was “I say that
you, Aeacus’ descendant, the Romans can defeat.”?’ Cic. Div. 2.116—Enn. Ann.
179V=167S)
(h) Vitanda in primis ambiguitas, non haec solum . . . quae incertum intellectum
facit, ut ‘Chremetem audivi percussisse Demean’ . . .
(‘Above all, ambiguity is to be avoided, not only ambiguity of the kind . . . which makes
understanding uncertain—“I heard that Chremes Demea struck . . .”’ Quint. Inst.
8.2.16)
Ambiguity can be avoided by using the passive, but there is no evidence that for the
authors this was the main reason for choosing the passive in accusative and infini-
tive clauses. Illustrations are (i) and ( j). In (i), illum quem nominavi is a resumed
¹⁸⁰ A much discussed passage. See Adams (2016: 279–80).

Table . Data concerning fifty ‘simple’ accusative and infinitive clauses in a number of texts
Texts Number of constituents per clause Average number A1 understood connectors anaphoric elements + se
of constituents per clause
1 2 3 4 5
Cic. 1 7 28 14 – 3.1 2 3 4+3
Caes. – 9 27 10 4 3.2 8 – 10 + 9
A1 A2 A3 ^ infinitive/aux
total first last total first last total first last total first last total first last
Cic. 48 30 1 26 7 1 – – – 12 3 3 50 2 31
Caes. 35 19 3 35 12 5 3 2 – 21 10 1 50 3 28
 Word order
topic, a good candidate for being the subject of its clause, which involves the use of
the passive; in addition, the focus a Socrate is in final position. In ( j), me aps te is a
separate colon, attached for its pathetic effect, not to avoid a sequence in the active
te me amare.¹⁸¹
(i) Sed et illum quem nominavi (sc. Gorgiam) et ceteros sophistas, ut e Platone
intellegi potest, lusos videmus a Socrate.
(‘But we see that Socrates made fun of the aforesaid Gorgias, and the rest of the
Sophists also, as we can learn from Plato.’ Cic. Fin. 2.2)
( j) Nolo ego metui, amari mavolo, / mi gnate, me aps te.
(‘I don’t want to be feared, I prefer that I be loved by you, my son.’ Pl. As. 835–6)
Within their context morphologically ‘interchangeable’ expressions are not really
ambiguous.¹⁸² The order of such interchangeable constituents is not decisive. Further
examples of interchangeable constituents are given in the Supplement.
Supplement:
. . . aut illud falsumst quod volgo audio / dici, diem adimere aegritudinem hominibus.
(Ter. Hau. 421–2); Etiam illud praeteribo . . . te senatum Panhormitanum adisse sup-
plicem . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.21); Modo enim menti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mun-
dum ipsum deum dicit esse, modo alium quendam praeficit mundo . . . (Cic. N.D.
1.33); Omnino meminisse debemus id, quod . . . iam in proverbii consuetudinem
venit, largitionem fundum non habere. (Cic. Off. 2.55); Is mihi dixit se Athenis me
exspectaturum ut mecum decederet. (Cic. Att. 6.3.9); Putares canem leporem perse-
qui. (Petr. 63.4 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . regem se voluisse ait videre, non mortuos.
(Suet. Aug. 18.1)
. Word order in ablative absolute clauses
Substantival ablative absolute clauses (see § 16.116) and adjectival ones (see § 16.117)
rarely contain another constituent than the subject and subject complement. The two
constituents are usually juxtaposed. Both orders are possible, as can be seen by com-
paring the position of dux in (a) and (b). In Cicero’s orations the order X duce occurs
twenty-seven times, duce X nine times.¹⁸³ In (a), the ablative absolute clause provides
the information ‘who was the leader?’ (an identity statement—see § 4.92), with
Timarchide as focus; in (b), the information provided is ‘what was Pompey’s role?’
(a predicational statement—see § 4.92), with duce as focus. In cases like (b), the
subject is often topic, in this case discourse topic.
¹⁸¹ This example is also used in § 5.3 (g) without paying attention to the intonation break before
me aps te.
¹⁸² For word order and ambiguity in accusative and infinitive clauses, see Bortolussi (2007), with refer-
ences. See also ex. (b) in § 23.64.
¹⁸³ Merguet’s lexica are a good source for substantival ablative absolute clauses. For dux, see Merguet
(Reden) s.v. 754b.
Word order in subordinate clauses 
(a) Ad hoc templum, cum esset iste Agrigenti, duce Timarchide repente nocte
intempesta servorum armatorum fit concursus atque impetus.
(‘It was against this temple that, while Verres was at Agrigentum, suddenly in the
dead of night a great attack was made under the leadership of Timarchides.’ Cic.
Ver. 4.94)
(b) Quis enim . . . tantos cursus conficere potuit, quam celeriter Cn. Pompeio
duce tanti belli impetus navigavit?
(‘For who . . . has ever succeeded in visiting so many places . . . at the same speed with
which, under the leadership of Pompeius, that mighty armament swept over the
seas?’ Cic. Man. 34)
One of the most common adjectives functioning as subject complement in an ablative

absolute clause is invitus ‘unwilling’. It is usually juxtaposed to its subject, with both
orders attested.¹⁸⁴ In Cicero, me invito occurs twelve times, invito me twice, me being
topic in the first order and focus in the latter. In (c), the information in the ablative
absolute clause concerns ‘what do the gods and men think about this?’; in (d), ‘who
are against it?’
(c) Nam quis hoc non intellegit istum absolutum dis hominibusque invitis
tamen ex manibus populi Romani eripi nullo modo posse?
(‘For who cannot see that, though he were acquitted in despite of God and man, yet
no power can deliver him from the hands of the people of Rome?’ Cic. Ver. 1.9)
(d) Quem tibi aut hominem invitis dis immortalibus aut vero deum tantis
eorum religionibus violatis auxilio futurum putas?
(‘What man, against the will of the immortal gods, or what god, when you so trample
on all the religious reverence due to them, do you think will come to your assistance?’
Cic. Ver. 4.78—tr. Yonge)
Ablative absolute clauses with a present participle (active or deponent) are often short,
but from Cicero’s time onwards the use of arguments and satellites increases (see
§ 16.91).¹⁸⁵ There are not enough attestations to formulate a tendency for the relative
order of these constituents. In the case of the more elaborate ablative absolute clauses
in Livy and others pause and intonation must have played an important role in cor-
rectly processing the information. As for the relative position of subject and parti-
ciple, both orders are possible, but the subjects, being mostly agents, are found more
often in first position.¹⁸⁶ As in (a)–(d) above, preceding subjects are often topic and
the following ones focus, as is shown in (e) and (f). In (e), Crasso is a (contrastive)
discourse topic (me dicentem precedes); in (f), Torquato must have been known to
Atticus, but appears here for the first time and is focus.
¹⁸⁴ See TLL s.v. invitus 234.50ff. The data concerning me invito and invito me are taken from LLT.
¹⁸⁵ For word order within the ablative absolute clause in Caes. Gal. I, see de Jong (1982).
¹⁸⁶ However, in the sample used by de Jong (1982: 100) the order ‘X / present participle’ represents 43
per cent; the reverse order 57 per cent.
 Word order
(e) . . . Crasso dicente nemo tam arrogans (sc. fuit) qui similiter se umquam dic-
turum esse confideret.
(‘. . . when Crassus speaks nobody was ever so conceited as to believe that he would
ever speak as well.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.364)
(f) Accedit etiam Gabinius, quem P. Sulla . . . postularat, contra dicente et nihil
obtinente Torquato.
(‘Gabinius now joins them. P. Sulla . . . had brought the charge, Torquatus unsuccess-
fully contesting.’ Cic. Att. 4.18.3)
Interesting is the change of order of the ablative absolute clauses in the parallel sentences
of (g), especially the contrast between ‘who were mourning?’ (lugente senatu) in the first
parallel sentence and ‘what did the senate do?’ (senatu poscente) in the second.¹⁸⁷
(g) An . . . licuit tibi ferre non legem sed nefarium privilegium lugente senatu,
maerentibus bonis omnibus, totius Italiae precibus repudiatis, oppressa cap-
taque re publica? Mihi populo Romano implorante, senatu poscente, tem-
poribus rei publicae flagitantibus non licuit de salute populi Romani
sententiam dicere?
(‘Had you any right to pass, I will not say a law, but an iniquitous piece of party legis-
lation . . . amid the mourning of the senate and the grief of all true patriots, while the
prayers of all Italy were disdained, and while the republic lay crushed and paralysed?
And had I no right, on the supplication of the Roman people, the demand of the sen-
ate, and the urgent appeal of the crisis through which the state was passing, to declare
my policy for the salvation of the Roman people?’ Cic. Dom. 26)
Perfect passive participles are by far the most common in ablative absolute clauses
from Cicero’s time onwards. In Cicero and Caesar these clauses often consist of only a
subject and a participle. The subject is a patient, more often an inanimate entity, hence
more often focus, which may explain its not uncommon position after the participle,
as in (h).¹⁸⁸ Here, the agent of the ablative absolute constituents is the perditorum . . . vis.
In (i), there is no evident agent in the context who is responsible for senatu dimisso.
(h) Cum omnium perditorum et coniuratorum incitata vis duce tribuno plebis,
consulibus auctoribus, adflicto senatu, perterritis equitibus Romanis, sus-
pensa ac sollicita tota civitate non tam in me impetum faceret . . ..
(‘When, under the leadership of a tribune of the plebs and with the support of the
consuls, with the senate humiliated, the Roman knighthood cowed, and the whole
community agitated and distraught, the carefully stimulated lawlessness of des-
peradoes and conspirators was launching an assault not so much upon myself . . .’
Cic. Dom. 96)
¹⁸⁷ There are in Cicero six further instances of the order ‘present participle senatu’ and one of ‘senatu
present participle’.
¹⁸⁸ In the sample of de Jong (1982: 100) the order ‘perfect passive participle / X’ represents 31 per cent;
20 per cent of the subjects are anaphoric and at the beginning of a sentence.
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
(i) . . . illum diem clarissimum fuisse, cum senatu dimisso domum reductus ad
vesperum est a patribus conscriptis . . .
(‘. . . the most brilliant was the day before he departed this life, when, after the adjourn-
ment of the Senate, he was escorted home toward evening by the Conscript Fathers . . .’
Cic. Amic. 12)
But sometimes the situation is less obvious, as in ( j) and (k).¹⁸⁹ In both examples
armis are mentioned in the preceding context and are therefore topic; in (k), traditis
is anteposed because it is contrastive, meaning more or less sine.
( j) . . . timore perterriti ne armis traditis supplicio adficerentur . . .
(‘. . . in panic, lest after the surrender of their arms they might be put to the sword . . .’
Caes. Gal. 1.27.4)
(k) Sibi omnes fere finitimos esse inimicos ac suae virtuti invidere, a quibus se
defendere traditis armis non possent.
(‘Almost all their neighbours were at enmity with them and envied their courage; and
from such, if they delivered up their arms, they could not defend themselves.’ Caes.
Gal. 2.31.6)
In (l), the participle is inserted in the noun phrase, causing hyperbaton.¹⁹⁰

(l) Qua perfecta munitione animadversum est a speculatoribus Caesaris cohortes
quasdam . . . esse post silvam . . .
(‘After the fortification was complete, Caesar’s scouts noticed that some enemy
cohorts . . . were behind a wood . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.66.1)
. The order of superordinate and subordinate

clauses in complex sentences
In a complex sentence, one or more arguments and/or satellites have the form of a clause
(see § 2.2 and § 14.1). This is shown in (a) and (b), which consist of a superordinate and
a subordinate clause in different arrangements. In (a), the quin clause is the second argu-
ment of the verb dubito; it is the object of the sentence. In (b), the postquam clause is a
satellite; it functions as a position in time adjunct in the superordinate clause.
(a) Non dubito quin Gnaeus in fuga sit.
(‘I have no doubt that Gnaeus is a fugitive.’ Cic. Att. 7.24)
(b) (sc. Alcumena) Postquam peperit, pueros lavere iussit nos.
From the point of view of information structure, the clause quin . . . sit in (a) is the
focus of the sentence; the topic ‘I’ is implied by the verb form dubito. The quin clause
¹⁸⁹ These instances are discussed by de Jong (1982: 97–8). ¹⁹⁰ See Bolkestein (2001: 249–51).
 Word order
occupies the typical focus position at the end of the sentence.¹⁹¹ In (b), postquam
peperit represents known information (that Alcumena gave birth to two boys is
already mentioned in line 1088). It functions as setting and has the typical position of
that type of constituent (see § 22.15).
In addition to being the focus of the sentence as a whole, the quin clause in (a) has
an internal information structure. Within the clause, Gnaeus is the topic, mentioned
earlier in the letter, and in fuga is the focus. The topic has the common position for
topics, in this case immediately after the subordinator quin. In the main clause of (b),
after the information contained in the postquam clause, namely that Alcumena gave
birth to the boys, the next step is to know what happened to them. Accordingly, pueros
is placed in first position as the topic of the clause and lavere iussit is the focus. The
discourse topic nos then follows at the end. For the internal order of subordinate
Although most subordinate clauses reflect the tendency of ‘domain integrity’ (see
§ 23.7), in that their constituents are placed closely together, deviations from this ten-
dency are relatively common, a phenomenon for which the term ‘interlacing’ is used
in this Syntax (see § 14.19). The main factors that favour the placement of constituents
or words belonging to subordinate clauses outside of the boundaries of their clause
are discourse coherence and pragmatic prominence. Both factors are illustrated by
(c). Here, hac . . . oratione and tu are placed outside of the quin clause, the former
because it connects the sentence to the preceding context, with hac itself separated
from oratione for reasons of emphasis. The second person pronoun tu is usually
selected for reasons of emphasis and/or contrast (see § 9.2), as it is here: tu is in con-
trast with illum.
(c) Hac tu oratione non dubito quin illum iam ascendentem in currum revocare
possis.
(‘I have not the least doubt that by arguments such as these you will contrive to recall
him even in the act of mounting his triumphal car.’ Cic. Pis. 61)
Details concerning the relative order of superordinate and subordinate are dealt with
in the following sections. Two pairs of questions are discussed:
(i) What is the relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in bi-
clausal sentences and what forms of interlacing exist?
(ii) What is the relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in multi-
clausal sentences and what forms of interlacing exist?
Three types of subordinate clauses will receive detailed discussion: finite subordinate
clauses, accusative and infinitive clauses, and participial clauses. Adnominal relative
clauses do not function at the level of the sentence. However, interlacing of constitu-
ents belonging to such clauses is quite common and instances can be found in the
¹⁹¹ In Cicero’s orations only two out of sixty-eight quin clauses with dubito are not in final position. See
also TLL s.v. dubito 2100.68ff.
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
following sections, as well as in § 18.10. For the relative order of adnominal relative
clauses with respect to their head, see § 18.12.
. The relative order of finite superordinate and subordinate

clauses in sentences with two clauses
Most discussions of the relative order of superordinate and subordinate clauses in bi-
clausal sentences are limited to the most simple situation, one in which the constitu-
ents of both clauses remain within the boundaries of the clause.¹⁹² From this
perspective, if we use ‘A’ for a superordinate (or: main) clause and ‘a’ for a subordinate
clause, there are then two possible orders: A a and a A. In reality, though, a A a (the
main clause surrounded by constituents of the subordinate clause, see ex. (c) in
§ 23.64) and A a A (the subordinate clause incorporated within the main clause, which
will be discussed later on) are also possible. Furthermore, these discussions are gener-
ally limited to finite subordinate clauses (the accusative and infinitive clause, for
example, is left out of account).
The explanation which Kühner and Stegmann present for the orders A a and a A is
given in terms of what is called ‘iconicity’ in § 23.13. In their words: subordinate
clauses that describe an event that is ‘temporally or conceptually’¹⁹³ earlier than the
event of the superordinate clause tend to precede the superordinate clause (the order
is a A), or, conversely, if the event of the subordinate clause is later than the event of
the superordinate clause, the subordinate clause follows the superordinate (the order
is A a). This, they claim, must be taken as a fundamental rule (‘Grundgesetz’).
Exceptions to the general rule are ascribed to various factors, such as the striving for
clarity, emphasis, and rhythmic structure.
We start with clauses that usually follow the superordinate clause (the order A a).
These include argument clauses, as in (a)–(c), and certain satellite clauses, for example
purpose clauses, as in (d) (for further examples, see § 16.50). The frequency with
which argument clauses follow their superordinate clause can be illustrated with the
verbs efficio and dubito in Cicero’s orations: with efficio, seven out of nine follow; with
dubito, sixty-six out of sixty-eight. Within the framework used in this Syntax, the
postposition of the subordinate clauses in (a)–(d) can be explained by the fact that
they are the focus in their sentences: in (a)–(c), the argument clauses present the
answer to an underlying question ‘what does it enable us to do?’, ‘what is the doubt
about?’ etc. In (d), the ut clause contains the answer to the underlying question ‘why
did you come here?’
(a) (sc. eloquendi vis) Quae primum efficit ut et ea quae ignoramus discere et ea
quae scimus alios docere possimus.
¹⁹² Still very useful for the order in bi-clausal sentences is Lindskog (1896). For the order in more com-
plex sentences, see Nägelsbach and Müller (1905: 626–48).
¹⁹³ ‘zeitlich oder begrifflich’ (K.-St.: II.626). Some examples are taken from them; others are attested
alternatives for their made-up examples. See also Sz.: 733, with references.
 Word order
(‘In the first place it enables us both to learn things we do not know and to teach
things we do know to others.’ Cic. N.D. 2.148)
(b) Nemo dubitat quin multo maius sit novam (sc. columnam) facere.
(‘Nobody can doubt that constructing one new one is by far the bigger thing.’ Cic.
Ver. 1.147)
(c) Sane gaudeo quod te interpellavi, quoniam . . .
(‘I am very glad indeed that I interrupted you, since . . .’ Cic. Leg. 3.1)
(d) Conducta veni ut fidibus cantarem seni . . .
(‘I came because I was hired to play the lyre for an old man . . .’ Pl. Epid. 500)
The inverse order a A is shown in (e)–(g). In (e), the superordinate clause casus effecit
contains the most salient information and is, for that reason, placed at the end. The
same holds for (f). In (g), with the ut purpose clause preceding the main clause, the
latter contains the answer to an underlying question ‘with this purpose in mind, what
did you do?’
(e) Ergo hoc inerat in rebus futuris et causas naturalis habebat an et ut videretur
et ut eveniret casus effecit?
(‘Then do you say that this (sc. Alcibiades’ dream and subsequent death) was deter-
mined in advance and had a natural cause, or did chance cause both the apparition
and the subsequent event?’ Cic. Div. 2.143)
(f) Id ut intellegatis, recuperatores, quaeso ut diligenter attendatis. Profecto quin
ita sit non dubitabitis.
(‘And that you may understand this, O judges, attend, I beg of you, carefully. And, in
truth, you will not doubt that this is the case.’ Cic. Tul. 26)
(g) Ut illa, credo, nefaria senatus consulta fierent, vim adferebam senatui.
(‘I suppose I forced the senate to pass those nefarious decrees under threat of vio-
lence.’ Cic. Phil. 2.16)
Supplement:
Quid negoti est? # Quid negoti sit rogas? (Pl. Aul. 296); Nam factum sit necne vehe-
menter quaeritur. Si factum sit, quin contra legem sit dubitare nemo potest. (Cic.
Mur. 67); Id ne vobis diutius faciendum sit atque ut in perpetua pace esse possitis
providebo, Quirites. (Cic. Catil. 3.29); Alfenus cum eis et propter eos periit quos dili-
gebat, tu, post quam qui tibi erant amici non poterant vincere, ut amici tibi essent qui
vincebant effecisti. (Cic. Quinct. 70); Periculi tandem quantum adeatur quem fallit?
(Liv. 28.41.12); Nam ut XV diebus utrumque sidus quaereretur et nostro aevo accidit
imperatoribus Vespasianis patre III filio consulibus. (Plin. Nat. 2.57)
Among the satellite clauses that usually precede (order a A), Kühner and Stegmann
and Szantyr mention time, conditional,¹⁹⁴ and reason clauses, as in (h)–( j). Within
¹⁹⁴ For the position of si adjunct clauses (they most often precede), see § 16.57. Nisi clauses show more
variation. For the material in Plautus, see Lindskog (1896: 17–19).
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
the framework of this Syntax, these subordinate clauses might be taken as settings. At
any rate, the main clauses contain the most salient information. In (h), for example,
the main clause non de Flacco . . . contains the answer to an underlying question ‘what
will be the consequences of your receiving the ballot to vote?’; in (i), ‘what will be the
consequences of losing happiness’, etc.
(h) Cum tabella vobis dabitur, iudices, non de Flacco dabitur solum, dabitur de
ducibus . . .
(‘When the ballot shall be given you, gentlemen, it will not be a ballot to vote on
Flaccus alone, but on the leaders . . .’ Cic. Flac. 99)
(i) Nam si amitti vita beata potest, beata esse non potest.
(‘For if happiness once won can be lost, a happy life is impossible.’ Cic. Fin. 2.86)
( j) Quia (sc. Pisonem) tristem semper . . . videbant, et quod erat eo nomine ut
ingenerata familiae frugalitas videretur, favebant, gaudebant . . .
(‘Because they saw him always grim . . . and because he bore a name which seemed to
have made frugality the hereditary virtue of his family, they favoured him, they
rejoiced . . .’ Cic. Sest. 21)
Subordinators with roughly the same meaning do not necessarily behave in the same
way. Donec clauses, for example, regularly follow their main clause, while dum clauses
more often precede.¹⁹⁵
By contrast, when such clauses follow the main clause (order A a) they function as the
focus of the sentence. Thus, in (k), the cum clause is the answer to the underlying
question ‘when will they be induced to forget the claims of justice?’
(k) Maxime autem adducuntur plerique ut eos iustitiae capiat oblivio, cum in
imperiorum, honorum, gloriae cupiditatem inciderunt.
(‘Most of all, however, a great many are induced to forget justice when they have
fallen prey to the ambition for political power, high position, and distinction.’ Cic.
Off. 1.26)
Supplement:
Maximum autem exemplum est iustitiae in hostem a maioribus nostris constitu-
tum, cum a Pyrrho perfuga senatui est pollicitus se venenum regi daturum et eum
necaturum. (Cic. Off. 1.40); Deserunt enim vitae societatem, quia nihil conferunt in
eam studii, nihil operae, nihil facultatum. (Cic. Off. 1.29); Multa praeterea
commemorarem nefaria in socios, si hoc uno quicquam sol vidisset indignius.
(Cic. Off. 2.28)
We now turn to sentences in which a finite subordinate clause is preceded and fol-
lowed by one or more constituents that belong to the superordinate clause (order A a
A). An intermediate type is illustrated by (l) and (m).¹⁹⁶ Here, Agamemnon in (l) and
¹⁹⁵ TLL s.v. donec 2003.81ff.; s.v. dum 2232.36ff.

¹⁹⁶ See K.-St.: II.627–8, from where (m) and (n) are taken. See also Spevak (2010a: 70).
 Word order
eam mutationem in (m), subject and object, respectively, have the same topic function
in both clauses. In the punctuation of (l) (following the OCT), Agamemnon is
assigned to the main clause and is understood as subject of the cum clause; in (m),
eam mutationem is assigned to the subordinate clause, which makes it an instance of
the order discussed in § 23.24 (see also (n)). It is understood as object of the main
clause. What the three examples have in common is that the initial constituents are
the topic in their sentence.
(l) Quid <quod> Agamemnon, cum devovisset Dianae quod in suo regno pul-
cherrimum natum esset illo anno, immolavit Iphigeniam, qua nihil erat eo
quidem anno natum pulchrius?
(‘And once more; Agamemnon, when he had vowed to Diana the most beautiful
creature born that year within his realm, sacrificed Iphigenia, because nothing more
beautiful than her was born that year.’ Cic. Off. 3.95)
(m) Eam mutationem si tempora adiuvabunt, facilius commodiusque faciemus.
(‘If circumstances favour such change, we will make it with greater ease and con-
venience.’ Cic. Off. 1.120)
(n) Caesari cum id nuntiatum esset eos per provinciam nostram iter facere
conari, maturat ab urbe proficisci . . .
(‘When Caesar was informed that they were endeavouring to march through the
Roman Province, he made speed to leave Rome . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.7.1)
Clear instances of incorporation of a subordinate clause in a superordinate clause are
(o)–(q). The initial constituents are pragmatically prominent: in (o) and (p), praetores
and me (quoque) are contrastive topics; in (q), lacrumas is emphatic focus. The subor-
dinate clauses as a whole do not seem to have a special pragmatic function in the
sentence, although some of their constituents may, like considerate, which is con-
trasted with raro, in (o).¹⁹⁷
(o) Itaque maiores nostri raro id accidere voluerunt. Praetores ut considerate
fieret comparaverunt.
(‘Accordingly our ancestors willed that this should happen only on rare occasions.
The praetors have established that it should be done with circumspection.’ Cic.
Quinct. 51)
(p) ‘Nam hercule,’ inquit Minucius, ‘me quoque Petilius ut sibi in consilio essem
rogavit’ et simul a subselliis abire coepit.
(‘ “Why, the truth is,” said Minucius, “that Petilius has asked me too to be one of his
council”; and with that he left his place to go.’ Cic. Ver. 2.72)
(q) Lacrumas / haec mi quom video eliciunt . . .
(‘When I see this, it makes me want to weep . . .’ Pl. Trin. 289–90)
¹⁹⁷ The order A a A is relatively uncommon. For data on Cic. Phil., see Lindskog (1896: 60).
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
Supplement:
Nam scortum in convivio / sibi amator, talos quom iacit, scortum invocat. (Pl. Capt.
72–3); Nam tibi iam ut pereas paratum est dupliciter nisi supprimis / tuom stultilo-
quium. (Pl. Mil. 295–6); Ego quid ille et contra ille quid ego sentirem et spectarem
videbat. (Cic. Phil. 2.38); Iam enim, quoniam criminibus eius satis respondi, de ipso
emendatore et correctore nostro quaedam dicenda sunt. (Cic. Phil. 2.43); Haec te vox
non perculit, non perturbavit, non ut capiti et fortunis tuis prospiceres excitavit?
(Cic. Ver. 3.132); Hac divisione, cum praeterire aliquid maximum vitium in divi-
dendo sit, duo praetermissa sunt. (Cic. Off. 1.10); Ego autem quae dicenda fuerunt de
te non praeterii. (Cic. Att. 1.5.5); Eodem anno Valerius consul cum exercitu in Aequos
profectus, cum hostem ad proelium elicere non posset, castra oppugnare est adortus.
(Liv. 2.62.1); C. Caesar bello civili cum veteranum exercitum haberet, hostium autem
tironem esse sciret, acie semper decertare studuit (Fron. Str. 1.3.2); Hamilcar dux
Poenorum, cum frequenter auxiliares Galli ad Romanos transirent et iam ex consue-
tudine ut socii exciperentur, fidissimos subornavit ad simulandam transitionem.
(Fron. Str. 3.16.2)
Single words of the superordinate clause at the end of the sentence are rare. Three
instances from Plautus are: Metuo miser / ne patrem prehendat ut sit gesta res suspicio.
(Pl. Mer. 212–13); Sescenta tanta reddam, si vivo, tibi. (Pl. Bac. 1034); Vorsabo ego
illum hodie, si vivo, probe. (Pl. Bac. 766). It is not always clear what their pragmatic
function is.¹⁹⁸
In Livy resumed topics that precede a postquam clause are subject of both the post-
quam clause and the following main clause. By contrast, when the resumed topic
follows postquam, it is not the subject of the following main clause.¹⁹⁹ This is shown
by (r) and (s).
(r) Scipio postquam in Siciliam venit, voluntarios milites ordinavit centuriavitque.
(‘Scipio, now that he had reached Sicily, assigned his volunteers to their
ranks and centuries.’ Liv. 29.1.1)
(s) Postquam Manlius dixit . . . pecuniae quoque summa homines movit . . .
(‘After Manlius had spoken . . . people were also moved by the greatness of
the sum required . . .’ Liv. 22.61.1)
We now turn to instances in which one or more constituents of a following subordin-

ate clause precede the superordinate clause (order a A a), as in (t)–(w). In (t), Telobois
are the enemy already mentioned in the preceding context, and so the topic of the
sentence. In (u), unam rem is contrastive in its context. In (v), plebes is a contrastive
topic. In (w), in oratoribus is in contrast with the other arts mentioned before and can
be taken as an anticipation belonging to the quantum clause,²⁰⁰ but it can also be
regarded as a setting constituent for the combination of the main and subordinate
clauses.
¹⁹⁸ Discussed by Lindskog (1896: 37–8).

¹⁹⁹ There are fifteen instances of the order ‘resumed topic postquam’; seven of ‘postquam resumed topic’.
²⁰⁰ So K.-St.: II.628.
 Word order
(t) Eos (sc. viros) legat, Telobois iubet sententiam ut dicant suam.
(‘He sent them as delegates and ordered them to tell the Teloboians his decision.’
Pl. Am. 205)
(u) Sed unam rem vereor ne non probes.
(‘But there is one item which I fear may not meet with your approval.’ Cic. Phil. 2.34)
(v) Sed plebes incredibile memoratu est quam intenta fuerit quantaque vi roga-
tionem iusserit . . .
(‘But it is amazing to relate how engaged the commons were and with what vehe-
mence they passed the bill . . .’ Sal. Jug. 40.3)
(w) In oratoribus vero, Graecis quidem, admirabile est quantum inter omnis unus
excellat.
(‘Among orators, certainly among Greek orators, it is amazing how one man has pre-
eminence over all.’ Cic. Orat. 6)
Supplement:
Quasi lupus esuriens metui ne in me faceret impetum. (Pl. Capt. 912); I, Palaestrio, /
aurum, ornamenta, vestem, pretiosa omnia / duc adiutores tecum ad navim qui
ferant. (Pl. Mil. 1301–3); Sed ego nunc est quom me commoror. (Pl. Poen.
924); . . . de digito anulum / detraho et eum dico ut una cum puella exponeret. (Ter.
Hau. 650–1); Primum ista nostra assiduitas, Servi, nescis quantum interdum
adferat hominibus fastidii, quantum satietatis. (Cic. Mur. 21); Sed vos squalidius,
illorum vides quam niteat oratio. (Cic. Fin. 4.5); Ad me obsecro te ut omnia certa
perscribas. (Cic. Att. 3.11.2); Eas (sc. epistulas) ego oportet perspiciam, corrigam.
(Cic. Att. 16.5.5); Rationem haberi absentis non tam pugnavi ut liceret quam ut,
quoniam ipso consule pugnante populus iusserat, haberetur. (Cic. Fam. 6.6.5);
Tametsi tu scio quam sis curiosus et quam omnibus peregrinantibus gratum sit
minimarum quoque rerum quae domi gerantur fieri certiores. (Cael. Fam. 8.1.1);
Item aquarum ductiones et cetera quae eiusmodi sunt nota oportet sint architec-
tis . . . (Vitr. 1.1.10)
The a A a order is quite common with a governing verb of the type fac, cave, as in (x).²⁰¹
(x) Sed has tabellas, Paegnium, / ipsi Lemniseleni fac des . . .
(‘But do give these tablets to Lemniselenis in person, Paegnium . . .’ Pl. Per.
195–6)
Supplement:
Anulum gnati tui / facito ut memineris ferre. (Pl. Bac. 327–8); Dolia cum vino bis in
die fac extergeantur . . . (Cato Agr. 26); Principio, si id te mordet . . . quaeso, hoc facito
tecum cogites. (Ter. Ad. 807–8); Tu nos fac ames. (Vat. Fam. 5.9.2)
Verbo cave supplicassis. (Pl. As. 467); Incertus tuom cave ad me rettuleris pedem.
(Pl. Epid. 439)
²⁰¹ See Kroll (1920: 102–4).

The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
Anticipation is particularly common with relative pronouns or phrases that belong to

a subordinate clause that follows or—less often—precedes the superordinate clause, as
in (y) and (z). In (y), quod belongs to the indirect question quemadmodum gestum
esset; in (z), to quam sit exiguum.
(y) . . . quod nuper ipse iuratus docuit quemadmodum gestum esset.
(‘. . . a transaction whose nature he himself as a sworn witness has recently made clear.’
Cic. Ver. 5.15)
(z) Si quid est in me ingeni, iudices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum, aut si . . . aut
si . . . earum rerum omnium vel in primis hic A. Licinius fructum a me repe-
tere prope suo iure debet.
(‘Gentlemen of the Jury: Whatever talent I possess (and I realize how limited it is),
whatever . . . to any advantage that may be derived from all these my friend Aulus
Licinius has a pre-eminent claim, which belongs to him almost of right.’ Cic. Arch. 1)
Supplement:
Nam Stratonem quidem, iudices, in crucem esse actum exsecta scitote lingua. Quod
nemo Larinatium est qui nesciat. (Cic. Clu. 187); Omnes habuerunt leges promulga-
tas, in eis multas meus necessarius, etiam de mea sententia, C. Cosconius, iudex noster,
quem tu dirrumperis cum aedilicium vides. (Cic. Vat. 16); . . . improbos excruciari . . .
poenae timore, qua aut afficiantur aut semper sint in metu ne afficiantur aliquando.
(Cic. Fin. 2.53)
Qui ordo quanto adiumento sit in honore quis nescit? (Cic. Planc. 23)
More complicated forms of interlacing, as in (aa) and (ab), are rare and difficult to
explain from a pragmatic perspective.
(aa) Eius nunc mi anulum ad te ancilla porro ut deferrem dedit.
(‘Now her maid has given me this ring to pass on to you.’ Pl. Mil. 960)
(ab) Ac veteres quidem philosophi in beatorum insulis fingunt qualis futura sit
vita sapientium . . .
(‘And what is more, the old philosophers picture what the life of the Wise will be in
the Islands of the Blest . . .’ Cic. Fin. 5.53)
Supplement:
Nunc, patres conscripti, ego mea video quid intersit. (Cic. Catil. 4.9); Quis autem
meum consulatum praeter te ac P. Clodium qui vituperaret inventus est? (Cic. Phil.
2.11—NB: constituent of a relative clause)
. The relative order of superordinate and accusative

and infinitive clauses in sentences with two clauses
The same four ordering possibilities as described for finite subordinate clauses above
also exist for accusative and infinitive clauses. Examples of A a; a A; A a A; and a A a
are (a)–(d), respectively. More complex orders are also possible, as in (e). The most
 Word order
common order is A a, among other things due to the fact that the accusative and
infinitive clause is often relatively heavy.²⁰² However, there is variation among authors.
The order A a is particularly common in non-literary texts and in Late Latin texts,
except in those intended for an educated audience. In Late Latin, accusative and
infinitive clauses are relatively often placed at the beginning of or early in their sen-
tence in comparison with finite alternatives. See § 15.9.
(a) (sc. consules) Perspiciebant enim in Hortensi sententiam multis partibus
pluris ituros . . .
(‘For they perceived that the majority would altogether accede to the judgement of
Hortensius . . .’ Cic. Fam. 1.2.2)
(b) Risi nivem atram teque hilari animo esse et prompto ad iocandum valde me
iuvat.
(‘Your “black snow” made me laugh, and that you are so cheerful and ready for a joke
makes me very glad.’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.12.1)
(c) . . . ego ipse, quem tu per iocum (sic enim accipio) divitias orationis habere
dicis, me non esse verborum admodum inopem agnosco . . .
(‘. . . I myself, whom you jestingly (so I suppose) credit with verbal riches, acknow-
ledge that I am not altogether unprovided with words . . .’ Cic. Fam. 4.4.1)
(d) L. Pisonem quis nescit his temporibus ipsis maximum et sanctissimum
Dianae sacellum in Caeliculo sustulisse?
(‘Take Lucius Piso: Surely there can be none of us who does not know that in these
very days he has destroyed a magnificent and venerable shrine of Diana, situated on
the lesser Caelian?’ Cic. Har. 32)
(e) Nam ut utilitatem nullam esse docuimus, quae honestati esset contraria, sic
omnem voluptatem dicimus honestati esse contrariam.
(‘As I have shown that such expediency as is opposed to moral rectitude is no expedi-
ency, so I maintain that any and all sensual pleasure is opposed to moral rectitude.’
Cic. Off. 3.119)
Supplement:
AcI follows: Quis ignorabat Q. Pompeium fecisse foedus, eadem in causa esse
Mancinum? (Cic. Rep. 3.28); Multo denique die per exploratores Caesar cognovit et
montem ab suis teneri et Helvetios castra movisse et Considium timore perterri-
tum quod non vidisset pro viso sibi renuntiavisse. (Caes. Gal. 1.22.4); . . . et iam
antea expertus sum parum fidei miseris esse. (Sal. Jug. 24.4); Ut scias me recte
valere. (CEL App. l 2 (Vindolanda, c. ad 100))
AcI precedes: Magnam vim esse in fortuna in utramque partem, vel secundas ad
res vel adversas, quis ignorat? (Cic. Off. 2.19); Locum autem actionis opportuni-
tatem temporis esse dicunt. (Cic. Off. 1.142); Tamen in lege nulla esse eius modi
²⁰² For Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 92–7); for Cicero, Bolkestein (1989a); for Sallust, Greco (2019); for
a number of Christian texts, Herman (1989), Adams (2016: 328), and Greco and Ferrari (2019); for non-
literary texts and Petronius, Adams (2005a); for texts from Plautus until Gregory of Tours, Greco (2018).
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
caput te non fallit. (Cic. Att. 3.23.4); Accedebat quod suos ab se liberos abstractos
obsidum nomine dolebant . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.2.5); Iam omnes fontes aestate quam
hieme gelidiores esse quem fallit? (Plin. Nat. 2.233); Te / tanto magis venturum /
Coria sicut constituisti/ spero. (Vindol. III.611.2–5 (Vindolanda, c. ad 100))
AcI inserted: (sc. Pompeius) Simul infamia duarum legionum permotus quas ab iti-
nere Asiae Syriaeque ad suam potentiam dominatumque converterat rem ad arma
deduci studebat. (Caes. Civ. 1.4.5); . . . calones, qui ab decumana porta ac summo iugo
collis nostros victores flumen transisse conspexerant, praedandi causa egressi, cum
respexissent et hostes in nostris castris versari vidissent, praecipites fugae sese man-
dabant. (Caes. Gal. 2.24.2)
AcI enclosing main clause: Honc oino · ploirume · cosentiont · R<omane> /
duonoro · optumo · fuise · viro / Luciom · Scipione. (CIL I2.9.1–3 (Scip. Elog.,
Rome, c.200 bc));²⁰³ Mequidem semper scio fecisse sedulo / ut ex illiu’ commodo
meum compararem commodum. (Ter. Hau. 396–7); Omnes sensus veri nuntios
dixit esse. (Cic. N.D. 1.70—NB: sentence-final esse eight times in the sample underlying
Table 23.7 on p. 1043); Orpheum poetam docet Aristoteles numquam fuisse . . .
(Cic. N.D. 1.107); P. Clodium Appi f. credo te audisse cum veste muliebri deprehen-
sum domi C. Caesaris cum sacrificium pro populo fieret . . . (Cic. Att. 1.12.3); Multos
scio sic periisse, dum nolunt sibi verum dicere. (Petr. 47.6 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . .
plerasque vero esse (sc. causas) quis nescit quae totae in sola qualitate consistant?
. The relative order of superordinate and ablative absolute

clauses in sentences with two clauses
Ablative absolute clauses regularly precede their superordinate clause. They some-
times constitute some sort of summary of the preceding context, as in (a) and (b).
They often function as setting (see § 22.15) and are for that reason placed at the begin-
ning of the sentence. This holds especially for perfect participles, which usually express
anteriority. However, a topic constituent can precede, like Caesar in (c).²⁰⁴ Tacitus
places ablative absolute clauses inside the superordinate sentence, as in (d), as well as
elsewhere.²⁰⁵ (For ablative absolute clauses at the end of their sentence, see § 16.89.)
(a) (sc. Caesar) Sub castris Afrani consistit et . . . facit aequo loco pugnandi potes-
tatem. Potestate facta Afranius copias educit . . .
(‘He halted below Afranius’ camp and created an opportunity for Afranius to fight on
level ground. With this opportunity before him Afranius led out his troops . . .’ Caes.
Civ. 1.41.2–3)
²⁰³ For this example, in the context of a discussion of the origin of the accusative and infinitive clause,
see Rosén (1999: 154–6).
²⁰⁴ For the position of ablative absolute clauses in the Bellum Alexandrinum, see Gaertner and
Hausburg (2013: 63–4). Caesar places the ablative absolute clause before the main clause because of his
‘desire for chronological accuracy’ (Eden 1962: 104–6). For Sallust and Livy, see Kruijer and la
Roi (2018).
²⁰⁵ See Enghofer (1961: 120–6 and, for discontinuous ablative absolute clauses in Tacitus, 76–82).
 Word order
(b) Quibus rebus confectis Caesar ad oppidum Avaricum . . . profectus est . . .

(‘When this business had been dispatched, Caesar moved off . . . to the town of
Avaricum . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.13.3)
(c) Caesar exposito exercitu et loco castris idoneo capto, ubi ex captivis cogno-
vit . . . de tertia vigilia ad hostes contendit . . .
(‘After the army was landed and a place suitable for the camp was chosen . . . when
Caesar had learnt from prisoners . . . starting in the third watch, he pressed on to meet
the enemy . . .’ Caes. Gal. 5.9.1)
(d) Liberalium quoque artium commemoratio et nihil regente eo (sc. Claudio)
triste rei publicae ab externis accidisse pronis animis audita.
(‘The recollection of his liberal arts, and that nothing grim had befallen the state at
the hands of foreigners during his rule, was also listened to with favourable attention.’
Tac. Ann. 13.3.1—tr. Woodman (adapted))
Insertion in the ablative absolute clause of one or more constituents of the super-
ordinate clause is rare, except in Caesar and the historians, where it serves as a device
to tighten the relation between clauses (see § 14.19 and § 16.90). An early instance of
this form of interlacing is (e). A more elaborate form is shown in (g).²⁰⁶
(e) Mene ego illaec patiar praesente dici?
(‘Should I tolerate those things being said in my presence?’ Pl. Poen. 368)
(f) Quibus hic litteris lectis ad urbem confestim incredibili celeritate advolavit.
(‘As soon as he had read my letter he hastened to Rome with amazing speed.’ Cic.
Sest. 11)
(g) Hac re statim Caesar per speculatores cognita insidias veritus . . . exerci-
tum . . . castris continuit.
(‘Caesar learnt this at once through his scouts; fearing an ambush . . . he kept the
army . . . in camp.’ Caes. Gal. 2.11.2)
Supplement:
. . . sancte adiurat / non posse apud vos Pamphilo se absente perdurare. (Ter. Hec. 268–9);
Quibus rebus ego cognitis cunctatus non sum. (Planc. Fam. 10.15.2); Recepto Caesar
Orico nulla interposita mora Apolloniam proficiscitur. (Caes. Civ. 3.12.1); Huius
Pausanias voluntate cognita alacrior ad rem gerendam factus in suspicionem cecidit
Lacedaemoniorum. (Nep. Paus. 2.6); Quorum Iugurtha accepta oratione respon-
dit . . . (Sal. Jug. 22.2); Dextra Hercules data accipere se omen inpleturumque fata ara
condita ac dicata ait. (Liv. 1.7.11); Contione adveniens de Manlio et Iunio habita, non
ultra triduum moratus Romae, paludatis lictoribus votisque in Capitolio nuncupatis
in provinciam aeque ac prius praecipiti celeritate abit. (Liv. 41.10.13—NB: secondary
predicate); Quorum paucitate Alexander explorata . . . iussit. (Curt. 4.9.24)
²⁰⁶ For interlacing in ablative absolute clauses (and in participial secondary predicates) within the
framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar in Caesar Gal., see Haug (2017: 130–9).
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
The insertion of the intensifier ipse (see §§ 11.144–6) and the distributive quantifier
quisque (see § 21.23) in a participial clause is attested from Livy onwards, as in (h)
and (i).²⁰⁷
(h) . . . causam apud vos, patres conscripti, accusantibus meis ipse legatis dico.
(‘. . . I am pleading my case before you in person, members of the senate, with my own
legates pressing the charges.’ Liv. 38.47.7)
(i) . . . ex omnibus oppidi partibus, relictis suis quisque stationibus, in
eum . . . locum concurrerunt.
(‘. . . they all left their posts in every sector of the town and quickly converged on that
spot . . .’ Liv. 32.24.4)
Supplement:
Romani quoque imperatores . . . iunctis et ipsi exercitibus per agrum Ausetanum . . . ad
sedem hostium pervenere . . . (Liv. 29.2.1–2); C. Popillius . . . dimissis et ipse Attali
navibus ad susceptam legationem peragendam navigare Aegyptum pergit . . . (Liv.
45.10.2); Quid enim aliud nobis quam caedem Crassi amisso et ipse Pacoro infra
Ventidium deiectus Oriens obiecerit? (Tac. Ger. 37.3)
Tum vero omnes, velut diis auctoribus in spem suam quisque acceptis, id morae
quod nondum pugnarent ad potienda sperata rati, proelium uno animo et voce una
poscunt. (Liv. 21.45.9)
Whereas in the examples above ipse and quisque are related to the subject of the super-
ordinate clause, this is not the case in ( j). Also cited in this context is Justin. 29.1.8.
( j) Sed postquam in Hispania Hercules, sicuti Afri putant, interiit, exercitus
eius, conpositus ex variis gentibus, amisso duce ac passim multis sibi quisque
imperium petentibus brevi dilabitur.
(‘After Hercules died in Spain, as the Africans believe, his army (now that
the leader was gone) soon dispersed, made up as it was by diverse nation-
alities, and many were contending, each against the others, to succeed
him.’ Sall. Jug. 18.3)
. The relative order of superordinate and subordinate

clauses in multi-clausal sentences
‘Multi-clausal sentence’ is a broad notion of which only a small part is explored in this
section. One type consists of sentences with a superordinate clause and two or more
subordinate clauses that fulfil different functions in that clause, as in (a), symbolized as
a b A. Here a cur interrogative object and an etiamsi concessive adjunct clause precede
the superordinate clause. The cur clause is in first position, because it is emphatic. In
(b), the order of adjunct clause and object clause is inverted. The si clause is the setting;
²⁰⁷ For Livy, see Riemann (1885: 259–61). There are further references in Sz.: 402 and Traenkle (1968:
140–2). For the use of ipse in gerundial clauses, see § 16.101.
 Word order
the main clause at the end contains the most salient information. In (c), we see a different
arrangement with a cum adjunct clause (the setting) at the beginning and an accusative
and infinitive object clause at the end as the most salient information (order: a A b).
Constituents can be anteposed for pragmatic reasons, as in (d). Haec, which is the
object of offendam, refers to a number of actions mentioned in the preceding context.
(a) Nunc hoc dicunt, utrumque se nosse. Alterum se cupere defensorem esse for-
tunarum suarum, alterum plane nolle. Cur nolint, etiamsi taceant, satis dicunt.
(‘What they actually are saying is that they know both of us, and that they are eager
to have one of us to champion their interests, and will not have the other at all. Why
they will not have the other they let us know plainly, even if they remain silent.’ Cic.
Div. Caec. 20–1)
(b) . . . et si quem nos interrogare noluimus, quae causa nobis tacendi fuerit exis-
timare debetis.
(‘. . . and if we have shown reluctance to cross-examine someone, it is for you to infer
what the motive for our silence was.’ Cic. Font. 22)
(c) Haec cum dixisset, iuravit se nisi victorem in castra non reversurum reli-
quosque ut idem facerent hortatus est.
(‘After speaking thus, he took an oath that he would not return to camp except as a
victor, and he urged the rest to do the same.’ Caes. Civ. 3.87.5)
(d) Haec, quom ego a foro revortar, facite ut offendam parata . . .
(‘Make sure that when I return from the market I find that all this is ready . . .’ Pl. Ps. 163)
Another type is shown in (e) and (f). Here we have two adjunct clauses (exception-
ally also of the same type and with the same subordinator) which function at differ-
ent levels. In (e), the first ubi clause functions as a position in time adjunct for the
combination of the ubi Larem . . . clause with the fundum . . . circumeat main clause.
This can be symbolized as a (b A). Because the two ubi clauses are hierarchically dif-
ferent they cannot be coordinated. In terms of information structure both clauses
function as settings, which explains the order in which they are arranged.²⁰⁸ In (g),
the disjunct clause with quoniam is in its usual initial position (see § 16.42), followed
by the position in time adjunct with antequam, which is the setting for the main
clause at the end.
(e) Pater familias ubi ad villam venit, ubi Larem familiarem salutavit, fundum
eodem die, si potest, circumeat.
(‘When the master arrives at the farmstead, after paying his respect to the god of the
household, let him go over the whole farm, if possible, on the same day.’ Cato Agr. 2.1)
(f) Deinde si quam opinionem iam vestris mentibus comprehendistis, si eam
ratio convellet . . . ne repugnetis eamque animis vestris aut libentibus aut aequis
remittatis.
²⁰⁸ For instances of two different satellite clauses preceding a common superordinate clause in Plautus,
see Lindskog (1896: 49–50).
The order of superordinate and subordinate clauses 
(‘Next, that if you have already formed some opinion, if it be dislodged by rea-
son . . . you dismiss it without resistance from your minds, if not gladly, at least with-
out reluctance.’ Cic. Clu. 6)
(g) Et quoniam in hoc officio studium meae defensionis ab accusatoribus atque
etiam ipsa susceptio causae reprehensa est, antequam pro L. Murena dicere
instituo, pro me ipso pauca dicam . . .
(‘And because in this fulfilment of my obligation I have been attacked by the prosecu-
tion for the vigour of my defence and even for the fact that I have taken on the case
at all, before I begin to speak in Murena’s defence, I shall say a few words on my own
behalf . . .’ Cic. Mur. 2)
Supplement:
Si nox furtum factum sit (faxit cj. Cujacius), si im occisit, iure caesus esto. (Lex XII
8.12); Si prata inrigua habebis, simulac faenum sustuleris, inrigare. (Var. R. 1.31.5);
Nam si tu mihi quamvis eruditum hominem adduxeris . . . si erit idem in consuetu-
dine civitatis . . . hospes, non multum ei loci proderunt illi ex quibus argumenta pro-
muntur. (Cic. de Orat. 2.131)
More complex instances: [cum] Equus matrem salire cum adduci non posset,
<cum> eum capite obvoluto auriga adduxisset et coegisset matrem inire, cum
descendenti dempsisset ab oculis, [et] ille impetum fecit in eum ac mordicus inter-
fecit. (Var. R. 2.7.9); Romam ut ex Sicilia redii, cum iste atque istius amici . . . ser-
mones eiusmodi dissipassent . . . tametsi probabatur nemini . . . tamen usque eo timui
ne . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.17); . . . sin autem is tu sis, qui multam utilitatem rei publicae atque
hominum societati, si in vita remaneas, adferre possis, si quid ob eam causam alteri
detraxeris, non sit reprehendendum. (Cic. Off. 3.30)
A third type is shown in (h). Here, the sentence consists of one superordinate clause
and two subordinate clauses, a first-degree and a second-degree clause. The connect-
ive relative pronoun quod is in its typical initial position. It is the object of efficere in
the second-degree indirect question quem ad modum . . . possit; this clause itself is the
object of the first-degree reason adjunct clause quia . . . non videtis. The main clause is
ut tragici poetae . . . confugitis ad deum. The structure can be symbolized as l a A, its
actual order being l a l a A. The quia clause functions as a setting and precedes the
main clause. (The main clause is interrupted again by a cum clause, here ignored.)²⁰⁹
Artistic factors (see § 23.14) seem relevant as well: note the sequence of three qu-
words, for which one may compare the well-known Ovidian example (i). A more
complicated case is ( j), with three subordinate clauses of different degree. Τhe con-
nective relative clause quorum verborum . . . discordia omnis in consuetudine communi,
heavy as it is,²¹⁰ is in first position. It is the attribute of commutatio in the indirect
question quot modis . . . facta, which itself is the object of the autonomous relative
clause qui animadverterit, the subject of the main clause at the end of the sentence.
(h) Quod quia quem ad modum natura efficere sine aliqua mente possit non
videtis, ut tragici poetae, cum explicare argumenti exitum non potestis, con-
fugitis ad deum.
²⁰⁹ For discussion, see Pease ad loc. ²¹⁰ For similar heavy clauses, see Pennell Ross (1991).
 Word order
(‘But because you cannot see how nature can achieve all this without the aid of some
intelligence, you, like the tragic poets, have recourse to a god when you are unable to
bring the plot of your drama to a dénouement.’ Cic. N.D. 1.53)
(i) . . . si quis qui quid agam forte requirat erit / vivere me dices . . .
(‘. . . if there’s one, perhaps, who asks how I am, say I’m alive . . .’ Ov. Tr. 1.1.18–19—tr.
Kline)
( j) Quorum verborum novorum ac veterum discordia omnis in consuetudine
com<m>uni (sc. est) quot modis commutatio sit facta qui animadverterit
facilius scrutari origines patietur verborum.
(‘Now he who has observed in how many ways the changes have taken place in those
words, new and old, in which there is any and every manner of variation in popular
usage, will find the examination of the origin of the words an easier task.’ Var. L. 5.6)²¹¹
Supplement:
Quid autem agatur cum aperuero, facile erit statuere quam sententiam dicatis aut
quam sequamini. (Cic. Phil. 5.6); Quoniam quod iudicium et quo consilio constitu-
tum sit cognostis, nunc rem ipsam, ut gesta sit, dum breviter vobis demonstro, atten-
dite. (Cic. Tul. 13); . . . de reliquo iam nostra culpa fuerit, si te, nisi omnia quae
percontati erimus explicaris, dimiserimus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.100); Mando tibi plane
totum ut videas cuius modi sit. (Cic. Att. 1.12.2); Hoc quod obicio qui in pluribus
fecit occisus est. (Sen. Con. 7.6.11)
More complex instances: Igitur, inquit Agrasius, quae diiungenda essent a cultura cuius-
modi sint quoniam discretum, de iis rebus quae in scientia sit in colendo nos docet<e>
ars id an quid aliud . . . (Var. R. 1.3); Sed cur tam diu de uno hoste loquimur et de eo hoste
qui iam fatetur se esse hostem . . .quem, quia, quod semper volui, murus interest, non
timeo. (Cic. Catil. 2.17); Mercatoribus est aditus magis eo, ut quae bello ceperint quibus
vendant habeant, quam quo ullam rem ad se importari desiderent. (Caes. Gal. 4.2.1)
In the examples discussed so far a superordinate clause occupies the final position. In
reality, complex sentences of this type much more often have a superordinate clause
in initial position.²¹²
23.69 Word order at the noun phrase level

In most studies of the relative order of constituents of the Latin noun phrase scholars
have concentrated on the position of the attribute, especially of adjectives and noun
phrases in the genitive. The role of the noun that functions as head of the noun phrase
has received little attention, and that only recently.²¹³ In fact, the relative order of head
²¹¹ This is the reading in Kent’s Loeb edition, defended by Laughton (1960: 5). After modis Fritzsche
deleted litterarum, which de Melo maintains in his text between brackets.
²¹² See Sz.: 732–4, with references. For comparative data of Plautus, Rhet. Her., and Cicero Phil. 14, see
Golla (1935: 39–41). In Plautus, by contrast, sequences of preceding subordinate clauses, each having their
own relation to the main clause, are common (Blänsdorf 1967: 9–27).
²¹³ See Lisón (2001: 161–3), Devine and Stephens (2006: Ch. 5), and Spevak (2014a: Ch. 2), from
whom many of the examples are taken.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
and attribute constituents of a noun phrase is determined by a number of factors,

some of which may operate at the same time. Just as in the case of the constituent
order at the clause level it is often difficult to determine which factor is the decisive
one in the order that is actually found. The following factors involved deserve special
attention.²¹⁴
(i) the internal semantic and pragmatic structure of the noun phrase and the
pragmatic function of the noun phrase as a whole in its clause: topic or focus;
(ii) the category and meaning(s) of the head of the noun phrase;
(iii) the category and meaning(s) of the attribute and its complexity;
(iv) the complexity of the noun phrase in terms of the number and types of
attributes.
(i) In its context a noun phrase consisting of a noun and an attribute can either func-
tion as a pragmatic unit or the attribute or the noun can have a pragmatic value of its
own. In (a), boves vetulos and the other noun–adjective combinations function as a
whole, in the same way as the single nouns lanam and pelles. The adjectives serve to
qualify the items the owner of the farm must sell. The noun phrases are the focus of
the clause, informing the reader what the owner of the farm must sell. The properties
the adjectives indicate are not the most relevant part of the information of the clause.
In (b), by contrast, magnas is pragmatically salient, as appears from the reaction to the
question. Note that repetition of the noun in the answer is not necessary. The order
noun/adjective is typical for situation (a), adjective/noun (and discontinuity) for (b).
In (c), the nouns reo and filio are each the most salient part of their noun phrase (they
are contrasted) and so precede the adjectives nobili and parvo, respectively.²¹⁵
(a) Boves vetulos, armenta delicula, oves deliculas, lanam, pelles, plostrum
vetus, ferramenta vetera, servum senem, servum morbosum, et si quid aliut
supersit, vendat.
(‘Let him sell worn-out oxen, blemished cattle, blemished sheep, wool, hides, an old
wagon, old tools, an old slave, a sickly slave, and whatever else is superfluous.’ Cato
Agr. 2.7)
(b) Magnas vero agere gratias Thais mihi? / # Ingentis.
(‘Did Thais really express great thanks to me? # Immense.’ Ter. Eu. 391–2)
(c) . . . miseratione . . . nos ita dolenter uti solemus ut . . . alia in causa excitato reo
nobili, sublato etiam filio parvo plangore et lamentatione compleremus forum.
(‘. . . the appeal for sympathy . . . we are wont to use so piteously that . . . in another plea
we told the noble defendant to stand up, also raised his small son, and so filled the
forum with wailing and lamentation.’ Cic. Orat. 131)
²¹⁴ For the order at the noun phrase level, see Ammann (1911), Marouzeau (1922), Adams (1976a), de
Jong (1986), Gettert (1999), Lisón (2001), Devine and Stephens (2006), Baldi and Nuti (2010: 365–73),
Langslow (2012), Giusti and Iovino (2015), and above all Spevak (2014a; 2016b).
²¹⁵ In the corpus used by Devine and Stephens parvus precedes the noun in 85 per cent of cases (2006:
467–71).
 Word order
The three examples manifest three different pragmatic constellations but only two dif-
ferent orders. It is very likely that they had different intonation contours, but we do
not know them. Postposition of an attribute is common when the noun phrase has
focus function, as in (c). By contrast, when the referent of the noun is known from the
context and especially if the noun phrase is topic of the clause, anteposition of the
attribute is more common.²¹⁶
(ii) The function of head of a noun phrase can be fulfilled by constituents that belong
to various lexical categories, which are discussed in §§ 11.2–23. This is illustrated by
(d), an example of a common noun, and (e), an indefinite pronoun. It is quite natural
that these constituents have different ordering possibilities.
(d) Numqui minus ea gratia tamen omnium opera utor?
(‘Do I make any less use of the services of you all for that reason?’ Pl. Ps. 160)
(e) Hoc modo aut ego aut tu, Hortensi, aut quisquam omnium rettulit?
(‘Have you or I, Hortensius, has anyone in the world, ever presented them like that?’
Cic. Ver. 1.36)
But even within the class of common nouns differences exist that are related among
other things to the type of entity the nouns refer to (see § 3.6). An animate first-order
noun like miles ‘soldier’ can be combined with different attributes from a second-
order noun like bellum ‘war’. However, they have in common that they can play a
central role in a war narrative like Caesar’s de Bello Gallico, and their attributes are
often pragmatically salient (and then anteposed). By contrast, an inanimate first-
order noun like ager ‘field’ plays a less central role in such a text and its attributes are
rarely salient (and therefore rarely anteposed, see (k) below).²¹⁷ Indirectly, the fre-
quency of ante- and postposition of the attribute can also correlate with the number
of the noun. With the nominative singular vir ‘man’ postposition of the adjective is
predominant, certainly when the noun phrase functions as an apposition, but also
when it functions at the clause level, as in (f). By contrast, the accusative plural viros
is usually part of the object, which often has focus function, and, as a consequence,
anteposition of the adjective is predominant, as in (g).²¹⁸
(f) Si exempli gratia vir bonus Alexandrea Rhodum magnum frumenti numerum
advexerit in Rhodiorum inopia et fame . . .
(‘If for example an honest man has imported a large cargo of grain from Alexandria
to Rhodes at a time of dearth and famine of the Rhodians . . .’ Cic. Off. 3.50)
(g) Complecti vis amplissimos viros ad tuum et Gabini scelus, neque id occulte.
(‘You desire to implicate men of high standing in the crime of yourself and Gabinius,
and that without disguise.’ Cic. Pis. 75)
²¹⁶ See Spevak (2014a: 99–100).

²¹⁷ See Spevak (2014a: 131, Table 2 ‘classifying adjectives’). ²¹⁸ See Spevak (2014a: 156–9; 213).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
Valency of the noun is another factor in the ordering of constituents of a noun phrase.
On the whole, (obligatory) arguments of nouns precede their head nouns as often as
they follow, as in (h) and (i). Optional possessive genitives, depending on the head
noun, are more often anteposed, as in ( j), but see (k).²¹⁹
(h) Confines erant hi Senonibus civitatemque patrum memoria coniunxerant . . .
(‘These were next neighbours to the Senones, and in the previous generation had
formed one state with them . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.3.5)
(i) Quid? Quod usu memoria patrum venit, ut pater familias, qui ex Hispania
Romam venisset . . .
(‘And again, what about the case that occurred in our fathers’ time, of the head of a house-
hold who had come from Spain to Rome . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.183—tr. May and Wisse)
( j) In hoc erant numero complures Pompei milites . . .
(‘Among the latter were many of Pompey’s soldiers . . .’ Caes. Civ. 3.103.5)
(k) Caesari renuntiatur Helvetiis esse in animo per agrum Sequanorum et
Haeduorum iter in Santonum fines facere . . .
(‘The news was brought back to Caesar that the Helvetii were minded to march
through the land of the Sequani and the Aedui into the borders of the Santones . . .’
Caes. Gal. 1.10.1)
(iii) The function of attribute of a noun phrase can be fulfilled by constituents that
belong to various lexical categories, which are discussed in §§ 11.24–74. Their position
with respect to the head varies, as grammars note: in Classical prose possessive adjec-
tives, for example, regularly follow their nouns; ‘normal’ adjectives and quantifiers
precede.²²⁰ The problem with observations of this type is that there is considerable
variation between individual words in each of these classes and that there is also much
variation between authors and types of text: in Cato Agr., for example, most ‘normal’
adjectives follow their head. Moreover, most often no explanation is given why in a
specific situation the attribute follows or precedes. Among these attributes, ‘normal’
adjectives can be subdivided into several semantic classes which behave differently as
far as position is concerned, as is shown in §§ 23.71–9. Certain adjectives require
another constituent on the basis of their valency (see §§ 4.99–104). Adjectives can
also be expanded with optional constituents (see § 11.91–9). The use of such adjective
phrases as attribute is not very common, but see (l) and (m), repeated from § 11.92.
The presence of an obligatory or optional constituent favours postponement of the
adjective phrase, as in (l) and (m).
(l) . . . servos ad caedem idoneos emit . . .
(‘. . . (who) has bought slaves ready for murder . . .’ Cic. Sest. 95)
²¹⁹ See Spevak (2014a: 178–203).

²²⁰ So, for example, K.-St.: II.605–9. For a ‘short overview of the state of research’, see Baños and
Cabrillana (2009: 701–7) and Spevak (2014a: 102–4). For the position of possessive adjectives in Plautus,
see de Melo (2010) and below, § 23.76.
 Word order
(m) Vehementem accusatorem nacti sumus, iudices, et inimicum in omni genere

odiosum ac molestum.
(‘We have got an energetic prosecutor, gentlemen, and an enemy in every way offen-
sive and dangerous.’ Cic. Flac. 13)
(iv) A noun phrase can contain more than one attribute, as in (n) (see § 11.75). The
order of these attributes and their position with respect to the head noun do not only
depend on the internal semantic structure, as (n) might suggest, but can also be deter-
mined by various pragmatic factors, as in (o), where eruditissima precedes illa because
it is emphatic.
(n) Cato censorius in illa nobili trium sapientiae procerum ab Athenis lega-
tione audito Carneade quam primum legatos eos censuit dimittendos . . .
(‘Cato the censor, on the occasion when the famous embassy of the three leaders of
philosophy was sent from Athens, after hearing Carneades advised that these envoys
should be sent away as soon as possible . . .’ Plin. Nat. 7.112)
(o) Hoc vitio cumulata est eruditissima illa Graecorum natio.
(‘The Greek nation, with all its learning, abounds in this fault.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.18)
. The relative order of head and attribute
In the preceding section it was shown that the relative order of head and attribute is
determined by various factors, such as properties of the attributes, properties of the
head nouns, the role of the noun phrase as a whole in its clause, and its internal com-
plexity. In the following sections a more traditional presentation will be given of the
position of the various categories of attributes with respect to their head. An import-
ant distinction between the various types of attributes is that between attributes with
and attributes without referential properties, coinciding more or less with, on the one
hand, attributes that show agreement with their head and, on the other, nouns and
noun phrases in various cases and prepositional phrases. For the position of adnom-
inal relative clauses, see § 18.12.
. The position of attributes that agree with their head

In the majority of the texts that have received detailed discussion attributes precede their
heads.²²¹ This is the case in 78 per cent of the noun phrases in Caes. Gal. I; 67 per cent in
Cic. Att. I; 62 per cent in Petronius, with the exception of the Cena Trimalchionis, where
it is only 45 per cent; and 32 per cent in the Peregrinatio, with no distinction made
between the two parts of that work.²²² However, there are considerable differences between
the various categories of attributes. Determiners, for example, precede much more often
²²¹ See the survey in Baños and Cabrillana (2009: 701).

²²² For the difference in word order between the two parts in general, see Spevak (2005a).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
than ‘normal’ adjectives; possessive adjectives slightly more often follow their heads.
The various categories of attributes are discussed separately, in the order of presenta-
tion of Chapter 11.
. The position of determiners
Determiners most often precede the head noun. Interrogative and relative deter-
miners almost always precede; demonstrative, anaphoric, and indefinite determiners
show more variation. The demonstrative determiner ille, for example, shows the vari-
ation in Table 23.8.²²³
Table . The order of head and the demonstrative determiner

ille in a number of texts (in absolute numbers)
Cicero’s orations Caesar Sallust
AH HA AH HA AH HA
ille 1735 420 23 2 24 7
‘A’ = attribute; ‘H’ = head
23.73 The position of anaphoric and demonstrative determiners

The anaphoric determiner is is most often anteposed,²²⁴ as in (a), with a proper name,
and in (b), with a common noun (see also § 11.105). Postposition is not uncommon
when it modifies a noun which is modified by an adnominal relative clause, as in (c).
Rare are cases of postposition like (d), where eius seems to be added to avoid confu-
sion with maybe another Agathinus, and (e), after a parenthesis.
(a) Ausculta modo. / “Harpax calator meus est, ad te qui venit—” / Tun’ es is
Harpax? # Ego sum . . .
(‘Just listen. “Harpax is my batman who has come to you—” Are you that Harpax? #
I am . . .’ Pl. Ps. 108–10)
(b) Ubi ea mulier habitat?
(‘Where does this woman live?’ Pl. Bac. 472)
(c) Idemque, in quo fuit ‘publicola’ maxime, legem ad populum tulit eam quae
centuriatis comitiis prima lata est . . .
(‘It was the same man who, by an act whereby he shows himself in the highest sense
“the people’s friend,” proposed to the citizens that first law passed by the centuriate
assembly . . .’ Cic. Rep. 2.53)
²²³ See Rohde (1884; 1887). Lodge: s.v. ille § II (p. 747A) says that there are sixty instances of postpos-
ition of ille in Plautus.
²²⁴ In the corpus used by Lisón (2001: 115) more than 90 per cent of cases (Cic. de Orat., Liv. XXVI and
XXVIII, and Sen. Ep. I–V). Spevak (2010c: 59) reports for is 98 per cent (Cic. Att. I–IV, Caes. Gal. I–V, Sal.
Cat. and Jug.). For the position of is, see also Fischer (1908: 91–5), TLL s.v. 480.73ff., and Lodge: s.v. is § II
(p. 829B).
 Word order
(d) Hi autem erant inimici Agathinus, homo nobilis, et Dorotheus, qui habebat
in matrimonio Callidamam, Agathini eius filiam.
(‘These enemies were a man of some note named Agathinus, and Dorotheus, who
was married to Callidama the daughter of this Agathinus.’ Cic. Ver. 2.89)
(e) Haec illi est pugnata pugna usque a mani ad vesperum / . . . sed proelium id
tandem diremit nox interventu suo.
(‘This fight was fought there without interruption from morning till evening . . . but
finally night settled this battle through its intervention.’ Pl. Am. 253–5)
Supplement (instances of—rare—postposition):
Ne triumphus quidem finem facit belli, per quem lata est urbs ea sine qua numquam
ex Transalpinis gentibus maiores nostri triumphaverunt. (Cic. Phil. 8.18); Quae nisi
qui naturas hominum vimque omnem humanitatis causasque eas quibus mentes aut
incitantur aut reflectuntur penitus perspexerit, dicendo quod volet perficere non
poterit. (Cic. de Orat. 1.53); Itaque cum exercitu per Cappadociae partem eam quae
cum Cilicia continens est iter feci . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.2.2); Maiorem partem aetatis eius
qua civilibus officiis fungantur homines, Romae se quam in vetere patria vixisse.
(Liv. 1.35.4)
. . . Laelius interim freto in Oceanum evectus ad Carteiam classe accessit. Urbs ea
in ora Oceani sita est . . . (Liv. 28.30.3)
The demonstrative determiners hic, ille, and iste are most often anteposed.²²⁵ In their
deictic use (see § 11.26) they regularly precede, as is shown for hic in (f), but in Plautus
the reverse order is not uncommon, as in (g), not only for entities on the stage: along-
side hunc diem ‘this day’, for example, the reverse order diem hunc is also found.²²⁶
Postposition is also common in situations like (h), where Cicero mentions a person as
present whom the audience already knows. When used anaphorically (which is the
most common use), the determiner also most often precedes but, again, postposition
is possible, as in (i). Postposition is rare when the noun is modified by an adnominal
relative clause, but see ( j) and (k), when the determiner modifies a compound phrase,
as in (l), or when the noun is prominent in some way, as in (m), an important person,
and (n), contrast with bellum.²²⁷ Postposition is very common in poetry.
(f) Ego interim hanc aram occupabo.
(‘Meanwhile I’ll occupy this altar.’ Pl. Mos. 1094)
(g) Tange aram hanc Veneris.
(‘Touch this altar of Venus.’ Pl. Rud. 1333)
(h) C. Quinctius fuit P. Quincti huius frater . . .
(‘Gaius Quinctius was the brother of Publius Quinctius, my client here . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 11)
²²⁵ In Lisón’s corpus hic more than 95 per cent; iste more than 80 per cent; ille more than 75 per cent.
See also Fischer (1908: 31–2 (hic), 43 (iste), 65–6 (ille)).
²²⁶ The proportion is thirty-two vs. two (PHI).
²²⁷ For the position of hic, see TLL s.v. hic 2739.32ff. and Devine and Stephens (2006: 511–20).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(i) . . . aegritudo in animo nomen habet non seiunctum a dolore. Doloris huius
igitur origo nobis explicanda est . . .
(‘. . . distress in the soul has a name which in meaning is not distinct from the meaning
of pain. We must therefore trace out the origin of this pain . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 3.23)
( j) Ac negotiis quidem fere res haec quas commemoravimus sunt adtributae.
(‘And the circumstances which we have now mentioned are those which are usually
attributed to things as opposed to persons.’ Cic. Inv. 1.43)
(k) . . . cur non imitamur, Crasse, Socratem illum qui est in Phaedro Platonis?
(‘Say, Crassus, why don’t we follow the example of Socrates as he appears in Plato’s
Phaedrus?’ Cic. de Orat. 1.28—tr. May and Wisse)
(l) Intellegitur, iudices, id quod iam ante dixi, imprudente L. Sulla scelera haec
et flagitia fieri.
(‘It is easy to see, gentlemen, that, as I have said before, all these infamous crimes
were committed without the knowledge of Sulla.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 25)
(m) . . . ut Socratem illum solitum aiunt dicere perfectum sibi opus esse, si qui
satis esset concitatus cohortatione sua . . .
(‘We are told that Socrates always said that his work was done if he had sufficiently
succeeded, by his exhortations, in stirring someone . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.204—tr. May
and Wisse)
(n) Nisi aut Hamilcar Hannibali dux est praeferendus aut illud bellum huic, aut
victoria illa maior clariorque quam haec . . . futura est.
(‘Unless Hamilcar is to be rated above Hannibal as a general, or that war above this
one, or unless that victory was greater and more famous than this one . . . is to be . . .’
Liv. 28.41.4)
Supplement (instances of—rare—postposition):
Sed totum genus oppugnationis huius, iudices, et iam prospicitis animis et, cum
inferetur, propulsare debebitis. (Cic. Cael. 20); Sthenius hic Thermitanus cum hoc
capillo atque veste domo sua tota expilata mentionem tuorum furtorum non facit.
(Cic. Ver. 5.128); Cogebat enim me M. Marcellus hic noster, qui nunc aedilis curulis
est et profecto, nisi ludos nunc faceret, huic nostro sermoni interesset. (Cic. de Orat.
1.57); Cossinius hic cui dedi litteras valde mihi bonus homo et non levis et amans tui
visus est . . . (Cic. Att. 1.19.11); Nam ego eo nomine sum Dyrrachii hoc tempore ut
quam celerrime quid agatur audiam, et sum tuto. Civitas enim haec semper a me
defensa est. (Cic. Fam. 14.3.4)
. . . si vidulum illum quem ego in navi perdidi / cum auro atque argento salvom
investigavero . . . (Pl. Rud. 1339–40); . . . ut ex eodem Ponto Medea illa quondam
fugisse dicitur . . . (Cic. Man. 22); . . . veteres illi qui huic scientiae praefuerunt . . . per-
volgari artem suam noluerunt. (Cic. de Orat. 1.186); . . . stilus ille tuus, quem tu vere
dixisti perfectorem dicendi esse ac magistrum, multi sudoris est. (Cic. de Orat.
1.257); Quod si Antipater ille Sidonius, quem tu probe, Catule, meministi, solitus est
versus hexametros . . . fundere ex tempore . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.104); Itaque multa augu-
ria, multa auspicia, quod Cato ille sapiens queritur, neglegentia collegii amissa plane
et deserta sunt. (Cic. Div. 1.28)
 Word order
Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? (Cic. Catil. 1.1); Quid vero habet auctori-
tatis furor iste quem divinum vocatis, ut quae sapiens non videat ea videat insa-
nus . . . (Cic. Div. 2.110); . . . tibi et declinationem istam atomorum et magnitudinem solis
probabo . . . (Cic. Fin. 1.28); Nihil igitur te contra soritas ars ista adiuvat . . . (Cic. Luc. 94)
Anaphoric and demonstrative determiners can modify noun phrases that contain one
or more other modifiers (see § 11.26).²²⁸ The determiner most often precedes the
entire remaining part of the noun phrase, as in (o) and (p), but other orders are pos-
sible as well. These are usually pragmatically motivated. In (q), curam precedes the
two attributes because it is emphatic. In (r), noster precedes hic for the same reason.
(o) Itaque propter hanc dubitationem meam brevior haec ipsa epistula est . . .
(‘Therefore because of this uncertainty of mine my present letter is somewhat
short . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.9.1)
(p) Vereor enim ne re iam desperata legas, ut haec mea diligentia miserabilis
tibi, aliis irridenda videatur.
(‘For I fear that by the time you read this the matter may already have been given up
as a bad job. In that case my solicitude will seem pitiable to you and ludicrous to
others.’ Cic. Att. 3.23.4)
(q) Tanta res videbatur herbam invenire, vitam iuvare, nunc fortassis aliquis
curam hanc nostram frivolam quoque existimaturis.
(‘It was thought a great honour to discover a plant and be of assistance to human life,
although now perhaps some will think that these researches of mine are just idle
trifling.’ Plin. Nat. 25.22)
(r) Tamen, quam diu hic erit noster hic praefectus moribus, parebo auctoritati
tuae.
(‘Despite the foregoing, as long as our new Prefect of Morals remains in Rome, I shall
defer to your advice.’ Cic. Fam. 9.15.5)
In cases like (s) the words is and miles could be analysed either as a discontinuous
noun phrase with is functioning as determiner, or as a sequence of a pronoun and an
appositive noun. Similarly for is and leno in (t), and for eam and mulierem/virginem.²²⁹
It is probably best taken as an extreme form of discontinuity (see § 23.87, (vi)).
(s) Nam is illius filiam / conicit in navem miles clam matrem suam, / eamque
huc invitam mulierem in Ephesum advehit.
(‘For the soldier puts her daughter onto a ship, behind her mother’s back, and brings
her here to Ephesus, against her will.’ Pl. Mil. 111–13)
(t) Is eam huc Cyrenas leno advexit virginem.
(‘This pimp brought that girl here to Cyrene.’ Pl. Rud. 41)
²²⁸ For combinations with hic, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 515–20). For determiners in general, see
Spevak (2010c: 67–74).
²²⁹ For discussion and statistical data, see Rosén (1999: 150–1). She takes such instances as evidence for
the existence of an ‘appositional’ (or: ‘explicitational’) word order in Early Latin.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
23.74 The position of indefinite determiners

The class of indefinite determiners is less homogeneous than that of anaphoric and
demonstrative determiners. Here, only aliquis (see § 11.111) and quidam (see
§ 11.114) are discussed, which have different properties in several respects. Whereas
aliquis most often precedes its head in Plautus, quidam more often follows. Different
orders of quidam in two almost identical contexts are shown in (a) and (b). In prose,
aliquis is regularly anteposed (80 per cent), quidam less often (65 per cent).²³⁰
Postposition is favoured if the head noun is pragmatically prominent, as in (c)
(contrast), or if the head noun is modified by a relative clause, as in (d) and (e).
(a) Est quidam homo qui illam (sc. cistellam) ait se scire ubi sit.
(‘There’s a certain man who says he knows where that casket is.’ Pl. Cist. 735)
(b) Homo quidam est qui scit quod quaeris ubi sit.
(‘There’s a certain man who knows where what you’re looking for is.’ Pl. Mil. 1012)
(c) . . . non arte aliqua perpenditur, sed quodam quasi naturali sensu iudicatur.
(‘. . . this is not dispensed by means of an art, but is based on the judgement of some
sort of natural instinct.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.151—tr. May and Wisse)
(d) De hoc Verri dicitur habere eum perbona toreumata, in his pocula quaedam
quae Thericlia nominantur . . .
(‘It was reported to Verres about him that he owned some really good chased silver,
and in particular, some cups of the kind called Thericlia . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.38)
(e) Quae tum denique, cum causa aliqua quae a me dicenda est desiderat, quaero.
(‘This I investigate only when some case that I must plead requires it.’ Cic. de Orat.
23.75 The position of relative and interrogative determiners

For exceptional postposed relative determiners, see § 18.15. Interrogative determiners
are rarely postposed (it is not always clear whether we are dealing with a determiner
or with a pronoun).²³¹
(a) Si me novisti minus, / genere quo sim gnatus . . .
(‘In case you don’t know what family I come from . . .’ Pl. Aul. 777–8)
(b) Ars vero quae potest esse nisi quae non ex una aut duabus sed ex multis
animi perceptionibus constat?
(‘But what science can there be that is not made up of not one nor two but many
mental percepts?’ Cic. Luc. 22)
²³⁰ Lisón (2001: 120–3; 135) includes other indefinite determiners (see § 11.27) in his statistics and also
alius ‘other’, ceterus ‘the remaining’, and others. Spevak (2010c: 60–1) has separate statistics for aliquis and
quidam. In Plautus, aliquis precedes in forty-one out of fifty-three instances; quidam, in nine out of thirty-
one (source: Lodge: s.vv.). He uses quidam only three times with inanimate nouns. By contrast, in Merguet
(Phil.) animate nouns are relatively rare.
²³¹ For ten instances in Plautus, see Lodge: s.v. quis § II (p. 498B).
 Word order
Supplement:
In metu belli furandi locus qui potest esse? (Cic. Ver. 5.10); Deinde dolorem quem
maximum (sc. dicis)? (Cic. Fin. 2.93); Ubi enim iudicium emptoris est, ibi fraus ven-
ditoris quae potest esse? (Cic. Off. 3.55)
. The position of attributive possessive adjectives
Possessive adjectives are a special type of modifier, since in certain contexts they are
not used, in particular with relational nouns like pater ‘father’ (see § 3.6) and when
the possessive adjective is coreferential with the subject of the clause, unless there is
a need to emphasize the possessive relation.²³² For other not typically ‘possessive’
uses of these adjectives, see §§ 11.29–30. The frequency of ante- and postposition
differs between authors and between individual possessive adjectives, as is shown in
Table 23.9.²³³
Table . Relative order of head and the possessive adjectives meus and
suus in Cicero’s orations, Caesar, Sallust, and Plautus (absolute numbers)
Cicero’s orations Caesar Sallust Plautus
AH HA AH HA AH HA AH HA
meus 782 642 7 1 20 54 664 557
suus 908 1044 302 127 49 122 189 230
‘A’ = attribute; ‘H’ = head
Anteposition is the rule when the possessive adjective is semantically prominent.

Thus, in Cicero, ‘in my opinion’ is regularly meo iudicio, in contrast with what other
people may find. In (a), the anteposition of meum in the second sentence is due to
contrast, whereas in the other three sentences meus is only there to avoid confu-
sion and therefore postposed. However, postposition may also result from antepo-
sition of the head noun for pragmatic reasons, as in (b) and (c).²³⁴ Our grammars
draw special attention to anteposition of the possessive adjective as a sign of an
emotional relation, as in (d), where meus is not necessary to inform Atticus about
the identity of the frater referred to. Anteposition of the possessive adjective with-
out a pragmatic motivation is found in Late Latin, for example in Augustine’s writ-
ings in a less elevated style, as in (e). Anteposition is normal in the Romance
languages.²³⁵
²³² See Spevak (2010c: 64–7).

²³³ See Rohde (1884; 1887). For the position of possessive pronouns in Cicero’s orations, and also dis-
continuity, see Menk (1925). For further numerical data, see Lisón (2001: 124–5) and Spevak (2010c: 65).
The data for Plautus are taken from de Melo (2010: 76, Table 6.1). For Augustine, see Muldowney (1937:
60–73).
²³⁴ Fruyt (2008: 83) incorrectly regards meum in this example as ‘focalisé’, because of the translation
‘my own’.
²³⁵ See K.-St.: II.609.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(a) Ut igitur intellegeretis qualem ipse se consulem profiteretur, (sc. Antonius)

obiecit mihi consulatum meum . . . Quis autem meum consulatum praeter te
et P. Clodium qui vituperaret inventus est? . . . Non placet M. Antonio consu-
latus meus . . . Maxime vero consulatum meum Cn. Pompeius probavit . . .
(‘Well then, in order to let you see what kind of consul he professes himself to be, he
reproached me with my consulship . . .Who was ever heard abusing my consulship
except yourself and Publius Clodius . . . Marcus Antonius disapproves of my consul-
ship . . . Above all, my consulship was approved by Gnaeus Pompeius . . .’ Cic. Phil.
2.11–12)
(b) Nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua mater fuit. / Pater tuos, is erat frater
patruelis meus . . .
(‘For your mother, Ampsigura, was my second cousin; your father, he was my first
cousin . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1068–9)
(c) ‘Dicam’, inquit, ‘si potuero. Nam tam bonae memoriae sum ut frequenter
nomen meum obliviscar.’
(‘ “I will tell you if I can”, he said, “but my memory is in such a fine way that I often
forget my own name.”’ Petr. 66.1 (Habinnas speaking))
(d) Iacet in maerore meus frater neque tam de sua vita quam de mea metuit.
(‘My brother is plunged in misery, fearing more for my life than his own.’ Cic. Att.
10.4.6)
(e) Et si quid minamur, cum dolore fiat de scripturis comminando vindictam
futuram, ne nos ipsi in nostra potestate, sed Deus in nostro sermone timeatur.
(‘If there be any intimidation, let it be done with sorrow by the threats of future pun-
ishment from the Scriptures, then the fear we inspire will not be of ourselves or our
authority, but of God speaking in us.’ August. Ep. 22.5)
Supplement (possessive adjectives preceding their head):
Quaeso hercle noli, Saurea, mea causa hunc verberare. (Pl. As. 417);²³⁶ Mnesilochus
salutem dicit suo patri (Pl. Bac. 734); Eloquar, quandoquidem me oras. Tuos pater— #
Quid meus pater? / # —tuam amicam— # Quid eam? # —vidit. (Pl. Mer. 180–1);
Instruite nunc, Quirites, contra has tam praeclaras Catilinae copias vestra praesidia
vestrosque exercitus. (Cic. Catil. 2.24); Hunc (sc. Hannibalem) sui cives e civitate
eiecerunt. Nos etiam hostem litteris nostris et memoria videmus esse celebratum.
(Cic. Sest. 142); . . . ingenia vero, ut multis rebus possumus iudicare, nostrorum homi-
num multum ceteris hominibus omnium gentium praestiterunt. (Cic. de Orat. 1.15);
Caesar suas copias in proximum collem subducit, aciem instruit. Labienus . . . (Caes.
Gal. 1.22.3); Cum te tam valde rogo ut studeas, meum negotium ago. (Sen. Ep. 35.1)
The genitive forms of the anaphoric pronoun eius, earum, and eorum, when referring
to a third person possessor that is not the subject of the clause, behave like possessive
adjectives as far as their position in the noun phrase is concerned (but see also
²³⁶ For a discussion of the order of causa + possessive adjective and the role of metre in Plautus, see de
Melo (2010: 77–8).
 Word order
§ 23.83), as in (f) and (g).²³⁷ In (f), eorum has its regular position after its head; in (g),
it precedes because it is in contrast with implied Haeduorum.
(f) . . . legati ab Haeduis et a Treveris veniebant: Haedui questum quod Harudes,
qui nuper in Galliam transportati essent, fines eorum popularentur.
(‘. . . deputies arrived from the Aedui and the Treveri. The Aedui came to complain
that the Harudes, who had lately been brought over into Gaul, were devastating their
borders.’ Caes. Gal. 1.37.2)
(g) Sed peius victoribus Sequanis quam Haeduis victis accidisse, propterea quod
Ariovistus, rex Germanorum, in eorum (sc. Sequanorum) finibus consedisset
tertiamque partem agri Sequani . . . occupavisset . . .
(‘But a worse fate has befallen the victorious Sequani than the conquered Aedui:
Ariovistus, king of the Germans, has settled within their borders and seized a third
part of their territory . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.31.10)
. The position of identifiers
The identifier idem (see § 11.31) normally precedes its head, although Celsus, Pliny
the Elder, and others show more variation.²³⁸ Examples of the reverse order are
(a)–(c). In (a), the noun is modified by an adnominal relative clause. In (b), fidem
is contrasted with curam; in (c), voltu ‘the outward appearance’ is emphatically
anteposed.
(a) Sosiam . . . / Davo prognatum patre eodem quo ego sum, forma, aetate item /
qua ego sum.
(‘Sosia . . . a son of the same father, Davus, as I am, and he also has the same appear-
ance and age that I have.’ Pl. Am. 612–15)
(b) Quod si fuisset, fidem eandem, curam maiorem adhibuisses . . .
(‘Had that been so you would have brought not better faith indeed but greater solici-
tude to bear . . .’ Cic. Att. 3.15.7)
(c) (sc. dux) Vincere ac vinci voltu eodem nec quemquam aspernari parem qui
se offerret.
(‘He would win or lose without changing countenance, nor did he scorn to match
himself with anyone who challenged him.’ Liv. 7.33.2)
Alius (see § 11.31) is also normally anteposed.²³⁹ Examples of the reverse order are
(d)–(f). In none of these does alius seem to signal primarily a difference of identity
from other constituents, but rather seems to indicate an ‘additional’ entity (see OLD
s.v. § 3). It is not clear whether this semantic feature is reflected in the order.
²³⁷ See Spevak (2010a: 253).

²³⁸ For the position of idem in prose, see TLL s.v. idem 207.64ff. For the position of idem in Plautus, see
Lodge: s.v. idem § II (p. 737A).
²³⁹ See TLL s.v. alius 1650.49ff. Livy is said to have the reverse order ‘saepe’.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(d) Nescio quid istuc negoti dicam, nisi si quispiam est / Amphitruo alius, qui
forte ted hinc apsenti tamen / tuam rem curet teque apsente hic munus
fungatur tuom.
(‘I can’t say what’s the matter, unless there’s some other Amphitruo who happens to
look after your business even when you’re away from here and who’s doing your job
here in your absence.’ Pl. Am. 825–7)
(e) . . . ut . . . deinde ita tempus duceretur ut a M’. Glabrione praetore et a magna
parte horum iudicum ad praetorem alium iudicesque alios veniremus.
(‘. . . so that after that the time was to be spun out till we no longer had Manius Glabrio
as praetor, nor the majority of these gentlemen as members of the Court, but had to
appear before a new praetor and new judges.’ Cic. Ver. 1.30)
(f) Sacra dis aliis Albano ritu, Graeco Herculi, ut ab Euandro instituta erant, facit.
(‘To other gods he sacrificed after the Alban custom, but employed the Greek for
Hercules, according to the institution of Euander.’ Liv. 1.7.3)
. The position of attributive quantifiers
Quantifiers (see §§ 11.33–4) are more often anteposed, adjectives of amount like mul-
tus and nullus more so (80–90 per cent) than cardinal numerals like tres (65 per cent)
(for ordinal numerals, see § 23.79). Adjectives of amount are also more often separated
from their head, as in (a). This different behaviour is related to the subjective character
of this type of quantification. Examples of postposed adjectives of amount are (b) and
(c). The reason for their postposition is because the head nouns are pragmatically
prominent, in (b) a topic, in (c) an emphatic focus. In (d), the noun phrase as a whole
forms a pragmatic unit (focus). The numeral follows its head because it is not prag-
matically prominent. By contrast, quattuor in (e) is anteposed: the noun pagos is
known from the context and quattuor is contrastive.²⁴⁰
(a) . . . exsistit etiam ex scripti interpretatione saepe contentio, in quo nulla potest
esse nisi ex ambiguo controversia.
(‘. . . a further contest often arises out of the construction of a document, when the
only possible dispute comes from an equivocation.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.110)
(b) Etenim fana multa spoliata et simulacra deorum de locis sanctissimis ablata
videmus a nostris . . ..
(‘(Among these peoples you will find a belief in certain animals more firmly estab-
lished than is reverence for the holiest sanctuaries and images of the gods with us.)
For we have often seen temples robbed and images of gods carried off from the holi-
est shrines by our fellow-countrymen . . .’ Cic. N.D. 1.82)
(c) . . . ut, cum omnes ea quae sunt acta improbent, querantur, doleant, varietas
nulla in re sit aperteque loquantur et iam clare gemant, tamen medicina
nulla adferatur.
²⁴⁰ Examples (d) and (e) are taken from Spevak (2010a: 246–7).
 Word order
(‘Disapproval of what has been done and indignant complaint are universal. Opinion
is not divided at any point, there is open grumbling, even to the stage of loud groan-
ing, but nobody comes forward with a remedy.’ Cic. Att. 2.20.3)
(d) Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres . . .
(‘The whole of Gaul is divided into three parts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.1)
(e) Is pagus appellabatur Tigurinus; nam omnis civitas Helvetia in quattuor
pagos est divisa.
(‘The name of the canton was the Tigurine; for the whole state of Helvetia is divided
into four cantons.’ Caes. Gal. 1.12.4)
The universal quantifier omnis (see § 11.34) and the totality expression totus (see
§ 11.38) are also most often anteposed. Their position is not always clear, since they
can also be used as floating quantifiers. This is also the case with adjectives of amount.
. The position of attributive adjectives
If one takes adjectives as one indiscriminate whole the conclusion is unavoidable that
all adjectives can be anteposed and postposed, that there is variation between authors
and between types of text, and that overall the order A(ttribute) H(ead) is more
frequent than HA.
The proportions in a certain corpus are 60 : 40 for Cicero and Livy, 73 : 27 for
Seneca.²⁴¹ However, for individual adjectives the proportion anteposition : postposition
varies considerably, as can be seen in Table 23.10.
Table . Relative order of head and attribute in Cicero’s orations,

Caesar, and Sallust (absolute numbers)
Cicero’s orations Caesar Sallust
AH HA AH HA AH HA
familiaris 2 35 0 3 2 7
magnus 661 126 402 27 146 15
militaris 8 60 8 28 7 11
(Source: Rohde 1884; 1887)
In noun phrases consisting of the same head noun and the same adjective there
is also considerable variation: in the corpus referred to above Livy has postero die
267 times, the reverse seven times; Cicero iure civili fifty times, the reverse only
once.²⁴²
A number of factors seem to be relevant to the order of the attributive adjective and
its head:
²⁴¹ See Lisón (2001: 63; 90).

²⁴² See Lisón (2001: 76). Also, for extensive lists of individual adjectives, pp. 95–106.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(i) the pragmatic function of the noun phrase as a whole (topic or focus) and the
pragmatic prominence (contrast or emphasis) of either the head or the adjective;
(ii) the meaning of the adjective and its semantic relation with the head;
(iii) expressions with a more or less fixed order;
(iv) attributive adjectives can themselves be modified in various ways, both by
arguments required by the valency and by optional constituents, which has
consequences for their position with respect to their head nouns. This is dis-
cussed in § 23.80.
(i) The importance of the pragmatic function of a noun phrase as a whole and its
constituent parts for the internal ordering of adjective and head is shown by (a) and
(b). In (a), in agris publicis is focus; it functions as a pragmatic unit. In (b), agros can
be inferred from its context; the relative clause, and especially publicos, is contrastive
with respect to decumani and immunes in the following context.²⁴³ Whereas in (a)
publicis plays no role in its context, publicos does in (b). An adjective is anteposed
when it is emphatic or contrastive.
(a) Venit enim mihi in mentem . . . Tiberium et Gaium Gracchos plebem in agris
publicis constituisse, qui agri a privatis antea possidebantur.
(‘For I remember that . . . Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus settled plebeians in public
lands, formerly occupied by private persons.’ Cic. Agr. 2.10)
(b) Qui publicos agros arant certum est quid e lege censoria debeant.
(‘The farmers of state lands were bound to supply the amount fixed by the censors’
regulations.’ Cic. Ver. 5.53)
Tibi App. Claudius augur consuli nuntiavit addubitato salutis augurio bellum domesti-
cum triste ac turbulentum fore. (Cic. Div. 1.105); Omnia sunt externa unius virtute
terra marique pacata: domesticum bellum manet . . . (Cic. Catil. 2.11); Sin te confir-
mare vis, et comites et tempestates et navem idoneam ut habeas diligenter videbis.
(Cic. Fam. 16.1.2); . . . eosque (sc. obsides) in continentem adduci iussit, quod propin-
qua die aequinoctii infirmis navibus hiemi navigationem subiciendam non existima-
bat. (Caes. Gal. 4.36.2); Extemplo igitur consules novi, L. Aemilius Mamercinus et
C. Plautius, eo ipso die, Kalendis Quinctilibus, quo magistratum inierunt, comparare
inter se provincias iussi . . . (Liv. 8.20.3); Novi deinde consules a veteribus exercitu
accepto ingressi hostium fines populando usque ad moenia atque urbem per-
venerunt. (Liv. 8.17.1); Faucibusque portus navem onerariam submersam obiecit et
huic alteram coniunxit. (Caes. Civ. 3.39.2); Tu tibi hoc numquam turpe . . . fore putasti
celeberrimo loco palam tibi aedificari onerariam navem in provincia quam tu cum
imperio obtinebas? (Cic. Ver. 5.46)
(ii) Ante- and postposition of adjectives is in some way related to their lexical mean-
ing. Adjectives of dimension and size like longus ‘long’ and ingens ‘huge’ are more
often anteposed in Classical Latin. The same holds for adjectives of relative position
²⁴³ The examples are taken from Spevak (2014a: 132–3).

 Word order
and ordinal numerals like hesternus ‘yesterday’s’ and quartus ‘fourth’.²⁴⁴ By contrast,
those of substance like aureus ‘golden’ are more often postposed.²⁴⁵ Adjectives derived
from proper names are more or less as often anteposed as postposed, but in Livy
populus Romanus disturbs the picture.²⁴⁶ Adjectives expressing a positive or a nega-
tive judgement, such as bonus ‘good’, malus ‘bad’, and sanctus ‘blessed’, normally pre-
cede. Illustrative examples are (c), with the postposed ‘objective’ adjective quadratario
‘of stonemasonry’, and (d), with the anteposed ‘subjective’ adjective novo ‘freshly pro-
duced’, with the same head noun opere ‘material’.²⁴⁷ Illustrations of the adjectives
mentioned above can be found in the Supplement.
(c) D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) / Q(uinto) · Gargilio Campano coniugi
dulcissimo mausoleum operae (= opere)/ quadratario secundum
verba testamenti eius . . . Gargila . . . extruxit . . .
(‘Sacred to the spirits of the dead. For Quintus Gargilius Capanus, my sweetest of
husbands, . . . Gargilia has erected this large tomb in masonry according to the
words of his last will and testament . . .’ CIL VIII.9109.1–5 (Sour El-Ghozlane, ad
235—tr. Bal)
(d) . . . aquagium novo opere a so/lo extructum suis possessionibus /
constituerun<t> et dedicaverunt.
(‘. . . they have founded and dedicated this channel, constructed from the ground up
as a new project at their own cost.’ CIL VIII.21671.5–7 (Ain Temouchent)—tr. Bal)
Marouzeau (1922) suggested a more abstract classification of adjectives, with a dis-

tinction between ‘qualifying’ and ‘determining’ adjectives, of which the former are
‘subjective’ and the latter ‘objective’. However, whatever classification one adopts there
will always be exceptions. In reality, the order is not determined by the meaning of the
adjective as such, but by the role the adjective fulfils within its noun phrase and its
context. Some adjectives are on account of their meaning better candidates for emphasis
or contrast than others and are for that reason more often anteposed.
Sedebat in rostris conlega tuus amictus toga purpurea, in sella aurea, coronatus. (Cic.
Phil. 2.85); Tum illa ex patellis et turibulis quae evellerat ita scite in aureis poculis inli-
gabat, ita apte in scaphiis aureis includebat, ut ea ad illam rem nata esse diceres. (Cic. Ver.
4.54); Bonum virum eccum video, se recipit domum. (Pl. Poen. 1332); Quando vir
bonus es, responde quod rogo. (Pl. Cur. 708—NB: pragmatic unit); . . . videre . . .
quo pacto ex iure hesterno panem atrum vorent, / nosse omnia haec salus est adules-
centulis. (Ter. Eu. 937–40—NB: iure in contrast with panem); Confusius hesterno die
est acta res, C. Pansa, quam postulabat institutum consulatus tui. (Cic. Phil. 8.1);
Quid tandem erat causae cur die hesterno in senatum tam acerbe cogerer? (Cic. Phil.
1.11—NB: order reconstructed from V by Halm and adopted by most modern editors;
²⁴⁴ For adjectives of relative position and ordinal numerals, see Spevak (2014a: 171–5).
²⁴⁵ For examples of adjectives of substance (or: ‘material’), see Devine and Stephens (2006: 405–13).
²⁴⁶ See Lisón (2001: 79). ²⁴⁷ The examples are taken from Saastamoinen (2010: 181–4).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
hesterno die D);²⁴⁸ . . . quis ignorat Achaeos ingentem pecuniam pendere L. Pisoni quo-
tannis . . . (Cic. Prov. 5); Et hercule cum eo nuntio pulvis ingens conspici coeptus est.
(B. Afr. 12.2—NB: pulvis is focus); In eo ergo loco . . . tamen petra ingens est per
girum . . . (Pereg. 4.4—NB: the regular order in this work in its literal sense);²⁴⁹ Rhenus
autem oritur ex Lepontiis . . . et longo spatio per fines . . . Treverorum citatus fer-
tur . . . (Caes. Gal. 4.10.3); Cato in Sicilia naves longas veteres reficiebat, novas civitatibus
imperabat. (Caes. Civ. 1.30.4); Navibus circiter LXXX onerariis coactis contractisque
quot satis esse ad duas transportandas legiones existimabat, quicquid praeterea navium
longarum habebat, id quaestori legatis praefectisque tribuit. Huc accedebant XVIII
onerariae naves, quae ex eo loco a milibus passuum octo vento tenebantur . . . (Caes. Gal.
4.22.3–4—NB: contrast); . . . quod longae naves militum capere non poterant in onera-
rias impositis altero die Oricum pervenit . . . (Liv. 24.40.5—NB: contrast); Ipse de quarta
vigilia eodem itinere quo hostes ierant ad eos contendit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.21.3); Quo cele-
riter conlato proxima nocte vigilia quarta legionibus omnibus expeditis impedimen-
tisque in castris relictis prima luce neque opinantibus hostibus eum ipsum locum
cepit . . . (B. Alex. 73.2—NB: exceptional order; possibly to avoid ambiguity);²⁵⁰ . . . ibi
erant monasteria plurima sanctorum hominum . . . (Pereg. 4.6); Illud etiam presbyter
sanctus dixit nobis . . . (Pereg. 15.5—NB: presbyter is contrastive)²⁵¹
K.-St.: II.607–8 note that there is no reason to assume that ante- or postposition of an
adjective should correspond with a difference in meaning of that adjective, e.g. that
anteposed urbanus would mean ‘witty’ against postposed ‘of the city’. This idea was
unfortunately revived by Marouzeau (1922: 14) citing urbanus praetor as a case in
point—which in reality is not attested in this sense in the extant literature.²⁵²
Interesting is the observation by Fronto that it does not make sense to put navem
after triremem, because it is self-evident: what else could follow?: Id quoque ne ignores:
pleraque in oratione ordine immutato vel rata verba fiunt vel supervacanea. ‘Navem
triremem’ rite dixerim; ‘triremem navem’ supervacaneo addiderim. Neque enim pericu-
lum est ne quis lecticulam aut redam aut citharam triremem dici arbitretur. (‘Bear this,
too, in mind: it frequently happens that words in a speech, by a change in their order,
become essential or superfluous. I should be right in speaking of a ship with three
decks, but ship would be a superfluous addition to three-decker. For there is no danger
of anyone thinking that by three-decker was meant a litter, a landau, or a lute.’ Fro. Ep.
ad M. Caes. 4.3.7)
(iii) There are a large number of expressions in which one order prevails. Examples
from public life are praetor urbanus, ius civile (but see (e)), patres conscripti, res publica,
and di immortales. Other expressions are aequo animo and aes alienum. The reason
why these expressions have this so-to-speak fixed order is that they refer to a subtype
of the entity referred to by the noun which is not contrasted with other subtypes or
²⁴⁸ For a full discussion of the passage, see Magnaldi (2004: 75–7) In her own edition of 2008 she fol-
lows Kayser (and Halm before him) in deleting hesterno die entirely. TLL s.v. hesternus 2668.15f. has two
Late instances of die hesterno, e.g. August. Serm. 299E.
²⁴⁹ See Haida (1928: 4–5). ²⁵⁰ As suggested by Guus Bal (p.c.).
²⁵¹ See Haida (1928: 8–10) and Väänänen (1987: 108).
²⁵² For the incorrectness of Marouzeau’s idea, see Spevak (2010b: 27) and especially Langslow (2012).
 Word order
emphasized for some subjective reason. Since these expressions play an important
role in society and in the type of texts that we have they are frequent and as a conse-
quence their relative order is frequent as well. Inverse orders are attested, and fully
justified, as in (e), with contrastive civili, and (f), with contrastive urbanus.²⁵³
(e) . . . praesertim cum haec non in crimine aliquo, quod ille posset infitiari, sed
in civili iure consisteret?
(‘. . . especially since it turned not on some criminal charge which he could have
denied, but on a point of civil law.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.182—tr. May and Wisse)
(f) An ille plus praestat qui inter peregrinos et cives aut urbanus (ς; urbanos ω)
praetor adeuntibus adsessoris verba pronuntiat quam . . .
(‘Or does he accomplish more who, whether in cases between citizens and foreigners
or as the praetor of the city, delivers to suitors the verdict his assistant has formulated
than . . .’ Sen. Dial. 9.3.5)
In the writings of the jurists the order of fixed legal expressions is often reversed:
publicus locus instead of locus publicus, bona fides instead of fides bona, and bonus vir
instead of vir bonus, as in (g).²⁵⁴
(g) Omnis qui defenditur boni viri arbitratu defendendus est.
(‘Everyone who is defended should be defended in accordance with the dis-
cretion of an honest man.’ Paul. dig. 3.3.77)
(iv) Variability of the order of adjectives remained a common feature of Latin until as
late an author as Gregory of Tours. He has fides catholica alongside catholica fides and
the same pragmatic factors as discussed above seem to explain the variation. The
Romance languages that have the possibility to prepose or postpose adjectives seem
to do so for similar reasons as Latin, which suggests continuity in this respect.
However, not all Romance linguists assume that there is such a continuity.²⁵⁵
23.80 The position of attributive adjective phrases

Adjectives can be modified by various types of constituents, which can have conse-
quences for the position of the resulting adjective phrases with respect to their head.
Two main types of adjective phrases are distinguished, those with arguments and
satellites (§ 11.92) and those with degree modifiers (§§ 11.93–9). This distinction is
maintained in this section. For arguments of adjectives, see §§ 4.99–104.²⁵⁶
When an attributive adjective is accompanied by an argument or a satellite it is
more often postposed. An example is (a). But the other order is found as well, as in
(b). In (a), fossas . . . latas functions as a pragmatic unit; in (b), indignis homine docto is
²⁵³ TLL s.v. praetor 1063.49f. has a few instances of the inverse order in late inscriptions.
²⁵⁴ See Kalb (1888: 47) and de Meo (2005: 108).
²⁵⁵ For discussion, see Niemeyer and Krenn (1997) and Radatz (2001).
²⁵⁶ Devine and Stephens (2006: 391–400) discuss the relative order of adjectives and the arguments
they govern, mostly not attributive adjectives. A few examples are taken from their discussion.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
emphatic. A third (rare) type is shown in (c), where the adjective is emphatic and
precedes the head noun.²⁵⁷
(a) Hoc intermisso spatio duas fossas XV pedes latas eadem altitudine perduxit.
(‘Behind this interval he dug all round two trenches, fifteen feet broad and of equal
depth.’ Caes. Gal. 7.72.3)
(b) . . . nec me angoribus dedidi, quibus essem confectus nisi iis restitissem, nec
rursum indignis homine docto voluptatibus.
(‘. . . I did not resign myself to grief, by which I should have been overwhelmed, had I
not struggled against it; neither, on the other hand, did I surrender myself to a life of
sensual pleasure unbecoming to a philosopher.’ Cic. Off. 2.2)
(c) Equidem . . . Ser. Galbam memoria teneo, divinum hominem in dicendo . . .
(‘I well remember Servius Galba, a man divine when it came to speaking . . .’ Cic. de
Orat. 1.40)
Postposed: Lectiones etiam aptae diei et loco leguntur. (Pereg. 32.1); Ad hunc modum
vasa componito: arbores crassas p. II, altas p. VIIII cum cardinibus. (Cato Agr. 18.1);
Ego Antonium conlegam cupidum provinciae, multa in re publica molientem patien-
tia atque obsequio meo mitigavi. (Cic. Pis. 5); Quid potuit elegantius facere praetor
cupidus existimationis bonae . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.140); Huc homines digni istius amicitia,
digni vita illa conviviisque veniebant. (Cic. Ver. 5.30); . . . cum ita dicunt, accedere ad
rem publicam plerumque homines nulla re bona dignos . . . (Cic. Rep. 1.9); Sed eum
casus in hanc consuetudinem scribendi induxit philosopho valde indignam . . . (Cic.
Pis. 71); Habetis ducem memorem vestri, oblitum sui, quae non semper facultas
datur. (Cic. Catil. 4.19)
Anteposed: Ego me in hac omni causa facile intellegebam pugnandi cupidis homi-
nibus non satis facere. (Cic. Att. 8.11d.7); Furere tibi Empedocles videtur: at mihi
dignissimum rebus is de quibus loquitur sonum fundere. (Cic. Luc. 74); . . . nemo
eorum satis dignum splendore vitae exitum habuit. (Liv. 39.52.8); . . . et in suis mori-
bus simillimas figuras pecudum et ferarum transferetur . . . (Cic. Tim. 45)
Split adjective (and participial) phrases: Si me hercule mihi, non copioso homini ad
dicendum, optio detur . . . (Cic. Caec. 64); Non vidit flagrantem Italiam bello (M, bello
Italiam L), non ardentem invidia senatum, non sceleris nefarii principes civitatis
reos . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.8); Agerent enim tecum lege primum Pythagorei omnes atque
Democritii ceterique in <iure> suo (cj. Ellendt) physici vindicarent, ornati homines (L,
ornati homines om. M) in dicendo et graves . . . (Cic. de Orat. 1.42); Sapiens videlicet
homo cum primis nostrae civitatis norat hunc gurgitem. (Cic. de Orat. 2.224)
No research has been done on the effect of degree modifiers on the position of attributive
adjectives. Since the adjectives with which these degree modifiers occur are gradable,
and hence subjective and potentially emphatic, one expects the majority of these
modifier adjective combinations to precede their heads, as in (d)–(f). An example
with the reverse order is (g). Also in cases like (h), where tam is followed by an
²⁵⁷ For this type, see Müller (1962). The text of many instances is disputed.
 Word order
expanding result clause (see § 16.54), the adjective phrase precedes its head, here
praesidium. Discontinuity of the degree modifier and the adjective is not rare, espe-
cially with tam, as in (i), repeated from § 23.7, and with quam.
(d) . . . si id potius quaeris quam cur parum amplis adfecerit praemiis . . .
(‘. . . if you ask this rather than why he bestowed insufficiently great rewards upon
them . . .’ Cic. Mil. 57)
(e) . . . haec mulier satis firmum accusatorem filio suo fore neminem putavit . . .
(‘. . . But this woman thought that no one would have enough nerve for the prosecu-
tion of her son . . .’ Cic. Clu. 190)
(f) Satis diu fuit in miseriis, iudices, satis multos annos ex invidia laboravit.
(‘Long enough, gentlemen, has he been in misery, long years enough has he laboured
under prejudice.’ Cic. Clu. 202)
(g) Sed in rebus tam severis non est iocandi locus.
(‘But in a discussion as serious as ours joking is out of place.’ Cic. Div. 2.25)
(h) Quis enim toto mari locus per hos annos aut tam firmum habuit praesidium
ut tutus esset, aut tam fuit abditus ut lateret?
(‘For during these last years, what place in any part of the sea had so strong a garrison
as to be safe from him? What place was so much hidden as to escape his notice?’ Cic.
Man. 31)
(i) Hanc virtutem Agrigentinorum imitati sunt Assorini postea, viri fortes et
fideles, sed nequaquam ex tam ampla neque tam ex nobili civitate.
(‘The plucky behaviour of these Agrigentines was subsequently copied by the people
of Assorus; stout and trustworthy folk, though they are not from so large nor so
renowned a community.’ Cic. Ver. 4.96)
Degree and measure expressions usually directly precede the adjective, at least in prose
(for examples, see § 11.96 and § 20.10). Examples of discontinuity are ( j) and (k).²⁵⁸
( j) Iovis iste quidem pronepos. Tamne ergo abiectus tamque fractus?
(‘Yes, he was Jupiter’s great-grandson! Is he then to be so despondent, so broken
down?’ Cic. Tusc. 3.26)
(k) Etsi enim et audio te et video libenter, tamen hoc multo erit si valebis iucundius.
(‘For although I enjoy hearing and seeing you anyhow, this will still be much more
pleasant if you are fit and well.’ Cic. Fam. 16.22.1)
Supplement:
. . . id ad probandum non multo videri debet aequius? (Cic. Div. Caec. 65); . . . multo
tamen pauciores oratores quam poetae boni reperientur. (Cic. de Orat. 1.11); . . . usque
eo, iudices, ut rictum eius ac mentum paulo sit attritius . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.94); . . . quanto
mihi videatur illius voluntas obstinatior et in hac iracundia obfirmatior. (Cic.
²⁵⁸ For discussion and further examples, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 578–83).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
Att. 1.11.1); . . . neque tam fuerunt impudentes ut . . . (Cic. Flac. 59); Neque tam vires
pares quae superaverit res facile dictu est . . . (Liv. 7.8.4—NB: Oakley and others read
tam pares vires, see ad loc.); Cui me praeripere desponsam iam et destinatam lau-
dem . . . valde est iniquum. (Cic. Har. 6); Quasi vero quicquam sit tam valde quam
nihil sapere vulgare . . . (Cic. Div. 2.81)
For a postposed measure expression, see (l). Postposition of degree modifiers becomes
more common in Silver and Late Latin.²⁵⁹ In the Bible translations and in Christian
authors postposition was influenced by Greek and Hebrew. A relatively early example
of postposition in prose is (m). Compare (n).
(l) Invectus est copiosius multo in istum et paratius Dolabella quam nunc ego.
(‘Dolabella delivered a much more copious and studied invective against Antonius
than I am delivering now.’ Cic. Phil. 2.79)
(m) Altum et grave solum etiam hieme moveri placet, tenue valde et aridum
paulo ante sationem.
(‘It is the rule to stir a deep heavy soil even in the winter, but a very thin and dry one
a little before sowing.’ Plin. Nat. 18.175)
(n) . . . iter heremi arenosum valde feceramus.
(‘. . . we had travelled along the very sandy way of the desert.’ Pereg. 6.4)
23.81 Comparatives and superlatives

Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are more often ante- than postposed,
which is understandable since they are in principle good candidates for contrast and
emphasis. Thus, in (a), superiore is in contrast with hoc; in (b), antiquissima is
emphatic. Expressions that indicate the measure of difference with a comparative
adjective (see § 20.10), like multo in (c), make no difference to the position of the
attributive adjective.
(a) Ita in superiore genere de tractandis argumentis, in hoc autem etiam de
inveniendis cogitandum est.
(‘So, in dealing with the first type, one must think about how to treat the arguments;
with the second, about discovering them as well.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.117)
(b) . . . Cotum, antiquissima familia natum atque ipsum hominem summae
potentiae et magnae cognationis . . .
(‘. . . Cotus, the scion of a most ancient house, and himself a man of dominant power
and noble connexion . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.32.4)
(c) . . . egit apud populum Romanum multo gravioribus verbis meam causam
quam egomet de me agere potuissem.
(‘. . . he pleaded my cause before the Roman People in much weightier words than
I could have pleaded myself.’ Cic. Sest. 120)
²⁵⁹ For degree adverbs in Christian Latin, see García de la Fuente (1992). For a survey, see Sz.: 410. For
parum, see TLL s.v. parum 572.63ff.
 Word order
In the absence of contrast or emphasis, postposition is regular: it is pontifex maximus

‘head of the college of pontifices’ and hostiae maiores ‘full-grown sacrificial animals’
and, on funeral inscriptions, coniugi karissimae or karissimo ‘to my dearest wife’ or
‘husband’. Anteposition is rare, but see the Supplement.
Supplement:
Iam primum omnium urbs lustrata est hostiaeque maiores . . . dis caesae . . . Romae
quoque . . . et Genio maiores hostiae caesae quinque . . . (Liv. 21.62.7–9); Apollinaris /
sibi · et / Quinctiliae / Tyche / bene merenti · et / karissimae · coniugi (CIL
VI. (Rome))
Measure expressions like multo in (c) (an ablativus mensurae) usually precede the com-
parative adjective (or adverb). However, the reverse order is well attested, as in (d) and (e).
(d) Edepol animam suaviorem aliquanto quam uxoris meae.
(‘Yes, much sweeter breath than that of my wife!’ Pl. As. 893)
(e) Ab eo intermisso spatio pedum DC alter conversus in contrariam partem
erat vallus humiliore paulo munitione.
(‘Six hundred feet away there was a second rampart facing the other direc-
tion with a slightly lower fortification.’ Caes. Civ. 3.63.1)
. The position of modifiers of attributes
Some of the attributes in the preceding sections can be modified by the adverbs fere,
ferme, paene, and prope ‘almost’. These adverbs can also function as adjunct at the
clause level. When used as modifiers they regularly follow their hosts and indirectly
function as emphasizers, whatever the position of that host with respect to the head
noun.²⁶⁰ Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Recitatae sunt tabellae in eandem fere sententiam.
(‘His letter was read out and was in much the same vein.’ Cic. Catil. 3.10)
(b) . . . Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus exiguis sane
continentur.
(‘…Greek poetry is read among nearly all nations, Latin is confined to its own bor-
ders, which are narrow enough.’ Cic. Arch. 23)
(c) Illud me, mi Attice, in extrema fere parte epistulae commovit.
(‘I was disturbed by a phrase almost at the end of your letter.’ Cic. Att. 6.1.20)
. The position of nouns and noun phrases functioning as attribute

In the sections that follow the discussion of attributive nouns and noun phrases will
mainly concern attributes in the genitive, simply because they constitute the majority
of attributive nouns and noun phrases. For other types of attribute, see §§ 11.45–74.
²⁶⁰ See for example TLL s.v. fere 492.77ff (idem), 494.30ff. (omnis), 498.56ff. (superlatives).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
Also, little attention will be paid at this point to the internal complexity of attributive
noun phrases, for example the presence of adnominal relative clauses. For such com-
plications, see § 23.85.
As was stated in § 23.70, there is a significant difference between the attributes that
agree with their head noun, which are dealt with in §§ 23.71–81, and attributive nouns
and noun phrases, which will be the subject of the following sections. The crucial dif-
ference is that nouns and noun phrases can refer to entities in the context or in the
outside world and thus they have their own pragmatic potential: they can function as
topic or focus in the clause to which their head belongs. In (a), patris refers to the
father mentioned in the preceding context. It is the topic of the clause; its head noun
amicus is the focus. The position of patris at the beginning of the clause, before its
head amicus, is quite natural. In (b), by contrast, the pseudo-stranger must profess to
speak to the young man in his father’s name, with patris as the focus of the clause at
the end, and so following its head noun verbis.
(a) Vera cantas. # Vana vellem. Patris amicu’s videlicet.
(‘Your tale is true. # I wish it weren’t. You are obviously a friend of the father.’
Pl. Mos. 980)
(b) Is homo . . . salutem ei (sc. adulescenti) nuntiet verbis patris.
(‘That man must greet him in his father’s name.’ Pl. Trin. 767–72)
So whereas with agreeing adjectives the position is mainly determined by the prag-
matic features of contrast and emphasis, the position of attributive nouns and noun
phrases can also be determined by their pragmatic function in the clause. The prag-
matic ‘autonomy’, so to speak, of attributive nouns and noun phrases reflects itself
in a higher mobility in the clause than that of adjectives, which means a higher
frequency of discontinuity. Moreover, instead of nouns, anaphoric pronouns and
anaphorically used demonstrative pronouns can be used, as in (c) and (d).²⁶¹ Also
attributive noun phrases with an anaphoric(ally used) determiner are as a rule in an
initial position in the clause, as in (e). Attributive relative pronouns are naturally
bound to a clause-initial position and therefore precede their head, as in (f) and (g).
(c) Ego sum Iovi dicto audiens. Eius iussu nunc huc me adfero.
(‘But I obey Jupiter, I’m now betaking myself here on his command.’ Pl. Am. 989)
(d) . . . nunc autem insonti mihi / illius (sc. Amphitruonis) ira in hanc et male
dicta expetent.
(‘. . . his anger toward her and his bad words will fall on me now, even though I am
innocent.’ Pl. Am. 895–6)
(e) . . . considera ne in alienissimum tempus cadat adventus tuus. Huius rei
totum consilium tuum est.
²⁶¹ For the genitive of the anaphoric pronoun, see also § 23.76.
 Word order
(‘It would be a pity to arrive at the least favourable moment. The matter is entirely for
you to judge.’ Cic. Fam. 15.14.4)
(f) Si aequom facias, adventores meos <non> incuses, quorum / mihi dona
accepta et grata habeo, tuaque ingrata, quae aps te accepi.
(‘If you were behaving appropriately, you wouldn’t criticize those of my visitors whose
gifts I regard as accepted and welcome; the gifts I received from you I regard as
unwelcome.’ Pl. Truc. 616–17)
(g) Qui Philolaches? / # Quoius patrem Theopropidem esse opinor.
(‘Which Philolaches? # The one whose father I believe to be Theopropides.’ Pl. Mos.
961–2)
Other examples of topical attributive nouns and noun phrases in the initial position
are (h)–(k).
(h) <Q.> Ciceronis epistulam tibi remisi.
(‘I am sending you back Quintus’ letter.’ Cic. Att. 13.29.3)
(i) . . . iamque Caesaris in Hispania res secundae in Africam nuntiis ac litteris
perferebantur.
(‘. . . and Caesar’s successes in Spain were already being conveyed to Africa by mes-
sengers and letters.’ Caes. Civ. 2.37.2)
( j) Foramina autem intra caput maxima oculorum sunt, deinde narium, tum
quae in auribus habemus . . . Narium duo foramina osse medio discernuntur.
(‘Now the largest passages leading into the head are those of the eyes, next the nos-
trils, then those of the ears . . . The two nasal passages are separated by an intermediate
bone.’ Cels. 8.1.5)
(k) Namque et Atti Navi statua fuit ante curiam . . . fuit et Hermodori Ephesii in
comitio . . .
(‘For there was also a statue of Attus Navius in front of the senate-house . . . there was
also one of Hermodorus of Ephesus in the Assembly-place.’ Plin. Nat. 34.22)
Supplement:
Eorum Amphitruonis alter est, alter Iovis. (Pl. Am. 483); Dic mihi, / quis tu es? #
Illius sum integumentum corporis. (Pl. Bac. 600–1); Si helviolum vinum facere voles,
dimidium helvioli, dimidium apicii indito, defruti veteris partem tricesimam addito.
Quidquid vini defrutabis, partem tricesimam defruti addito. (Cato Agr. 24—NB: dif-
ferent orders); Nam civium Romanorum omnium sanguis coniunctus existimandus
est . . . (Cic. Ver. 5.172); Caput autem est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris
publici ut avaritiae pellatur etiam minima suspicio. (Cic. Off. 2.75); Etenim iustitiae
non natura nec voluntas, sed inbecillitas mater est. (Cic. Rep. 3.23); Sed quid poetis
irascimur? Virtutis magistri, philosophi, inventi sunt, qui summum malum dolorem
dicerent. (Cic. Tusc. 2.28); Quinti fratris epistulam ad te misi . . . (Cic. Att. 13.47a.2);
Caesaris autem erat in barbaris nomen obscurius. (Caes. Civ. 1.61.3); Populi Romani
hanc esse consuetudinem ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.43.8); . . . neque . . . pacis umquam apud
vos mentionem feci. (Liv. 21.13.3); (in pycnostylo . . .) Eustyli autem aedis columnae,
uti systyli, in novem partes altitudo dividatur . . . (Vitr. 3.3.10)
Word order at the noun phrase level 
When the head noun is the topic or focus of the clause, the attributive noun or noun
phrase follows, as in (l) and (m), respectively.²⁶²
(l) Crassitudines autem eorum graduum ita finiendas censeo, ut . . .
(‘And the thickness of those steps methinks must be of such dimensions that . . .’ Vitr.
3.4.4—tr. Bal)
(m) . . . quamquam is constantiam potius imitatus patris quam elegantiam austero
maluit genere quam iucundo placere.
(‘. . . although he copied the harmony rather than the elegance of his father, preferring
to win favour in the severely correct more than in the agreeable style.’ Plin. Nat.
34.66)
As for the percentage of attributive noun phrases of which the position is determined
by their pragmatic function in the clause, in Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder this is esti-
mated at 25 per cent.²⁶³
In discussions of the relative position of heads and attributive nouns and noun
phrases and in statistical calculations of the relative orders the potential contextual
function of the individual components of a noun phrase is usually left out of consid-
eration. Statistical data on the relative position of heads and attributive nouns and
noun phrases are furthermore obscured by the presence of head–noun combinations
which manifest only or mainly one order. Some of the G(enitive)–H(ead) combinations
can be regarded as quasi-compounds and are also written as one word. A few of these
more or less fixed combinations are listed in Table 23.11.²⁶⁴ The Supplement presents
some alternative or more complex orderings.
Table . Relative order of head and genitive attribute in a few <standard> expressions
Genitive–Head Head–Genitive
senatus consultum ‘recommendation of the magister equitum ‘Master of the Horse’
Senate’ (S C in inscriptions) (MAG EQ in inscriptions)
iuris (or iure) consultus ‘lawyer’, ‘jurist’ pater familias ‘father of the family’
plebis (or plebi, plebei) scitum ‘resolution of the tribunus plebis ‘plebeian tribune’ (TR PL
comitia tributa’ in inscriptions)
aquae ductus ‘the conveyance of water’, mos maiorum ‘custom of the ancestors’
‘aqueduct’
As with set expressions containing adjectives (see § 23.79 (iii)) the question of how
to judge such frequently attested more or less fixed combinations is a difficult one.
Some of them function as technical terms and titles of which the pragmatic environment
is irrelevant to their internal order (hence the possibility of using abbreviations).
²⁶² For a study from this perspective of the relative order of head and genitival attribute in Vitruvius
and Pliny the Elder, see Spevak (2016b).
²⁶³ See Spevak (2016b: 736). ²⁶⁴ Taken from Lisón (2001: 164–70) and Spevak (2010a: 265–7).
 Word order
However, the same combinations can be used in context and can be as it were revived,
as in (n), where the order iuris consultus is the expected one, due to the contrast
between iuris and iustitiae. Likewise in (o), both senatus consulto and plebei scito have
the expected anteposed attribute. Note also the discontinuity caused by etiam in (o).
An interesting instance is (p), where the technical term ex senatus consulto, in its
usual order, is coordinated with scito plebis, with no contrast implied. In (q), huius
aquae refers to the aqua mentioned before and has its expected position with respect
to its head ductum.
(n) Nec enim ille magis iuris consultus quam iustitiae fuit.
(‘For he was an expert in justice no less than in jurisprudence.’ Cic. Phil. 9.10)
(o) Sed his duobus primum senatus consulto, deinde plebei etiam scito permu-
tatae provinciae sunt.
(‘However, the provinces of the last two praetors were changed, first by senatorial
decree and then also by a resolution of the plebs.’ Liv. 35.20.9)
(p) Et L. Volumnio ex senatus consulto et scito plebis prorogatum in annum
imperium est.
(‘And the command of Lucius Volumnius was prolonged for a year by a decree of the
senate and by a resolution of the people.’ Liv. 10.22.9)
(q) (sc. Appius) . . . qui multis tergiversationibus extraxisse censuram traditur,
donec et viam (sc. Appiam) et huius aquae ductum consummaret.
(‘. . . who, by various subterfuges, is reported to have extended the term of his censor-
ship until he could complete both the Appian way and this aqueduct.’ Fron. Aq. 5.3)
Supplement:
Adversus consulta autem senatus et decreta principum vel magistratuum remedium
nullum est . . . (Quint. Inst. 5.2.5—NB: parallelism); Ac primum in vestibulo effigiem
patris Silii consulto senatus abolitam demonstrat . . . (Tac. Ann. 11.35.1); Consultus
iuris et actor / causarum mediocris abest virtute diserti / Messallae . . . (Hor. Ars
369–71—NB: parallelism); . . . auram favoris popularis ex dictatoria invidia petiit sci-
tique plebis unus gratiam tulit. (Liv. 22.26.4)
Cossus, equitum magister, exuere frenos imperavit . . . (Flor. Epit. 1.5.3); Ita sus-
pensa de legibus res ad novos tribunos militum dilata. Nam plebis tribunos eosdem,
duos utique quia legum latores erant, plebes reficiebat. (Liv. 6.38.1—NB: contrast
with militum); Ideoque post reges exactos Liciniana illa septena iugera, quae plebis
(plebi cj. Schneider) tribunus viritim diviserat, maiores quaestus antiquis ret-
tulere . . . (Col. 1.3.10); . . . propria legis et ea quae scripta sunt et ea quae sine litteris
aut gentium iure aut maiorum more retinentur. (Cic. Part. 130—NB: parallelism)
In the context of fixed expressions attention is also given to the postposition of filius,
often abbreviated f., in Roman names, as in (r), and the placement of the postposi-
tions causa and gratia, which developed from ablative nouns with the attribute ante-
posed, as in (s). Anteposition of the attribute Gn. in (r) is quite understandable: the
addition is meant to differentiate this Scipio from others, but its original use has
Word order at the noun phrase level 
become a standard formula. Outside of naming contexts other orders of filius are
possible, as in (t). For the use of causa as preposition, see (u).²⁶⁵
(r) L. · Cornelius · Cn. · f. · Cn. · n. · Scipio ·
(‘Lucius Cornelius Scipio, son of Gnaeus, grandson of Gnaeus.’ CIL I2.11.1
(Scip. Elog., Rome, c.160 bc))
(s) . . . hanc tibi noctem honoris causa gratiis dono dabo.
(‘. . . I’ll give you this night with her as a gift, free of charge, on account of our
regard for you.’ Pl. As. 194)
(t) Quotiens te votui Argyrippum, filium Demaeneti, / compellare aut con-
trectare . . .
(‘How often did I forbid you to speak to Argyrippus, the son of Demaenetus . . .’
Pl. As. 522–3)
(u) Quam multa enim quae nostra causa numquam faceremus facimus causa
amicorum.
(‘For how many things we do for our friends that we would never do for
ourselves!’ Cic. Amic. 57)
When we ignore the considerations at the beginning of this section concerning the
role of the constituents of a noun phrase in its surrounding context and when we leave
out of account the more or less fixed expressions discussed above, the orders G(enitive)
H(ead) and HG are roughly equally well attested in Classical prose.²⁶⁶ HG is slightly
more frequent, at least in Cicero and Livy, but there is considerable variation within
authors and between authors, between text types, and also over time. In the Late Latin
Peregrinatio only c.5 per cent of genitive attributes are anteposed.²⁶⁷
The relative order of a head and its attributive noun or noun phrase is essentially
determined by whether the combination functions as one pragmatic unit or not. If it
does, the regular position of the attribute is after its head.²⁶⁸ This is shown by (l) and
(m) for noun phrases of which the head fulfils a pragmatic function in the clause, but
it also operates in general, for noun phrases that do not fulfil a pragmatic function of
their own in their clause. By contrast, anteposition of the attribute is pragmatically
motivated in some way. Illustrations are (v)–(x). In (v) and (w), the noun phrases
provide the information ‘where’, and the goddess of the temple is irrelevant. In (x), by
contrast, the presence of a temple dedicated to Hercules was not self-evident and so
the attribute needed to be emphatically anteposed; however, a temple dedicated to
Jupiter was to be expected at a forum of any town. A few instances of anteposition of
the attribute can be found in the Supplement.²⁶⁹
²⁶⁵ For further instances, see TLL s.v. caussa 684.38ff.

²⁶⁶ See Spevak (2010a: 265–7) with references to Lisón (2001: 173–5) and Polo (2004: 235ff.). For a
survey of publications with statistical information, see Ledgeway (2012: 214).
²⁶⁷ See Adams (1976a: 77–8) and Lisón (2001: 175). For genitive attributes with filius, see Devine and
Stephens (2006: 352–5). For the Peregrinatio, see Haida (1928: 2).
²⁶⁸ K.-St: II.610 state that the order A–H is the natural one: ‘Attributive Genetive stehen vom Haus aus
vor ihrem Substantive.’ However, they continue: ‘Aber schon früh ist diese Regel durchbrochen.’
²⁶⁹ Some of the examples are taken from K.-St.: II.610–11.
 Word order
(v) Sed ubi sunt meae gnatae? Id scire expeto. / # Apud aedem Veneris.
(‘But where are my daughters? That’s what I’m keen to know. # At the temple of
Venus.’ Pl. Poen. 1131–2)
(w) . . . concursus est ad templum Concordiae factus . . .
(‘. . . the mob flocked to the temple of Concord . . .’ Cic. Dom. 11)
(x) De caelo tacta erant via publica Veiis, forum et aedes Iovis Lanuvi, Herculis
aedes Ardeae, Capuae murus et turres et aedes quae Alba dicitur.
(‘A public road had been struck by lightning in Veii, as had the forum and the temple
of Jupiter at Lanuvium, the temple of Hercules at Ardea, and the wall, towers, and the
temple called the “White Temple” in Capua.’ Liv. 32.9.2)
Supplement:
Anteposed genitive attributes: Sic institutam nostram sententiam sequitur orationis
genus . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.177); . . . Zenoque, eorum princeps, non tam rerum inventor
fuit quam verborum novorum. (Cic. Fin. 3.5); Quin etiam anitum ova gallinis saepe
supponimus. (Cic. N.D. 2.124); Philippum quidem Macedonum regem rebus gestis et
gloria superatum a filio, facilitate et humanitate video superiorem fuisse. (Cic. Off.
1.90); . . . perdidit . . . Sex. Lucilium, T. Gavi Caepionis, locupletis et splendidi hominis,
filium, tribunum militum. (Cic. Att. 5.20.4); Caesar cum Pompei castris adpropin-
quasset . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.88.1); Ipsi profecti a palude in ripa Sequanae e regione Luteciae
contra Labieni castra considunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.58.6); Ad hanc corporis firmitatem
plura etiam animi bona accesserant. (Nep. Ep. 3.1); Miltiades, Cimonis filius,
Atheniensis . . . (Nep. Milt. 1.1); Quanto maior Zenodoro praestantia fuit, tanto magis
deprehenditur aeris obliteratio. (Plin. Nat. 34.47); Praeterea sunt aequalitate celebrati
artifices, sed nullis operum suorum praecipui: Ariston . . . Cantharus Sicyonius,
Diodorus, Critiae discipulus . . . (Plin. Nat. 34.85); . . . in istis locis, excepto si martiro-
rum dies evenerit, semper quarta et sexta feria etiam et a cathecuminis ieiunatur.
(Pereg. 27.5)
NB: Ubi eas praeterieris, / ad sinistram hac recta platea, ubi ad Dianae (sc. aedem—see
§ 11.20) veneris, / ito ad dextram. (Ter. Ad. 581–3)
Anteposed prepositional attributes (see also § 11.67): Quid mihi scelesto tibi erat
auscultatio? / Quidve hinc abitio? Quidve in navem inscensio? (Pl. Rud. 502–3); In
Epirum vero invitatio quam suavis, quam liberalis, quam fraterna! (Cic. Att. 9.12.1—
Cf.: In Epirum quod me non invitas . . . subirascor. (Cic. Att. 9.7.7))
In Chapter 11 several types of attributive noun phrases are distinguished. The following
sections are devoted to only two of these, viz. genitives and ablatives of description (or
quality) (see § 11.48 and § 11.63, respectively) and adnominal arguments (see §§ 11.70–4).
. The position of attributive noun phrases of description (or quality)

(genetivus and ablativus qualitatis)
Attributive noun phrases of description can be used both preceding and following
their head, as in (a)–(c). Anteposition can normally be explained as emphatic or con-
trastive. In (a), the position of the attribute can be regarded as emphatic: the words are
Word order at the noun phrase level 
part of a series of Clodius’ outrages recalled by Cicero in defence of Milo. In (b) and
(c) the attributes serve to characterize the type of civis Cicero is referring to. Note in
(c) that satis multi modifies the whole of cives . . . animo.
(a) Eum (sc. Clodium) qui . . . singulari virtute et gloria civem (sc. Pompeium)
domum vi et armis compulit.
(‘A man who had by armed violence driven within his own doors a citizen of peerless
valour and renown.’ Cic. Mil. 73)
(b) Cum autem ad talis viros veneris, non audeas civem singulari virtute, fide,
constantia vituperare?
(‘But, when you appear before judges such as these, you will not dare to abuse a citi-
zen distinguished for valour, honour, and steadfastness?’ Cic. Vat. 40)
(c) Si quis antea, iudices, mirabatur quid esset quod . . . nequaquam satis multi
cives forti et magno animo invenirentur qui . . .
(‘If before this, gentlemen of the jury, anyone wondered what was the reason why . . .
no sufficient number of brave and great-hearted men could be found who . . .’ Cic. Sest. 1)
Supplement:
Ibi amare occepi forma eximia mulierem. (Pl. Mer. 13); Virginem forma bona /
memini videri. (Ter. An. 428–9); Nam ego propter eius modi viros vivo miser. (Pl.
Rud. 127); In eius modi re quisquam tam impudens reperietur qui . . . (Cic. Div. Caec.
20); Num argumentis utendum in re eius modi? (Cic. Ver. 4.11); . . . tabernaeque omnes
cum magni pretii mercibus conflagraverunt. (Liv. 35.40.8); Nam meus conservos est
homo haud magni preti . . . (Pl. Mil. 145); (sc. servi P. Fabi) Homines magni preti
servos M. Tulli nec opinantis adoriuntur. (Cic. Tul. 21); Erat inter Labienum atque
hostem difficili transitu flumen ripisque praeruptis. (Caes. Gal. 6.7.5); Erant inter
duas classes vada transitu angusto . . . (B. Alex. 14.5)
. The position of adnominal arguments
Adnominal arguments can accompany one-, two-, and three-place deverbal and
comparable nouns and occasionally there are two or three arguments with the
same noun (see § 11.71). These cases in particular have been examined from the point
of view of the relative position of the arguments with respect to their head and also
their mutual ordering. Two often quoted instances are (a) and (b).²⁷⁰ In (a), the sub-
jective genitive Helvetiorum precedes the head iniuriis; the objective genitive populi
Romani follows. In (b), both genitives follow the head noun, but in the same order,
that is, subjective precedes objective.²⁷¹ This order is the usual one, according to
K.-St.: I.416, who quote (c) for the uncommon reverse order.²⁷² The order shown in
²⁷⁰ See for example K.-St.: I.416, Sz.: 67, Bolkestein (1998b), Devine and Stephens (2006: 316), and
Spevak (2010a: 271).
²⁷¹ For a discussion of the text, including the ‘rather awkward salutis’, see Damon (2015: 135–7).
²⁷² This is also the interpretation of Bennett: II. 81 and probably Sz.: 66–7. Maurach ad loc. and de Melo
in his Loeb translation have other interpretations.
 Word order
(a), with the head noun in the middle, is regarded as the preferred one.²⁷³ However, in
this particular example Helvetiorum is placed before the head because it is contrastive.
The number of attested instances is too small to arrive at general conclusions.
(a) . . . tametsi (sc. Caesar) pro veteribus Helvetiorum iniuriis populi Romani ab
his poenas bello repetisset, tamen eam rem non minus ex usu terrae Galliae
quam populi Romani accidisse . . .
(‘. . . although Caesar had by the campaign required satisfaction of the Helvetii for
past outrages suffered by the Roman people at their hands, the result had been as
beneficial to the land of Gaul as to the Roman people . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.30.2)
(b) Decurritur ad illud extremum atque ultimum senatus consultum quo nisi
paene in ipso urbis incendio atque in desperatione omnium salutis † latorum
† audacia numquam ante descensum est.
(‘Recourse was had to that last and final decree of the senate, to which—unless the
city was all but aflame and everyone despaired of safety in view of the temerity of †
the lawgivers †—the senate had never before descended.’ Caes. Civ. 1.5.3)
(c) Iuppiter . . . / quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium . . .
(‘Jupiter . . . in whom the hopes and lives of all mankind lie . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1187–8)
Supplement:
Head noun in the middle: Iamne vides, belua, iamne sentis quae sit hominum
querela frontis tuae? (Cic. Pis. 1); Cuius cum temptaret scientiam auguratus, dixit ei
cogitare se quiddam. (Cic. Div. 1.32); Tamen tanta universae Galliae consensio fuit
libertatis vindicandae et pristinae belli laudis recuperandae ut . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.76.2—
NB: gerundival clause)
Cf.: Aegre tulisse P. Rupilium fratris repulsam consulatus scriptum apud Fannium
est. (Cic. Tusc. 4.40—NB: consulatus is not an argument; cf. repulsa in consulatus
petitione (Plin. Nat. 7.122))
Other orders: Quod si excusationem Ser. Sulpici, patres conscripti, legationis obeun-
dae recordari volueritis . . . (Cic. Phil. 9.8—NB: gerundival clause); . . . non solum
huius (sc. Planci) dignitatis iactura facienda est sed etiam largitionis recipienda sus-
picio est. (Cic. Planc. 6—NB: huius belongs also to largitionis suspicio); Quare
L. Sullae, C. Caesaris pecuniarum translatio a iustis dominis ad alienos non debet
liberalis videri. (Cic. Off. 1.43—Cf. § 11.71); Consul es designatus, optima aetate,
summa eloquentia, maxima orbitate rei publicae virorum talium. (Cic. Fam. 10.3.3)
The number of one-place nouns with one argument or two-place nouns with only one
argument expressed (either the subjective or the objective genitive) is much higher.
There is considerable variation in the orders attested with different head nouns.²⁷⁴
Some expressions are in reality idioms, in a fixed order which is difficult to explain in
its context, such as post hominum memoriam ‘in human memory’.²⁷⁵ In general, the
position of adnominal arguments and the head nouns involved is determined by
²⁷³ So Sz.: 66–7: ‘in the interest of clarity’.

²⁷⁴ See Spevak (2014a: 182–96, especially Table 7 on p. 183) and (2015b: § 6.4). See also Devine and
Stephens (2006: Ch. 4).
²⁷⁵ Devine and Stephens (2006: 318) use the term ‘grammaticalization of pragmatic factors’.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
pragmatic considerations, just as in the other noun/noun combinations, and not by

some sort of syntactic rule. This is illustrated with noun phrases containing the head
noun memoria, with objective genitives in (d)–(f), subjective in (g) and (h). The latter
refer to ‘the period covered by one’s recollection’.²⁷⁶ In (d), part of a very aggressive
invective by Cicero against Antony, anteposed Caesaris is emphatic and also in con-
trast with tu, continued by tu and illum (not eum). In (e), Crassi is not prominent—he
has already been mentioned several times—and so follows its head. In (f), memoriam
is in contrast with ipsum, and therefore anteposed (and so Milonis follows). In (g),
anteposed patrum is contrastive (they were no longer one state). In (h), we have a
simple dating formula and patrum follows its head.
(d) Et tu in Caesaris memoria diligens, tu illum (sc. Caesarem) amas mortuum?
(‘And are you looking after Caesar’s memory, do you love him in his grave?’ Cic. Phil.
2.110)
(e) . . . neque egere mihi commendatione videbatur, qui et in bello tecum fuisset
et propter memoriam Crassi de tuis unus esset, et . . .
(‘. . . a man who had seen military service at your side and whom Crassus’ memory
made one of your circle did not seem to me to need a recommendation . . .’ Cic. Fam.
13.16.3)
(f) Quid? Vos, iudices, quo tandem eritis animo? Memoriam Milonis retinebi-
tis, ipsum eicietis?
(‘But you, gentlemen—in what spirit will you deal with him? Will you retain Milo’s
memory and cast forth his person?’ Cic. Mil. 101)
(g) Confines erant hi Senonibus civitatemque patrum memoria coniunxerant . . .
(‘These were next neighbours to the Senones, and in the previous generation had
formed one state with them . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.3.5)
(h) Quid? Quod usu memoria patrum venit, ut paterfamilias . . . mortuus . . . esset
intestato . . .
(‘And what of a case that really happened, within our fathers’ recollection, that the
head of a family died intestate . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.183)
. Word order in complex noun phrases
Noun phrases can be complex in various ways. Some forms of complexity are dis-
cussed in earlier sections, for example noun phrases with attributive adjective phrases
(§ 23.80) and noun phrases with more than one adnominal argument (§ 23.85). For
adnominal relative clauses, see § 18.12.
Coordination of the head and/or the modifier creates another form of complexity.
Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), the head consists of two coordinated nouns; it is preceded
by the shared attribute Naevi, a topical element. In (b), one of the head nouns, virtute,
²⁷⁶ So OLD s.v. § 6. Memoria is discussed by Devine and Stephens (2006: 317–20) and Spevak (2014a:
186–8). Memoria can also be used in the sense of ‘facility of remembering’ (OLD § 1), with a possessive
genitive, as in auditoris memoria ‘the memory of the audience’ (Cic. Inv. 1.99).
 Word order
precedes the attribute eorum, because it is in contrast with ars. In (c), it is the attribute
that consists of two coordinated nouns. Of these, pacis is in first position for reasons of
emphasis and contrast and as part of a nice chiastic arrangement. It is obvious that
there are a large number of ordering possibilities, which it does not make sense to try
to express in rules. For further instances of discontinuous conjoins, see § 23.101.
(a) . . . ita diligenter Sex. Naevi studio et cupiditati morem gerunt . . .
(‘. . . they support the passionate desires of Naevius as zealously . . .’ Cic. Quinct. 9)
(b) In quibus (sc. magistratibus) si qua praeterea est ars, facile patitur, sin minus,
virtute eorum et innocentia contentus est (sc. populus Romanus).
(‘If, in addition, they are experts in any direction, the people is well pleased; if not,
then uprightness and integrity are quite enough for it.’ Cic. Planc. 62)
(c) . . . quia pacis est insigne et oti toga, contra autem arma tumultus atque belli . . .
(‘. . . since the gown is the symbol of peace and repose, and arms that of unrest and
war . . .’ Cic. Pis. 73)
Another type of complexity of the noun phrase consists in ‘nesting’ of attributes

within one noun phrase. A general formula for the ‘hierarchical structure’ of Latin
noun phrases can be found in § 11.75. Two simple illustrations are (d) and (e). In (d),
the attributive adjective magnum modifies the noun phrase fructum studiorum opti-
morum, which itself consists of a head and attributive noun phrase.²⁷⁷ In (e), the situ-
ation is different: the noun phrase incredibili studio et consensu, which itself consists
of an attributive adjective and a head with two coordinated nouns, is modified by the
attributive noun phrase provinciae Galliae.
(d) Quod quidem si facis, magnum fructum studiorum optimorum capis . . .
(‘If you do this, you reap great profit from the noble studies . . .’ Cic. Fam. 6.10b.1)
(e) . . . incredibilique studio et consensu provinciae Galliae rei publicae difficil-
limo tempore esse subventum.
(‘. . . by the extraordinary zeal and unanimity of the province of Gaul aid has been
rendered to the Republic at a most difficult time.’ Cic. Phil. 5.36)
In complex noun phrases with the structure of (d) orders like studiorum magnum
fructum optimorum and magnum studiorum fructum optimorum are not attested in
Classical prose.²⁷⁸
Whereas in (d) and (e) the attributes belong to different categories (adjectives and noun
phrases in the genitive), they can also belong to the same category, as in (f), two adjec-
tives (further examples in § 11.39),²⁷⁹ and (g), a pronoun and a noun in the genitive.
²⁷⁷ Instances from Cicero, Caesar, and Nepos can be found in Hoff (2003). K.-St.: II.611 discuss the
various word order patterns which they assume are possible for the noun phrase in (d). See also
Spevak (2010a: 272–4).
²⁷⁸ See Hoff (2003: 220), based on texts by Caesar, Cicero, and Nepos.
²⁷⁹ For the position of adjectives in noun phrases with multiple adjectives, see Risselada (1984: 222–6),
de Sutter (1986: 156), and Spevak (2010a: 229–37; 2014a: 57–60; 2015a: 315–16). See also Devine and
Stephens (2006: 476–81) on ‘stacked’ adjectives and Spevak (2010a: 263–5) on ‘multiple’ modifiers.
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(f) . . . cum consuleretur (sc. Themistocles) utrum bono viro pauperi an minus
probato diviti filiam collocaret . . .
(‘. . . when someone asked his advice whether he should give his daughter in marriage
to a man who was poor but honest or to one who was rich but less esteemed . . .’ Cic.
Off. 2.71)
(g) . . . quorum tacita gravitas et fides de uno quoque loquitur neque cuiusquam
ornamenta orationis desiderat . . .
(‘. . . whose sense of responsibility and loyalty—though silent—speak out for each one
of them and need no elaboration in anyone’s speech . . .’ Cic. Sul. 82)
In the above examples the so-to-speak external attributes (in italics) precede or follow
the more central attribute–head/head–attribute combinations (in bold). The ordering
reflects the hierarchical structure, which suggests that it is determined by a syntactic
rule.²⁸⁰ However, other orderings are amply attested, as in (h) and (i). In (h), formam
occupies the first position in the noun phrase, before the external genitive Epicuri,
because it is in contrast with verbis (Zenonis). In (i) the emphatic adjective pondero-
sam precedes the determiner aliquam.
(h) Habes formam Epicuri vitae beatae verbis Zenonis expressam . . .

(‘You have Epicurus’ notion of a happy life, as formulated in the words of Zeno . . .’
Cic. Tusc. 3.38)
(i) Qua re, quamquam iam te ipsum exspecto, tamen isti puero, quem ad me
statim iussi recurrere, da ponderosam aliquam epistulam plenam omnium
non modo actorum sed etiam opinionum tuarum . . .
(‘So, though I expect you in person pretty soon, do give this boy (I’ve told him to
hurry back to me at once) a massive letter, full of news and also of your own com-
ment . . .’ Cic. Att. 2.11.1)
Illustrative for the variation one encounters in our sources are the following cases
from Livy.
novas quattuor legiones Liv. 22.36.2

quattuor legiones novas Liv. 33.25.10
legiones quattuor novas Liv. 42.31.2
quinqueremes novas quinquaginta Liv. 35.24.8
In a similar way the first words of the noun phrases in (d)–(g) are emphatic and/or
contrastive, which explains the internal order of the entire noun phrase.
In recent studies special attention has been paid to cases like (d) above, with a
genitive noun phrase, and to simpler cases like ( j) below, with a noun in the genitive,
and to the various ordering patterns that are attested for such complex noun phrases.²⁸¹
²⁸⁰ See Fugier (1983b), Risselada (1984: 226), and Spevak (2010a: 233) In 70 per cent of the ninety-
eight noun phrases with multiple adjectives in Risselada’s corpus the relative order of the adjectives is in
accordance with the hierarchical structure; in Spevak’s corpus of 130 noun phrases, 82 per cent.
²⁸¹ See Hoff (1995; 2003) and Spevak (2010a: 268–72).
 Word order
All orders are attested, some more than others. Usually there is a pragmatic explanation
available for the specific order used. In poetry and poeticizing prose, however, the
ordering is influenced by various aesthetic considerations. A few examples follow to
show the pragmatic factors at work. In ( j), extremis comes first, as one expects. Galliae
precedes finibus because contrast is implied with Belgae. In (k), magnam is in its
expected first position of the noun phrase; there is no reason for Galliae to be ante-
posed. In (l), Britanniae is the topic; it has the first position of the clause and precedes
its head. It is also understood as attribute with maritima pars, of which the adjective
is anteposed because of contrast.
( j) Belgae ab extremis Galliae finibus oriuntur . . .
(‘The Belgae begin from the edge of the Gallic territory . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.1.6)
(k) At Caesar . . . magnam partem Galliae in officio tenuit.
(‘But Caesar . . . kept a great part of Gaul in submission.’ Caes. Gal. 5.54.1)
(l) Britanniae pars interior ab iis incolitur quos natos in insula ipsi memoria
proditum dicunt, maritima pars ab iis qui . . . ex Belgio transierant . . .
(‘The inland part of Britain is inhabited by tribes declared in their own tradition to be
indigenous to the island, the maritime part by tribes that migrated . . . from Belgium . . .’
Caes. Gal. 5.12.1)
The order in ( j), with the genitive inserted, is often regarded as the canonical one.²⁸²
In a corpus of 439 instances from Caesar’s de bello Gallico of combinations of
A(ttribute of any type agreeing with the head), H(ead), and G(enitive noun or pronoun)
all six orders are attested: AHG 45.5 per cent, AGH 27.8 per cent, HGA 11.6 per cent,
GAH 7.7 per cent, GHA 4.8 per cent, HAG 2.5 per cent. The most frequent order is
the one exemplified by (k). The two orders with the genitive inserted come next,
together less than 40 per cent. The frequency of some of the orders is determined by the
high number of certain types of expressions. GAH, for example, is dominated by
genitives that function as topic, as in (l) above and in (m). The HGA order is boosted by
the large number of combinations of milia passuum + numeral, as in (n).²⁸³
(m) Quorum magno numero interfecto Crassus ex itinere oppidum Sotiatium
oppugnare coepit.
(‘A large number of them were slain; and then Crassus turned direct from his
march and began to attack the stronghold of the Sotiates.’ Caes. Gal. 3.21.2)
(n) (sc. Ariovistus) . . . milibus passuum duobus ultra eum (sc. Caesarem) castra
fecit . . .
(‘. . . He formed camp two miles beyond him . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.48.2)
Examples of the ordering possibilities of the more complex type shown in (d) above
are (o)–(t).²⁸⁴ In (o) and (p), the noun phrases in the genitive follow; they have no
²⁸² So, for example, Adams (1976a: 80). ²⁸³ For details, see Panchón (1986) and Hoff (2003).
²⁸⁴ The examples are taken from Hoff (2003) and Spevak (2010a: 272–5).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
pragmatic prominence. In (p), domesticis is anteposed because it is contrastive. In (q)

and (r), the genitive noun phrases precede, in (q) because it is contrastive, in (r)
because tanta incuria is focus and therefore in final position in its clause. In (s) and
(t), we have instances of inclusion. In (s), reliquorum is contrastive and similes
emphatic. In (t), ista gladiatoria and totius corporis are both emphatic.
(o) Nolite a sacris patriis Iunonis Sospitae, cui omnis consules facere necesse est,
domesticum et suum consulem potissimum avellere.
(‘Do not tear from the hereditary worship of Juno Sospita, to whom all consuls must
sacrifice, the consul who is her fellow-townsman and her own.’ Cic. Mur. 90)
(p) . . . ut potius in suis quam in alienis finibus decertarent et domesticis copiis
rei frumentariae uterentur.
(‘. . . in order that they might fight in their own rather than in others’ territory, and use
native resources for their corn-supply.’ Caes. Gal. 2.10.4)
(q) Nam primorum mensum litteris tuis vehementer commovebar . . .
(‘For your letters in the first few months disturbed me not a little . . .’ Cic. Fam. 7.17.1)
(r) Quo etiam magis vituperanda est rei maxime necessariae tanta incuria.
(‘Therefore carelessness so great in regard to a relation absolutely indispensable
deserves the more to be censured.’ Cic. Amic. 86)
(s) Nec vero huius tyranni solum . . . interitus declarat quantum odium homi-
num valeat ad pestem, sed reliquorum similes exitus tyrannorum . . .
(‘And not only does the death of this tyrant . . . illustrate the deadly effects of popular
hatred, but so does the similar fate of all other despots . . .’ Cic. Off. 2.23)
(t) Tu . . . ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate tantum vini in Hippiae nuptiis
exhauseras . . .
(‘You . . . with that gullet of yours, that chest, that robust physique befitting a gladiator,
engulfed such a quantity of wine at Hippias’ wedding . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.63)
. Discontinuity (or: hyperbaton) of noun phrases
Discontinuity of noun phrases and other constituents is a common feature of Latin,

which has attracted the attention of writers on rhetoric and others from Antiquity
onwards (see § 23.7). Modern studies of discontinuity concentrate on the pragmatic
and semantic conditions under which discontinuity occurs and the type and number
of elements that are used between the discontinuous constituents.²⁸⁵ Pragmatic and
semantic explanations for discontinuity have been given in several earlier sections. Two
²⁸⁵ See Adams (1971), Panhuis (1982: 72–80), Herman (1985), de Jong (1986), Gettert (1999),
Bolkestein (2001), Lisón (2001), Devine and Stephens (2006: Ch. 6), de Melo (2010: 72–80), Spevak (2010a:
272–9), and Powell (2010).
 Word order
examples given in § 23.7 are repeated here as (a) and (b). They have discontinuous
modifiers that precede their head for reasons of emphasis. Constituents that show
agreement with their head, as in (a) and (b), are not the only ones that can be discon-
tinuous; attributive noun phrases can be as well, as in (c), where nostrorum hominum,
separated from its head aures, is contrastive with respect to eorum. Normally, a geni-
tive modifier like nostrorum hominum (or rather hominum nostrorum) is expected to
follow its head noun.
(a) Instabilis in istum plurimum fortuna valuit.
(‘Unstable Fortune has exercised her greatest power on this creature.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)
(b) Omnes invidiose eripuit bene vivendi casus facultates.
(‘All the means of living well Chance has jealously taken from him.’ Rhet. Her. 4.44)
(c) Quis enim est qui putet . . . nostrorum hominum ad eorum doctissimas voces
aures clausas fuisse?
(‘For who can imagine that the ears of our countrymen were closed to the echo of
their wisdom?’ Cic. Tusc. 4.3)
The other order, with the modifier following, is also possible, as in (d)–(f), though it
is less frequent.²⁸⁶ In (d), pervehimur separates the noun phrase exitus optatos (a case
of ‘verbal hyperbaton’, see § 23.88), as a result of which the emphatic modifier optatos
ends up in the final position of the clause, a common place for focus constituents.
Normally, on the basis of its meaning, optatus is a good candidate to precede its head.
In (e), the determiner has is postposed to emphatically announce the ne . . . paterer
clause. In (f), cruciatum voluntarium is focus of the clause. The discontinuity lends
emphasis to both parts: that anyone would accept cruciatus is already unexpected,
that he would do so voluntarily even more so.
(d) Nam et cum prospero flatu eius utimur ad exitus pervehimur optatos, et cum
reflavit affligimur.
(‘For when we enjoy her favouring breeze, we are wafted over to the wished-for
haven; when she blows against us, we are dashed to destruction.’ Cic. Off. 2.19)
(e) Sed ego is non sum qui statuere debeam iure quis proficiscatur necne. Partis
mihi Caesar has imposuit ne quem omnino discedere ex Italia paterer.
(‘However it is not my responsibility to decide whether any person is entitled to leave
or not. My instructions from Caesar are to allow nobody whosoever to go out of Italy.’
Cic. Att. 10.10.2—quoting from a letter by Antony)
(f) Quem enim locupletiorem quaerimus quam principem populi Romani
(sc. Regulum), qui retinendi officii causa cruciatum subierit voluntarium?
²⁸⁶ For ‘postmodifier hyperbaton’, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 531–40). In Caesar and Cicero it is
very rare (de Jong 1986; Bolkestein 2001), but in a sample from Pliny the Elder and Petronius the post-
modifier order represents 18 per cent (Bolkestein 2001: 254–6). For possessive adjectives in Plautus the
postmodifier order is 14 per cent, very often at the end of the line and without a pragmatic motivation (de
Melo 2010: 76–8).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(‘For what more competent witness do we ask for than one of the foremost citizens of
Rome, who voluntarily faced torture for the sake of being true to his moral duty?’ Cic.
Off. 3.105)
Generally speaking, the function of discontinuity of the noun phrase is to signal the
pragmatic saliency of the phrase. The phrase as a whole is normally focus of the
clause. A modifier that precedes carries emphasis or contrast, whereas hyperbaton
with a following modifier may signal emphasis or contrast of the head and/or the
modifier.²⁸⁷
As for the type and number of elements that are involved in discontinuity, it is com-
mon to make a distinction between intervening elements that are in some way part of
the discontinuous noun phrase (causing ‘internal’ hyperbaton) and ‘alien’ elements
that do not belong to the discontinuous noun phrase. An example of the first type is
(g), repeated from § 23.86, of the second (c) and (d) above, and (h). In (g), totius cor-
poris is the attribute of firmitate, with gladiatoria modifying the combination. In
(c) and (d), the intervening elements ad eorum doctissimas voces and pervehimur have
no relation with the discontinuous noun phrases and they could have been placed
outside these phrases. This is different for the connector autem in (h), which has limited
mobility (see § 23.21). Obviously, it is not part of the noun phrase it divides.
(g) Tu . . . ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate tantum vini in Hippiae nuptiis
exhauseras . . .
(‘You . . . with that gullet of yours, that chest, that robust physique befitting a gladiator,
engulfed such a quantity of wine at Hippias’ wedding . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.63)
(h) Postremum autem genus est . . . quod proprium Catilinae est . . .
(‘The last group (sc. of the six), however, is Catiline’s very own . . .’ Cic. Catil. 2.22)
‘Alien’ discontinuity of a noun phrase can be due to the insertion of one or more con-
stituents that belong to one or more of seven types (details are given in § 23.88):²⁸⁸
(i) discontinuity caused by connectors like autem and interactional particles like
enim;
(ii) discontinuity caused by particles like quidem, adverbs like deinde, etc.;
(iii) discontinuity caused by subordinators like cum, postquam, quia, si;
(iv) discontinuity caused by ‘nominals’ (nouns, noun phrases, and pronouns);
(v) discontinuity caused by finite verb forms;
(vi) discontinuity caused by non-finite verb forms;
(vii) discontinuity caused by subordinate clauses (‘the rest’ in Figure 23.1).
Figure 23.1 shows the use of seven types of ‘alien’ discontinuity in noun phrases in
four prose authors.
²⁸⁷ Spevak (2015a) has a critical discussion of the idea of Marouzeau and others that, if the discontinu-
ous modifier follows the head, it has a ‘prédicative’ or ‘appositive’ value.
²⁸⁸ For parentheses causing discontinuity, see Bolkestein (1998c).
 Word order
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cicero Caesar Sallust Tacitus
connectors part. & adv. subord. nominals
finite v. infinite v. the rest
Figure 23.1 The frequency of ‘alien’ discontinuity of noun phrases (paras. (i)–(vii)
above) in four prose authors (in percentages)
Four texts are used for Figure 23.1: Cicero Brut. (25,600 words), Caesar Gal. I (8,170),
Sallust Cat. (10,900), Tacitus Ann. I (10,400). The total number of instances of the
types of discontinuity mentioned above in these texts is 350, 58, 32, 83, respective-
ly.²⁸⁹ Only Cicero has (six) instances of discontinuity in which subordinators are
involved. The texts of Caesar, Sallust, and Tacitus belong to a different type from
Cicero’s Brutus. This manifests itself among other things in the frequency of connectors
and interactional particles like autem, enim, vero (288 in the Brutus, 53 in the other
three texts together). Cicero has 102 instances of autem, 11 of which are involved in
discontinuity; Caesar eight, four of which are involved in discontinuity.
Authors vary in the degree to which they use hyperbaton and in the degree to which
they use the various interfering elements, especially the ‘internal’ and ‘alien’ ones.
Sallust uses both types of hyperbaton rarely. Cicero, by contrast, uses hyperbaton
more often, and especially ‘alien’ hyperbaton.²⁹⁰ He has it more often in his dialogue
Brutus than in his Verrine orations, but less often than in his treatise de Officiis.²⁹¹ In
poetry discontinuity is mainly a poetic device, without a pragmatic justification. In
Late Latin, discontinuity of noun phrases and prepositional phrases caused by con-
nectors and other particles (categories (i) and (ii) above) is present in all sorts of texts,
both literary and non-literary. Discontinuity caused by categories (iv)–(vii) is common
and sometimes excessive in authors with literary aspirations such as Ammianus,
²⁸⁹ The figures are based on those given in Gettert (1999: 59, 113, 122, 132).
²⁹⁰ See Spevak (2010a: 275, Table 11). ²⁹¹ See Gettert (1999).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
Augustine, Jerome, and, much later, Gregory of Tours. See Table 23.12.²⁹² Discontinuity
did not survive in the Romance languages.
Table . Discontinuity of noun phrases in a number of Late Latin texts

Author/work Number of Discontinuity Discontinuity
noun phrases caused by caused by
connectors, etc. other alien elements
Augustine Sermones 328 10 (3%) 10 (3%)
Augustine Epistulae 348 6 (2%) 32 (9%)
Peregrinatio 325 23 (7%) 8 (2%)
Gregory the Great Dialogi 341 37 (11%) 22 (6%)
Gregory of Tours Book III 294 5 (2%) 60 (20%)
. Constituents causing hyperbaton of noun phrases

This section follows more or less the division presented in Figure 23.1.
(i) Discontinuity produced by connectors and interactional particles is attested in
all periods of Latin and in all sorts of texts (see also § 23.21). There is variation
between individual connectors, authors, and types of text. In Plautus, for example,
two instances of enim out of 150 produce hyperbaton, comparable with Cicero’s use
in his letters to Atticus. An example is (a). Igitur is not used to produce hyperbaton
in Plautus. In Cicero’s letters to Atticus c.4 per cent of instances of igitur are involved
in hyperbaton, as in (b). As for autem, in Cicero’s letters to Atticus c.25 per cent of
the sentences containing autem start with a noun phrase, which is split by autem; in
Plautus at most 5 per cent. Discontinuity is common with proper names, as in (d).
(a) Em! / Illoc enim verbo esse me servom scio.
(‘There you go! For through this word I know I’m a slave.’ Pl. Men. 250–1)
(b) Pauculis igitur mensibus . . . furta praetoris . . . ex uno oppido solo exportata sunt.
(‘In a few short months, therefore, our praetor exported contraband goods . . . from
one town alone.’ Cic. Ver. 2.185)
(c) . . . hodierno autem die nominatim a me magistratibus statui gratias esse
agendas . . .
(‘. . . but I have determined on this day to thank the magistrates by name . . .’ Cic. Red.
Sen. 31)
(d) M. vero Antonius non is erit ad quem omni motu concursus fiat civium
perditorum?
²⁹² The table is taken from Spevak (2012a: 257). For the Peregrinatio, see also Herman (1985) and
Väänänen (1987: 111–13).
 Word order
(‘As for Marcus Antonius, whenever there is trouble, will he not be the rallying point
for desperate citizens?’ Cic. Phil. 7.18)
Supplement (a few examples from non-Classical texts, in alphabetical order):
Reliquos autem collibertos eius cave contemnas. (Petr. 38.6 (a freedman speaking));
Caligae autem nucl<e>atae nugae sunt. (CEL 142.1.25–6 (Karanis, 2nd cent.
ad (early))); Fluvius autem quartus ipse est Eufrates. (Vulg. Gen. 2.14); Heroum
autem civitas, quae fuit illo tempore . . . nunc est come, sed grandis, quod nos dicimus
vicus. (Pereg. 7.7); Catholica autem fides credit patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum
unum Deum . . . (August. Serm. 7.4); Servus enim noster lancea collum eius traiecit.
(Petr. 62.11 (Niceros speaking)); Multos enim sanctos monachos videbam inde
venientes in Ierusolimam . . . (Pereg. 13.1); Nullo enim prorsus modo violat corruptio
Deum nostrum . . . (August. Conf. 7.6); Multis enim modis significatur una res. (August.
Serm. 4.25); In eo ergo loco est nunc ecclesia non grandis . . . (Pereg. 3.3); Qua igitur
ratione admittas filium hominis, Marcion, circumspicere non possum. (Tert. Marc.
4.10.8); Generalis igitur fornicatio aperte manifestatur in Psalmo ubi dicitur . . .
(ii) The group of particles and adverbs represented in Figure 23.1 is a very mixed
bag.²⁹³ In (e), the emphasizing particle quidem divides meo iudicio, but it might just as
well be taken as an ‘internal’ hyperbaton since it forms a unit with meo (see also
§ 23.34). In (f), the adverb iam is a clear ‘alien’ adjunct which divides oratio nostra;
oratio is contrastive. In (g), the role of the adverb deinceps is less obvious. It is regarded
by some as attributive (see the Loeb translation—for this usage, see § 11.69); multae
can also be taken as a secondary predicate. In (h), two members of this group contrib-
ute to the hyperbaton; crebras is contrastive.
(e) . . . eam gloriam quam nemo meo quidem iudicio est postea consecutus.
(‘. . . a renown such as no one after him has in my judgement attained.’ Cic. Brut. 32)
(f) . . . cumque ipsa oratio iam nostra canesceret haberetque suam quandam
maturitatem . . .
(‘. . . and when my oratory too had attained a certain ripeness and maturity of age . . .’
Cic. Brut. 8)
(g) . . . posteaque prosperae res deinceps multae consecutae sunt . . .
(‘. . . and from that time on many successes in turn followed . . .’ Cic. Brut. 12—tr. Bal)
(h) . . . verbis volvebat satis interdum acutas, crebras quidem certe sententias . . .
(‘. . . in words he rolled along thoughts sometimes quite keen but always abundant at
least . . .’ Cic. Brut. 280)
Supplement (a few examples from non-Classical texts):

Vidimus etiam in extrema iam valle ipsa Memorias concupiscentiae . . . (Pereg. 5.10);
Sed de furto superius iam praeceptum est. (August. Serm. 8.13); . . . ut uno potius
nomine id explicem . . . (August. Civ. 21.3); . . . aguntur omnia sic de pullo quidem
²⁹³ See the so-called ‘modalia’ in Gettert (1999: 168).

Word order at the noun phrase level 
primo iuxta consuetudinem. (Pereg. 43.1); Omnia quidem sacramenta divinarum

scripturarum utique magna atque divina sunt. (August. Serm. 2.6)
(iii) Hyperbaton due to postposition of a subordinator is rare. An example is (i). For

postposition of subordinators in general, see § 22.24.
(i) Sed haec Crassi cum edita oratio est . . . quattuor et triginta tum habebat
annos . . .
(‘But when this speech of Crassus was delivered . . . he was thirty-four . . .’ Cic. Brut. 161)
(iv) Various types of ‘nominal’ constituents that cause hyperbaton are shown in ( j)–(p).
The most common intervening constituents are (personal) pronouns, as in ( j) and (k)
(see also § 23.32). Ex. ( j) is noteworthy, since the hyperbaton is caused by ego follow-
ing the relative determiner. The relative determiner itself cannot be pragmatically sali-
ent; ego is contrastive.²⁹⁴ The other examples are different. In (k), praedam is emphatic.
In (l) and (m), with a noun phrase and a proper name, multi and magnam are
emphatic. Forms of address in the vocative can serve a similar purpose, as in (n). In
(o), the position of the prepositional phrase contributes to emphasis on postposed
nullo. In (p), praenomen and nomen are separated by ad me, to draw attention to the
identity of the specific Brutus involved.
( j) Quem ego sermonem cum ad Brutum tuum vel nostrum potius detulissem . . .
(‘When I reported that talk to your—I should say rather, our Brutus . . .’ Cic. Brut. 20)
(k) Est enim ausus dicere hasta posita, cum bona in foro venderet . . . civium,
praedam se suam vendere.
(‘For when selling under the hammer in the forum the property of . . . Roman citizens,
he had the effrontery to announce that he was selling his spoils.’ Cic. Off. 2.27)
(l) . . . vivo Catone minores natu multi uno tempore oratores floruerunt.
(‘. . . in Cato’s lifetime there flourished many younger orators at the same time.’ Cic.
Brut. 80)
(m) Ad haec Ariovistus respondit . . . Magnam Caesarem iniuriam facere, qui suo
adventu vectigalia sibi deteriora faceret.
(‘To this Ariovistus answered: . . . That Caesar was doing a great injustice, because his
arrival was making his revenues less valuable.’ Caes. Gal. 1.36.4)
(n) . . . iambum et trochaeum frequentem segregat ab oratore Aristoteles, Catule,
vester . . .
(‘. . . a frequent use of the iambus and the tribrach is interdicted to the orator by your
Aristotle, Catulus, . . .,’ Cic. de Orat. 3.182)
(o) Loco opportuniore in his malis nullo esse potuisti . . .
(‘You could have found no more convenient place to stay in these distressing circum-
stances . . .’ Cic. Fam. 6.20.2)
²⁹⁴ See Bolkestein (2001: 251–2).

 Word order
(p) Nam cum inambularem in xysto et essem otiosus domi, Marcus ad me

Brutus, ut consueverat, cum Tito Pomponio venerat . . .
(‘For one day when I was pacing up and down my garden walk and enjoying my
leisure at home, Marcus Brutus dropped in upon me, as he often did, and brought
with him Titus Pomponius.’ Cic. Brut. 10)
Supplement:
Pronouns: . . . eique in Galliam penetranti Decimus se Brutus obiecit . . . (Cic. Phil.
13.20); His ille (sc. Caesar) rebus ita convaluit ut nunc in uno civi spes ad resisten-
dum sit. (Cic. Att. 7.3.4—NB: ille is contrastive); . . . Samnites . . . oculos sibi
Romanorum ardere visos aiebant . . . (Liv. 7.33.16–17); Hunc ego nuntium patri laeta
omnia aliis e provinciis audienti feram? (Tac. Ann. 1.42.4)
Other: . . . ne non tam innocentia reus sua quam recordatione meorum temporum
defensus esse videatur. (Cic. Planc. 4); Castra in conspectu Hasdrubalis erant. (Liv.
30.3.3); Petillii . . . regnum in senatu Scipionum accusabant. (Liv. 38.54.6);²⁹⁵ Plurimi
hoc signo scholastici nascuntur et arietilli. (Petr. 39.5 (Trimalchio speaking));
Incedebat muliebre et miserabile agmen, profuga ducis uxor, parvulum sinu filium
gerens . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.40.4);²⁹⁶ . . . donec expugnandi hostes spe propius succederent . . .
(Tac. Ann. 1.67.1)
(v) Discontinuity of the head and modifier constituents of a noun phrase by (finite or
non-finite) verb forms (called: verbal hyperbaton) is rare in Early Latin prose and
still only sparingly used in Classical Latin, where Cicero and Caesar use it especially
in texts or passages with a higher level of stylistic elaboration. Sallust as well uses it
quite modestly (as does later Tacitus). Nepos uses it as a means for his literary
aspirations. Livy, however, was the first to introduce it on a large scale; it then became
‘monotonously frequent’ in Imperial prose.²⁹⁷ A pragmatic motivation is often no
longer present in authors like Livy. Also, rhythmic considerations play a role (as in
Latin poetry from its very beginning). It is uncommon in less-elevated prose texts. In
Late Latin authors with literary aspirations verbal hyperbaton is a much used instru-
ment to produce a preferred clausula or cursus.
An early indisputable example of verbal hyperbaton in Cato’s prose is (q). Validam
is emphatic. In (r), the adjective gravioribus is contrastive. In (s), the head maculis is
contrastive. Hyperbaton is rare in the early historians (for ancient criticism of Coelius
Antipater, see § 23.7). An instance from Sisenna is (t).²⁹⁸ Here it is difficult to explain
the anteposition of hostium from a pragmatic point of view. In Livy’s (u), aequos is
emphatic (ipsi quoque reges is the contrastive topic of the sentence). The noun phrase
quam lotam glandem in (v) from Petronius shows double discontinuity.
²⁹⁵ For this interpretation, see Briscoe ad loc.

²⁹⁶ See Goodyear ad loc.: ‘. . . T. is coming perilously near to verse-rhythm.’
²⁹⁷ For the literary character of the type of discontinuity with a verb separating head and modifier and
its frequency in various prose texts and authors, see Adams (1971), who is quoted in the text, and
Mednikarova (1997). Less specific is Bolkestein (2001). For Petronius, see Herman (2003). For the fre-
quent use of ‘verbal hyperbaton’ in Christian writers, see Burton (2011: 494–5). For Ammianus, see
Pinkster (2004a).
²⁹⁸ For Sisenna, see Perutelli (2004: 18).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
(q) (sc. brassica) . . . validam habet naturam et vim magnam habet.

(‘. . . it has a hardy constitution and great efficacy.’ Cato Agr. 157.1—tr. Devine and
Stephens)
(r) Vereor me hercule ne aut gravioribus utar verbis quam natura fert, aut
levioribus quam causa postulat.
(‘I am afraid of using expressions so harsh that they would outrage nature, or not so
strong as the cause demands.’ Cic. Quinct. 57)
(s) Hunc tu vitae splendorem maculis aspergis istis?
(‘And would you dim with your sullying insinuations the lustre of that untarnished
life?’ Cic. Planc. 30)
(t) . . . et inde ecum concitatum princeps ad hostium permittit aciem.
(‘. . . and then he, taking the lead, spurred on his horse, and let him loose against the
enemy’s line.’ Sis. hist. 32=28C)
(u) Itaque ipsi quoque reges aequos adhiberent animos ad pacem accipiendam.
(‘The kings themselves therefore must resign themselves to the acceptance of peace
terms.’ Liv. 44.29.8)
(v) (sc. Trimalchio) . . . adiecit: ‘Et iam (cj. Smith, etiam H) videte quam porcus
ille silvaticus lotam (cj. Muncker, totam H) comederit glandem.’
(‘Trimalchio added: “And now see what fine acorns the woodland boar has been eat-
ing.”’ Petr. 40.8 (Trimalchio speaking))
Supplement (for forms of the verb sum, see also § 23.33):

Suom · mareitum · corde · deilexit · souo. (CIL I2.1211.4 (Rome, 1st cent. bc
(early))); . . . urbs acerbissimo concidat incendio conflagrata. (Rhet. Her. 4.12—NB: in
an example of the grand style); Utriusque temporis fructum tuli maximum. (Cic.
Dom. 99); . . . satis magnum ceperam fructum . . . (Cic. Phil. 6.2); Pecunia tibi debeba-
tur certa . . . (Cic. Q. Rosc. 10); . . . quod satis sit ad diem agendum natalem suum . . . (Cic.
Fin. 2.101); ‘Visne igitur’, inquit, ‘o Damocle, . . . ipse eam degustare et fortunam
experiri meam?’ (Cic. Tusc. 5.61); . . . in eadem es navi . . . (Cic. Fam. 2.5.1); Provinciam
suam hanc esse Galliam, sicut illam nostram. (Caes. Gal. 1.44.8); . . . quam maximis
potest itineribus Viennam pervenit. (Caes. Gal. 7.9.3); . . . incolas cuiusque generis
aetatisque vivos constrictosque in flammam coiciunt atque ita acerbissimo adficiunt
supplicio. (B. Afr. 87.2); . . . verens ne, si eum secum haberet, aliquam occasionem sui
daret opprimendi . . . (Nep. Di. 4.1); Sic iuxta posita recens filii (sc. statua) veterem
patris renovavit memoriam. (Nep. Timoth. 2.3); Tum M. Tullius consul . . . orationem
habuit luculentam atque utilem rei publicae, quam postea scriptam edidit. (Sal. Cat.
31.6); . . .Volgatior fama est ludibrio fratris Remum novos transiluisse muros. (Liv.
1.7.2); . . . hoc modo praedicta intereunt animalia. (Col. 6.30.10); . . . in suo quaeque
consistere, inrequieto mundi ipsius constricta circuitu . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.11); Ad reliqua
transeamus animalia et primum terrestria. (Plin. Nat. 8.1); Cum omnis res ab imperatore
delegata intentiorem exigat curam . . . (Fron. Aq. 1.1.1); Ne dimissis quidem finem
esse militiae . . . (Tac. Ann. 1.17.3); . . . ut per medium transversaremus caput illius val-
lis (Pereg. 2.4); (sc. monachi) . . . tales sunt ut et virtutes faciant multas . . . (Pereg. 20.6);
 Word order
Sed cum pudicitia virtus sit animi . . . (August. Civ. 1.8); Ideo autem hunc tenere ordi-
nem malui . . . (August. Civ. 21.1.1); Cum ergo nescirem quomodo haec subsisteret
imago tua . . . (August. Conf. 6.5)
(vi) More extreme forms of discontinuity of noun phrases by entire clauses and by
combinations of two or more ‘alien’ constituents are well known from Early Latin
comedy and from poetry, as in (w)–(y).
(w) Tuo ego istaec igitur dicam illi periculo. / # Quid ais tu?
(‘I’ll tell him about this, and it will be at your risk. # What do you say?’ Pl. Bac. 599–600)
(x) qua Galli furtim noctu summa arcis adorti / moenia concubia vigilesque
repente cruentant.
(‘at the time for bedding down at night, the Gauls slipped stealthily over the citadel’s
highest walls and suddenly bloodied the guard.’ Enn. Ann. 164–5V=227–8S)
(y) . . . cum sic unanimam adloquitur male sana sororem.
(‘. . . when, much distraught, she thus speaks to her sister, sharer of her heart.’ Verg. A. 4.8)
Even in prose, long-distance discontinuity is not rare. An example of discontinuity

caused by a subordinate clause is (z) (for relative clauses, see § 18.12). Such cases must
have been easy to understand for the listener. They were marked as units in pronun-
ciation. This is less obvious in (aa). In (ab), one can imagine some sort of pause after
adipisci.²⁹⁹
(z) Nam etsi [ut] tu melius existumare videris de ea, si quam nunc habemus,
facultate, tamen . . .
(‘For though you appear to have a better opinion of such skill as I now possess . . .’ Cic.
Brut. 298)
(aa) Omnes autem P. Lentulus me consule vicit superiores.
(‘Publius Lentulus, however, in the year of my consulship, eclipsed all that had gone
before him.’ Cic. Off. 2.57)
(ab) . . . sequitur ut disseramus, quibus rebus facillime possimus eam quam volu-
mus adipisci cum honore et fide caritatem.
(‘. . . it remains for us to discuss by what means we can most readily win the affection,
linked with honour and confidence, which we desire.’ Cic. Off. 2.30)
Supplement:
Adjectives, determiners, etc. Ita ad me magna nuntiavit Cyamus hodie gaudia. (Pl.
Truc. 702); Nam per eius unam, ut audio, aut vivam aut moriar sententiam. (Ter. Ph.
483); Obliquo inter sese medullam cum medulla libro colligato. (Cato Agr.
41.2); . . . quod nullus in eius fundo reperiri poterat stolo . . . (Var. R. 1.2.9); Magni
interest ex semine esse canes eodem, quod cognati maxime inter se sunt praesidio.
(Var. R. 2.9.6); Nam quod est obiectum municipibus esse adulescentem non proba-
²⁹⁹ For Caesar, see Schneider (1912: 14–22); for Apuleius, Bernard (1927: 25–7); for the Peregrinatio,
Väänänen (1987: 111–13); for Augustine, Balmuş (1930: 119–23).
Word order at the noun phrase level 
tum suis . . . (Cic. Cael. 5); Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi
Statori, antiquissimo custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod . . . (Cic. Catil. 1.11); Quis tum
nobis, quis populo Romano obtulit hunc divinum adulescentem deus? (Cic. Phil.
5.43); Quae cum reprehendis, ostendis qualis tu, si ita forte accidisset, fueris illo
tempore consul futurus. (Cic. Pis. 14); Rem publicam illis accepi temporibus eam
quae paene amissa est, a vobis eam reciperavi quam aliquando omnes unius opera
servatam iudicaverunt. (Cic. Red. Pop. 5); Mihi credite iudices—tametsi vosmet
ipsos haec eadem audire certo scio—cum multas acceperint per hosce annos socii
atque exterae nationes calamitates et iniurias, nullas Graeci homines gravius
ferunt ac tulerunt quam huiuscemodi spoliationes fanorum atque oppidorum. (Cic.
Ver. 4.132); Crassus vero mihi noster visus est oratoris facultatem non illius artis
terminis, sed ingenii sui finibus immensis paene describere. (Cic. de Orat. 1.214);
Antonius autem probabiliorem hoc populo orationem fore censebat suam,
si . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.4); Philo ut propria (cj. Lundström) noster et lecta poëmata et
loco adiungebat. (Cic. Tusc. 2.26);³⁰⁰ . . . Pompeius togulam illam pictam silentio
tuetur suam. (Cic. Att. 1.18.6); (sc. Caesar) . . . duplicem eo loco fecerat val-
lum . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.63.2); Hoc pugnae tempus magnum attulit nostris ad salutem
momentum. (Caes. Civ. 1.51.6); In hoc tantum fuit odium multitudinis ut nemo
ausus sit eum liber sepelire. (Nep. Phoc. 4.4); Sunt qui non ex oppido proficiscentem
bellum gessisse tyrannum tradant, sed castris adversus Romana positis cas-
tra . . . (Liv. 34.41.8); Hunc Ti. Gracchi liberi, P. Scipionis Africani nepotes, viva
adhuc matre Cornelia, Africani filia, viri optimis ingeniis male usi, vitae mortisque
habuere exitum. (Vell. 2.7.1); . . . tardiore semper ad terras omnium quae geruntur
in caelo effectu cadente quam visu, sicuti fulguris et tonitrus et fulminum. (Plin.
Nat. 2.216); Talis ad Oceanum pergentem Venerem comitatur exercitus. (Apul. Met.
4.31.7); Pastores enim mei perditam sibi requirentes vacculam variasque regiones
peragrantes occurrunt nobis fortuito . . . (Apul. Met. 7.25.4); . . . itaque ergo singula,
quemadmodum venimus per ipsam totam vallem, semper nobis sancti illi loca
demonstrabant. (Pereg. 5.1—NB: distant secondary predicate); Cum itaque ignis in
lignis ardeat ut lapides coquat, contrarios habet non in contrariis rebus effectus.
(August. Civ. 21.4); Ita autem toleravit cubilis iniurias ut nullam de hac re cum
marito haberet umquam simultatem. (August. Conf. 9.19)
Nouns and noun phrases: An nescibas quam eius modi homini raro tempus se
daret? (Pl. Bac. 676); Salis unicuique in anno modium satis est. (Cato Agr. 58.1);
‘Peto igitur’, Crassus inquit, ‘a te, quoniam id nobis, Antoni, hominibus id aetatis,
oneris ab horum adulescentium studiis imponitur, ut . . .’ (Cic. de Orat. 1.207); . . . non
tantum ingenioso homini et ei, qui forum, qui curiam, qui causas, qui rem publicam
spectet, opus esse arbitror temporis . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.86); Quibus . . . tantum
Camillus auditus imperator terroris intulerat ut . . . (Liv. 6.2.9); Quid attinere cum
mortali corpore uno civitatis quam immortalem esse deceat pati consenescere vires?
(Liv. 6.23.7); Nec Caesaris dictatoris quemquam alium recepisse dorso equus tradi-
tur . . . (Plin. Nat. 5.155); Nam et signa ibi parebant castrorum. (Pereg. 12.9)
³⁰⁰ For a detailed discussion of hyperbaton of possessive adjectives in Cicero, see Lundström (1982:
31–8); for Plautus, see de Melo (2010: 72–80).
 Word order
NB: . . . te pauper ambit sollicita prece / ruris colonus, te dominam aequoris / qui-
cumque Bithyna lacessit / Carpathium pelagus carina. (Hor. Carm. 1.35.5–8—NB:
parallelism of ruris (sc. dominam) and dominam aequoris)³⁰¹
(vii) Double hyperbaton is rare in Classical prose but common in poetry (see § 23.14),
as in (ac), and in later poeticizing prose. A prose example is (ad). Both attributes are
emphatic.
(ac) . . . amissos longo socios sermone requirunt . . .
(‘. . . in long discourse they yearn for their lost comrades . . .’ Verg. A. 1.217)
(ad) Maximus vini numerus fuit, permagnum optimi pondus argenti . . .
(‘There was a great quantity of wine, a very large weight of the finest silver plate . . .’
Cic. Phil. 2.66)
Supplement:
Post Amafinium autem multi eiusdem aemuli rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam
totam occupaverunt . . . (Cic. Tusc. 4.7); (sc. Hermathenae signum) Est ornamentum
Academiae proprium meae . . . (Cic. Att. 1.4.3)
Among the instances of double hyperbaton, (ae) is cited as an instance of Caesar’s

usage.³⁰² In reality, it is different: Hunc is a pronoun, the object of ferunt, and omnium
inventorem artium is the object complement.
(ae) . . . hunc omnium inventorem artium ferunt . . .
(‘. . . they declare him the inventor of all arts . . .’ Caes. Gal. 6.17.1)
23.89 Word order in prepositional phrases

In §§ 3.24 and 12.23 some introductory remarks can be found about the suitability of
the element ‘pre-’ in a description of the class of what are commonly called ‘preposi-
tions’. In the same sections some information can be found about the proclitic nature
of prepositions. This section deals with the relative order of prepositions with respect
to the constituents they govern. It will be shown that prepositions can precede or fol-
low them, but they can also be inserted in the middle if the constituent they govern is
a phrase. Two types of prepositional phrases are distinguished: (a) those in which the
preposition immediately precedes, follows, or is inserted in the constituent it governs
(‘continuous’ prepositional phrases), e.g. per gratiam ‘in a friendly manner’, gratiam
per ‘in a friendly manner’, and summam per iniuriam ‘by the greatest injustice’
(§ 23.90–5), and (b) prepositional phrases where the preposition is separated from the
³⁰¹ For this interpretation, see Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc. ³⁰² So Sz.: 691.
Word order in prepositional phrases 
constituent it governs by one or more other elements that do not belong to the
prepositional phrase (‘discontinuous’ prepositional phrases: § 23.96).³⁰³
. The order of constituents in continuous

prepositional phrases
Continuous prepositional phrases can again be divided into phrases which govern a
constituent which is not modified and phrases in which the governed constituent is
complex in itself, for example, because it contains an adjectival or genitival attribute,
e.g. per gratiam bonam ‘in good friendship’.
. The position of prepositions in prepositional

phrases without a modifier
In this section two more subtypes are distinguished, viz. prepositional phrases with a
monosyllabic and with a polysyllabic preposition. The only monosyllabic preposition
that is regularly postposed is cum (‘with’), but only in certain conditions: after the per-
sonal pronoun forms me ‘me’, te ‘you’, reflexive se ‘her/him/itself ’, ‘themselves’, nobis ‘us’,
and vobis ‘you’ and after relative and interrogative pronouns. It forms one prosodic
unit and is written (and printed) as one word with the pronoun it governs, as is shown
by the fact that the clitic coordinator -que is attached to mecum in (a). From Cicero
onwards cum is more and more found before the relative and later also the interroga-
tive pronoun, and some authors, Livy for example, allow only this. It is also regularly
found before its pronoun in inscriptions. However, with personal pronouns postposition
remained the rule. In (a) and (b) cum follows, whereas in (c) and (d) it precedes.
(a) . . . ornatissimum virum mecumque . . . coniunctum . . .
(‘. . . an accomplished gentleman . . . bound to myself . . .’ Cic. Scaur. 31)
(b) Novistin’ hominem? # Ridicule rogitas, quocum una cibum / capere soleo.
(‘You know the man? # An absurd question when we constantly take our meals
together.’ Pl. Trin. 905–6)
(c) Non est vobis, Quirites, cum eo hoste certamen cum quo aliqua pacis condi-
cio esse possit.
(‘You have, Romans, no contest with an enemy with whom any terms of peace are
possible.’ Cic. Phil. 4.11)
(d) (coniugi) . . . cum qua viximus concordes . . .
(‘To my wife, with whom I have lived in harmony. . .’ A. Epig. 2001, nr 441.12 (Rome,
1st cent. ad (late))—tr. Bal)
³⁰³ Some of the relevant articles in the TLL offer useful syntactic information, e.g. s.v. inter 2146.63ff. and
per 1167.9ff. For Plautus, Lodge’s lexicon is useful, as is Gerber and Greef for Tacitus. Collections of examples
can be found in Neue-W.: II.942–52; K.-St.: I.585–8; Marouzeau (1949: 35–65). Bibliography in Sz.: 218.
 Word order
Most other monosyllabic prepositions are normally anteposed, as in (e) and (f). In
Early Latin and in poetry, these prepositions are sometimes postposed as well.
However, this is much less common in prose. This phenomenon is relatively frequent
in Early Latin in combination with relative pronouns, as in (g), but rare in combination
with nouns. A unique and textually uncertain Early Latin example is (h). Postposition
is very rare in Late Latin.
(e) Iuppiter . . . per quem vivimus vitalem aevom . . .
(‘O, Jupiter . . . through whom we live and draw the breath of being.’ Pl. Poen. 1187)
(f) Quod volui ut volui impetravi, per amicitiam et gratiam, / a Philocomasio.
(‘I obtained from Philocomasium what I wished just as I wished in all friendliness
and goodwill.’ Pl. Mil. 1200–1)
(g) Exerce vocem quam per vivis . . .
(‘Exercise the voice through which you live . . .’ Pl. Poen. 13)
(h) Gratiam per si petimus, spero ab eo impetrassere.
(‘If we ask it as a favour, I have my hopes he’ll acquiesce.’ Pl. St. 71)³⁰⁴
More instances of ‘normal’ prepositional use of monosyllabic prepositions can be

found throughout this Syntax. The Supplement contains only postpositional instances.
Supplement:
Relative pronouns: Non esse servos peior hoc quisquam potest / nec magis vorsutus
nec quo ab caveas aegrius. (Pl. As. 118–19); . . . Pistoclerum, quem ad epistulam /
Mnesilochus misit super amica Bacchide. (Pl. Bac. 176–7); . . . ducere te uxorem, /
praesertim eam qua ex tibi commemores hanc quae domi est filiam prognatam? (Pl.
Epid. 170–1); . . . hoc ipsum interdictum quo de agitur consideremus. (Cic. Caec.
55); . . . propter earum rerum, quibus de scriptum est, utilitatem . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.141);
Solebat igitur Aquilius collega et familiaris meus, cum de litoribus ageretur . . . quae-
rentibus iis quos ad id pertinebat, quid esset litus, ita definire, qua fluctus eluderet.
(Cic. Top. 32); Senatus quos ad soleret referendum censuit. (Cic. N.D. 2.10); Nam
cum multo sunt animae elementa minora / quam quibus e corpus nobis et viscera
constant . . . (Lucr. 3.374–5); C. <Iu>lius Prudens respondit homines Hyginum
et Hermen q d a (= quibus de agitur) suus . . . <es>se . . . (TPN 26.2.7–9 (Pompeii, ad
55)); . . . cum de ea re qua de agitur experiundi potestas est . . . (Ulp. dig. 42.8.10); Iam
nunc video esse monstrandum, quid ipsi David . . . Deus promiserit, quod ad rem qua
de agimus pertinet. (August. Civ. 17.8); . . . a sacramenti huius quo de agimus auctore
aliena peccata innocentibus imputari. (August. Iul. 1.57); . . . ut cui eorum generi
somnium quo de agimus adplicandum sit innotescat. (Macr. Comm. 1.3.1)
NB: Hunc post Rhodius Hieronymus dolore vacare summum bonum dixit. (Cic.
Tusc. 2.15)
Nouns: Sed fugam in se tamen nemo convortitur . . . (Pl. Am. 238); . . . ignibus ex ignis,
umorem umoribus esse, / cetera consimili fingit ratione putatque. (Lucr. 1.841–2);
Multa siti prostrata viam per proque voluta / corpora silanos ad aquarum strata iace-
bant . . . (Lucr. 6.1264–5); Nos in nocte sumus somnosque in membra vocamus. (Man.
³⁰⁴ I follow the reading of A. There is an alternative reading a patre in P.

Word order in prepositional phrases 
1.245); Sic annum mensesque suos natura diesque / atque ipsas voluit numerari signa
per horas . . . (Man. 3.520–1); . . . ubi clari mater Iesu / nato cum pariter convivia con-
celebrabat. (Iuvenc. 2.128–9)
Polysyllabic prepositions are much more often postposed, in Early Latin mainly
with personal, relative, and interrogative pronouns, but from Lucretius onwards
also regularly after nouns.³⁰⁵ The postposition of the preposition after the noun is
an artificial phenomenon, used in various degrees by individual authors and
sometimes in the individual works of an author (Tacitus, for example).³⁰⁶ The
phenomenon is rare in Late Latin. Examples of anteposed polysyllabic prepositions
are (i) and ( j); of postposed (k) and (l).³⁰⁷ The Supplement contains further
postposed ones.
(i) Censor enim, penes quem maiores nostri, id quod tu sustulisti, iudicium
senatus de dignitate esse voluerunt . . .
(‘For the censor, to whose power (though you have abolished that) our ancestors
chose to commit the decision respecting the dignity of each member of the senate . . .’
Cic. Dom. 131—tr. Yonge)
( j) . . . Antiphila . . . / propter quam in summa infamia sum . . .
(‘. . . Antiphila . . . it’s for your sake that I’m in the greatest discredit.’ Ter. Hau. 258–9)
(k) Iuppiter . . . / quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium . . .
(‘Jupiter . . . in whom the hopes and lives of all mankind lie . . .’ Pl. Poen. 1187–8)
(l) . . . abduce me hinc ab hac quantum potest, / quam propter tantum damni
feci et flagiti.
(‘. . . drag me away as quickly as possible from here from this woman because of whom
I’ve incurred such great loss and disgrace.’ Pl. Bac. 1031–2)
With pronouns: Mirum quin te advorsus dicat. (Pl. Am. 750); Neque amplius
resisti iam apud eos poterat, quin paulatim decedentibus his, quos adversum
ierant, ad postremum cuncti fugarentur. (Dict. 2.12); Diem statuo satis laxam, quam
ante si solverint, dico me centesimas ducturum, si non solverint, ex pactione.
(Cic. Att. 6.1.16); Quam circa lacus lucique sunt plurimi . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.107); Quod
contra saepius illa / religio peperit scelerosa atque impia facta. (Lucr. 1.82–3);
Quae cum ita sint, non est committendum ut iis paream quos contra me senatus . . .
armavit. (Cic. Att. 10.8.8); (sc. Germani) . . . quos contra pertinax miles . . . perterre-
bat. (Amm. 16.12.36); Mentio si qua / de Capitolini furtis iniecta Petilli / te coram
fuerit, defendas ut tuus est mos. (Hor. S. 1.4.93–5); Decernerent legatos seque
coram mandata darent. (Tac. Ann. 1.19.3); Quin potius auferantur quibus coram
³⁰⁵ Bailey, in the Prolegomena to his commentary, p. 107, ascribes Lucretius’ noteworthy use of
prepositions to metrical considerations. K.-St.: I.586 adduce Greek influence. Bailey also notes that
Lucretius has all his local instances of propter postposed (ten, against six anteposed causal ones).
³⁰⁶ For variation in the works of Tacitus, see Goodyear (1968: 30).
³⁰⁷ It is probably not due to mere chance that I did not find minimal pairs for anteposed penes and
propter with a relative pronoun in Plautus.
 Word order
male vivere pudet . . . (Lact. Inst. 5.9.8); Si quid med erga hodie falsum dixeris . . . (Pl.
As. 20); Huius signi caput dicitur ex tribus stellis, quas infra duae clarae, quas
appellant Umeros. (Var. L. 7.50); Etiamne haec illi tibi / iusserunt ferri, quos inter
iudex datu’s? (Pl. Mer. 751–2); Hanc iuxta locum fecerunt sub terra . . . (Nep. Paus.
4.4); Quem iuxta Hiezechiel, per multa iam saecula dormiente David, appellat
servum suum atque pastorem dicens . . . (Hier. Is. 15.55.3); Ethnici, quos penes
nulla est veritatis plenitudo, quia nec doctor veritatis Deus, malum et bonum pro
arbitrio et libidine interpretantur. (Tert. Spect. 21.1); . . . nec iam te praeter in urbe /
formosa est oculis ulla puella meis. ([Tib.] 4.13.3–4); . . . quis fuerit quem propter
corpus suom stupri compleverit. (Pl. Am. 1016); . . . et maestum simul ante aras
adstare parentem / sensit et hunc propter ferrum celare ministros / aspectuque
suo lacrimas effundere civis, / muta metu terram genibus summissa petebat. (Lucr.
1.89–92); Nos secundum ferri nunc per urbem haec omnia . . . (Pl. Mil. 1349); . . . aut
quibus sine omnino confici non potest . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.40); . . . siquis eas subter
iacuit prostratus in herbis. (Lucr. 6.785); Exanimis pueris super exanimata paren-
tum / corpora nonnumquam posses retroque videre . . . (Lucr. 6.1256–7); . . . sed
adhibent modum quendam, quem ultra progredi non oporteat. (Cic. Tusc. 4.38).
With nouns: . . . cur tenebras ante et fremitus et murmura concit? (Lucr.
6.410); . . . iactavit fusa sed caput ante coma. (Tib. 2.5.66); Is locus est Cumas apud . . .
(Lucr. 6.747); . . . terque focum circa laneus orbis eat! (Prop. 4.6.6); Quam ne in
manibus tenui atque accepi hic ante aedis / cistellam, ubi ea sit nescio, nisi, ut
opinor, / loca haec mi circiter excidit. (Pl. Cist. 675–7); . . . atque hanc sine tem-
pora circum / inter victrices hederam tibi serpere laurus. (Verg. Ecl. 8.12–13);
Atque ego cum Graecos facerem, natus mare citra, / versiculos . . . (Hor. S.
1.10.31–2); Nihil intermissa navigatione hiberni maris Agrippina Corcyram
insulam advehitur, litora Calabriae contra sitam. (Tac. Ann. 3.1.1); Quo nihil
mirandum, si et in carcere inviscatas Anyti et Meliti palmas gestiens infringere
ipsa morte coram immortalitatem vindicat animae necessaria praesumptione ad
iniuriae frustrationem. (Tert. An. 1); Si quid amicum erga bene feci aut consului
fideliter, . . . (Pl. Trin. 1128); Ventitabatque illuc Nero, quo solutius urbem extra
lasciviret. (Tac. Ann. 13.47.2); . . . at legionibus cum damno labor, effodere
rivos . . . humum infra moliri. (Tac. Ann. 11.20.3); . . . qui lapides inter sistit per
strata viarum . . . (Lucr. 4.415); . . . quodque litus iuxta, non ventis acta, non saxis
impulsa navis summa sui parte veluti terrestre machinamentum concidis-
set . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.6.1); Translata dehinc castra hostem propter . . . (Tac. Ann.
4.48.1); Ilia subter / caecum vulnus habes . . . (Pers. 4.43–4); Sed tu quid facitasti
mandatis super? (Pl. Bac. 196); (cruorem) humum super spargens . . . (Tac. Ann.
16.35.1); Illis ira modum supra est . . . (Verg. G. 4.236); Si piguit portas ultra pro-
cedere . . . (Prop. 4.7.29)
The postposition of both monosyllabic and polysyllabic prepositions is usually

called ‘anastrophe’ or ‘inversio’. In the case of nouns the inversion sometimes seems
to mark the noun as salient, but often pragmatic motives for the ‘inversion’ are hard
to imagine. By contrast, the separation of head and modifier constituents by the
governing preposition has much more often a pragmatic explanation (see the next
section).
Word order in prepositional phrases 
Postponement of a preposition may have the effect of causing discontinuity of coordinated

constituents, a phenomenon discussed in general in § 23.101.³⁰⁸ Examples are (m) and (n).
In (m), the two conjoins are required by two-place inter. In (n), by contrast, the second con-
join is optional. This is also the case in instances with prepositions other than inter which can
be found in the Supplement. This form of discontinuity by inversion is mainly a poetical
phenomenon, with varying popularity from Lucretius onwards (see also § 23.101).
(m) (sc. Cicero) . . . quinque cohortes frumentatum in proximas segetes mittit,
quas inter et castra unus omnino collis intererat.
(‘He sent five cohorts to get corn in the nearest fields, between which and the camp
but a single hill interposed.’ Caes. Gal. 6.36.2)
(n) . . . saxa per et scopulos et depressas convallis / diffugiunt . . .
(‘. . . they flee over rocks and crags and lowly valleys.’ Verg. G. 3.276–7)
Italiam utroque mari duae classes, Misenum apud et Ravennam . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.5.1); . . . vel
manifestas res contra verasque repugnat. (Lucr. 3.353—NB: coordinated attributes);
Postridie terram attigit Cerauniorum saxa inter et alia loca periculosa. (Caes. Civ.
3.6.3—NB: text disputed); Inter spem curamque, timores inter et iras, / omnem crede
diem tibi diluxisse supremum. (Hor. Ep. 1.4.12–13); . . . Etrusci campi, qui Faesulas inter
Arretiumque iacent . . . (Liv. 22.3.3); Furit immissis Volcanus habenis / transtra per et
remos et pictas abiete puppis. (Verg. A. 5.662–3); . . . tametsi loca propter (propter loca cj.
Merlani) et pabulum disparile non usque quaque idem fit. (Var. R. 2.11.4); . . . tumulum
accepit viam Miseni propter et villam Caesaris dictatoris . . . (Tac. Ann. 14.9.1); Inde per
Arcturum mediaeque silentia Lunae / arva super populosque meat. (Stat. Theb. 2.58–9)
. The position of prepositions in prepositional

phrases with a modifier
In prepositional phrases containing a modifier theoretically six different orders can be
used, of which four actually occur regularly: preposition—modifier—noun, as in (a),
preposition—noun—modifier, as in (b), modifier—preposition—noun, as in (c), and
noun—preposition—modifier, as in (d). Moreover, the constituents of the prepositional
phrase may be separated by other constituents of the clause, thus causing discontinuity.
(a) De magnis divitiis si quid demas, plus fit an minus?
(‘Does subtracting something from a handsome fortune make it greater or less?’ Pl.
Trin. 349)
(b) Aratra in terram validam Romanica bona erunt . . .
(‘Roman ploughs will be good for heavy soil . . .’ Cato Agr. 135.2)
(c) Tantisper quidem / ut sis apud me lignea in custodia.
(‘Providing, of course, that you spend your time at my house in the stocks.’ Pl. Poen. 1364–5)
³⁰⁸ For a discussion of these instances of ‘conjunct hyperbaton’, see Devine and Stephens (2006: 586–7).
 Word order
(d) . . . patrem tuom meumque adeo, unice qui unus / civibus ex omnibus probus
perhibetur . . .
(‘. . . your father, yes, and mine, who’s held to be the one outstanding man of high
principles in this whole city . . .’ Pl. St. 12–13)
The orders exemplified by examples (a) and (b) are the most frequent ones and they
can be found in all sorts of texts in all periods.
Preposition—modifier—noun:
Modifiers showing agreement: Adhaesit homini ad infumum ventrem fames. (Pl.
St. 236); . . . adversum Vitellianas partes modeste disseruit . . . (Tac. Hist. 1.90.2);
Pompeius paucis post diebus in Thessaliam pervenit. Contionatusque apud cunctum
exercitum suis agit gratias . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.82.1); Et quidquid dicere de nostris con-
scriptoribus intenderitis . . . (Arn. Nat. 1.57.1)
Genitival and other modifiers: Nam hospes nullus tam in amici hospitium devorti
potest / quin . . . (Pl. Mil. 741–2); Erant antiquitus porticus . . ., in quarum tectum
egressi saxis tegulisque Vitellianos obruebant. (Tac. Hist. 3.71.1); . . . continuo malum
est et in exitiabilis rei opinione ponendum. (Arn. Nat. 1.10.1); . . . ne per linguae
errorem dicat: . . . (August. Conf. 1.29)
Preposition—noun—modifier:
Modifiers showing agreement: Quid hoc hic clamoris audio ante aedis meas? (Pl.
Trin. 1093); Tantum apud homines barbaros valuit esse aliquos repertos principes
belli inferendi . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.54.4); Audieram enim ego adhuc puer de vita
aeterna . . . (August. Conf. 1.17); Vel inter cuneos ferreos . . . (Pl. St. 619)
Genitival and other modifiers: . . . et magis magisque vivere apud fontem vitae et
in lumine eius videre lumen et perfici et inlustrari et beari. (August. Conf. 13.5); Erant
enim circum castra Pompei permulti editi atque asperi colles. (Caes. Civ. 3.43.1);
Erant antiquitus porticus in latere clivi dextrae subeuntibus . . . (Tac. Hist. 3.71.1); . . .
qui de caelo exoritur sub solio Iovis. (Pl. Trin. 940)
The word order patterns illustrated by (c) and (d) require a more detailed account.
Both, especially the latter, are much rarer than the first two, and are also much more
typical of poetry and of poeticizing prose.³⁰⁹ In what follows a distinction is made
between the large and essentially open class of descriptive adjectives and genitival
attributes on the one hand, and the much smaller classes, but each with relatively
frequent members, consisting of anaphoric, demonstrative, interrogative, and relative
determiners and pronouns, possessive adjectives, and quantifiers of all sorts on the
other. The patterns with inserted prepositions with the class of adjectives and genitival
attributes are mostly poetical and artificial, whereas some patterns with the smaller
classes are common in all periods of Latin.
The two other logically possible orders, with the preposition as the last member, are
extremely rare. A few instances are: Lucr. 4.597 . . . haec loca per . . ., an instance of a
³⁰⁹ See Penney (1999: 263–7) and Clackson (2004: 394–6).

Word order in prepositional phrases 
monosyllabic preposition, and Pl. Cist. 677 . . . loca haec circiter . . ., an instance of a
polysyllabic one. Postpositive cum is assumed in Studio · pariliqum / <n>ulla · in ·
avaritie / cessit · ab · officio. (CIL I2.1221.12–14 (Rome, c.80 bc)).³¹⁰
. The pattern modifier—preposition—noun
(i) In prepositional phrases with an interrogative or relative determiner or pronoun

the order modifier—preposition—noun is found from the earliest period onwards, in
all sorts of texts.³¹¹ This holds both for the determiners, as in (a) and (b), and for pro-
nouns in the genitive, as in (c) and (d). In some expressions, for example quam ob rem
‘for what reason’, ‘why’, this order became the norm, with very few exceptions.³¹² We
also, though rarely, find this pattern with the anaphoric determiner is, or with other
anaphorically used determiners. The preposing of the modifier in these cases can be
explained by the focal or topical character of the anteposed elements, and there is
nothing exceptional about it. Essentially, the word order encountered here cannot be
separated from the forms of discontinuity of the noun phrase discussed in § 23.87.
(a) Nimia nos socordia hodie tenuit. # Qua de re, opsecro?
(‘We’ve been terribly lazy today. # How so, pray?’ Pl. Poen. 317)
(b) (Pecunia . . . solvetur.) Quibus de bonis? Pupilli . . .
(‘The cost shall be paid in cash . . . From whose property? That of a boy under age . . .’
Cic. Ver. 1.146)
(c) Reos autem appello non eos modo qui arguuntur, sed omnis quorum de re
disceptatur.
(‘By “parties” I mean not only the persons impeached, but all whose interests are
being determined . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 2.183)
(d) Eius ex semine haec certo est Fames.
(‘That’s the breed this Hunger is certainly from.’ (Pl. St. 169)
Interrogative determiners: Quo de genere natu’st illic Philocrates? (Pl. Capt. 277);
Quoiates estis aut quo ex oppido? (Pl. Poen. 994); Quibus ex hostium spoliis, de qua
victoria, qua ex praeda aut manubiis haec abs te donatio constituta est? (Cic. Ver.
3.186); Quando aut quo in loco? (Pl. St. 244); Vineam quo in agro conseri oportet, sic
observato. (Cato Agr. 6.4); Ista facere, immo verius pati mortales quos ob usus quasve
ad voluptates alias nisi ut inter maculas lapidum iaceant . . . (Plin. Nat. 36.3)
Relative determiners: . . . quibusque · de · rebus · vos · purgavistis . . . (CIL I2.586.3
(Epistula Praetoris ad Tiburtes, Tivoli, c.159 bc)); ‘Qua de re agitur’ autem illud,
quod multis locis in iuris consultorum includitur formulis, id ubi esset videbat. (Cic.
³¹⁰ See Massaro (2007: 282–3).

³¹¹ The instances in Plautus are conveniently found in a section ‘collocation’ in the lemmata of the
prepositions in Lodge.
³¹² See TLL s.v. ob 24.81ff.
 Word order
Brut. 275); Qua ex opinione hominum illa insula eorum deorum sacra puta-
tur . . . (Cic. Ver. 1.48)
Anaphoric(ally used) determiners: Tum quae hic sunt scriptae litterae, hoc in equo
insunt milites / armati atque animati probe. (Pl. Bac. 941–2); . . . is, qui, qua re homi-
nes bestiis praestent, ea in re hominibus ipsis antecellat. (Cic. Inv. 1.5); . . . et is qui
scripsit hanc ob eam rem noluit / iterum referre, ut iterum posset vendere. (Ter. Hec.
6–7); Eandem ob causam opera ab optimatibus data est ut . . . (Suet. Jul. 19.2)
Genitival attributes: Cuius ad arbitrium quoque copia materiai / cogitur inter-
dum flecti per membra . . . (Lucr. 2.281–2); (sc. Sthenius) . . . cuius de meritis in
rem publicam . . . fuit aenea tabula fixa Thermis in curia . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.112); . . .
quorum de natura moribusque Caesar cum quaereret, sic reperiebat: . . . (Caes.
Gal. 2.15.3); Quorum de numero qui sese in bella sequantur / praestantis virtute
legit. (Verg. A. 8.547–8); . . . ii quorum de ultione quaeritur . . . (Quint. Inst. 7.4.33);
Initium et causa penes Aelium Seianum . . ., cuius de potentia supra memoravi.
(Tac. Ann. 4.1.1); Quippe eorum ex ingenio ingenium horum probant. (Pl. Trin.
1049); Magis quorum in manu sit quam ut incolumis sit quaeri. (Liv. 2.57.3);
Quid enim non ille videret, / cuius in arbitrio Graecia tota fuit? (Ov. Rem. Am.
467–8); Gratulatus sum urbi Romae, cuius ad salutem estis electi, gratulatus senatui,
cuius pro iudicio quod in vos habuit reddidistis pristinam dignitatem . . . (Hist. Aug.
Max. Balb. 17.2)
Rare instances of tmesis of quodcumque caused by a preposition or part of a prep-

ositional phrase are (e) and (f), respectively (see for tmesis of -cumque words in
general § 23.103).
(e) . . . et ego in hoc omni sermone nostro, quod ad cumque legis genus me dis-
putatio nostra deduxerit, tractabo . . .
(‘. . . and it is my intention, during the whole of our conversation, to take up,
as far as I can, in connexion with every branch of law to which our discus-
sion leads us . . .’ Cic. Leg. 2.46)
(f) . . . quid faciant et qua de causa cumque ferantur.
(‘. . . what they do and by whatever cause they are brought to pass . . .’ Lucr.
6.85—tr. Bailey (adapted))
Quantifiers like quantus, tantus, qualis, talis, the related adverbs quam and tam, as
well as nullus, multus, magnus, and the possessive adjectives behave in the same way
as the determiners dealt with above on account of their inherently salient meaning, as
in (g) and (h).
(g) Namque regnum suppetebat mi, ut scias, quanto e loco, / quantis opibus, qui-
bus de rebus lapsa fortuna accidat.
(‘For I used to have a kingdom, so that you may know from what standing, from what
power, from what riches fortune may lapse and fall down.’ Enn. scen. 355–6V=339–40J)
(h) Sed te uterque tuo pro iure, ego atque hic, oramus.
(‘But we both—he and I—in recognition of your rights, appeal to you.’ Pl. Cas. 371)
Word order in prepositional phrases 
Supplement:
. . . quom illum rescisces criminatorem meum / quanto in periclo et quanta in pernicie
siet. (Pl. Bac. 826–7); Magna cum cura ego illum curari volo. (Pl. Men. 895); . . . vestro
sine momine, venti . . . (Enn. Ann. 595V=Spur. 4S); Quantis cum aerumnis illum exan-
clavi diem (Enn. scen. 102V=103J); Ah, stultitia’st istaec, non pudor. Tam ob parvolam /
rem paene e patria! Turpe dictu. (Ter. Ad. 274–5); Nullane in re esse quoiquam homini
fidem! (Ter. An. 425); . . . iter mihi tutum multis minitantibus magno cum suo metu
praestiterunt. (Cic. Planc. 97); Aliquot post menses et homo occisus est et bona venisse
dicuntur. (Cic. S. Rosc. 128); . . . et aut turpe aut inutile demonstrandum tali de homine
supplicium sumere. (Cic. Inv. 2.107); Tales igitur inter viros amicitia tantas oportuni-
tates habet quantas vix queo dicere. (Cic. Amic. 22); . . . se ut (natura) custodiat quam
in optimo sui generis statu. (Cic. Fin. 5.26); . . . Themistoclesque aliquot ante annos cum
in epulis recusaret lyram, est habitus indoctior. (Cic. Tusc. 1.4);³¹³ Ecquis umquam
tam ex amplo statu, tam in bona causa, tantis facultatibus ingeni, consili, gratiae, tantis
praesidiis bonorum omnium concidit? (Cic. Att. 3.10.2); Hac habita oratione nullam
in partem ab exercitu Curionis fit significatio. (Caes. Civ. 2.28.4); Quae etsi magno
cum dolore omnes ferebant, tamen . . . (Caes. Gal. 7.15.2); Quas ego te terras et quanta
per aequora vectum / accipio! (Verg. A. 6.692–3); Volitant alii magno cum murmure
aut mugitu . . . (Plin. Nat. 11.98); Primusque Messala Corvinus eam potestatem et pau-
cos intra dies finem accepit . . . (Tac. Ann. 6.11.3); Nam tam diu dixi magno cum labore,
maiore cum fructu. (Plin. Ep. 4.16.3); . . . verum etiam maiore de parte furiarum com-
pressionibus imminuta. (Arn. Nat. 1.6)
(ii) Instances of descriptive adjectives and genitival attributes which are separated
from their noun by a preposition are rare in Early Latin. Ex. (d) above is one of the few
instances in Plautus. However, examples of adjectives in such a collocation abound in
Ennius, considering the size of what is extant of his work. Ex. (i) will suffice. Other
poets and poeticizing prose authors followed his lead,³¹⁴ but Cicero has instances as
well, as (k) shows. Genitival attributes (the non-pronominal ones) that precede the
preposition, as in ( j), are much less frequent than genitival attributes that follow the
preposition, certainly in prose.³¹⁵ The function of this pattern is essentially to mark
the saliency of the modifier. In poetry this pattern is often exploited even further by
locating the modifier in a prominent position of the verse as well.
(i) Vix aegro cum corde meo me somnus reliquit.
(‘Then did sleep scarcely leave me all sick at heart.’ Enn. Ann. 51V=50S)
( j) Sulpureas posuit spiramina Naris ad undas.
(‘He built blowholes by Nar’s sulphury waters.’ Enn. Ann. 260V=222S)
³¹³ For the order in prepositional phrases with ante, see Lundström (1961: 92–9), and for post ibid.:
113–17.
³¹⁴ See Penney (1999) and Clackson (2004) on the question of how this predilection of poets should be
assessed: archaism or innovation?
³¹⁵ Compare Gettert’s (1999) surveys 3.2.1.4 and 3.2.2.1.3, respectively, in his ‘Anhang’ (Cicero, Caesar,
Sallust, and Tacitus).
 Word order
(k) . . . rationem . . . habere debetis . . . Siciliae, iudices, plurimis iustissimisque de

causis . . .
(‘. . . you ought to have . . . consideration . . . due to the interests of Sicily, gentlemen, for
many strong reasons . . .’ Cic. Ver. 2.2)
Supplement:
Adjectives: Redd’ cantionem veteri pro vi<no> novam. (Pl. St. 769); . . . ipsa diligenter
natura eius affectionis quam lenissime quietissima ab parte explicanda . . . (Cic. Inv.
2.25); Omnibus deinceps diebus Caesar exercitum in aciem aequum in locum
produxit . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.56.1); . . . et qui reiciat gelidis a frigoris umbris / aestiferas
usque in partis et fervida signa. (Lucr. 5.641–2); . . . certeis de causeis . . . (CIL
I2.593.61 (Lex Iulia Munic., Pisticci, 80–43 bc)); Atque haec ipse suo tristi cum corde
volutat . . . (Verg. A. 6.185); Duodecimum apud lapidem Sacrovir copiaeque patentibus
locis apparuere. (Tac. Ann. 3.45.2); Illuc adverso de proelio adlatum. (Tac. Hist. 2.52.1)
Genitival attributes: Is oratorum in numero non fuit, iuris civilis intellegentia atque
omni prudentiae genere praestitit. (Cic. Brut. 102); Quis enim est, qui credat Apollinis
ex oraculo Pyrrho esse responsum. (Cic. Div. 2.116); Quid Prodicus Cius, qui ea quae
prodessent hominum vitae deorum in numero habita esse dixit . . . (Cic. N.D.
1.118); . . . atque ille non propinquum neque Arsacis de gente, sed alienigenam et
Romanum increpans . . . (Tac. Ann. 12.14.3); Quamquam ista quae dicitis bella reli-
gionis nostrae ob invidiam commoveri non sit difficile comprobare post auditum
Christum in mundo non tantum non aucta, verum etiam maiore de parte furiarum
compressionibus imminuta. (Arn. Nat. 1.6)
. The pattern noun—preposition—modifier
The pattern noun—preposition—modifier, exemplified by (d) in § 23.92, is much less

common and almost restricted to poetry.³¹⁶ Most of the determiners mentioned in
§ 23.93 under (i) are not found in this pattern—they naturally precede on account of
their cohesive function. Descriptive adjectives and genitival attributes are highly
poetic and found from Ennius and Lucretius onwards. Examples are (a)–(d). This pat-
tern is rare in ecclesiastical authors (Arnobius is a remarkable exception), where it is
even more artificial.
(a) Nec med umquam deseruisse te nec factis nec fide, / rebus in dubiis, egenis.
(‘And that you never deserted me in word or deed, in dangers and in need.’ Pl. Capt.
405–6)
(b) . . . metuque in magno civitatem fuisse ne . . .
(‘. . . and that city was in great panic lest . . .’ Liv. 9.37.11)
(c) Flumen item sitiens aut fontem propter amoenum / assidet . . .
(‘Again one athirst often sits beside a stream or a pleasant spring . . .’ Lucr. 4.1024–5)
³¹⁶ Rhet. Her. 4.44 gives virtute pro vestra as an instance of ‘perversio’, one of the two types of ‘trans-
gressio’, ‘quae verborum perturbat ordinem’. For a discussion and instances of this pattern, see Bendz (1948).
Word order in prepositional phrases 
(d) Denique conubia ad Veneris partusque ferarum / esse animas praesto

deridiculum esse videtur . . .
(‘Finally to suppose that spirits stand ready for the amours and the parturition of wild
beasts is plainly too ridiculous . . .’ Lucr. 3.776–7)
Supplement:
Determiners: . . . tuorum / saxa per illa, pater, memini, venerande, laborum. (V. Fl.
8.181–2); Non est igitur necessarium parte in hac causae diutius inmorari. (Arnob.
Nat. 3.1.2—NB: so six times)
Quantifying and other adjectives: Perdidici istaec esse vera damno cum magno meo.
(Pl. As. 187); Magna · sapientia / multasque · virtutes · Aetate · quom · parva
/ posidet · hoc · saxsum (CIL I2.11.2–3 (Scip. Elog., Rome, c.160 bc?)); . . . res obno-
xiosae nocte in obscura latent. (Enn. scen. 303V=257J); Etenim cum sunt umore sine
ullo, / flammeus <est> plerumque colos et splendidus ollis. (Lucr. 6.207–8); Iam maris
immensi prolem et genus omne natantum / litore in extremo ceu naufraga corpora
fluctus / proluit. (Verg. G. 3.541–3); At parte in alia (parte alia Weissenborn) quingen-
tis et per stagnum facilis transitus et in murum adscensus inde fuit. (Liv. 26.46.2);
Idem ibi somnus eademque neglegentia erat quae Chalcidem dies ante paucos pro-
diderat. (Liv. 31.24.5); Nec puduit has vestes usurpare etiam viros levitatem propter
aestivam. (Plin. Nat. 11.78); Qualis leo rupe sub alta . . . (Stat. Theb. 11.741); . . . quam-
quam et Aristoteles ab Isocrate parte in una dissenserit . . . (Quint. Inst. 4.2.32); . . . uni-
versus iamdudum orbis mitiora in opera conversis usibus ferri tranquillitate in
mollissima degeret . . . (Arn. Nat. 1.6.3); . . . iudice sub tanto fandi tamen accipiet—ius.
(Auson. Techn. 4.4)
Genitival attributes: . . . oraclum Iovis inter aestuosi / et Batti veteris sacrum sepul-
crum . . . (Catul. 7.5–6—NB: the modifier is split up by the preposition that governs
the whole noun phrase); . . . Dardana qui Paridis derexti tela manusque / corpus in
Aeacidae . . . (Verg. A. 6.57–8); Unde datum sentis lupus hic Tiberinus an alto / captus
hiet, pontisne inter iactatus an amnis / ostia sub Tusci? (Hor. S. 2.2.31–3); . . . vergit
furiale venenum / pectus in amborum praecordiaque intima movit. (Ov. Met. 4.506–7);
Intrant pastorum stabula caprarumque uberibus advolant suctum propter lactis (Plin.
Nat. 10.115); Nec Augustus arcuerat Taurum, Philippum, Balbum hostiles exuvias
aut exundantes opes ornatum ad urbis et posterum gloriam conferre. (Tac. Ann.
3.72.1); . . . vim silicis fragmentis <ignis> more subiectam venisque in eius abstrusam?
(Arn. Nat. 7.50.4)
. The position of prepositions in restrictive appositive phrases
The normal order of a preposition and a restrictive appositive phrase is with the prep-
osition preceding, as in (a). An Early Latin exception with the preposition in the mid-
dle is (b). For further examples, especially from poetry, see the Supplement. For the
use of prepositions in non-restrictive appositive phrases with toponyms, see § 11.82.
(a) Interea cognovi . . . magnas Parthorum copias <et> Arabum ad oppidum
Antiocheam accessisse . . .
 Word order
(‘Meanwhile, I learned . . . that a large Parthian and Arab force had approached the
town of Antioch . . .’ Cic. Fam. 15.4.7)
(b) . . . ut civitas nomen mihi commutet meque ut praedicet / lenone ex Ballione
regem Iasonem.
(‘. . . so that the city changes my name and calls me King Jason instead of pimp Ballio.’
Pl. Ps. 192–3)
Supplement:
Celtiberia in terra, / quod quisque minxit, hoc sibi solet mane / dentem atque russam
defricare gingivam . . . (Catul. 39.17–19); . . . usque ad Hyperboreos et mare ad
Oceanum? (Catul. 115.6); . . . ut duros mille labores / rege sub Eurystheo fatis Iunonis
iniquae pertulerit. (Verg. A. 8.291–3); . . . iudice sub Tmolo certamen venit ad inpar.
(Ov. Met. 11.156); Nunc Iove sub domino caedes et vulnera semper . . . (Tib. 1.3.49);
Andro in insula (vv. ll.) templo Liberi patris fontem Nonis Ianuariis semper vini
saporem fu<nd>ere Mucianus ter consul credit. (Plin. Nat. 2.231); . . . pectines—
maximi et in his nigerrimi aestate laudatissimi, hi autem Mytilenis, Tyndaride,
Salonis, Altini, C<h>ia in insula, Alexandriae in Aegypto—. . . (Plin. Nat. 32.150);
Et Segestani aedem Veneris montem apud Erycum, vetustate dilapsam, restaurari
postulavere . . . (Tac. Ann. 4.43.4)
. Discontinuous prepositional phrases
Discontinuity in prepositional phrases is found in various forms. Apart from cases in

which the discontinuity is caused by a clitic (for which see § 23.35) this phenomenon
must be considered highly literary, with a few examples in Early Latin comedy and
in Ennius. It is relatively uncommon in Classical prose. More instances can be found
in poetry from Lucretius onwards. This development is, just like other forms of dis-
continuity, a purely stylistic one, showing an increasingly ingenious exploitation of
the possibilities of the Latin language in verse.³¹⁷
The position of the preposition varies. It is placed either before or after the inserted
material. In the examples presented below there are both instances in which the prep-
osition governs only one word and—more frequent—instances which are complex,
with at least one modifier. This gives several possibilities:
(i) the preposition is separated by one or more elements that do not belong to
the prepositional phrase: in (a) the preposition penes follows me with two
words in between; the constituent governed by the preposition may be sim-
ple, as in (a), or complex, but with the constituents immediately juxtaposed;
(ii) the preposition is separated together with part of the constituent it governs
from the remaining part: in (b) the preposition in precedes together with the
modifier quo the noun loco, with almost the entire clause in between; in
(c) the preposition in follows Hellesponto together with the modifier alto;
³¹⁷ See Wilkinson (1963: 213–20) on this development, which is mainly a Roman phenomenon.
Word order in prepositional phrases 
(iii) sometimes the prepositional phrase is split up into more components, as in (d);
(iv) an even more complicated instance arises if a complex modifier is distributed
on both sides of the noun governed by the preposition, as in (e.i), taken from
Arnobius, or if the preposition is placed in the middle of a complex modifier
of the phrase it governs, as in (e.ii). Here we are approaching or possibly even
transgressing the boundaries of the rules of Latin syntax.
(a) . . . nec tui me quicquam invenisti penes.
(‘. . . and you didn’t find anything belonging to you on me.’ Pl. Aul. 654)
(b) . . . commonstrabo quo in quemque hominem facile inveniatis loco, /…
(‘I’ll show in which place you can easily find which sort of person.’ Pl. Cur. 467)
(c) Isque Hellesponto pontem contendit in alto.
(‘And he stretched a bridge over deep Hellespont.’ Enn. Ann. 378V=369S)
(d) . . . in tamen humano contigit esse loco.
(‘. . . I have yet had the good fortune to be in a place where men dwell.’ Ov. Pont.
1.3.48)
(e) i. Atque utinam daretur in unius speciem contionis toto orbe contracto ora-
tione hac uti
ii. et humani in generis audientia conlocari.
(‘Would that it might be granted to me here to address the whole world gathered
together as in one assembly and that I might be placed within hearing of the whole
human race.’ Arn. Nat. 1.29)
Supplement:
Simple or compact head constituents: Sine me (per te, ere, opsecro / deos immor-
tales) ire huc intro ad filium. (Pl. Bac. 905–6); Maturo propior desine funeri / inter
ludere virgines (Hor. Carm. 3.15.4–5); Contra quis ferat arma deos? (Tib. 1.6.30)
Uxor virum si clam domo egressa est foras . . . (Pl. Mer. 821); . . . [et] thensaurum
tuom / me esse penes . . . (Pl. Trin. 1145–6); . . . et quasi iam leti portas cunctarier ante.
(Lucr. 3.67); Nam saepe Gigantum / ora volare videntur et umbram ducere late, / inter-
dum magni montes avolsaque saxa / montibus anteire et solem succedere praeter . . .
(Lucr. 4.136–9); . . . solus qui Paridem solitus contendere contra . . . (Verg. A. 5.370);
Eum vasti circum gens umida ponti / exsultans rorem late dispersit amarum. (Verg. G.
4.430–1); . . . miles ne vallum litiget extra / et procul a signis. (Juv. 16.16–17)
Discontinuous head constituents: Subulo quondam marinas propter astabat plagas.
(Enn. Sat. 65V=14FRL); Age, ut rem esse in nostram putas. (Pl. Per. 609); Quam · in ·
quisque / decuriam · ita · viator · lectus · erit ·, is · in · ea . . . (CIL I2.587.I.33–4
etc. (Lex Cornel., Rome, 81 bc)); . . . cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem
nominis infunderentur genus. (Cic. Brut. 62); . . . ut nullius oratoris aeque in potestate
fuerit. (Cic. Brut. 274); Deinde, si qua ego in re fratri tuo rei publicae causa restiterim,
ut mihi ignoscas . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.2.6); Omnia quae naturali ratione geruntur, / et qui-
bus e fiant causis apparet origo. (Lucr. 6.760–1); . . . terque novas circum felix eat hos-
tia fruges, . . . (Verg. G. 1.345); Quo ab adultero absolvitur an quo damnatur a viro?
(Sen. Con. 2.7.9)
 Word order
. . . vel rapidae flammis urar patienter in Aetnae . . . (Ov. Tr. 5.2b.31); . . . inbecillitatis
auxilia animalibus mutuarentur a mutis . . . (Arn. Nat. 2.40.1)
Multiple discontinuity: Quin etiam finis dum vitae vertitur intra . . . (Lucr. 3.592); . . .
cum saevum cupiens contra contendere monstrum / aut mortem appeteret Theseus . . .
(Catul. 64.101–2); Per tibi ego hunc iuro fortem castumque cruorem, / perque tuos
manes . . . (Ov. Fast. 2.841–2); . . . inque sinu dominae carisque sodalibus inque / securus
patria consenuisse mea. (Ov. Tr. 4.8.11–12)
23.97 The relative order of constituents in phrases

with the auxiliary sum ‘to be’ and other auxiliaries
As an auxiliary (see § 4.93), the verb sum is used to form complex forms with perfect
participle forms, either forms of the type factus est ‘he was made’, which is the passive
counterpart of the synthetic active perfect form fecit ‘he/she/it made’, or forms of
deponent verbs of the type usus est ‘he used’, for which no active counterpart exists.
The verb sum is also used to form other complex verbal expressions that do not belong
to the paradigm proper, such as laudaturus est ‘he is going to praise’ and laudandus est
‘he must be praised’; these will be left out of account in the discussion below of the
relative order of the component parts of the complex perfect verb forms (§ 23.98).
Another auxiliary that plays a role in the verbal paradigm is the infinitive iri, used to
form future passive infinitives such as laudatum iri ‘going to be praised’ (see § 7.72);
the relative order of iri and its supine form in -um is discussed in § 23.99. In Late Latin
the verb habeo is sometimes used in combination with a perfect passive participle as
an alternative for the synthetic active form (see § 7.37). However, there are not suffi-
cient attestations to discuss the relative order of the components.
The modal, habitual, and phasal auxiliaries (see § 4.98) are regularly combined with
present infinitives, as in (a), with the modal auxiliary potest. Note in (b) the perfect
passive form of the phasal verb incipio with the auxiliary est. The relative order of
these auxiliaries and their infinitives is discussed in § 23.100.
(a) . . . sues, / quarum odore praeterire nemo pistrinum potest.
(‘ . . . pigs, because of whose stench no one can go past the mill.’ Pl. Capt. 807–8)
(b) . . . ante petitam esse pecuniam quam esset coepta deberi . . .
(‘. . . that money had been claimed before it had become payable . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 1.168)
. The relative order in complex verb forms with

the auxiliary sum ‘to be’
This section deals with the relative order of complex forms with the auxiliary sum. In
Classical prose, the continuous order of the component parts is definitely more
Relative order in phrases with auxiliaries 
frequent than the discontinuous, and the sequence with the auxiliary postposed more
frequent than the inverse order, although there is considerable variation from author
to author and also between different works by the same author, for example in Caesar’s
work. When these forms are placed in first position of the sentence the particles autem
and enim relatively often follow the combination instead of causing discontinuity.³¹⁸
Table 23.13 gives some statistics from a Classical prose corpus, which shows a minor
difference between the passive factus est and deponent usus est types.³¹⁹ In addition to
the four possibilities given in Table 23.13 there is a fifth, namely ellipsis of the sum
form, which is left out of account.³²⁰
Table . The relative order of compound verb forms with the auxiliary sum
Sequence Total Percentage Sequence Total Percentage
factus est 150 56 usus est 70 70
factus . . . est 26 10 usus . . . est 5 5
est factus 55 21 est usus 19 19
est . . . factus 34 13 est . . . usus 6 6
Total 265 100 100 100
The various ordering possibilities are mainly determined by the pragmatic con-
stellation of the context. The continuous sequence factus est is used when the action
is the focus of the clause. Often it is also the final constituent of the clause. Examples
are (a)–(c).
(a) Te multum amamus quod ea abs te diligenter parvoque curata sunt.
(‘I am most grateful to you, because this was administered by you with much care and
for little money.’ Cic. Att. 1.3.2)
(b) Provincias praetores nondum sortiti sunt.
(‘The Praetors have not yet drawn lots for their provinces.’ Cic. Att. 1.13.5)
(c) Cum civitas ob eam rem incitata armis ius suum exsequi conaretur multi-
tudinemque hominum ex agris magistratus cogerent, Orgetorix mortuus est.
(‘The state, being incensed at this, essayed to secure its due rights by force of arms,
and the magistrates were bringing together a number of men from the country parts,
when Orgetorix died.’ Caes. Gal. 1.4.4)
³¹⁸ See Spevak (2012b: 342–8).

³¹⁹ The data are taken from Spevak (2010a: 151, 155). The corpus consists of Cic. Off., Dom., Phil. 1–4,
Caes. Civ., Sal. Jug. The most detailed accounts are Vogel (1938) on Caesar and Sallust, Adams (1994b:
34–43), Hoff (1996) with data from Caesar, Devine and Stephens (2006: 179–98) with data from Caesar,
and Spevak (2010a: 149–56). Bourova (paper ICLL, Brussels 2005) says that in Petronius 81 per cent of the
sum forms under consideration follow, 95 per cent in the Peregrinatio. For Augustine, who follows the
Ciceronian practice, see Muldowney (1937: 129–35); see also Stengaard (1985: 217) and Herman (1996a:
67), and, for the jurists (scriptum est), Meyer-Hermann (2019: 519–20).
³²⁰ For the factus est type Spevak (2010a: 151) has 265 instances with, 103 without the auxiliary. Ellipsis
is common in Sallust.
 Word order
Supplement:
Post autem neque sacrificiis sollemnibus factis neque votis nuncupatis non profectus
est, sed profugit paludatus. (Cic. Phil. 5.24—non has constituent scope, see § 8.3 and
§ 8.7); Ita comitia in a. d. VI Kal. Sext. dilata sunt. (Cic. Att. 1.16.13); . . . multaque a
me de ordinum dignitate et concordia dicta sunt Kal. Dec. et postridie. (Cic. Att.
1.17.9); Valerius absolutus est Hortensio defendente. (Cic. Att. 2.3.1); Eadem enim
elata sunt primum a pluribus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.192); Quibus submotis omnes sagit-
tarii funditoresque destituti inermes sine praesidio interfecti sunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.93.7);
Statim allatae sunt amphorae vitreae diligenter gypsatae . . . (Petr. 34.6); Hora ergo
quarta pervenimus in summitatem illam montis Dei Sancti Syna, ubi data est
lex . . . (Pereg. 3.2); Nonne tibi prolocutus sum adversum me delicta mea, Deus
meus . . .? (August. Conf. 1.6); Quippe ex voluntate perversa facta est libido . . . (August.
Conf. 8.10)
The reverse order est factus applies if another constituent of the clause is more salient.
In that case the phrase may be continuous or discontinuous, depending on the com-
plexity of the clause. Est follows the salient constituent. Examples are (d) and (e). The
auxiliary can be anteposed in strong assertions (see § 23.45), as in (f). The order can
also be used to achieve a preferred clausula or for other aesthetic considerations (see
Augustine in the Supplement).
(d) Sed nunc magis in suo est occupatus, in quo ego ei non desum.
(‘But at present he is more concerned with one of his own, in which I am doing what
I can for him.’ Cic. Att. 1.16.17)
(e) Castra opportunis locis erant posita itemque castella XXIII facta . . .
(‘Camps had been pitched at convenient spots, and twenty-three forts had been con-
structed as well . . .’ Caes. Gal. 7.69.7)
(f) Qua re et illa quae violata expiabuntur et haec nostra, quae sunt sanctissime
conservata, suam religionem obtinebunt.
(‘Therefore trespasses shall be made good while our friendship, which has been
preserved inviolate, shall remain as sacred as ever.’ Cic. Att. 1.17.7)
Supplement:
Continuous: Petitorum haec est informata adhuc cogitatio. (Cic. Att. 1.1.2); Caesar
cum venisset mortuo plausu, Curio filius est insecutus. (Cic. Att. 2.19.3); Pollicem, si
adhuc non est profectus, quam primum fac extrudas. (Cic. Fam. 14.6—non goes with
adhuc); . . . parsque ibi, cum angusto exitu portarum se ipsi premerent, a militibus,
pars iam egressa portis ab equitibus est interfecta. (Caes. Gal. 7.28.3); Laudationem
ferculum est insecutum plane non pro expectatione magnum. (Petr. 35.1); . . . credunt
Arionem . . . cum esset deiēctŭs ē nāvī, exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras ēssĕ
pērvēctŭm. (August. Civ. 1.14—NB: clausula)³²¹
Discontinuous: . . . eos dies qui quasi deorum immortalium festi atque sollemnes
apud omnis sunt adventu meo redituque celebrati? (Cic. Pis. 51); Cenato mihi et iam
dormitanti prid. Kal. Mai. epistula est illa reddita in qua de agro Campano scribis.
³²¹ For rhythmic considerations in Augustine, see Muldowney (1937: 134).

Relative order in phrases with auxiliaries 
(Cic. Att. 2.16.1); Recentissima tua est epistula Kalendis data, in qua optas congres-
sum pacemque non desperas. Sed ego . . . (Cic. Att. 8.15.3); Signaque sunt militaria VI
relata. (Caes. Civ. 3.53.2); Complures erant in castris ex legionibus aegri relicti.
(Caes. Gal. 6.36.1)
Assertive: Es enim ita ingressus ut quae ipse reperias tribuere aliis malis quam . . . (Cic.
Rep. 2.22); Sed est miro quodam modo adfectus. (Cic. Att. 1.5.5); Est enim illud sena-
tus consultum summa pedariorum voluntate, nullius nostrum auctoritate factum.
(Cic. Att. 1.19.9); Est enim per nostrum ministerium non litteris illis quas variarum
servi libidinum liberales vocant, sed Dominico pane nutritus . . . (August. Ep. 101.1)
The discontinuous order factus . . . est may serve to contrast the participial part with
another constituent, as in (g), where erepta is in contrast with donata (there is also
another contrast between vita and mors, both focus constituents). In (h), however, no
contrast is implied: tabula is the focus of the main clause, with a following heavy rela-
tive clause, separated from its head by est. The negator non regularly splits the phrase,
when functioning as a clause negator, as in (i).³²²
(g) Sed ii tamen rem publicam casus secuti sunt ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a
dis immortalibus vita, sed donata mors esse videatur.
(‘But the national disasters that followed have been such as to make me feel that the
powers above did not rob Lucius Crassus of life but vouchsafed to him the gift of
death.’ Cic. de Orat. 3.8)
(h) At quam caeca avaritia est! Nuper fixa tabula est qua civitates locupletissimae
Cretensium vectigalibus liberantur . . .
(‘But how blind avarice is! An official notice was lately posted exempting the richest
communities in Crete from taxation . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.97)
(i) . . . quia sumptum quaestor non dedit, profectus non est.
(‘. . . because the Treasurer did not supply funds he did not set out.’ Cic. Inv. 2.124)
Supplement:
. . . ut abs te non emissus ex urbe, sed immissus in urbem esse videatur? (Cic. Catil.
1.27); Acta res est. (Cic. Att. 1.14.5); Adflicta res publica est empto constupratoque
iudicio. (Cic. Att. 1.18.3); Res delata ad senatum est. (Cic. Att. 2.24.2); . . . etsi prope
exacta iam aestas erat, tamen . . . (Caes. Gal. 3.28.1); Quae minime visa pars firma est
huc concurritur. (Caes. Gal. 7.84.3); Admissus ergo Caesarem est cum suo
munere . . . (Petr. 51.2 (Trimalchio speaking)); In eo ergo vico, qui est in media plani-
tie positus in medio loco, est monticulus non satis grandis . . . (Pereg. 13.3)³²³
. The position of the auxiliary iri
With a few exceptions in Terence, the regular position of the auxiliary iri is immedi-
ately after the supine form in -um. Examples are (a) and (b). See also § 7.72.
³²² See Devine and Stephens (2006: 183–4).

³²³ This is one of the two discontinuous instances in this text. See Väänänen (1987: 113).
 Word order
(a) Brutum, ut scribis, visum iri a me puto.

(‘As you write, I think I shall see Brutus.’ Cic. Att. 15.25.1)
(b) Et illam sine tua opera in cubiculum iri deductum domum?
(‘And she would be conducted to your home as your bride without any effort on your
part?’ Ter. Ad. 694)
. The relative order of infinitives

and the verbs that govern them
The relevant studies on the order of auxiliary and other verbs and the infinitives they
govern deal both with auxiliaries proper, such as the modal auxiliary possum ‘I can’
and the phasal auxiliary incipio/coepi ‘I begin’/‘I began’ (see § 4.98), and with other
verbs that govern a prolative infinitive (see §§ 15.122, 123, 125, 126). In the remainder
of this section ‘auxiliary’ will be used to cover both groups of verbs.
There is much quantitive information available about the relative order of auxil-
iary and other verbs and the infinitives they govern. Unfortunately, not much
research has been done on the factors that determine the orders recorded. In
Plautus, anteposition of the infinitive is as frequent as postposition. In Cato,
anteposition predominates. In Cicero, the order infinitive + auxiliary is roughly
twice as frequent as the reverse. In Caesar the order infinitive + auxiliary is even
more dominant. In non-literary Latin, as exemplified by Claudius Terentianus, the
Vindolanda Tablets, and the freedmen’s talk in Petronius, the order auxiliary +
infinitive predominates by far. This is also the case in Vitruvius. In Late Latin texts,
auxiliary + infinitive is the dominant order. In the Peregrinatio, for example, this is
the case in two-thirds of instances, and in the speeches it is even more predominant.
In the works of Augustine, however, anteposition and postposition of the auxiliary
are almost equal.³²⁴ Most often the auxiliary and infinitive are contiguous, but
discontinuity is not uncommon, in both orders. The four possibilities are shown in
(a)–(d).
(a) Atque utinam ut culpam, sic etiam suspicionem vitare potuisses!
(‘It is a pity you could not avoid the suspicion, as you avoided the guilt.’ Cic. Phil. 1.33)
(b) Quin etiam corpus libenter optulerim, si repraesentari morte mea libertas
civitatis potest . . .
(‘Yes, and I should be happy to offer my body if my death can bring into reality the
freedom of our state . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.119)
(c) Sunt quaedam quae honeste non possum dicere.
(‘There are some things of which I cannot decently speak.’ Cic. Phil. 2.47)
³²⁴ Statistical data can be found in Orinsky on Gaius (1923: 91–5), Haida on the Peregrinatio (1928:
39–41), Muldowney on Augustine (1937: 137), Adams (1991; 2013: 825–32; 2016: 331), and Moretti (2017:
488; 492–3). See also Stengaard (1985) and Meyer-Hermann (2019: 509–10).
Relative order in phrases with auxiliaries 
(d) Nec vero te umquam neque vigilantem neque in somnis credo posse mente
consistere.
(‘Nor do I believe that you, either waking or sleeping, can ever act with quiet sense.’
Cic. Phil. 2.68)
As for the factors involved in the choice of the four orders shown in these examples I
offer some suggestions based on a limited study of possum in Cicero (see the note
below): in (a), the most common order in Cicero, the infinitive and auxiliary function
as one information unit, simply indicating what happens or is being done. In (b),
discontinuous in the same order, the infinitive is emphatic. The order auxiliary +
infinitive is used when an emphatic constituent precedes, which seems to attract the
auxiliary, as honeste in (c). Discontinuity in this order is used when the auxiliary is
emphatic, as in (d). Another instance of anteposition of the auxiliary is (e), an assertive
statement with poteras in sentence-initial position (see § 23.45). Apart from such
pragmatic factors, artistic considerations may play a role. A good example of chiastic
arrangement is (f). Further research is required.
(e) Poteras autem eo tempore auguratum petere, cum in Italia Curio non esset . . .
(‘Besides, could you stand for the augurate at that time seeing that Curio was out of
Italy . . .’ Cic. Phil. 2.4)
(f) Sed si te laus adlicere ad recte faciendum non potest, ne metus quidem a
foedissimis factis potest avocare?
(‘But if praise cannot entice you into doing right, cannot even fear deter you from the
foulest offences?’ Cic. Phil. 2.115)
In Cic. Phil. 1 and 2 the distribution of the orders in the 96 instances of the modal
auxiliary possum is: Inf. Aux. 58 (13), Inf. . . . Aux. 7 (3), Aux. Inf. 17 (2), Aux. . . . Inf.
14 (1). This includes all forms of possum in all sentence or clause types. The figures
between brackets indicate the number of instances in which the auxiliary is preceded
by non. The frequency of use of one of the components as the last word of the sen-
tence is 26, 3, 4, and 7, respectively.
In Caesar, forms of possum massively follow the infinitive, with the exception of the
infinitive form posse: c.15 per cent are Aux. Inf. An example is (g). Note that this is in
indirect speech.³²⁵
(g) Paratos esse sese, posse et audere ea transire flumen qua traductus esset
equitatus.
(‘That they were ready, able, and willing to cross the river where the cavalry
had crossed.’ Caes. Civ. 1.64.2)
Although there is a clear diachronic trend towards the order auxiliary + infinitive,
which is the standard order in the Romance languages, it is interesting to note that the
³²⁵ See also Adams (2013: 830, n. 4). In the Pereg. negated possum follows the infinitive, whereas in
affirmative sentences it normally precedes (Haida 1928: 40). For the role of negation, see also
Nocentini (1987: 152–3).
 Word order
four different orderings illustrated by (a)–(d) continued to be used into Late Latin, as
can be seen for the verb possum in the Supplement.
Supplement:
Inf. Aux.: Et uti eo introeas et circumspicias, uti inde exire possis. (Cato Agr. 1.2);
Neque tamen ulli civitati Germanorum persuaderi potuit ut Rhenum trans-
iret . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.55.2); . . . quas habeant omnes colores in se potestates, ut mihi
succurrere potuit, in hoc libro perscripsi. (Vitr. 7.14.3); Plane etiam hoc servus
tuus indicare potest. (Petr. 41.3 (a freedman speaking)); Nam michi credat
volo affectio vestra, quantum tamen pervidere potui, filios Israhel sic ambu-
lasse . . . (Pereg. 7.3)
Inf. . . . Aux.: His persuaderi ut diutius morarentur neque suis auxilium ferrent
non poterat. (Caes. Gal. 2.10.5); Imperium se a Caesare per proditionem nullum
desiderare quod habere victoria posset, quae iam sit sibi atque omnibus Gallis
explorata. (Caes. Gal. 7.20.7); . . . in umido voragine facta consedit nec progredi
nec egredi postea potuit. (Vitr. 10.16.7); Hoc solum vetare ne Iovis potest. (Petr.
47.4 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . monachos valde sanctos, qui tamen pro etate aut
inbecillitate occurrere in monte Dei ad oblationem faciendam non poterant.
(Pereg. 5.10)
Aux. Inf.: Si ligna et virgas non poteris vendere neque lapidem habebis unde calcem
coquas . . . (Cato Agr. 38.4); (sc. se) . . . unum consilium totius Galliae effecturum,
cuius consensui ne orbis quidem terrarum possit obsistere. (Caes. Gal. 7.29.6—NB:
in a speech); Eaeque catenae ex ea materia comparentur cui nec caries nec vetustas
nec umor possit nocere . . . (Vitr. 7.3.1); Quia tu, qui potes loquere, non loquis. (Petr.
46.1 (Echion speaking)); Hanc ergo consuetudinem iubente Deo semper tenuimus,
ubicumque ad loca desiderata potuimus pervenire. (Pereg. 10.7)
Aux. . . . Inf.: Ubi erit subactus, areas facito, ut possis dextra sinistraque sarire, run-
care, ne calcetur. (Cato Agr. 161.1); Ita cum explicaretur, volvebat rotas, sed non
poterat ad lineam via recta ducere, sed exibat in unam partem. (Vitr. 10.2.14);
Poterat bovem iratum tollere. (Petr. 63.5 (Trimalchio speaking)); . . . omnis terra
Iordanis, in quantum tamen poterat oculis conspici. (Pereg. 12.5)
For the phasal auxiliary coepi ‘I began’, all four orderings are attested in Cicero, Inf.
Aux. being the most frequent. Examples of the four ordering possibilities are (h)–(k).
Note in (k) the parallelism of the three indirect questions with the finite verbs in
clause-initial position (see § 15.52).³²⁶
(h) Hospes Ianitor . . . hominem summa vi retinere coepit.
(‘His host Ianitor . . . began most urgently to dissuade him from going.’ Cic. Ver. 1.64)
(i) (sc. Apronius) . . . tum maxime cum accubante praetextato praetoris filio sal-
tare in convivio nudus coeperat.
(‘. . . especially then, when he began to dance naked at the feast while the young son of
the praetor was sitting by.’ Cic. Ver. 3.23)
³²⁶ For statistics concerning the position of the infinitive with coepi, see Adams (2013: 826). For the
position of the infinitive with habeo, see § 7.27.
Discontinuity of coordinated constituents 
( j) (sc. Laetilius) Repente coepit dicere se omnia Verris causa velle.

(‘He began forthwith to tell people that he was ready to do anything for Verres.’ Cic.
Ver. 2.64)
(k) Nam quaero abs te, circumsessusne sis Lampsaci, coeperitne domum in qua
deversabare illa multitudo incendere, voluerintne legatum populi Romani
comburere vivum Lampsaceni.
(‘For I ask you whether you were besieged at Lampsacum, whether the crowd there
began to set fire to the house where you were staying, whether the people of
Lampsacum intended to burn a Roman governor alive?’ Cic. Ver. 1.78)
In Cic. Ver. the distribution of the orders in the 63 instances of coepi is: Inf. Aux. 40,
Inf. . . . Aux. 11, Aux. Inf. 7, Aux. . . . Inf. 5. This includes all forms of coepi in all sen-
tence or clause types. For 58 instances in Petronius (1–85.3) the data are: Inf. Aux. 17
(3), Inf. . . . Aux. 13, Aux. Inf. 12 (3), Aux. . . . Inf. 16 (7). The figures between brackets
are in direct speech (mostly freedmen). In the Pereg. there are 22 instances of Aux.
(…) Inf., 2 in the reverse order.³²⁷
Supplement:
Interrogare ergo atriensem coepi quas in medio picturas haberent. (Petr. 29.9);
Homo meus coepit ad stelas facere . . . (Petr. 62.4 (Niceros speaking)); Sed, quod
coeperam dicere, postquam lupus factus est, ululare coepit et in silvas fugit. (Petr.
62.7 (Niceros speaking))
Statim ergo cepimus ire cum eo pedibus totum per vallem amenissimam . . . (Pereg.
15.2); Itaque ergo ire cepimus iter nostrum sicut singulis diebus. (Pereg. 16.4); Ac sic
ergo cum ceperit se hora septima facere, omnes ad Lazarium veniunt. (Pereg. 29.3)
In the Supplement below a few instances are cited from the Pereg. of prolative infini-
tives with some other, not properly auxiliary, verbs. Although the order Aux. Inf. is
predominant, with these verbs too there is considerable flexibility.
. . . non cessabam Deo nostro Iesu gratias agere . . . (Pereg. 23.9); Tunc statim illi sancti
dignati sunt singula ostendere. (Pereg. 3.7); Qui tamen sanctus episcopus nobis
Ramessen occurrere dignatus est. (Pereg. 8.4);. . . et iam unusquisque hiens ad
domum suam festinat manducare . . . (Pereg. 35.2); Quod cum dixisset, nos satis avidi
optati sumus ire . . .(Pereg. 10.9)
23.101 Discontinuity of coordinated constituents

If a constituent consists of two or more conjoins the second or later conjoin may be
separated from the preceding conjoin by one or more constituents. The coordinator
goes with the postposed conjoin. Examples with coordinated adjectives and proper
³²⁷ See Haida (1928: 40). The use of coepi as a phasal auxiliary remains stable over time (Galdi 2016a).
 Word order
names are (a) and (b), respectively. In these examples the separating elements are
syntactically related to the separated elements, but this need not be the case (that is,
they may be ‘alien’ elements). See the Supplement.
(a) Nam T. Aufidius . . . volebat esse similis horum eratque et bonus vir et inno-
cens, sed dicebat parum.
(‘For Titus Aufidius . . . strove to be like these, and he was a good and blameless man,
but his reputation as a speaker was slight.’ Cic. Brut. 179)
(b) Si quidem ante Solonis aetatem et Pisistrati de nullo ut diserto memoriae
proditum est.
(‘Since before the age of Solon and Pisistratus there is no record of any notable
speaker.’ Cic. Brut. 39)
This form of discontinuity is especially common when one—most often the last—of
the constituents is a heavy constituent. It may also be pragmatically motivated, to
mark the saliency of one or both conjoins. Paired coordinators, such as et . . . et and
nec . . . nec . . . nec in (a), (c), and (d), are relatively frequent; they mark the saliency of
the individual conjoins. The separation of conjoins is also used to achieve a special
rhythmic effect, as in (e) from Ammianus. It mainly concerns conjunctive coordination,
but note (f).³²⁸ This form of discontinuity is common in all periods of Latin.
(c) . . . propius admovent, ut et usu eius quem diligere coeperunt fruantur et
moribus…
(‘. . . they move closer so that they may enjoy both the company of him whom they
began to love and his character . . .’ Cic. Amic. 32)
(d) . . . qui eas nec disponere nec inlustrare possit nec delectatione aliqua allicere
lectorem . . .
(‘. . . who was neither able to arrange them nor explain them nor attract the reader by
some sort of charm . . .’ Cic. Tusc. 1.6)
(e) Adeo autem ferox erat in suos illis temporibus miles et rapax, ignavus vero in
hostes et fractus, ut . . .
(‘Moreover, the soldiers of those times were so arrogant toward their countrymen
and greedy, but so cowardly and feeble before the enemy, that . . .’ Amm. 22.4.7)
(f) Formae dignitas aut morbo deflorescit aut vetustate.
(‘Excellence of appearance fades either with sickness or with age.’ Rhet. Her. 4.38)³²⁹
Supplement:
Discontinuous clauses: Nec quid dicatis scire nec me quor ludatis possum.
(Pl. As. 730)
³²⁸ Devine and Stephens (2006: 586–91) call this form of discontinuity ‘conjunct hyperbaton’. Some
examples are taken from them.
³²⁹ This sentence is given as an illustration of coniunctio (putting the verb in the middle of a coordinated
pair of constituents), described as a means to achieve brevitas, ‘quare saepius adhibenda est’.
Discontinuity of coordinated constituents 
Discontinuous verb forms (+ dependent constituents): . . . ut simulet se tuam esse

uxorem et deperire hunc militem. (Pl. Mil. 796); Vinum ad se omnino inportari non
patiuntur, quod ea re ad laborem ferendum remollescere homines atque effeminari
arbitrantur. (Caes. Gal. 4.2.5); Qua victoria elatus plurima miscere coepit et maiora
concupiscere. (Nep. Paus. 1.3); Mirari nos celeritatem coepimus et iurare ne gallum
quidem gallinaceum tam cito percoqui potuisse . . . (Petr. 49.2); Tunc ergo gratias ei
agere coepi et rogare ut duceret nos ad locum . . . (Pereg. 15.2)
Discontinuous arguments: Modo eam reliqui ad portum in navi et servolum. (Pl.
Mer. 108); Me quidem iam satis tibi spectatam censebam esse et meos mores. (Pl.
Per. 171); . . . ibi cacumina populorum serito et harundinetum. (Cato Agr. 6.3); Unus
enim Xenophontis libellus . . . facile omnis imagines omnium statuasque superavit.
(Cic. Fam. 5.12.7); Statim sancti monachi . . . arbusculas ponunt et pomariola institu-
unt vel arationes. (Pereg. 3.6); Cuius bona multis cognita dicemus et vitia. (Amm.
31.14.1)³³⁰
Sed lubricos oculos fecit et mobiles . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.142); Quod erit, magnificum sit
et lautum. (Cic. Fam. 9.16.8)
Discontinuous satellites: . . . Romam venit Mario consule et Catulo. (Cic. Arch. 5)
Bene ego istam eduxi meae domi et pudice. (Pl. Cur. 518); (sc. philoso-
phiam) . . . quae de maximis quaestionibus copiose posset ornateque dicere. (Cic.
Tusc. 1.7); Invectus est copiosius multo in istum et paratius Dolabella quam nunc ego.
(Cic. Phil. 2.79)
Eo fistulam ferream indito quae in columellam conveniat et in cupam. (Cato Agr.
21.1); Ex iis evulsis ex alis pinnis et e cauda farciunt . . . (Var. R. 3.9.20)
Discontinuous modifiers: Iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo. (Pl. Am.
33); In sicco et macro loco et argilloso vernum tempus idoneum, quo minus habet
umoris . . . (Var. R. 1.40.3); . . . agro non semel arato, sed novato et iterato, quo meliores
fetus possit et grandiores edere. (Cic. de Orat. 2.131); Anceps et pulchra contentio
exituque ipso mirabilis. (Flor. Epit. 1.1.3.4)
Ita illi ipsi doctrinae studiis et sapientiae dediti ad hominum utilitatem suam intel-
legentiam . . . conferunt. (Cic. Off. 1.156)
Discontinuous constituents of a prepositional phrase (see also § 23.91 fin.): Sed hic
rex cum aceto pransuru’st et sale . . . (Pl. Rud. 937); . . . singultusque frequens noctem
per saepe diemque / corripere assidue nervos . . . (Lucr. 6.1160–1— NB: per is
postposed); . . . manibus sine non nulli pedibusque manebant / in vita . . . (Lucr.
6.1210–11—NB: sine is postposed)
From Catullus onwards coordinators are sometimes placed inside the second (or
later) conjoin instead of preceding it. Examples are (g)–(i). For postponement of
these words when functioning as connectors, see § 23.21.³³¹
(g) Iuppiter omnipotens, utinam ne tempore primo / Cnosia Cecropiae tetigis-
sent litora puppes, / indomito nec dira ferens stipendia tauro / perfidus in
Creta religasset navita funem . . .
³³⁰ The placement of et vitia is ‘cursus causa’, according to den Boeft et al. ad loc.
³³¹ For examples in poetry from Catullus onwards, see Norden, Anhang IIIB3 (incomplete, also
includes connectors). For et, see TLL s.v. 897.52ff. (includes connectors).
 Word order
(‘Almighty Jupiter, I would the Attic ships had never touched Cnosian
shores, nor ever the faithless voyager, bearing the dreadful tribute to the
savage bull, had fastened his cable in Crete . . .’ Catul. 64.171–4 )
(h) Quamvis multa meis exiret victima saeptis, / pinguis et ingratae premeretur
caseus urbi . . .
(‘Though many a victim left my stalls, and many a rich cheese was pressed
for the thankless town . . .’ Verg. Ecl. 1.33–4)
(i) . . . solacia luctus / exigua ingentis misero sed debita patri.
(‘. . . scant solace for grief so vast, but owed to a father’s sorrow.’ Verg. A.
11.61–2)
23.102 Tmesis
The term tmesis in a strict sense is used to refer to the separation of the parts of a com-
pound verb by one or more intervening constituents. The phenomenon is highly literary
and clearly inspired by Homer. The first example is from Ennius and then instances are
found with some frequency from Lucretius onwards. In (a), the preverb de- has no
corresponding adverb. Therefore, it can only be understood in combination with horta-
tur, which by itself is a meaningful form without the preverb. Circum- in (b) has a cor-
responding adverb, and dare can also be the infinitive of the simplex do, but on syntactic
and semantic grounds (the presence of the dative collo) circum has to be taken in com-
bination with dare. Sometimes the morphology of the verbal element leaves no doubt,
as in (c) -iecta, which can only be explained from the compound intericio. Sometimes,
there are instances where it is hard to decide. The preverbial element usually precedes,
but see (b). The separating element is often the coordinator -que (see § 23.103), a con-
nector (such as enim in (c)), a pronoun, as me in (a), or an adverb, but Virgil introduces
the use of nouns, such as bracchia in (b). The overall number of instances in the Augustan
poets and before, including the instances discussed in § 23.103, is in the order of fifty.³³²
In Late Latin tmesis is rare (an exceptional instance is (d)).
(a) Hannibal audaci cum pectore de me hortatur / ne bellum faciam . . .

(‘Hannibal of audacious heart urges me not to wage war . . .’ Enn. Ann. 381–2V=371–2S)
(b) Ter conatus ibi collo dare bracchia circum.
(‘Thrice there I strove to throw my arms about her neck.’ Verg. A. 6.700)
³³² For further instances, see Marouzeau (1949: 150–2). For the various types of tmesis and for tmesis
in Lucretius and Virgil, see Bernard (1960). For the poetical character of the phenomenon, see: Poetae
quidem etiam verborum divisione faciunt transgressionem: ‘Hyperboreo septem subiecta trioni’ (= Verg. G.
3.381), quod oratio nequaquam recipiet. (Quint. Inst. 8.6.66).
Tmesis 
(c) Inter enim iecta’st vitai pausa . . .

(‘For in between has been cast a stoppage of life . . .’ Lucr. 3.859)
(d) . . . qui in hisdem diebus tante solennitati inter non fuerit . . .
(‘. . . who during these days did not take part in this solemn feast . . .’ Pereg. 49.2)
Supplement:
Comedy and poetry: Siquid super illi fuerit, id nobis sat est. (Pl. Cur. 85); . . . quasi
numquam quicquid in eas simulem . . . (Pl. St. 77); Per ecastor scitu’ puer est natu’
Pamphilo. (Ter. An. 486); Cetera de genere hoc inter quaecumque pretantur, / omnia
perversa praepostera sunt ratione . . . (Lucr. 4.832–3); . . . nec loca lux inter quasi rupta
relinquit. (Lucr. 5.299); . . . pingue superque oleum fundens ardentibus extis . . . (Verg.
A. 6.254); . . . Achates / succepitque ignem foliis atque arida circum / nutrimenta
dedit . . . (Verg. A. 1.174–6); Miraris, cum tu argento post omnia ponas, / si . . . (Hor. S.
1.1.86–7); Et iam Dulichios portus Ithacamque Samonque / Neritiasque domus, reg-
num fallacis Ulixis, / praeter erant vecti. (Ov. Met. 13.711–13)
Prose: . . . Atheniensibus exhaustis praeter arma et naves nihil erat super. (Nep. Alc.
8.1—NB: with inversion); At illis vix decumae super portiones erant . . . (Tac. Hist.
1.20.1)
A different type, also called tmesis, is formed by adjectival and adverbial compounds
with the prefix per- ‘very’, as in (e) and (f), and pronominal compounds with -cumque
‘ever’ (and more rarely -libet ‘as you please’, and -vis ‘as you wish’), as in (g).
(e) Per pol saepe peccas.
(‘You’re making a lot of mistakes.’ Pl. Cas. 370)
(f) Per mihi, per, inquam, gratum feceris . . .
(‘You’ll do me a great, a very great pleasure indeed . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.20.7)
(g) Quid male facio aut quoi male dico? # Quoi pol quomque occasio est.
(‘What am I doing badly or who am I talking about badly? # About anyone you get a
chance to.’ Pl. Per. 210)
Supplement:
With per-: Per enim magni aestimo tibi firmitudinem animi nostri et factum nos-
trum probari. (Cic. Att. 10.1.1); . . . et quidem ibi te quam primum per videre velim.
(Cic. Att. 15.4.2—NB: with a verb); . . . per fore accommodatum tibi si . . . (Cic.
Fam. 3.5.3)
With -cumque: In qua harum parte cumque sit † inferendo † et cuius modi viden-
dum. (Var. L. 10.4.72); . . . quam se cumque in partem dedisset, omnium fuit facile
princeps . . . (Cic. de Orat. 3.60); Ut enim heri feci, sic nunc rationem, quo ea me
cumque ducet, sequar. (Cic. Tusc. 2.15); Qua porro cumque tenet se / corpus, ea
vacuum nequaquam constat inane. (Lucr. 1.508–9); . . . semper honos nomenque
tuum laudesque manebunt, / quae me cumque vocant terrae. (Verg. A. 1.609–10);
Qua se cumque furens medio tulit agmine virgo, / hac Arruns subit. (Verg. A.
11.762–3); Quale tamen cumque est, ut tueare, rogo. (Ov. Pont. 3.4.6); . . . quem Fors
 Word order
dierum cumque dabit lucro / appone . . . (Hor. Carm. 1.9.14–15); Garrulus hunc
quando consumet cumque: . . . (Hor. S. 1.9.33); . . . movent ut mundum sidera
cumque. (Man. 3.141)
In the case of per- and -cumque one may hold that they are (still) adverbs. In the same
way are explained Early Latin instances of separated quid + ni, at + qui, and facio/fio
compounds such as (h). Catullus exploits the possibilities of tmesis by inserting tibi
between quod and si in (i). For ob vos sacro and sub vos placo, mentioned as instances
of tmesis in certain prayers by Festus (p. 190), and for manum endo iacito (Lex 1.2),
see Bernard (1960: 34–5). Very odd is ( j), falsely ascribed to Ennius, with a non-
compound noun split up by its governing verb.
(h) Consue quoque faciunt ut alligari possint primum levibus vinclis.
(‘They are also accustomed to being tied, at first with slight leashes.’ Var. R.
2.9.13)
(i) Quod tibi si sancti concesserit incola Itoni . . .
(‘But if she who dwells in holy Itonus shall grant thee . . .’ Catul. 64.228)
( j) saxo cere comminuit brum
(‘he crushed his brain with a rock’ Enn. Ann. 609V=Spur. 5S)
Other oddities: conque tubernalem (Lucil. 1137M=1152K); Invenies praesto sub-

iuncta petorrita mulis: / Villa Lucani—mox potieris—aco. (Aus. Ep. 15.35–6)
. Tmesis created by the coordinator -que
An early instance of coordination of a compound verb with the coordinator -que sep-
arating the preverb and the verb is found in Plautus, as in (a). Lucretius exploits its
obvious metrical advantages (seventeen out of twenty-five instances of tmesis), but
Virgil uses it less frequently. An example with the negative prefix in- is (b).
(a) Nam apsque foret te, sat scio in alto / distraxissent disque tulissent satellites
tui me miserum foede . . .
(‘Had it not been for you, I know well enough that your attendants would have torn
me apart and dragged me apart in the sea in a frightening way, wretch that I am . . .’
Pl. Trin. 832–3)
(b) . . . telum quod saepe nocentis / praeterit exanimatque indignos inque merentis?
(‘. . . that bolt which often passes the guilty by and slays the innocent and undeserv-
ing?’ Lucr. 2.1103–4)
Negative prefix: Hanc ego nunc ignaram huius quodcumque pericli / inque salu-
tatam linquo. (Verg. A. 9.287–8); Tela retusa cadunt, manet inperfossus ab omni /
inque cruentatus Caeneus Elateius ictu. (Ov. Met. 12.496–7)
Diachronic developments 
23.104 Diachronic developments

One of the most striking differences between Latin and its Romance daughter lan-
guages is word order. Although there are considerable differences between the indi-
vidual Romance languages, both synchronically and diachronically, they all show less
variability than Latin has (but read the preceding sections for a correct interpretation
of this ‘variability’). This change of word order did not develop in isolation. Other
developments are the necessity of expressing the subject of the finite verb and other
arguments explicitly (see §§ 9.9 and 9.16) and the development of the definite (and
indefinite) article (see § 11.141). The loss of case marking may have played a role as
well (see § 12.30).
The discussion of the development of Latin word order at the clause level has concen-
trated on the relative order of the finite verb and its object. The standard view (see § 23.15)
was (and is, unfortunately) that Latin shows the development from an original Indo-
European OV order to a Romance VO order, a change that took place after the Classical
period, in which (S)OV was still the normal order, certainly in subordinate clauses. An
audacious alternative hypothesis, using typological considerations, was proposed by
Adams, who suggests that already in Plautus’ time the normal order was VO; the old
order OV is visible in its pure form in old documents and maintained in varying degrees
for formal, literary, or pragmatic reasons by Plautus and by later authors such as Cicero
and Caesar. The VO order is dominant in various Post-Classical ‘informal’ texts.³³³
The main problem with both descriptions is one of methodology: if in a specific text
the order is massively OV or VO, a numerical fact that cannot be denied, is that order as
it is because of a syntactic rule that requires this order or is the numerical outcome the
result of specific properties of the text? In other words, how reliable are such texts as
evidence for assuming a specific date or period for the change from OV to VO?³³⁴
One of the texts which shows OV order throughout is on an inscription which is
known as the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus ‘senatorial resolution concerning
the orgies of Bacchus’ (CIL I2.581), dated 186 bc. The text as we have it is a copy of a
letter of the consuls to the people of the Ager Teuranus in which a resolution of the
Senate of Rome is reported concerning the orgies of Bacchus and further instructions
are given to the local authorities on how to deal with this resolution. As for word
order, there is only one declarative sentence, in the introduction to the resolution
proper. Its object immediately precedes the verb (senatum consoluerunt ‘they con-
sulted the senate’—the standard order); all other objects are in imperative sentences
³³³ For the original hypothesis, see Adams (1976b). For a more recent discussion, see Adams (2016:
341–6). A thorough critical discussion of the assumed change of word order from OV in Indo-European
to VO in the Romance languages can be found in Meyer-Hermann (2011: 10–22); see also Meyer-
Hermann (2015: 278–85).
³³⁴ For a more detailed discussion, see Pinkster (2020).
 Word order
or (subordinate) clauses or in other subordinate clauses. The text with the resolution
starts as in (a).
(a) De Bacanalibus quei foideratei esent (=essent) ita exdeicendum cen-
suere: Nei quis eorum acanal habuise (=habuisse) velet (=vellet).
(‘In the matter of the orgies of Bacchus they passed a resolution that the following
proclamation should be issued to those who are in league with the Romans by trea-
ties: Let none of them be minded to keep a shrine of Bacchus.’ CIL I2.581.2–3 (SCBac.,
Tiriolo, 186 bc))
In (a), the object immediately precedes the governing verb. However, this is not always
the case. A typical example is (b). In the second sentence, the object pecuniam is in the
initial position, just like the subject complement magister in the preceding sentence.
What both constituents have in common is that they are subtopics of the overall topic
of the decree (Bacchanalia). They have a prominent position in their sentence, even
preceding the subjects, and in this way also fulfil a text-structuring function. So, pecu-
niam is not in its specific position because of a syntactic rule that requires it to precede
its verb. More in general, the text can hardly be regarded as a representative text show-
ing the dominant word order of the period in which it was produced.
(b) Magister neque vir neque mulier quisquam eset (=esset). Neve pecu-
niam quisquam eorum comoine<m h>abuise (=habuisse) velet (=vellet).
(‘No one, either man or woman, is to be an officer. Nor is anyone of them to have
charge of a common treasury.’ CIL I2.581.10–11—tr. Weston)
A text that has been put forward as showing clear VO features is the Passio sanctarum
Perpetuae et Felicitatis, dated to the first decennium of the third century ad. It tells the
story of the execution of a number of Christians at Carthage on 7 March 203, one of
them being a young woman, Perpetua, who tells her own story of the days preceding
the execution. Part of her story are two visions in which she is involved. These epi-
sodes are almost without subordination, unlike the surrounding parts. The short sen-
tences and clauses are connected or coordinated by et, immediately followed by the
finite verb. An example is (c).³³⁵
(c) Pridie quam pugnaremus, video in horomate hoc: venisse Pomponium dia-
conum ad ostium carceris et pulsare vehementer. 2. Et exivi ad eum et aperui
ei; qui erat vestitus discincta candida, habens multiplices galliculas. 3. Et dixit
mihi: ‘Perpetua, te expectamus: veni.’ Et tenuit mihi manum et coepimus ire
per aspera loca et flexuosa. 4. Et vix tandem pervenimus anhelantes ad
amphitheatrum, et induxit me in media arena, et dixit mihi: ‘Noli pavere.
Hic sum tecum et conlaboro tecum.’ Et abiit. 5. Et aspicio populum ingentem
adtonitum; et quia sciebam me ad bestias damnatam esse, mirabar quod non
mitterentur mihi bestiae.
³³⁵ For a detailed discussion of the complicated linguistic aspects of this text, see Adams (2016:
317–53). For historical and other aspects of this text, see Heffernan (2012).
Diachronic developments 
(‘On the day before we were to fight, I saw this vision: Pomponius, the deacon, had
come to the door of the prison, and was knocking loudly. (2) And I went out and
opened the door for him. He was wearing a white unbelted robe, and multilaced
sandals. (3) And he said to me: ‘Perpetua, we are awaiting you: come.’ And he took me
by the hand and we began to walk through places that were rugged and winding.
(4) And finally, after great difficulty, we arrived at the amphitheatre, all out of breath,
and he led me into the middle of the arena, and said to me ‘Don’t be afraid: I am here
with you and I will struggle with you.’ And he went away. (5) And I saw many people
who were astonished; and, because I knew that I had been condemned to the beasts,
I was puzzled that the beasts were not being turned loose on me.’ Pass. Perp. 10.1–5—tr.
Heffernan)
Obviously, with the verb in the initial position, the arguments and satellites have to
follow. This order fits in with a particular narrative mode in which the actions indi-
cated by the verb are the most important information and are emphasized by the
position in the clause (see also § 7.30 and § 24.3; for verbs in initial position in
declarative sentences, see § 23.45). It is difficult to base a generalization about the
development of word order on such an idiosyncratic text.
A third text that plays an important role in the discussion about Latin/Romance
word order is the Peregrinatio Egeriae, dated to the end of the fourth century ad. Here,
too, VO order seems to be predominant. On closer inspection, a distinction must be
made between the two parts of the work, which have quite different contents. The first
part is about Egeria’s travels, an ideal type of text for a combination of clause-initial
verbs and clause-final focus constituents (see § 22.11 and § 23.45). The other part does
not show a dominant VO order at all.³³⁶
In conclusion, the texts that we possess are so different in form and content that it
is difficult to come up with a clear chronology of when the changes in word order took
place. There is variability from the beginning till the end of the period covered by this
Syntax, most of which can be understood along pragmatic lines.
³³⁶ For details, see Spevak (2005a). Ledgeway (2017) holds that the Peregrinatio has ‘Verb second’ fea-
tures, which are assumed for the medieval stage of the Romance languages by several linguists working in
a generative framework.
CH APTER 24
Discourse
24.1 Introduction
So far, this Syntax has mainly dealt with the internal structure of sentences and their
parts (clauses, phrases, words, and morphosyntactic properties). This chapter, how-
ever, is devoted to discourse, that is to linguistic units which convey a complete
communicative message (see § 2.13). As a rule, they contain more than one sentence.1
Such discourse units also have particular properties of their own which determine to
some extent the content and structure of the sentences they contain.
The study of linguistic properties of units above the sentence level is fairly recent.
A common term used for such suprasentential units, especially in German linguistic
studies, was text.2 The term ‘discourse’ is used in this Chapter to avoid ambiguity,
because ‘text’ is also used in many other ways.
24.2 Sentence and discourse
In the Latin material at our disposal it is not as rare as one might think for single sen-
tences, or even single words, to constitute a complete communicative message, but
most instances are outside the standard texts that are normally used for grammatical
analysis. Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), a dedicatory inscription found on a fragment of
a pillar, the object of dedication and probably also its social and cultural significance
will have been clear from its surroundings. In (b), a coin showing the heads of the
Roman kings Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius and, on the reverse side, an arch
with a statue of Victoria and a boat under the moon, with the name of Gaius (Marcius)
Censorinus above it and Roma below,3 may have served to commemorate the victory
of Marius and to suggest Censorinus’ royal descent. The Romans were used to this
1 An excellent early introduction to the study of ‘texts’ is de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981). For the
relation between sentence and discourse, see Mithun (2015). For a brief summary of ‘discourse linguistics
and classics’, see van Gils et al. (2018: 5).
2 The term ‘text’ is also used in this sense in works on Textlinguistik (for example, de Beaugrande and
Dressler (1981)) and Textgrammatik (for example, Weinrich (1982)). For an application to Latin, see
Blänsdorf (1978). For the French tradition, see Nølke et al. (2004: 147–52).
3 For a picture, see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numa_Pompilio
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199230563.003.0024
Introduction 1139
form of propaganda.4 In (c), an electoral graffito which must have been fairly familiar,
the text cannot have been a problem for those who saw it.
(a) A. · Cervio · A. · f. · cosol / dedicavit
(‘Aulus Cervius, consul, son of Aulus dedicated (this).’ (CIL I2.395 (Benevento, 3rd
cent. bc))
(b) Numae · Pompili · Anci Marci / C · Censo Roma ·
(‘Numa Pompilius Ancus Marcius / Gaius Censorinus Rome’ CIL I2.App. 268 (Rome,
c.87 bc))
(c) Trebium · et · Gavium // aed(iles) · o(ro) v(os) f(aciatis)
(‘I ask you to elect Trebius and Gavius as aediles.’ CIL IV.118 (Pompeii, ad 71–5))
In these cases the reader uses non-linguistic cues, including his knowledge of the
world, to arrive at a correct understanding of the message. In discourse units of two
or more sentences the hearer or reader is still expected to use his knowledge of the
world and of the situation, but the correct interpretation of a sentence and its relation
with the surrounding context often depends on the information provided by the sen-
tence or sentences that precede or follow.
In the earlier chapters of this Syntax several ways are discussed that assist the
reader in correctly understanding the meaning of a sentence and how it coheres with
its context. They will be discussed again in this chapter, but now from the perspective
of discourse. An example of coherence of discourse is the very common rule of Latin
that third person subjects are not expressed if they can be easily inferred from what
precedes (see §§ 9.9–10). This phenomenon is one of the means to achieve continuity
of participants over a stretch of text. This is illustrated by (d) and (e) (‘°’ indicates
asyndeton—see below).
(d) Odi ego aurum. ° Multa multis saepe suasit perperam.
(‘I hate gold: it has often led many people to act badly on many issues.’ Pl. Capt. 328)
(e) Vicini quo pacto niteant, id animum advertito. ° In bona regione bene nitere
oportebit.
(‘Notice how the neighbours look. In a good district, they ought to look well.’ Cato
Agr. 1.2—tr. Dalby (adapted))
In (d), aurum, the focus and object of the first sentence, is the unexpressed topic and
subject of the second. In (e), vicini, the topic and subject of the first sentence, is also
the topic and subject of the accusative and infinitive clause bene nitere in the second.
(Also, bene corresponds to quo pacto and nitere to niteant.)
Although the relation between the sentences in (d) and (e) should be perfectly clear
for the reader, the semantic relation is not explicitly marked. There is no connecting
device; in other words, the sentences are ‘asyndetic’. It is up to the reader to use his
knowledge of the language and of the world to conceive of a relation between the
4 See Zanker (1990).

1140 Discourse
sentences. In (d), it is plausible that the second sentence contains the explanation why
the ‘I’ hates gold. That could have been made explicit by using the connector nam
‘for’.5 Connectors are another important device for creating coherence of discourse.
(d') Odi ego aurum. Nam multa multis saepe suasit perperam.
In (e), the relation between the two sentences is also explanatory, but more compli-
cated: by examining the situation at the neighbours’ farm it is possible to infer some-
thing about the quality of the district: if they thrive bene, the district must be bona.
That this is the point of the explanation (its focus) is clear from the position of in bona
regione in the sentence.
The largest part of this chapter is devoted to the way sentences connect to form
discourse units. However, the way these discourse units start and finish needs some
attention as well. Furthermore, a discourse may consist of a number of units consist-
ing of a number of sentences (‘episodes’ and ‘paragraphs’—see § 2.13) which are
connected between each other in their own way. All this is the content of §§ 24.4ff.
‘discourse coherence’.
24.3 Text types (or: discourse modes)
The linguistic properties of a unit of discourse as a whole depend on a number of fac-

tors, the most important of which are mentioned in § 2.13. This section deals with one
of the external factors mentioned there, viz. the ‘communicative purpose’ with which
a speaker/writer presents his text.
The term introduced in § 2.13 for such units of discourse is ‘text type’. However, in
this Syntax the term is used also in a wider sense for literary genre and other units (see
the Index of grammatical terms). A more appropriate term for text type in the narrow
sense would be ‘discourse type’ or ‘discourse mode’. Since the notion of ‘text type’ in
the narrow sense of the term was introduced in the 1960s scholars have discussed
how many and which different types can be distinguished. In addition to ‘narrative’,
‘argumentative’ (or: ‘persuasive’), and ‘didactic’ (or: ‘instructive’) texts, mentioned in
§ 2.13, it is common to distinguish ‘descriptive’ and ‘expository’ text types.6 As is said
in § 24.1, the word ‘text’ is here used in a narrow sense: in an actual text, for example
in Cicero’s oration pro Milone, several segments can be distinguished (and have been
distinguished since Antiquity) which represent different text types (see (a) and (b)
below). The choice of a particular text type manifests itself in the linguistic properties
of the sentences that constitute that text and in the relations between them. Examples
are the use of the tenses (see § 7.11), the order of constituents (see § 23.1 and § 23.5),
and the use of particular lexical items (see § 2.13 on quoniam).
5 Exx. (d) and (e) are cited by K.-St.: II.158 as instances of asyndeton causale or explicativum.
6 Smith (2003), discussed by Adema (2019b: 22–34), distinguishes five different ‘discourse modes’: ‘nar-
ration’, ‘description’, ‘report’, ‘information’, and ‘argument’.
Introduction 1141
Text types are still an underdeveloped area of research, with the exception of the
narrative text type (see below). Exx. (a)–(c) illustrate the narrative, argumentative,
and expository type, respectively.7 Ex. (a) is a good instance of a narrative period: a
series of events are presented in one complex syntactic structure from the perspective
of the main character (Clodius). In the cum clause the speaker (Cicero) provides
details concerning the circumstances and he finishes with his personal interpretation
of the situation. This is a typical instance of ‘storytelling’ (see § 7.30 fin.).
(a) P. Clodius,
cum statuisset omni scelere in praetura vexare rem publicam
videretque ita tracta esse comitia anno superiore
ut non multos mensis praeturam gerere posset,
qui non honoris gradum spectaret, ut ceteri,
sed et L. Paulum conlegam effugere vellet,
singulari virtute civem,
et annum integrum ad dilacerandam rem
publicam quaereret,
subito reliquit annum suum
seseque in proximum transtulit,
non—ut fit—religione aliqua,
sed ut haberet, quod ipse dicebat,
ad praeturam gerendam—
hoc est ad evertendam rem publicam—
plenum annum atque integrum.
(‘Publius Clodius had determined to harass the state during his praetorship by
every kind of lawless behaviour. He saw that the elections of the previous year had
been so protracted that he would be able to hold his praetorship for no more than
a few months. For that high office, which is what most men desire, he cared noth-
ing; all he wanted was to avoid having Lucius Paulus, a citizen of exceptional
merit, as his colleague, and to have an entire year in which to maul the state. He
therefore suddenly abandoned his proper year, and transferred his name to the
year following—not led thereto, as commonly happens, by any religious scruple,
but in order that, according to his own account, he might enjoy for the exercise of
his praetorship—that is to say, for the subversion of the state—a full and unbroken
year.’ Cic. Mil. 24)
In the argumentative piece of text in (b) Cicero addresses the jury, indirectly with a
rhetorical question (an est quisquam), and then directly (nisi vero existimatis and
iudices). By using the interactional particle enim he ensures their cooperation and
with non sine causa he underlines his argumentation. The entire text is organized to
win the jury over to Cicero’s point of view.
7 They are taken from Blänsdorf ’s seminal article (1978). In (a), I follow his graphical presentation of
the period.
1142 Discourse
(b) An est quisquam qui hoc ignoret, cum de homine occiso quaeratur, aut
negari solere omnino esse factum aut recte et iure factum esse defendi?
Nisi vero existimatis dementem P. Africanum fuisse qui, cum a C. Carbone
tribuno plebis seditiose in contione interrogaretur quid de Ti. Gracchi morte
sentiret, responderit iure caesum videri. Neque enim posset aut Ahala ille
Servilius aut P. Nasica aut L. Opimius aut C. Marius aut me consule senatus
non nefarius haberi, si sceleratos civis interfici nefas esset. Itaque hoc,
iudices, non sine causa etiam fictis fabulis doctissimi homines memoriae
prodiderunt, eum qui patris ulciscendi causa matrem necavisset variatis
hominum sententiis non solum divina sed etiam sapientissimae deae
sententia liberatum.
(‘Or is there anyone who is unaware that when inquiry is held into a murder, the act
is either categorically denied, or that its commission is defended as right and justi-
fied?—unless indeed you hold that Publius Africanus was mad when, on being mali-
ciously asked in a public meeting by Gaius Carbo, tribune of the plebs, what was his
opinion concerning the death of Tiberius Gracchus, he replied that he thought he
had been deservedly slain. Indeed, neither the great Servilius Ahala nor Publius
Nasica nor Lucius Opimius nor Gaius Marius nor the Senate, in my consulship,
could be held other than detestable, were the murder of criminal citizens in itself a
detestable act. And so too, gentlemen, it is not without reason that even in their fic-
tions accomplished poets have narrated how one, who, to avenge a father, had slain
a mother, was, though the human vote was divided, acquitted by a sentence that
proceeded not merely from a divine being, but from the wisest of the goddesses.’ Cic.
Mil. 8–9)
In the expository piece of text (c) the speaker presents a philosophical thesis in an
orderly way, indicating the logical steps and adding an explanation when necessary,
without involving the addressee directly.
(c) Quocirca primum mihi videtur, ut Posidonius facit, a deo, de quo satis dic-
tum est, deinde a fato, deinde a natura, vis omnis divinandi ratioque repe-
tenda. Fieri igitur omnia fato ratio cogit fateri. Fatum autem id appello quod
Graeci pÄwl{whxrx, id est ordinem seriemque causarum, cum causae causa
nexa rem ex se gignat. Ea est ex omni aeternitate fluens veritas sempiterna.
Quod cum ita sit, nihil est factum quod non futurum fuerit, eodemque modo
nihil est futurum cuius non causas id ipsum efficientes natura contineat. Ex
quo intellegitur ut fatum sit non id quod superstitiose, sed id quod physice
dicitur, causa aeterna rerum, cur et ea quae praeterierunt facta sint et quae
instant fiant et quae sequuntur futura sint. Ita fit ut et observatione notari pos-
sit quae res quamque causam plerumque consequatur, etiamsi non semper
(nam id quidem affirmare difficile est), easdemque causas veri simile est
rerum futurarum cerni ab eis qui aut per furorem eas aut in quiete videant.
(‘Wherefore, it seems to me that we must do as Posidonius does and trace the vital
principle of divination in its entirety to three sources: first, to God, whose connexion
with the subject has been sufficiently discussed; secondly to Fate; and lastly, to Nature.
Discourse coherence 1143
Reason compels us to admit that all things happen by Fate. Now by Fate I mean the
same that the Greeks call pÄwl{whxr, that is, an orderly succession of causes wherein
cause is linked to cause and each cause of itself produces an effect. That is an immor-
tal truth having its source in all eternity. Therefore nothing has happened which was
not bound to happen, and, likewise, nothing is going to happen which will not find in
nature every efficient cause of its happening. Consequently, we know that Fate is that
which is called, not ignorantly, but scientifically, “the eternal cause of things, the
wherefore of things past, of things present, and of things to come”. Hence it is that it
may be known by observation what effect will in most instances follow any cause,
even if it is not known in all; for it would be too much to say that it is known in every
case. And it is probable that these causes of coming events are perceived by those who
see them during frenzy or in sleep.’ Cic. Div. 1.125–6)
The text type that has received most scholarly attention is the narrative type (or: nar-
rative mode). In Volume I of this Syntax some attention is given to it in the sections
on the perfect (§ 7.30) and the (historic) present (§ 7.16). In the former, on the perfect,
a distinction was made between ‘storytelling’ and ‘reporting’, in the latter the term
‘mimetic’ should have been used (instead of ‘diegetic’ in the text) to characterize the
historic present as a narrative tense. Further distinctions have been proposed, a dis-
cussion of which would exceed the bounds of this section.8 The linguistic study of
narrative texts is closely related to narratology as developed in literary studies.9
24.4 Discourse coherence

Various instruments are available to enhance the internal coherence of a unit of dis-
course and to demarcate it from adjacent units. A precondition is the internal seman-
tic coherence of the subject matter, without which these instruments cannot have
their full effect. (i) Essential is the way the participants in the discourse are referred to:
have they been mentioned earlier in the text or are they newly introduced; are they
expected to stay, or are they mentioned only briefly? Ellipsis of structurally obligatory
constituents (zero-anaphora) and anaphoric expressions play an important role in
marking continuity or discontinuity of participants. This is discussed in §§ 24.5–9.
Comparable is the way events in the discourse or parts of the discourse are referred to
anaphorically (§§ 24.10–12). Preparative (or: cataphoric) reference to participants
and events is another way to guarantee continuity (§ 24.13). (ii) In addition to these
forms of ‘participant tracking’, connectors and related expressions that explicitly indicate
8 For the use of the ancient (Platonic) distinction between ‘mimetic’ and ‘diegetic’, see Bakker (1997)
and Kroon (2002). For discourse modes in general and their application to the tenses in Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, see Kroon (2007); for Virgil’s Aeneid, see Adema (2019b—a revised version of her 2008
dissertation). For the use of the historic present by Livy, see van Gils and Kroon (2018: 204–7; 2019). For
a collection of studies on ‘war narratives’, see van Gils et al. (2018). For the relationship between
historiography and discourse linguistics ibid.: 9–11.
9 A good introduction is de Jong (2014).
1144 Discourse
the relationship between the contents of adjacent sentences and between more
extended units contribute to the coherence of discourse (§§ 24.14–48). (iii) Thirdly,
there are various grammatical means, such as tense and voice, which may play a role
in indicating discourse coherence (§ 24.49). (iv) Finally, the ordering of sentences and
of larger units is an important factor in determining the coherence of the discourse as
a whole (§ 24.50). It is important to realize that these means do not exclude each other.
In (a), for example, the last sentence contains both the connector nam, which signals
why Lesbonicus will give that piece of land as a dowry and not something else, and the
anaphoric pronoun is (referring, like eum before, to ager).
(a) . . . est ager sub urbe hic nobis. Eum dabo / dotem sorori. Nam is de divitiis
meis / solus superfit praeter vitam relicuos.
(‘. . . we still have a plot of land here below the city; this I’ll give to my sister as a dowry:
for this alone is the sole remainder of my wealth, apart from my life.’ Pl. Trin. 508–10)
The way these various devices are used to create coherence varies, depending on the
type of text, the stylistic preferences of the authors, and diachronic developments.10
24.5 Anaphoric reference to participants
Absence of an overt subject or another obligatory constituent in a sentence is an

important cohesive device in Latin. Other devices to guarantee the continuity of par-
ticipants within a discourse are various forms of lexical continuity and various
anaphoric(ally used) pronouns.
24.6 Lexical repetition and variation

Repetition of the same word or phrase in adjacent sentences is rare.11 Examples are (a)
and (b). In both examples the hearer/reader must conclude that the second noun
refers to the same horsemen and camp, respectively.12 Repetition is relatively com-
mon in legal and administrative texts for the sake of clarity, but in such texts sentences
are usually quite complex, as in Cicero’s report to the Senate in (c), where he probably
partly reproduces the Senate’s own document. Note that bare repetition is mixed with
cases with an anaphoric pronoun.13
(a) Hoc ubi Amphitruo erus conspicatus est, / ilico equites iubet dextera
inducere. / Equites parent citi . . .
(‘When my master Amphitruo saw this, he instantly gave orders to lead the cavalry to
the charge on the right. The cavalry obeyed swiftly.’ Pl. Am. 242–4)
10 For diachronic changes, see Kiss (2005).

11 For various forms of repetition, see Mendell (1917: 21–85), from whom several examples are taken.
For repetition in legal texts, see de Meo (2005: 87–90).
12 For a discussion of what she calls ‘faithful reiteration’, see Fugier (1991: 382–3).
13 For a discussion of this passage, see Odelman (1972: 162–3).
(b) . . . ad castra pergunt. Locus erat castrorum editus . . .

(‘. . . they marched on the camp. The position of the camp was on high ground . . .’
Caes. Gal. 3.18.8–19.1)
(c) Cum enim vestra auctoritas intercessisset ut ego regem Ariobarzanem
Eusebem et Philorhomaeum tuerer eiusque regis salutem et incolumitatem
regnumque defenderem, regi regnoque praesidio essem, adiunxissetisque
salutem eius regis populo senatuique magnae curae esse, quod nullo umquam
de rege decretum esset a nostro ordine, existimavi me iudicium vestrum ad
regem deferre debere eique praesidium meum et fidem et diligentiam pol-
liceri, ut, quoniam salus ipsius, incolumitas regni mihi commendata esset a
vobis, diceret si quid vellet.
(‘I had your resolution charging me to take good care of King Ariobarzanes Eusebes
Philorhomaeus, to defend his welfare, security, and throne, and to protect king and
kingdom; to which you added that the welfare of this monarch was a matter of great
concern to the People and Senate—something that had never before been decreed by
our House with respect to any monarch. I therefore considered it incumbent upon
me to convey your mandate to the king, and to promise him my faithful protection
and care, adding that, since his personal welfare and the security of his realm had
been commended to me by yourselves, I should be glad to learn his wishes, if any.’ Cic.
Fam. 15.2.4)
Supplement:
(sc. sulcos) Eos lapide consternito: si lapis non erit, perticis saligneis viridibus con-
troversus conlatis consternito; si pertica non erit, sarmentis conligatis. (Cato Agr.
43.1); Itaque ex eo tempore res esse in vadimonium coepit. Cum vadimonia saepe
dilata essent et cum aliquantum temporis in ea re esset consumptum neque quic-
quam profectum esset, venit ad vadimonium Naevius. (Cic. Quinct. 22); Si Fabius
oriente canicula natus est, Fabius in mari non morietur. (Cic. Fat. 12); Igitur in stagno
Agrippae fabricatus est ratem cui superpositum convivium navium aliarum tractu
moveretur. Naves auro et ebore distinctae. (Tac. Ann. 15.37.2)
Variation of a word or phrase to refer to the same entity or event is another form of
creating coherence between sentences.14 Examples are (d)–(f). In (d), the common
noun hominem is used to continue the sequence of proper name and anaphoric pro-
noun.15 In (e), Cicero refers to Antonius, mentioned earlier in the speech, by an evalu-
ative expression. In (f), oppidum is continued by the near-synonym urbi in combination
with the anaphoric determiner ei.
(d) Sed videone ego Pamphilippum cum fratre Epignomo? Atque is est. /
Aggrediar hominem.
(‘But am I seeing Pamphilippus with his brother Epignomus? Yes, it’s him. I’ll
approach the man.’ Pl. St. 582–3)
14 For the various possibilities of ‘unfaithful reiteration’, see Fugier (1991).

15 See TLL s.v. homo 2882.13ff.
1146 Discourse
(e) (sc. Antonium) Taetram et pestiferam beluam ne inclusam et constrictam

dimittatis, cavete.
(‘Be sure you do not let this evil and destructive monster loose from the toils that
confine him.’ Cic. Phil. 7.27)
(f) Ubi nobilitas mea erit clara, / oppidum magnum communibo. Ei ego urbi
Gripo indam nomen . . .
(‘When my fame is well known, I’ll set up a big city. To this city I shall give the name
of Gripus . . .’ Pl. Rud. 933–4)
Supplement:
Videt ad ipsum fornicem Fabianum in turba Verrem. Appellat hominem et ei voce
maxima gratulatur. (Cic. Ver. 19); Inde eques citato equo nuntiat regi abire Albanos.
Tullus in re trepida duodecim vovit Salios fanaque Pallori ac Pavori. (Liv. 1.27.7)
Evaluative expressions: Redimet hortos, aedis, urbana quaedam quae possidet
Antonius. Nam argentum, vestem, supellectilem, vinum amittet aequo animo, quae
ille helluo dissipavit. (Cic. Phil. 13.11); (sc. reges) Statuerunt id (sc. candelabrum)
secum in Syriam reportare ut . . . legatos mitterent qui cum ceteris rebus illud quoque
eximium ac pulcherrimum donum in Capitolium adferrent. (Cic. Ver. 4.64); (sc.
Epicurus) Deinde ibidem homo acutus . . . attulit rem commenticiam. (Cic. Fin. 1.19)
(Near-)synonyms: Nam profecto aut metus aut iniuria te subegit, Silane, consulem
designatum genus poenae novom decernere. De timore supervacuaneum est dis-
serere . . . (Sal. Cat. 51.18); Siculorum civitatibus Syracusas aut Messanam aut
Lilybaeum indicitur concilium. Praetor Romanus conventus agit . . . (Liv. 31.29.8–9)
A third form of continuation of a word or a phrase is through the use of ‘subtopics’ or

‘associative anaphora’, as discussed in § 22.4, with ex. (i). Another example is (g).16
From aciem it is easy to infer ‘the soldiers’. Probably related is the use of eo anno in (h),
following the indication of the consuls of that year.
(g) Consul ubi ad iniquum locum ventum est, sistit aciem. Miles aegre teneri,
clamare et poscere ut perculsis instare liceat.
(‘The consul ordered a halt when his army reached rising ground. The infantry could
hardly be restrained, noisily demanding permission to press on after the fleeing
enemy.’ Liv. 2.65.2)
(h) Consules M. Valerius P. Postumius. Eo anno bene pugnatum cum Sabinis.
(‘The consulship of Marcus Valerius and Publius Postumius. This year a successful
war was waged against the Sabines.’ Liv. 2.16.1)
24.7 Lexical repetition in combination with anaphoric determiners

Repetition of a word in combination with an anaphoric(ally used) determiner is
more common (see § 11.105), especially in formal and technical texts. The principal
16 Cited as an instance of asyndeton adversativum by K.-St.: II.156.

determiners involved are is, hic (uncommon), and qui. Examples are (a)17 and (c),
with an anaphoric determiner, and (b), with a (connective) relative determiner.18 This
form of repetition is also used in adjacent clauses in complex sentences (see the
Supplement).
(a) Ibi nunc meus pater / memorat legiones hostium ut fugaverit, / quo pacto sit
donis donatus plurumis. / Ea dona quae illic Amphitruoni sunt data / apstu-
limus.
(‘In there my father’s now telling how he put the enemy’s legions to flight and how he
was presented with a great many gifts. We took away the gifts Amphitruo was given
there.’ Pl. Am. 135–9)
(b) Qui cupidius novissimum agmen insecuti alieno loco cum equitatu
Helvetiorum proelium committunt, et pauci de nostris cadunt. Quo proelio
sublati Helvetii . . . proelio nostros lacessere coeperunt.
(‘The cavalry, following up the rearguard too eagerly, engaged in a combat on
unfavourable ground with the cavalry of the Helvetii, and a few of ours fell. Elated by
this engagement the Helvetii . . . began to provoke our men to a fight.’ Caes. Gal.
1.15.2)
(c) Insequens annus Postumum Cominium et T. Larcium consules habuit. Eo
anno Romae, cum per ludos ab Sabinorum iuventute per lasciviam scorta
raperentur, concursu hominum rixa ac prope proelium fuit . . .
(‘The year after had as its consuls Postumus Cominius and Titus Larcius. In this year,
during the celebration of the games at Rome, the Sabine youths, in a spirit of wanton-
ness, forcibly abducted certain harlots. Men gathered hastily and there was a brawl . . .’
Liv. 2.18.1–2)
Supplement:
. . . lotium conservato eius qui brassicam essitarit. . . . Item pueros pusillos si laves eo
lotio, numquam debiles fient. Et quibus oculi parum clari sunt, eo lotio inunguito.
Plus videbunt. Si caput aut cervices dolent, eo lotio caldo lavito. Desinent dolere. Et
si mulier eo lotio locos fovebit, numquam m(e)n(ses) seri fient. (Cato Agr. 157.10–11);
Viam fecei ab Regio ad Capuam et / in ea via ponteis omneis miliarios /
tabelariosque poseivei. (CIL I2.638.1–3 (Polla, 150–132 bc); Q. Marcius censor
signum Concordiae fecerat idque in publico conlocarat. Hoc signum C. Cassius
censor cum in curiam transtulisset . . . (Cic. Dom. 130); Nihil enim debetur ei nisi ex
tertia pensione, quae est Kal. Sext. Ex qua pensione ipsa maior pars est ei soluta
aliquanto ante diem. (Cic. Att. 16.2.1); Extremum oppidum Allobrogum est proxi-
mumque Helvetiorum finibus Genava. Ex eo oppido pons ad Helvetios pertinet.
(Caes. Gal. 1.6.3); Galba . . . constituit . . . cum reliquis eius legionis cohortibus in vico
Veragrorum qui appellatur Octodurus hiemare. Qui vicus positus in valle, non magna
adiecta planitie, altissimis montibus undique continetur. (Caes. Gal. 3.1.4–5);
17 Taken from TLL s.v. is 460.14ff.

18 For the jurists, see Kalb (1888: 41–3); for Caesar, Odelman (1972: 152–9). In general, see Rosén (1981:
17–19) and Adams (2013: 491–2).
1148 Discourse
. . . a · quoquomq(ue) pecunia certa · credita . . . sei · is ·eam · pecuniam · in iure · . . .

debere . . . se · confessus / erit . . . tum · de · eo · a · quo · ea · pecunia · peteita ·
erit · deque · eo · quoi · eam / pecuniam d(arei) · o(portebit) · . . . (CIL I2.592.
II.1–10 (Lex de Gallia Cisalpina, Veleia, 42–1 bc)); Medius Hasdrubal inter patrem
ac filium octo ferme annos imperium obtinuit . . . Is . . . ei . . . Barbarus eum quidam . . .
obtruncat. . . . Cum hoc Hasdrubale . . . foedus renovaverat populus Romanus . . . (Liv.
21.2.3–7); Sed ego ideo prudentiam tuam elegi, ut formandis istius provinciae (NB: ‘the
province where you are’) moribus ipse moderareris et ea constitueres quae ad perpe-
tuam eius provinciae quietem essent profutura. (Tra. Plin. Ep. 10.117); Si totus ager
itineri aut actui servit, dominus in eo agro nihil facere potest . . . (Javol. dig. 8.3.13.1)
24.8 Zero-anaphora: the absence of explicit subject

and other obligatory constituents
The conditions under which third person subjects can be left unexpressed are dealt
with in §§ 9.9–10. That this is a very common phenomenon can be seen in Table 23.4
on p. 1006: in almost half of the sentences in the corpus on which that Table is based
there is no explicit subject.19 Examples are (a) and (b). In (a), a memorial inscription,
the name of Appius Claudius and his titles are followed by five unconnected sentences
(‘°’ marks asyndeton) without an explicit subject (marked ‘Ø’) in which his major feats
are enumerated. Another sequence of short asyndetic sentences is shown in (b), a
typical ‘war bulletin’.20
(a) Appius · Claudius / C.· f.· Caecus / censor,· cos · bis,· dict,· interrex · III, /
pr · II, · aed · cur · II, · q, · tr · mil · III.· Com/plura · oppida · de Samnitibus ·
Ø cepit. / ° Sabinorum · et · Tuscorum · exerci/tum · Ø fudit.· ° Pacem ·
fieri · cum · Tyrrho (= Pyrrho) / rege · Ø prohibuit.· ° In · censura · viam /
Appiam · Ø stravit · et aquam · in / urbem Ø adduxit.· ° Aedem · Bellonae /
Ø fecit.
(‘Appius Claudius Caecus, son of Gaius. Censor, Consul twice, Dictator, Interrex
three times, Praetor twice, Aedilis curulis twice, Quaestor, Military tribune three
times. He took several towns from the Samnites. He routed an army of Sabines and
Tuscans. He prohibited making peace with King Pyrrhus. When he was Censor he
constructed the Via Appia and an aqueduct to the City. He built the Temple of Bellona.’
CIL XI.1827 (Arezzo, c.2 bc–ad 14))
(b) Eo legati ab Arvernis missi. ° Quae Ø (sc. Caesar) imperaret, se facturos Ø
pollicentur. ° Ø Imperat magnum numerum obsidum. ° Legiones in hiberna
Ø mittit. ° Captivorum circiter XX milia Haeduis Arvernisque Ø reddit. °
Titum Labienum duabus cum legionibus et equitatu in Sequanos proficisci Ø
iubet. ° Huic Marcum Sempronium Rutilum Ø attribuit. ° Gaium Fabium
19 See also Spevak (2010a: 98–9). Implicit subjects are much less common in Late Latin texts. See
Herman (1991). For the development into Old French, see Prévost (2018).
20 For the use of asyndeton in ‘war bulletins’, see Fraenkel (1956: 192).
legatum et Lucium Minucium Basilum cum legionibus duabus in Remis Ø

conlocat, ne quam a finitimis Bellovacis calamitatem Ø accipiant.
(‘The Arverni sent deputies to him there who promised to carry out his commands:
he required of them a great number of hostages. He sent the legions into canton-
ments. He restored some twenty thousand prisoners to the Aedui and the Arverni.
He ordered Titus Labienus with two legions and cavalry to march off into the country
of the Sequani, attaching Marcus Sempronius Rutilus to him. Gaius Fabius, the
lieutenant-general, and Lucius Minucius Basilus he stationed with two legions in the
country of the Remi, in order that they might suffer no damage from the neighbour-
ing Bellovaci.’ Caes. Gal. 7.90.1–5)
Ellipsis of objects and the frequency of that phenomenon is discussed in § 9.16. One
of the examples is (c). The absent object may also refer to a sentence or a clause in the
preceding context, as in (d).21 A more complex instance of ellipsis of an argument is
(e), where the genitive attribute masculae (sc. columbae) helps the reader understand
that a head noun of the entire noun phrase (sanguinem) is missing, and (f), where the
secondary predicates afflictantem and persequentem allow matronam to be inferred
from the preceding context.
(c) Quid ais, pater? / ° Ecquid matrem amas? # Egone illam? ° Nunc Ø amo, quia
non adest.
(‘What do you say, father? Do you love mother at all? # I her? Now I love her because
she’s not around.’ Pl. As. 899–900)
(d) . . . rogavi ut, si quid posset, ex ea summa detraheret. ° Ø Promisit.
(‘. . . I asked him to obtain a deduction from that sum if he could. He promised.’ Cic.
Att. 10.5.3)
(e) Columbarum, palumbium, turturum, perdicum sanguis oculis cruore suf-
fusis eximie prodest. ° In columbis masculae Ø efficaciorem putant . . .
(‘The blood of pigeons, doves, turtle doves, or partridges, makes an excellent applica-
tion for blood-shot eyes. Among pigeons, male birds are supposed to have the more
efficacious blood . . .’ Plin. Nat. 29.126)
(f) (sc. matrona quaedam) . . . corpus custodire ac flere totis noctibus diebusque
coepit. Sic Ø afflictantem se ac mortem inedia persequentem non parentes
potuerunt abducere, non propinqui.
(‘She proceeded to watch and weep night and day over the body. Neither her parents
nor her relations could divert her from thus torturing herself, and courting death by
starvation.’ Petr. 111.2–3)
The examples so far have shown that the absence of arguments that are required by
the valency of the verbs involved functions as a cohesive device. Valency also applies
to deverbal and other nouns (see §§ 11.70–5). An example is testis in (g): the province
witnessed the action Cicero has referred to in the preceding sentence.22
21 For the interpretation of zero objects, see Jones (2000: 24–5). Ex. (e) is taken from that publication.
22 See Mendell (1917: 99).
1150 Discourse
(g) Negare hoc, nisi forte negare omnia constituisti, nullo modo potes. Palam res
gesta est maximo conventu Syracusis. Testis est tota provincia, propterea
quod undique ad emendas decumas solent eo convenire.
(‘Deny this you cannot possibly, unless you have made up your mind to deny every-
thing. The thing was done openly at Syracuse before a large gathering. The whole
province is a witness to the fact, since men come regularly from every part of it to
Syracuse to attend the sales of tithe.’ Cic. Ver. 3.149)
For a demonstration of zero-anaphora, see also the discussion in § 22.4, exx. (v) and
(w). Zero-anaphora is common when a topic constituent is continued (a ‘given topic’),
but is not excluded when one or more other participants interfere, on condition that
the intervening discourse constitutes some form of background information. An example
is (h). The intervening sentence is marked as subsidiary information by enim.23
(h) Equites missi nocte iter conficiunt, imprudentes atque inopinantes hostes
aggrediuntur. Numidae enim quadam barbara consuetudine nullis ordinibus
passim consederant. Ø (sc. equites) Hos oppressos somno et dispersos adorti
magnum eorum numerum interficiunt.
(‘The cavalry [Curio] sent finished their journey during the night; they attacked an
enemy off guard and unsuspecting, for the Numidians in their barbarian fashion had
camped here and there in complete disarray. By attacking while these were fast asleep
and scattered, Curio’s cavalry killed a large number of them.’ Caes. Civ. 2.38.4–5)
24.9 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs

The pronouns used to refer to participants in the preceding discourse are the
(connective) relative qui (see § 18.28), the anaphoric pronoun is (see § 11.137), and
the demonstrative pronouns hic, ille, and (in a limited way) iste (see § 11.136). (For
diachronic considerations, see § 11.141.) The adverbs involved include relative quo ‘to
which place’, eo ‘to that place’, hinc ‘from here’, and ibi ‘there’. Examples of anaphoric-
ally used adverbs are (a) and (b).24
(a) Eos iam bene cognitos et re probatos secum in Siciliam duxit. Quo postea-
quam venerunt . . .
(‘Having by now tested them well and learnt their worth, Verres took them with him
to Sicily. When they got there . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.31)
(b) Ager Herbitensis primo anno habuit aratores CCLII, tertio CXX. Hinc
CXXXII patres familias extorres profugerunt.
(‘The Herbita district had 252 farmers in his first year, 120 in his third: 132 of its
householders left their homes and fled elsewhere.’ Cic. Ver. 3.120)
23 This example is discussed by Pennell Ross (1996: 519–20) and Bolkestein (2000: 128–30).
Kroon (2010: 589) shows that zero-anaphora is the ‘default option’ in Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
24 For the anaphoric use of adverbs of place in historical texts, see Longrée (2010), with detailed
statistics. For the anaphoric (and cataphoric) use of ibi, see Burkard (2019). It is not used deictically.
The pronouns normally agree in number and gender with the constituents to
which they refer (see §§ 13.25–8; 13.33). This reduces the number of potential refe-
rents, certainly in comparison with zero-anaphora. The frequency with which these
pronouns are used varies, depending on the type of text. Table 24.1 shows their fre-
quency in two texts. The most striking difference is that between hic and ille, which is
related to the fact that Caesar’s historical narrative has more topic continuity than
Cicero’s letters.25
Table 24.1 Frequency of anaphorical(ly used)

pronouns in Caesar Civ. and Cicero Att.
Caesar Civ. Cicero Att.
Total % Total %
qui 52 13.5 36 16.6
is 163 42.4 84 38.7
hic 118 30.7 47 21.7
ille 51 13.4 50 23
Total 384 100 217 100
The four pronouns differ from each other in three respects: (i) the position of the
pronoun in the sentence, (ii) the distance between the pronoun and the participant it
is referring to, and (iii) the proportion of usage of the pronoun to refer to participants
and to states of affairs and discourse.
(i) The relative pronoun qui naturally occurs in the initial position. The other three
differ from each other in their position; this is also related to the type of text in which
they are used. In Caesar’s narrative, is is less frequent in initial position, whereas this
is the preferred position for hic. Ille is more frequent in initial position.26
(ii) The participants to which the pronouns qui, is, and hic refer are usually to be
found in the immediately preceding sentence. With ille there are regularly more inter-
vening sentences, and more intervening other participants. As is shown for zero-
anaphora in § 24.8, the intervention of other participants is not an obstacle for the use
of qui, if the text segment they belong to constitutes some form of background infor-
mation, such as the indirect discourse in (c).27 This also holds to some extent for is
and hic. By contrast, ille is the normal choice for remote referents as such.
25 The data are based upon Pennell Ross (1996) (Caes. Civ. I and II) and Bolkestein (2000: 113–14)
(Cic. Att. I and II.1–10). Longrée (2003) shows that Sallust and Tacitus use ille much more often than
Caesar.
26 See Pennell Ross (1996: 514) and Spevak (2010a: 75), who has also data on Sallust. In Cicero’s letters,
is and hic are divided between initial and non-initial, whereas ille is most often non-initial (Bolkestein
2000: 118). There are differences between these three words when used as pronoun and as determiner
(Spevak 2010a: 74–5). See also Bolkestein (2001: 249–50). For the position of is in the function of object,
see Luraghi (2016). For repetitive use of is in a number of texts, see Adams (2016: index s.v. is).
27 This example is discussed by Pennell Ross (1996: 517). See also Kroon (2009a: 124–5).
1152 Discourse
(c) Adventu Caesaris cognito decuriones Auximi ad Attium Varum frequentes

conveniunt. Ø Docent sui iudici rem non esse. Neque se neque reliquos
municipes pati posse C. Caesarem imperatorem bene de re publica meritum
tantis rebus gestis oppido moenibusque prohiberi. Proinde habeat rationem
posteritatis et periculi sui. Quorum oratione permotus Varus praesidium
quod introduxerat ex oppido educit ac profugit.
(‘Learning of Caesar’s approach the town councillors at Auximum met as a body with
Attius Varus. They told him that the affair was not something for them to decide.
“Neither we nor the rest of our townspeople can tolerate that Gaius Caesar, a com-
mander who has such important public achievements to his credit, be barred from
the town and its fortifications. Furthermore, you should consider the future and your
danger.” Disturbed by their words Varus led out the garrison he had installed, and
fled.’ Caes. Civ. 1.13.1–2)
(iii) Qui, is, hic, and ille can be used as pronoun and as determiner, each in different
proportions. They also differ in the frequency with which they are used to refer to
participants and to refer to states of affairs and segments of discourse (for short: seg-
ments of discourse). There are probably also differences related to text type. Table 24.2
shows that in Cicero’s letters ille (pronoun and determiner) is almost never used to
refer to states of affairs and segments of discourse, which seems to be the task of pro-
nominal hic.28 The connective relative pronoun mostly refers to a participant in the
immediately preceding sentence. Is as a pronoun mostly refers to recently introduced
participants; as a determiner it can refer to any preceding participant.
Table 24.2 Reference to participants (Part.) and segments

of discourse (Disc.) in Cicero Att.
Pronoun Determiner
Total Part.% Disc.% Total Part.% Disc.%
qui 36 86% 14% 5 60% 40%
is 84 68% 32% 20 45% 55%
hic 47 17% 83% 41 61% 39%
ille 50 98% 2% 67 96% 4%
Total 217 133
As for the difference between hic and ille, in the Classical period their anaphoric
behaviour reflects the differences between them in their deictic use (on which, see
§§ 11.104; 135). Their anaphoric use is discussed in §§ 11.105; 136.29 For the differ-
ence between qui and is, see § 18.28.
28 The data come from the same corpus as Table 24.1.

29 See de Jong (1996) and Kroon (2009a; 2017).
24.10 Anaphoric reference to states of affairs

and to segments of discourse
The examples presented so far have dealt with continuity of participants. The follow-
ing sections, in turn, deal with reference to preceding states of affairs and segments of
discourse of varying length and structure. The two main forms are nouns (with or
without a determiner) and anaphoric(ally used) pronouns.
24.11 Nouns used to refer to preceding states of affairs

or segments of discourse
The most common noun that is used to refer to a situation mentioned in the preced-
ing context is res ‘situation’ (OLD s.v. § 17), as in (a).30
(a) (sc. reges) Statuerunt id (sc. candelabrum) secum in Syriam reportare ut . . .
legatos mitterent qui cum ceteris rebus illud quoque eximium ac pulcherri-
mum donum in Capitolium adferrent. Pervenit res ad istius (sc. Verris) auris
nescio quo modo.
(‘They resolved to take it back with them to Syria, with the purpose . . . of sending an
embassy to convey to the Capitol this most choice and lovely offering, together with
other objects. These facts somehow or other came to the knowledge of Verres.’ Cic.
Ver. 4.64)
More often reference to a preceding state of affairs or segment of discourse is made by

the combination of a noun with a general meaning and an anaphoric(ally used) deter-
miner. A common expression in the Caesarian corpus and in Nepos is quo facto, with
a connecting relative, as in (b); another very common one is shown in (c) and (d). In
(c), ea res refers to the situation before Alcumena’s shouting (see the translation); in
(d), to the situation described just before. For the frequency with which the individual
determiners are used, see Table 24.2 on p. 1152.
(b) Cuius vim multitudinis cum equites pauci Caesariani iam sustinere non pos-
sent, Caesar instructas legiones hostium copiis ostendit. Quo facto perterrito
Labieno ac retardato suos equites recepit incolumes.
(‘As the odds were now too great for the Caesarian horse to contain their powerful
onslaught, Caesar displayed to the enemy forces his legions in battle formation. This
action utterly daunted and checked Labienus, and Caesar thereupon withdrew his
own cavalry without loss.’ B. Afr. 66.3–4)
(c) Ardere censui aedis. Ita tum confulgebant. / Ibi me inclamat Alcumena. Iam
ea res me horrore afficit. / Erilis praevortit metus.
30 For resumptive and anticipatory verbal nouns, see Mendell (1917: 39–40), Rosén (1983: 187–9), and
Spevak (2015b: 292–5). See also Fugier (1991: 388–90) on anaphoric reference by ‘grammatical recatego-
rization’.
1154 Discourse
(‘The house was so bright at the time that I thought it was on fire. Then Alcumena
called for me. The previous events were already filling me with terror, but the fear of
my mistress prevailed.’ Pl. Am. 1067–9)
(d) Quod ubi Caesar conspexit, Labienum ab suis copiis longius iam abscessisse,
equitatus sui alam sinistram ad intercludendos hostes immisit. Erat in eo
campo ubi ea res gerebatur, villa permagna turribus IIII exstructa.
(‘But when Caesar saw that Labienus had now withdrawn some distance from his
forces, he launched the left wing of his own cavalry, so as to cut the enemy off. Now
in the area where this action was going on there was a very large farm building, con-
structed with four lofty towers.’ B. Afr. 39.5–40.1)
Another way of referring to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse,

namely with nouns with a more specific meaning with or without an anaphoric deter-
miner, is shown in (e)–(g). In (e), hac oratione refers to Liscus’ words. In (f), ea
desperatio refers to, and describes at the same time, the psychological effects of the
preceding actions of the enemy. Note in (g) the almost literal repetition.
(e) Quin etiam, quod necessariam rem coactus Caesari enuntiarit, intellegere
sese (sc. Liscum) quanto id cum periculo fecerit, et ob eam causam, quamdiu
potuerit, tacuisse. Caesar hac oratione Lisci Dumnorigem, Diviciaci fratrem,
designari sentiebat.
((Liscus is speaking) ‘Nay more, he was well aware, that though compelled by neces-
sity, he had disclosed the matter to Caesar, at how great a risk he had done it; and for
that reason, he had been silent as long as he could. Caesar perceived that by this
speech of Liscus, Dumnorix, the brother of Diviciacus, was indicated.’ Caes. Gal.
1.17.6–18.1—tr. McDevitte and Bohn)
(f) . . . et Manlius consul revectus in castra ad omnes portas milite opposito hos-
tibus viam clauserat. Ea desperatio Tuscis rabiem magis quam audaciam
accendit.
(‘. . . and Manlius the consul had ridden back to the camp, and by posting men at all
the gates had cut off the enemy’s egress. In desperation at this turn the Etruscans had
been inflamed to the point rather of madness than of recklessness.’ Liv. 2.47.6)
(g) Mansit in condicione atque pacto usque ad eum finem dum iudices reiecti
sunt. Posteaquam reiectio iudicum facta est . . . renuntiata est tota condicio.
(‘The terms of the contract held good as arranged, until judges were rejected. After
the rejection of the judges had taken place . . . the contractor threw up his undertaking
entirely.’ Cic. Ver. 16)
Supplement:
Chrysopolim Persae cepere urbem in Arabia, / plenam bonarum rerum atque
antiquom oppidum. / Ea comportatur praeda, ut fiat auctio / publicitus. Ea res me
domo expertem facit. (Pl. Per. 506–9); Bacchidem atque hunc suspicabar propter cri-
men, Chrysale, / mi male consuluisse. Ob eam rem omne aurum iratus reddidi / meo
patri. (Pl. Bac. 683–5); (Orgetorix, Casticus, and Dumnorix agree on joining forces to
seize power—Caes. Gal. 1.3.4–8) Ea res est Helvetiis per indicium enuntiata. (Caes.
Gal. 1.4.1); Ibi diversis partibus duo duces Eupolemus et Nicodamus pugnantis hor-
tabantur et prope certa fovebant spe iam Nicandrum ex composito adfore et terga
hostium invasurum. Haec res aliquamdiu animos pugnantium sustinuit. (Liv.
38.6.5–6); Discedentem vero ex contione universi cohortantur magno sit animo neu
dubitet proelium committere et suam fidem virtutemque experiri. Quo facto com-
mutata omnium et voluntate et opinione consensu suorum constituit Curio . . . proe-
lio rem committere. (Caes. Civ. 2.33.1–2); Quo facto cum haud immeritam laudem
gratiamque apud omnes tulisset, dictatore P. Cornelio dicto ipse ab eo magister equi-
tum creatus exemplo fuit collegas eumque intuentibus . . . (Liv. 4.57.6)
Ecce autem aedificat. Columnam mento suffigit suo. / Apage, non placet profecto
mi illaec aedificatio. (Pl. Mil. 209–10); Iam pridem ecastor frigida non lavi magis
lubenter / nec quom me melius, mea Scapha, rear esse deficatam. / # Eventus rebus
omnibus, velut horno messis magna / fuit. # Quid ea messis attinet ad meam lavatio-
nem? (Pl. Mos. 157–60); (Mysis in an aside, reacting to Pamphilus’ monologue which
ends in:) Ea quoniam nemini obtrudi potest, / itur ad me. # Oratio haec me miseram
exanimavit metu. (Ter. An. 250–1); Hic tamen excipit Pompeium—simillime, ut mihi
videtur, atque ut illa lege, qua peregrini Roma eiciuntur, Glaucippus excipitur. Non
enim hac exceptione unus adficitur beneficio, sed unus privatur iniuria. (Cic. Agr.
1.13); Itaque me non extrema tribus suffragiorum, sed primi illi vestri concursus,
neque singulae voces praeconum, sed una vox universi populi Romani consulem
declaravit. Hoc ego tam insigne, tam singulare vestrum beneficium, Quirites, cum ad
animi mei fructum atque laetitiam duco esse permagnum, tum ad curam sollici-
tudinemque multo maius. (Cic. Agr. 2.4–5); Maiores nostri non solum id quod <de>
Campanis ceperant non imminuerunt verum etiam quod ei tenebant quibus adimi
iure non poterat coemerunt. Qua de causa nec duo Gracchi qui de plebis Romanae
commodis plurimum cogitaverunt, nec L. Sulla, qui omnia sine ulla religione quibus
voluit est dilargitus, agrum Campanum attingere ausus est. (Cic. Agr. 2.81); Nemo
erit praeter unum me . . . qui credat te invito provinciam tibi esse decretam. Hanc,
quaeso, pro tua singulari sapientia reprime famam . . . (Cic. Phil. 11.23); Itemque
Dumnorigi Haeduo . . . ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimo-
nium dat. Perfacile factu esse illis probat conata perficere . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.3.5–6); Ex
eo proelio circiter hominum milia CXXX superfuerunt eaque tota nocte continenter
ierunt. (Caes. Gal. 1.26.5); . . . legatos ad eum mittunt. Cuius legationis Divico prin-
ceps fuit . . . (Caes. Gal. 1.13.2); Nec ut iniustus in pace rex, ita dux belli pravus fuit.
Quin ea arte aequasset superiores reges . . . (Liv. 1.53.1)
The same determiners (is only rarely) are used in ablative absolute clauses that func-
tion as ‘Tail–Head linking constructions’, which refer to a preceding episode of a nar-
rative.31 This is a very common phenomenon in Caesar and the Caesarian corpus.
31 For the term and the construction, see Bolkestein (2000; 2002; also summarized in 2001: 249–51). It
is part of a technique called ‘ablatif absolu d’enchaînement’ by Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 120–2), which is
also typical of Tacitus (Enghofer 1961: 118). For the use of these clauses, some of them ‘formulaic’, in the
Bellum Alexandrinum, see Gaertner and Hausburg (2013: 63–4). Müller-Lancé (1994: 99) states that 83
out of 403 capita in Caesar’s de Bello Gallico begin with a ‘linking’ ablative absolute clause (of course, they
will have been regarded as signals when our modern capita division was introduced). Holland (1986: 172)
exaggerates when he states that participial ablative absolute clauses are mostly of this linking type.
1156 Discourse
Examples are (g)–(j). The anaphoric determiner hic is more frequent than the relative
determiner qui and the order with the participle in the middle, as in (h), more fre-
quent with hic, which is often emphatic. In cases like (j), the participle is the focus of
the ablative absolute clause. As to the content of such ablative absolute clauses, those
with hic are mainly like (g), the summary of an action, which is then continued by
actions of the same protagonist; those with qui are mainly like (i), some form of com-
munication, with a different protagonist in what follows.32 (For more examples of
ablative absolute clauses with a relative expression, see § 18.29.)
(g) Hoc negotio confecto Labienus revertitur Agedincum . . .
(‘Having finished this business, Labienus returned to Agedincum . . .’ Caes. Gal.
7.62.10)
(h) Hac confirmata opinione timoris idoneum quendam hominem et callidum
delegit Gallum . . .
(‘After having established this suspicion of his cowardice, he selected a certain suitable
and crafty Gaul . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.18.1—tr. McDevitte and Bohn)
(i) Quibus rebus cognitis Caesar cum undique bellum parari videret . . . matu-
rius sibi de bello cogitandum putavit.
(‘Caesar, on being informed of their acts, since he saw that war was being prepared
on all sides, . . . thought that he ought to take measures for the war earlier [than usual].’
Caes. Gal. 6.2.3—tr. McDevitte and Bohn)
(j) Qua perfecta munitione animadversum est ab speculatoribus Caesaris
cohortes quasdam . . . in vetera castra duci.
(‘After the fortification was complete, Caesar’s scouts noticed that some cohorts . . .
were being taken back to an old camp.’ Caes. Civ. 3.66.1)
Supplement:
Qui: Quibus rebus explicatis tum denique ad hoc horribile et formidolosum frumen-
tarium crimen accedam. (Cic. Scaur. 22); Quibus rebus nuntiatis Afranius (cj.
Kindscher; Afranio mss.) ab instituto opere discedit . . . (Caes. Civ. 1.75.1); Quibus
rebus Varus ex perfugis cognitis occasionem nactus . . . naves onerarias . . . incen-
dit . . . (B. Afr. 62.5)
Is: Cognitis iis rebus quae sunt gestae in citeriore Hispania bellum parabat. (Caes.
Civ. 2.18.6); Eo celeriter confecto negotio rursus in hiberna legiones reduxit. (Caes.
Gal. 6.3.3)
Hic: His rebus confectis in concilio pronuntiat arcessitum se ab Senonibus . . . (Caes.
Gal. 5.56.4); His rebus confectis totum exercitum lustrat. (B. Alex. 56.5); Hoc proelio
trans Rhenum nuntiato Suebi, qui ad ripas Rheni venerant, domum reverti coepe-
runt. (Caes. Gal. 1.54.1); Hac re cognita Caesar mittit conplures equitum turmas
eodem. (Caes. Gal. 7.45.1)
32 See Bolkestein (2002).

In the historians hic, both as a pronoun and as a determiner, is very commonly used
to close one episode before starting a new one.33 Examples are (k)–(m).
(k) Haec apud Romanos consul. Hannibal rebus prius quam verbis adhortandos
milites ratus . . .
(‘So spoke the consul to the Romans. Hannibal thought it well to encourage his sol-
diers by an object lesson before haranguing them . . .’ Liv. 21.42.1)
(l) Hunc finem exitumque seditio militum coepta apud Sucronem habuit. Per
idem tempus ad Baetim fluvium Hanno . . .
(‘Such was the end and outcome of the mutiny of the soldiers which began at Sucro.
About the same time along the Baetis River Hanno . . .’ Liv. 28.29.12–30.1)
(m) Hoc maxime modo in Italiam perventum est quinto mense a Carthagine
Nova, ut quidam auctores sunt, quinto decimo die Alpibus superatis.
(‘Such were the chief features of the march to Italy, which they accomplished five
months after leaving New Carthage—as certain authorities state—having crossed the
Alps in fifteen days.’ Liv. 21.38.1)
24.12 Anaphoric(ally used) pronouns and adverbs used to refer

to preceding states of affairs or segments of discourse
The pronouns used to refer to states of affairs and segments of discourse are the same
as those used to refer to participants (see § 24.9, also for the bibliography), but, as they
refer to third-order entities (see § 11.136), only neuter forms are concerned. Examples
are (a)–(d). In (a), id refers to the situation the speaker is talking about. Quod refers
to the same situation and the speaker’s incompetence to see through it. Haec (plural;
hoc much less), as in (b), is relatively common to refer to a preceding situation. Illud
(singular) is used much less often to refer to what precedes than to announce what
follows. In Plautus both singular istuc (istud) and plural istaec are common, referring
to something in which the addressee is involved. In types of text other than Comedy
they are rare.34 The Supplement shows that these pronouns were still in use in Late
Latin, although sometimes mainly in stereotyped expressions.
(a) Ad illum modum sublitum os esse mi hodie! / Neque id perspicere quivi. /
Quod quom scibitur, per urbem irridebor.
(‘Is it possible that I was fooled like that today? I couldn’t see through it. Once this is
known, I’ll be a laughing-stock throughout the city.’ Pl. Capt. 783–5)
(b) Quor haec, tu ubi rescivisti ilico, / celata me sunt? Quor non rescivi?
(‘Why was this concealed from me as soon as you got to know of it? Why didn’t I find
out?’ Pl. Ps. 490–1)
33 See Chausserie-Laprée (1969: 55–60) and Kroon (2017). For Velleius Paterculus, see Ruiz Castellanos
(2005: 935–6).
34 For further instances of quod in Plautus, see Lodge s.v. qui 472 § N 1; for id, s.v. is 841 § B 5; for hoc,
s.v. hic 695 § A 2.l; for illuc (illud), s.v. ille 756 § C 2.r; for istuc (istud), s.v. iste 854 § C 2.
1158 Discourse
(c) Et illud paveo et hoc formido, ita tota sum misera in metu.
(‘I’m afraid of one thing and scared of the other: I’m completely in fear, poor me.’
Pl. Cist. 535)
(d) Quid est negoti? / # Pestis te tenet. # Nam quor istuc / dicis? Equidem valeo . . .
(‘What’s the matter? # You have the plague. # Why are you saying that? I’m perfectly
well . . .’ Pl. Am. 580–2)
Supplement:
Quod: Quem praestantissimus civis, Aquila, Pollentia expulit et quidem crure fracto.
Quod utinam illi ante accidisset, ne huc redire potuisset! (Cic. Phil. 11.14); Quod ubi
Caesar resciit quorum per fines ierant, his uti conquirerent et reducerent, si sibi pur-
gati esse vellent, imperavit. (Caes. Gal. 1.28.1); Quod cum dixisset, nos satis avidi
optati sumus ire . . . (Pereg. 10.9); Saguntum ergo ferociter obsidebat. Quod ubi Romae
auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem ut ab eius obsidione discederet. (August.
Civ. 3.20); Quod cum facis, vel attende, et iam noli facere. (August. Serm. 16B.1)
Quae ut aspexi, me continuo contuli protinam in pedes. (Pl. Bac. 374); Quae cum
cogito, iam nunc timeo quidnam . . . dignum eloqui possim. (Cic. Div. Caec. 42); Quae
cum ita sint, quoniam recta vita ducenda est qua perveniendum sit ad beatam, omnes
affectus istos vita recta rectos habet, perversa perversos. (August. Civ. 14.9); Quae
cum ita sint, hinc est quod Dominus Iesus in Spiritu Sancto daemones eicit. (August.
Serm. 71.27)
Id: Quis igitur nisi vos narravit mi illi ut fuerit proelium? / # An etiam id tu scis? #
Quipp’ qui ex te audivi ut urbem maxumam / expugnavisses regemque Pterelam tute
occideris. / # Egone istuc dixi? (Pl. Am. 744–7); Miram in eo pietatem, suavitatem
humanitatemque perspexi. Quo maiorem spem habeo nihil fore aliter ac deceat. Id te
igitur scire volui. (Cic. Att. 6.3.8); Neque fas esse existimant ea litteris mandare, cum
in reliquis fere rebus, publicis privatisque rationibus, Graecis utantur litteris. Id mihi
duabus de causis instituisse videntur . . . (Caes. Gal. 6.14.3–4); Ad hoc enim ducitur
uxor. Nam id etiam tabulae indicant ubi scribitur: Liberorum procreandorum causa.
Ea tibi omnia enarravi. Nisi te amarem plurumum, / non facerem. (Pl. Am. 525–6);
Eaque populus Romanus non solum plausu sed etiam gemitu suo comprobavit. (Cic.
Sest. 123); Denique quando ea paululum supprimenda iudicavit et aliquanto altius
latuit, dubitavit de illo daemonum princeps . . . (August. Civ. 9.21); Ea legimus, credi-
mus ut salvemur. (August. Serm. 9.4)
Hoc: Postquam hoc mihi narravit, abeo ab illo. (Pl. Cur. 349); Ubi hoc quaestori
Caecilio . . . nuntiatum est, vocari ad se Agonidem iubet. (Cic. Div. Caec. 56); Hoc
autem, antequam perveniremus ad Montem Dei, iam referentibus fratribus cogno-
veram, et postquam ibi perveni, ita esse manifeste cognovi. (Pereg. 2.7); Testantur hoc
martyrum loca et basilicae apostolorum, quae in illa vastatione urbis ad se confu-
gientes suos alienosque receperunt. (August. Civ. 1.1); An forte hoc probare non
potero . . . (August. Serm. 1.2)
Utrum deliras, quaeso, an astans somnias, / qui equom me afferre iubes, loricam
adducere, / multos hastatos, postid multos velites, / multos cum multis? Haec tu per-
vorsario / mihi fabulatu’s. # Dixin’ ego istaec, opsecro? / # Modo quidem hercle haec
dixisti. (Pl. Cist. 291–6); Magium se ipsum interfecisse postea. Se a Marcello ad me
missum esse qui haec nuntiaret et rogaret uti medicos ei mitterem. (Sulp. Ruf. Fam.
4.12.2); Statim ergo ut haec audivi, descendimus de animalibus . . . (Pereg. 14.1); Sed
haec Iuno dicebat velut irata mulier, quid loqueretur ignorans. (August. Civ. 1.3); Qui
haec dicit et non it nec applicat cor suum ut faciat mala remedia, utique vincit.
Illud (illuc): Egone istuc dixi tibi? / # Mihi quidem hercle. # Ita me amabit Iuppiter, /
uxor, ut ego illud numquam dixi. (Pl. Mer. 761–3); Ecquis est igitur . . . qui illud aut
fieri noluerit aut factum improbarit? (Cic. Phil. 2.29); An quia illud factum est indig-
nante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? (August. Civ. 3.3); Dicendo sibi
illud homines moriuntur. (August. Serm. 5.2)
Egomet mihi non credo, quom illaec autumare illum audio. (Pl. Am. 416); Sed
quid ego illa commemoro? (Cic. Mil. 18); Praenuntiabat illa Hermes dolendo.
Praenuntiabat haec propheta gaudendo. (August. Civ. 8.24); Quare dicta sint illa
omnia, quaeramus. (August. Serm. 4.22)
Istuc (istud ): Qui tibi nunc istuc in mentem est? (Pl. Am. 666); Nimirum tibi istud
lex ipsa renuntiavit. (Cic. Clu. 143); Neque istuc pia fides nimium reformidat . . .
(August. Civ. 1.12); Istud non dicitur . . . (August. Serm. 16A.11)
Nimia mira memoras. Si istaec vera sunt, divinitus / non metuo quin meae uxori
latae suppetiae sient. (Pl. Am. 1105–6); Sed quo die populo Romano tribuni plebi
restituti sunt, omnia ista vobis, si forte nondum intellegitis, adempta atque erepta
sunt. (Cic. Ver. 5.175); Verum ista oportunius alio loco diligenter copioseque trac-
tanda sunt. (August. Civ. 1.3); Sed ne oneremus memoriam sanctitatis vestrae, ista
commemorasse suffecerit. (August. Serm. 1.5)
The adverb ita is regularly used to refer to a preceding state of affairs, as in (e)–(g). In
(e), the speaker uses ita to express that ‘my behaviour will be as you indicated’. In (g),
ita signals a consequence, more or less like itaque. Sic is used in a comparable way, as
in (h) and (i).
(e) Sequere hac, Palinure, me ad fores, fi mi opsequens. / # Ita faciam.
(‘Palinurus, follow me this way to the door, be obedient to me. # I will do so.’ Pl. Cur.
87–8)
(f) . . . cum cognorit ab eis qui tenent quae sint in quaque re, multo oratorem
melius quam ipsos illos quorum eae sunt artes esse dicturum. Ita si de re
militari dicendum huic erit Sulpicio, quaeret a C. Mario adfini nostro et, cum
acceperit, ita pronuntiabit ut ipsi C. Mario paene hic melius quam ipse illa
scire videatur.
(‘. . . after learning the technicalities of each from those who know the same, the orator
will speak about them far better than even the men who are masters of these arts. For
example, should our friend Sulpicius here have to speak upon the art of war, he will
inquire of our relative Gaius Marius, and when he has received his teachings, will
deliver himself in such fashion as to seem even to Gaius Marius to be almost better
informed on the subject than Gaius Marius himself.’ Cic. de Orat. 1.65–6)
(g) Insectatur omnis domi per aedis / nec quemquam prope ad se sinit adire. /
Ita omnes sub arcis, sub lectis latentes / metu mussitant.
1160 Discourse
(‘She’s chasing everybody at home throughout the house and doesn’t let anyone come
near her: everybody’s hiding under chests and couches and keeping quiet out of fear.’
Pl. Cas. 662–5)
(h) Te velle uxorem aiebat tuo nato dare, / ideo aedificare hic velle aiebat in tuis. /
# Hic aedificare volui? # Sic dixit mihi.
(‘He said you wanted to give a wife to your son, and he said that was why you wanted
to enlarge your own house here. # I wanted to enlarge my house? # So he told me.’
Pl. Mos. 1027–9)
(i) Reos autem appello non eos modo qui arguuntur sed omnis quorum de re
disceptatur. Sic enim olim loquebantur.
(‘By “parties” I mean not only persons impeached, but all whose interests are being
determined, for that was how people used the term in the old days.’ Cic. de Orat.
2.183)
Anaphorical adverbs with a more specific meaning than ita and sic include reason
adverbs like eo, ideo ‘therefore’, quo ‘from which fact or circumstance’ (OLD), quare
‘wherefore’, quamobrem (also written as three words quam ob rem) ‘wherefore’, and
unde ‘from which’ (rare), as in (j) and (k), and time adverbs like postea ‘thereafter’,
inde ‘from then on’, as in (l).
(j) Video ego te Amoris valde tactum toxico, / adulescens. Eo te magis volo
monitum.
(‘I can see that you’ve been hit hard by Love’s poisoned shaft, young man. That’s why
I want to warn you all the more.’ Pl. Cist. 299–300)
(k) Arbitrium vostrum, vostra existumatio / valebit. Quare omnis vos oratos
volo, / ne plus iniquom possit quam aequom oratio.
(‘Your judgement and your opinion will prevail. So I want to plead with all of you not
to let the words of the unfair carry more weight than those of the fair.’ Ter. Hau.
25–7—tr. Brown)
(l) Inde ex eo loco / video recipere se senem.
(‘Then I saw the old bloke coming from the place.’ Pl. Aul. 709–10)
Appendix: A number of demonstrative adverbs are used to introduce some form
of confirmation of or argument for a preceding statement, for example ita in (m).
The determiner is can be used in a comparable way, as in (n), as well as the demon-
strative adjectives talis, tantus, and tot. The term used for such statements is
‘epiphonema’.35
(m) Di te deaeque omnes funditus perdant, senex. / Ita mea consilia undique
oppugnas male.
(‘May all the gods and goddesses kill you entirely, old man: you assault my
plans from all sides.’ Pl. Mos. 684–5)
35 See K.-St.: II.158–9, Nägelsbach and Müller (1905: 758–61), TLL s.v. adeo 606.19ff.; s.v. ita 520.70ff.,
Sz.: 470. For the Greek term §.tĈxrwl ‘interjection, exclamation’, see Dickey (2007: 238).
Preparative (cataphoric) reference 1161
(n) . . . sic / ut eum, si convenit, scio fe- / cisse. Eo est ingenio natus.
(‘. . . as I know he has done if he’s found him; that’s his nature.’ Pl. Bac.
1085–6)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by demonstrative word):

. . . non, ut ego, amori nec desidiae in otio / operam dedisse nec potestatem sibi / fuisse.
Adeo arte cohibitum esse <se> a patre. (Pl. Mer. 62–4); Damna evenerunt maxuma
misero mihi. Ita me mancupia miserum affecerunt male . . . (Pl. St. 209–10); . . . quorum
quanta mens sit, difficile est existimare. Ita multa meminerunt. (Cic. Tusc. 1.59);
Malum quod tibi di dabunt. Sic scelestu’s. (Pl. Ps. 1130); Invideo tibi. Tam multa cot-
tidie quae mirer<is> istoc perferuntur. (Cael. Fam. 8.4.1); Ut Alexandrum regem vide-
mus, qui cum interemisset Clitum familiarem suum, vix a se manus abstinuit. Tanta
vis fuit paenitendi. (Cic. Tusc. 4.79); Ipsum id metuo ut credant. Tot concurrunt veri
similia. (Ter. Ad. 627); . . . a Platone, qui, cum haec exprimenda verbis arbitraretur,
novam quandam finxit in libris civitatem. Usque eo illa quae dicenda de iustitia puta-
bat a vitae consuetudine et a civitatum moribus abhorrebant. (Cic. de Orat. 1.224)
24.13 Preparative (cataphoric) reference to following

states of affairs and segments of discourse
Anaphoric and demonstrative determiners and pronouns can be used to announce

constituents of clauses (their preparative or cataphoric function). See § 11.106 and
§ 11.139. They are also used to announce states of affairs and segments of discourse.
The same holds for the adverbs ita and sic.36 Examples with preparative determiners
are (a) and (b).37
(a) Eo sum genere gnatus: magna me facinora decet efficere / quae post mihi
clara et diu clueant.
(‘Such is the stock from which I was born: I ought to do great deeds that bring me
great and long renown afterward.’ Pl. Ps. 590–1)
(b) Hac lege vinum pendens venire oportet: vinaceos inlutos et faecem relinquito.
(‘These are the terms for the sale of grapes on the vine: The purchaser will leave
unwashed lees and dregs.’ Cato Agr. 147)
Supplement:
Is: Hoc idem significat Graecus ille in eam sententiam versus: ‘Quod fore paratum
est, id summum exsuperat Iovem.’ (Cic. Div. 2.25); . . . senatusque decrevit uti consules
maioribus hostiis rem divinam facerent . . . cum precatione ea: ‘quod . . .’ (Liv. 31.5.3)
Hic: Nam fere maxuma pars morem hunc homines habent: quod sibi volunt, / dum
id impetrant, boni sunt. (Pl. Capt. 232–3); Insipiens, / semper tu huic verbo vitato aps
tuo viro— # Quoi verbo? / # ‘I foras, mulier.’ (Pl. Cas. 209–12)
36 See TLL s.v. ita 518.79ff. See also § 15.103 for the use of ita and sic as preparative devices with
accusative and infinitive clauses.
37 For further examples of is, see TLL s.v. is 474.6ff.
1162 Discourse
Ille: Illa vero eius cupiditas incredibilis est. Nam . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.58)
Iste: Postero die pastillus iste nocte super cibum dandus est et, si opus fuerit, per
triduum continuum eodem tempore. Recipit autem haec: apii seminis pondo
trientem . . . (Larg. 52)38
Examples with preparative pronouns are (c) and (d).

(c) Quid tibi ex filio nam, opsecro, aegre est? # Scies: / id, perit cum tuo. [atque]
Ambo aeque amicas habent.
(‘What upsets you about your son, please? / # You shall know. It’s that he’s perished
together with yours; both alike have girlfriends.’ Pl. Bac. 1114–15)
(d) Sed mi hoc responde. # Roga. / # Quid erat nomen nostrae matri? # Teuximarchae.
(‘But answer me this. # Ask. # What was our mother’s name? # Teuximarcha.’ Pl. Men.
1130–1)
Supplement:
Is: Cara omnia. / atque eo fuerunt cariora, aes non erat. (Pl. Aul. 375–6); Atque id
etiam de Cicerone dicit: ‘Non miror’, inquit, ‘fuisse qui hos versus scriberet . . .’
(Gel. 12.2.5)
Hic: . . . quom haec pater sibi diceret: / ‘tibi aras, tibi occas, tibi seris, tibi idem metis, /
tibi denique iste pariet laetitiam labos.’ (Pl. Mer. 70–2); Licet iste dicat emisse se,
sicuti solet dicere, credite hoc mihi, iudices. Nulla umquam civitas tota Asia et
Graecia signum ullum, tabulam pictam <ullam>, ullum denique ornamentum urbis
sua voluntate cuiquam vendidit. (Cic. Ver. 4.133)
Ille: Atque illud saepe fit: tempestas venit, / confringit tegulas imbricesque. (Pl. Mos.
108–9); Illud enim potest dici iudici ab aliquo non tam verecundo homine quam
gratioso: ‘Iudica hoc factum esse aut numquam esse factum; crede huic testi . . .’ (Cic.
Caec. 72)
Iste: Sed adhuc istud, mea pupula, ministrare debebis. (Apul. Met. 6.16.3)
Examples of the adverbs ita and sic are (e) and (f).
(e) Ita <ingeni> ingenium meum est: / Inimicos semper osa sum optuerier.
(‘This is the nature of my nature: I’ve always hated looking at my enemies.’ Pl. Am.
899–900)
(f) At ego sic agam: / Coniciam sortis in sitellam et sortiar / tibi et Chalino.
(‘But I’ll act like this: I’ll put lots into an urn and draw them for you and Chalinus.’
Pl. Cas. 341–3)
24.14 Cohesive devices linking sentences
The preceding sections focused on participants and events within sentences and the
ways to refer to participants and events in contiguous sentences. We now turn to the
38 TLL s.v. iste 507.62ff. cites this as the first instance of preparative use of the determiner.
Cohesive devices linking sentences 1163
relations between entire sentences. Within a unit of discourse contiguous sentences

can follow each other with or without a linking device that indicates the semantic
relation between them: the connexion is either ‘syndetic’ or ‘asyndetic’. (The same
terms are used for the way coordinated clauses, phrases, or words are connected—see
§ 19.1.) Examples of asyndetically and syndetically connected sentences are (a) and
(b), respectively. The semantic relation between the two pairs of sentences is more or
less the same: the second sentence explains the emotion mentioned in the first. The
first example, repeated from § 24.2, has no specific sign of this relation (it is an instance
of asyndeton causale or explicativum);39 the second has the connector nam.
(a) Odi ego aurum. ° Multa multis saepe suasit perperam.
(‘I hate gold: it has often led many people to act badly on many issues.’ Pl. Capt. 328)
(b) Factum quod <ego> aegre tuli. / Nam mihi sobrina Ampsigura tua mater
fuit.
(‘Yes, which was hard for me. For your mother, Ampsigura, was my second cousin.’
Pl. Poen. 1067–8)
The frequency of asyndeton varies between authors and between texts. In texts written
in a periodic style asyndeton is relatively rare. In archaic texts it is relatively frequent,40
but in the prose of Seneca, too, the frequency is extremely high. The grammars often
describe the high frequency in archaic texts as a mark of colloquial usage and a rela-
tively simple style, but there is no reliable evidence. Considering Seneca, the fre-
quency of asyndeton apparently has to do with personal preference as well. Table 24.3
offers an illustration of the variations in frequency of the use of asyndeton and explicit
sentence-connecting constituents in a number of passages of similar length from
Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Livy, and Seneca’s Letters.41 In Late Latin texts, for example
in the Peregrinatio, asyndeton is much less common than in the texts represented in
Table 24.3.42
Table 24.3 Asyndeton in three prose texts
Cicero Livy Seneca
Asyndeton 68 42 107
Syndeton 42 57 41
Authors like Cicero and Caesar use asyndeton especially in dramatic peaks of
their narratives, which shows that it was an important stylistic device.43 An example
is (c).
39 See K.-St.: II.158. 40 For Plautus’ ‘Armut an Konjunktionen’, see Blänsdorf (1967: 78).
41 Cic. Att. 1.1–5 (178 lines OCT); Liv. 1.48–53 (195 lines OCT); Sen. Ep. 1–5 (181 lines OCT). From
Table 24.3 it can also be deduced that in this sample Seneca has the shortest, Livy the longest sentences.
This figure is taken from LSS § 12.1. For Seneca, see Bolkestein (1986).
42 See Kiss (2005). 43 See Rosén (2011: 136) and von Albrecht (2012: 35, 161).
1164 Discourse
(c) Aderant unguenta, coronae. ° Incendebantur odores. ° Mensae conquisitis-

simis epulis exstruebantur. ° Fortunatus sibi Damocles videbatur.
choicest banquet: Damocles thought himself a lucky man.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.62)
A number of words and clitics that can be used as connectors of sentences are also
used as coordinators of clauses. As a consequence, it is not always clear whether we
are dealing with syndetic and asyndetic clauses that belong to the same (compound)
sentence or with separate syndetic and asyndetic sentences (see also § 14.1 (ii) and
§ 19.14). Editors vary in their decisions on punctuation. This is illustrated by (d)
and (e), more or less the same text with different punctuations. In (d), Klotz’ Teubner
edition has one adversative connector and two conjunctive coordinators. In (e),
Damon’s edition has one adversative coordinator and two conjunctive connectors.44
In (c) above, editors use a comma, colon, or semicolon where I print a full stop (and
a capital).
(d) Est autem oppidum et loci natura et colle munitum. Sed celeriter cives
Romani ligneis effectis turribus sese munierunt, et cum essent infirmi ad
resistendum propter paucitatem hominum crebris confecti vulneribus, ad
extremum auxilium descenderunt servosque omnes puberes liberaverunt et
praesectis omnium mulierum crinibus tormenta effecerunt.
(e) Est autem oppidum et loci natura et colle munitum, sed celeriter cives
Romani, ligneis effectis turribus, his sese munierunt. Et cum essent infirmi
ad resistendum propter paucitatem hominum, crebris confecti vulneribus ad
extremum auxilium descenderunt servosque omnes puberes liberaverunt. Et
praesectis omnium mulierum crinibus tormenta effecerunt.
(‘The town is fortified both by the nature of its site and by a hill, but the Roman citi-
zens hastily built wooden siege towers and used these as their fortifications. Being
incapable—because of their small numbers—of standing firm in resistance, and over-
come by numerous injuries, they came to the last resort, freeing all of the adult male
slaves; they also cut off all the women’s hair, making catapult ropes.’ Caes. Civ. 3.9.2–3)
24.15 Syndetic connexion of sentences

The words (and clitics) that can be used to create coherence between sentences belong
to various categories, which are not always easy to distinguish one from one another.
One category has been dealt with in § 24.12, namely anaphoric adverbs like ideo
‘therefore’ referring to a preceding state of affairs or segment of discourse. Another
category are words that can also be used as coordinators to connect clauses and con-
stituents within clauses like et ‘and’ and sed ‘but’ (see the discussion of exx. (d) and (e)
in § 24.14). More specific are connectors like nam ‘for’ and interactional particles like
enim ‘you know’. Then there are all sorts of adverbs like enumerative porro ‘besides’
44 For Damon’s punctuation, see the Preface to her OCT edition, pp. lxiii and lxvi, n. 81.
Cohesive devices linking sentences 1165
and contrastive tamen ‘yet’. A number of words can function as adverb and as con-
nector or interactional particle (see § 24.46 on nunc). Furthermore there are devices
that create the expectation for additional information, such as the particle quidem and
the adverb sane, both often followed by some form of contrast.
The terminology used to refer to these words differs from language to language and
between theoretical models, especially for the group of words called ‘connectors’ and
‘interactional particles’ in this Syntax. A common name for the words involved is
‘discourse particles’. Some of these words are also used to mark the relation between
larger units of discourse (paragraphs, for example) and in this way contribute to the
organization of the discourse.45
The difference between connectors and interactional particles (called ‘conversation
management particles’ by Kroon 2011) is best demonstrated by comparing nam and
enim, which are traditionally called ‘causal conjunctions’. Whereas nam ‘for’ indicates
that the sentence in which it occurs contains some form of evidence for the correct-
ness of the preceding sentence, enim ‘you know’ appeals to the cooperation of the
addressee to recognize the correctness of what precedes: it is a ‘consensus’ particle.
Adverbs are also often used to connect sentences. They differ from connectors and
interactional particles in several respects. The main difference is that adverbs are part
of their clause and contribute their lexical meaning to its content, whereas the other
two categories, although positioned in a particular sentence, do not add to its content.
They serve to clarify the relationship between the successive sentences. Adverbs can
have clitics attached to them, the other two cannot. Adverbs are mobile in their sen-
tence, the other two have more or less fixed positions (see § 23.21). Connectors and
interactional particles cannot or can only rarely be used in subordinate clauses that
follow the main clause. Furthermore, connectors and interactional particles can co-
occur with adverbs in the same sentence. For an illustration, see the discussion of
tamen in § 24.22.
The sections in which these words are discussed below are based on semantic con-
siderations. The following semantic relations are distinguished:
(i) conjunctive relation: -que, ac/atque, et, nec/neque
(ii) disjunctive relation: aut
(iii) adversative relation: ast, at, atqui, autem, ceterum, sed, verum, contra, tamen,
nihilominus, vero, etsi, tametsi, quamquam
(iv) explanatory and justificatory relation: nam, namque, etenim, quippe, enim,
nempe
(v) consecutive relation: igitur, itaque, ergo
(vi) sequential relation: e.g. deinde, tum.
The amount of detail about the individual words and clitics in the following sections
varies considerably. This is related to the frequency of the items involved, their
45 See Pinkster (1972: 153–64; 2004b), Risselada (1998b), Rosén (2005: 231–2), Kroon (2011), and
Schrickx (2011: 261–8).
1166 Discourse
semantic and/or pragmatic complexity, the availability of up-to-date studies, includ-

ing lemmata of the TLL, and personal interest of the author.
24.16 Conjunctive connexion of sentences
The conjunctive (also called: ‘copulative’ or ‘additive’) connectors are the same as
the conjunctive coordinators discussed in §§ 19.24ff.: -que, ac/atque, et, and nec/neque.
These connectors can be used with all sentence types, but are not attested with inter-
rogative sentences introduced by the question particle nonne and rarely with those
with num.46 They are not compatible with other connectors introducing a sentence:
*et nam, *et . . . igitur (for autem, see § 24.26).
24.17 The conjunctive connector -que

Sentence connexion by -que ‘and’ is rare. Examples are (a)–(c). The following sentence
is simply added to the preceding one. See also § 19.25 for the use of -que as a coord-
inator and for further details.
(a) Haec Andria, / si ista uxor sive amica’st, gravida e Pamphilo’st. / Audireque
eorum’st operae pretium audaciam.
(‘The Andrian woman, whether she’s a wife or a mistress, is pregnant by Pamphilus.
And you should just listen to their impudence.’ Ter. An. 215–17)
(b) (in a discussion about ‘sordid’ jobs) Opificesque omnes in sordida arte versan-
tur; nec enim quicquam ingenuum habere potest officina. Minimeque artes
eae probandae, quae ministrae sunt voluptatum . . .
(‘And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no workshop can have anything
liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those trades which cater for sensual pleas-
ures . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.150)
(c) Relinquebatur ut extremam rationem belli sequens quam plurimos colles
occuparet et quam latissimas regiones praesidiis teneret Caesarisque copias
quam maxime posset distineret. Idque accidit.
(‘It remained to pursue the final military option: occupy as many hills as possible,
hold as much territory as he could with garrisons, and extend Caesar’s forces as much
as possible. And this is what occurred.’ Caes. Civ. 3.44.2)
Supplement:
Quid cesso abire ad navem dum salvo licet? / Vosque omnis quaeso, si senex reve-
nerit, / ne me indicetis qua platea hinc aufugerim. (Pl. Men. 878–80); Eosque · viato-
res · eosque · praecones · omnes . . . (CIL I2.587.32 (Lex Cornelia, 81 bc)—NB:
connector + coordinator); Lentulum autem sibi confirmasse ex fatis Sibyllinis harus-
picumque responsis se esse tertium illum Cornelium ad quem regnum huius urbis
46 See Rosén (2011: 139–40). For the use of et in various sentence types, see TLL s.v. et 890.14ff. Et can
be used to coordinate an indirect question with num with another indirect question. See § 19.27,
Supplement. Aut num can be used after a preceding question. See § 24.21.
Conjunctive connexion of sentences 1167
atque imperium pervenire esset necesse: Cinnam ante se et Sullam fuisse. Eundemque
dixisse fatalem hunc annum esse ad interitum huius urbis . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.9); Quaeque
sunt vetera praecepta sapientium, qui iubent ‘tempori parere’ et ‘sequi deum’ et ‘se
noscere’ et ‘nihil nimis,’ haec sine physicis quam vim habeant—et habent maxi-
mam—videre nemo potest. (Cic. Fin. 3.73); Quos ubi Afranius procul visos cum
Petreio conspexit, nova re perterritus locis superioribus constitit. Aciemque instruit.
(Caes. Civ. 1.65.1); Caesar exploratis regionibus albente caelo omnes copias castris
educit. Magnoque circuitu nullo certo itinere exercitum ducit. (Caes. Civ. 1.68.1);
Romaeque legatis eius, postquam errasse regem et Iugurthae scelere lapsum depre-
cati sunt, amicitiam et foedus petentibus hoc modo respondetur. (Sal. Jug. 104.4);
Tantumque sua laude obstitit famae consulis Marcius ut, nisi foedus cum Latinis
<in> columna aenea insculptum monumento esset ab Sp. Cassio uno, quia collega
afuerat, ictum, Postumium Cominium bellum gessisse cum Volscis memoria cessis-
set. (Liv. 2.33.9); (sc. Tacfarinas) ruendo in tela captivitatem haud inulta morte effugit.
Isque finis armis impositus. (Tac. Ann. 4.25.3); Redditur ordini Lurius Varus consula-
ris, avaritiae criminibus olim perculsus. Et Pomponia Graecina insignis femina, <A.>
Plautio, quem ovasse de Britannis rettuli, nupta ac superstitionis externae rea, mariti
iudicio permissa. Isque prisco instituto propinquis coram de capite famaque coniugis
cognovit et insontem nuntiavit. (Tac. Ann. 13.32.2)
24.18 The conjunctive connector ac/atque

Ac/atque ‘and’ is used more often as a connector of sentences than -que and et.47 Also,
of the occurrences of ac/atque a higher proportion is used as connector than is the
case with et. In Caesar’s de Bello Gallico, for example, of the c.600 instances of ac/atque
some twenty-five are connectors; in Cicero’s de Officiis of c.180 instances, some sixty.
Alongside instances where the sentence introduced by ac/atque simply adds extra
information ac/atque often signals something that is unexpected, as in (a) and (b), or
more important (‘and what is more’ OLD), as in (c) and (d). Sometimes the content of
the ac/atque sentences is in contrast with what precedes, as in (e). Sentences with
ac/atque relatively often contain particles or adverbs that make these relations explicit
(see the Supplement). See also § 19.26 for the use of ac/atque as a coordinator and for
further details.
(a) . . . abimus omnes cubitum. Condormivimus. / Lucernam forte oblitus fueram
exstinguere. / Atque ille exclamat derepente maxumum.
(‘. . . we all went to bed. We fell asleep. I’d accidentally forgotten to put out the lamp.
And suddenly he lets out an enormous shout.’ Pl. Mos. 486–8)
(b) Profectum longius reperiunt omnemque exercitum discessisse cognoscunt.
Atque unus ex captivis ‘Quid vos’, inquit . . .
(‘They find that he has gone on some distance, they learn that all his army is departed.
And then one of their prisoners said: “Why do you . . .” ’ Caes. Gal. 6.35.7)
47 See TLL s.v. atque 1076.18ff. with a detailed semantic classification and OLD s.v. atque § 2 ‘beginning
an emphatic sentence or clause’. Also Lodge: s.v. atque 178–9 (§ 13), McGlynn s.v. atque 59 (§§ XIII and
XIV), Merguet (Reden) s.v. atque 308 (§II.1); (Phil.) 255 (§ II.1), and Gerber and Greef s.v. atque 109 (§ 2).
1168 Discourse
(c) Flagitium hominis, qui dixit mihi / suam uxorem hanc arcessituram [esse].
Ea se eam negat morarier. / Atque edepol mirum ni subolet iam hoc huic
vicinae meae.
(‘What a disgraceful creature he is! He told me his wife would send for her. But she
says she doesn’t need her. And indeed it would be odd if this neighbour of mine hasn’t
got wind of this already.’ Pl. Cas. 552–4)
(d) Putatisne vos illis rebus frui posse, nisi eos qui vobis fructui sunt conservari-
tis, non solum, ut ante dixi, calamitate, sed etiam calamitatis formidine libe-
ratos? Ac ne illud quidem vobis neglegendum est . . .
(‘Do you imagine that you can enjoy these advantages unless you preserve those from
whom you derive them and keep them free not only, as I said before, from disaster
but from fear of disaster? There is still another point . . .’ Cic. Man. 16–17)
(e) Atque ego istuc, Anthrax, aliovorsum dixeram, / non istuc quod tu insimulas.
(‘Now now, Anthrax! I said this in a different sense, not the one you allege.’ Pl. Aul.
287–8)
Supplement (in alphabetical order by additional particles and adverbs):
Fieri non potest ut . . . eum tu in tua provincia non cognoris. Atque adeo, ne hoc aut
longius aut obscurius esse possit, procedite in medium atque explicate descriptionem
imaginemque tabularum . . . (Cic. Ver. 2.190); At scelesta vide’n ut ne id quidem, me
dignum esse existumat / quem adeat, quem colloquatur, quoique irato supplicet? /
Atque eccam illecebra exit tandem. (Pl. As. 149–51); Is enim est dicendi opifex. Atque
equidem aliquantum iam etiam noctis adsumo. (Cic. Fam. 7.25.2); I, bene ambula. / #
Atque audi’n etiam? # Ecce. (Pl. As. 108–9); Atque ego quidem hercle ut verum tibi
dicam, pater, / ea res me male habet. (Pl. As. 843–4); Ac tamen, ut posset dicere se
emisse, Archagatho imperat ut illis aliquid quorum argentum fuerat nummulorum
dicis causa daret. (Cic. Ver. 4.53); Atque utinam non daretis quis sit peior. (August.
Serm. 9.21)
24.19 The conjunctive connector et

Et ‘and’ is rarely used as a conjunctive connector.48 In Caesar’s de Bello Gallico, for
example, of the almost 900 instances of et only two are connectors; in Cicero’s de
Officiis of also almost 900 instances, some thirty-five. A sentence introduced by et
generally simply adds a new piece of information, more or less as deinde ‘and then’
and praeterea ‘and furthermore’ do (so the TLL).49 Usually a large number of context-
ually determined senses are distinguished which depend on the precise relation
between the et sentence and what precedes (see also § 19.41).50 Most instances of con-
necting et are found in continuous discourse, as in (a) and (b), but in spoken dialogue
the et sentence regularly follows a change of speaker, as in (c) and (d). Comparable is
48 See TLL s.v. et 890.14ff., Lodge s.v. et 534ff. (§§ S and D), Merguet (Reden) s.v. et 212 (§ A); (Phil.)
829 (§ C), Gerber and Greef s.v. et 389 (§ 2). For the use of et in the Passio Perp., see Adams (2016: 323–4).
49 Adverbs of addition like praeterea often imply gradation. See Iordache (2010).
50 For examples, see TLL s.v. et 892.53ff.
Conjunctive connexion of sentences 1169
the use of et in (e). Cases like (d) can sometimes also be regarded as discontinuous
coordination. See also § 19.27 for the use of et as a coordinator and for further details.
(a) . . . certum est hominem eludere. / Et enim vero quoniam formam cepi huius
in med et statum, / decet et facta moresque huius habere me similis item.
(‘. . . I’ll definitely make a fool of him. And since I took on his looks and dress, I also
ought to have similar ways and habits.’ Pl. Am. 265–7)
(b) Tu tamen permanes constantissimus defensor Antoni. Et quidem, quo melior
senator videatur, negat se illi amicum esse debere.
(‘And yet you still remain Antonius’ most resolute defender. And what is more, to
make himself appear a more conscientious senator, he says he has no call to be
Antonius’ friend.’ Cic. Phil. 8.17–18)
(c) Dedi equidem quod mecum egisti. # Et tibi ego misi mulierem.
(‘I gave you what you arranged with me. # And I sent you the girl.’ Pl. As. 171)
(d) Repperit patrem Palaestra suom atque matrem? # Repperit. / # Et popularis
est? # Opino. # Et nuptura est mi? # Suspicor.
(‘Has Palaestra found her father and mother? # She has. # And is she my compatriot?
# I think so. # And is she going to marry me? # I suspect so.’ Pl. Rud. 1267–8)
(e) Tum Scipio: ‘Atqui nactus es, sed mehercule otiosiorem opera quam animo.’
Et ille (sc. Tubero): ‘At vero animum quoque relaxes oportet.’
(Then Scipio said: “Yes, you have found me at leisure, but less so in mind than in
occupation.” And he: “Yet it is your duty to relax your mind also.” ’ Cic. Rep. 1.14)
Supplement:
Istac lege filiam tuam sponde’n mi uxorem dari? / # Spondeo. # Et ego spondeo idem
hoc. (Pl. Trin. 1162–3); Ipsu’ mihi Davo’, qui intumu’st <eo>rum consiliis, dixit. / Et
is mihi persuadet nuptias quantum queam ut maturem. (Ter. An. 576–7); Inpune
optare istuc licet. / Ill’ revivescet iam numquam. Et tamen utrum malis scio. (Ter.
Hec. 464–5); (sc. Gallia) Omnis aequo animo belli patitur iniurias, dum modo repel-
lat periculum servitutis. Et ut omittam reliquas partis Galliae—nam sunt omnes
pares—Patavini alios excluserunt, alios eiecerunt . . . (Cic. Phil. 12.10); A malo autem
vitioque causae ita recedam . . . ut totum bono illo ornando et augendo dissimulatum
obruatur. Et, si causa est in argumentis, firmissima quaeque maxime tueor . . . (Cic.
de Orat. 2.292); Persequi Caesar Pompeium? Quid? Ut interficiat? O me miserum!
Et non omnes nostra corpora opponimus? (Cic. Att. 7.23.1); Verum haec (sc.
Roma) tantum alias inter caput extulit urbes / quantum lenta solent inter viburna
cupressi. / # Et quae tanta fuit Romam tibi causa videndi? (Verg. Ecl. 1.24–6); . . . ad
Cn. Manlium, consulem . . . legationes undique ex omnibus civitatibus . . . convenie-
bant. Et ut clarior nobiliorque victoria Romanis de rege Antiocho fuit quam de
Gallis, ita laetior sociis erat de Gallis quam de Antiocho. (Liv. 38.37.1–2); Passim
silentia et gemitus, nihil compositum in ostentationem. Et quamquam neque
insignibus lugentium abstinerent, altius animis maerebant. (Tac. Ann. 2.82.3); Et
exivi ad eum et aperui ei. (Passio Perp. 10.2); Et dicitis: ‘Christiani sumus’. (August.
Serm. 9.21)
1170 Discourse
24.20 The conjunctive connector nec/neque

Nec/neque ‘and not’ is used as a negative connector from Early Latin onwards.51
Examples are (a)–(c). See also § 19.28 for its use as a coordinator and for further
details and references.
(a) Numquam amatoris meretricem oportet causam noscere, / quin, ubi nil det,
pro infrequente eum mittat militia domum. / Neque umquam erit probus
quisquam amator nisi qui rei inimicu’st suae.
(‘A prostitute ought never to take notice of a lover’s circumstances; rather, when he
doesn’t give anything, she should send him back home as a deserter from military
service. And no one will ever be a decent lover unless he’s an enemy of his own pos-
sessions.’ Pl. Truc. 229–31)
(b) Nam certum est sine dote hau dare. # Quin tu i modo. / # Neque enim illi
damno umquam esse patiar— # Abi modo. / # —meam neglegentiam.
(‘For I’m resolved not to give her in marriage without a dowry. # Just go. # Yes, and I
won’t ever let my carelessness— # Just go away! # —harm her.’ Pl. Trin. 585–7)
(c) Recta enim a porta domum meam venisse <scito>. Neque hoc admiror quod
non suam potius sed illud, quod non ad suam.
(‘For he came straight from the city gate, let me tell you, to my house, and I’m not
surprised that he didn’t rather go to his own, but I should have expected him to go to
his sweetheart.’ Cic. Fam. 9.19.1)
Supplement:
Quanta me cura et sollicitudine adficit / gnatus, qui me et se hisce inpedivit nuptiis! /
Neque mi in conspectum prodit . . . (Ter. Ph. 441–3); C. Marcelle, te appello. Siciliae
provinciae, cum esses pro consule, praefuisti. Num quae in tuo imperio pecuniae cel-
lae nomine coactae sunt? Neque ego hoc in tua laude pono . . . (Cic. Ver. 3.212); Nec
vero Theophrasti inconstantia ferenda est. Modo enim menti divinum tribuit princi-
patum modo caelo, tum autem signis sideribusque caelestibus. Nec audiendus eius
auditor Strato is qui physicus appellatur . . . (Cic. N.D. 1.35); Romani vero quid petunt
aliud aut quid volunt nisi . . . aeternam iniungere servitutem? Neque enim umquam
alia condicione bella gesserunt. (Caes. Gal. 7.77.15); Parce, puer, stimulis et fortius
utere loris, / sponte sua properant, labor est inhibere volentes. / Nec tibi derectos
placeat via quinque per arcus. (Ov. Met. 2.127–9); L. Valerium Potitum proditum
memoriae est post relationem Ap. Claudi, priusquam ordine sententiae rogarentur,
postulando ut de re publica liceret dicere, prohibentibus minaciter decemviris
proditurum se ad plebem denuntiantem, tumultum excivisse. Nec minus ferociter
M. Horatium Barbatum isse in certamen, decem Tarquinios appellantem admo-
nentemque Valeriis et Horatiis ducibus pulsos reges. Nec nominis homines tum pertae-
sum esse . . . (Liv. 3.39.2–4); . . . adeo . . . exarserat ut more regio pubem ingenuam stupris
pollueret. Nec formam tantum et decora corpora, sed in his modestam pueritiam, in
aliis imagines maiorum incitamentum cupidinis habebat. (Tac. Ann. 6.1.1–2); Non
51 Merguet (Reden) s.v. nec 258 (§ A); (Phil.) 662 (§ B.I.1.a).

Disjunctive connexion of sentences 1171
trepidavit offerre, quando exigebatur. Nec fuit religio credentis contraria devotioni
obtemperantis. (August. Serm. 2.1)
24.21 Disjunctive connexion of sentences
Of the disjunctive (also called: ‘alternative’) coordinators aut, vel, -ve, and sive (see
§ 19.43) only aut ‘or’ is also used as a connector. It is regularly used to connect inter-
rogative sentences, as in (a) and (b).52 An imperative sentence is shown in (c), where
aut ‘expresses the consequences of non-compliance or error’.53
(a) Non ecastor falsa memoro. # Nam, opsecro, unde haec gentium? / Aut quis
deus obiecit hanc ante ostium nostrum, quasi / dedita opera, in tempore ipso?
(‘Honestly, I’m not telling lies. # Where on earth does it come from, please? Or what
god threw it in front of our door, as if on purpose, right in the nick of time?’ Pl. Cist.
668–70)
(b) Num igitur tot clarissimorum ducum regumque naufragium sustulit artem
gubernandi? Aut num imperatorum scientia nihil est, quia summus
imperator nuper fugit amisso exercitu? Aut num propterea nulla est rei pub-
licae gerendae ratio atque prudentia quia . . .?
(‘Then, did the fact that so many illustrious captains and kings suffered shipwreck
deprive navigation of its right to be called an art? And is military science of no effect
because a general of the highest renown recently lost his army and took to flight?
Again, is statecraft devoid of method or skill because . . .?’ Cic. Div. 1.24)
(c) Duos solos video auctoritate censorum adfinis ei turpitudini iudicari. Aut
illud adferant, aliquid eos quod de his duobus habuerint compertum de
ceteris <non> comperisse.
(‘I observe that two jurors only were held by the official pronouncement of the cen-
sors to be implicated in that scandal. Or else let them allege that they had discovered
against those two something which they had not discovered against the others.’ Cic.
Clu. 127)54
Supplement:
Interrogative sentences: Quid istuc est? Aut ubi istuc est terrarum loci? (Pl. As. 32);
Quid iam? Aut quid negoti est? Fac sciam. (Pl. Mil. 277) Metuo te atque istos expiare
ut possies. / # Quam ob rem? Aut quam subito rem mihi apportas novam? (Pl. Mos.
465–6); De quo quis umquam arator questus est? Aut quis non ad hoc tempus inno-
centissimam omnium diligentissimamque praeturam illius hominis existimat? (Cic.
Ver. 3.216); Persuaderi igitur cuiquam potest ea quae significari dicuntur extis cog-
nita esse ab haruspicibus observatione diuturna? Quam diuturna ista fuit? Aut quam
longinquo tempore observari potuit? Aut quo modo est conlatum inter ipsos, quae
pars inimica, quae pars familiaris esset . . .? (Cic. Div. 2.28)
52 See Lodge s.v. aut 204 (§ D.1). 53 See OLD s.v. aut § 7.
54 Instead of the emendation non (by Graevius) there are several other proposals. See the apparatus in
Rizzo’s edition.
1172 Discourse
Other: Multum providisse suos maiores qui caverint ne cui patricio plebeii magis-
tratus paterent. Aut patricios habendos fuisse tribunos plebi. (Liv. 4.25.11); . . . trans-
gressique extemplo castra oppugnabimus, quae hodie cepissemus, ni fugissent. Aut
si acie decernere volent, eundem pugnae pedestris eventum expectate qui equitum
in certamine fuit. (Liv. 42.61.7–8); Neque enim, ut dixere aliqui, mundus hoc polo
excelsiore se attollit—aut undique cernerentur haec sidera—verum . . . (Plin. Nat.
2.179)
Vel is used to introduce imperative sentences, as in (d), but it does not signal an
alternative (see the translation).
(d) Equidem ioco illa dixeram dudum tibi, ridiculi causa. Vel hunc rogato
Sosiam.
(‘I said those things as a joke to you a while ago, for fun. Ask Sosia here if you like.’
Pl. Am. 916–17)
24.22 Adversative connexion of sentences
In addition to the connectors sed, verum, and ceterum ‘but’, which are also used as
adversative coordinators (see § 19.61), an adversative relation between sentences (and
discourse units) can be expressed by the connectors at, atqui, autem, and to some
extent ast, and by the adverbs contra, nihilominus, tamen, and vero.55 The difference
between connectors and adverbs that express an adversative relation appears among
other things from the fact that the connectors and adverbs can co-occur,56 as in (a)
and (b), and from the limited mobility of the connectors (at/near the beginning of the
sentence) in comparison with the adverbs. This is illustrated for tamen in (c)–(e). In
(c), tamen has the final position, in (e), the very first, at the beginning of a letter.57
Tamen can have a clitic attached to it, as -ne in (f). Further details on tamen can be
found in § 24.31.
(a) Abiit intro iratus. Quid ego nunc agam? . . . Sed tamen ibo et persequar.
Amans ne quid faciat cauto opu’st.
(‘He went inside in a rage. What should I do now? . . . But still I’ll go and follow him;
I need to be careful that our lover doesn’t do anything stupid.’ Pl. Cist. 528–31)
(b) Quae hoc tempore sileret omnia atque ea, si oblivione non posset, tamen
taciturnitate sua tecta esse pateretur. Sed vero sic agitur ut prorsus reticere
nullo modo possit.
(‘Not one of these would he now be mentioning—rather would he allow them to be
covered by the veil of silence if not of oblivion: but the issues are indeed such that
silence is an absolute impossibility.’ Cic. Clu. 18)
55 In her Table 4 Rosén (2009: 356–7) makes a distinction between pure ‘contrasting’ particles like
tamen and ‘adjoining + contrastive’ particles like sed. She also has more particles than discussed in the fol-
lowing sections.
56 A table with collocations of adversative connecting devices can be found in Rosén (2009: 340).
57 See Orlandini (1999b: 203) and Spevak (2006c: 245).
Adversative connexion of sentences 1173
(c) Abiero. / Flagitio cum maiore post reddes tamen.

(‘I’m off. You’ll return it later nevertheless, under greater and louder demands.’ Pl.
Epid. 516–17)
(d) Scio te id nolle fieri. Efficiam tamen ego id, si di adiuvant.
(‘I know you don’t want it done; but I’ll carry it through nevertheless if the gods help
me.’ Pl. Capt. 587)
(e) Tamen a malitia non discedis? Tenuculo apparatu significas Balbum
fuisse contentum.
(‘Still up to your tricks? You intimate that Balbus was satisfied with a modest little
spread.’ Cic. Fam. 9.19.1)
(f) Quid? Si testium studium cum accusatore sociatum est, tamenne isti testes
habebuntur?
(‘Again, if the witnesses have associated with the prosecutor, will they still be
considered witnesses?’ Cic. Flac. 21)
Appendix: The connector quod is regularly used to connect a sentence which starts
with a subordinate clause, especially si, with the preceding sentence or discourse, as
in (g) and (h) (quodsi is often printed as one word). Instances are found from Early
Latin onwards, but the phenomenon is particularly common in Cicero. Connexion of
sentences by quod when there is no introductory subordinate clause are rare and
mainly poetic. An example is (i). Often the semantic relation between the adjacent
sentences is adversative.58
(g) Quod si exquiratur usque ab stirpe auctoritas, / und’ quicque auditum
dicant . . .
(‘But if the authority for the claim were examined down to its very roots,
from where they say they’ve heard everything . . .’ Pl. Trin. 217–18)
(h) (sc. tyranni) Coluntur tamen simulatione dumtaxat ad tempus. Quodsi
forte, ut fit plerumque, ceciderunt, tum intellegitur quam fuerint inopes ami-
corum.
(‘Yet they are courted under a pretence of affection, but only for a season. For
when by chance they have fallen from power, as they generally do, then it is
known how poor they were in friends.’ Cic. Amic. 53)
(i) Quod ego per hanc te dexteram [oro] et genium tuom, / per tuam fidem
perque huiu’ solitudinem / te obtestor ne . . .
(‘So I beg you by this right hand of yours and by the god who watches over
you, by your honour and her defencelessness, not to . . .’ Ter. An. 289–91—tr.
Brown)
Supplement:
Quod ni f<ui>ssem incogitans, ita eum exspectarem ut par fuit. (Ter. Ph. 155);
Quod si non tuis nefariis in hunc ordinem contumeliis in perpetuum tibi curiam
praeclusisses, quid tandem erat actum . . . (Cic. Pis. 40); Quod nisi mihi hoc venisset
58 For discussion and examples, see Otto (1912: 43–57). See also K.-St.: II.321–2 and OLD s.v. quod, § 1.a.
1174 Discourse
in mentem, scribere ista nescio quae, quo verterem me non haberem. (Cic. Att.
13.10.1)
Quod cum esset animadversum coniunctam esse flumini, prorutis munitionibus
defendente nullo transcenderunt. (Caes. Civ. 3.68.3); Quod etsi ingeniis magnis
praediti quidam dicendi copiam sine ratione consequuntur, ars tamen est dux certior
quam natura. (Cic. Fin. 4.10); Quod ne id facere posses, idcirco heri non necessario
loco contra sensus tam multa dixeram. (Cic. Luc. 79); Quod ubi sensi me in posses-
sionem iudici ac defensionis meae constitisse . . . tum admiscere huic generi orationis
vehementi atque atroci genus illud alterum . . . coepi. (Cic. de Orat. 2.200)
NB: with a relative pronoun: Quod qui ab illo abducit exercitum et respectum pul-
cherrimum et praesidium firmissimum adimit rei publicae. (Cic. Phil. 10.9—NB:
various emendations proposed)59
Quod ut o potius formidine falsa / ludar, et in melius tua, qui potes, orsa reflectas!
(Verg. A. 10.631–2); Quod utinam ne Phormioni id suadere in mentem incidis-
set . . . (Ter. Ph. 157); Quod utinam aut Appius Claudius <in hac parte fuisset aut>
in ista parte C. Curio, cuius amicitia me paulatim in hanc per<di>tam causam
imposuit! (Cael. Fam. 8.17.1)
The use of quod as a connector is historically related to its use as connective relative
(see § 18.28). That it functions as a connector appears from the fact that it cannot
co-occur with regular connectors like nam and igitur.
24.23 The adversative connector ast

Ast ‘but’ is used in various ways.60 One is coordinating a second clause to a preceding
conditional clause, as in the text from the Twelve Tables in (a). In Cicero’s time this
usage probably was ill understood. In some of his legal formulations it is more or less
equivalent to si, as in (b). For other usages, see also the Supplement. Plautus uses it as
an adversative coordinator, as in (c). The Augustan poets use it as a heavy-syllable
alternative of at before vowels (with few exceptions), as in (d). Prose writers follow
this example later on. In this usage it is in first position of the sentence (with a few
poetic exceptions).
(a) Cui auro dentes iuncti esunt, ast im cum illo sepeliet uretve, se fraude esto.
(‘But him whose teeth shall have been fastened with gold, if a person shall bury or
burn him along with that gold, it shall be with impunity.’ Cic. Leg. 2.60=Lex XII 10.8—
ed. Powell)
(b) Ast quando duellum gravius discordiaeve civium escunt, oenus ne amplius
sex menses, si senatus creverit, idem iuris quod duo consules teneto . . .
(‘If ever a serious war or civil dissensions arise, one man shall hold, for no longer than
six months, the power which ordinarily belongs to the two consuls, if the Senate shall
so decree.’ Cic. Leg. 3.9)
59 See, among others, Pasoli (1957: 46–9).

60 See TLL s.v. ast, where the quoted instances must be checked in recent editions. For Cicero’s usage,
see Pascucci (1968: 29–34) and Powell (2005: 136–7).
(c) Atque oppido hercle bene velle illi visus sum, / ast non habere quoi commen-
darem capram.
(‘And I seemed very well disposed to the monkey, but not to have anyone who I could
entrust the goat to.’ Pl. Mer. 245–6)
(d) Mars perdere gentem / immanem Lapithum valuit . . . / Ast ego, magna Iovis
coniunx, . . . / vincor ab Aenea.
(‘Mars could destroy the Lapiths’ giant race . . . But I, Jove’s mighty consort, . . . I am
worsted by Aeneas!’ Verg. A. 7.304–10)
Supplement:
Divos et eos qui caelestes semper habiti sunt colunto et ollos quos endo caelo merita
locaverunt, Herculem, Liberum, Aesculapium, Castorem, Pollucem, Quirinum, ast
olla propter quae datur homini ascensus in caelum, Mentem, Virtutem, Pietatem,
Fidem. (Cic. Leg. 2.19); Dicitur Appius . . . ita precatus esse: ‘Bellona, si hodie nobis
victoriam duis, ast ego tibi templum voveo.’ (Liv. 10.19.17–18)
24.24 The adversative connector at

The typical use of at ‘but’ is to mark a strong objection in a dialogical context, in a
dialogue, either spoken, as in (a), or related in writing, as in (b). However, at is also
used to mark a sharp contrast in general, as in (c).61 It usually occupies the first pos-
ition of the sentence. In Tacitus it is also used as a merely transitional device (an
example in the Supplement). In the spoken language it gradually disappeared from
the Augustan period onwards. It is infrequent in Augustine’ Sermones, where it is only
used in a few combinations. It left no trace in the Romance languages.62 For its use as
a coordinator, see § 19.61. For its use to connect discourse units, see § 24.48. For its
use in main clauses with a si subordinate clause, see § 16.57.
(a) Ausculta mihi modo ac suspende te. / # Siquidem tu es mecum futurus pro
uva passa pensilis. / # At ego amo hanc. # At ego esse et bibere.
(‘Just obey me and hang yourself. # Yes, if you hang beside me like a bunch of raisins.
# But I love this girl. # But I love eating and drinking.’ Pl. Poen. 312–14)
(b) Quo ut venimus, humanissime Quintus ‘Pomponia’, inquit, ‘tu invita muli-
eres, ego vero ascivero pueros.’ . . . At illa audientibus nobis ‘ego ipsa sum’,
inquit, ‘hic hospita’.
(‘When we arrived there Quintus said in the kindest way ‘Pomponia, will you ask the
women in, and I’ll get the boys?’ . . . Pomponia, however, answered in our hearing
‘I am a guest myself here.’ Cic. Att. 5.1.3)
(c) Brevis a natura vita nobis data est. At memoria bene redditae vitae sempiterna.
(‘Brief is the life granted us by nature, but the memory of a life nobly sacrificed is
eternal.’ Cic. Phil. 14.32)
61 For a discussion of at, see Kroon (1995: Ch. 12). 62 See Sz.: 489.
1176 Discourse
Supplement:
Est quidam homo qui illam ait se scire ubi sit. / # At pol ille a quadam muliere, si eam
monstret, gratiam ineat. / # At sibi ille quidam volt dari mercedem. # At pol illa quae-
dam / quae illam cistellam perdidit quoidam negat esse quod det. / # At enim ille
quidam o<peram bonam magis> expetit quam argentum. / # At pol illi quoidam
mulieri nulla opera gratuita est. (Pl. Cist. 735–40); Domus tibi deerat? At habebas.
Pecunia superabat? At egebas. (Cic. Scaur. 45); Sit fur, sit sacrilegus, sit flagitiorum
omnium vitiorumque princeps. At est bonus imperator, at felix et ad dubia rei publi-
cae tempora reservandus. (Cic. Ver. 5.4); Quid hoc levius? At quantus orator! (Cic.
Tusc. 5.103); Ipsi ex silvis rari propugnabant nostrosque intra munitiones ingredi
prohibebant. At milites legionis septimae testudine facta et aggere ad munitiones
adiecto locum ceperunt . . . (Caes. Gal. 5.9.6–7); Confestim et quos binos oneraria in
iumenta imposuerant secuti, et consul cum toto agmine. At Histrorum pauci, qui
modice vino usi erant, memores fuerant fugae, aliis somno mors continuata est. (Liv.
41.4.3–4); Clodius Quirinalis . . . veneno damnationem anteiit. Caninius Rebilus . . . cru-
ciatus aegrae senectae misso per venas sanguine effugit . . . At L. Volusius egregia fama
concessit . . . (Tac. Ann. 13.30.1–2); Ille autem timuit et ait: . . . At illa: Vade, inquit, fili,
audi me. (August. Serm. 4.13)
At co-occurs with enim in its ‘affirmative’ sense ‘in fact’, ‘in truth’ (see § 24.40 and
§ 24.28 on sed enim) from Early Latin onwards, although it is absent from certain
authors, e.g. Caesar and Virgil. Examples are (d) and (e). Cicero especially uses at in
combination with the adverb vero ‘in truth’ (see § 24.33).
(d) Quid est, / fratris mei gnate, gnate quid vis? Expedi. / # At enim hoc volo
agas. # At enim ago istuc.
(‘What is it, nephew, nephew mine, what do you want? Tell me. # Well, I want you to
pay attention. # Well, I am paying attention.’ Pl. Poen. 1196–7)
(e) . . . nostri consulatus beneficio se incolumis fortunas habere arbitrantur. At
enim inter hos ipsos exsistunt graves controversiae . . .
(‘. . . they think they owe the safety of their money to my Consulship. Ah, but they get
into serious disputes among themselves . . .’ Cic. Q. fr. 1.1.7)
24.25 The adversative connector atqui

Like at, atqui ‘but’, ‘and yet’ (< at + the indefinite adverb quī) is most common in a
dialogical context to express opposition to what precedes. It is rare in Plautus, but
becomes more common from Terence onwards. It is absent from many authors, espe-
cially those writing in a less elevated style, like Vitruvius, and there are no instances in
Augustine’s Sermones. There is a parallel form atquin, which is common in the jurists
and in Christian authors like Tertullian.63 Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Numquam auferes hinc aurum. # Atqui iam dabis. / # Dabo? # Atque orabis
me quidem ultro ut auferam . . .
63 See TLL s.v. atqui 1085.11ff., Sz: 493–4, and Orlandini (1995).
(‘You’ll never take the gold away from here. # And yet you will give it to me in a
moment. # I will give it to you? # And you’ll beg me of your own accord to take it
away . . .’ Pl. Bac. 824–5)
(b) Quid vero? Modum statuarum haberi nullum placet? Atqui habeatur necesse
est.
(‘What then? Is there to be no limit to statues? But there must be.’ Cic. Ver. 2.144—tr.
Yonge)
(c) Et licet comprimantur exclamationes, ora claudantur, nihil negat, qui hoc
fatetur. Atquin summorum facinorum ipsa inmanitas innocentia est.
(‘And even if he stifles his exclamations and keeps his mouth firmly shut, a man who
admits this, denies nothing. Still, the very outrageousness of the most horrendous
deeds is what proves the innocence of the perpetrators.’ [Quint.] Decl. 19.5.5—tr. Breij)
Supplement:
Non sum apud me. # Atqui opus est nunc quom maxume ut sis, Antipho. (Ter. Ph.
204); . . . in ea urbe in qua, ut ait Antonius, auditus eloquens nemo erat. Atqui si
Antonio Crassus eloquens visus non est aut sibi ipse, nunquam Cotta visus esset,
nunquam Sulpicius, nunquam Hortensius. (Cic. Orat. 105–6); ‘Aliam vero vim volup-
tatis esse, aliam nihil dolendi, nisi valde pertinax fueris, concedas necesse est’. ‘Atqui
reperies’, inquit, ‘in hoc quidem pertinacem.’ (Cic. Fin. 2.9); Quodsi virtutes sunt
pares inter se, paria esse etiam vitia necesse est. Atqui pares esse virtutes, nec bono
viro meliorem nec temperante temperantiorem nec forti fortiorem nec sapienti sapi-
entiorem posse fieri facillime potest perspici. (Cic. Parad. 21); Sideris proprium est
scribere orbem. Atqui hoc an cometae alii fecerint? Nescio. Duo nostra aetate
fecerunt. (Sen. Nat. 7.23); Substantia mihi opus erat. Atquin omnia vendenda sunt et
egentibus dividenda. (Tert. Idol. 12.2)
Cf: At pol qui certa res / hanc est obiurgare, quae me hodie advenientem domum /
noluerit salutare. (Pl. Am. 705–7)
24.26 The adversative connector autem

The connector autem ‘on the other hand’ is not ‘adversative’ in the sense of at and sed;
it is rather ‘contrastive’ or ‘discretive’; that is, it ‘marks off a piece of information from
some other piece of information in the verbal or non-verbal context’.64 The preceding
sentence often contains the emphasizing particle quidem.65 This difference in mean-
ing explains the few co-occurrences of sed (indicating a shift of attention) and autem
in the same clause, as in (a).66 Autem can also co-occur with sequential adverbs, as in
(b), with tum.67
(a) Sed quid haec hic autem tam diu ante aedis stetit?
(‘But why did she (sc. Astaphium, who just entered the house) stand here in front of
the house for so long?’ Pl. Truc. 335)
64 See Kroon (2011: 184). See also TLL s.v. autem 1578.27ff. For autem and ceterum, see Orlandini (1999a).
65 See TLL s.v. autem 1585.42ff.
66 For a few more examples, see TLL s.v. autem 1594.79ff. See also Kroon (1995: 246; 273).
67 See TLL s.v. autem 1592.82ff. and Kroon (1995: 273).
1178 Discourse
(b) Quia enim loquitur laute et minime sordide. / # Quicquid istaec de te loqui-
tur, nihil attrectat sordidi. / # Tum autem illa ipsa est nimium lepida nimisque
nitida femina.
(‘Because she speaks in a neat and by no means unpolished way. # She doesn’t touch
any unpolished topic, whatever she speaks about you. # But then her mistress is a
terribly charming and terribly neat woman.’ Pl. Mil. 1001–3)
Autem is used both to indicate that the content of a sentence B is distinct from and in
some form of contrast with that of a preceding sentence A and to indicate the oppos-
ition between a part B of a sentence and a preceding parallel part A. Examples of the
second type of ‘local’ contrast are (c) and (d). In (c), autem is situated in the second
conjoin of two correlative clauses; in (d), in the second of three asyndetic appositions.
Note vero in the third.68
(c) Facile istuc quidem est, si et illa volt et ille autem cupit.
(‘That’s easy, if she wants it and he desires it.’ Pl. Mil. 1149)
(d) Est enim finitimus oratori poeta, numeris astrictior paulo, verborum autem
licentia liberior, multis vero ornandi generibus socius ac paene par.
(‘The truth is that the poet is a very near kinsman of the orator, rather more heavily
fettered as regards rhythm, but with ampler freedom in his choice of words, while in
the use of many sorts of ornament he is really his ally and almost his counterpart.’
Cic. de Orat. 1.70)
Supplement:
Agite, abite tu domum et tu autem domum. (Pl. Truc. 838); Neque enim tu is es qui
quid sis nescias et qui non eos magis qui te non admirentur invidos quam eos qui
laudent adsentatores arbitrere; neque autem ego sum ita demens ut me sempiternae
gloriae per eum commendari velim . . . (Cic. Fam. 5.12.6)
Ait se obligasse crus fractum Aesculapio, / Apollini autem bracchium. (Pl. Men.
885–6); . . . quo . . . te nomine appellemus? Improbum? . . . perfidiosum? (sc. nomina)
Volgaria et obsoleta sunt; res autem nova atque inaudita. (Cic. Quinct. 56); Atque hoc
ipsi utile fuisse facere, inutile autem non facere . . . (Cic. Inv. 2.90); . . . illa quae temp-
tata iam et coepta sunt ab isto, a me autem pervestigata et cognita, moneo ut exstin-
guas et longius progredi ne sinas. (Cic. Ver. 5.174); Quis autem dubitet quin belli
duces ex hac una civitate praestantissimos paene innumerabilis, in dicendo autem
excellentis vix paucos proferre possimus? (Cic. de Orat. 1.7); ‘Ista’, inquit, ‘quae dix-
isti, valere, locupletem esse, non dolere, bona non dico, sed dicam Graece .{zrnwhxl,
Latine autem producta—sed praeposita aut praecipua malo . . .’ (Cic. Fin. 4.72); Si
enim interiora prospectus habuerint elegantes, aditus autem humiles et inhonestos,
non erunt cum decore. (Vitr. 1.2.6)
Examples of the first type—true connectors—are (e)–(g). Here autem signals the tran-
sition to a new piece of information. In (e) and (g) there is a shift of topic, with puerum
and equitatus in first position in the sentence. In (f), autem signals that of the two
objects of desire in the preceding sentence only gloria is elaborated at this point. For
68 For further parallels of (c), see TLL s.v. autem 1593.68ff.; for (d), 1580.36ff.
the initial position of est, see § 23.45. A more complex example, with a change of
speakers, is (h). Here, the young man Agorastocles wants to take the pimp Lycus to
court. Then Hanno, unknown to Lycus, also summons him to court, much to Lycus’
surprise, who therefore asks what Hanno (tibi, in contrast with Agorastocles) has got
against him. Sometimes there is no immediately preceding explicit contrastive coun-
terpart, as in (i). Here, Mercury interrupts a conversation between Jupiter and
Alcumena, although some fifteen lines before Jupiter has warned him. This explains
the use of autem in Jupiter’s reaction. The implicit counterpart is tu.69
(e) Quin taces? / # Dicam. Puerum autem ne (sc. pater) resciscat mi esse ex illa
(sc. Glycerio) cautio’st. / Nam pollicitus sum suscepturum.
(‘Do shut up. # I’ll tell him. But we must make sure he doesn’t find out I’ve a child by
her. I’ve promised to raise it.’ Ter. An. 399–401)
(f) Credo enim vos . . . caritatem civium et gloriam concupivisse. Est autem gloria
laus recte factorum magnorumque in rem publicam fama meritorum . . .
(‘For I suppose that you have set your sights on glory and a place in the hearts of your
countrymen. Glory, moreover, consists in the credit for honourable deeds and the
reputation for great services benefitting the Republic . . .’ Cic. Phil. 1.29)
(g) Submotis sub murum cohortibus . . . facilis est nostris receptus datus.
Equitatus autem noster ab utroque latere . . . summum <in> iugum virtute
conititur . . .
(‘With the cohorts shifted to a position in front of the wall . . . an easy retreat was avail-
able to our men. Moreover, our cavalry valiantly struggled to the top of the ridge . . .’
Caes. Civ. 1.46.2–3)
(h) Leno, eamus in ius. # Opsecro te, Agorastocles, / suspendere ut me liceat. #
(Hanno intervenes) In ius te voco. / # (Lycus) Quid tibi mecum autem?
(‘Pimp, let’s go to court. # I beg you, Agorastocles, to let me hang myself. # I’m sum-
moning you to court. # But what do I have to do with you?’ Pl. Poen. 1342–4)
(i) (Iup.) Nunc tibi hanc pateram . . . / Alcumena, tibi condono. # (Alc.) Facis ut
alias res soles. / Ecastor condignum donum, quale est qui donum dedit. / #
(Mer.) Immo sic: condignum donum, quale est quoi dono datum est. / #
(Iup.) Pergi’n autem? Nonne ego possum, furcifer, te perdere?
(‘Now I’ll give you this bowl as a present, Alcumena. # That’s so like you. Honestly, a
worthy gift, matching the one who gave it. # No: a worthy gift, matching the one it has
been given to. # Are you continuing? Can’t I get rid of you, you good-for-nothing?’
Pl. Am. 534–9)
Supplement:
Siquid est quod doleat, dolet. Si autem non est . . . tamen hoc hic dolet. (Pl. Cist. 67);
Atque ille primo quidem negavit. Post autem aliquanto . . . surrexit, quaesivit a
Gallis . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.11); Cetera autem etsi nec bona nec mala essent tamen alia
secundum naturam dicebat alia naturae esse contraria. His ipsis alia interiecta et
69 For (h) and (i), see Kroon (1995: 241–6).

1180 Discourse
media numerabat. Quae autem secundum naturam essent ea sumenda et quadam

aestimatione dignanda docebat, contraque contraria. Neutra autem in mediis relin-
quebat, in quibus ponebat nihil omnino esse momenti. Sed . . . (Cic. Ac. 1.36);
Hactenus mihi videor de amicitia quid sentirem potuisse dicere; si quae praeterea
sunt (credo autem esse multa), ab eis, si videbitur, qui ista disputant, quaeritote. (Cic.
Amic. 24); . . . oppidum oppugnare instituit. Est autem oppidum et loci natura et colle
munitum, sed celeriter cives Romani ligneis effectis turribus sese munierunt . . . (Caes.
Civ. 3.9.3); Significatur proposita res de qua dicitur. Hanc autem significat demon-
stratio rationibus doctrinarum explicata. (Vitr. 1.1.3); . . . subito fores admiserunt
intrantem. Mulier autem erat operto capite . . . (Petr. 16.2–3); Alioqui non peius
duxerim tardi esse ingeni quam mali. Probus autem ab illo segni et iacente plurimum
aberit. (Quint. Inst. 1.3.2)
In interrogative sentences: Ego non tangam meam? # Tuam autem, furcifer? (Ter.
Eu. 798); Hanc te aequom’st ducere, et te operam ut fiat dare. / # Me ducere autem? #
Te. # Me? (Ter. Ad. 933–4); Numquis testis Postumum appellavit? Testis autem? Num
accusator? (Cic. Rab. Post. 10); ‘Castrorum autem mutatio quid habet nisi turpem
fugam . . .’ (Caes. Civ. 2.31.4); ‘Umquam tu hoc eventurum credidisses?’ Quare autem
non? (Sen. Dial. 9.11.9); Hunc . . . cum vidisset, Petrus dixit Iesu: ‘Hic autem quid?’
(Vulg. Joh. 21.21)
Autem is particularly common in argumentative and didactic texts and passages, for
instance in Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical works, in Vitruvius, Columella,
Quintilian, Tacitus’ Dialogus, and the jurists. In such texts it is often used to proceed
to a new subject, as in (j) and (k). In narrative and didactic texts it can be used to mark
the shift to a new topic, as in (l). The co-occurrence with ille, as in this example, is
common.70 It remained in use throughout Antiquity and is, for example, frequent in
Augustine’s works, both in his more classical de Civitate Dei and in his less elevated
Sermones. It is also relatively frequent in the Peregrinatio, as in (m). In this and other
Late Latin texts autem does not have its Classical adversative meaning and seems to
serve mainly as a sentence boundary.71 Autem is normally in second position in
its sentence and causes hyperbaton (see § 23.21). It left no trace in the Romance
languages.
(j) Quare hanc oratoriam facultatem in eo genere ponemus, ut eam civilis scien-
tiae partem esse dicamus. Officium autem eius facultatis videtur esse dicere
adposite ad persuasionem, finis persuadere dictione.
(‘Therefore we will classify oratorical ability as a part of political science. The func-
tion of eloquence seems to be to speak in a manner suited to persuade an audience,
the end is to persuade by speech.’ Cic. Inv. 1.6)
70 For the use of autem as a paragraph marker in medical texts, see Langslow (2000: 546).
71 In the Peregrinatio, autem signals an ‘opposition très atténuée en général’ (‘a generally very weak
opposition’) (Väänänen 1987: 117). See also Kiss (2006), Rosén (2009: 397), and Spevak (2012b: 350). For
details about frequency, see TLL s.v. autem 1576.54ff. and Spevak (2012b: 340–2), with graphics. For a
comparison between Rhet. Her. and Cic. Inv. of their use of autem in almost identical passages (Rhet. Her.
has asyndeton), see Golla (1935: 59–60).
(k) Architectura autem constat ex ordinatione, quae Graece taxis dicitur, et ex

dispositione, hanc autem Graeci diathesin vocitant . . . Ordinatio est modica
membrorum operis commoditas separatim universeque proportionis ad
symmetriam comparatio. Haec conponitur ex quantitate, quae Graece posotes
dicitur. Quantitas autem est modulorum ex ipsius operis sumptio e sin-
gulisque membrorum partibus universi operis conveniens effectus. Dispositio
autem est rerum apta conlocatio . . .
(‘Now architecture consists of Order, which in Greek is called taxis, and of
Arrangement, which the Greeks name diathesis . . .
Order is the balanced adjustment of the details of the work separately, and, as to
the whole, the arrangement of the proportion with a view to a symmetrical result.
This is made up of Dimension, which in Greek is called posotes. Now Dimension is
the taking of modules from the parts of the work; and the suitable effect of the whole
work arising from the several subdivisions of the parts.
Arrangement, however, is the fit assemblage of details . . .’ Vitr. 1.2.1–2—NB: the
textual make-up of the Loeb translation is maintained.)
(l) At pater Anchises . . . ‘Quam metui ne quid Libyae tibi regna nocerent!’ / Ille
autem: ‘Tua me, genitor, tua tristis imago / saepius occurrens haec limina
tendere adegit . . .’
(‘But father Anchises . . . “How I feared the realm of Libya might harm you!” But he
answered: “Your shade, father, your sad shade, meeting me repeatedly, drove me to
seek these portals.” ’ Verg. A. 6.679–96)
(m) Aputactitae omnes vadent, de plebe autem qui quomodo possunt vadent,
clerici autem cotidie vicibus vadent de pullo primo. Episcopus autem albes-
cente vadet semper, ut missa fiat matutina . . .
(‘At cock-crow all the apotactites come, and any of the people who can be there, and
clergy everyday by turns. When it begins to get light, the bishop always comes to give
the morning dismissal . . .’ Pereg. 44.3—tr. Wilkinson—adapted)
24.27 The adversative connector ceterum

Ceterum ‘for the rest’ is used as a connector to mark the transition to a sentence with
new information, either a substitution or a correction. This usage is firmly attested
from Sallust onwards. It is very common in prose thereafter, including Tertullian, but
it is almost absent from Augustine72 and entirely absent from the Peregrinatio.
Examples are (a)–(c). It is used with the same function to mark the transition to a new
discourse unit, or the return to the main line of thought after a digression (see below).
It occupies the first position of the sentence and cannot be combined with other
connectors in the same clause. It lacks the characteristic properties of adverbs (see
§ 24.22), although it is called an adverb in dictionaries.73
72 Thirteen instances in the de Civitate Dei; eight in the Sermones.

73 So the OLD and TLL.
1182 Discourse
(a) Illis merito adcidet quicquid evenerit. Ceterum vos, patres conscripti, quid
in alios statuatis considerate.
(‘Whatever befalls those prisoners will be deserved; but see that you consider,
Members of the Senate, how your decision will affect other criminals.’ Sal. Cat. 51.26)
(b) . . . Romamque is metus manaret, adeo ut . . . duo iusti scriberentur exercitus.
Ceterum Hernicum bellum nequaquam pro praesenti terrore ac vetusta gen-
tis gloria fuit.
(‘Fears for their safety even extended to Rome, where . . . two full armies were enlisted.
But the war with the Hernici by no means answered to the present panic or to the
nation’s old renown.’ Liv. 9.43.4–5)
(c) Quae ne praeterisse viderer, satis habui attingere. Ceterum his nec status
satis ostendi nec omnis contineri locos credo . . .
(‘I touch on these points briefly, so as not to be thought to have left them out. But I do
not myself think either that Issues are sufficiently defined by these headings, or that
all possible Topics are covered by them.’ Quint. Inst. 3.6.28)
Supplement:
Ceterum postquam Neapolim a praefecto Romano teneri accepit—M. Iunius Silanus
erat, ab ipsis Neapolitanis accitus—Neapoli quoque, sicut Nola, omissa petit
Nuceriam. (Liv. 23.15.2); Rhinocerotes quoque, rarum alibi animal, in isdem monti-
bus erant. Ceterum hoc nomen beluis inditum a Graecis sermonis eius ignaris . . .
(Curt. 915); Ceterum si omisso optimo illo et perfectissimo genere eloquentiae eli-
genda sit forma dicendi, malim hercule C. Gracchi impetum . . . (Tac. Dial. 26.1);
Ceterum quis tam obtunso ingenio’st quin intellegat: . . . (Gel. 13.25.21); Ceterum
instrumento fundi mancipia quoque colendi agri causa inducta contineri non ambi-
gitur. (Paul. dig. 33.7.19.pr.); Nam neque sibi illi sumere potuissent divinitatem, quam
non habebant, nec alius praestare eam non habentibus, nisi qui proprie possidebat.
Ceterum si nemo est, qui deos faceret, frustra praesumitis deos factos, auferendo
factorem. (Tert. Apol. 11.2–3)
Examples of the use of ceterum to mark the transition (or the return) to a new stage
in the narrative or the argumentation are (d)–(f).74 In the modern editions the sen-
tences starting with ceterum are indented to mark the start of a new section. Note that
the translators deal with it differently.
(d) Sic forte correcta Mari temeritas gloriam ex culpa invenit. Ceterum dum ea
res geritur, L. Sulla quaestor cum magno equitatu in castra venit . . .
(‘Thus Marius’ rashness was made good by pure chance and found glory out of blame.
While this campaign was in progress, the quaestor Lucius Sulla arrived in camp with
a large force of horsemen . . .’ Sal. Jug. 94.7–95.1)
(e) . . . ut liqueat . . . quo tralationum genere, quibus figuris . . . id quod intendimus
efficere possimus. Ceterum dicturus quibus ornetur oratio prius ea quae sunt
huic laudi contraria attingam.
74 For a discussion of (d), see Kroon (1995: 83–7; 2011: 188–9).

(‘. . . it should be clear . . . what type of metaphor, what Figures . . . are needed to
effect our purpose. But before I discuss Ornament of speech, I must say some-
thing about the characteristics which are contrary to this excellence.’ Quint. Inst.
8.3.40–1)
(f) Ceterum Augustus subsidia dominationi Claudium Marcellum . . . pontifi-
catu et curuli aedilitate . . . extulit . . .
(‘Meanwhile, to consolidate his power, Augustus raised Claudius Marcellus . . . to the
pontificate and curule aedileship . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.3.1)75
Appendix: From Plautus onwards ceterum is used as some sort of respect adjunct
(see §§ 10.90–5) in the sense of ‘for the rest’, as in (g). See also a unique instance
from Cicero in (h).76 Note that here ceterum is not in the first position of the sen-
tence. Pliny the Elder uses the ablative cetero more or less in the same way, as in (i).
See also de cetero in (j), as well as de reliquo in (k).
(g) Filium istinc tuom te meliu’st repetere. / Ceterum uxorem quam primum
potest abduce ex aedibus.
(‘You’d better demand your son back from there. As for the rest, take your
wife out of my house as quickly as possible.’ Pl. Truc. 846–7)
(h) Ego me in Cumano et Pompeiano, praeter quam quod sine te, ceterum satis
commode oblectabam . . .
(‘Except that I lack your company I am in other respects having a pleasant
time at Cumae and Pompeii . . .’ Cic. Q. fr. 2.13.1)
(i) Namque eum (sc. aggerem) muris aequavit qua maxime patebat aditu plano.
Cetero (cetera v.l.) munita erat (sc. Roma) praecelsis muris aut abruptis
montibus . . .
(‘For he made it as high as the walls where the approach was flat and the city
lay most open to attack. In other directions it had the protection of lofty
walls or of precipitous hills . . .’ Plin. Nat. 3.67)
(j) De cetero vellem equidem aut ipse doctrinis fuisset instructior . . .
(‘For the rest, I could desire that he himself had been better equipped with
learning . . .’ Cic. Fin. 1.26)
(k) De · reliquo · rogo · / <ab ·> conserveis · ut · me · / apsentem · defen-
dateis. De · reliq(uo) · domi · omnia · / recte ·.
(‘For the rest, I ask from my fellow slaves that you defend me while absent.
For the rest, at home everything is OK.’ CEL 3.4–8 (1st cent. bc (second
half)))
Ceterum is also used in an inferential sense: ‘otherwise’, ‘else’, first attested in Terence,
ex. (l), and then from Pliny the Younger onwards.77
75 ‘The word is employed so frequently by T. in transition, opposition and resumption that it is

certainly a mannerism, almost a fault’ (Goodyear ad loc.).
76 TLL s.v. ceterus 970.29 takes (g) as the first attestation of the transitional use and, indeed, it is not
always easy to decide. Further examples at 969.82ff. Another instance of ceterum in non-initial position
is Pl. Poen. 92–3, in an imperative sentence. See also Orlandini (1999a: 145–6). For further examples of
cetero, see TLL s.v. ceterus 974.47ff.; for de cetero, 974.64ff.
77 For this use of ceterum, see TLL s.v. ceterus 972.52ff.
1184 Discourse
(l) Bene dixti, ac mihi istuc non in mentem venerat. / # Ridiculum. Non enim
cogitaras. Ceterum / idem hoc tute meliu’ quanto invenisses, Thraso!
(‘You’re quite right. That hadn’t occurred to me. # Ridiculous! You just hadn’t
thought about it. Otherwise you’d have come up with the same idea yourself
far more easily, Thraso!’ Ter. Eu. 451–3)
24.28 The adversative connector sed

Sed ‘but’ functions as a connector from Early Latin onwards. The proportion with
which it is used as a connector or as a coordinator depends on the type of text and the
individual choice of authors. The percentages of its use as connector in a number of
texts are shown in Table 24.4.78
Table 24.4 Use of sed as a connector in a number of texts (percentage of all

occurrences of sed)
Plautus Cicero Sallust Augustine
Am., As., Aul., Bac. Ver. de Orat. Catil. Cat. Civ. Serm.
95% 8% 20% 24% 69% 25% 45%
Sed marks various types of contrast relations. A common usage is that of interrupting
a line of thought, as in (a). It can also be used to turn to a new issue, as in (b) or—on
the stage—to draw the attention to someone entering the scene, as in (c). It is common
after a digression, as in (d).79 If the preceding context is negative the adversative aspect
of sed can be more pronounced, especially when the contrast is reinforced by tamen,
as in (e).
(a) Ita ut dicis. Nam si faxis, te in caveam dabo. / Sed satis verborum est. Cura
quae iussi atque abi.
(‘Just as you say: if you do so, I’ll give you a cage to be in. But enough small talk. Do
take care of what I ordered and go away.’ Pl. Capt. 124–5)
(b) Nam contra Epicurum satis superque dictum est. Sed aveo audire tu ipse
Cotta quid sentias.
(‘As for refuting Epicurus, that has been accomplished and more than accomplished
already. But I am eager to hear what you think yourself, Cotta.’ Cic. N.D. 2.2)
(c) Moderare animo, ne sis cupidus. Sed eccam ipsam, egreditur foras.
(‘Control your heart, don’t be too eager. But look, she’s coming out herself.’ Pl. Mil. 1215)
(d) Sed iam ad id unde digressi sumus revertamur. Hortensius igitur . . .
(‘But now let me come back to the point from which we digressed. So then,
Hortensius . . .’ Cic. Brut. 300–1)
78 Based on a count of maximally 100 sentences per text in LLT and following the punctuation by editors.
79 For a very detailed classification of the usages of sed in Plautus, see Lodge s.v.; in Terence, McGlynn
s.v. For some Christian authors, see Gillis (1938).
(e) Non enim tam praeclarum est scire Latine quam turpe nescire, neque tam id
mihi oratoris boni quam civis Romani proprium videtur. Sed tamen Antonius
in verbis . . . eligendis . . . nihil non ad rationem et tamquam ad artem dirigebat.
(‘It isn’t so admirable a thing to know good Latin as it is disgraceful not to know it,
and it is not, I think, so much the mark of a good orator as it is of a true Roman. But
to return: In the matter of choosing words . . . Antonius controlled everything by
purpose and by something like deliberate art.’ Cic. Brut. 140)
Supplement:
Ego abeo, tu iam, scio, patiere. Sed quis hic est? Is est, / ille est ipsus. (Pl. As. 378–9);
Sed quid venis? Quid quaeritas? (Pl. As. 392); Ibi amare occepi forma eximia mulie-
rem. / Sed ea[m] ut sim implicitus dicam, si operae est auribus . . . (Pl. Mer.
13–14); . . . negoti quantum in muliere una est. / Sed vero duae, sat scio, maxumo uni /
populo quoilubet plus satis dare potis sunt . . . (Pl. Poen. 225–7); Deamo te, Syre. / #
Sed pater egreditur. (Ter. Hau. 825–6); Sed quaestiones urgent Milonem quae sunt
habitae nunc in atrio Libertatis. (Cic. Mil. 59); . . . philosophi, qui, ut opinor (sed tu
haec, Catule, melius) nulla dant praecepta dicendi . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.151); Sed hoc
posterius. Nunc iuris principia videamus. (Cic. Leg. 1.18); Quin etiam, si quis est
paulo ad voluptates propensior, modo ne sit ex pecudum genere (sunt enim quidam
homines non re sed nomine), sed si quis est paulo erectior, quamvis voluptate capia-
tur, occultat et dissimulat appetitum voluptatis propter verecundiam. (Cic. Off.
1.105); Venit ab eo Furnius. Ut quidem scias quos sequamur, Q. Titini filium cum
Caesare esse nuntiat—sed illum (sc. Caesarem) maiores mihi gratias agere quam vel-
lem. (Cic. Att. 9.6.6—NB: Cicero returns to what he wanted to tell); Sed haec hacte-
nus. Reliqua coram. (Cic. Att. 16.7.6); Postea Piso in citeriorem Hispaniam quaestor
pro praetore missus est adnitente Crasso, quod eum infestum inimicum Cn. Pompeio
cognoverat. Neque tamen senatus provinciam invitus dederat, quippe foedum homi-
nem a re publica procul esse volebat, simul quia boni complures praesidium in eo
putabant et iam tum potentia Pompei formidulosa erat. Sed is Piso in provincia ab
equitibus Hispanis quos in exercitu ductabat iter faciens occisus est. (Sal. Cat. 19.
1–3—NB: Sallust returns to the main storyline; note is); Fuere ea tempestate qui dice-
rent . . . Nobis ea res pro magnitudine parum conperta est. Sed in ea coniuratione fuit
Q. Curius . . . (Sal. Cat. 22.1–23.1—NB: as in preceding example); At enim apparet
quidem pollui omnia nec ullis piaculis expiari posse. Sed res ipsa cogit vastam incen-
diis ruinisque relinquere urbem . . . (Liv. 5.53.1); Quo argumento amplior errantium
stellarum quam lunae magnitudo colligitur, quando illae et a septenis interdum par-
tibus emergant. Sed altitudo cogit minores videri . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.58); Sed ne faciam,
quod reprehendo, omnia ista . . . relinquam. (Sen. Ben. 1.4.1); ‘Magnam’, inquit Secundus,
‘et dignam tractatu quaestionem movisti. Sed quis eam iustius explicabit quam tu . . .’
(Tac. Dial. 16.1); Licet iam hinc recognoscere. . . . Qui de pluribus suscipit aliquem
eum quem non suscipit despexit. ‘Sed tot ac tanti ab omnibus coli non possunt.’ (Tert.
Nat. 1.10.11–12); Sed alias, si Deus voluerit, hoc videbimus. (August. Civ. 2.21.4)
Sed is sometimes used in narrative texts or passages to mark ‘the next stage’.80 Examples
are (f) and (g). In (f), following modern editions, sed starts a new section about one
80 OLD s.v. sed § 2.c.

1186 Discourse
of the women who belongs to the group introduced before. Here, the contrastive
counterpart is less obvious. Kühner and Stegmann suggest that it is equivalent to
atque.81 For its use to connect discourse units, see also § 24.48. In (g), sed ‘introduces
the distinguishing element between communities whose cases have hitherto been
described in identical terms’.82
(f) Per eas (sc. mulieres) se Catilina credebat posse servitia urbana sollicitare,
urbem incendere, viros earum vel adiungere sibi vel interficere.
Sed in iis erat Sempronia, quae multa saepe virilis audaciae facinora con-
miserat.
(‘Through them Catiline believed he could incite the city slaves to an uprising, set fire
to Rome, and as for their husbands, either attach them to his cause or kill them.
Now among those women was Sempronia, who had often perpetrated many deeds
of masculine daring.’ Sal. Cat. 24.4–25.1)
(g) Aphrodisienses posthac et Stratonicenses . . . recens divi Augusti decretum
adtulere, laudati quod Parthorum inruptionem . . . pertulissent. Sed Aphro-
disiensium civitas Veneris, Stratonicensium Iovis et Triviae religionem tue-
bantur.
(‘After this the Aphrodisians and Stratonicensians adduced . . . a recent decree of
Divus Augustus wherein they were praised because they had endured the irruption
of the Parthians. (The only difference was that the Aphrodisians’ community guarded
the religious cult of Venus, the Stratonicensians’ that of Jupiter and Trivia.)’ Tac. Ann.
3.62.2—tr. Woodman)
Supplement:
. . . sed omnino cuncta plebes novarum rerum studio Catilinae incepta proba-
bat. . . . Sed urbana plebes, ea vero praeceps erat de multis causis. (Sal. Cat. 37.1–4);
Ab hoc posteri apud Atticos dicti Medontidae. Sed hic insequentesque archontes
usque ad Charopem, dum viverent, eum honorem usurpabant. (Vell. 1.2.2)
For sed + autem, see § 24.26. The combination sed enim is attested with certainty only
twice before Virgil,83 who used it as a metrically convenient combination, as in (h),
and who was then followed by other poets, Apuleius, the archaists, and other prose
writers. Enim is here usually taken in its ‘affirmative’ sense ‘in fact’, ‘in truth’ (see § 24.40
and § 24.24 on at enim).84 Sed often co-occurs with tamen and vero. See § 24.31.
(h) Progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci / audierat Tyrias olim quae
verteret arces.
(‘Yet in truth she had heard that a race was springing from Trojan blood, to over-
throw some day the Tyrian towers.’ Verg. A. 1.19–20—NB: note the position)
81 K.-St.: II.77.
82 So Woodman and Martin ad loc., following Koestermann ad loc., who follows Gerber and Greef s.v.
sed 1455 (§ e).
83 Cato hist. 95b=88C, quoted by Gellius 6.3.16, and Cic. Att. 6.1.11 (enim bracketed by edd.).
84 See OLD s.v. sed § 5; TLL s.v. sed 573.80ff. Quint. Inst. 9.3.14 says it is an archaism in Virgil, surpris-
ingly, as Russell notes in his Loeb edition ad loc.
24.29 The adversative connector verum

Verum ‘but’, ‘yet’ functions as a connector from Early Latin onwards, more or less in
the same way as sed, though it is less frequent. It is more often used as a connector
than as a coordinator (for which, see § 19.63). It marks the transition to a new piece
of information, often interrupting a line of thought, as in (a) and (b). It is also used
after a digression or a parenthesis, as in (c), and in reactions to the words of another
person, as in (d). Depending on the context the adversative aspect of verum can
be more pronounced, especially when the contrast is reinforced by a word like tamen,
as in (e).
(a) Quando autem homo tanta luxuria atque desidia nisi Februario mense aspi-
rabit in curiam? Verum veniat sane.
(‘And when, unless it be in February, will such an indolent profligate come near the
House? But let him attend, by all means.’ Cic. Ver. 2.76)
(b) Verum haec quidem hactenus. Cetera, quotienscumque voletis, et hoc loco
et aliis parata vobis erunt.
(‘But so much at any rate so far. All else, as often as you will, whether in this spot or
in others, will be in readiness for you.’ Cic. Tusc. 3.84)
(c) Verum ut Lilybaeum, unde digressa est oratio, revertamur, Diocles est . . .
(‘But that my discourse may return to Lilybaeum, from which I have made this
digression, there is a man named Diocles . . .’ Cic. Ver. 4.35)
(d) Qui, malum, intellegere quisquam potis est? Ita nugas blatis. / # Verum actu-
tum nosces, quom illum nosces servom Sosiam.
(‘How on earth can anyone understand? You’re waffling such nonsense. # But you’ll
get to know it in a moment when you get to know that slave Sosia.’ Pl. Am. 626–7)
(e) Nam quom pugnabant maxume, ego tum fugiebam maxume. / Verum quasi
affuerim tamen simulabo atque audita eloquar.
(‘For when they were fighting most intensely, I was running away most intensely.
Anyway, I’ll pretend that I was there and I’ll tell what I’ve heard.’ Pl. Am. 199–200)
Supplement:
Eorum Amphitruonis alter est, alter Iovis. / Verum minori puero maior est pater, /
minor maiori. (Pl. Am. 483–5); Timor praepedit verba. Verum, opsecro te, / dic me
uxorem orare ut exoret illam / gladium ut ponat . . . (Pl. Cas. 704–6); At pol ego ama-
tores audieram mulierum esse eos (sc. eunuchos) maxumos, / sed nil potesse. Verum
miserae (sc. mihi) non in mentem venerat. (Ter. Eu. 665–6); Qui potuerunt ista ipsa
lege quae de proscriptione est, sive Valeria est sive Cornelia—non enim novi nec
scio—verum ista ipsa lege bona Sex. Rosci venire qui potuerunt? (Cic. S. Rosc. 125);
Verum ut ad illud sacrarium redeam, signum erat hoc quod dico Cupidinis e mar-
more . . . (Cic. Ver. 4.5); Verum, si placet . . . reliqua aliquanto odiosiora pergamus. (Cic.
de Orat. 3.51); Eorum ego vitam mortemque iuxta aestumo, quoniam de utraque
siletur. Verum enim vero is demum mihi vivere atque frui anima videtur qui . . . (Sal.
Cat. 2.8–9); Verum in montium miraculis ardet Aetna noctibus semper . . . (Plin. Nat.
1188 Discourse
2.236); Verum has atque alias sontium poenas in tempore trademus. (Tac. Ann.
4.71.1); Verum, ut dixi, antiquorum magnitudines corporum inventa plerumque
ossa, quoniam diuturna sunt, etiam multo posterioribus saeculis produnt. (August.
Civ. 15.9)
Co-occurrence of verum with the particles autem and enim is rare. Autem is attested
once at Plautus Cas. 555 and occasionally in other authors (seven times in Augustine’s
Confessions). Verum enim is rare, but there are a few instances in Plautus and Terence,
one of which is (f). Co-occurrence with tamen and vero is common; with enimvero it
is rare, but attested not only in Plautus and Terence but also Cicero, Livy, and others.85
See (g).
(f) Verum enim meretrix fortunati est oppidi similluma. / Non potest suam rem
optinere sola sine multis viris.
(‘But a prostitute closely resembles a flourishing town: she cannot be successful
alone, without many men.’ Pl. Cist. 80–1)
(g) Vidi ego multa saepe picta, quae Accherunti fierent / cruciamenta. Verum
enim vero nulla adaeque est Accheruns / atque ubi ego fui, in lapicidinis.
(‘I’ve often seen many pictures of the tortures taking place in the Underworld, but
truly there’s no Underworld that can match the place where I was, in the quarries.’
Pl. Capt. 998–1000)
24.30 The adverb contra

The adverb contra is sometimes used to indicate the contrast between two consecutive
sentences in the sense of ‘on the other hand’, as in (a); this is referred to as its ‘connect-
ive’ use.86 It is also used in sentences with an adversative connector, as in (b).
(a) . . . sicut Fortunatorum memorant insulas, / quo cuncti qui aetatem egerint
caste suam / conveniant. Contra istoc detrudi maleficos / aequom videtur . . .
(‘. . . just as they speak of the Isles of the Blessed, where all those come together who
have lived their lives morally; by contrast, it seems fair that wrongdoers are thrust off
onto that land . . .’ Pl. Trin. 549–52)
(b) At nos metiendi ratiocinandique utilitate huius artis terminavimus modum.
At contra oratorem celeriter complexi sumus . . .
(‘But we Romans have restricted this art to the practical purposes of measuring
and reckoning. But on the other hand we speedily welcomed the orator . . .’ Cic.
Tusc. 1.5)
24.31 The adverb tamen

One of the functions of the adverb tamen ‘still’ is to signal that the content of the sen-
tence in which it occurs is in contrast with what might have been expected on the
85 See TLL s.v. enimvero 594.26ff. 86 So OLD s.v. contra § 8.

basis of the preceding sentence or discourse unit.87 It differs in this respect from the
concessive subordinators which signal a commonly accepted incompatibility.88 The
sentence preceding the tamen sentence often contains the emphasizer quidem,
which indicates that the content of the first sentence is asserted. In this function
tamen is usually placed in first or second position, just as connectors. However, it is
not a connector itself: it can co-occur with conjunctive and adversative connectors
(see § 19.62) and is then often juxtaposed to them. An example of tamen alone is
(a). In (b) and (c), it is juxtaposed to an adversative connector. In (d), a new para-
graph describes the outcome of a discussion in the Senate reported in the preceding
paragraph.
(a) Nil moror nec scire volo. / # Tamen ades.
(‘I don’t care and I don’t want to know. # Still, stay.’ Pl. Bac. 989a–90)
(b) Molestus ne sis. Haec sunt sicut praedico. / # At tamen inspicere volt.
(‘Don’t be a nuisance. It’s the way I tell you. # But he still wants to inspect it.’ Pl. Mos.
772–3)
(c) . . . neque opes nostrae tam sunt validae quam tuae. Verum tamen / hau metuo
ne ius iurandum nostrum quisquam culpitet.
(‘. . . and our influence isn’t as great as yours; but still, I’m not afraid that anyone will
ever find fault with our oath.’ Pl. Cist. 494–5)
(d) (Senatus consulitur . . . Fautores legatorum . . . At contra pauci . . .) Vicit tamen
in senatu pars illa quae vero pretium aut gratiam anteferebat.
(‘(The matter was laid before the Senate . . . The partisans of the envoys . . . But a few, on
the other hand . . .) In spite of all, there prevailed that faction of the senate which rated
money and influence higher than integrity.’ Sal. Jug. 15.2–16.1)
24.32 The adverb nihilominus

The adverb nihilominus (also as two words) ‘nonetheless’ shares with tamen the prop-
erties described above. It is much less frequent and not synonymous with tamen, as
appears from instances in which the two are used in the same clause, as in (a).89 In (b),
nihilominus co-occurs with an adversative connector.
(a) Non postulo iam. Loquere. Nihilo minus ego hoc faciam tamen.
(‘I don’t expect it any more. Have your say. But I’ll carry out my plan none the less.’
Ter. Hau. 1012)
87 In the Classical prose corpus used by Spevak (2006c: 224) 20 out of 150 instances of tamen are
intersentential (‘transphrastique’) connectors. Half of the instances concern its correlative use with a
preceding, most often concessive, subordinate clause (see § 16.68). In a corpus of Late Latin prose, the
percentage of intersentential use is much higher: 42 per cent. See Spevak (2005b: 205).
88 See Maraldi (2001).
89 Spevak (2005b: 221–2), discussing instances in Ammianus, states that in the order nihilominus tamen
the first word has lost its proper meaning and only strengthens the overall concessive meaning.
1190 Discourse
(b) Sed nihilominus quaedam sunt quae etiam sapientes in alio quam in se
diligentius vident.
(‘But nevertheless, there are certain matters where even wise men see the facts more
clearly in the case of others than in their own.’ Sen. Ep. 109.16)
24.33 The adverb/connector vero

From Early Latin onwards, vero functions as an adverb indicating the truth or factual-
ity of the content of the sentence. In comedy it is very common in questions,
responses, and orders, thus underlining the personal involvement of the speaker
(‘indeed’, ‘really’). It is often combined with hercle and immo (and both), as in (a).
Instances of vero in a monological context are attested from Terence onwards, as in
(b). Between the two asyndetic sentences in (b) there is a shift of topic from illa to
miles; the adversative relation between the two sentences is strengthened by vero. An
earlier example, with a syndetic adversative relation marked by the connector sed, is
(c). Instances like (b) are traditionally taken as the first signs of vero’s later use as an
adversative connector, but the existence of instances like (c) supports the idea that the
apparent connective use of vero is in reality a matter of context.90 In (d), there is a shift
from eos omnes quos to M. Cethegum resembling the shift in (b), with vero drawing
attention to the extraordinary qualities of Cethegus. Instances like this abound in
Cicero. Vero is almost always in second position and causes hyperbaton, just like the
connector autem. However, in authors of didactic texts like Celsus and Pliny the Elder
there are numerous instances where vero only seems to mark the adversative relation
between adjacent sentences. It seems, then, that alongside the adverbial we must rec-
ognize a connective use of vero.91
(a) Benigne edepol facis. / # Immo tu quidem hercle vero.
(‘That’s kind of you. # No, kind of you, really.’ Pl. Rud. 1368–9)
(b) Ibi illa cum illo sermonem ilico. / Miles vero sibi putare adductum ante ocu-
los aemulum.
(‘Then she (sc. Thais) struck up a conversation with him at once. But the soldier
thought that a rival had been brought in under his very nose.’ Ter. Eu. 622–3)
(c) Apage, sis, negoti quantum in muliere una est. / Sed vero duae, sat scio,
maxumo uni / populo quoilubet plus satis dare potis sunt.
(‘Away with the amount of trouble that’s in a single woman! But two, I know that well
enough, can keep busy as big a community as you please.’ Pl. Poen. 225–7)
(d) Atque eos omnis quos commemoravi his studiis flagrantis senes vidimus.
Marcum vero Cethegum . . . quanto studio exerceri in dicendo videbamus
etiam senem!
90 For the ‘side-effect’ idea, see Kroon (1995: 326–32; 2011: 191). For the traditional view, see K.-St.:
I.798–9 and II.80. For the co-occurrence of vero with the coordinator sed, see § 19.62.
91 See Langslow (2000: 547–9), Rosén (2009: 374), and Schrickx (2011: 227–30). For the difference
between vero and autem, see Kroon (1995: 329–30). For their use in Cassius Felix, see Langslow (2000: 546).
(‘And yet I have seen all these men whom I have mentioned, ardent in their several
callings after they had grown old. Then too, there was Marcus Cethegus . . . What
enthusiasm I saw him also display in his public speeches, although he was an old
man!’ Cic. Sen. 50)
Supplement:
In dialogical texts: Equidem hercle opus hoc facto existumo, / ut illo intro eam. #
Itane vero, vervex? Intro eas? (Pl. Mer. 566–7); Estne hic meus servos? # Sum hercle
vero, Agorastocles. (Pl. Poen. 797); Ne attigas. # Ostende vero. # Nolo. (Pl. Epid. 723);
Ora me. # Obsecro te vero, Phaedria. (Ter. Eu. 715); Tum Brutus: ‘De isto postea. Sed
tu’, inquit me intuens, ‘orationes nobis veteres explicabis?’ ‘Vero,’ inquam, ‘Brute. Sed
in Cumano aut in Tusculano aliquando . . .’ (Cic. Brut. 300); Fuisti saepe, credo, cum
Athenis esses, in scholis philosophorum. # Vero, ac libenter quidem. (Cic. Tusc.
2.26); Ego vero Quinto epistulam ad sororem misi. (Cic. Att. 13.41.1)
In monological texts: Nam hercle factum’st abs te turpiter. / Etsi tibi causa’st de hac re:
mater te inpulit. / Huic vero nulla’st. (Ter. Hec. 624–6); Illud vero sine ulla dubitatione
maxime nostrum fundavit imperium . . . quod princeps ille creator huius urbis, Romulus, . . .
docuit . . . (Cic. Balb. 31); (Starting a new paragraph) In sartis tectis vero quem ad modum
se gesserit quid ego dicam? (Cic. Ver. 1.128); (sc. Marcellus) Nihil in aedibus, nihil in
hortis posuit, nihil in suburbano. . . . Syracusis autem permulta atque egregia reliquit.
Deum vero nullum violavit, nullum attigit. (Cic. Ver. 4.121); Sed confecto proelio tum
vero cerneres quanta audacia quantaque animi vis fuisset in exercitu Catilinae. (Sal. Cat.
61.1); Huic spei tuae obstat aetas mea, obstat gentium ius, obstat vetustus Macedoniae
mos, obstat vero etiam patris iudicium. (Liv. 40.9.8); Utilius his frequens balineum est,
sed ieiunis, <etiam> usque sudorem. Cibis vero opus est copiosis . . . (Cels. 3.22.7); Sanat
et vulvarum exulcerationes eiusdem animalis sebum inveteratum et in vellere adposi-
tum duritias vulvarum emollit. Per se vero recens vel inveteratum ex aqua inlitum
psilotri vim optinet. (Plin. Nat. 28.250); Cum tamen aliquatenus se confirmavit et velut
iuvenile robur accepit, neglegentiam sustinet. Novella vero dum adolescit, nisi omnia
iusta perceperit, ad ultimam redigitur maciem . . . (Col. 4.3.4–5); Delector iucundum tibi
fuisse Tironis mei adventum. Quod vero scribis oblata occasione proconsulis plurimos
manumissos unice laetor. (Plin. Ep. 7.32.1); Sed in ipso populo Christiano illi primatum
tenent qui pertinent ad Iacob. Qui vero carnaliter vivunt . . . adhuc ad vetus testamentum
pertinent, nondum ad novum. (August. Serm. 4.12)
24.34 The use of etsi, tametsi, and quamquam as connectors

Apart from being used as concessive subordinators (see § 16.76) etsi, tametsi, and
quamquam are also used to introduce sentences which contain some form of correc-
tion of the preceding sentence or text, thus functioning as a contrastive connector.
However, it sometimes is difficult to decide whether a unit starting with etsi must be
regarded as an independent sentence that is in contrast with the preceding context or
a concessive subordinate clause functioning as a disjunct. Editors vary in their punc-
tuation. The use of corrective particles is especially frequent in argumentative texts,
notably in Cicero. These particles can also be in an accusative and infinitive clause.92
92 See Orlandini (1994), Pfister (1995: 245), and Maraldi (2002b).

1192 Discourse
The earliest instance of connective use of etsi is (a).93 Here, the etsi sentence
functions as a correction of the preceding sentence. The presence of the adversa-
tive connector verum in the following sentence makes it impossible to understand
the etsi unit as a subordinate clause. In (b), connective etsi introduces a complex
sentence consisting of a concessive subordinate clause with quamvis and a main
clause with at.
(a) Sed quid istuc est? Etsi iam ego ipsus quid sit prope scire puto me. / Verum
audire etiam ex te studeo.
(‘But what is it? Well, I think I myself am already close to knowing what it is. But I’m
keen to hear it from you.’ Pl. Bac. 1160–1)
(b) Etsi, quamvis non fueris suasor et impulsor profectionis meae, at probator
certe fuisti . . .
(‘All the same, if you did not recommend or instigate my trip, you certainly did
approve of it . . .’ Cic. Att. 16.7.2)
Supplement:
Ambo accusandi. Etsi illud inceptum tamen animi’st pudenti’ signum et non
instrenui. (Ter. Hau. 119–20—NB: co-occurrence of etsi and tamen); Non tractabo ut
consulem. Ne ille quidem me ut consularem. Etsi ille nullo modo consul . . . (Cic. Phil.
2.10); Quid ergo potissimum scribam? Quod velle te puto, cito me ad te esse ventu-
rum. Etsi vide, quaeso, satisne rectum sit nos hoc tanto incendio civitatis in istis locis
esse. (Cic. Fam. 9.3.1); . . . quo maxime apparuit . . . Seianum quaerenti occasiones
sumministrasse. Etsi commentario quem de vita sua summatim breviterque compo-
suit ausus est scribere . . . (Suet. Tib. 61.1)
Tametsi can be used in the same way, as in (c) and (d).

(c) . . . scelus quoque latere inter illa tot flagitia putatote. Tametsi hoc quidem
minime latet quod ita promptum et propositum est ut . . .
(‘. . . you may feel sure that crime also lies concealed among all these shameful acts.
And yet about this crime there is no concealment; it is so manifest and exposed to
view, that . . .’ Cic. S. Rosc. 118)
(d) Tu quicquid indagaris de re publica . . . facito ut sciam. Tametsi nimis sum
curiosus. Statui enim nihil iam de re publica cogitare.
(‘On your side let me know anything you ferret out about public affairs—though after
all I’m being too curious, having determined to think no more about politics.’ Cic.
Att. 2.4.4)
Supplement:
. . . non eos ad me venturos arbitrabare? Tametsi id quidem fecerunt ridicule. Quas
enim litteras adferebant . . . (Cic. Fam. 3.7.3)
93 The material can be found in TLL s.v. etsi ‘paratacticum’ 979.4ff.

Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences 1193
The most common contrastive connector is quamquam, as in (e) and (f).94 Ex. (g)
shows the use of quamquam in an accusative and infinitive clause.
(e) . . . pater curavit . . . clandestina ut celetur consuetio. / Quamquam, ut iam
dudum dixi, resciscet tamen / Amphitruo rem omnem.
(‘. . . my father’s taken care that . . . the secret affair would be concealed. Still, as I’ve said
already, Amphitruo will find out the whole thing all the same.’ Pl. Am. 487–92)
(f) . . . cur nostri a nostris non legantur? Quamquam, si plane sic verterem
Platonem aut Aristotelem ut verterunt nostri poëtae fabulas, male, credo,
mererer de meis civibus . . .
(‘. . . why should not Romans be read by Romans? Yet even supposing I gave a direct
translation of Plato or Aristotle, exactly as our poets have done with the plays, would
it not, pray, be a patriotic service to my fellow-countrymen?’ Cic. Fin. 1.6–7)
(g) Quamquam nullam nobilitatem, nullos honores, nulla merita cuiquam ad
dominationem pandere viam.
(‘To be sure, no nobility, no honours, no merits, opened wide the road to tyranny for
any man.’ Liv. 4.15.5)
Supplement:
. . . tu de thesauro sumes. # Satis scite et probe! / Quamquam hoc me aetatis sycophan-
tari pudet. (Pl. Trin. 786–7); Hic, quod cum ceteris animo sentiebat, id magis quam
ceteri et vultu promptum habuit et lingua. Quamquam, iudices—agnosco enim ex
me—permulta in Plancium quae ab eo numquam dicta sunt conferuntur. (Cic. Planc.
34–5); . . . addite Aproni Veneriorumque servorum in agro decumano regna ac rapi-
nas. Quamquam haec omitto, de cella loquor. (Cic. Ver. 3.200); Quam ob rem hoc vos
doceo, Sulpici, . . . ut in dicendo irasci, ut dolere, ut flere possitis. Quamquam te qui-
dem quid hoc doceam . . . (Cic. de Orat. 2.196–7); Quamquam, etsi priore foedere
staretur, satis cautum erat Saguntinis sociis utrorumque exceptis. (Liv. 21.19.4);
Quamquam quod ob meritum nostrum suscensuistis, patres conscripti, nobis aut
suscensetis? (Liv. 25.6.4); Quamquam ne impudicitiam quidem nunc abesse . . . (Tac.
Ann. 12.65.2—NB: accusative and infinitive)
Appendix: Quamvis is only rarely used in a similar way, in poetry from Prop. 2.7.3
onwards; in prose from Cels. 1.pr.54 and Petr. 79.5 onwards.
24.35 Explanatory and justificatory connexion of sentences
The particles which mark an explanatory, evidential, or justificatory relation between

sentences or larger units of discourse are the connectors nam, namque, etenim, and
quippe and the interactional particles enim and nempe. Traditionally, they are called
‘causal conjunctions’. Of these particles nam and enim are very common in all periods
94 For the syntactic and pragmatic properties of quamquam, see Martín Puente (2001). For criteria to
decide whether a particular instance of quamquam is a subordinator or a connector, see Mellet (2005).
1194 Discourse
of Latin. Table 24.5 contains figures for the frequency of use.95 It shows that nempe is
slightly more frequent in poetry than in prose; namque is relatively more frequent in
poetry than nam; and quippe is not very common in poetry. There are also consider-
able differences between authors and texts. Table 24.6 gives a glimpse of this.96 It is
interesting to see the different proportions of nam and enim in Plautus and Cicero.
With forty-five instances of quippe, Lucretius has one-quarter of all the instances in
poetry until Apuleius.
Table 24.5 Frequency of explanatory and justificatory connectors and particles

nam namque quippe enim etenim nempe
Total 10,528 1,293 1,221 15,951 655 366
Prose 8,035 877 1,034 171
Poetry 2,493 416 187 195
Table 24.6 Frequency of explanatory and justificatory connectors and particles in

four authors
nam namque quippe enima etenim nempe
Plautus 790 20 21 120 2 56
Cicero 2,285 38 61 6,200 412 43
Lucretius 149 28 45 135 24 4
Livy 414 63 105 580 14 10
a
Not counting enim vero (thirty-one instances).
24.36 The connector nam

A sentence or a larger discourse unit with the connector nam ‘for’ provides or requests
subsidiary information with respect to a preceding sentence or discourse unit, func-
tioning as it were as an answer to a question or an expectation raised by the preceding
text.97 The information provided involves an explanation, evidence, or justification of
the preceding text, which may concern either (i) the content of the preceding sentence
or discourse unit, as in (a)–(d), or (ii) the reason for uttering the preceding text or
choosing a particular wording (a disjunct-like usage), as in (e). Much less common is
(iii) the use of nam to mark the transition to a new issue, as in (g).98 The nam sentence
95 The data concerning nam, namque, quippe, and nempe are taken from Schrickx (2009; 2011).
Included is material collected by the TLL until Apuleius. The data concerning enim and etenim come from
the LLT, period Antiquitas. There is no subdivision available for prose and poetry.
96 Data obtained from LLT.
97 For this description of the function of nam, see Kroon (1995: 144) and TLL s.v. nam 840ff. For nam
in Plautus, see Blänsdorf (1967: 80–90; 191–205).
98 For parallels of (a)–(d), (e), and (g), see TLL s.v. nam 8.71ff., 17.42ff., and 23.20ff., respectively. The
examples are taken from the TLL article. For some later developments, see TLL s.v. 24.29ff. For (f), see
Kroon (1998b: 57–60).
explains: in (a), why there is a need to settle peace; in (b), the implications of Sosia
trying to get access to Alcumena; in (c), the reason why Amphitruo is commanding
the legions; in (d), Jupiter’s motive for bringing help to Alcumena. In (e), the nam
sentence contains the justification for the preceding order. In (f), the nam sentence
justifies the use of the expression magno usui. In (g), Sosia passes from Amphitruo’s
role to that of Jupiter but first justifies why it is superfluous to add information about
Jupiter. For nam in a question, see (h) (see also § 6.21).99
(a) Pacem componi volo / meo patri cum matre. Nam nunc est irata . . . / propter
istanc.
(‘I want peace to be settled between my father and my mother. For now she’s angry
because of that girl.’ Pl. Mer. 953–5)
(b) Hanc nostram (sc. eram) adire non sinam. / Nam si me irritassis, hodie
lumbifragium hinc auferes.
(‘I won’t let you go to ours here. For if you provoke me, you’ll carry away broken hips
from here today.’ Pl. Am. 453–4)
(c) Is nunc Amphitruo praefectu’st legionibus. / Nam cum Telobois bellum est
Thebano poplo.
(‘This Amphitruo is now in command of the legions because the Theban people is at
war with the Teloboians.’ Pl. Am. 100–1)
(d) Simul Alcumenae . . . veni ut auxilium feram. / Nam mea sit culpa, quod
egomet contraxerim, / si id Alcumenae in innocentiam expetat.
(‘At the same time I’ve come to bring help to Alcumena . . . For I’d deserve blame if
what I myself have stirred up should fall on innocent Alcumena.’ Pl. Am. 869–72)
(e) Sequere hac igitur me. Nam mi istuc primum exquisito est opus.
(‘Then follow me this way: I need to get to the bottom of this first.’ Pl. Am. 628)
(f) Quae res magno usui nostris fuit. Nam . . . barbari constiterunt ac paulum
modo pedem rettulerunt.
(‘This movement proved of great service to our troops; for the natives . . . came to a
halt, and retired, but only for a little space.’ Caes. Gal. 4.25.2)
(g) (sc. Amphitruo) . . . gravidam Alcumenam fecit uxorem suam. / Nam ego
vos novisse credo iam ut sit pater meus (sc. Iuppiter) . . . / Is amare occepit
Alcumenam clam virum . . .
(‘. . . he made his wife Alcumena pregnant. Well, I believe you already know what
my father’s like . . . He fell in love with Alcumena behind her husband’s back . . .’
Pl. Am. 103–7)
(h) Pestis te tenet. # Nam quor istuc / dicis? Equidem valeo et salvos / sum recte,
Amphitruo.
(‘You have the plague. # Why are you saying that? I’m perfectly well and healthy,
Amphitruo.’ Pl. Am. 581–3)
99 See Holmes (2012).

1196 Discourse
Supplement (in accordance with the distinctions made above):

(i): . . . repente est exorta mulieris importunae nefaria libido . . . Nam Sassia, mater
huius Habiti, . . . (Cic. Clu. 12); Itaque discedunt omnes. Nam ceteri quoque impe-
trant ne retineantur. (Cic. Ver. 2.71); . . . vivo Catone minores natu multi uno tem-
pore oratores floruerunt. Nam et A. Albinus, is qui Graece scripsit historiam, qui
consul cum L. Lucullo fuit, et litteratus et disertus fuit. (Cic. Brut. 80); Dicebat
etiam L. Scipio non imperite Gnaeusque Pompeius Sex. f. aliquem numerum
obtinebat. Nam Sex. frater eius praestantissimum ingenium contulerat ad summam
iuris civilis . . . scientiam. (Cic. Brut. 175—NB: an instance of the rhetorical figure
occupatio); . . . eram in scribendo conturbatior. Nam puer festivus, anagnostes noster
Sositheus, decesserat . . . (Cic. Att. 1.12.4); Sic ille annus duo firmamenta rei publicae
per me unum constituta evertit. Nam et senatus auctoritatem abiecit et ordinum
concordiam disiunxit. (Cic. Att. 1.18.3); Fenestrarum angustias quod reprehendis,
scito te V{z .ltopjlx reprehendere. Nam cum ego idem istuc dicerem, Cyrus
aiebat . . . (Cic. Att. 2.3.2); Neque vero Pompeiani huic rei defuerunt. Nam et tela
missa exceperunt et impetum legionum tulerunt . . . (Caes. Civ. 3.93.2); Caesar
loquendi finem fecit seque ad suos recepit suisque imperavit ne quod omnino
telum in hostes reicerent. Nam etsi sine ullo periculo legionis delectae cum equi-
tatu proelium fore videbat, tamen committendum non putabat ut . . . (Caes. Gal.
1.46.2–3); Ibi Latine—nam apud Numantiam loqui didicerat—exclamat nostros
frustra pugnare . . . (Sal. Jug. 101.6)
(ii): Quo quidem etiam magis sum non dicam miser—nam hoc quidem abhorret a
virtute verbum—sed certe exercitus . . . (Cic. Planc. 78); (sc. Coriolanus) . . . se ad
hostes contulit conatumque iracundiae suae morte sedavit. Nam etsi aliter apud te
est, Attice, de Coriolano, concede tamen ut huic generi mortis potius adsentiar. (Cic.
Brut. 42); Tenesne igitur moderatorem illum rei publicae quo referre velimus omnia?
Nam sic quinto, ut opinor, in libro loquitur Scipio: ‘ut enim gubernatori cursus
secundus, medico salus, imperatori victoria, sic huic moderatori rei publicae beata
civium vita proposita est, ut opibus firma, copiis locuples, gloria ampla, virtute
honesta sit.’ (Cic. Att. 8.11.1); Qui status rerum fuerit tum cum has litteras dedi scire
poteris ex C. Tidio Strabone, viro bono et optime de re publica sentiente. Nam quid
dicam ‘cupidissimo tui’, qui domo et fortunis relictis ad te potissimum profectus sit?
(Cic. Fam. 12.6.1—NB: an instance of the rhetorical figure of praeteritio); ‘Iuppiter—
hospitibus nam te dare iura loquuntur /—hunc laetum Tyriisque diem Troiaque pro-
fectis / esse velis . . .’ (Verg. A. 1.731–3); Aristoteles putat causam tribus modis
dici. . . . Tertia est forma quae unicuique operi inponitur tamquam statuae. Nam hanc
Aristoteles ‘idos’ vocat. (Sen. Ep. 65.4)
(iii): (discussing historians) Nam Lysiam primo profiteri solitum artem esse dicendi.
(Cic. Brut. 48); Ita suspensa de legibus res ad novos tribunos militum dilata. Nam
plebis tribunos eosdem, duos utique quia legum latores erant, plebes reficiebat. (Liv.
6.38.1); (discussing properties of elephants) Nam, quod ad docilitatem attinet, regem
adorant, genua submittunt, coronas porrigunt. (Plin. Nat. 8.3)
Within the class of explanatory and justificatory particles, nam comes second in terms
of frequency, after enim, but there are significant differences between authors (see
Table 24.6 on p. 1194) and types of text: in three different text types of Cicero the
proportion of nam and enim is 20/80 in the philosophical dialogue de Finibus, 25/75
in the letters to Atticus, 35/65 in the Verrine orations.100 These differences in frequency
are related to the semantic and pragmatic differences between the two words. For
discussion, see § 24.40. Nam is almost always in sentence-initial position; in poetry,
however, it is sometimes in a later position. See § 23.21. If the sentence starts with a
subordinate clause, nam precedes, as in (b) above.
Nam co-occurs with swear words like hercle, as in (i), and with invocations of a god
or gods. In such contexts, nam is sometimes described as ‘affirmative’. In reality, nam
has here the same function as described above. Enim is not combined with such
words.101
(i) Tu intus cura quod opus est. / Sume, posce, prome quidvis. Te facio cella-
rium. / # Nam hercle, nisi mantiscinatus probe ero, fusti pectito. / # Aeternum
tibi dapinabo victum, si vera autumas.
(‘You take care inside of what’s needed. Take, demand, help yourself to any-
thing you like. I hereby make you my butler. # Yes, if I don’t tuck in properly,
you can comb me down with a club. # I’ll serve you meals for good if you’re
telling the truth.’ Pl. Capt. 894–7)
24.37 The connector namque

The connector namque ‘certainly’, ‘for’ is used with the same functions as nam. Of the
three uses of nam described in § 24.36, marking the transition to a new issue is rare,
starting from Pliny the Elder onwards, as in (d). The most common use, to mark sub-
sidiary information for the content of the preceding text, is shown in (a) and (b). An
instance of a justification of a request is (c).
(a) Laboriosi nil tibi quicquam operis imperabo. / # Namque edepol equidem,
mi senex, non didici baiolare . . .
(‘I won’t tell you to do any hard work. # Yes, my dear old man, I don’t know how to
carry a load . . .’ Pl. Mer. 507–8)
(b) Nunc de ceteris sideribus . . . dicam. Namque Septentrio, quem Graeci nomi-
nant Arctum sive Helicen, habet post se conlocatum Custodem.
(‘I will next speak of the other constellations . . . Now the Wagon, which the Greeks
call the Bear or Helice, has the Keeper of the Bear placed behind it.’ Vitr. 9.3.3–4.1)
(c) Gnatique patrisque, / alma (sc. Sibylla), precor, miserere—Potes namque
omnia nec te / nequiquam lucis Hecate praefecit Avernis / —si . . .
(‘Pity both son and sire, I beseech you, gracious one, if . . .; for you are all-powerful,
and not in vain did Hecate make you mistress in the groves of Avernus.’ Verg. A.
6.116–18)
100 In Augustine’s work the proportion of nam and enim varies as well: Civ. 25/75, Conf. 20/80, Ep.
20/80, Serm. 15/85. In the Peregrinatio the proportion is 75/25 (source: LLT). For data on the frequency of
nam and enim in didactic prose, see Langslow (2000: 542).
101 See Kroon (1995: 163–8; 187). For ‘affirmative’ nam, see OLD s.v. nam § 1.
1198 Discourse
(d) Eadem nascentium causa terrarum est . . . Nascuntur et alio modo terrae . . .
Namque et hoc modo insulas rerum natura fecit . . .
(‘The cause of the birth of new lands is the same . . . New lands are also formed in
another way . . . For another way also in which nature has made islands is . . .’ Plin.
Nat. 2.201–4)
There are differences of distribution between namque and nam. The former is more
frequent in poetry (see Table 24.5 on p. 1194) and is preferred before words beginning
with a vowel or h, and in some authors (Cicero, Caesar, and Quintilian, for example)
avoided before words beginning with a consonant. In Plautus, namque is preferred
after a change of speaker, and it is regularly used in combination with a swear word, as
in (e). Unlike nam, namque is found in second or later position not only in poetry but
also in prose (rarely later than second) from Livy onwards. In Livy 40 per cent of the
instances of namque are non-initial, as in (f), where it causes hyperbaton.102
(e) Ecquid amare videor? # Damnum, quod Mercurius minime amat. / #
Namque edepol lucrum <ullum> amare nullum amatorem addecet.
(‘Do I seem to be in love at all? # Yes, with loss, which Mercury doesn’t love at all. #
Indeed, no lover ought to love any gain.’ Pl. Poen. 327–8)
(f) . . . decreverunt ut consules magistratus denosque principes Nepete, Sutrio . . .
Interamna—hae namque coloniae in ea causa erant—Romam excirent.
(‘. . . they decreed that the consuls should summon to Rome the magistrates and ten
leading citizens in each case from Nepete, Sutrium . . . Interamna, for these were the
colonies concerned.’ Liv. 29.15.5)
24.38 The connector etenim

The connector etenim ‘for’, ‘and indeed’ marks the sentence in which it occurs as an
explanation or an elaboration of the preceding sentence or text, as in (a) and (b). In
(c), an address to the judges, the explanatory relation between the two sentences is
more complex. Rare instances in which etenim only seems to mark the transition to a
new issue are cited in the literature, not all of them convincing.103 An example is (d).
As the Loeb translation ‘for’ shows, etenim has here its normal explanatory function,
which becomes clear if one takes a larger piece of text into account, and not just the
sentence in which it stands. Etenim is attested from Plautus onwards (once, see below),
becomes particularly common in Cicero, but is uncommon in or entirely absent from
most prose authors until Late Latin. Lucretius uses it relatively frequently (with quippe,
see § 24.39), but it is rare in other poets. For its overall frequency, see Table 24.5 on
p. 1194.104 In prose, etenim usually occupies the first position of the sentence, but see
the Supplement. From Lucretius onwards poets have it also in second, and Horace
even in third position.
102 For details, see Schrickx (2009); for further instances, see TLL s.v. namque.
103 See TLL s.v. etenim 920.61ff. ‘adnectit aliquid novi’. The first instance cited is Cic. Att. 1.14.4, not
convincingly.
104 For the aetas patrum the LLT gives more than 5,300 instances.
(a) Verum profecto hoc petere me precario / a vobis iussit leniter dictis bonis. /
Etenim ille quoius huc iussu venio, Iuppiter / non minus quam vostrum
quivis formidat malum.
(‘Still, he’s told me to ask you for this by way of entreaty, mildly, with kind words.
Well, that Jupiter on whose command I’m coming here is no less afraid of a thrashing
than any of you.’ Pl. Am. 24–7)
(b) Certum est . . . omnia . . . audacter libereque dicere. Nulla res tanta exsistet,
iudices, ut possit vim mihi maiorem adhibere metus quam fides. Etenim quis
tam dissoluto animo est qui haec cum videat tacere ac neglegere possit?
(‘I have deliberately made up my mind . . . to say all boldly, and freely; no consider-
ation shall arise of such importance, gentlemen, as to make it possible for fear to exert
greater influence over me than honour. For is there a man so indifferent as to keep
silence and take no notice at the sight of such atrocities?’ Cic. S. Rosc. 31–2)
(c) . . . ut etiam (sc. gratia) obesse deberet tu tua sapientia curasti. Etenim rem
totam, iudices, breviter cognoscite.
(‘. . . and your intelligence has taken effective steps to make it actually tell against you.
Let me in a few words, gentlemen, put the whole story before you.’ Cic. Ver. 2.169)
(d) Gentes ei (sc. Indiae) urbesque innumerae, si quis omnes persequi velit.
Etenim patefacta est non modo Alexandri Magni armis . . .
(‘Its races and cities are beyond counting, if one wished to enumerate all of them. For
it has been brought to knowledge not only by the armed forces of Alexander the
Great . . .’ Plin. Nat. 6.58)
Supplement:
Facile equidem facere possum si iubes. / Etenim quo pacto id fieri soleat calleo. (Ter.
Hau. 547–8); Multum etenim refert, duobus simul alternis annis legetur . . . an singu-
lis alternis annis. (Papin. dig. 7.4.2.2); . . . (sc. oportet) ex edicto te bona P. Quincti non
possedisse concedas. Etenim si ex edicto possedisti, quaero cur bona non venie-
rint . . . (Cic. Quinct. 73); Signa nostra . . . velim imponas . . . Etenim ibi sedens haec ad te
scribebam, ut me locus ipse admoneret. (Cic. Att. 1.10.3); Tutus bos etenim rura
perambulat . . . (Hor. Carm. 4.5.17); Cetera exempla fortunae variantis innumera
sunt. Etenim quae facit magna gaudia nisi ex malis aut quae mala inmensa nisi ex
ingentibus gaudiis? (Plin. Nat. 7.134); Inlustrium domuum adversa (etenim haud
multum distanti tempore Calpurnii Pisonem, Aemilii Lepidam amiserant) solacio
adfecit D. Silanus Iuniae familiae redditus. (Tac. Ann. 3.24.1); Tunc etenim meretur,
cum cognoscitur an mereatur. (Tert. Apol. 1.4); Et magis propitius est Deus, quando
superflua et nugatoria petentem non exaudit ut det, sed exaudit ut sanet non dando.
Etenim quare ista quaerant homines quis non videt? (August. Serm. 32.19)
24.39 The connector quippe

The connector quippe ‘for’, ‘of course’ is used to connect sentences and larger units of
discourse and in many respects resembles nam. However, it is not used as a justifica-
tion of the content or wording of a preceding text and it does not mark the transition
1200 Discourse
to a new issue (uses (ii) and (iii) in § 24.36).105 Examples of its regular use as a sen-
tence connector are (a) and (b).
(a) Nos tu ne curassis. Scimus rem omnem. Quippe omnes simul didicimus
tecum una, ut respondere possimus tibi.
(‘Don’t bother about us: we know the entire business, since we all learned it together
with you, so that we could answer you.’ Pl. Poen. 553–4)
(b) Sin ille tibi ludus fuit, quid te impurius, qui religiones omnes pollueris aut
ementiundo aut stuprando? ‘Iam fateor’, inquit, ‘me in Gabinio nefarium fui-
sse.’ Quippe vides poenam illam a te in alium institutam in te ipsum esse
conversam.
(‘But if it was a mere farce, what can be more loathsome than your defilement of all
sanctities either by falsehood or by immorality? “I am ready to confess now”, he says,
“that in the case of Gabinius I acted impiously.” Yes, for you realize that the penalty
you enacted against another has recoiled upon your own head.’ Cic. Dom. 125–6)
Supplement:
Qui tibi lubet mihi male loqui? / # Quipp’ tu mi aliquid aliquo modo alicunde ab
aliquibus blatis / quod nusquam est . . . (Pl. Epid. 333–5); Nam expedit bonas esse
vobis. Nos, quibu’cum est res, non sinunt. / Quippe forma inpulsi nostra nos ama-
tores colunt. (Ter. Hau. 388–9); . . . praeclara opera cesset. Quippe ius Laodiceae me
dicere, cum Romae A. Plotius dicat! (Cic. Att. 5.15.1); Nam me quidem ex animi mei
sententia nulla oratio laedere potest. Quippe vera necesse est bene praedicent, falsa
vita moresque mei superant. (Sal. Jug. 85.27); Nomine enim tantum minus invidio-
sum, re ipsa prope atrocius quam regium esse. Quippe duos pro uno dominos accep-
tos immoderata, infinita potestate . . . (Liv. 3.9.3); Factum eius a diis comprobatum
spatio vitae et felicitate imperii apparuit. Quippe vixit annis XC, regnavit LXX. (Vell.
1.1.3); . . . nec quicquam miserius homine aut superbius. Ceteris quippe animantium
sola victus cura est . . . (Plin. Nat. 2.25); Non enim quia dicimus Deum et in caelo esse
et in terra (ipse quippe ait per prophetam: Caelum et terram ego impleo), aliam par-
tem dicturi sumus eum in caelo habere et in terra aliam. (August. Civ. 22.29.3)
There are a few attestations of the collocation of quippe and enim in the same sentence
in Cicero and Lucretius, although in the former many editors punctuate quippe as a
one-word sentence, as in (c). Lucretius has the combination quippe etenim twenty
times and, much later, Apuleius once. The combination of quippe with the adverb
qui ‘in some way’ functions more or less as quippe alone. It is found in Plautus and
Terence and then in Gellius and Apuleius.106
(c) Leve nomen habet utraque res! Quippe; leve enim est totum hoc risum
movere.
105 For the differences between nam and quippe, see Kroon (2014: 77–9).
106 See Schrickx (2011: 130–3 and passim). The function of qui is disputed. For quippe in Velleius
Paterculus, see Sánchez Manzano (2001) and Ruiz Castellanos (2005).
(‘Each of these has a trivial name—of course, for this whole business of provoking
laughter is a trivial matter.’ Cic. de Orat. 2.218—tr. May and Wisse (adapted))
(d) Quare, corpus ubi interiit, periisse necesse’st / confiteare animam distractam
in corpore toto. / Quippe etenim mortale aeterno iungere et una / consentire
putare et fungi mutua posse / desipere’st.
(‘Therefore, when the body has perished, you must confess that the spirit has passed
away, torn to pieces throughout the body. In fact, to yoke mortal with immortal, and
to think that they can be partners in feeling and act upon each other, is folly.’ Lucr.
3.798–802)
(e) Quis igitur nisi vos narravit mi illi ut fuerit proelium? / # An etiam id tu scis?
# Quipp’ qui ex te audivi . . .
(‘Well, then who told me how the battle went there, if not you? # You know about it?
# Of course! I heard from you . . .’ Pl. Am. 744–5)
Quippe in all its uses most often occupies the first position of the sentence or clause
and this is the regular position in Cicero and Sallust, but, unlike nam, it is not restricted
to that position in poetry nor in prose authors (Livy, Pliny the Elder, and Apuleius);
non-initial placement increases over time. Quippe is relatively rare in poetry, with the
exception of Lucretius.107
Supplement:
Non puto, inquam, existimare te ambitione me labi, quippe de mortuis. (Cic. Brut.
244—elliptic reason adjunct?); Sol Democrito magnus videtur, quippe homini eru-
dito in geometriaque perfecto, huic pedalis fortasse; tantum enim esse censet, quan-
tus videtur, vel paulo aut maiorem aut minorem. (Cic. Fin. 1.20—apposition); ‘Quia
animadverti nuper, cum essemus in Formiano, te familiae valde interdicere ut uni
dicto audiens esset.’ # ‘Quippe vilico.’ (Cic. Rep. 1.61—apposition?)
Appendix: Apart from being used as a sentence connector, quippe is also used in
combination with relative clauses (see § 18.24), cum (see § 16.29) and other finite
subordinate clauses, secondary predicates (see § 21.18), as well as various other con-
stituents (see the Supplement). This concerns about 18 per cent of all instances of
quippe, with much variation between individual authors: 82 per cent in Cicero, 46 per
cent in Livy, almost negligible in Tacitus.108
24.40 The interactional particle enim

The most typical use of the particle enim is in sentences and larger units of discourse
which serve as an explanation, evidence, or justification for the preceding text, which
is what the connector nam signals explicitly. However, enim is not a connector but an
interactional particle (see § 24.15); it makes ‘an appeal to the involvement, cooper-
ation and empathy of the addressee in the communicative event’, more or less
comparable to y’know or the tag question isn’t it? in English, and to ja in German.109
107 On quippe in Lucretius, see Possanza (2008). 108 See Schrickx (2011: 119–25).
109 So Kroon (2011: 192). In her earlier work (1995: 184) she uses the term ‘consensus particle’.
1202 Discourse
The non-connective character of enim is apparent from the fact that it can co-occur
with real connectors like et, infrequently, as in (a), at (see § 24.24), and sed (rarely, see
§ 24.28). The non-causal character of enim explains why it can be used in subordinate
clauses of reason which follow a main clause, as in (b). In none of these situations
would nam be possible. Enim is often used in sentences that contain a truth value
disjunct like certe (see § 10.100), as in (c). Nam is not often combined with such words.
Co-occurrence of nam and enim in the same sentence is not attested, which may be
due to their semantic affinity.110
(a) Sed de Graecis hactenus. Et enim haec ipsa forsitan fuerint non necessaria.
(‘So much then for the Greeks, and even this perchance was superfluous.’ Cic. Brut.
52)111
(b) . . . domi daturus nemo est prandium advenientibus. / # Qui tibi nunc istuc in
mentem est? # Quia enim sero advenimus.
(‘. . . at home no one’s going to give us a lunch on our arrival. # How did that idea
occur to you now? # Well, because we’ve come too late.’ Pl. Am. 665–6)
(c) Oh, melle dulci dulcior [mihi] tu es. # Certe enim tu vita es mi. / Complectere.
(‘Oh, you’re sweeter than sweet honey. # Certainly you are sweeter than my life to me.
Embrace me.’ Pl. As. 614–15)
In Plautus and Terence, enim is often used in a reaction, as in (d); similarly, in a
reported dialogue like (e). In narrative texts, enim is more common in direct speech
than nam.112 The context in which enim is used often contains shared information, as
in (f), a monological narrative, with ut supra demonstratum est.
(d) Quid tute tecum? # Nihil enim.
(‘What are you saying to yourself? # Nothing, of course.’ Pl. Mos. 551)
(e) Bene Pericles, cum . . . casu formosus puer praeteriret dixissetque Sophocles:
‘O puerum pulchrum, Pericle!’ ‘At enim praetorem, Sophocle, decet non
solum manus, sed etiam oculos abstinentes habere.’
(‘Pertinent was Pericles’ reply when . . . a handsome boy chanced to pass and
Sophocles said: “Look, Pericles; what a pretty boy!” “Hush, Sophocles, a general
should keep not only his hands but his eyes under control.” ’ Cic. Off. 1.144)
(f) Quae res magnas difficultates exercitui Caesaris attulit. Castra enim, ut supra
demonstratum est, cum essent inter flumina duo, Sicorim et Cingam—spatio
milium XXX neutrum horum transiri poterat . . .
110 Namque enim is attested at Pl. Trin. 61. For discussion, see Kroon (1995: 209); for collocations of
enim, see Kroon (1995: 172–5; 186–7).
111 Editors also print etenim.
112 In Livy 30 per cent of instances of enim and 12 per cent of nam are in direct speech. See Kroon
(1995: 181).
(‘These developments caused serious difficulties to Caesar’s army, for with his camp,
as was indicated above, being between two rivers, the Sicoris and the Cinca—neither
of these could be crossed for a stretch of thirty miles . . .’ Caes. Civ. 1.48.3)
The majority of the sentences in which enim is used are declarative. However, enim
can also be used in imperative sentences with a low degree of bindingness, such as
pieces of advice and proposals. Enim in a proposal is shown in (g). It can also be used
with metadirectives (see § 6.29, (ii)), as in (h). It is rare in interrogative sentences,
except in those with an assertive illocutionary force (rhetorical and ironic questions),
as in (i).113
(g) Etenim quis erit tandem modus iste? Quaeramus enim modum aegritudinis,
in qua operae plurimum ponitur.
(‘For what, I ask, will the suggested “limit” be? Let us inquire for instance into the
limit of distress to which they devote most attention.’ Cic. Tusc. 4.40)
(h) Facite enim ut non solum mores et adrogantiam eius, sed etiam voltum atque
amictum atque etiam illam usque ad talos demissam purpuram recordemini.
(‘For do but recall his manners and his arrogance, yes, and even his expression and
his clothes, and that purple robe he wore right down to his heels.’ Cic. Clu. 111)
(i) ‘Tu me’, inquis, ‘mones? Iam enim te ipse monuisti, iam correxisti? Ideo
aliorum emendationi vacas?’ Non sum tam inprobus ut curationes aeger
obeam . . .
(‘ “What,” say you, “are you giving me advice? Indeed, have you already advised your-
self, already corrected your own faults? Is this the reason why you have leisure to
reform other men?” No, I am not so shameless as to undertake to cure my fellow-men
when I am ill myself . . .’ Sen. Ep. 27.1)
Supplement:
Accipe argentum hoc, danista. Hic sunt quadraginta minae. / Siquid erit dubium,
immutabo. # Bene fecisti, bene vale. / # Nunc enim tu mea es. # Soror quidem edepol,
ut tu aeque scias. (Pl. Epid. 646–8); Sicine ego te orare iussi? # Quo modo ergo orem?
# Rogas? / Sic enim diceres, sceleste: . . . (Pl. Poen. 386–7); Ad hoc exemplum est— #
An Chares? An Charmides? # Enim Charmides. / Em istic erit. (Pl. Trin. 922–3); Nam
tum cum ex urbe Catilinam eiciebam—non enim iam vereor huius verbi invidiam,
cum illa magis sit timenda, quod vivus exierit—, sed tum cum illum exterminari
volebam . . . (Cic. Catil. 3.3); Non enim pudendo, sed non faciendo id quod non decet
impudentiae nomen effugere debemus. (Cic. de Orat. 1.120); Cave enim putes Attici
nostri Amalthio platanisque illis quicquam esse praeclarius. (Cic. Leg. 2.7); Quando
enim me in hunc locum deduxit oratio, docebo meliora me didicisse . . . (Cic. N.D.
3.43); Accidit etiam repentinum incommodum biduo quo haec gesta sunt. Tanta
enim tempestas cooritur ut numquam illis locis maiores aquas fuisse constaret.
(Caes. Civ. 1.48.1); Navita sed tristis nunc hos nunc accipit illos, / ast alios longe sum-
motos arcet harena. / Aeneas miratus enim motusque tumultu / ‘dic’, ait, ‘o virgo, quid
113 For these examples and further discussion, see Kroon (1995: 189–95). The examples in the
Supplement are also taken from Kroon (1995).
1204 Discourse
vult concursus ad amnem?’ (Verg. A. 6.315–18); . . . A. Claudius . . . dicitur dixisse

vetus se ac familiare consilium domo adferre. Proavum enim suum Ap. Claudium
ostendisse patribus viam . . . (Liv. 4.48.6); 215 transiri quae vetaret lex nulla lata est.
Dicat fortassis aliquis: non enim invehebantur. (Plin. Nat. 36.4–5); Artifices scaen-
ici . . . hoc indicio imitantur verecundiam. Deiciunt enim vultum, verba summittunt,
figunt in terram oculos et deprimunt. (Sen. Ep. 11.7); Postquam negavit, iussit illum
Caesar decollari: quia enim, si scitum esset, aurum pro luto haberemus. (Petr. 51.6
(Trimalchio speaking))
Apart from the use illustrated above, which is usually called the ‘causal’ use of enim,
two others are generally distinguished, viz. the ‘affirmative’ and the ‘adversative’ use.
The former is often regarded as the original use, with reference primarily to Plautus
and Terence, and is taken to mean ‘to be sure’, ‘of course’ (OLD), as in (j) and (k). Note
that in (j) enim occupies the first position. The instances of enim in first position
(c. fifteen in Plautus and Terence) are all ‘affirmative’, which is a reason for some
scholars to regard them as adverbs.114 However, such instances often concern reac-
tions that challenge the words of the preceding speaker (see also the examples (d) and
(e) above) and can be interpreted along the lines set out above: enim is there to induce
the other side to accept the speaker’s view or to remind him of what he knew or might
have known already.115
(j) Ergo <ero> quoque (sc. molesta), nisi scio / quo agas te. # Ad vos. # Et pol ego
ad vos. # Quid eo? # Quid id ad te attinet? / # Enim non ibis nunc, vicissim
nisi scio.
(‘And I’ll continue to be a nuisance unless you tell me where you’re going. # To your
place. # And I to your place. # Why there? # Why is this any of your business? # You
won’t go now, unless I know in turn.’ Pl. Per. 234–6)
(k) Cedo nunc porro: Phormio / dotem si accipiet, uxor ducenda’st domum. /
Quid fiet? # Non enim ducet.
(‘And tell me the next step. If Phormio accepts the dowry, he has to marry her: what
happens then? # But he won’t marry her.’ Ter. Ph. 692–4)
Supplement:
Quotiens monstravi tibi viro ut morem geras, / quid ille faciat ne id opserves, quo eat,
quid rerum gerat. / # At enim ille hinc amat meretricem ex proxumo. (Pl. Men.
788–90); Metuo maxume— / # Quid metuis? # Enim ne <nos> nosmet perdiderimus
uspiam. (Pl. Mil. 428–9); Enim istic captio est. / Fac ego ne metuam <mihi atque> ut
tu meam timeas vicem. (Pl. Mos. 1144–5)
Appendix: Another ‘affirmative’ use is assumed in (l) and a few more instances.116
Here enim is commonly supposed to emphasize tibi, as in the Loeb translation, but it
114 See Spevak (2012b: 337).

115 See Kroon (1995: 196–8). For the traditional view, see K.-St.: II.120, TLL s.v. enim 572.10ff., OLD
s.v. enim § 1–2, and Müller (1997: 69–74).
116 For further instances, see TLL s.v. enim 572.63ff. For the argumentation, see Kroon (1995: 204).
is actually an appeal by the poet to Juno to realize that Aeneas made the sacrifice to
her in spite of her animosity.
(l) . . . viridique in litore conspicitur sus. / Quam pius Aeneas tibi enim, tibi,
maxima Iuno, / mactat sacra ferens . . .
(‘. . . there lay outstretched on the green bank before their eyes a sow; good
Aeneas offers her in sacrifice to you, indeed to you, most mighty Juno . . .’
Verg. A. 8.83–5)
Supplement:
Atque hic Aenean magna ter voce vocavit. / Aeneas agnovit enim laetusque preca-
tur: . . . (Verg. A. 10.873–4)
Instances of enim which are regarded as adversative and said to resemble the use of
autem are (m) and (n).117 The sentence with enim in (m), translated with ‘indeed’, is in
contrast with the preceding sentence, but the contrast is independent of enim, which
means something like ‘as you can imagine’. In (n), there is no need to assume an adversa-
tive relation: the speaker appeals for understanding on the part of the addressee.118
(m) (sc. haedus) . . . coepit irridere me. / Ego enim lugere atque abductam illam (sc.
capram) aegre pati.
(‘. . . he started to laugh at me. I was sad indeed and upset that she’d been taken away
from me.’ Pl. Mer. 250–1)
(n) Adsequere, retine dum ego huc servos evoco. # Enim nequeo solus. Accurre.
(‘After him! Hold him while I call out your slaves. # I can’t by myself. Hurry up!’ Ter.
Ph. 982–3)
Supplement:
. . . propterea multis argumentis deos esse docere voluisti. Mihi enim unum sat erat,
ita nobis maioris nostros tradidisse. Sed tu auctoritates contemnis, ratione pugnas.
(Cic. N.D. 3.9); Respondebo tibi ä}~p{zx .{~p{zx, Úwr{tuŷ|. Ego enim, quam diu
senatus auctoritas mihi defendenda fuit, sic acriter et vehementer proeliatus sum ut . . .
(Cic. Att. 1.16.1);119 Nam mutae bestiae laboriosissimae boves et oves: boves . . .
oves . . . Apes enim ego divinas bestias puto, quae mel vomunt, etiam si dicuntur illud
a Iove afferre. (Petr. 56.4–6 (Trimalchio speaking))
In (o), the end of a discussion of marine trees, enim is said to indicate the transition
to a new issue.120 However, it is not clear why a transition would be appropriate at this
point in a whole series of trees. Probably Pliny expected his readers to know that sea-
vines grow everywhere (‘passim’).
(o) Ea et aliae traduntur praegrandes circa Scione<n>. Vitis enim passim nasci-
tur, sed ficus sine foliis, rubro cortice. Fit et palma fruticum generis.
117 See TLL s.v. enim 589.65ff.; OLD § 6 s.v. enim. 118 Brown translates ‘but’.
119 Called ‘enim inceptivum’ in TLL s.v. enim 588.3ff.
120 See TLL s.v. 590.40ff. OLD s.v. § 6 discusses instances like this under the heading: ‘introducing a
slight contrast’.
1206 Discourse
(‘Also other very large marine trees are reported in the neighbourhood of Sicyon—
for the sea-vine grows everywhere, but there is a sea-fig, which has no leaves and a
red bark, and also the class of marine shrubs includes a sea-palm.’ Plin. Nat. 13.138)
Supplement:
(discussing the astaphis agria ‘wild raisin’) . . . nucleum . . . Flos tritus in vino contra ser-
pentes bibitur. Semen enim abdicaverim propter nimiam vim ardoris. (Plin. Nat.
23.18)
In medical texts enim is used in sentences in which the effect of a treatment men-
tioned in the preceding context is described, as in (p).121 Apparently here too, Celsus
makes an appeal to shared knowledge of the readers or to their empathy.
(p) Si vetustior morbus est, (sc. oportet) ex inferioribus partibus tepidum infun-
dere . . . tisanae cremorem vel . . . vitellos cum aqua in qua rosae floris folia
cocta sint. Levant enim dolorem haec et mitiora ulcera efficiunt . . .
(‘If the distemper is of longer standing, there should be injected into the rectum
either a tepid cream of pearl barley, or . . . yolk of eggs in a decoction of rose-leaves: for
such remedies relieve pain and mitigate ulceration . . .’ Cels. 4.22.3)
Supplement:
(sc. emplastrum) Ad carbunculos et cancer imponendum est. Purgat enim nec pati-
tur latius serpere. (Larg. 206)
In Late Latin enim is used more or less like autem, as some form of sentence bound-
ary. See § 24.26 fin.
24.41 The interactional particle nempe

When using the particle nempe the speaker appeals to the addressee to commit him-
self to the content of the message. It resembles to some extent enim, which tries to
establish consensus between the speaker and the addressee, but unlike enim, nempe
involves only the addressee. In other words, it shifts the responsibility for the content
of the message to the addressee: ‘you mean . . .?’, ‘of course’.122 It is used most often in
dialogues and in situations in which there is an addressee who is present in person or
only in thought, so, for example, in Cicero’s orations and in speeches in the histor-
ians.123 Examples are (a)–(c). In (a), the speaker wants the addressee’s confirmation of
the correctness of his description. In (b), the speaker reacts to a fictive objection and
invites the addressee to confirm his identification of the grandfather. In (c) the speaker
answers a question by himself suggesting that this is what the priests would say. Nempe
most often occupies the first position, both in prose and in poetry, but see (b).124
121 See Langslow (2000: 550–3). He states that in Celsus (books 4 and 5) nam is much less often used
in this context.
122 This description follows Schrickx (2011: 83). See also K.-St.: I.809. For a comparison of nempe and
enim, see Schrickx (2011: 98–100).
123 For the distribution of nempe, see Schrickx (2011: 269–71). There is only one instance in Cicero’s
letters (Cic. Att. 9.15.3).
124 See Schrickx (2011: 76).
(a) Sed istum quem quaeris Periphanem Plothenium / ego sum, si quid vis. #
Nemp’ quem in adulescentia / memorant apud reges armis, arte duellica /
divitias magnas indeptum? # Immo si audias / meas pugnas, fugias manibus
demissis domum.
(‘But the man you’re looking for, Periphanes of Plothea, it’s me, if you want anything.
# You mean the one who people say acquired great wealth in his youth in the service
of kings for his arms and art of war? # Yes, if you heard about my battles, you’d flee
home with your hands stretched out.’ Pl. Epid. 448–52)
(b) ‘At avus nobilis.’ Tuditanus nempe ille qui cum palla et cothurnis nummos
populo de rostris spargere solebat.
(‘ “But her grandfather was a nobleman.” Of course, that Tuditanus who used to
throw coins from the Rostra among the crowd, dressed in an actor’s robe and buskins.’
Cic. Phil. 3.16)
(c) Quod est, pontifices, ius adoptionis? Nempe ut is adoptet qui neque pro-
creare iam liberos possit et, cum potuerit, sit expertus.
(‘What, gentlemen, is the law relating to adoption? Clearly that the adoption of chil-
dren should be permissible to those who are no longer capable of begetting children,
and who, when they were in their prime, put their capacity for parenthood to the test.’
Cic. Dom. 34)
Supplement:
Audi’n tu? Apud Archibulum ego ero argentarium. / # Nempe in foro? # Ibi, si quid
opus fuerit. (Pl. As. 116–17); Nostin’ hanc quam amat frater? # Novi. Nempe, opinor,
Thaidem. (Ter. Eu. 563); Si dat tantam pecuniam Flacco, nempe idcirco dat ut rata sit
emptio. (Cic. Flac. 91); Nempe negas ad beate vivendum satis posse virtutem? (Cic.
Tusc. 5.12); Tibi nempe, / ne foret aequalis inter conviva, magis quem / diligeret
mulier sua quam te. (Hor. Epod. 12.9.22–4); Ut concedam tibi, nempe hoc facis nullo
pretio inductus, nulla spe. (Sen. Ben. 4.19.4); Externi te nempe patres alienaque tan-
gunt / pignora? (Stat. Theb. 10.709–10); An forte non exiit ad te vocandum pater-
familias? Si non exiit, quid est quod loquimur? Nempe nos servi de familia ipsius
sumus, conducere operarios missi sumus. (August. Serm. 87.9)
Nempe rarely co-occurs with other particles, mainly with the connectors sed (in the
two Senecas and Augustine) and igitur (see the Supplement). It also co-occurs with
the adverb tamen. More noteworthy is its co-occurrence with the interactional par-
ticles enim, rare, from Quintilian onwards, as in (d), and ergo, also rare, as in (e).125
Note that in both cases the translators only translate nempe. In (d), Nempe enim is at
the start of a new section in which Quintilian summarizes the preceding books.
(d) Nempe enim plurimum in hoc laboris exhausimus, ut ostenderemus rhetori-
cen bene dicendi scientiam et utilem et artem et virtutem esse.
125 See Schrickx (2011: 95–6). Enim ergo is used a few times in Early Latin and then also a few times by
Tertullian and Augustine. In Quintilian, three out of ten instances of nempe also have enim. There are not
enough instances to draw a conclusion about their meanings.
1208 Discourse
(‘My main effort to be sure has been expended in showing: That Rhetoric is
the science of speaking well, is useful, and is an art and a virtue.’ Quint. Inst.
8.pr.6)
(e) Em, / istoc dicto <tu> dedisti hodie in cruciatum Chrysalum. / Nam ubi me
aspiciet, ad carnuficem rapiet continuo senex. / # Ego patrem exoravi. #
Nempe ergo hoc ut faceret quod loquor? / # Immo tibi ne noceat neu quid
ob eam rem suscenseat.
(‘There you go, with that word you handed Chrysalus over to crucifixion
today: as soon as he sees me, the old man will drag me to the executioner. #
I persuaded my father. # You mean, to do what I’m talking about? # No, not
to harm you and not to be angry with you for this.’ Pl. Bac. 686–90)
Supplement:
Nempe igitur hinc tum, Pomponi, ductus est sermo, quod erat a me mentio facta
causam Deiotari . . . a Bruto me audisse defensam. (Cic. Brut. 21); Hic qui te expulit,
non ipse per annos decem continuos patria caruit? Propagandi sine dubio imperii
causa. Sed nempe caruit. (Sen. Dial. 12.9.7); Sed tamen esto iam posse haec aeterna
manere. / Nempe tamen debent aut sensum partis habere . . . (Lucr. 2.907–8)
NB: with sed coordinator: Et cum dixisset se praemia in patrem contulisse, dixit:
Vici te, pater, sed nempe vici tibi. (Sen. Con. 10.2.14)
24.42 Consecutive connexion of sentences
Sentences and larger units of discourse which stand in a relation of consequence, result,
or inference with respect to the preceding sentence or larger unit often contain one of
the particles ergo, igitur, and itaque. Of these, ergo is an interactional particle, whereas
igitur and itaque are connectors (details in the following sections). In addition there are
various adverbs, such as ideo, inde, and propterea ‘therefore’. That we are dealing with
words that belong to three different lexical categories is apparent from the (rare) cases
of co-occurrence, which are usually called ‘pleonastic’.126 Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Quo pacto ergo igitur clam dos depromi potest?
(‘Then how can the dowry be taken out in secret?’ Pl. Trin. 756)
(b) Tam etsi bona’st natura, reddunt curatura iunceam. / Itaque ergo amantur.
(‘However well endowed she is by nature, by their treatment they (such girls’ mothers)
make her as thin as a reed. Therefore they (these girls) then find lovers.’ Ter. Eu.
316–17)
(c) Itaque propterea institutum diversa de causa ut ex caprino genere ad alii dei
aram hostia adduceretur, ad alii non sacrificaretur . . .
126 So K.-St.: II.145. Sz.: 525 calls it an ‘abundante konjunktionale Verbindung’. For discussion, see
Thomsen (1930) and Pinkster (1972:158–62). Ergo igitur in (a) is also attested at Pl. Mos. 847 (ergo . . . igitur),
then seventeen times in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Itaque ergo in (b) is later on five occasions attested in
Livy (on which see Krylová 2003: 81), seventeen times in the Peregrinatio, occasionally elsewhere. For
further combinations, see TLL s.v. ergo 774.78ff., s.v. igitur 271.55ff., s.v. itaque 530.18ff.
Consecutive and sequential connexion of sentences 1209
(‘Accordingly there arose a custom, from opposite reasons, that a victim from the goat
family might be led to the altar of one god, but might not be sacrificed on the altar of
another.’ Var. R. 1.2.19)
The distribution of the three particles varies considerably, as can be seen in Table 24.7.
Most noteworthy is the almost complete absence of igitur (one instance) and ergo
(three instances) from Caesar (all four only in speeches), the low frequency of itaque
in Plautus, in contrast with the high frequency in Caesar and Livy, and the high fre-
quency of igitur in Cicero’s philosophical prose and in Sallust, but its almost complete
absence from Seneca’s Letters.127 Late Latin texts show a decrease in igitur and an
increase in ergo, albeit less pronounced in Augustine’s ‘Classical’ de Civitate Dei.128
Table 24.7 Frequency of consecutive particles
Plautus Cicero Cicero Caesar Sallust Livy Seneca August. August. Pereg.b
orationsa philos.a Ep. Civ. Serm.
igitur 42% 46% 61% 1% 66% 19% 0.3% 24% 2% –
itaque 7% 39% 20% 96% 31% 71% 42% 18% 5% 12%
ergo 51% 15% 19% 3% 3% 10% 58% 58% 93% 88%
Total
number of
instances 377 430 898 84 115 850 578 1157 7002 151
a
Orations: Cic. Agr., Catil., Phil., Ver. Philosophical works: Cic. Div., N.D., Off., Tusc.
b
See note 126.
24.43 The connector igitur

The most common use of the particle igitur ‘then’, ‘therefore’ is as a cohesive device
linking a sentence or a larger unit to a preceding text unit which has a preparatory
function, while the unit in which it occurs constitutes a natural advance in the dis-
course.129 Examples are (a)–(f). In (a), the soldier hears that the girl is visiting the
temple of Minerva and decides to go to the (adjacent) forum to find her. More or less
the same holds for (b), an imperative sentence, and for (c), an interrogative sentence.
In (d), sunt ligna is the logical inference from what precedes. In (e), igitur marks the
transition to a new paragraph, which, however, follows from the preceding exposition
and is also announced by Nunc ad reliqua progrediar . . . In (f), the speaker (Marcus)
starts his contribution to the discourse, ‘seeing that the others are ready’.130 As the
examples show, igitur is common in both dialogical and—more so—in monological
texts, especially those of an argumentative, didactic, or narrative type.
127 For comparative data on ergo and igitur in the historians, see Krylová (2001: 67). Ammianus uses
ergo and igitur more or less as do the Classical historians (Krylová 2001).
128 For detailed figures about the frequency in individual authors and texts, see TLL s.v. ergo 760.26ff,
where also information about the position in the sentence can be found.
129 This formulation closely follows Kroon (1989b: 236). 130 Paraphrasing K.-St.: II.137.
1210 Discourse
(a) Illa autem in arcem abiit aedem visere / Minervae. Nunc aperta est. I, vise
estne ibi. / # Abeo ad forum igitur.
(‘She has gone to the acropolis to visit the temple of Minerva. It’s open now. Go and
see if she isn’t there. # I’ll go to the market then.’ Pl. Bac. 900–2)
(b) Concedo esse deos. Doce me igitur unde sint, ubi sint, quales sint corpore
animo vita.
(‘I grant the existence of the gods: do you then teach me their origin, their dwelling-
place, their bodily and spiritual nature, their mode of life.’ Cic. N.D. 1.65)
(c) Amphitruo, speravi ego istam tibi parituram filium. / Verum non est puero
gravida. # Quid igitur? # Insania.
(‘Amphitruo, I hoped that woman would bear you a son; but she’s not pregnant with
a son. # Then what is she pregnant with? # With madness.’ Pl. Am. 718–19)
(d) Ligna hic apud nos nulla sunt. # Sunt asseres? / # Sunt pol. # Sunt igitur ligna,
ne quaeras foris.
(‘There’s no firewood here at our place. # Are there rafters? # Yes, of course there are.
# Then there is firewood, no need to look for it outside.’ Pl. Aul. 357–8)
(e) Nunc ad reliqua progrediar meque ad meum munus pensumque revocabo.
Nam . . . Ornatissimae sunt igitur orationes eae quae latissime vagantur . . .
(‘I will now go on to the remaining subjects and will recall myself to the particular
task assigned to me. For . . . Well then, the most ornate speeches are those which take
the widest range . . .’ Cic. de Orat. 3.119–20)
(f) Tu, ut videtur. Nos ad audiendum parati sumus. # Mors igitur ipsa, quae
videtur notissima res esse, quid sit primum est videndum.
(‘Take the course you think best: for our part we are ready to hear. # We must first
then consider what death, which seems to be a thing well known to everyone, is in
itself.’ Cic. Tusc. 1.17–18)
Supplement:
Verum actutum nosces, quom illum nosces servom Sosiam. / # Sequere hac igitur me.
Nam mi istuc primum exquisito est opus. (Pl. Am. 627–8); Quonam igitur haec modo
gesta sunt? Repetam paulo altius, iudices . . . (Cic. Clu. 65); Num quis igitur est tam
demens qui hoc P. Clodio vivo contingere potuisse arbitretur? (Cic. Mil. 78); Nihilne
igitur prodest oratori iuris civilis scientia? (Cic. de Orat. 1.250); Ita fit illa conclusio
non solum vera, sed ita perspicua, ut dialectici ne rationem quidem reddi putent
oportere. Si illud, hoc. Non autem hoc. Igitur ne illud quidem. (Cic. Fin. 4.55);
Principio enim terra sita in media parte mundi circumfusa undique est hac animali
spirabilique natura cui nomen est aer . . . sed ad maiora redeamus. Ex aethere igitur
innumerabiles flammae siderum existunt . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.91–2); Eamque disputatio-
nem tris in partes nostri fere dividunt. Quarum prima pars . . . Secunda est autem
quae . . . Tertius est locus qui ducitur ex admiratione rerum caelestium atque ter-
restrium. Primum igitur aut negandum est esse deos . . . (Cic. N.D. 2.75–6); (in a dis-
cussion of whether obscene language exists) Belle ‘tectoriola’. Dic ergo etiam ‘pavimenta’
isto modo. Non potes.131 Vide’n igitur nihil esse nisi ineptias, turpitudinem nec in
verbo esse nec in re, itaque nusquam esse? Igitur in verbis honestis obscena poni-
mus. (Cic. Fam. 9.22.3–4); Corporibus caecis igitur natura gerit res. (Lucr. 1.328);
(sc. Catilina) . . . constituit bellum facere et extrema omnia experiri, quoniam quae
occulte temptaverat aspera foedaque evenerant. Igitur C. Manlium Faesulas . . . dimisit
. . . (Sal. Cat. 26.5–27.1); Metellus infecto negotio, postquam nox aderat, in castra cum
exercitu revortitur. Igitur postero die . . . equitatum omnem . . . pro castris agitare
iubet . . . (Sal. Jug. 58.7–59.1); Licinius contra suspectam et invisam semper eam pecu-
niam fore aiebat causasque criminum ad plebem . . . praebituram. Satius igitur esse
reconciliari eo dono plebis animos . . . (Liv. 5.20.8); Igitur ut ad propositum meum
redeam, rationalem quidem puto medicinam esse debere . . . (Cels. 1.pr.74); Igitur, ut
diximus, iugerum habet quadratorum pedum XXVIII DCCC, qui pedes efficiunt
scripula CCLXXXVIII. (Col. 5.1.8); (after a paragraph on the geographical position of
Lycia) In Lycia igitur a promunturio eius oppidum Simena, mons Chimaera . . . (Plin.
Nat. 5.100); Quonam igitur modo utilissime colentur agri? (Plin. Nat. 18.39); Miserat
duas praetorias cohortis Caesar, addito ut magistratus Calabriae Apulique et Campani
suprema erga memoriam filii sui munera fungerentur. Igitur tribunorum centurio-
numque umeris cineres portabantur. (Tac. Ann. 3.2.1–2); Quisquis igitur es amator
longae vitae, esto potius bonae vitae. (August. Serm. 16.2)
In its function as connector igitur most often occupies the second position of the sen-
tence, but there is individual variation among authors: in Sallust, for example, igitur
occupies the first position except in interrogative sentences, in which second position
is in general the rule, as it is in imperative sentences.132 Third and later positions are
rare and occur mainly in poetry.
Igitur is also used in a main clause following a temporal or conditional subordinate
clause, as in (g). Here it is commonly taken as a temporal adverb ‘then’, which is also
assumed in instances like (h). For a temporal interpretation of igitur, however, the
combination with tum, as in (i), is problematic. This ‘temporal’ use is restricted to
Early Latin.133 There are a few attestations of igitur in a following main clause, where
it seems to have its usual consecutive meaning, as in (j).134
(g) Mox magis quom otium <et> mihi et tibi erit, / igitur tecum loquar. Nunc
vale.
(‘Soon when both you and I have more time I’ll speak to you. Goodbye for now.’
Pl. Cas. 215–16)
(h) Quin ego illi me invenisse dico hanc praedam atque eloquor? / Igitur orabo
ut manu me emittat.
(‘Why don’t I say to him and tell him that I’ve found this booty? Then I’ll ask him to
set me free.’ Pl. Aul. 817–18)
131 The result would be pavimentula. 132 For details, see TLL s.v. igitur 253.42ff.
133 See TLL s.v. igitur 255.51ff. For discussion of these instances, see Kroon (2004b: 73). See also
Rosén (2009: 358, (d)).
134 See TLL s.v. igitur 262.39ff.
1212 Discourse
(i) Unum ubi emeritum est stipendium, / igitur tum specimen cernitur quo
eveniat aedificatio.
(‘When one campaign has been served, then one can see an example of how the
building is to turn out.’ Pl. Mos. 131–2)
(j) Si neque inimicitiae fuerunt nec metus ullus nec spes [ex morte illius] ali-
cuius commodi neque ad amicum huius aliquem mors illius pertinebat,
relinquitur igitur (del. Kayser) ut ab hoc non sit occisus.
(‘If there was no enmity, and no fear, and no hope of any advantages from his death
and his death was of no interest to any friend of the defendant, it therefore follows
that the defendant did not kill him.’ Cic. Inv. 1.45)
24.44 The connector itaque

The connector itaque ‘and so’ signals that the content of the sentence in which it
occurs is the natural result of the content of the preceding sentence. It does not pre-
sent the content of the sentence as the outcome of personal reflection like igitur, but
as an objective fact.135 Examples are (a)–(c). In (a) and (b), the sentences with itaque
are clearly presented as the result of what precedes (in (b) ironically). In (c), the
sentence with itaque follows after a digression.
(a) Praesagibat mi animus frustra me ire, quom exibam domo. / Itaque abibam
invitus.
(‘I had a feeling I was going in vain when I left the house. That’s why I went unwill-
ingly.’ Pl. Aul. 178–9)
(b) . . . quasi Appius ille Caecus viam muniverit, non qua populus uteretur, sed
ubi impune sui posteri latrocinarentur! Itaque in eadem ista Appia cum
ornatissimum equitem Romanum P. Clodius M. Papirium occidisset, non
fuit illud facinus puniendum.
(‘. . . asking us to believe that Appius the Blind constructed a road, not for the use of
the people, but as a place wherein his descendants might with impunity play the
highwayman. This, I suppose, was why, when Publius Clodius on the self-same
Appian Way murdered the accomplished Roman knight Marcus Papirius, the crime
was not such as to demand punishment.’ Cic. Mil. 17–18)
(c) . . . in eum sermonem illum (sc. Scaevolam) incidere qui tum fere multis erat
in ore. Meministi enim . . . Itaque tum Scaevola, cum in eam ipsam mentio-
nem incidisset, exposuit nobis sermonem Laeli de amicitia habitum ab illo
secum . . .
(‘. . . he happened to fall upon a topic which, just about that time, was in many people’s
mouths. You remember, don’t you, . . . And so, Scaevola, having chanced to mention
this very fact, thereupon proceeded to repeat to us a discussion on friendship, which
Laelius had had with him . . .’ (Cic. Amic. 2–3)
135 K.-St.: II.130–1 use for igitur the term ‘Vernunftsschluss’ (rational conclusion). Van Gils (2005: 806–9)
describes itaque as signalling a ‘volitional causal’ relation.
Itaque is attested from Plautus onwards (but see the note below). It is rare in poetry
and also in dialogical texts and in interrogative and imperative sentences (see the
Supplement). In Late Latin it is sometimes used more or less in the sense of enim.136
In prose it regularly occupies the first position. However, later positions become more
common from the Rhetorica ad Herennium (once) and Livy onwards in prose and
from Lucretius onwards in poetry.
Supplement:
Sed siquid tibi narrare occepi, continuo dari / tibi verba censes. # Falso! # Itaque
hercle nil iam muttire audeo. (Ter. An. 504–5); Constitutiones itaque, ut ante dixi-
mus, tres sunt. (Rhet. Her. 1.18); Itaque num tibi videor in causa Ligari esse occupa-
tus, num de eius facto dicere? (Cic. Lig. 29); Tu rem publicam reprehendis, quae
domesticos hostis, ne ab eis ipsa necaretur, necavit? Itaque attende, Torquate, quam
ego defugiam auctoritatem consulatus mei! (Cic. Sul. 32–3); Tempus vero colloquio
non dare neque accessurum polliceri magnam pacis desperationem adferebat. Itaque
ab Arimino M. Antonium cum cohortibus V Arretium mittit. (Caes. Civ. 1.11.3–4);
Nec superare queunt motus itaque exitiales / perpetuo . . . (Lucr. 2.569–70); Maior
itaque ex civibus amissis dolor quam laetitia fusis hostibus fuit . . . (Liv. 4.17.8); Pro
ingenti itaque victoria id fuit plebi . . . (Liv. 4.54.6); Ingredi est iis (sc. echinis) in
orbem volvi. Itaque detritis saepe aculeis inveniuntur. (Plin. Nat. 9.100); Itaque her-
cule eius modi libri extant ut ipsi quoque qui egerunt non aliis magis orationibus
censeantur. (Tac. Dial. 39.5); Itaque, fratres, sicut dicere coeperam, non est unde
reprehendamus Deum. (August. Serm. 22.6)
Opinions vary on the early instances of itaque in Plautus, including ex. (a) above.
Some scholars take it as ita + -que ‘and so’, others as itaque = ita, that is as an adverb,
in its consecutive interpretation (see § 24.12),137 sometimes comparing namque for
the -que element.
24.45 The interactional particle ergo

The interactional particle ergo ‘therefore’ signals that the speaker/writer expects the
addressee to subscribe on the basis of their shared knowledge to the conclusion as
formulated in the sentence or larger discourse unit in which ergo occurs.138 Examples
are (a)–(f). In (a), the slave girl Pardalisca observes that, if ‘all is out’, as the slave
Olympio has just said, he will agree that the only conclusion is to confess everything.
In (b), ergo signals an inevitable conclusion. In (c), the speaker is surprised about the
answer he has received and wants to check whether he understood correctly. Quid
ergo (est) ‘what is the consequence?’ followed by a detailed question is a very common
expression in Cicero, as in (d).139 In (e), ergo signals the return to the line of argument
136 See TLL s.v. itaque 531.52ff. For instances of itaque in a main clause after a subordinate clause, see
ibid. 531.75ff.
137 So TLL s.v. itaque 529.43ff. Kroon (2004b: 72) states that most or all instances can be taken as ‘and
so’. Conversely, Pasoli (1962) rejects the idea that -que has a coordinating function.
138 This formulation follows Kroon (2004b; 2011), from whom most of the examples are taken, and
Krylová (2001; 2003; 2006).
139 Also in Seneca’s letters (Kroon 2004b: 79).
1214 Discourse
after a short digression in which the preceding information was recapitulated. In (f),
ergo signals a conclusion that is based on what happens in the non-verbal situation,
not in a preceding text. Ergo differs from enim among other things in that its appeal
to the addressee is more urgent. An illustration is (g), which also contains the swear
word edepol.140
(a) Perii hercle ego! Manufesta res [est]. # Omnem [in] ordine rem / fateri ergo
aequom est.
(‘I’m dead! It’s all out. # So it’s only fair to confess everything one by one.’ Pl. Cas.
893–6)
(b) Age porro: Iovem et Neptunum deum numeras. Ergo etiam Orcus frater
eorum deus.
(‘Come tell me further: you reckon Jupiter and Neptune gods, therefore their brother
Orcus is also a god.’ Cic. N.D. 3.43)
(c) Philolaches hic habitat, quoius est pater Theopropides. / Qui . . . tibicinam /
liberavit. # Philolachesne ergo? # Ita. Philematium quidem.
(‘Philolaches lives here, whose father is Theopropides. He freed a flute girl. # You
mean Philolaches? # Yes, and she is called Philematium.’ Pl. Mos. 970–2)
(d) ‘Quid ergo? Istos’, inquies, ‘mercede conductos habebimus?’ Quid faciemus si
aliter non possumus?
(‘You’ll say: “Are we then to keep these fellows as mercenaries?” What else, if we can’t
keep them on any other terms?’ Cic. Att. 2.1.8)
(e) Nummos Arpinatum, si L. Fadius aedilis petet, vel omnis reddito. Ego ad
te alia epistula scripsi <de> HS CX quae Statio curarentur. Si ergo petet
Fadius, ei volo reddi, praeter Fadium nemini.
(‘You may hand over the money due to the municipality of Arpinum, the whole of it,
if the Aedile L. Fadius claims it. I have written to you in another letter about the HS
110,000 to be paid to Statius. So then, if Fadius claims it, I want the money made over
to him, but to no one except Fadius.’ Cic. Att. 15.15.1)
(f) Quorum mediam orationem interrumpunt subito undique tela immissa,
quae ille obtectus armis militum vitavit. Vulnerantur tamen complures . . . Tum
Labienus: ‘Desinite ergo de compositione loqui. Nam nobis nisi Caesaris
capite relato pax esse nulla potest.’
(‘Their ongoing talk was suddenly interrupted by a volley of weapons from all sides.
Protected by his soldiers’ shields, Labienus avoided them. But several men were
wounded . . . Then Labienus: “So stop talking about a settlement, for in our view no
peace is possible unless we get Caesar’s head.” ’ Caes. Civ. 3.19.7–8)
(g) Nam apsque te esset, hodie numquam ad solem occasum / viverem. # Ergo
edepol, si recte facias, ere, med emittas manu.
140 See Krylová (2006).

(‘If it hadn’t been for you, I’d never have lived till sunset today. # Then, by Pollux!, if
you were to do the right thing, master, you’d set me free.’ Pl. Men. 122–3)
Supplement:
Dic opsecro hercle serio quod te rogem. / Cave mi mendaci quicquam. # Quin tu
ergo rogas? (Pl. As. 29–30); Quid amas— # Bacchidem? Duas ergo hic intus eccas
Bacchides. / # Quid? duae? (Pl. Bac. 568–9); Dixit illi quicum ipsa ibat— # Quid? #
Tace ergo, ut audias. (Pl. Epid. 241); Eho, quaeso, an tu is es? / # Is enim vero sum. #
Ai’n tu tandem? Is ipsusne es? # Aio. # Ipsus es? / # Ipsus, inquam, Charmides
sum. # Ergo ipsusne es? # Ipsissumus. / Abi’n hinc ab oculis? (Pl. Trin. 986–9);
M. Manlius . . . regnum adpetisse est iudicatus. Ergo eius domum eversam duobus
lucis convestitam videtis. (Cic. Dom. 101); Non placet autem paucis a diis inmortali-
bus esse consultum. Sequitur ergo ut nemini consultum sit. (Cic. N.D. 3.70); Adfectus
autem animi in bono viro laudabilis. Et vita igitur laudabilis boni viri. Et honesta
ergo, quoniam laudabilis. (Cic. Tusc. 5.47); Clodius ergo, ut ais, ad Tigranem! (Cic.
Att. 2.4.2); Epaminondas, Polymnidis filius, Thebanus. De hoc priusquam scribimus,
haec praecipienda videntur lectoribus . . . Natus ergo patre, quo diximus, genere
honesto . . . (Nep. Ep. 1.1–2.1); Numquamne ergo familia nostra quieta erit? (Sal. Jug.
14.9); Itaque ergo erecti suspensique in minime gratum spectaculum animo incen-
duntur. (Liv. 1.25.2); Correpti consules cum quid ergo se facere vellent—nihil enim
segnius molliusve quam patribus placeat acturos—percontarentur, decernunt ut . . .
(Liv. 2.28.5—NB: in an indirect question; the parenthesis contains the interactional
particle enim); Thales primum aquam putavit omnium rerum esse principium; Heracli-
tus . . . Democritus . . . Pythagoreorum vero disciplina . . . Ergo Democritus, etsi non
proprie res nominavit sed tantum individua corpora proposuit, ideo ea ipsa dixisse
videtur, quod. . . (Vitr. 2.2.1); (talking about luxuries) Principium ergo columenque
omnium rerum pretii margaritae tenent. (Plin. Nat. 9.106); ‘Quid ergo? Omnes
servos admovebo mensae meae?’ Non magis quam omnes liberos. (Sen. Ep. 47.15);
Quantum potes ergo, mi Lucili, reduc te ab istis exceptionibus et praescriptionibus
philosophorum: aperta decent et simplicia bonitatem. (Sen. Ep. 48.12); Inter quos
[etiam] pictorum amantium vultus tamquam in solitudine exclamavi: ‘Ergo amor
etiam deos tangit.’ (Petr. 83.4); (sc. Nero) . . . interrogat an Seneca voluntariam mortem
pararet. Tum tribunus nulla pavoris signa, nihil triste in verbis eius aut vultu depren-
sum confirmavit. Ergo regredi et indicere mortem iubetur. (Tac. Ann. 15.61.2); (sc.
Caesar) . . . unum e collegio Pontium Aquilam non assurrexisse adeo indignatus sit ut
proclamaverit: ‘Repete ergo a me, Aquila, rem publicam!’ (Suet. Jul. 78.2); Quid ergo
nos docet Abraham? Ut breviter dicam: ut Deo non praeponamus quod dat Deus.
(August. Serm. 2.4); (after describing the Mons Dei) Nos ergo sabbato sera ingressi
sumus montem . . . (Pereg. 3.1)
Ergo can be used in a main clause following a conditional or a causal clause. This is
mainly attested in Late Latin, but see (h) and (i).141
(h) Quem igitur imitaris? Si aliquem, ceteri ergo Attice non dicebant?
(‘Whom then are you going to imitate? If some particular one, do you mean that all
the others did not speak pure Attic?’ Cic. Brut. 285)
141 For further instances, see TLL s.v. ergo 766.83ff.

1216 Discourse
(i) Quodsi Luna dea est, ergo etiam Lucifer ceteraeque errantes numerum deo-
rum obtinebunt.
(‘But if the Moon is a goddess, then Lucifer also and the rest of the planets will have
to be counted gods.’ Cic. N.D. 3.51)
Ergo is used in all periods of Latin. It is common in texts of an interactive character
but rare in purely narrative texts or episodes.142 Its relative frequency in Late Latin, for
example in the Peregrinatio, is related to the increase in the use of cohesive devices in
Late Latin texts in general and to the use of ergo outside its proper context (in other
words, its ‘desemantization’).143
24.46 Sequential connexion of sentences
The chronological sequence of events described in sentences and larger units of dis-
course can be clear from the content of the sentences and discourse units itself, as in
the famous asyndetic sequence veni, vidi, vici ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’. The relative
order of events can also be expressed explicitly, for example, by the use of special
tenses. Thus, if a sentence contains a pluperfect tense the event in that sentence will be
understood as anterior with respect to an event in the preceding or following dis-
course (see § 7.31). Time adjuncts are another explicit device to locate an event in
time and so, indirectly, to indicate its position in relation to other events. Examples
are the adverb pridie ‘the day before’ and the ablative noun phrase eo anno ‘in that
year’ (see §§ 10.27–30).144 This section deals with a number of words which serve as
linking devices between sentences and larger units and mark the sequence of the
events, either just the temporal sequence, like deinde, tum, and post in (a), or (also) the
position of an event in a sequence, like primo and postremo in (b).145 Words marking
temporal sequence and position can co-occur, as in (c) with deinde postremo.146
The words under consideration can also be used in enumerations within sentences,
as in (d).
(a) Modo consul quo<t>an<n>is, is deinde primus erat civitatis. Tum proficisci-
tur in Asiam. Deinde hostis et exul est dictus. Post imperator <sep>tmo
factus est consul.
(‘Recently consul every year, next he was first man of the state; then he sets out for
Asia; next he is declared a public enemy and exiled; after that while general-in-chief
he is made consul for the seventh time.’ Rhet. Her. 4.68)
142 For the use of ergo in narrative texts, see Krylová (2003, especially pp. 79–91).
143 For both phenomena, see Kiss (2006; 2007; 2010) and Rosén (2009: 397).
144 For the expressions of continuity used by Caesar, Sallust, and Livy, see Chausserie-Laprée (1969:
28–9); for Velleius Paterculus, Ruiz Castellanos (2005: 935); for Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, Callebat (1998:
131–7).
145 In (a) I print the Budé text of Achard. For the historical background, see Calboli ad loc.
146 ‘abundanter’ TLL s.v. posterus 219.38.
(b) Primo incaute se invehentes Masinissa excipiebat. Mox plures simul conferti
porta effusi aequaverant certamen. Postremo iam omnis equitatus proelio
cum adesset, sustineri ultra nequiere.
(‘At first, as they rashly charged, Masinissa would meet their attack. Later larger num-
bers, dashing out of a gate in a mass, had made it an even combat. Finally, when all
their cavalry was engaged, they could no longer be withstood.’ Liv. 29.34.12)
(c) In hac (sc. parte) eae res quaeruntur quae gestum negotium consequuntur.
Primum, quod factum est, quo id nomine appellari conveniat. Deinde . . .
Deinde . . . Deinde . . . Postea . . . Deinde postremo adtendendum est num quae
res . . . consequantur.
(‘Under this category those things are sought which ensue from an action being per-
formed. First, by what name shall the act be designated? . . . Next . . . Next . . . Next . . .
Then . . . Next, finally, it should be noted whether some things ensue . . .’ Cic. Inv. 1.43)
(d) Quare dicemus primum de genere eius, deinde quibus disciplinis et a quibus
sit eruditus, tum de moribus ingeniique facultatibus . . . postremo de rebus
gestis . . .
(‘Therefore I shall speak first of his family, then of the subjects which he studied and
his teachers, next of his character and his natural qualities . . . finally of his exploits . . .’
Nep. Ep. 1.4)
In addition to the words used in the above examples sequential connectors include
tunc ‘then’, nunc ‘now’, interea ‘meanwhile’, denique ‘finally’.147 Apart from their use as
connectors, most of the words involved function also, or primarily, as temporal
adverbs.148 A case in point is nunc.149 In (e), nunc is an adverb functioning as a
position-in-time adjunct which could be used as an answer to the question ‘when?’
(see § 10.30); in (f), it is a connector introducing a new discourse unit. As a connector
it has its position at the beginning of the sentence, whereas in (e) nunc’s position is
free. In (e), nunc is in contrast with hodie, while something similar is inconceivable for
(f). An interesting instance with two cases of nunc in different functions in one
sentence is (g).150
(e) Ita ancilla mea quae fuit hodie, sua nunc est.
(‘The girl who was my slave today belongs to herself now.’ Pl. Per. 472)
(f) Quid quaeris? Permoleste tuli. Nulla enim abs te per hos dies epistula inanis
aliqua re utili et suavi venerat. Nunc, si quid in ea epistula quam a. d. XVI
147 For a more complete list, see Rosén (2009: 355–9). Tandem is sometimes regarded as more or less
synonymous with postremo, but it does not belong here. See Risselada (1998b).
148 For the use of temporal adverbs as discourse organizers, see Hilton (1989; 1997/8) and Kiss (2010).
For nunc and denique, see Rosén (2009: 329–31).
149 For nunc, see Risselada (1998c), especially pp. 110–12, from whom exx. (e)–(g) are taken. For nunc
in Plautus, see Blänsdorf (1967: 96–7). For the use of nunc in past narratives and as a contrastive connec-
tor, see Dalbera (2016; 2019).
150 The Groningen Commentary ad loc. notes ‘the repetition lends urgency’, but this is not correct.
1218 Discourse
Kal. Mai. dedisti fuit historia dignum, scribe quam primum ne ignoremus.
Sin nihil praeter iocationem, redde id ipsum.
(‘As you can imagine I was very much put out. Every one of the letters you have sent
me lately has contained something useful and charming. Now, if the letter you dis-
patched on 15 April had anything in it worth chronicling, write at once so that I am
not left in ignorance. If on the other hand it was all badinage, why, I am entitled to
that too.’ Cic. Att. 2.8.1)
(g) . . . bestiamque aliquam recte dicentibus vobis merito consentio. Meque mag-
nopere semper a suis terret aspectibus malumque grande de vultus curiosi-
tate praeminatur. Nunc si quam salutarem opem periclitanti sorori vestrae
potestis afferre, iam nunc subsistite.
(‘. . . and you must be right when you say he is some beast, I agree. He is always intimi-
dating me from looking at him, and threatening some great punishment for any curi-
osity about his features. Now, if you can bring some salvation to your sister in her
danger, help me right now.’ Apul. Met. 5.19.2–4)
24.47 The semantic relation between asyndetically connected sentences

The semantic relation between two adjacent asyndetically connected sentences
depends on the content of these sentences and on their relation to the surrounding
context or the communicative situation in which the sentences are produced and
received. In (a), repeated from § 19.1 (n), the three asyndetic sentences are not seman-
tically related as such. Each of them is omissible and the linear order is arbitrary.
What they have in common is that they contribute to the feeling of happiness of
Damocles: there is a relation of consequence between the three sentences and the final
one, which could be expressed by igitur.
(a) Aderant unguenta, coronae. ° Incendebantur odores. ° Mensae conquisitis-
simis epulis exstruebantur. Fortunatus sibi Damocles videbatur.
choicest banquet: Damocles thought himself a lucky man.’ Cic. Tusc. 5.62)
Such sequences of independent sentences which have no grammatical or lexical prop-
erties in common can easily be found, for example, in Pliny the Elder’s encyclopedic
work, as in (b). Here, the two sentences are not related to each other semantically in a
straightforward way; however, they are both part of a discussion on the use of animals
for the treatment of eye diseases, that is they belong to an ‘enumeration’. In this
case the relation is supported by the parallelism of the structure of the sentences:
in semantic terms: (part of) animal—disease—effect; in syntactical terms: subject—
object—verb.151
151 For cohesive devices in texts that contain lists, see Conso (2007).
Semantic relation between asyndetic sentences 1219
(b) Ova perdicum in vase aereo decocta cum melle ulceribus oculorum et glau-
comatis medentur. ° Columbarum, palumbium, turturum, perdicum sanguis
oculis cruore suffusis eximie prodest.
(‘Partridge eggs boiled down with honey in a bronze vessel cure ulcers on the eyes
and opaqueness of the lens. The blood of pigeons, doves, turtle doves, or partridges,
makes an excellent application for blood-shot eyes.’ Plin. Nat. 29.126)
In a narrative context, adjacent asyndetically connected sentences can often be inter-
preted as a purely temporal sequence, as in (c). However, asyndeton is also used to
give the impression of a rapid succession of actions or the parallelism of simultaneous
actions. Examples are (d) and (e) (repeated from § 19.14).152 In (e), the sequence of
events appears partly from the time adjuncts in some of the sentences.
(c) A. d. VII Id. Mart. Brundisium veni. ° Ad murum castra posui.
(‘On 9 March I reached Brundisium and encamped before the walls.’ Caes. Att.
9.13a1)
(d) (Gallus quidam) . . . manu significare coepit utrisque quiescerent. ° Pugnae
facta pausa est. ° Extemplo silentio facto cum voce maxima Ø conclamat, si
quis secum depugnare vellet, uti prodiret. ° Nemo audebat propter magni-
tudinem atque inmanitatem facies.
(‘. . . he began to gesture to both armies, telling them to stop fighting. There was a
pause in the battle. Having achieved silence, he immediately shouted at the top of his
voice that, if anyone was willing to fight to the finish with him, he should come for-
ward. Because of his size and his monstrous appearance nobody dared to do so.’
Quad. hist. 10b=6C—tr. Briscoe)
(e) Mittuntur ad Caesarem confestim a Cicerone litterae magnis propositis prae-
miis, si pertulissent. ° Obsessis omnibus viis missi intercipiuntur. ° Noctu ex
materia quam munitionis causa comportaverant turres admodum centum
XX excitantur incredibili celeritate. ° Quae deesse operi videbantur perfici-
untur. ° Hostes postero die multo maioribus coactis copiis castra oppugnant,
fossam complent. ° A nostris eadem ratione qua pridie resistitur. ° Hoc idem
reliquis deinceps fit diebus.
(‘Dispatches were at once sent by Cicero to Caesar, with promise of great rewards if
the bearers carried them safe; with all the roads blocked, the messengers were cut off.
During the night about one hundred and twenty towers were erected with incredible
speed out of the timber which they had collected for the purpose of the entrench-
ment. The apparent deficiencies in the earthworks were rectified. On the next day,
with far greater forces assembled, the enemy assaulted the camp and filled in the
trench. Our troops resisted in the same fashion as on the day before. Exactly the same
was done on the other days following.’ Caes. Gal. 5.40.1–4)
152 Taken from K.-St.: II.155–6.

1220 Discourse
Supplement:
Deinde Romae dies XXX fere Quinctius commoratur. ° Cum ceteris quae habebat
vadimonia differt, ut expeditus in Galliam proficisci posset. ° Proficiscitur. (Cic.
Quinct. 23); (sc. oppidum) Vallo et fossa circumdedi, ° sex castellis castrisque
maximis saepsi, ° aggere, vineis, turribus oppugnavi ususque tormentis multis, multis
sagittariis magno labore meo, sine ulla molestia sumptuve sociorum septimo quin-
quagensimo die rem confeci ut . . . (Cic. Fam. 15.4.10)
In addition to the enumerative and continuative relations discussed so far two types
of asyndetic relation have received special attention, viz. the adversative and explana-
tory/justificatory relations.153 Examples of an adversative relation are (f) and (g). In
(f), the contrast is between two constituents in the consecutive sentences: victumas
and agninis. In (g), the contrast is at a higher level, between the contents of the entire
sentences. The first sentence in the sequence can contain the particle quidem, which
has a preparative function and creates the expectation of contrast, as in (h). The
adverb sane can be used in a similar way.154
(f) Nolo victumas. ° Agninis me extis placari volo.
(‘I don’t want big animals for sacrifice. I want to be placated with lambs’ intestines.’
Pl. Ps. 329)
(g) Videbant Agyrinenses quicquid ad eos recuperatores Apronius attulisset
illum perfacile probaturum. ° Condemnari cum istius invidia infamiaque
malebant quam ad eius condiciones pactionesque accedere.
(‘The men from Agyrium saw that, before a court like this, Apronius would have no
trouble in establishing any charge he might bring. They chose to be found guilty, and
thus to bring odium and disgrace to [Verres], rather than accept the terms and condi-
tions their accuser demanded.’ Cic. Ver. 3.69)
(h) Et haec quidem humanis consiliis providebantur. ° Mox petita dis piacula
aditique Sibyllae libri . . .
(‘Such were the provisions made by human plans; next, expiations for the gods were
sought and the books of the Sibyl were appealed to . . .’ Tac. Ann. 15.44.1—tr.
Woodman)
Supplement:
Nam patrimonium domestici praedones vi ereptum possident, ° fama et vita inno-
centis ab hospitibus amicisque paternis defenditur. (Cic. S. Rosc. 15); Et forsitan in
suscipienda causa temere impulsus adulescentia fecerim. ° Quoniam quidem semel
suscepi, licet hercules undique omnes minae. Terrores periculaque impendeant,
omnia succurram ac subibo. (Cic. S. Rosc. 31); Verum concedo tibi ut ea praetereas
quae, cum taces, nulla esse concedis. ° Illud quidem, voluisse exheredare, certe tu
planum facere debes. (Cic. S. Rosc. 54); Non quaero quanta memoria Simonides
153 See K.-St.: II.156–9.

154 For this example and others, see Mendell (1917: 159–60). See also Kroon (2004a) and Orlandini
(2005: 163–9).
Semantic relation between asyndetic sentences 1221
fuisse dicatur, quanta Theodectes, quanta is, qui a Pyrrho legatus ad senatum est mis-
sus, Cineas, quanta nuper Charmadas, quanta, qui modo fuit, Scepsius Metrodorus,
quanta noster Hortensius. ° De communi hominum memoria loquor . . . (Cic. Tusc.
1.59); Non peculatus aerari factus est neque per vim sociis ereptae pecuniae, quae
quamquam gravia sunt tamen consuetudine iam pro nihilo habentur. ° Hosti acer-
rumo prodita senatus auctoritas, proditum imperium vostrum est. ° Domi militi-
aeque res publica venalis fuit. (Sal. Jug. 31.25); Consul ubi ad iniquum locum ventum
est, sistit aciem. ° Miles aegre teneri, clamare et poscere ut perculsis instare liceat. °
Ferocius agunt equites. ° Circumfusi duci vociferantur se ante signa ituros. (Liv.
2.65.2–3)
A common form of asyndeton is found between an imperative sentence of some sort

and a following declarative or interrogative sentence. The relation is sometimes
labelled ‘concessive-adversative’.155 Examples are (i)–(k). The adversative relation
could have been made explicit by using at or tamen.
(i) Sint sane superbi. ° Quid id ad nos attinet?
(‘Let us concede that they (sc. the Rhodians) are arrogant. How does that affect us?’
Cato hist. 95g=93C—tr. Cornell)
(j) Tum ille prognatus Theti / sine perdat. ° Alia apportabunt ei Nerei filiae.
(‘Then let that son of Thetis lose them: the daughters of Nereus will bring him others.’
Pl. Epid. 35–6)
(k) Esto. Sit in verbis tuis hic stupor. ° Quanto in rebus sententiisque maior!
(‘Very good; so much for the stupidity in your words: how much greater the stupidity
in your actions and opinions!’ Cic. Phil. 2.30)
However, a sequence of an imperative sentence followed by a declarative one with a
future verb form can also be interpreted as a consequence or result. A common form
in Cato is (l), to which (m) may be compared. A similar relation of consequence exists
between the two sentences in (n) and in (o).156
(l) Postea bis in die (sc. brassicam) contritam inponito. ° Ea omnem putorem
adimet.
(‘Then the crushed cabbage should be applied as a poultice, and renewed twice a day;
it will remove all putridity.’ Cato Agr. 157.3)
(m) Resinam ex melle Aegyptiam vorato, salvom feceris. / # At edepol tu calidam
picem bibito, aegritudo apscesserit.
(‘Swallow Egyptian resin dipped in honey and you’ll get well. # But you drink hot
pitch and your grief will go away.’ Pl. Mer. 139–40)
(n) (sc. Helvetii) Nullam partem noctis itinere intermisso in fines Lingonum die
quarto pervenerunt, cum et propter vulnera militum et propter sepulturam
155 A survey of concessive relations can be found in Iordache (1992).

156 Ex. (n) is discussed by Kiss (2005: 573–4). See also Rosén (2011: 141) on what she calls ‘inference’
relations.
1222 Discourse
occisorum nostri triduum morati eos sequi non potuissent. ° Caesar ad

Lingonas litteras nuntiosque misit ne eos frumento neve alia re iuvarent.
(‘The march was not interrupted for any part of the night, and three days after they
reached the borders of the Lingones; for our own troops had not been able to pursue
them, having halted for three days to tend their wounds and to bury the dead. Caesar
dispatched letters and messages to the Lingones, ordering them not to give assistance
by corn or otherwise, and affirming that, if they gave such assistance, he would treat
them in the same fashion as the Helvetii.’ Caes. Gal. 1.26.5–6)
(o) Profice modo. ° Intelleges quaedam ideo minus timenda, quia multum metus
adferunt.
(‘All you need to do is to advance; you will thus understand that some things are less
to be dreaded, precisely because they inspire us with great fear.’ Sen. Ep. 4.3)
Examples of an explanatory or justificatory relation are (p) and (q). In (p), the second
sentence explains the emotion indicated in the first. In (q), the second sentence
explains why Cassius asked his question.
(p) Miser sum. ° Argentum nusquam invenio mutuom.
(‘I’m wretched, I can’t find money on loan anywhere.’ Pl. Ps. 80)
(q) L. Cassius ille, quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum
iudicem putabat, identidem in causis quaerere solebat ‘cui bono’ fuisset. ° Sic
vita hominum est ut ad maleficium nemo conetur sine spe atque emolu-
mento accedere.
(‘The illustrious Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people considered the wisest and
most conscientious of judges, was in the habit of asking repeatedly in trials, “Who
had profited by it?” Such is the way of the world: no man attempts to commit a crime
without the hope of profit.’ Cic. S. Rosc. 84)
Supplement:
Eccere autem capite nutat. ° Non placet quod repperit. (Pl. Mil. 207); Vicini quo pacto
niteant, id animum advertito. ° In bona regione bene nitere oportebit. (Cato Agr.
1.2); . . . supplicium in parricidas singulare excogitaverunt ut, quos natura ipsa reti-
nere in officio non potuisset, ei magnitudine poenae <a> maleficio summoverentur.
° Insui voluerunt in culleum vivos atque ita in flumen deici. (Cic. S. Rosc. 70); Vereor
ne aut molestus sim vobis, iudices, aut ne ingeniis vestris videar diffidere, si de tam
perspicuis rebus diutius disseram. ° Eruci criminatio tota, ut arbitror, dissoluta est.
(Cic. S. Rosc. 82); Cum igitur praecipitur ut nobismet ipsis imperemus, hoc praecipi-
tur, ut ratio coërceat temeritatem. ° Est in animis omnium fere natura molle quiddam,
demissum, humile, enervatum quodam modo et languidum. (Cic. Tusc. 2.47); Igitur
talibus viris non labor insolitus, non locus ullus asper aut arduos erat, non armatus
hostis formidulosus. ° Virtus omnia domuerat. (Sal. Cat. 7.5); Potes sine viro pati. °
Peregrinationem eius tulisti. (Sen. Con. 2.2.4)
Sometimes a passage ends with an asyndetic sentence which functions as a conclusion

or a summary (asyndeton summativum).157 In (r), the last sentence indicates the result
157 See K.-St.: II.159.

Connectors and particles to connect paragraphs 1223
of Verres’ machinations. In (s), the last sentence could contain ergo, indicating the
decision made by Verres on the basis of his considerations.
(r) Itaque excogitat rem singularem. ° Navis quibus legatus praefuerat Cleomeni
tradit. ° Classi populi Romani Cleomenem Syracusanum praeesse iubet
atque imperare. Hoc eo facit ut . . . secum illam haberet, si (sc. Cleomenem)
non tamquam virum sed tamquam aemulum removisset. ° Accipit navis
sociorum atque amicorum Cleomenes Syracusanus.
(‘He thought of a very original way out of this difficulty, which was to hand over the
fleet, hitherto commanded by a deputy governor, to Cleomenes—to give full power
and command over a Roman fleet to Cleomenes the Syracusan. His purpose was to
be able to enjoy the wife’s society after the removal of a man who was not only her
husband but his rival. The ships of our allies and friends were handed over to
Cleomenes the Syracusan.’ Cic. Ver. 5.82–3)
(s) Etenim si Phylarchus (sc. phaleras) vendidisset, non ei, posteaquam reus fac-
tus es, redditurum te promisisses. Quod quia vidisti plures scire, cogitasti, si
ei reddidisses, te minus habiturum, rem nihilo minus testatam futuram. °
Non reddidisti.
(‘Nor, indeed, if Phylarchus had sold them to you, would you, after this prosecution
was instituted, have promised to give them back to him. Knowing that many people
were aware of the truth, you reflected that if you did give them back you would be so
much the poorer, and the facts would come out in the evidence none the less; and
therefore you did not give them back.’ Cic. Ver. 4.29)
Supplement:
Cum familiariter me in eorum sermonem insinuarem ac darem, celabar, excludebar,
et, cum ostenderem, si lex utilis plebi Romanae mihi videretur, auctorem me atque
adiutorem futurum, tamen aspernabantur hanc liberalitatem meam. ° Negabant me
adduci posse ut ullam largitionem probarem. ° Finem feci offerendi mei, ne forte mea
sedulitas aut insidiosa aut impudens videretur. (Cic. Agr. 2.12); Nam vetus haec
opinio Graeciam opplevit esse exsectum Caelum a filio Saturno, vinctum autem
Saturnum ipsum a filio Iove. ° Physica ratio non inelegans inclusa est in impias fabu-
las. (Cic. N.D. 2.64)
24.48 The use of connectors and interactional

particles to connect paragraphs
For practical reasons I take the division in paragraphs in modern editions as reflecting
‘discourse units’, informally defined as semantically coherent and self-contained sets
of sentences. Editors vary somewhat in their division of a text into paragraphs.158 As
between sentences, the coherence may be created by various means, such as finite
158 See Ctibor (2017b). For the cohesive devices used by a number of Late Latin historians between text
segments, see Kiss (2019).
1224 Discourse
subordinate clauses, for example with cum ‘when’ or quod ‘as for the fact’; ablative
absolute clauses; noun phrases like postero die ‘the next day’; anaphoric pronouns and
phrases (in Caesar hic is very common); prepositional phrases with de ‘with respect
to’; anaphoric adverbs such as ita ‘so’ and ideo ‘therefore’; and also some of the con-
nectors and interactional particles discussed in the sections above. The choice of any
one of these devices depends on the type of text and the personal preference of the
author. The relationship between Caesar’s narrative de Bello Gallico and Cicero’s philo-
sophical treatise de Officiis will serve as an illustration (see Table 24.8). Of the 344
paragraphs of Caesar only 22 have a connector or interactional particle, whereas in
Cicero more than half of the 372 paragraphs have one; Caesar has the connector
autem once, Cicero sixty times.
Table 24.8 Connectors (and interactional particles (i.p.)) connecting paragraphs in

Cic. Off. and Caes. Gal.
Cicero Caesar
Total Used as Used to Total Used as Used to
connector connect connector connect
(or i.p.) paragraphs (or i.p.) paragraphs
(N = 372) (N = 344)
ac/atque 180 60 30 620 25 2
et 880 c.35 3 884 2 –
at 35 35 11 130 130 8
autem 265 c.240 60 28 24 1
sed 290 105 40 100 20 0
nam 78 78 7 38 38 0
namque – – – 5 5 1
enim 280 280 13 25 25 7
igitur 100 100 34 1 1 –
itaque 60 60 7 43 43 3
ergo 30 30 6 3 3 –
Total 211 22
Examples of the use of these words to link paragraphs are given below (in the order of
Table 24.8; nec and ceterum added).159
(a) Atque in ea re omnium nostrorum intentis animis alia ex parte oppidi
Adiatuanus, qui summam imperi tenebat . . . uti eadem deditionis condicione
uteretur ab Crasso impetravit.
159 In (a), the Loeb edition does not start a new paragraph. For autem, see also § 24.26, (j) and (k); for
ceterum § 24.27, (d)–(f); for igitur, § 24.43, (e).
Connectors and particles to connect paragraphs 1225
(‘Then, while the attention of all our troops was engaged upon that business,
Adiatuanus, the commander-in-chief . . . obtained from Crassus the same terms of
surrender as at first.’ Caes. Gal. 3.22.1)
(b) Et quod paene praeterii, Bruti tui causa, ut saepe ad te scripsi, feci omnia.
(‘And I nearly forgot to add that, as I have often written to you, I have done every-
thing in my power for your friend Brutus.’ Cic. Att. 6.3.5)
(c) Nec defuit fides, multaque arbitrio senatus constituta sunt.
(‘And confirmation was not lacking, and many things were settled by the senate’s
adjudication.’ Tac. Ann. 13.5.1—tr. Woodman)
(d) At Romae nondum cognito qui fuisset exitus in Illyrico, et legionum
Germanicarum motu audito, trepida civitas incusare Tiberium . . .
(‘But at Rome, where it was not yet known what the outcome in Illyricum had been
and news had been received of the German legions’ disturbance, the trembling com-
munity began to censure Tiberius . . .’ Tac. Ann. 1.46.1)160
(e) Muri autem omnes Gallici hac fere forma sunt. Trabes derectae perpetuae
in longitudinem paribus intervallis distantes inter se binos pedes in solo
collocantur.
(‘All Gallic walls are, as a rule, of the following pattern. Balks are laid on the ground
at equal intervals of two feet throughout the length of the wall and at right angles
thereto.’ Caes. Gal. 7.23.1)
(f) (Cuius partes duae: iustitia . . . et huic coniuncta beneficentia . . .) Sed iustitiae
primum munus est, ut ne cui quis noceat . . .
(‘(Of this there are two divisions, justice and, close akin to this, charity . . .) The first
office of justice is to keep one man from doing harm to another . . .’ Cic. Off. 1.20)
(g) Ceterum ex aliis negotiis quae ingenio exercentur in primis magno usui est
memoria rerum gestarum.
(‘But among sundry intellectual pursuits, the recording of past deeds is especially
serviceable.’ Sal. Jug. 4.1)
(h) Nam ut Id. Mai. in senatum convenimus, rogatus ego sententiam multa dixi
de summa re publica . . .
(‘For when we met in the Senate on the Ides of May and my turn came, I spoke at
length about the political situation on the highest level . . .’ Cic. Att. 1.16.9)
(i) Namque ipsorum naves ad hunc modum factae armataeque erant: carinae
aliquanto planiores quam nostrarum navium . . .
(‘For their own ships were built and equipped in the following fashion. Their keels
were considerably more flat than those of our own ships . . .’ Caes. Gal. 3.13.1)
160 ‘Tacitus makes very frequent, indeed excessive, use of at in transitions . . .’ (Goodyear ad loc.). For
further examples in Tacitus, see Gerber and Greef s.v. at 106 (§ B).
1226 Discourse
(j) Quamvis enim Themistocles iure laudetur et sit eius nomen quam Solonis
inlustrius . . . non minus praeclarum hoc quam illud iudicandum est.
(‘However highly Themistocles, for example, may be extolled—and deservedly—and
however much more illustrious his name may be than Solon’s . . . yet Solon’s achieve-
ment is not to be accounted less illustrious than his.’ Cic. Off. 1.75)
(k) Triplex igitur est, ut Panaetio videtur, consilii capiendi deliberatio.
(‘The consideration necessary to determine conduct, is, therefore, as Panaetius
thinks, a threefold one.’ Cic. Off. 1.9)
(l) Itaque Titum Labienum legatum in Treveros, qui proximi flumini Rheno
sunt, cum equitatu mittit.
(‘Accordingly he dispatched Titus Labienus, lieutenant-general, with the cavalry to
the territory of the Treveri, who live next the river Rhine.’ Caes. Gal. 3.11.1)
(m) Sit ergo hic sermo, in quo Socratici maxime excellunt, lenis minimeque per-
tinax, insit in eo lepos.
(‘Conversation, then, in which the Socratics are the best models, should have these
qualities. It should be easy and not in the least dogmatic; it should have the spice of
wit.’ Cic. Off. 1.134)
There are of course other ways to structure a longer text. Sallust, Livy, and Velleius
Paterculus use ‘digressions to indicate breaks in their narratives between one episode
and another’. Velleius also uses some sort of heading of a paragraph followed by the
explanatory connector quippe, or anaphoric hic or qui.161 Headings were also com-
mon in juridical texts.162
From the second century bc onwards inscriptions, papyri, wax tablets, and texts
on other material show several non-linguistic means to segment longer stretches of
texts into paragraphs, such as the projection of the text into the left margin, the use
of capitals, and red colour, and also larger spaces.163 The same techniques are used in
the older manuscripts. There is however, much variation in the degree to which these
techniques were used.
24.49 Grammatical devices contributing to discourse coherence
In this section three grammatical phenomena will be briefly touched upon from the
perspective of discourse coherence: tense, active/passive variation, and word order.
The role of tense in the organization of discourse is mentioned several times in
Chapter 7.164 The clearest example is the imperfect tense. An illustration is (a),
repeated from § 7.20, (h). Here, the imperfect nuntiabantur marks the content of the
sentence as background information, while the surrounding perfects invasit and
161 The quotation is from Woodman (1977: 154). For the ‘headings’ and quippe, see Ruiz Castellanos (2005).
162 See Mantovani (2018: Appendice 1).
163 See Müller (1964: 13–21), Wingo (1972), Cancik (1979), Bischoff (1990), Raible (1993),
Ctibor (2017b), and Mantovani (2018).
164 See now also van Gils and Kroon (2018).
Grammatical devices 1227
consecuti sunt mark successive events. The information in the imperfect serves as
an explanation of the panic that hit Rome and made Lentulus flee, as the
interactional particle enim shows. Another example, without a particle, is (b). The
paragraph that precedes it reports the actions the Helvetians undertook to prepare
their departure. The imperfects in (b) indicate the considerations about the jour-
ney. Then, after a summary in the form of an ablative absolute clause (see also
§ 24.11), the action continues, marked by a historic present, dicunt. The relation
between the considerations in imperfects and the action in a historic present is one
of result or consequence.
(a) . . . tantus repente terror invasit ut, cum Lentulus consul ad aperiendum aera-
rium venisset . . ., protinus . . . profugeret. Caesar enim adventare iam iamque
et adesse eius equites falso nuntiabantur. Hunc Marcellus collega et plerique
magistratus consecuti sunt.
(‘. . . suddenly such a great panic hit them that although the consul Lentulus had come
to open the treasury he immediately fled. For it was falsely being reported that Caesar
was on the very point of arriving and that his cavalry was present. Lentulus was fol-
lowed by his colleague Marcellus and most of the magistrates.’ Caes. Civ. 1.14.1–2)
(b) Erant omnino itinera duo quibus itineribus domo exire possent. . . .
Allobrogibus sese vel persuasuros . . . existimabant vel vi coacturos ut per
suos fines eos ire paterentur. Omnibus rebus ad profectionem comparatis
diem dicunt . . .
(‘There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their home-
land. . . . They supposed that either they would persuade the Allobroges . . . or would
compel them perforce to suffer a passage through their borders. Having therefore
provided all things for their departure, they named a day . . .’ Caes. Gal. 1.6.1–4)
Active/passive variation is another grammatical feature that contributes to the
organization of discourse, since it can be related to the selection of topic constituents
in ongoing discourse.165 This is shown by (c), repeated from § 5.10, (a). In the first
two sentences the subject/agents are the Helvetians. In (iii) there is a shift of perspec-
tive to the new topic Orgetorix, who is continued in (iv). Note the use of is (see also
§ 22.4).
(c) (i) Ad eas res conficiendas biennium sibi satis esse duxerunt. (ii) In tertium
annum profectionem lege confirmant. (iii) Ad eas res conficiendas Orgetorix
deligitur. (iv) Is sibi legationem ad civitates suscepit.
(‘(i) For the accomplishment of these objects they considered that two years were
sufficient. (ii) They pledged themselves by an ordinance to take the field in the third
year. (iii) For the accomplishment of these objects Orgetorix was chosen. (iv) He took
upon himself an embassage to the communities.’ Caes. Gal. 1.3.2)
165 This paragraph follows LSS § 12.3.3.

1228 Discourse
Conversely, the choice of an active or passive form may also serve to continue the
perspective. This was illustrated in ex. (f) of § 5.10, here repeated as (d). Within the
framework of tree-chopping activities trabes and robur are expressed as subject of
their sentence, just like ilex and piceae in the preceding sentences. This requires a pas-
sive form: scinditur. Thereafter the perspective shifts to the men implied in the various
activities, with active advolvunt.
(d) (Itur in antiquam silvam, stabula alta ferarum.) / Procumbunt piceae. Sonat
icta securibus ilex / fraxineaeque trabes cuneis et fissile robur / scinditur.
(Advolvunt ingentis montibus ornos.)
(‘(They pass into the forest primeval, the deep lairs of the beasts.) Down drop the
pitchy pines. The ilex rings to the stroke of the axe; and ashen logs and splintering oak
are cleft with wedges. (From the mountains they roll down huge ash trees.)’ Verg. A.
6.179–82)
Turning now to word order, the fact that the first or second position of the sentence is
usually occupied by a pragmatically prominent constitutent contributes considerably
to the coherence of the discourse. Very often that constituent is the topic of the clause
which serves as an anchor for new information. It can also be a contrastive focus or a
theme constituent, or—in the case of presentative sentences—a verb, which signals a
new or unexpected entity. Chapters 22 and 23 contain enough illustrations, which
need not be repeated here.
24.50 Opening and concluding a conversation or letter
When opening or concluding an act of communication the participants, especially

the person who initiates the interaction, have to respect a number of social conven-
tions in order to make the interaction successful. Of these conventions some are lin-
guistic and consist of expressions of a more or less fixed character. Obvious examples
of situations in which this is relevant are conversations and letters. However, there
were also conventions to be observed when presenting a book on a technical subject,
in the form of a preface, for example,166 or when opening a speech in defence of some-
one in court, although these conventions concern primarily matters of content and
the intentions of the speaker or writer. This section is limited to a few linguistic fea-
tures of the openings and conclusions of conversations and letters, which have
received some attention over the last few decades.
Contemporary studies on conversation openings and conclusions naturally
concentrate on the comedies of Plautus and Terence and—to a lesser degree—on
Seneca’s tragedies.167 The actual form of an opening or ending depends on various
166 For Latin prose prefaces, see Janson (1964).

167 For openings of conversations, see Hoffmann (1983), Roesch (2008—also in Seneca), and
Ferri (2008). For conclusions, see Roesch (2002; 2005). For the use of politeness expressions in openings
in Plautus and Terence, see Berger (2017b).
Opening and concluding a conversation or letter 1229
non-linguistic factors which are determined by the relation between the speaker and
the addressee and the communicative situation. A few generalizations can be made.
An opening usually contains one or more of the following four components: (i) get-
ting the attention of the addressee, (ii) addressing him or her, (iii) expressing a wish
concerning the addressee’s well-being, and (iv) a question about what the addressee is
doing. The first of these can also be a non-verbal activity. The addressee’s reaction may
contain more or less the same components; the first component often consists of a
reaction of surprise or joy. Examples are (a)–(c).
(a) Heus Phormio, / vale. # Vale, Antipho.
(‘Hey, Phormio! Goodbye! # Goodbye, Antipho!’ Ter. Ph. 882–3)
(b) Oh, / Toxile, quid agitur? # Oh, lutum lenonium . . .
(‘Oh, Toxilus, how are you? # Oh, you pimp dirt . . .’ Pl. Per. 405–6)
(c) Ecquis hic est? # Adest. # Eu, Philolaches, / salve, amicissume mi omnium
hominum. / # Di te ament. Accuba, Callidamates.
(‘Is anyone here? # Yes, there is. # Excellent, Philolaches, greetings, my best friend
among all men. # May the gods love you. Do recline at table, Callidamates.’ Pl. Mos.
339–41)
The first component is often an interjection (see §§ 22.48–52). For expressions of

address, see §§ 22.53–6. The openings can be much more elaborate, for comic or other
purposes. An example in exalted style is (d): Amphitruo greets his pregnant wife,
Alcumena, in the presence of his slave, Sosia, unaware that a pseudo-Amphitruo (in
reality, Jupiter) has already enjoyed his return from Thebes with his wife.
(d) Amphitruo uxorem salutat laetus speratam suam, / quam omnium Thebis vir
unam esse optumam diiudicat, / quamque adeo cives Thebani vero rumife-
rant probam. / Valuisti’n usque? Exspectatu’n advenio? # (Sosia, aside) Hau
vidi magis. / Exspectatum eum salutat magis hau quicquam quam canem. / #
Et quom [te] gravidam et quom te pulchre plenam aspicio gaudeo. / # Opsecro
ecastor, quid tu me deridiculi gratia / sic salutas atque appellas, quasi dudum
non videris . . .?
(‘Amphitruo is happy to greet his longed-for wife, whom her husband judges to be
the absolutely best of all in Thebes, and whom the citizens of Thebes truly celebrate
as virtuous. Have you been well throughout? Are you happy that I’m coming? # (Sosia,
aside) I don’t think so. She’s as happy to greet him as she would be to greet a dog. # I’m
pleased to see you pregnant and beautifully round. # Please, why are you making fun
of me by greeting and addressing me like this, as if you hadn’t seen me for a long
time . . .?’ Pl. Am. 676–83)
Conclusions of a conversation usually begin with a signal that it’s time to stop, and
end with some form of farewell. Examples are (e), with the signal num quid vis, and
(f). The addressee can, for comic or other purposes, ignore the signal to stop, as in (g),
where Agorastocles ignores Adelphasium’s words ‘Follow me, my sister’.
1230 Discourse
(e) Quid me? Num quid vis? # Vale! / # Et tu, frater.

(‘What about me? Is there anything else I can do for you? # Be well. # You too, dear
brother.’ Pl. Aul. 175–6)
(f) Intro abi, appropera, age amabo. # Impetras, abeo. / # Mox magis quom
otium <et> mihi et tibi erit, / igitur tecum loquar. Nunc vale. # Valeas.
(‘Go inside, be quick, come on, please. # Yes, yes, I’m going. # Soon when both you
and I have more time I’ll speak to you. Goodbye for now. # Goodbye.’ Pl. Cas. 214–16)
(g) Etiam tibi hanc amittam noxiam unam, Agorastocles. / Non sum irata. # Non
es? / # Non sum. # Da ergo, ut credam, savium. / # Mox dabo, quom ab re
divina rediero. # I ergo strenue. / # Sequere me, soror. # Atque audi’n # Etiam?
# Veneri dicito / multum meis verbis salutem. # Dicam. # Atque hoc audi. #
Quid est? / # Paucis verbis rem divinam facito. Atque audi’n? Respice. /
Respexit. Idem edepol Venerem credo facturam tibi.
(‘Again I’ll let you get away with this one crime, Agorastocles. I’m not angry. # You
aren’t? # No, I’m not. # Then give me a kiss so that I may believe you. # I’ll give you
one in due course when I come back from the sacrifice. # Then go quickly. # Follow
me, my sister. # And can you hear me? # Again? # Give my best regards to Venus. # I
will. # And listen to this. # What is it? # Make your sacrifice with few words. And can
you hear me? Look well at me. She did look well at me. By Pollux!, I do believe Venus
will do the same to you.’ Pl. Poen. 403–9)
For letters comparable conventions existed. Apart from an indication of the sender
and the addressee, as in (h),168 a letter normally contained an opening and a closure,
each containing one or more components, more or less elaborate, often abbreviated,
which proves that they were conventional. An example of a greeting formula, an
inscriptio, is (i). An additional expression concerning the addressee’s (and sender’s)
well-being is shown in (j). An exuberant version is (k).
(h) L<o>nginio Pris(co) C(laudius) Tiberi< a>nus
(‘Claudius Tiberianus to Longinus Priscus’ CEL 147.verso (Karanis, c. ad 115))
(i) CICERO ATTICO SAL(UTEM) (dat) (or: s.d.)
(‘Cicero gives his greetings to Atticus’ Cic. Att. 1.1)
(j) S(I) V(ALES) B(ENE) E(ST). E(GO) V(ALEO).
(‘If you are well, that’s good. I am well.’ Cf. Cic. Fam. 14.8)
(k) Miles Lyconi in Epidauro hospiti / suo Therapontigonus Platagidorus pluru-
mam / salutem dicit.
(‘The soldier Therapontigonus Platagidorus gives his warmest greetings to his host in
Epidaurus, Lyco.’ Pl. Cur. 429–31)
168 The addressee alone is a further possibility. See Cugusi (1983: 64–7), who also discusses the relative
order of sender and addressee.
Opening and concluding a conversation or letter 1231
Examples of a farewell formula, a subscriptio, are (l)–(n). This can be followed by an

indication of the date and the place, as in (o).
(l) Vale.
(‘Goodbye.’ Cic. Fam. 4.1.2)
(m) Etiam atque etiam vale.
(‘Once again, goodbye.’ Cic. Fam. 9.24.4)
(n) Vale mihi. Bene valere te opto multis annis felicissime im perpetuo.
Vale.
(‘Stay well. I wish you to be well for many years in complete happiness for ever.
Goodbye.’ CEL 142.63–5 (Karanis, c. ad 115))
(o) D(atum). IIII Kal. Iun. Pergae.
(‘Dispatched 29 May, at Perge.’ Lent. Fam. 12.14.8)
A DDENDA A ND COR R IGENDA
TO VOLUME I
p. 3, footnote 6 Add: See also Moretti (2017; 2019), with references.

p. 47, after ex. (g) Instead of ‘In the case of quite a few adjectives, derivation . . . reasons.’ read: For
the majority of adjectives, derivation . . . reasons.1
p. 47, footnote 20 Add: For ‘periphrastic comparison’, see Pultrová (2018).
p. 68, footnote 48 Add: For disambiguation of the preposition cum and the subordinator cum,
see Jones (1990).
p. 74, footnote 4 Read: Hoffmann (1996; 2015; 2018b) . . . Baños (2012; 2018). Add: For the use
of support verbs in legal texts, see Spevak (2018).
p. 75, footnote 7 Read: For do, see Martín Rodríguez (1996a; 2018; 2019). Add: For habeo, see
Pompei (2016). For the use of facio and do with nouns indicating movement, see Pompei
(2018).
p. 89, ex. (c) Read: discomfiture.
p. 94, footnote 26 Add: For thoughts on ‘impersonal’ potest, see Manfredini (2019).
p. 110, l. 2 After ‘(i).’ add footnote: For the use of the dative with maneo, permaneo, and remaneo,
see Cabrillana (2016).
p. 119, footnote 54 Instead of forthc. read: 2015.
p. 129, footnote 63 Add: For curo and vito, see Moussy (2014).
p. 132, footnote 66 Add: For ‘experiencer verbs’ in general, see Fedriani (2014).
p. 142, l.2 Read: you to him.
p. 142, footnote 75 Add: For the use of ad versus the dative from a diachronic perspective, see
Adams and de Melo (2016). For the preference of Theodosius or his aides for the dative as
marker of addressees, see Sirks (1993: 52–3; 66–7).
p. 168, footnote 97 Read: Ripoll (2012).
p. 171, l. 12/14 Read: . . . neve · eum / cogito · neve · ius · iurandum · adigito · neve · a/digi ·
iubeto . . . (CIL II.5.1022.LXII.28–30 (Lex coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, Osuna, c.44 bc)2).
p. 191, footnote 122 Read: Bodelot (2014b).
p. 193 ex. (d) Read: Mayhoff.
p. 194 To the note in small type at the bottom of the page add: For typological considerations,
see Kienpointner (2016).
p. 207, footnote 154 Add: For sto with secondary predicates which resemble subject comple-
ments, see Cabrillana (2019). For Late Latin and Romance, see Nuti (2010).
1 See Pultrová (2018). 2 The actual document is of Flavian date (see Crawford (1996: 395)).
1234 Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I
p. 212, l. 6 Instead of ‘All three’ read: Debeo, possum, and soleo.

p. 242, footnote 31 Read: Landgraf (1898a).
p. 246, ex. (f) Replace by:
(f) Adspice . . . / . . . tunicas lacrimis sicut ab imbre gravis.
(‘Look upon my robes, heavy with tears as if with rain.’ Ov. Ep. 10.137–8—NB: parallelism)
p. 246, footnote 36 Add: For Vitruvius’ use of ab, see Adams (2016: 171–7).
p. 259, Supplement Remove the first example (Cic. Ver. 2.63).
p. 274, footnote 76 Add: and Kiss (2014).
p. 276, footnote 80 Add: For reciprocal alter uter in Late Latin, see TLL s.v. alter uter 1760.18ff.
and Sz.: 178. For reciprocal devices in Latin and other languages, see Cuzzolin (2015).
p. 282, footnote 89 Read: Lehmann (2016).
p. 282, footnote 90 Read: Hoffmann (2008; 2014). At the end of the footnote add: Garnier
(2014), Hoffmann (2016).
p. 293, ex. (j) Read: the shades C. Marius
p. 300, Supplement Add as first example: Multi enim habent, in praediis quibus frumentum aut
vinum aliudve quid desit, inportandum; contra non pauci, quibus aliquid sit exportandum.
(Varro R. 1.16.2);
p. 309, footnote 3 Read: Unceta (2014; 2018).
p. 312, footnote 11Add: For the use of the second person in agricultural texts, see Hine (2011).
p. 323, footnote 37 Add: For the difference between questions with -ne and without, see Schrickx
(2017). In questions that are related to the speech situation -ne is less often used than in other
types of questions.
p. 325, footnote 40 Add: See also § 15.58.
p. 326, footnote 42 Add: For nonne vides in Lucretius, see Schiesaro (1984).
p. 331, footnote 48 Add: Rosén (2009: 349) does not regard an as a question particle, but as a
‘modal particle’, comparable with nempe.
p. 334, footnote 51 Add: de Vaan (2008: 185) considers this etymology unlikely.
p. 336, ex. (c) Read: on her arrival. # What mother.
p. 341, footnote 57 Add: For the use of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in the three types of inter-
rogative sentences she distinguishes, see Fedriani (2017).
p. 346, footnote 69 Add: For quid tu?, see Adams (2016: 149–51).
p. 350, footnote 76 After the first sentence, insert: For prohibitions in Early Latin, see de Melo
(2007a: 92–132).
p. 352, footnote 80 Add: For the development of cave into a ‘prohibition marker’, see de Melo
(2007a: 119–29).
p. 352, footnote 81 Add: Barrios-Lech (2016a, b, c) shows that in Early Latin comedy most
instances of noli(te) are polite.
p. 353, l. 1 Before hanc insert: . . . nolite a me commoneri velle. Vosmet ipsi vobiscum
recordamini. (Cic. Mur. 50).
p. 353, footnote 83 Add: For the development of amabo, see Unceta (2015).
p. 356, footnote 89 Add: For the Late Latin comedy Querolus, see Unceta (2017).
p. 359, l. –3 Add: Quod utinam ne Phormioni id suadere in mentem incidisset . . . (Ter.

Ph. 157).
p. 375, footnote 122 Add: Müller (2017).
p. 377, footnote 124 Add at the beginning: For the corrective function of immo, see Orlandini
(1995b).
p. 383, footnote 13 Read: Spevak (2016a).
p. 391, under Table 7.5 Read: 2,447.
p. 398, l. –14 Eliminate the example from Sen. Ep. 5.7.
p. 402, l. – 8 Instead of ‘diegetic’ read ‘mimetic’.
p. 407, footnote 47 Add: For a description of linguistic features of ‘peaks’ in Sallust, Caesar, and
Tacitus, see Stienaers (2016).
p. 407, footnote 50 Add: For Livy’s use of the historic present, see van Gils and Kroon (2018:
204–7; 2019).
p. 408, footnote 51 Add: In Caesar Gal. 1.2–29 there are seventy-three perfects and eighty-eight
historic presents, but in 1.30–54 111 vs. five (Stienaers 2015: 209–10).
p. 408, footnote 52 Add: Stienaers (2015) shows that the historic present is used for a ‘pseudo-
simultaneous narrative mode’, the perfect for a ‘subsequent narrative mode’.
p. 409, l. 7 Read: ‘authorial perfect (see § 7.30—note also the timeless present’.
p. 422, l. –1 Add: However, prose rhythm may be the explanation for this exceptional use of the
imperfect.3
p. 436, footnote 95 Add: For the use of the passive infinitive iri as part of the passive future
infinitive -tum iri, see Pinkster (1985b: 204–6).
p. 439, l. –4 Read: Fredeg. Chron. 2.62.
p. 439, footnote 99 Add: For an entirely different explanation of daras, see Nahon (2017).
p. 442, footnote 106 Add: For detailed discussion, see Galdi (2016: 256–63).
p. 448, l. 9 Add footnote: For verbs of knowledge, see Torrego (2019).
p. 450, footnote 113 Add: ‘. . . the desemanticisation of coepi governing an infinitive does not
spread until the third century.’ (Galdi 2016: 255).
p. 461, footnote 123 Add: For diachronic developments of the pluperfect in general, see
Haverling (2015).
p. 467, footnote 132 Add: For a ‘pragmatic’ explanation of the future perfect (it may function as
an intensifier or a downtoner), see Orlandini and Poccetti (2014).
p. 477, footnote 153 Instead of Sz.: 231–2 read 321–2.
p. 478, footnote 156 Add: For recent discussion, see Haverling (2016).
p. 479, l. 8 Read: wine left for us.
p. 486, footnote 165 Add: For the the use of the subjunctive and the negator non (in Plautus and
Terence), see Bodelot (2017). See also p. 681 below.
p. 491, l. 9 After ‘semantic value’ insert: This also holds for the archaic sigmatic forms.4
3 As suggested by Daan den Hengst (p.c.). 4 See Bertocci (2016: 26–32).

p. 508, l. –19 Add: Nam quod idem Segulius veteranos queri quod tu et Caesar in decem viris
non essetis, utinam ne ego quidem essem! (Cic. Fam. 11.21.2).
p. 508, footnote 186 Read: . . . he is aware of. Ov. Ep. 8.34 is textually uncertain.
p. 517, footnote 198 Add: For the use of the third person in legal texts and of the second person
in metadirective expressions, see Decorte (2016). For the conditions of use of -to forms in
Plautus and Terence, see Barrios-Lech (2017).
p. 541, footnote 227 Add: For a detailed treatment of the future participle in Seneca, see
Westman (1961).
p. 543, footnote 229 After the first sentence add: For the non-simultaneous use of the present
participle from the second century ad onwards, see Lorenzo (1998). For the anterior use of
present participles that function as secondary predicate with subject constituents and the types
of verbs involved in Late Latin, see Galdi (2015; 2016). For Jerome’s practice of translating
Greek aorist participles, see Haug (2012: 318–20).
At the end of the note add: However, in the late historians discussed in Galdi (2016) parti-
cipial clauses are very often at the end (see also § 21.7).
p. 546, footnote 235 Add: Lorenzo (1998).
p. 565, footnote 248 Read: 2014.
p. 581, l. –5 Read: Areopagites.
p. 599, l. 9 Read: Sperare se pro.
p. 622, l. 6 Read: K.-St.: II.236–7.
p. 627, at the end of § 7.131 Add to the note: For the Late Latin use of the subjunctive in a quod
clause with miror, see Sz.: 575 and Adams (2016: 328–9).
p. 633, footnote 291 Add: A monograph on the difference between indirect questions and rela-
tive clauses is Eckert (1992). See also § 15.61.
p. 643, l. –8 After footnote cue 304 insert: The difference in mood may reflect the fact that in (i)
the actions of the main and cum clauses are simultaneous, whereas in (j) the actual operation
has not yet started. See also (e) above.5
p. 647, l. –1 Read: generally (see § 7.131).
p. 647, footnote 309 Add: For discussion, see Orlandini (2001: 347–55).
p. 649, footnote 312 Read: 2014b.
p. 652, l. 2 Read: § 7.130, section (i).
p. 653, l. 4 Read: § 7.130, section (v).
p. 653, footnote 314 Add: For ex. (e), see Adams (2016: 298).
p. 661, l. 2 above ex. (y) After (y)–(ab) insert: Here the perfect forms of the apodoses of the
conditional clauses are determined by the present tense of the governing clauses.
p. 668, l. –13 Read: § 7.111.
p. 685, ex. (b) Read: praetor.
p. 686, footnote 18 Add: For the use of haud in litotes, see Magni et al. (2017: 22–4).
5 As suggested by Guus Bal (p.c.).

p. 691, § 8.11 Add a footnote: for haud see Magni et al. (2017: 24): ‘haud couvre le domaine de
la négation scalaire’.
p. 691 Table 8.1 in the column Verg. instead of 10 read: 110.
p. 694, l. –2 Read: focusing subjunct.
p. 695, l. –2 Read: focusing subjunct.
p. 715, after (m) Insert note: A noteworthy instance of nec in Ovid is (15a). Here the negation
belongs to the quotation with the words of the nymph Cyane.6
(15a) (sc. Cyane) . . . adgnovitque deam ‘Nec longius ibitis!,’ inquit, / ‘Non potes . . . (‘. . . and she
recognized the goddess and said: ‘No further shall you go! Thou canst . . .’ Ovid. Met. 5.414–15)
p. 719, ex. (j) Read: . . . they sent.
p. 720, ex. (f) Replace by:
(f) . . . vos interdicitis patribus commercio plebis, ne nos comitate ac munificentia nostra
provocemus plebem nec plebs nobis dicto audiens atque oboediens sit.
(‘. . . you deny the Fathers intercourse with the commons, lest we by our friendliness and
liberality encourage them, or they become dutiful and obedient to us.’ Liv. 5.3.8)
p. 739, footnote 5 Add: For the use of ego to make oneself known, as in ex. (p), see Müller (2019).
p. 759, footnote 25 Read: Halla-aho (2012; 2019), with references.
p. 759, footnote 26 Add: For the proleptic accusative with facio, see Bortolussi (2014).
p. 768, footnote 32 Read: Pieroni (2015).
p. 776, ex. (e) Read: to lie down at table.
p. 820, ex. (d) Read: think that then I.
p. 821, ex. (n) Read: Ariminum.
p. 822, ex. (q) Instead of ‘parasite’ read: hanger-on.
p. 856, example (d) Add footnote: Kroon and Risselada (2002: 71) take iam with unus, fortasse
recte.
p. 858, l. –12 Instead of ‘subject complement’ read: secondary predicate.
p. 869, ex. (c) Read: violent day by day . . .
p. 877, Appendix l. 4 Read: § 4.60.
p. 878, l. 13 Read: § 10.86.
p. 882 Above 10.57 read: 4.65.
p. 891, l. 2 Add footnote: For ita and sic as intensifiers, see Panchón (1998).
p. 891, footnote 105 Add: For paene, vix and other ‘scalar approximators’, see Bertocchi and
Maraldi (2015).
p. 903, ex. (b) Read: Pac. trag. 340.
p. 912, footnote 132 Read: 2014b.
p. 919, footnote 141 Add: Baldi and Nuti (2010: 350–5) discuss the phenomenon under the
term ‘external possession’.
6 See Bömer ad loc. I was referred to this instance by Stephen van Beek.
p. 922, l. 8/9 Read: Pruvost-Versteeg (2015).

p. 926, l. 4 Insert footnote: Missing are examples of utique. For utique in Late Latin, see Langslow
(2005).
p. 928, l.–10 Read: 10.75.
p. 928, l. –8 Read: Such evaluating expressions are also found with verbs of happening and caus-
ing to happen, as in (e) (more instances in § 15.13).
p. 928, footnote 156 Add: For praeter, see also Torrego (1998: 139–41).
p. 931, footnote 164 Read: Rosén (2015). She discusses Late Latin examples at pp. 249–53.
p. 934, l. 12 Read: §§ 11.1–99.
p. 964, l. –17 Insert: Siciliae provinciae, cum esses pro consule, praefuisti. (Cic. Ver. 3.212).7
p. 964, l. –6 Instead of ‘Itala’ read: Vet. Lat.
p. 982, footnote 72 Add: For quantification in Latin, especially by multus and magnus, see
Moonens (2019).
p. 983 At the end of the text above ex. (g) add footnote: For the difference between multus and
magnus, see Moonens (2016).
p. 990, ex. (i) Replace by:
(i) . . . silentioque ab utrisque militibus auditus.
(‘. . . and he was heard in silence by soldiers on both sides.’ Caes. Civ. 3.19.3)
p. 990, footnote 84 Replace by: For more instances, see OLD s.v. uterque § 3.
p. 991, footnote 86 Add: For totus and omnis, see Nuti (2019).
p. 999, l. –3 Read: 11.2.
p. 1006, ex. (d) Read: quorum P.
p. 1011, ex. (j) Read: of almost all of our orators.
p. 1023, § 11.61 Add footnote: See Lagozzo and Middei (2018).
p. 1041, footnote 144 Add: For -tio nouns + esse in normative texts in Early Latin, see Spevak
(2017).
p. 1047, first line of 11.75 Read: 11.69.
p. 1047, footnote 151 Add: For the phrase ex Anniana Milonis domo, see Spevak (2016b).
According to Devine and Stephens (2006: 517) and Giusti and Iovino (2015), omnis, unlike
multus, has scope over the other modifiers.
p. 1051, ex. (m) Read: and the rest of Greece.
p. 1056, l. –1 Read: The difference in order between minimal pairs like (d) and (e) corresponds
to a difference in meaning. Ballio leno corresponds to the question ‘which Ballio?’, leno Ballio to
‘which leno?’8
p. 1063, l. –3 Read: § 10.17.
p. 1064, Table 11.7, first column (iv) Read: apud celebrem urbem, Antiochiam.
p. 1068, l. –10 Read: k(larissimus).
7 As suggested by James Clackson (p.c.). 8 See Spevak (2015).

p. 1068, footnote 178 Add: For the use of proper names in this context and a discussion of their
syntactic function, see Pieroni (2019).
p. 1076, footnote 190 Add: For a discussion of Varro’s use of satellites at the adjective phrase
level, see Bodelot (2015).
p. 1086, ex. (b) Read: great-grandfather and grandfather.
p. 1092, Table 11.9, line Apuleius Read: hic 148 180, ille 334 193, iste 193 44, is 16 411.
p. 1119, ex. (b) Replace the translation by: We shall leave this question open.
p. 1123, l. –17 After ‘expressions’ insert footnote: See Bertocchi (1989).
p. 1129 Add footnote: For developments in the ‘irregular’ use of suus, see Mari (2016: 47–63).
p. 1130, ex. (d) Read: Fabius (2 x).
p. 1133, footnote 253 Read: Bertocchi (1989; 1994). Add: For pragmatic factors (topicality and
empathy), see also Zheltova (2016).
p. 1144, ex. (c) In the translation read: Messalla.
p. 1147, footnote 276 Insert after ‘Pinkster (2005c).’: For Seneca, see Fruyt (2019). Add at end:
For the use of ille in hagiographic texts of the fifth and sixth century, see Joffre et al. (2017).
p. 1148, footnote 279 Add: See also Kiss (2016).
p. 1148, footnote 280 Add: Rosén (1994) draws attention to the increased use in Augustine’s
Confessiones of ille and other determiners with postposed subject constituents of clauses with
two arguments.
p. 1153, l. 3 Read: (a)–(i).
p. 1153, l. 4 Read: (j)–(l).
p. 1153, ll. 13–14 Read: with the escalating particles etiam and et ‘even’, ne . . . quidem ‘not even’.
p. 1153, l. –3 Instead of ‘Restrictive subjuncts’ read: Escalating subjuncts.
p. 1153, footnote 289 Add: For the additive and escalating uses of ipse, see Bertocchi and
Maraldi (2012: 16–19).
p. 1173, ex. (b) Read: 1.41.
p. 1178, l. –13 Read § 11.71.
p. 1179, footnote 4 After ‘2012’ add: , 2018. At the end of the footnote add: See also Pinkster
(2018).
p. 1180, footnote 5 Add: The ordering of the cases in Figure 12.1 is by frequency and deviates
from the canonical order, as presented at p. 35.
p. 1185, l. –6 Instead of ‘ditransitive’ read: bitransitive.
p. 1186, footnote 8 Add: For early medieval texts, see Korkiakangas (2016a; b).
p. 1188 To the note in small type add: Some scholars regard the use of the accusative for the
subject as an ‘ergative trait’ in Latin.9
p. 1233, ex. (b) Replace the translation by: Should I tire you out at your age for the sake of my
love?
9 See Lehmann (1985), Rivas (2000), and Rovai (2012).

p. 1252, ex. (w) Read: great-grandfather and grandfather.

p. 1255, ex. (l) Read: Fregenae.
p. 1256, l. –4 Read: colonists.
p. 1281, l. 3–4 After the examples in small type instead of ‘when they function as subject or
object pronoun’ read: when they function as subject or object complement.
p. 1303 Add:
CLE Carmina Latina Epigraphica, hrsg. v. F. Bücheler – E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig, Teubner, 1930
IGLTheben J. Baillet, Inscriptions Grecques et Latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thèbes,
Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1925–6.
p. 1304 Add:
LLT Library of Latin Texts, Cross Database Searchtool, <http://clt.brepolis.net/cds/Default.
aspx>.
PHI Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts, <http://latin.packhum.org>.
p. 1321 Add: Fruyt, Michèle (2010) ‘Interprétation du latin ipse comme un “intensifieur” ’, in
Michèle Fruyt and Olga Spevak (eds), 39–74.
p. 1334 Instead of Lehmann, Christian ‘(forthc.)’ read: (2016). The article is published in Paolo
Poccetti (ed.), 917–41.
p. 1351 Instead of Spevak, Olga ‘(forthc.) etc.’ read: (2016a). For details, see below.
p. 1357 Instead of Wackernagel, Jacob (1920/4) read: (1926/92).
Missing commentaries (pp. 1359–60):
Brix, Julius and Niemeyer, Max (19106). Ausgewählte Komödien des T. Maccius Plautus. Captivi.
Leipzig: Teubner.
Kroll, Wilhelm (1913). M. Tulli Ciceronis Orator. Berlin: Weidmann.
Mayhoff, Karl Friedrich Theodor (1870). C. Plini Secundi naturalis historiae libri xxxvii, Vol.
I. Leipzig: Teubner.
Nisbet, Robert George (1939). M. Tulli Ciceronis De domo sua ad pontifices oratio. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stockert, Walter (1983). T. Maccius Plautus: Aulularia. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Ziegler, Karl (ed.) (1969). M. Tulli Ciceronis de Re publica. Leipzig: Teubner.
Additional bibliography (publications which are not cited in the

bibliography of Volume I):
Adams, James N. (2016). An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 bc–ad 800. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Adams, James N. and de Melo, Wolfgang (2016). ‘Ad versus the dative: from early to late Latin’,
in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 87–131.
Adams, James N. and Vincent, Nigel (eds) (2016). Early and Late Latin. Cambridge: Cambrige
University Press.
Baños, José Miguel (2012). ‘Verbos soporte e incorporación sintáctica en latín: el ejemplo de
ludos facere’, Revista de Estudios Latinos 12: 37–57.
Baños, José Miguel (2018). ‘Las construcciones con verbo soporte en latin: una perspectiva
diacrónica’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 21–51.
Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016a). ‘Noli + infinitive in Roman Comedy’, Glotta 92: 18–23.
Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016b). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016c). ‘The volo command in Roman Comedy’, Mnemosyne 69: 628–47.
Barrios-Lech, Peter (2017). ‘The imperative in -to in Plautus and Terence’, Classical Quarterly
67: 485–506.
Bertocchi, Alessandra (1989). ‘The role of antecedents of Latin anaphors’, in Gualtiero Calboli
(ed.), 441–62.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2012). ‘La scalarité, application à certaines
phénomènes de la langue latine’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre
Alfred Ernout [Online] 8.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2015). ‘Scalar approximators’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling
(ed.), 518–29.
Bodelot, Colette (2014b). ‘Les propositions complétives dans la Chronique originale de
Frédégaire’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), I.183–203.
Bodelot, Colette (2015). ‘L’adjectif latin et ses expansions: une relation de solidarité à géométrie
variable’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 301–13.
Bodelot, Colette (2017). ‘Sur la valeur controversée du subjonctif nié par non dans les ques-
tions de protestation et de délibération en latin’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique
Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout [Online]: 1–22.
Bodelot, Colette and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2018). Les constructions à verbe support en latin.
Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal (Cahiers du LRL 7).
Bortolussi, Bernard (2014). ‘La construction proleptique avec facere ut’, in Bernard Bortolussi
and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 113–30.
Bortolussi, Bernard and Lecaudé, Peggy (eds) (2014). La causativité en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2016). ‘El estatus sintáctico-semántico del caso dativo con verbos
estativos latinos’, Emerita 84: 145–66.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2019). ‘Praedicativum and subject complement: a question revisited
in light of the Latin verb sto’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 116–33.
Cabrillana, Concepción and Lehmann, Christian (eds) (2014). Acta XIV Colloquii Internationalis
Linguisticae Latinae. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Carlier, Anne and Guillot-Barbance, Céline (eds) (2018). Latin tardif, français ancien:
Continuités et ruptures. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Christol, Alain and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2012). Les évolutions du latin. Paris: l’Harmattan.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2015). ‘Reciprocals in Latin. A Reappraisal’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.),
221–39.
Decorte, Robrecht (2016). ‘Sic habeto: the functions of -to imperatives in legal Latin and
beyond’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 801–19.
Duarte, Pedro, Fleck, Frédérique, Lecaudé, Peggy, and Morel, Aude (eds) (2017). Histoires des
mots. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Eckert, Günter (1992). Thema, Rhema und Fokus: Eine Studie zur Klassifizierung von indirekten
Fragesätzen und Relativsätzen im Lateinischen. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
Fedriani, Chiara (2014). Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill.
Fedriani, Chiara (2017). ‘Quapropter, quaeso? “Why, for pity’s sake?” Questions and the prag-
matic functions of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in Plautus’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak
(eds), Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 83–109.
Fruyt, Michèle (2019). ‘Le système latin de la déixis et de l’endophore: l’évolution linguistique
chez Sénèque’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 296–316.
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2015). ‘The expression of simultaneity and anteriority in the Historia of
Victor Vitensis’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 183–92.
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016). ‘On coepi/incipio + infinitive: some new remarks’, in
James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 246–64.
García Leal, Alfonso and Prieto, Clara Elena (eds) (2017). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif XI.
Hildesheim: Olms Weidmann.
Gils, Lidewij W. van, de Jong, Irene J. F., and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (eds) (2018). Textual
Strategies in Ancient War Narrative: Thermopylae, Cannae and Beyond. Leiden: Brill.
Gils, Lidewij W. van and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2018). ‘Discourse-linguistic strategies in
Livy’s account of the battle at Cannae’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 191–233.
Gils, Lidewij W. van and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2019). ‘Engaging the audience. An intersubject-
ivity approach to the historic present in Latin’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 351–73.
Gils, Lidewij W. van, Kroon, Caroline H. M., and Risselada, Rodie (eds) (2019). Lemmata
Linguistica Latina, II: Clause and Discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Giusti, Giuliana and Iovino, Rossella (2015). ‘On the syntax of the Latin quantifier omnis’, in
Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 314–24.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2019). ‘Proleptic accusatives in Latin’, Glotta 95: 135–58.
Haug, Dag (2012). ‘Open verb-based adjuncts in New Testament Greek—with a view to the
Latin Vulgate translation’, in Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Dag Haug (eds), Big Events,
Small Clauses. Berlin: De Gruyter, 287–321.
Haverling, Gerd V. M. (2016). ‘On the use of habeo and the perfect participle in earlier and later
Latin’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 180–201.
Haverling, Gerd V. M. (ed.) (2015). Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century. Acts of the 16th
International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Uppsala, 6–11 June 2011. Uppsala: Studia
Latina Upsaliensia. Uppsala Universitet.
Hine, Harry M. (2011). ‘Discite . . . agricolae: modes of instruction in Latin prose agricultural
writing from Cato to Pliny the Elder’, Classical Quarterly 61: 624–54.
Hoffmann, Roland (2014). ‘Les constructions causatives dans les traductions latines des textes
hébreux et grecs: le cas de la Vulgate de Jérôme’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé
(eds), 143–76.
Hoffmann, Roland (2016). ‘On causativity in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15: 33–71.
Hoffmann, Roland (2018a). Lateinische Linguistik. Hamburg: Buske Verlag.

Hoffmann, Roland (2018b). ‘Criteria for describing valency in Latin function verb construc-
tions’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 75–93.
Joffre, Marie-Dominique, Longrée, Dominique, and Philippart, Caroline (2017). ‘De l’emploi de
iste et des autres démonstratifs dans un corpus hagiographique italien des Ve–VIe s.’, in
Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds) (2017), 435–48.
Jones, Frederick (1990). ‘Cum in Livy’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 15: 37–43.
Kienpointner, Manfred (2016). ‘Weather verbs in Latin, German, and other languages.
Contrastive and typological remarks’, Pallas 102: 57–68.
Kiss, Sándor (2016). ‘Le système des déterminants et la place virtuelle de l’article en latin’, in
Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 232–45.
Korkiakangas, Timo (2016a). ‘Subject case in the Latin of Tuscan charters of the 8th and 9th
centuries’. PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki.
Korkiakangas, Timo (2016b). ‘Morphosyntactic realignment and markedness in Late Latin:
Evidence from charter texts’, Pallas 102: 287–96.
Lagozzo, Felicia and Middei, Edoardo (2018). ‘Le génitif “appositivus” ou “definitivus”: une
catégorie instable. I.: l’état de la question et les critères d’évaluation’, ‘II.: les toponymes’, De Lingua
Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout [Online] 15: 1–18; 1–30.
Landgraf, Gustav (1898a). ‘Der Akkusativ der Beziehung (determinationis)’, Archiv für lateinis-
che Lexikographie und Grammatik 10, 209–23.
Lehmann, Christian (1985) ‘Ergative and active traits in Latin’, in Franz Plank (ed.), Relational
Typology. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter, 243–55.
Lorenzo, Juan (1998). ‘El participio de presente latino: auge y ocaso de una forma verbal’,
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Latinos 15: 37–58.
Magni, Elisabetta, Orlandini, Anna, and Poccetti, Paolo (2017). ‘Haud: usages et fonctions
d’une négation perdue’, De Lingua Latina, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred
Ernout [Online] 14: 1–28.
Manfredini, Adriana M. (2019). ‘Potest + passive infinitives: auxiliary or impersonal verb?’, in
Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 67–78.
Mari, Tommaso (2016). ‘Third person possessives from early Latin to late Latin and Romance’,
in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 47–68.
Martín Rodríguez, Antonio M. (2018). ‘Les emplois de dare comme verbe support: une réévalu-
ation’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 149–67.
Martín Rodríguez, Antonio M. (2019). ‘Ruinam dare: les complexités d’une construction latine
à verbe support’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 79–95.
Molinelli, Piera, Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Fedriani, Chiara (eds) (2014). Latin vulgaire–latin
tardif X, 3 vols. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press.
Moonens, Laurent (2016). ‘Expressions de quantité chez Plaute et Térence: les “quantificateurs”
multus et magnus’, Pallas 102: 25–34.
Moonens, Laurent (2019). ‘Les expressions de la quantité en latin. Quantifiants, quantifieurs et la
quantification mid-scalaire par multus et magnus.’ Thesis, Université de Toulouse–Jean Jaurès.
Moretti, Paola Francesca (2017). ‘The verb phrase auxiliary + infinitive: evidence of orality in
the epistolary genre?’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 487–503.
Moretti, Paola Francesca (2019). ‘Is it possible to identify orality? Verb-phrases “Auxiliary +
Infinitive” in spoken (late) Latin’, Mnemosyne 72: 488–508.
Moussy, Claude (2014). ‘Les emplois intransitifs des verbes curare et evitare’, in Concepción
Cabrillana and Christian Lehmann (eds), 391–400.
Müller, Roman (2017). ‘Nein im klassischen und nicht-klassischen Dialog’, in Alfonso García
Leal and Carla Elena Prieto (eds), 116–26.
Müller, Roman (2019). ‘Ego sum Amphitruo: Selbestidentifikation in der römischen Komödie’,
in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 464–78.
Nahon, Peter (2017). ‘Paléoroman daras (Pseudo-Frédégaire, VIIe siècle): de la bonne interpré-
tation d’un jalon de la linguistique’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 112: 123–30.
Nuti, Andrea (2010). ‘Some notes on the use of stare’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner
(eds), 437–66.
Nuti, Andrea (2019). ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: Sapir’s typology and different
perspectives on totality’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 219–40.
Orlandini, Anna M. (1995b). ‘De la connexion: une analyse pragmatique des connecteurs
latins atqui et immo’, Lalies 15: 259–69.
Orlandini, Anna M. and Poccetti, Paolo (2014). ‘Gli aspetti semantico-pragmatici del futuro II
latino e la loro evoluzione romanza’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 1011–30.
Pieroni, Silvia (2019). ‘Themistocles veni, Tarquiniusque loquor’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds),
217–25.
Pinkster, Harm (2018). ‘ La contribution de marques casuelles à l’interprétation des proposi-
tions’, in Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 97–125.
Poccetti, Paolo (ed.) (2016). Latinitatis Rationes. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Pompei, Anna (2018). ‘Facere saltum ou dare saltum? Verbes support et noms de mouvement’,
in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 169–86.
Pultrová, Lucie (2018). ‘Periphrastic comparison in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 17:
93–110.
Ripoll, Arthur (2012). ‘Le changement invisible ou “que tout reste indentique pour que tout
change” ’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 299–323.
Rivas, Javier (2000). Ergativity and Transitive Gradients in the Accusative and Infinitive
Construction. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela: Servizo de Publicacións.
Rovai, Francesco (2012). Sistemi di codifica argomentale. Pisa: Pacini.
Schiesaro, Alessandro (1984). ‘Nonne vides in Lucrezio’, Materiali e Discussioni per l’Analisi dei
Testi Classici 13: 143–57.
Schøsler, Lene (2018). ‘ “How useful is case morphology?”: from Latin to French’, in Anne
Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 127–70.
Sirks, Boudewijn (1993). ‘The sources of the code’, in Jill Harries and Ian Wood (eds), The
Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity. London: Duckworth, 45–67.
Spevak, Olga (2015). ‘L’apposition étroite en latin’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 325–37.
Spevak, Olga (2016a). ‘À propos de l’aspect verbal en grec, en slave et en latin’, Bulletin de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris 111: 243–75.
Spevak, Olga (2016b). ‘Ex Anniana domo Milonis: les syntagmes nominaux avec deux complé-
ments de possession’, Pallas 102: 35–44.
Spevak, Olga (2017). ‘La construction -tio + esse dans les textes normatifs de l’époque
préclassique’, in Pedro Duarte et al. (eds), 403–11.
Spevak, Olga (2018). ‘Les constructions à verbe support dans les textes normatifs’, in Colette
Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 207–19.
Stienaers, David (2015). ‘Tense and discourse organization in Caesar’s De bello Gallico’, in
Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 208–20.
Stienaers, David (2016). ‘Linguistic features of peaks in Latin narrative texts’, in Paolo Poccetti
(ed.), 902–16.
Torrego, Esperanza (2019). ‘The expression of knowledge in Latin: cognosco, nosco, scio, nescio
and ignoro’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 20–47.
Unceta, Luis (2015). ‘Sobre el proceso de subjetivación de algunas formas verbales en la lengua
de la comedia romana’, in Gerd V. M. Haverling (ed.), 468–79.
Unceta, Luis (2017). ‘Estrategias de cortesía linguística en Querolus’, Latomus 75: 140–61.
Unceta, Luis (2018). ‘Gli studi sulla (s)cortesia linguistica in latino. Possibilità di analisi e
proposte per il futuro’, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 56: 9–37.
Zheltova, Elena (2016). ‘Latin reflexive pronouns at the crossroads of syntax and pragmatics’,
Pallas 102: 211–18.
BIBLIOGR APH Y
A. Abbreviated references
AE L’Année Épigraphique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Bennett Bennett, Charles E., Syntax of Early Latin, 2 vols. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon, 1910/14 (repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966).
BTL Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina. Munich: Saur & Turnhout: Brepols, 2002.
CEL Cugusi, Paolo, Corpus Epistularum Latinarum, 3 vols. Florence: Gonnelli,
1992–2002.
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin: 1862–
Gerber and Greef Gerber, A. and Greef, A. Lexicon Taciteum. Leipzig: Teubner, 1877/1903.
K.-G. Kühner, Raphael and Gerth, Bernard, Ausführliche Grammatik der
griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2 vols. Hanover: Hahnsche
Buchhandlung, 19043.
K.-H. Kühner, Raphael and Holzweissig, Friedrich, Ausführliche Grammatik der
lateinischen Sprache, Erster Teil: Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre.
Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 19122.
K.-St. Kühner, Raphael and Stegmann, Carl, Ausführliche Grammatik der
lateinischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre, 2 vols. Hanover: Hahnsche
Buchhandlung, 19122.
LASLA Laboratoire d’Analyse Statistique des Langues Anciennes. Liège:
<http://www.cipl.ulg.ac.be/Lasla/>.
Lodge Lodge, Gonzalez, Lexicon Plautinum, 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1924–33.
LSS Pinkster, Harm, Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge,
1990, <http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/navigate.
pl?NewPerseusMonographs.19>. NB: The paragraph numbering is the
same in the various editions in other languages.
M Cuvigny, Hélène, La Route de Myos Hormos, vol. 2. Cairo: IFAO, 2003.
McGlynn McGlynn, Patrick, Lexicon Terentianum, 2 vols. London/Glasgow:
Blackie & Son, 1963–7.
Merguet (Caesar) Merguet, Hugo, Lexikon zu den Schriften Caesars und seine Fortsetzer: mit
Angabe sämtlicher Stellen. Jena, 1886.
Merguet (Phil.) Merguet, Hugo, Lexikon zu den philosophischen Schriften Ciceros, 3 vols.
Jena, 1887.
1248 Bibliography
Merguet (Reden) Merguet, Hugo, Lexikon zu den Reden des Cicero, 4 vols. Jena, 1877.
Neue-W. Neue, Friedrich and Wagener, Carl, Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache,
3 vols. Leipzig: Reisland, 1892–19023.
New Pauly Cancik, Hubert and Schneider, Helmuth (eds), Der neue Pauly:
Enzyklopädie der Antike. Stuttgart: Verlag J. N. Metzler, 1996ff. (English
translation: Brill’s New Pauly. Leiden: Brill, 2010ff.)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968–82
(20122).
poet. Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum epicorum et lyricorum praeter Ennium et
Lucilium, post W. Morel edidit Carolus Buechner. Leipzig: Teubner, 1982.
Sz. Szantyr, Anton, New edition of Johann Baptist Hofmann, Lateinische
Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck, 19722.
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig: Teubner, 1900–
TPN Wolf, Joseph Georg, Neue Rechtsurkunden aus Pompeji: Tabulae
Pompeianae Novae. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2010.
B. Linguistic Studies
Aalto, Pentti (1949). Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum.
Helsinki: Academia Fennica.
Achard, Guy and Ledentu, Marie (eds) (2000). Orateurs, auditeurs, lecteurs: À propos de
l’ éloquence romaine à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Lyon: Broccard.
Adams, James N. (1971). ‘A type of hyperbaton in Latin prose’, Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society 17: 1–16.
Adams, James N. (1972). ‘The language of the later books of Tacitus’ Annals’, Classical Quarterly
22: 350–73.
Adams, James N. (1976a). ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, Indogermanische
Forschungen 81: 70–100.
Adams, James N. (1976b). The Text and the Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus
Valesianus II). London: BICS.
Adams, James N. (1977). The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Adams, James N. (1978). ‘Conventions of naming in Cicero’, Classical Quarterly 28: 145–66.
Adams, James N. (1984). ‘Female speech in Latin comedy’, Antichthon 18: 43–77.
Adams, James N. (1991). ‘Pelagonius and Columella’, Antichthon 25: 72–95.
Adams, James N. (1994a). ‘Wackernagel’s law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns
in classical Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society 92: 103–78.
Adams, James N. (1994b). Wackernagel’s Law and the Placement of the Copula esse in Classical
Latin. TCPS Supplementary Volume 18.
Adams, James N. (1995). ‘The language of the Vindolanda Tablets: An interim report’, Journal
of Roman Studies 85: 86–134.
Adams, James N. (1996). ‘Interpuncts as evidence for the enclitic character of personal
pronouns in Latin’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 111: 208–10.
Bibliography 1249
Adams, James N. (1999a). ‘Nominative personal pronouns and some patterns of speech in
republican and Augustan poetry’, in James N. Adams and Roland G. Mayer (eds), 97–133.
Adams, James N. (1999b). ‘The poets of Bu Njem: Language, culture and the centurionate’,
Journal of Roman Studies 89: 109–34.
Adams, James N. (2003a). ‘Petronius and new non-literary Latin’, in József Herman and
Hannah Rosén (eds), 11–23.
Adams, James N. (2003b). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Adams, James N. (2005a). ‘The accusative and infinitive and dependent quod/quia clauses. The
evidence of non-literary Latin and Petronius’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 195–206.
Adams, James N. (2005b). ‘The Bellum Africum’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 73–96.
Adams, James N. (2007). The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 bc–ad 600. Cambridge:
Adams, James N. (2013). Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Adams, James N. (2016). An Anthology of Informal Latin 200 bc–ad 800. Cambridge:
Adams, James N. (2019). ‘The Latin of the new Vindolanda tablets’, Britannia 50: 253–63.
Adams, James N. (forthc.). Asyndeton and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Adams, James N. and Mayer, Roland G. (eds) (1999). Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry.
London: Proceedings of the British Academy.
Adams, James N. and Vincent, Nigel (2016). ‘Infinitives with verbs of motion from Latin to
Romance’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 265–93.
Adams, James N. and Vincent, Nigel (eds) (2016). Early and Late Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Addabbo, Anna Maria (2001). ‘La proposition relative dans le de agricultura de Caton’, in
Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 159–69.
Adema, Suzanne M. (2017). Speech and Thought in Latin War Narratives: Words of Warriors.
Leiden: Brill.
Adema, Suzanne M. (2019a). ‘Words when it is time for action: Representations of speech and
thought in the battles of Cannae and Zama’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds) 293–315.
Adema, Suzanne M. (2019b). Tenses in Vergil’s Aeneid: Narrative Style and Structure. Leiden:
Brill.
Agud, Ana, Fernández Delgado, José A., and Ramos, Agustín (eds) (1996). Las lenguas de
corpus y sus problemas lingüísticos. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Aili, Hans (1979). The Prose Rhythm of Sallust and Livy. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksel.
Albrecht, Michael von (1964). Die Parenthese in Ovids Metamorphosen und ihre dichterische
Funktion. Hildesheim: Olms.
Albrecht, Michael von (2003). Cicero’s Style: A Synopsis. Leiden: Brill.
Albrecht, Michael von (20124). Meister römischer Prosa: Von Cato bis Apuleius: Interpretationen.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Allen, Joseph H. and Greenough, James B. (19032). Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges,
Founded on Comparative Grammar. Boston: Ginn & Company (repr. Eastford: Martino Fine
Books, 2017).
Allen, W. Sidney (1973). Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1250 Bibliography
Allen, W. Sidney (19782). Vox Latina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Álvarez Huerta, Olga (1996). ‘The connecting relative in the oratio obliqua in Latin’, in Hannah
Rosén (ed.), 567–575.
Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2005a). ‘¿Accusativus pendens en latín?’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.),
433–42.
Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2005b). ‘Attraction régressive et corrélation en latin’, in Paolo de Carvalho
and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 181–97.
Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2011). ‘Quelques réflexions sur l’emploi du subjonctif dans les relatives
latines’, Les Études Classiques 79: 105–22.
Álvarez Huerta, Olga (2014). ‘L’expression de la causalité en latin: la construction facere ut’, in
Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 79–94.
Amacker, René (2011). ‘Relatives enchevêtrées: Problèmes de description’, Les Études Classiques
79: 143–75.
Ambrosini, Riccardo (1992). ‘La collocazione degli elementi subordinanti in latino’, Archivio
Glottologico Italiano 77: 173–95.
Ammann, Hermann J. F. (1911). Die Stellungstypen des lateinischen attributiven Adjektivums
und ihre Bedeutung fur die Psychologie der Wortstellung auf Grund von Ciceros Briefen an
Atticus untersucht. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Ammann, Hermann J. F. (1949). ‘Zu lateinisch quisquis es, quisquis est’, Indogermanische
André, Jacques (1951). ‘Les adjectifs et adverbes à valeur intensive en per- et prae-’, Revue des
Études Latines 29: 121–54.
Andrews, Avery D. (2007). ‘Relative clauses’, in Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and
Syntactic Description, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 206–36.
Anreiter, Peter and Kienpointner, Manfred (2010). Latin Linguistics Today. Innsbruck:
Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Arias, Carmen (1995). ‘Sobre el empleo de si en las interrogativas indirectas del latín tardío’, in
Louis Callebat (ed.), 297–312.
Arias, Carmen (ed.) (2006). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif VII. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla.
Arnaiz, Alfredo R. (1998). ‘An overview of the main word order characteristics of Romance’, in
Anna Siewierska (ed.), 47–73.
Ashdowne, Richard (2002). ‘The vocative’s calling: The syntax of address in Latin’, Oxford
University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 7: 143–62.
Ashdowne, Richard (2008). ‘E-vocative invocation: On the historical morphosyntax of Latin
oaths’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 13–25.
Axelson, Bertil (1945). Unpoetische Wörter. Lund: Gleerup.
Bach, Joseph (1888). De usu pronominum demonstrativorum apud priscos scriptores Latinos
particula prima. Strasbourg.
Baehrens,Wilhelm Adolf (1912). Beiträge zur lateinischen Syntax, Philologus Supplementband
12. Leipzig: Dieterich.
Bagordo, Andreas (2001). Beobachtungen zur Sprache des Terenz: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
der umgangssprachlichen Elemente. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Bakker, Dik (1998). ‘Flexibility and consistency in word order patterns in the languages of
Europe’, in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 383–419.
Bakker, Dik and Hengeveld, Kees (1999). ‘Relatieve zinnen in typologisch perspectief ’,
GrammaTTT 7: 191–214.
Bibliography 1251
Bakker, Egbert J. (1997). ‘Verbal aspect and mimetic description in Thucydides’, in

Egbert J. Bakker (ed.), Grammar as Interpretation. Leiden: Brill, 7–54.
Baldi, Philip (1999). The Foundations of Latin. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2009). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax,
vol. I: Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2010a). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax,
vol. II: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2010b). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax,
vol. III: Constituent Syntax: Quantification, Numerals, Possession, Anaphora. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds) (2011). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax,
vol. IV: Complex Sentences, Grammaticalization, Typology. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Baldi, Philip and Nuti, Andrea (2010). ‘Possession’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
III.239–387.
Balmuş, Constantin I. (1930). Étude sur le style de Saint Augustin dans les Confessions et la Cité
de Dieu. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Bammesberger, Alfred and Heberlein, Friedrich (1996). Akten des VIII. internationalen
Kolloquiums zur lateinischen Linguistik. Heidelberg: Winter.
Banniard, Michel (2012). ‘Le latin classique existe-t-il?’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 57–78.
Baños, José Miguel (1990). ‘Quod completivo tras verbos de suceso in latín clásico’, Cuadernos
de Filología Clásica 24: 163–74.
Baños, José Miguel. (1991a). ‘Caracterización funcional de la conjunción quia en latín arcaico
y clásico’, Revista Española de Lingüística 21: 79–108.
Baños, José Miguel (1991b). ‘Análisis sintáctico de las construcciones quid est quod, est quod,
nihil est quod en Plauto y Terencio’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 1: 29–86.
Baños, José Miguel (1992). ‘La distribución sintáctica entre cum histórico y el ablativo absoluto
en prosa clásica’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 2: 57–83.
Baños, José Miguel (1994). ‘Ablativo absoluto versus cum histórico: Su distribución sintáctica
en César’, in Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, I. Madrid: Universidad
Complutense, 411–18.
Baños, José Miguel (1998). ‘El predicado verbal en las comparativas de tam . . . quam en latín’,
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 15: 19–36.
Baños, José Miguel (2002). ‘Comparativas con quam y verbo personal en latín’, in Empar
Espinilla et al. (eds), 39–62.
Baños, José Miguel (2007). ‘Estructuras predicativas de los verbos de sentimiento en latín: La
complementación nominal de gaudeo y laetor’, in Esperanza Torrego et al. (eds), 11–37.
Baños, José Miguel (2011). ‘Causal clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
195–234.
Baños, José Miguel (2012). ‘Verbos soporte e incorporación sintáctica en latín: El ejemplo de
ludos facere’, Revista de Estudios Latinos 12: 37–57.
Baños, José Miguel (2014). Las oraciones causales en latín. Madrid: Escolar y Mayo Editores.
Baños, José Miguel (2019). ‘Les subordonnées causales dans les constructions comparatives’, in
Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 187–213.
Baños, José Miguel (coordinador) (2009). Sintaxis del latín clásico. Madrid: Liceus.
Baños, José Miguel and Cabrillana, Concepción (2009). ‘Orden de palabras’, in José Miguel
Baños (coord.), 679–707.
1252 Bibliography
Barrios-Lech, Peter (2016). Linguistic Interaction in Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Barrios-Lech, Peter (2018). ‘Indirect and off-record speech in Roman Comedy: The case of the
Conditional Request’, in Michael Fontaine, Charles J. McNamara, and William Michael
Short (eds), Quasi Labor Intus: Ambiguity in Latin Literature. The Paideia Institute for
Humanistic Study, 55–78.
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. (2016). ‘The development of the comparative in Latin texts’, in James
N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 313–39.
Bayet, Jean (1931). ‘Le style indirect libre en latin’, Revue de Philologie 5: 327–42.
Bayet, Jean (1932). ‘Le style indirect libre en latin (2e article)’, Revue de Philologie 6: 5–23.
Beaugrande, Robert-Alain de and Dressler, Wolfgang (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Behaghel, Otto (1932). Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. V: Wortstellung,
Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.
Bejarano, Virgilio (1975). ‘San Jerónimo y la Vulgata Latina: Distribución de las conjunciones
quod, quia, quoniam’, Helmantica 26: 51–5.
Bejarano, Virgilio (1983). ‘Las proposiciones completivas en la Peregrinatio Egeriae’, Helmantica
34: 91–101.
Beltrán, José A., Encuentra, Alfredo, Fontana, Gonzalo, Magallón, Ana Isabel, Marina,
Rosa M.ª (eds) (2013). Otium cum dignitate: Estudios en homenaje al profesor José Javier Iso
Echegoyen. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza-Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad.
Bendz, Gerhard (1948). ‘La construction du type “rebus in arduis” ’, Eranos 46: 42–53.
Bennett, Charles E. (1900). ‘Die mit tamquam und quasi eingeleiteten Substantivsätze’, Archiv
für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 11: 405–17.
Berger, Łukasz (2015). ‘(Meta)discursive uses of Latin Heus’, Studia Romanica Posnaniensia 42:
3–22.
Berger, Łukasz (2017a). ‘Bendecir para saludar en Plauto. Redistribución de la función prag-
mática’, Emerita 85: 261–87.
Berger, Łukasz (2017b). ‘Estrategias de la cortesía positiva en la apertura dialógica de Plauto y
Terencio’, Revista de Estudios Latinos 17: 11–35.
Bernard, Emanuel (1960). Die Tmesis der Präposition in lateinischen Verbalkomposita.
Winterthur: Keller Verlag.
Bernard, Max (1927). Der Stil von Apuleius von Madaura. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Bertelsmann, Karl (1885). Über die verschiedenen Formen der Correlation in der Struktur der
Relativsätze des ältern Latein. Jena: Neuenhahn.
Bertocchi, Alessandra (1998). ‘Scalar predicates and adversative correlatives’, in Benjamín
García Hernández (ed.), 155–68.
Bertocchi, Alessandra (2001a). ‘The relationship between simple si conditionals and restrictive
si modo conditionals’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 227–44.
Bertocchi, Alessandra (2001b). ‘The scalar interpretation of the restrictive adverb modo’, Papers
on Grammar 7: 87–111.
Bertocchi, Alessandra (2002a). ‘Scalarity and concession: The case of quamvis’, in Lea Sawicki
and Donna Shalev (eds), 39–50.
Bertocchi, Alessandra (2002b). ‘The expression of exclusiveness by nisi’, Papers on Grammar 8:
25–42.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2003). ‘Some concessive expressions in the passage
from classical to late Latin’, in Heikki Solin et al. (eds), 459–77.
Bibliography 1253
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2008). ‘Quo plus potestis eo moderatius imperio uti
debetis. Comparative conditionals in Latin’, Papers on Grammar 10: 1–38.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2009). ‘Latin comparative correlatives and
scalarity’, in Pascale Hadermann and Olga Inkova (eds), Approches de la scalarité. Geneva:
Droz, 113–34.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2010a). ‘Concession et scalarité’, Papers on
Grammar 11: 23–44.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2010b). ‘Mid-scalar quantifiers in Latin’, in Peter
Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 193–206.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2011). ‘Conditionals and concessives’, in Philip
Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 93–193.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2012). ‘La scalarité, application à certains phénomènes
de la langue latine’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina
8 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/mirka_
sandra_scalarite_relecture_2_.pdf.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2015). ‘Scalar approximators’, in Gerd Haverling
(ed.), 518–29.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Maraldi, Mirka (2017). ‘Dumtaxat’, in Pedro Duarte et al. (eds), 223–34.
Bertocchi, Alessandra, Maraldi, Mirka and Orlandini, Anna (2010). ‘Quantification’, in Philip
Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), III.19–173.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Orlandini, Anna (1996). ‘Quelques aspects de la comparaison en
latin’, Indogermanische Forschungen 101: 195–232.
Bertocchi, Alessandra and Orlandini, Anna (2002). ‘Impossible n’est pas latin’, in Michèle Fruyt
and Claude Moussy (eds), 9–23.
Biraud, Michèle and Mellet, Sylvie (2000). ‘Les faits d’héterogénéité énonciative dans les textes
grecs et latins de l’Antiquité’, in Sylvie Mellet and Marcelle Vuillaume (eds), Le style indirect
libre et ses contextes, Chronos 5. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 9–48.
Bischoff, Bernhard (1990). Latin Palaeography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bitter, Norbert (1976). Kampfschilderungen bei Ammian. Bonn: Habelt.
Biville, Frédérique (1996). ‘Le statut linguistique des interjections en latin’, in Hannah Rosén
(ed.), 209–20.
Biville, Frédérique (2002). ‘Les modalités interjectives (Virgile, Enéide)’, in Michèle Fruyt and
Claude Moussy (eds), 275–89.
Biville, Frédérique (2003). ‘La syntaxe aux confins de la sémantique et de la phonologie: Les
interjections vues par les grammariens latins’, in Pierre Swiggers and Alfons Wouters (eds),
Syntax in Antiquity. Leuven: Peeters, 227–39.
Biville, Frédérique (2014). ‘Description du latin et métalangue au VIe siècle. Priscien, Martyrius,
Cassiodore’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 679–712.
Biville, Frédérique (2015). ‘Ad quod dicendum quod . . . Les emplois métalinguistiques et
discursifs de quod dans le discours grammatical latin’, in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 387–98.
Biville, Frédérique, Lhommé, Marie-Karine, and Vallat, Daniel (eds) (2012). Latin vulgaire–
latin tardif IX. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
Blaise, Albert (1955). Manuel du latin chrétien. Strasbourg: Le Latin Chrétien.
Blänsdorf, Jürgen (1967). Archaische Gedankengänge in den Komödien des Plautus. Wiesbaden:
Steiner.
Blänsdorf, Jürgen (1978). ‘Erzählende, argumentierende, diskursive Prosa. Versuch einer ange-
wandten Texttypologie’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft NF 4: 107–19.
1254 Bibliography
Blomgrén, Sven (1937). ‘De sermone Ammiani Marcellini quaestiones variae’. Dissertation,
Uppsala.
Blümel, Wolfgang (1979). ‘Zur historischen Morphosyntax der Verbalabstrakta im Lateinischen’,
Glotta 57: 77–125.
Bock, Bettina (2009). ‘Relativsätze mit Nebensinn in altindogermanischen Sprachen’, in
Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), 15–28.
Bodelot, Colette (1987). L’interrogation indirecte en latin. Paris: Société pour l’Information
Grammaticale.
Bodelot, Colette (1995). ‘Complétives appositives en latin: forme, sens, syntaxe’, in Dominique
Longrée (ed.), 45–58.
Bodelot, Colette (1998). ‘Si “complétif ” chez Tite-Live’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.),
169–83.
Bodelot, Colette (2000). Espaces fonctionnels de la subordination complétive en latin. Leuven:
Peeters.
Bodelot, Colette (2002a). ‘Réflexions sur la modalité à propos de ut “final” ’, in Michèle Fruyt
and Claude Moussy (eds), 249–63.
Bodelot, Colette (2002b). ‘Habeo quid . . . / habeo quod . . .: Variation libre ou originalité
conditionnée?’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 43–58.
Bodelot, Colette (2003). ‘L’interrogation indirecte’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 193–333.
Bodelot, Colette (2004). ‘Anaphore, cataphore, et corrélation: approche générale de la problé-
matique dans l’optique de la phrase complexe’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 13–25.
Bodelot, Colette (2005). ‘Interférences fonctionnelles entre relatives, complétives et circon-
stancielles’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 467–77.
Bodelot, Colette (2008). ‘Information structure and grammaticalization’, in Elena Seoane and
María José López-Conso (eds), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 231–52.
Bodelot, Colette (2010). ‘Propositions complétives entrant en séquence avec un nom ou un
syntagme nominal. Étude morphosyntaxique et sémantique’, in Olga Spevak (ed.), 163–82.
Bodelot, Colette (2011). ‘La grammaticalisation de lat. tamquam (si) + verbe fini: De l’origine
corrélative à l’emploi complétif ’, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 106: 263–91.
Bodelot, Colette (2013). ‘La grammaticalisation de si en latin de l’adverbe modal à la conjonc-
tion introduisant une subordonnée complétive’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 365–80.
Bodelot, Colette (2014a). ‘De la subordonnée circonstancielle à la subordonnée complétive: La
grammaticalisation de tamquam’, in Concepción Cabrillana and Christian Lehmann (eds),
193–210.
Bodelot, Colette (2014b). ‘Les propositions complétives dans la Chronique originale de
Frédégaire’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), I.183–203.
Bodelot, Colette (2016). ‘Retour sur les marges de la subordination complétive en latin’, Journal
of Latin Linguistics 15: 1–32.
Bodelot, Colette (2017). ‘Dico + proposition déclarative en hagiographie du IVe au XIIe s.’, in
Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 278–92.
Bodelot, Colette (2018). ‘Les subordonnées complétives déclaratives et interrogatives indi-
rectes dans un corpus italo-gaulois d’hagiographie médiolatine’, in Anne Carlier and Céline
Guillot-Barbance (eds), 323–72.
Bodelot, Colette (ed.) (2003). Les propositions complétives en latin. Grammaire fondamentale du
latin X. Leuven: Peeters.
Bibliography 1255
Bodelot, Colette (ed.) (2004). Anaphore, cataphore et corrélation en latin. Clermont-Ferrand:

Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal.
Bodelot, Colette (ed.) (2007). Éléments ‘asyntaxiques’ ou hors structure dans l’énoncé latin.
Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal.
Bodelot, Colette, Gruet-Skrabalova, Hana and Trouilleux, François (eds) (2013). Morphologie,
syntaxe et sémantique des subordonnants. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise
Pascal.
Bodelot, Colette and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2018). Les constructions à verbe support en latin.
Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise Pascal (Cahiers du LRL 7).
Bodelot, Colette and Verdier, Estelle (2011). ‘Les formules d’allocution nominales dans les tra-
gédies de Sénèque’, Corela [online], HS-8 2010 Interpellation, https://journals.openedition.
org/corela/1825.
Boegel, Theodor (1902). De nomine verbali latino quaestiones grammaticae. Leipzig: Teubner.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1976a). ‘The relation between form and meaning in Latin
subordinate clauses governed by verba dicendi’, Mnemosyne 29: 155–75; 268–300.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1976b). ‘AcI and ut clauses with verba dicendi in Latin’, Glotta 54:
263–91.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1977a). ‘De herkenbaarheid van “illokutieve funkties” in het
Latijn’, in Apophoreta Leeman. Amsterdam: Klassiek Seminarium van de Universiteit van
Amsterdam, 59–72.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1977b). ‘Syntaktische en semantische eigenschappen van komple-
menten van verba sentiendi in het Latijn: Overeenkomsten en verschillen met verba dicendi’,
Handelingen van het 31e Vlaams Filologenkongres, 112–20.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1979). ‘Subject to object raising in Latin?’, Lingua 47: 15–34.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1980a). Problems in the Description of Modal Verbs: An Investigation
of Latin. Assen: van Gorcum.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1980b). ‘De ab urbe condita konstruktie in het Latijn’, Lampas 13:
80–98.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1980c). ‘The “ab urbe condita” construction in Latin: A strange
type of Raising’, in Saskia Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands.
Amsterdam: North Holland, 83–96.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1981a). ‘Embedded predications, displacement and pseudo-
argument formation in Latin’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), Predication and
Expression in Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 63–112.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1981b). ‘Factivity as a condition on an expression rule in Latin: The
underlying representation of the “ab urbe condita” construction in Latin’, in Alide Machtelt
Bolkestein et al. (eds), Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. New York:
Academic Press, 205–33.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1983). ‘The role of discourse in syntax: Evidence from the Latin
nominativus cum infinitivo’, in Konrad Ehlich and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), Connectivity
in Discourse and Syntax. Tilburg: University Press, 111–40.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1985). ‘Cohesiveness and syntactic variation: Quantitative vs.
qualitative grammar’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein, Casper de Groot, and J. Lachlan
Mackenzie (eds), Syntax and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 1–14.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1986). ‘Zand zonder kalk: Cohesie en het proza van Seneca’,
Lampas 19: 298–308.
1256 Bibliography
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1989a). ‘Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in

Latin’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 3–35.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1989b). ‘Latin sentential complements from a Functional Grammar
perspective’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 41–52.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1990a). ‘Unreportable linguistic entities in Functional Grammar’,
in Harm Pinkster and Inge Genee (eds), Unity in Diversity. Dordrecht: Foris, 13–26.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1990b). ‘Sentential complements in Functional Grammar:
Embedded predications, propositions, utterances in Latin’, in Jan Nuyts, Alide Machtelt
Bolkestein, and Co Vet (eds), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 71–100.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1991). ‘Causally related predications and the choice between para-
taxis and hypotaxis’, in Robert G. Coleman (ed.), 427–52.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1995). ‘Functions of verb-subject order in Latin’, STUF 48: 32–43.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1996a). ‘Is qui: “et is”? On the so-called free relative connection in
Latin’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 553–66.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1996b). ‘Reported speech in Latin’, in Theo A. J. M. Janssen and
Wim van der Wurff (eds), Reported Speech. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121–39.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1996c). ‘Free but not arbitrary. “Emotive” word order in Latin?’ in
Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 7–23.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1998a). ‘Modalizing one’s message in Latin “parenthetical” verba
sentiendi’, in Charles-Marie Ternes (ed.), 23–33.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1998b). ‘Word order variation in complex noun phrases in Classical
Latin’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 185–202.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (1998c). ‘Between brackets: (some properties of) parenthetical
clauses in Latin. An investigation of the language of Cicero’s letters’, in Rodie Risselada (ed.),
1–17.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (2000). ‘Discourse organization and anaphora in Latin’, in Susan
C. Herring, Piet van Reenen, and Lene Schoesler (eds), Textual Parameters in Older
Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 107–37.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (2001). ‘Random scrambling? Constraints on discontinuity in Latin
noun phrases’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 245–58.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (2002). ‘Anaphoric ablative absolutes in Caesar’, in Lea Sawicki and
Donna Shalev (eds), 51–63.
Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt, Kroon, Caroline, Pinkster, Harm, Remmelink, H. Wim, and Risselada,
Rodie (eds) (2002). Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Bonnet, Max (1890). Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.
Boon, Pieter (1981). ‘Isoliert-emphatischer oder proleptischer Nominativ?’, Indogermanische
Bork, Hans Dieter (1990). Die lateinisch-romanischen Zusammensetzungen Nomen + Verb und
der Ursprung der romanischen Verb-Ergänzung-Komposita. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.
Bork, Hans Spencer (2018). ‘A Rough Guide to Insult in Plautus’. PhD, University of California
at Los Angeles (read at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/38z512bm).
Bortolussi, Bernard (2005). ‘Subordination seconde du relatif. Contraintes de l’emploi’, in
Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 479–92.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2007). ‘Phénomènes d’ambiguïté syntaxique dans la proposition infinitive’,
in Claude Moussy and Anna Orlandini (eds), 81–91.
Bibliography 1257
Bortolussi, Bernard (2010). ‘Si quis’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds),
221–32.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2012). ‘Évolution des indéfinis existentiels et de quisque en latin tardif ’, in
Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 309–22.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2013). ‘Latin quisque as a floating quantifier’, Journal of Latin Linguistics
12: 5–26.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2014). ‘La construction proleptique avec facere ut’, in Bernard Bortolussi
and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 113–30.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2016). ‘L’ordre des constituants en poesie: Verbe initial chez Ovide’, in
Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 603–20.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2017). ‘Topicalizations, left dislocations, and the left-periphery’, Catalan
Journal of Linguistics 16: 101–23.
Bortolussi, Bernard (2019). ‘La place du verbe dans le conte de Psyché’, in Joseph Dalbera and
Dominique Longrée (eds), 293–310.
Bortolussi, Bernard and Lecaudé, Peggy (eds) (2014). La causativité en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Bortolussi, Bernard and Sznajder, Lyliane (2001). ‘Syntaxe et interprétation de saltem’, Papers
Bortolussi, Bernard and Sznajder, Lyliane (2014). ‘Topicalization versus left-dislocation in
biblical Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 13: 163–95.
Bortolussi, Bernard and Sznajder, Lyliane (2017). ‘Les relatives substantives antéposées dans la
Vulgata: Permanence et innovations’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds),
293–308.
Brachet, Jean-Paul and Moussy, Claude (eds) (2006). Latin et langues techniques. Paris: Presses
de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Bräunlich, Alice Freda (1920). ‘The Indicative Indirect Question in Latin’. Dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Brink, Karl (later: Charles) Oscar (1944). ‘A forgotten figure of style in Tacitus’, Classical Review
58: 43–5.
Brink, Karl (later: Charles) Oscar (1969). ‘Horatian notes. Despised readings in the manu-
scripts of the Odes’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 15: 1–6.
Briscoe, John (2010). ‘The fragments of Cato’s Origines’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud
(eds), 154–60.
Brodmuehler, Peter (1914). ‘De particulis interrogativis nonnullorum scriptorum aetatis
argenteae’. Dissertation, Bonn.
Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim (eds) (1999). Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bulhart, Vinzenz (1955). ‘Ausdrucksweisen für das prädikative Verhältnis im Lateinischen’,
Wiener Studien 68: 47–64.
Burckhardt, Georgine (1935). ‘Equidem’, Philologus 90: 498–500.
Bureau, Bruno and Nicolas, Christian (eds) (1998). Moussylanea. Leuven/Paris: Peeters.
Burkard, Thorsten (2019). ‘Was heißt “Dort steht Cornelia” auf Latein?’, Gymnasium 126:
105–26.
Burkard, Thorsten and Schauer, Markus (2000). Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Burton, Philip (2000). The Old Latin Gospels. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burton, Philip (2011). ‘Christian Latin’, in James Clackson (ed.), 485–501.
1258 Bibliography
Butterfield, David J. (2008). ‘The poetic treatment of atque from Catullus to Juvenal’, Mnemosyne
61: 386–413.
Cabrillana, Concepción (1996). ‘Multifunctional analysis of word order’, in Hannah Rosén
(ed.), 377–88.
Cabrillana, Concepción (1997). ‘Partícula introductoria, negación y uso de los tiempos verbales
en las oraciones consecutivas latinas: Revisión crítica’, Moenia 3: 541–80.
Cabrillana, Concepción (1998). ‘Evolución en la consecutio temporum: La Historia Francorum’,
in Actas del II Congreso Hispánico de Latin Medieval, I. León: Universidad de León, 287–95.
Cabrillana, Concepción (1999a). ‘On the integration of Theme constituents in the predication
of Latin’, Euphrosyne 27: 417–27.
Cabrillana, Concepción (1999b). ‘Type of text, pragmatic function, and constituent order: A
comparative study of the Mulomedicina Chironis and the Peregrinatio Egeriae’, in Hubert
Petersmann and Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 319–30.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2002). ‘Caracterización sintáctica y semántica de las oraciones
comparativas condicionales en latín’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 63–80.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2004). ‘Forma lingüística y tipo de personaje en la comedia teren-
ciana’, in Antonio López Eire and Agustín Ramos (eds), 11–31.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2008). ‘Vocativo y participantes en el acto de habla en la comedia
latina y la novela de Petronio’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 69–77.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2010a). Consideración sintáctico-semántica de esse: Un estudio a
través de Livio. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2010b). ‘Praedicativum and subject complement’, in Peter Anreiter
and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 233–45.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2011). ‘Purpose and result clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi
Cuzzolin (eds), 19–92.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2017a). ‘Constituent order in directives with stative verbs in Latin’, in
Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 113–35.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2017b). ‘Léxico, semántica y cognición en el orden de constituyentes
latino’, in Jesús de la Villa, Emma Falque Rey, José Francisco González Castro, and María
José Muñoz Jiménez (eds), Conventus Classicorum: Temas y formas del Mundo Clásico.
Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos, 417–56.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2019a). ‘La dislocation à droite en latin: analyse d’une structure spéci-
fique’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 227–40.
Cabrillana, Concepción (2019b). ‘Praedicativum and subject complement: A question revisited
in light of the Latin verb sto’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 116–33.
Cabrillana, Concepción (in prep.). ‘Constituent order in constructions with praedicativum in
Latin’. Paper presented at ICLL meeting, Las Palmas (2019).
Cabrillana, Concepción and Lehmann, Christian (eds) (2014). Acta XIV Colloquii
Internationalis Linguisticae Latinae. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Calaresu, Emilia and Pieroni, Silvia (2019). ‘The diffraction of iam: Contextual effects in
interpretation’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 280–95.
Calboli, Gualtiero (1961a). ‘Osservazioni grammaticali’, in Il Liceo Torricelli nel primo centenario
della sua fondazione. Faenza: Lega.
Calboli, Gualtiero (1961b). ‘Quisquis et quisque’, Ciceroniana 2: 106–22.
Calboli, Gualtiero (1962). Studi Grammaticali. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Calboli, Gualtiero (1968). ‘I modi del verbo greco e latino 1903–66’, Lustrum 13: 405–511.
Bibliography 1259
Calboli, Gualtiero (1990). ‘Vulgärlatein und Griechisch in der Zeit Trajans’, in Gualtiero Calboli
(ed.), 23–44.
Calboli, Gualtiero (1995/6). ‘The consecutive clause in Latin’, Studi Orientali e Linguistici 6:
137–55.
Calboli, Gualtiero (2006). ‘L’emploi de la proposition relative dans les textes juridiques latins’,
in Jean-Paul Brachet and Claude Moussy (eds), 233–47.
Calboli, Gualtiero (2009). ‘Latin syntax and Greek’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
I.65–193.
Calboli, Gualtiero (2012). ‘Syntaxe nominale et subordination en latin tardif ’, in Frédérique
Biville et al. (eds), 440–51.
Calboli, Gualtiero (2014). ‘Persistence and innovation in the studies of Vulgar Latin bilingual-
ism and regional variation’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 739–63.
Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (1989). Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (1990). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) (2005). Lingua Latina (Papers on Grammar IX), 2 vols. Rome: Herder.
Callebat, Louis (1968). Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée. Caen: Faculté des
Lettres de l’Université.
Callebat, Louis (1998). Langages du roman latin. Hildesheim: Olms.
Callebat, Louis (ed.) (1995). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif IV. Hildesheim/New York: Olms-
Weidmann.
Cancik, Hubert (1979). ‘Der Text als Bild. Über optische Zeichen zur Konstitution von
Satzgruppen in antiken Texten’, in Helmut Brunner, Richard Kannicht, and Klaus Schwager
(eds), Wort und Bild. Munich: Fink, 81–100.
Carducci, Karen L. (2018). ‘The first supine in Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile: A study of
Caesar as grammarian, narrator, and exemplum’, Classical Philology 113: 404–22.
Carlier, Anne and Guillot-Barbance, Céline (eds) (2018). Latin tardif, francनais ancien:
Continuités et ruptures. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Carvalho, Paulo de and Lambert, Frédéric (eds) (2005). Structures parallèles et corrélatives en
grec et en latin. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne.
Catterall, John L. (1938). ‘Variety and inconcinnity of language in the first decade of Livy’,
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 69: 292–318.
Cavarzere, Alberto (2011). Gli arcani dell’oratore: Alcuni appunti sull’actio dei Romani. Rome:
Editrice Antenore.
Chafe, Wallace (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of
Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chausserie-Laprée, Jean-Pierre (1969). L’expression narrative chez les historiens latins. Paris: De
Boccard.
Christensen, H. (1908). ‘Que – que bei den römischen Hexametrikern (bis etwa 500 n. Chr.)’,
Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 15: 165–211.
Christol, Alain (2014). ‘La causativité chez les cuisiniers’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy
Lecaudé (eds), 131–41.
Christol, Alain and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2012). Les évolutions du latin. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Clackson, James (2004). ‘The word order pattern magna cum laude in Latin and Sabellian’, in
John H. W. Penney (ed.), 391–404.
Clackson, James (ed.) (2011). A Companion to the Latin Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
1260 Bibliography
Coleman, Kathleen M. (2010). ‘Parenthetical remarks in the Silvae’, in Eleanor Dickey and
Anna Chahoud (eds), 292–317.
Coleman, Kathleen M. (2012). ‘Bureaucratic language in the correspondence between Pliny
and Trajan’, Transactions of the American Philological Society 142: 189–238.
Coleman, Robert G. (1971). ‘The origin and development of Latin habeo + infinitive’, Classical
Quarterly 21: 215–32.
Coleman, Robert G. (1983). ‘The structure of Latin complex sentences’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.),
73–94.
Coleman, Robert G. (1989). ‘The rise and fall of absolute constructions: A Latin case history’,
in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 353–74.
Coleman, Robert G. (ed.) (1991). New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Comber, M. R. (1976). ‘Parenthesis in Tacitus’, Rheinisches Museum 119: 181–4.
Compernass, Johann (1916). ‘Vulgaria’, Glotta 8: 88–121.
Comrie, Bernard (19892). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Conso, Danièle (2006). ‘Arpentage et lexicologie’, in Jean-Paul Brachet and Claude Moussy
(eds), 279–94.
Conso, Danièle (2007). ‘Cohérence discursive et intégration syntaxique dans les notices des
Libri coloniarum’, in Gérald Purnelle and Joseph Denooz (eds), 31–42.
Conte, Gian Biagio (2016). Critical Notes on Virgil. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Copeland, Rita and Sluiter, Ineke (eds) (2009). Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric. Oxford:
Coşeriu, Eugenio (1968). ‘Coordinación latina y coordinación románica’, in Actas del III
Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Madrid: SEEC, 35–57.
Courtney, Edward (1999). Archaic Latin Prose. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.
Cova, Pier Vincenzo (1986). ‘L’ablativo assoluto nella Naturalis Historia’, in Pier Vincenzo Cova
et al., 13–142.
Cova, Pier Vincenzo, Gazich, Roberto, Manzoni, Gian Enrico, and Melzani, Graziano (1986).
Studi sulla lingua di Plinio il Vecchio, Milan: Università Cattolica.
Crawford, Michael H. (ed.) (1996). Roman Statutes, 2 vols. London: Institute of Classical Studies.
Crevels, Mily (2000). ‘Concession: A Typological Study’. Dissertation, Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Ctibor, Michal (2017a). ‘Pragmatic functions of the Latin vocative’, in Camille Denizot and
Olga Spevak (eds), 45–62.
Ctibor, Michal (2017b). ‘Paragraphs in Classical Latin texts: Problems with editing and the
internal evidence from texts’, Graeco-Latina Brunensia 22: 17–29.
Cugusi, Paolo (1983). Evoluzione e forme dell’ epistolografia latina. Rome: Herder.
Cuvigny, Hélène (ed.) (2012). DIDYMOI. Une Garnison romaine dans le désert Oriental
d’Égypte, II: Les textes. Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1994). Sull’origine della costruzione dicere quod: Aspetti sintattici e seman-
tici. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1996). ‘Some considerations on the verba accidendi’, in Alfred Bammesberger
and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 222–32.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1998). ‘Quelques remarques syntaxiques à propos de ecce’, in Benjamín
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2011). ‘Comparative and superlative’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin
(eds), 549–659.
Bibliography 1261
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2013a). ‘The Latin construction dicere quod revisited’, Graeco-Latina
Brunensia 18: 23–38.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (2013b). ‘Some remarks on quia as a subordinator after verbs of saying and
thinking’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 51–70.
Dahl, Bastian (1882). Die lateinische Partikel ut. Kristiania: Grøndahl and Søn.
Dainotti, Paolo (2015). Word Order and Expressiveness in the ‘Aeneid’. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dalbera, Joseph (2016). ‘Nunc et les deux niveaux de narration’, Pallas 106: 149–57.
Dalbera, Joseph (2019). ‘Valeurs de nunc dans l’oratio obliqua’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds),
387–9.
Dalbera, Joseph and Longrée, Dominique (eds) (2019). La langue d’Apulée dans les
Métamorphoses. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Damon, Cynthia (2015). Studies on the Text of Caesar’s Bellum civile. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Damon, Cynthia (in press). ‘On (authorial and other) parentheses in Caesar’s commentarii’.
Danckaert, Lieven (2012). Latin Embedded Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Danckaert, Lieven (2014). ‘Quidem as a marker of emphatic polarity’, Transactions of the
Philological Society 112: 97–138.
Danckaert, Lieven (2015). ‘Spelling out the obvious: Latin quidem and the expression of pre-
suppositional polarity’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16: 109–41.
D’Elia, Mario (1975). ‘Sull’uso di quod con il senso di si nel latino giuridico’, in Scritti in onore
di Giuliano Bonfante. Brescia: Paideia, I.191–204.
De Neubourg, Leo (1978). ‘Arguments supplémentaires en faveur de l’analogie dans l’ordre des
mots en latin’, Orbis 27: 352–72.
Declerck, Renaat and Reed, Susan (2001). Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Denizot, Camille and Dupraz, Emmanuel (eds) (2012). Anaphore et anaphoriques, Rouen/
Havre, Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.
Denizot, Camille and Spevak, Olga (eds) (2017). Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient
Greek. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Denooz, Joseph (2005). ‘L’interjection dans un corpus d’auteurs latins’, in Gualtiero Calboli
(ed.), 843–52.
Denooz, Joseph (2013). ‘Emploi des types de subordonnants dans un corpus latin’, in Colette
Bodelot et al. (eds), 427–44.
Deroux, Carl (1973). ‘Un problème de syntaxe: doctior ab illo’, Latomus 32: 709–19.
Deufert, Marcus (2018). Kritischer Kommentar zu Lukrezens ‘De rerum natura’. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Devine, Andrew M. and Stephens, Laurence (2006). Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning
and Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Bene, Pietro (1963). Si nisi si non: Osservazioni di lingua latina. Imola: P. Galeati.
Dickey, Eleanor (2002). Latin Forms of Address. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickey, Eleanor (2006). ‘The use of Latin sis as a Focus-marking clitic particle’, Oxford University
Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 11: 21–5.
Dickey, Eleanor (2007). Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and
Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from their
Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickey, Eleanor and Chahoud, Anna (eds) (2010). Colloquial and Literary Latin. Cambridge:
1262 Bibliography
Dik, Helma (1995). Word Order in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: Gieben.

Dik, Helma (2007). Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dik, Simon C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dionisotti, Carlotta (2007). ‘Ecce’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of
London 50: 75–91.
Dokkum, Thomas (1900). ‘De constructionis analyticae vice acc. c. inf. fungentis usu apud
Augustinum’. Dissertation, Groningen.
Domínguez, Juan F. and Martín Rodríguez, Antonio M. (1993). ‘Dare con infinitivo en latín
clásico. Puntualizaciones sobre un problema de sintaxis y de traducción (Caes. Civ. 1.6.3)’,
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 4: 9–22.
Dover, Kenneth J. (1960). Greek Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Draeger, Anton August (1878). Historische Syntax der lateinischen Sprache, 2 vols. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Draeger, Anton August (1882). Über Syntax und Stil des Tacitus. Leipzig: Teubner.
Dryer, Matthew S. (1992). ‘The Greenbergian word order correlations’, Language 68: 81–138.
Dryer, Matthew S. (2005). ‘Order of Subject, Object and Verb’, in Martin Haspelmath et al.
(eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 330–3.
Duarte, Pedro (2019). ‘L’emploi de sicut(i) dans l’Histoire naturelle de Pline l’Ancien’, in Martin
Taillade et al. (eds), 401–26.
Duarte, Pedro, Fleck, Frédérique, Lecaudé, Peggy, and Morel, Aude (eds) (2017). Histoires des
mots. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Dubreuil, Philippe (2013). Le marché aux injures à Rome. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Ducrot, Oswald and Vogt, Carlos (1979). ‘De magis à mais’, Revue de Linguistique Romane 43:
317–41.
Dunkel, George E. (2006). ‘Latin egomet and tute’, in Raffaella Bombi et al. (eds), Studi linguis-
tici in onore di Roberto Gusmani. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso, 677–92.
Dupraz, Emmanuel (2013). ‘Le grammème latin nedum: Une grammaticalisation inattendue’,
in Jacques François, Pierre Larrivée, Dominique Legallois, and Franck Neveu (eds), La lin-
guistique de la contradiction. Brussels: Peter Lang, 91–107.
Eckert, Günter (1992). Thema, Rhema und Fokus: Eine Studie zur Klassifizierung von indirekten
Fragesätzen und Relativsätzen im Lateinischen. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
Eckert, Günter (2003). Spezifizität. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
Eden, P. T. (1962). ‘Caesar’s style: Inheritance versus intelligence’, Glotta 40: 74–117.
Ehlers, W. Wolfgang (1971). ‘Regel oder Ausnahme’, Glotta 49: 144–5.
Ehrismann, Heinrich (1886). De temporum et modorum usu Ammianeo. Strasbourg: Truebner.
Elmer, Herbert C. (1887). ‘The copulative conjunctions que, et, atque in the inscriptions of the
Republic, in Terence and in Cato’, American Journal of Philology 8: 292–328.
Enghofer, Rudolf (1961). ‘Der ablativus absolutus bei Tacitus’. Dissertation, Würzburg.
Eriksson, Nils (1934). ‘Studien zu den Annalen des Tacitus’. Dissertation, Lund.
Ernout, Alfred (1929). ‘Plaute, Captivi 221’, in Donum natalicium Schrijnen. Nijmegen: Dekker
& van de Vegt, 729–34.
Ernout, Alfred and Thomas, François (19532). Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
Espinilla, Empar, Quetglas, Pere and Torrego, Esperanza (eds) (2002). La comparación en latín.
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid / Universidad de Barcelona.
Évrard, Étienne (1992). ‘Pour un inventaire raisonné de la syntaxe latine’, in Serta Leodiensia
Secunda: Mélanges publiés par les Classiques de Liège à l’occasion du 175ième anniversaire de
l’Université. Liège: 173–90.
Bibliography 1263
Évrard, Étienne (2011). ‘Encore le relatif de liaison: Remarques diachroniques’, Les Études
Classiques 79: 187–203.
Fabb, Nigel (1999). ‘Relative clauses’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), 319–24.
Fatello, Fabienne (2016). ‘Les emplois de quando dans l’Histoire romaine de Tite-Live’, Pallas
102: 171–9.
Fedriani, Chiara (2014). Experiential Constructions in Latin. Leiden: Brill.
Fedriani, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera (2013). ‘Ut ita dicam and cognates: A pragmatic account’,
Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 71–100.
Ferri, Rolando (2008). ‘Politeness in Roman comedy: Some preliminary thoughts’, Materiali e
Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 61: 15–28.
Firbas, Jan (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, Anton (1908). Die Stellung der Demonstrativa bei lateinischen Prosaikern. Tübingen:
Kommissionsverlag der J. J. Heckenhauerschen Buchhandlung.
Fleck, Frédérique (2006). ‘ “Non possum quin”: Évolution d’une construction des comédies de
Plaute à la prose d’art de Fronton et d’Apulée’, Latomus 65: 34–48.
Fleck, Frédérique (2008). Interrogation, coordination et subordination: Le latin quin. Paris:
Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.
Fleck, Frédérique (2017). ‘Nēdum: Les intermittences de la négation’, in Pedro Duarte et al.
(eds), 375–86.
Flinck-Linkomies, Edwin (1929). De ablativo absoluto quaestiones. Helsingfors: Academia
Fennica.
Flobert, Pierre (2002). ‘Le jeu des modalités dans les manuels latins par question et réponse’, in
Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 114–22.
Foerster, Richard (1902). ‘Die Casusangleichung des Relativpronomen im Lateinischen’,
Jahrbücher für classische Philologie, Supplementband 27: 170–94.
Fontana, Gonzalo (1997). Las construciones comparativas latinas: Aspectos sincrónicos y dia-
crónicos. Zaragoza: Departemento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Universidad de Zaragoza.
Forberg, Martin (1913). De salutandi formulis Plautinis et Terentianis. Weidae Thuringorum:
Thomas et Jubert.
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV (2008). Language and Rhythm in Plautus. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fraenkel, Eduard (1922). Plautinisches im Plautus. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Fraenkel, Eduard (1932). ‘Kolon und Satz: Beobachtung zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes’,
Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl.: 197–213 (= 1964,
I.73–92).
Fraenkel, Eduard (1933). ‘Kolon und Satz, II: Beobachtung zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes’,
Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl.: 319–54 (= 1964,
I.93–119).
Fraenkel, Eduard (1934). ‘Zum Interdictum utrubi’, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung 54: 312–15
(= 1964, II.479–82).
Fraenkel, Eduard (1954). ‘Urbem quam statuo vestra est’, Glotta 33: 157–9.
Fraenkel, Eduard (1956). ‘Eine Form römischer Kriegbulletins’, Eranos 54: 189–94 (= 1964:
II.69–73).
Fraenkel, Eduard (1964). Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 2 vols. Rome: Brettschneider.
Fraenkel, Eduard (1965). Noch einmal Kolon und Satz. Munich: Beck.
Fraenkel, Eduard (1966). ‘Zur “Wackelnagenschen” Stellung von hemin, humin, nobis, vobis’,
Museum Helveticum 23: 65–8.
1264 Bibliography
Fraenkel, Eduard (1968). Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e
Letteratura.
Frischer, Bernard (1983). ‘Inceptive Quoque and the introduction Medias in res in classical and
early medieval Latin literature’, Glotta 61: 236–51.
Fruyt, Michèle (1996). ‘La syntaxe de l’infinitif en latin tardif: Réflexions sur la nature des
processus évolutifs’, Recherches Augustiniennes 29: 43–73.
Fruyt, Michèle (2004). ‘La corrélation en latin: Son rôle dans la subordination et l’endophore’,
in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 29–53.
Fruyt, Michèle (2005a). ‘La corrélation et la proposition relative dans l’Itinerarium d’Égérie’, in
Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 337–52.
Fruyt, Michèle (2005b). ‘La corrélation en latin: Définition et description’, in Paolo de Carvalho
and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 17–44.
Fruyt, Michèle (2008). ‘Focalisation des pronoms personnels et des adjectifs possessifs en latin’,
in Claude Brunet (ed.), Des formes et des mots. Besançon: Presses Universitaires, 75–89.
Fruyt, Michèle (2019a). ‘Apulée et la créativité lexicale: Le suffixe -tus, -tūs’, in Joseph Dalbera
and Dominique Longrée (eds), 181–201.
Fruyt, Michèle (2019b). ‘Relatives introduites par un adverbe en latin archaïque (Caton, De
agricultura): Un chemin de grammaticalisation vers la conjonction’, in Martin Taillade et al.
(eds), 143–62.
Fruyt, Michèle (2019c). ‘Les relatives en latin perspective évolutive. Comparaison entre Caton
et Sénèque. 1ère partie: Les relatives dans Caton, De agricultura’, Revue de Linguistique
Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 19: 2–33 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonne-
universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/1-revlinglaternout_dll_19fruyt1.pdf.
Fruyt, Michèle (2019d). ‘Les relatives en latin perspective évolutive. Comparaison entre Caton
et Sénèque. 2ème partie: Les relatives dans Sénèque, Naturales quaestiones, livre 1’, Revue de
Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina [online]: 19: 34–57, http://lettres.
sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/2-revlinglaternout_dll_19fruyt2.pdf.
Fruyt, Michèle and Moussy, Claude (eds) (2002). Les modalités en latin. Paris: Presses de
l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.
Fugier, Huguette (1978). ‘Les constructions prédicatives en latin’, Glotta 56: 122–43.
Fugier, Huguette (1983a). ‘ “Recte et vera loquere”: L’adverbe complément de verbe en latin
archaïque’, Lalies 2: 41–56.
Fugier, Huguette (1983b). ‘Le syntagme nominal en latin classique’, in Wolfgang Haase (ed.),
212–69.
Fugier, Huguette (1989). ‘Quod, quia, quoniam et leurs effets textuels chez Cicéron’, in Gualtiero
Calboli (ed.), 91–119.
Fugier, Huguette (1991). ‘Nominal anaphor, text, argumentation (from Plautus to Cicero)’, in
Robert Coleman (ed.), 381–99.
Gaertner, Jan Felix (2010). ‘The style of the Bellum Hispaniense’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna
Chahoud (eds), 243–54.
Gaertner, Jan Felix and Hausburg, Bianca C. (2013). Caesar and the Bellum Alexandrinum.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Gagnér, Anders (1920). De hercle, mehercle ceterisque id genus particulis priscae poesis latinae
scaenicae. Greifswald: Abel.
Gago, María del Val (1998). ‘Distribución sintáctica entre ablativo absoluto y cum histórico en
latín’, in Actas del IX Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, III. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas,
109–15.
Bibliography 1265
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2000). ‘Reflexive and possessive pronouns in Greek and Latin inscrip-
tions of the Empire (Moesia Inferior)’, Papers on Grammar 5: 73–94.
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016a). ‘On coepi/incipio + infinitive: Some new remarks’, in James
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016b). ‘On so-called adversative nisi’, Pallas 102: 181–90.
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016c). ‘Remarks on temporal clauses and participial phrases in late
historical texts’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 651–67.
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2016d). ‘Semantische und syntaktische Beobachtungen zum adversa-
tiven Gebrauch von nisi’, Symbolae Osloenses 90: 93–121.
Galdi, Giovanbattista (2017). ‘Zum sogenannten Nominativus Absolutus im Lateinischen:
Neue Auslegungen zu einem alten Problem’, Symbolae Osloenses 91: 28–80.
Galdi, Giovanbattista and Vangaever, Jasper (2019). ‘On the use of the ablative of the gerund
and the nominative of the present participle in Latin technical literature’, in Lidewij W. van
Gils et al. (eds), 96–115.
Gallego, Julie (2012). ‘De talis à tel: Évolution d’un corrélatif consécutif ’, in Frédérique Biville
et al. (eds), 322–34.
Galli, Leonardo (2019). ‘Un presunto caso di copulativa con valore disgiuntivo in Plin. Paneg.
44.8’, Maia 71: 440–6.
Garcea, Alessandro (2003). ‘Représentation et reproduction du discours chez Cicéron’, Lalies
22: 187–200.
García de la Calera, Roberto (2008). ‘Iubeo en César y Salustio: Verbo de dos o de tres posi-
ciones’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 28: 5–15.
García de la Fuente, Olegario (1981). ‘Sobre el empleo de quod, quia, quoniam con los
verbos de “lengua y entendimiento” en Samuel-Reyes de la Vulgata’, Analecta Malacitana
4: 3–12.
García de la Fuente, Olegario (1992). ‘Sobre la colocación de los adverbios de cantidad en el
latín vulgar y el latín biblico’, in Maria Iliescu and Werner Marxgut (eds), Latin vulgaire–
latin tardif III. Tübingen: Niemeyer 143–57.
García Hernández, Benjamín (ed.) (1998). Estudios de Lingüística latina, 2 vols. Madrid:
Ediciones Clásicas.
García Leal, Alfonso and Prieto, Clara Elena (eds) (2017). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif XI.
Hildesheim: Olms Weidmann.
Gast, Volker and van der Auwera, Johan (2011). ‘Scalar additive operators in the languages of
Europe’, Language 97: 2–54.
Gather, Andreas (2001). Romanische Verb Nomen-Komposita. Tübingen: Narr.
Gavoille, Laurent (2014). ‘Imperare: Du causatif au directif ’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy
Lecaudé (eds), 199–220.
Gayno, Marise (2016). ‘Le système des participes latins et les signes avant-coureurs des change-
ments romans au VIe siècle après J.-Ch.’, in Michèle Fruyt, Gerd V. M. Haverling, and
Rosanna Sornicola (eds), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philolo-
gie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013). Section 2: Linguistique latine/linguistique romane.
Nancy: ATILF, 35–48.
Georgiewa, Nedjalka (1993/4). ‘Zu einer besonderen Art Gliedsätze im Lateinischen’, Helikon
33/34: 435–40.
Gettert, Hans (1999). Konstituenz und lateinische Syntax. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Ghiselli, Alfredo (1961). ‘Quicumque num coniunctivum admittat’, in Alfredo Ghiselli (ed.),
Varia Grammatica. Bologna: Gallo, 9–12.
1266 Bibliography
Gibert, Guillaume (2007). ‘Comparatives en ut + verba dicendi’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.),

137–57.
Gibert, Guillaume (2011). ‘La subordination comparative en latin dans les textes de prose de
Caton à Apulée’. PhD, Université Blaise Pascal—Clermont-Ferrand II (non vidi).
Gibert, Guillaume (2012). ‘Remarques à propos de la construction ut qui + subjonctif en latin’,
in Camille Denizot and Emmanuel Dupraz (eds), 126–45.
Gibert, Guillaume (2013). ‘QUOT: Un subordonnant pro-nombre repère en latin’, in Colette
Bodelot et al. (eds), 397–410.
Gillis, John Hugh (1938). The Coordinating Particles in Saints Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, and
Augustine: A Study in Latin Syntax and Style. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of
America.
Gils, Lidewij W. van (2005). ‘Causality in the narrationes of Cicero’s pro Archia, pro Milone, and
pro Rege Deiotaro’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 797–809.
Gils, Lidewij W. van, de Jong, Irene J. F., and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (eds) (2018). Textual
Strategies in Ancient War Narrative: Thermopylae, Cannae and Beyond. Leiden: Brill.
Gils, Lidewij W. van and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2018). ‘Discourse-linguistic strategies in
Livy’s account of the battle at Cannae’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 191–233.
Gils, Lidewij W. van and Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2019). ‘Engaging the audience. An intersub-
jectivity approach to the historic present in Latin’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 351–73.
Gils, Lidewij W. van, Kroon, Caroline H. M., and Risselada, Rodie (eds) (2019). Lemmata
Linguistica Latina, II: Clause and Discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gitton, Valérie (2003). ‘L’accusatif absolu dans l’Ars Veterinaria de Pelagonius’, in Heikki Solin
et al. (eds), 525–39.
Giusta, Michelangelo (1991). Il testo delle ‘Tusculane’. Turin: Casa Editrice Le Lettere.
Giusti, Giuliana and Iovino, Rossella (2015). ‘On the syntax of the Latin quantifier omnis’, in
Gerd Haverling (ed.), 314–24.
Goedegebuure, Petra (2009). ‘Focus in Hittite and the stressed pronoun apā–: In search of a
method’, in Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), 93–112.
Goldstein, David (2013). ‘The synchrony and diachrony of a scalar coordinator: Latin “let
alone” ’, Indo-European Linguistics 1: 68–106.
Golla, Georg (1935). Sprachliche Beobachtungen zum Auctor ad Herennium. Breslau: Frankes
Verlag.
Goodyear, Frank R. D. (1968). ‘Language and style in the Annals of Tacitus’, Journal of Roman
Studies 58: 22–31.
Goold, George Patrick (1965). ‘Amatoria Critica’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 69:
1–107.
Goria, Eugenio (2013). ‘Towards a taxonomy of Latin cleft clauses’, Journal of Latin Linguistics
12: 147–72.
Görler, Woldemar (1985). ‘La lingua’, Enciclopedia Virgiliana. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia
Italiana, II.262–78.
Gotoff, Harold C. (1979). Cicero’s Elegant Style: An Analysis of the ‘Pro Archia’. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Gratwick, Adrian S. (2002). ‘A matter of substance: Cato’s preface to the De agri cultura’,
Mnemosyne 55: 41–72.
Greco, Paolo (2008). ‘Accusativus cum infinitivo and quod-clauses in the first and sixth books
of the Historiae of Gregory of Tours’, in Roger Wright (ed.), 371–80.
Bibliography 1267
Greco, Paolo (2012). La complementazione frasale nelle cronache latine dell’Italia centro-
meridionale (secoli X–XII). Naples: Liguori editore.
Greco, Paolo (2013). ‘Latin accusativus cum participio: Syntactic description, evidential status,
and diachronic development’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 199–230.
Greco, Paolo (2014). ‘L’alternanza dei complementatori quod, quia e ut in dipendenza da verba
dicendi et sentiendi in alcune agiografie di epoca merovingica (VI–VII secolo)’, in Piera
Molinelli et al. (eds), 287–303.
Greco, Paolo (2018). ‘Strategie di costruzione dell’ Accusativus cum Infinitivo in latino: L’ordine
e la disposizione dei costituenti’, in Martin Glessgen, Johannes Kabatek, and Harald Völker
(eds), Repenser la variation linguistique: Actes du Colloque DIA IV à Zurich (12–14 sept.
2016). Strasbourg: ELiPhi, 215–31.
Greco, Paolo (2019). ‘Forme della subordinazione completiva nel Bellum Iugurthinum di
Sallustio’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 18 [online]:
http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/revlinglaternout_
dll_18-greco.pdf.
Greco, Paolo and Ferrari, Valentina (2019). ‘Aspetti della subordinazione a verbo finito nelle
Vulgata’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 59: 119–31.
Greenberg, Joseph Harold (1963). ‘Some universals of language with reference to the order of
meaningful elements’, in Joseph Harold Greenberg, Universals of Language. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT, 147–203.
Griend, Margreet E. van de (1989). ‘Pseudo-conditionals in Latin’, in Marius Lavency and
Griffe, Michel (1985). ‘Ut adverbe ou conjonction?’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 429–52.
Griffe, Michel (2011). ‘Les complétives à antécédent sont-elles des relatives?’, Les Études
Grover, Claire (1999). ‘Coordination’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds), 115–22.
Haase, Wolfgang (ed.) (1983). Principat (Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.29.1).
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Habinek, Thomas N. (1985a). The Colometry of Latin Prose. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Habinek, Thomas N. (1985b). ‘Prose cola and poetic word order: Observations on adjectives
and nouns in the Aeneid’, Helios 12: 51–66.
Haffter, Heinz (1934). Untersuchungen zur altlateinischen Dichtersprache. Berlin: Weidmann.
Hagendahl, Harald (1921). Studia Ammianea. Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
Hahn, E. Adelaide (1922). ‘Hendiadys: Is there such a thing? (Based on a study of Vergil)’,
Classical Weekly 15: 193–7.
Hahn, E. Adelaide (1928). ‘The ab urbe condita type of expression in Greek and English’,
Classical Journal 23: 266–74.
Hahn, E. Adelaide (1930). ‘Coordination of non-coordinate elements in Vergil’. Dissertation,
New York.
Hahn, E. Adelaide (1956). ‘A source of Vergilian hyperbaton’, Transactions of the American
Philological Association 87: 147–89.
Haida, Roman (1928). ‘Die Wortstellung in der Peregrinatio ad loca sancta’. Dissertation,
Breslau.
Hajdú, István (1999). ‘Pro consule oder proconsul’, Museum Helveticum 56: 119–27.
Håkanson, Lennart (1986). ‘Adverbs in Latin poetry’, Eranos 84: 23–56.
1268 Bibliography
Hale, William Gardner (1891). Die Cum-Konstruktionen: Ihre Geschichte und ihre Funktionen.
Leipzig: Teubner.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2003). ‘Remarks on phraseology, spoken language and language contact in
the letters of Claudius Terentianus (2nd century ad Egypt)’, in Leena Pietilä-Castrén and
Marjaana Vesterinen (eds), Grapta Poikila I. Helsinki: Suomen Ateenan-Instituutin Säätiö,
25–33.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2009). The Non-literary Latin Letters: A Study of their Syntax and Pragmatics.
Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2010). ‘Linguistic varieties and language level in Latin non-literary letters’,
in Trevor V. Evans and Dirk Obbink (eds), The Language of the Papyri. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 171–83.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2016). ‘Left-detached constructions from early Latin to late Latin’, in
James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent, 367–89.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2018). Left-dislocation in Latin: Topics and Syntax in Republican Texts. Leiden:
Brill.
Halla-aho, Hilla (2019). ‘Proleptic accusatives in Latin’, Glotta 95: 135–58.
Hand, Ferdinand G. (1829/45). Tursellinus seu de particulis Latinis commentarii, 4 vols. Leipzig:
Weidmann.
Hanson, John A. (1959). ‘Plautus as a source book of Roman religion’, Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association 90: 48–101.
Happ, Heinz (1976). Grundfragen einer Dependenzgrammatik des Lateinischen. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Harrison, Stephen (2006). ‘Some textual problems in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, in Wytze
Hette Keulen et al. (eds), Lectiones Scrupulosae. Groningen: Bakhuis, 59–67.
Haspelmath, Martin (1987). ‘Verbal noun or verbal adjective? The case of the Latin gerundive
and gerund.’ Arbeitspapier, N.F., Nr. 3, Institut für Linguistik, Universität zu Köln.
Hatz, Gottlieb (1886). Beiträge zur lateinischen Stilistik (Hendiadys in Ciceros Reden). Programm
Schweinfurt.
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew (2017). ‘Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial
adjuncts’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 99–159.
Häusler, Sabine (2000). ‘Parenthesen im Lateinischen am Beispiel der Pliniusbriefe’, Glotta 76:
202–31.
Haverling, Gerd V. M. (1988). Studies of Symmachus’ Language and Style. Göteborg: Studia
Graeca et Latina Gothoburgiensia XLIX.
Haverling, Gerd V. M. (ed.) (2015). Latin Linguistics in the Early 21st Century. Uppsala: Uppsala
Universitet.
Havers, Wilhelm (1925). ‘Der sogenannte nominativus pendens’, Indogermanische Forschungen
43: 207–57.
Hawkins, John A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
Heberlein, Friedrich (1996). ‘Über prädikative Adjektive’, in Alfred Bammesberger and
Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 354–71.
Heberlein, Friedrich (2001). ‘Zur Entwicklung des lateinischen Konsekutivsatzes’, Acta Antiqua
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41: 41–54.
Heberlein, Friedrich (2002). ‘Die lateinische Konsekutivsätze auf der Satzverbindungshierarchie’,
in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 169–82.
Bibliography 1269
Heberlein, Friedrich (2008). ‘Zeitbestimmung und Diskursorganisation: Temporalsätze bei

Vergil’, in Stefan Freund and Meinolf Vielberg (eds), Vergil und das antike Epos. Stuttgart:
Steiner, 237–58.
Heberlein, Friedrich (2011). ‘Temporal clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
235–371.
Heberlein, Friedrich (2014). ‘Das “time network” im Lateinischen’, in Concepción Cabrillana
and Christian Lehmann (eds), 271–86.
Heerdegen, Eugen Gottfried Ferdinand (1913). Das Wort vivere in phraseologischem Gebrauch
bei Horaz und im älteren Latein. Programm Erlangen.
Heffernan, Thomas J. (2012). The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Heick, Otto William (1936). ‘The Ab Urbe Condita Construction in Latin’. University of
Nebraska.
Heine, Rolf (1990). Review of Harm Pinkster: Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Franke Verlag,
Tübingen 1988, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 242: 1–14.
Helander, Hans (1977). On the Function of Abstract Nouns in Latin. Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Hellegouarc’h, Jean (1964). Le monosyllabe dans l’hexamètre latin. Paris: Klincksieck.
Helttula, Anne (1985). ‘Post depositum militiae munus’, Arctos 2: 41–56.
Helttula, Anne (1987). Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum
Fennica.
Hengst, Daniël den (2007). ‘Die Kausalkonjunktionen “quod”, “quia” und “quoniam” in der
Historia Augusta’, in Giorgio Bonamente and Hartwin Brandt (eds), Historiae Augustae
Colloquium Bambergense. Bari: Edipuglia, 165–73.
Herman, József (1957). ‘Cur, quare, quomodo: Remarques sur l’évolution des particules
d’interrogation en latin vulgaire’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 5: 369–77
(= 1990: 289–97).
Herman, József (1963). La formation du système roman des conjonctions de subordination.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Herman, József (1985). ‘La disparition de la déclinaison latine et l’évolution du syntagme
nominal’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 345–57 (= 1990: 326–37).
Herman, József (1989). ‘Accusativus cum Infinitivo et subordonnée à quod, quia en latin
tardif—nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 133–52.
Herman, József (1990). Du Latin aux langues romanes: Études de linguistique historique.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Herman, József (1991). ‘On the grammatical subject in Late Latin’, in Robert Coleman (ed.),
415–25 (= 2006: 55–64).
Herman, József (1996a). ‘Remarques sur l’histoire du futur latin—et sur la préhistoire du futur
roman’, in Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 57–70.
Herman, József (1996b). ‘À propos du si interrogatif: Évolutions achevées et évolutions blo-
quées’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 296–307 (= 2006: 65–75).
Herman, József (2000). Vulgar Latin. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Herman, József (2003). ‘Notes syntaxiques sur la langue de Trimalchion et de ses invités’, in
József Herman and Hannah Rosén (eds), 139–46.
Herman, József (2006). Du latin aux langues romanes II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
1270 Bibliography
Herman, József (ed.) (1987). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif I. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Herman, József (ed.) (1994). Linguistic Studies in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herman, József and Rosén, Hannah (eds) (2003). Petroniana. Gedenkschrift für Hubert
Petersmann. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hernández Cabrera, Tomás (2002). ‘La comparación con quam como criterio de caracteri-
zación funcional’, in Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 105–27.
Hettrich, Heinrich (1992). ‘Die Entstehung des lateinischen und griechischen AcI’, in Robert
Beekes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Jos Weitenberg (eds), Rekonstruktion und relative
Chronologie. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 221–34.
Heubner, Heinz (1964). ‘Umstrittene Tacitusstellen’, Wiener Studien 77: 138–43.
Heyde, Klaas van der (1930). ‘L’ablatif de comparaison en latin’, Revue des Études Latines 8:
230–41.
Heyworth, Stephen J. (2007). Cynthia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilton, John (1989). ‘Temporal connectors in the narrative discourse of Cicero’, in Marius
Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 173–84.
Hilton, John (1997/8). ‘The role of discourse and lexical meaning in the grammaticalisation of
temporal particles in Latin’, Glotta 74: 198–210.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus (1986). Morphosyntactic Predication: A Functional-Operational
Approach. Cologne: AKUP 62.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Schultze-Berndt, Eva (2005). Secondary Predication and
Adverbial Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoff, François (1989). ‘Les ablatifs absolus irréguliers’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 401–23.
Hoff, François (1995). ‘L’ordre des mots chez César: Les groupements Adjectif-Nom-Génitif
rares’, Lalies 15: 245–57.
Hoff, François (1996). ‘L’ordre des mots chez César: Les séquences interdites’, in Alfred
Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 372–82.
Hoff, François (2003). ‘Magnum fructum studiorum optimorum. L’ordre des mots dans les syn-
tagmes nominaux complexes en latin classique’, Lalies 23: 205–23.
Hoffmann, Maria E. (1983). ‘Conversation openings in the comedies of Plautus’, in Harm
Pinkster (ed.), 217–26.
Hoffmann, Maria E. (1989). ‘A typology of Latin theme constituents’, in Marius Lavency and
Hoffmann, Maria E. (1991). ‘Word order patterns of excipere in the sense of “to follow after” ’,
in Robert Coleman (ed.), 367–80.
Hoffmann, Roland (1999). ‘Beobachtungen zur Kategorie des Konverbs im Spätlatein’, in
Hubert Petersmann and Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 251–65.
Hoffmann, Roland (2008). ‘Causative constructions in Late Latin biblical translations’, in Roger
Wright (ed.), 160–72.
Hoffmann, Roland (2010a). ‘Latein und Griechisch in typologischen Perspektiv’, Gymnasium
117: 231–54.
Hoffmann, Roland (2010b). ‘Latin word order revisited: Information structure of Topic and
Focus’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 267–80.
Hoffmann, Roland (2013). ‘Latin adverbial subordinators from a typological point of view’, in
Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 73–92.
Hoffmann, Roland (2014). ‘Les constructions causatives dans les traductions latines des textes
hébreux et grecs: Le cas de la Vulgate de Jérôme’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé
(eds), 143–76.
Bibliography 1271
Hoffmann, Roland (2015). ‘Sentential complements of Latin function verb constructions’, in

Gerd Haverling (ed.), 362–73.
Hoffmann, Roland (2016a). ‘On causativity in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15: 33–71.
Hoffmann, Roland (2016b). ‘Latin cleft constructions, synchronically, diachronically, and
typologically reconsidered’, Pallas 102: 202–10.
Hoffmann, Roland (2018a). Lateinische Linguistik. Hamburg: Buske Verlag.
Hoffmann, Roland (2018b). ‘Criteria for describing valency in Latin function verb construc-
tions’, in Colette Bodelot and Olga Spevak (eds), 75–93.
Hofmann, Johann Baptist (1924). ‘Syntaktische Gliederungsverschiebungen im Lateinischen
infolge Erstarrung ursprünglich appositioneller Verhältnisse’, Indogermanische Forschungen
42: 75–87.
Hofmann, Johann Baptist (19513). Lateinische Umgangssprache. Heidelberg: Winter.
Holland, Gary B. (1986). ‘Nominal sentences and the origin of absolute constructions in Indo-
European’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 163–93.
Holmes, Nigel (2012). ‘Interrogative nam in Early Latin’, Mnemosyne 65: 203–18.
Honoré, Tony (1982). Ulpian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoppe, Heinrich (1903). Syntax und Stil des Tertullian. Leipzig: Teubner (= Sintassi e stile di
Tertulliano. Brescia: Paideia, 1985).
Horster, Marietta (2001). ‘Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser’. Dissertation, Cologne.
Howard, C. L. (1962). ‘An alleged type of relative clause in Latin’, Glotta 40: 307–15.
Hunink, Vincent (1995). ‘The prologue of Apuleius’ De Deo Socratis’, Mnemosyne 48: 292–312.
Hutchinson, Gregory O. (1995). ‘Rhythm, style, and meaning in Cicero’s prose’, Classical
Quarterly 45: 485–99.
Hutchinson, Gregory O. (2018). Plutarch’s Rhythmic Prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyart, Charles (1954). Les origines du style indirect latin et son emploi jusqu’à l’époque de César.
Brussels: Palais des Académies.
Iordache, Roxana (1977). ‘Relatives causales ou relatives consécutives, bref plaidoyer pour la
syntaxe historique’, in Commentationes philologicae in honorem Julio Campos. Salamanca,
253–79.
Iordache, Roxana (1985). ‘Aclaraciones en torno al ut concesivo y al origen de la subordinada
concesiva’, Helmantica 25: 225–50.
Iordache, Roxana (1992). ‘La coordination concessive en latin’, Revue de Philologie 66: 53–79.
Iordache, Roxana (2010). ‘Les propositions circonstancielles d’addition dans la langue latine’,
Živa Antika 60: 5–16.
Jaubert, Anna (ed.) (2005). Cohésion et cohérence: Études de linguistique textuelle. Paris: ENS
Éditions.
Janse, Mark (1994). ‘La loi de Wackernagel et ses extensions en latin à propos de la collocation
pronominale chez Pétrone’, TEMA 1: 107–46.
Janse, Mark (1997). Review of Adams (1994), Kratylos 42: 105–15.
Janse, Mark and Melo, Wolfgang de (2013). ‘La position des pronoms personnels enclitiques
chez Pétrone’, Latomus 72: 447–67.
Janson, Tore (1964). Latin Prose Prefaces. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Janson, Tore (1974). Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Janson, Tore (2013). ‘Vocative and the grammar of calls’, in Barbara Sonnenhauser and Patrizia
Noel Aziz Hanna (eds), Vocative! Addressing between System and Performance. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 219–34.
1272 Bibliography
Jeanjaquet, Jules (1894). Recherches sur l’origine de la conjonction ‘que’ et des formes romanes
équivalentes. Paris: Welter.
Jennings, Ray E. (1994). The Genealogy of Disjunction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jennings, Ray E. (2008). ‘Disjunction’, available online at: http://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/
archives/win2011/entries/disjunction/#Jen94.
Jocelyn, Henry David (1969). ‘Imperator Histricus’, Yale Classical Studies 21: 97–123.
Jones, Frederick (1990). ‘Cum in Livy’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 15: 37–43.
Jones, Frederick (1991). ‘Subject, topic, given and salient: Sentence-beginnings in Latin’,
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 37: 81–105.
Jones, Frederick (2000). ‘Reference in Latin’, Mnemosyne 53: 12–29.
Jones, John Carleton (1906). ‘Simul, simulac und Synonyma’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie
und Grammatik 14: 89–104; 232–52; 524–31.
Jong, Irene J. F. de (2014). Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jong, Jan R. de (1982). ‘Word order within the Latin ablative absolute construction’, in Saskia
Daalder and Marinel Gerritsen (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: North
Holland, 95–101.
Jong, Jan R. de (1983). ‘Word order within Latin noun phrases’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.), 131–41.
Jong, Jan R. de (1986). ‘Hyperbaton en informatiestructuur’, Lampas 19: 323–31.
Jong, Jan R. de (1989). ‘The position of the Latin subject’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 521–40.
Jong, Jan R. de (1996). ‘The borderline between deixis and anaphora in Latin’, in Hannah Rosén
(ed.), 499–510.
Jonge, Casper C. de (2008). Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on
Language, Linguistics and Literature. Leiden: Brill.
Jordan, Henri (1879). Kritische Beiträge zur Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache. Berlin:
Weidmann.
Kalb, Wilhelm (1888). Das Juristenlatein. Nuremberg: H. Ballhorn.
Kalb, Wilhelm (1912). Wegweiser in die römische Rechtssprache. Leipzig: Teubner.
Keeline, Thomas and Kirby, Tyler (2019). ‘Auceps syllabarum: A digital analysis of Latin prose
rhythm’, Journal of Roman Studies 109: 161–204.
Kellermann, Georg (1909). Die Wortparataxe in der Klausel des lateinischen Hexameters und
Pentameters. Kempten: Kösel.
Keydana, Götz (1997). Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Kirk, William Hamilton (1921). ‘And and Or’, American Journal of Philology 42: 1–11.
Kirk, William Hamilton (1923). ‘Ne and non’, American Journal of Philology 44: 260–73.
Kirk, William Hamilton (1938). ‘Passive verba sentiendi et dicendi with declarative infinitive’,
Classical Philology 33: 182–7.
Kiss, Sándor (2005). ‘Anaphore et coordination dans les textes latins tardifs’, in Gualtiero
Kiss, Sándor (2006). ‘Fonctionnement des connecteurs dans les chroniques latines du haut
Moyen-Âge’, in Carmen Arias (ed.), 381–5.
Kiss, Sándor (2007). ‘Étude de la cohérence textuelle dans les abrégés d’histoire romaine du IVe
siècle’, in Gérald Purnelle and Joseph Denooz (eds), 111–5.
Kiss, Sándor (2010). ‘Termes organisateurs et termes continuateurs dans quelques textes
narratifs latins’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 575–81.
Bibliography 1273
Kiss, Sándor (2016). ‘Schéma narratif et subjectivité du narrateur chez quelques historiens de
l’Antiquité tardive’, Pallas 102: 255–63.
Kiss, Sándor (2019). ‘Progression thématique et types de séquences chez quelques historiens
romains’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 339–50.
Kiss, Sándor, Mondin, Luca and Salvi, Giampaolo (eds) (2005). Latin et langues romanes
(Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Knoth, Tine W. (2006). ‘Prima positio: Et functionelt studie i saetningens første position i lat-
insk prosa’. PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen.
Kohn, Thomas D. (2012). ‘Stage directions in parenthesis in Roman epic’, Classical Quarterly 6:
766–84.
Koll, Hans-Georg (1965). ‘Zur Stellung des Verbs im spätantiken and frühmittelalterlichen
Latein’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2: 241–72.
König, Ekkehard (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles. London: Routledge.
König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter (2000). ‘Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic
relations’, in Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann (eds), Cause, Condition,
Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter, 341–60.
Kooreman, Marion (1989). ‘The historical development of the ablative of the gerund’, in Marius
Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 219–30.
Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth (1992). ‘How (not?) to end a sentence: The problem of -que’,
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94: 321–9.
Kraus, Walther (1934). ‘Ad spectatores in der römischen Komödie’, Wiener Studien 52: 66–83.
Kraz, Heinrich (1862). Über den Modus der rhetorischen Frage in der lateinischen oratio obli-
qua: Die sogenannte unwillige oder missbilligende Frage mit dem Conjunctiv, mit ut und dem
Conjunctiv, mit dem Accusativ und Infinitiv. Stuttgart.
Krisch, Thomas (1988). Zur semantischen Interpretation von absoluten Konstruktionen in
altindogermanischen Sprachen. Innsbruck: Scientia.
Kroll, Wilhelm (1914). ‘Randbemerkungen’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 69: 95–108.
Kroll, Wilhelm (1920). ‘Satzverschränkung’, Glotta 20: 101–8.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1989a). ‘Rarum dictu: The Latin second supine construction’, Glotta 67:
198–227.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1989b). ‘Causal connectors in Latin: The discourse function of nam,
enim, igitur, ergo’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 231–43.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1994). ‘Discourse connectives and discourse type: The case of Latin at’,
in József Herman (ed.), 303–17.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1995). Discourse Particles in Latin. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1998a). ‘A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers’,
Journal of Pragmatics 30: 205–23.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (1998b). ‘Discourse particles, tense, and the structure of Latin narrative
texts’, in Rodie Risselada (ed.), 37–61.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2002). ‘How to write a ghost story? A linguistic view on narrative
modes in Pliny Ep. 7.27’, in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 189–200.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2004a). ‘Latin quidem and the structure of the move’, in Henk Aertsen,
Mike Hannay, and Rod Lyall (eds), Words in Their Places: A Festschrift for J. Lachlan
Mackenzie. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 199–209.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2004b). ‘Scales of involvement and the use of Latin causal connectives’,
in Antonio López Eire and Agustín Ramos (eds), 65–86.
1274 Bibliography
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2005). The relationship between grammar and discourse: Evidence
from the Latin particle quidem’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 577–90.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2007). ‘Discourse modes and the use of tenses in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’,
in Rutger Allan and Michel Buijs (eds), The Language of Literature. Leiden: Brill, 65–92.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2009a). ‘Text structure and referential choice in narrative: The ana-
phoric use of the Latin demonstrative ille’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 23: 115–31.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2009b). ‘Latin linguistics between grammar and discourse. Units of
analysis, levels of analysis’, in Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds), 143–58.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2010). ‘Anaphoric reference and referential choice in Ovid’s
Metamorphoses’, in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 583–97.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2011). ‘Latin particles and the grammar of discourse’, in James Clackson
(ed.), 176–95.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2014). ‘Causality, coherence, and Latin connectives: A discourse prag-
matic approach’, in Aude Morel-Alizon and Jean-François Thomas (eds), 67–86.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. (2017). ‘Textual deixis and the “anchoring” use of Latin hic’, Mnemosyne
70: 585–612.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. and Risselada, Rodie (1998). ‘The discourse functions of iam’, in
Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 429–55.
Kroon, Caroline H. M. and Risselada, Rodie (2002). ‘Phasality, polarity, focality; a feature
analysis of the Latin particle iam’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 63–78.
Kruijer, Mike and la Roi, Ezra (2018). ‘Paradigmatic possibilities as perspective for absolute
constructions’, Mnemosyne 71: 799–822.
Krumbiegel, Richard (1892). De Varroniano scribendi genere quaestiones. Leipzig: Hoffmann.
Kruschwitz, Peter (2004). Römische Inschriften und Wackernagels Gesetz. Heidelberg: Winter.
Krylová, Barbora (1997). ‘Comparison between Greek and Latin consecutive clauses’, Acta
Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 15: 73–98.
Krylová, Barbora (2001). ‘Die Partikeln ergo und igitur bei Ammianus Marcellinus: ein tex-
tologischer Beitrag zur Diskussion um Ammians Sprachkompetenz’, in Gabriele Thome
and Jens Holzhausen (eds), Es hat sich viel ereignet, Gutes wie Böses: Lateinische
Geschichtsschreibung der Spät- und Nachantike. Munich: Saur, 57–79.
Krylová, Barbora (2003). ‘Ergo als Konsensus-Partikel in lateinischen narrativen Texten. Eine
Untersuchung an Prosatexten historischer Thematik von Caesar bis Sueton’, Acta Universitatis
Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 18: 63–94.
Krylová, Barbora (2006). ‘Consensus suggested and demanded: The use and role of enim and
ergo in conflict management’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina Pragensia 20:
95–107.
Kunst, Karl (1908). Die sog. relative Verschränkung und verwandte Satzfügungen in ihrem
Verhältnis zum deutschen Satzbau. Jahresbericht des k.k. Staatsgymnasiums im XIX Bezirke
von Wien für das Schuljahr 1907/1908.
Kurzová-Jedličková, Helena (1981). Der Relativsatz in den indogermanischen Sprachen.
Hamburg: Buske.
Labate, Mario (1983). ‘Et amarunt me quoque Nymphae (Ovid. Met. 3.456)’, Materiali e
Discussioni per l’Analisi dei Testi Classici 10–11: 305–18.
Ladouceur, David J. (1981). ‘Livy’s use of quamquam and the subjunctive’, Glotta 59: 142–5.
Laird, Andrew (1999). Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bibliography 1275
Lambert, André (1946). ‘Die indirekte Rede als künstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius’. Dissertation,
Zurich.
Lambertz, Thomas (1982). Ausbaumodell zu Lucien Ternière ‘Eléments de Syntaxe Structurale’.
Gerbrunn bei Würzburg: A. Lehmann.
Landgraf, Gustav (1888). ‘Substantivische Parataxen’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Grammatik 5: 161–91.
Langen, Peter (1880). Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Plautus. Leipzig: Teubner.
Langslow, David R. (2000). Medical Latin in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Langslow, David R. (2005). ‘Linguistic “highs” and “lows” in late Latin medical texts’, in Sándor
Kiss et al. (eds), 313–25.
Langslow, David R. (2012). ‘Praetor urbanus—urbanus praetor: Some aspects of attributive
adjective placement in Latin’, in Philomen Probert and Andreas Willi (eds), 279–312.
Laughton, Eric (1960). ‘Observations on the style of Varro’, Classical Quarterly 10: 1–28.
Laughton, Eric (1964). The Participle in Cicero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lausberg, Heinrich (19903). Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Lavency, Marius (1975). ‘Les valeurs de la “conjonction” cum en latin classique’, Les Études
Lavency, Marius (1976). ‘Les valeurs de la “conjonction” cum en latin classique (suite)’, Les
Études Classiques 44: 45–59.
Lavency, Marius (1986). ‘Le paradigme syntaxique de l’ablatif absolu’, in Freddy Decreus and
Carl Deroux (eds), Hommages Jozef Veremans. Brussels: Latomus, 184–91.
Lavency, Marius (1996a). ‘Is qui chez César, Guerre des Gaules, I–VII’, in Alfred Bammesberger
and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 249–67.
Lavency, Marius (1996b). ‘Rex qui fuit—rex qui esset—rex cum esset’, in Rodie Risselada et al.
(eds), 91–103.
Lavency, Marius (19972). Usus: Grammaire latine: Description du latin classique en vue de la
lecture des auteurs. Leuven: Peeters.
Lavency, Marius (1998a). La proposition relative. Grammaire fondamentale du latin V:2. Leuven:
Peeters.
Lavency, Marius (1998b). ‘Morphèmes cataphoriques et propositions relatives en latin clas-
sique’, in Yves Duhoux (ed.), Langue et langues: Hommage à Albert Maniet. Leuven: Peeters,
99–115.
Lavency, Marius (1999). ‘La période conditionnelle du latin’, Les Études Classiques 67: 361–90.
Lavency, Marius (2003). ‘Les propositions infinitives’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 97–192.
Lavency, Marius (2004). ‘Sic / ita / id cataphoriques de la proposition infinitive (A.c.I.)’, in
Colette Bodelot (ed.), 81–93.
Lavency, Marius (2005). ‘Il congiuntivo nella proposizione relativa nominalizzata’, in Gualtiero
Lavency, Marius (2011). ‘Les propositions relatives: Détermination et qualification’, Les Études
Lavency, Marius and Longrée, Dominique (eds) (1989). Actes du Ve colloque de linguistique
latine: Louvain-la-Neuve/Borzée, 31 mars–4 avril 1989. Proceedings of the Vth colloquium on
Latin linguistics. Leuven: Peeters.
Lease, Emory B. (1928). ‘The ablative absolute limited by conjunctions’, American Journal of
Philology 49: 348–53.
1276 Bibliography
Lease, Emory B. (1931). ‘Addendum’, American Journal of Philology 51: 175.

Lebek, Wolfgang Dieter (1970). Verba Prisca. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Lebreton, Jules (1901a). Caesariana syntaxis quatenus a Ciceroniana differat. Paris: Hachette.
Lebreton, Jules (1901b). Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Cicéron. Paris (= Hildesheim:
Olms, 1979).
Ledgeway, Adam (2012). From Latin to Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ledgeway, Adam (2017). ‘Late Latin verb second: The sentential word order of the Itinerarium
Egeriae’, Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16: 163–216.
Leeman, Anton Daniël (1963). Orationis Ratio, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Lehmann, Christian (1977). ‘A universal about conditional sentences’, in Milan Romportl et al.
(eds), Linguistica Generalia I: Studies in Linguistic Typology. Prague: Charles University
(Acta Universitatis Carolinae 1974, Philologica 5), 231–41.
Lehmann, Christian (1979). ‘Der Relativsatz vom Indogermanischen bis zum Italienischen.
Eine Etüde in diachronischer Typologie’, Die Sprache 25: 1–25.
Lehmann, Christian (1984). Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.
Lehmann, Christian (1986). ‘On the typology of relative clauses’, Linguistics 24: 663–80.
Lehmann, Christian (1989). ‘Latin subordination in a typological perspective’, in Gualtiero
Lehmann, Christian (2008). ‘Information structure and grammaticalization’, in Elena Seoane
and Maria José López-Couso (eds), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization,
Amsterdam, Benjamins, 207–29.
Leo, Friedrich (1896). Analecta Plautina: De figuris sermonis I. Göttingen: Dieterich (repr. in
Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Friedrich Leo: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Rome: Edizioni di Storia
e Letteratura, 1960: 71–122).
Leo, Friedrich (1906). Analecta Plautina: De figuris sermonis III. Göttingen: Dieterich
(reprinted in Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Friedrich Leo: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften. Rome:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1960: 163–84).
Léovant-Cirefice, Véronique (2000). ‘Le rôle de l’apostrophe aux Quirites dans les discours de
Cicéron addressés au peuple’, in Guy Achard and Marie Ledentu (eds), 43–55.
Letessier, Pierre (2000). ‘La salutatio chez Plaute: Adaptation ludique d’un rituel social’, Lalies
20: 151–63.
Letoublon, Françoise (1985). ‘Latin tantum, dum, tamen, quamquam. Cause, quantité, conces-
sion et restriction’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 537–55.
Leuschner, Thorsten (2008). ‘From speech-situation evocation to hypotaxis: The case of Latin
quamvis “although” ’, in Elena Seoane and María José López-Couso (eds), Theoretical and
Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 231–52.
Lilja, Saara (1965). Terms of Abuse in Roman Comedy. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Lindholm, Elmo (1931). Stilistische Studien zur Erweiterung der Satzglieder im Lateinischen.
Lund: Gleerup.
Linde, Paul (1923). ‘Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa’, Glotta 12: 153–78.
Lindskog, Claes (1896). Beiträge zur Geschichte der Satzstellung im Latein. Lund: Gleerup.
Lisón, Nicolás (2001). El orden de palabras en los grupos nominales en latín. Zaragoza:
Monografías de la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Loch, Eduard (1871). Zum Gebrauch des Imperativus bei Plautus. Programm Memel.
Löfstedt, Bengt (1966). ‘Die Konstruktion c’est lui qui l’a fait im Lateinischen’, Indogermanische
Forschungen 71: 253–77 (= 2000: 75–100).
Bibliography 1277
Löfstedt, Bengt (1976). ‘Zum spanischen Mittellatein’, Glotta 54: 117–57 (= 2000: 169–211).
Löfstedt, Bengt (1985). ‘Sprachliches zur Vulgata’, Studia Classica 23: 73–84 (= 2000: 289–301).
Löfstedt, Bengt (2000). Ausgewählte Aufsätze zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte und Philologie.
Stuttgart: Hersemann.
Löfstedt, Einar (1911). Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Löfstedt, Einar (1936). Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax. Lund:
Gleerup.
Löfstedt, Einar (19422/1933). Syntactica, 2 vols. Lund: Gleerup.
Longrée, Dominique (1989). ‘The syntactic function of the so-called Praedicativum in Classical
Latin’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 245–56.
Longrée, Dominique (1991). ‘La relative en apposition, un cas de nominalisation?’, Études
Classiques (Centre Universitaire de Luxembourg): II.77–100.
Longrée, Dominique (1995). ‘Du fonctionnement syntaxique de la construction ab urbe
condita chez Tacite’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 175–88.
Longrée, Dominique (1996a). ‘La concurrence entre “rallonge” et “parataxe” chez Tacite:
Conditionnements linguistiques, choix stylistiques’, in Hannah Rosén (ed.), 483–98.
Longrée, Dominique (1996b). ‘ “Relatives en rallonge” ou “relatifs de liaison”: L’exemple de
Tacite’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 268–81.
Longrée, Dominique (1998). ‘ “Variatio”, coordination et isofonctionnalité: L’exemple de Tacite’,
in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.), 1115–30.
Longrée, Dominique (2001). ‘Aux frontières de la coordination: Du fonctionnement des termes
“corrélatifs” chez Tacite’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 393–407.
Longrée, Dominique (2002a). ‘Verba sentiendi et modalisation de l’énoncé chez les historiens
latins’, in Michèle Fruyt and Claude Moussy (eds), 77–93.
Longrée, Dominique (2002b). ‘Sur la concurrence entre “relatifs” et “démonstratifs de liaison”
chez les historiens latins: L’exemple de Tacite’, in Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 205–17.
Longrée, Dominique (2003). ‘Une approche statistique de la concurrence entre démonstratifs
chez les historiens latins (César, Salluste,Tacite)’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 157–78.
Longrée, Dominique (2005). ‘ “Relatifs de liaison” et temps verbaux chez les historiens latins’,
in Anna Jaubert (ed.), 28–42.
Longrée, Dominique (2010). ‘Adverbes de lieu, deixis et anaphore chez les historiens latins’,
Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 3 [online]: http://
lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/longree.pdf.
Longrée, Dominique (2012). ‘ “Anaphore zéro” et identification des acteurs chez les historiens
latins’, in Camille Denizot and Emmanuel Dupraz (eds), 267–80.
Longrée, Dominique (2014). ‘Demisso capite: Ablatif absolu ou épithète détachée? Réflexions
sur la description d’un syntagme à deux constituants obligatoires’, in Concepción Cabrillana
and Christian Lehmann (eds), 361–72.
Longrée, Dominique (ed.) (1995). De usu: Études de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage à
Marius Lavency. Leuven: Peeters.
Longrée, Dominique, Philippart de Foy, Caroline and Purnelle, Gérald (2012). ‘Conditionnements
linguistiques des dislocations à gauche chez César et Tacite: L’apport du projet LatSynt’,
Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 7 [online]: http://
lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-05/prolepse_longree_
philippart_purnelle_def.pdf.
1278 Bibliography
Longrée, Dominique, Philippart de Foy, Caroline and Purnelle, Gérald (2013). ‘Dislocations
à gauche et nature des subordonnants en latin classique’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds),
445–82.
Longrée, Dominique, Philippart de Foy, Caroline and Purnelle, Gérald (2019). ‘Nature et fonc-
tionnement des syntagmes postposés dans les subordonnées latines: Étude d’un corpus
d’historiens classiques’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 241–52.
López Eire, Antonio and Ramos, Agustín (eds) (2004). Registros lingüísticos en las lenguas
clásicas. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad.
Luck, Georg (1964). Über einige Interjektionen der lateinischen Umgangssprache. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Ludewig, Antonius (1891). Quomodo Plinius maior, Seneca philosophus, Curtius Rufus,
Quintilianus, Cornelius Tacitus, Plinius Minor particula quidem usi sint. Prague: Verlag
Dominicus.
Lundström, Sven (1961). Abhinc und ante: Studien zur Geschichte der lateinischen
Zeitdifferenzbestimmungen. Lund: Gleerup.
Lundström, Sven (1964). Vermeintliche Glosseme in den Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Lundström, Sven (1982). Ein textkritisches Problem in den Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Lundström, Sven (1986). Zur Textkritik der Tusculanen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Lundström, Sven (1993). ‘Vindikationen zu Senecas Controversiae und Suasoriae’, Eranos 91:
106–19.
Luque, Jesús (2006). Puntos y comas: La grafía de la articulación del habla. Granada: Editorial
Universidad de Granada.
Luraghi, Silvia (1995). ‘The pragmatics of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European
languages’, in Pamela Downing and Michael Noonan (eds), Word Order in Discourse.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 354–86.
Luraghi, Silvia (2001). ‘The discourse function of cum with the subjunctive in narrative texts’,
in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 409–26.
Luraghi, Silvia (2016). ‘The position of weak pronouns in Latin prose’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.),
246–61.
Lussky, E. A. (1953). ‘Misapplication of the term “zeugma” ’, Classical Journal 48: 285–90.
Mack, Sara (1980). ‘ “The single supplie”: Some observations on zeugma with particular refer-
ence to Vergil’, Ramus 9: 101–11.
Magnaldi, Giuseppina (2004). Parola d’autore, parola di copista. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso.
Maiocco, Marco (2005). Absolute Participial Constructions. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso.
Malchukov, Andrej (2000). Dependency Reversal in Noun-attribute Constructions: Towards a
Typology. Munich: Lincom.
Maltby, Robert (2002). ‘Gerund and gerundive use in Isidore of Seville’, in Alide Machtelt
Bolkestein et al. (eds), 219–34.
Maltby, Robert (2006). ‘Gerunds, gerundives and their Greek equivalents in Latin Bible trans-
lations’, in Carmen Arias (ed.), 425–42.
Maltby, Robert (2016). ‘Analytic and synthetic forms of the comparative and superlative from
Early to Late Latin’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent (eds), 340–66.
Manfredini, Adriana M. (2014). ‘Tamquam mendici spolium fastidiose venditabat (Petr. 13.1):
Observaciones sobre la función, estructura y el significado de tamquam + sintagmas no
verbales’, in Piera Molinelli et al. (eds), 305–21.
Bibliography 1279
Manfredini, Adriana M. (2015a). La elipsis verbal en las estructuras comparativas en latín.

Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico.
Manfredini, Adriana M. (2015b). ‘Algo más sobre las estructuras pseudocomparativas en latín’,
in Gerd Haverling (ed.), 480–91.
Manfredini, Adriana M. (2016). ‘Auxiliaries within comparative clauses: Some remarks con-
cerning their syntax and grammatical description’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 262–75.
Manfredini, Adriana M. (2018). ‘-issim-+quam possum /quam -issim-+possum: Apuntes para
un análisis sintáctico y funcional’. Paper presented at the 25th Simposio Nacional de Estudios
Clásicos: I Congreso internacional sobre el Mundo Clásico: Migraciones, desplazamientos,
conflictos en el mundo antiguo, Buenos Aires, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras, 31 July–3 August 2018.
Mantovani, Dario (2018). Les juristes écrivains de la Rome antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Maraldi, Mirka (1998). ‘Concessive ut: Parataxis, hypotaxis and correlation’, in Benjamín
Maraldi, Mirka (2001). ‘Forms of concession in Latin’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 427–45.
Maraldi, Mirka (2002a). ‘Free-choice quantification and concession in Latin’, in Lea Sawicki
and Donna Shalev (eds), 243–53.
Maraldi, Mirka (2002b). ‘Textual concessives in Latin’, Papers on Grammar 8: 123–40.
Maraldi, Mirka and Orlandini, Anna (1998). ‘Sur la polysémie de l’expression licet’, in Bernard
Caron (ed.), Actes du XVIe Congrès International des Linguistes. Oxford (CD-Rom).
Marouzeau, Jules (1922). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, I: Les groupes nominaux. Paris:
Champion.
Marouzeau, Jules (1938). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, II: Le verbe. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Marouzeau, Jules (1947). ‘Place de la préposition’, Revue des Études Latines 25: 298–327.
Marouzeau, Jules (1949). L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine, III: Les articulations de l’énoncé.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Marouzeau, Jules (1953). L’ordre des mots en latin: Volume complémentaire. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Martin, Ronald H. (1953). ‘Variatio and the development of Tacitus’ style’, Eranos 51: 89–96.
Martín Puente, Cristina (1998a). ‘La expresión de la concesividad en latín clásico: Su análisis y
distribución sintáctica’. Dissertation, Madrid, Complutense.
Martín Puente, Cristina (1998b). ‘Etiam si y las oraciones concesivas hipotéticas en latín’, in
Martín Puente, Cristina (2001). ‘Quamquam correctivum: Sintaxis y pragmática’, in Claude
Moussy et al. (eds), 447–57.
Martín Puente, Cristina (2002). Las oraciones concesivas en la prosa clásica. Zaragoza:
Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad.
Martínez-Pais Loscertales, Felicidad (1994). ‘Análisis estructural de la coordinación copulativa
en la fábula de Amor y Psique’, Habis 24: 255–62.
Massaro, Matteo (2007). ‘Una coppia affittata: CLE 959’, in Peter Kruschwitz (ed.), Die metrischen
Inschriften der römischen Republik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 271–97.
Maurach, Gregor (1983). Enchiridion Poeticum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Maurel, Jean-Pierre (1989). ‘Subordination seconde du relatif en latin et théorie du COMP’, in
Maurel, Jean-Pierre (1995). ‘Cum ou la subordination dans tous ses états’, in Dominique
Longrée (ed.), 189–200.
1280 Bibliography
Mayen, Georg (1889). ‘De particulis quod quia quoniam quomodo ut pro acc. cum infinitivo
post verba sentiendi et declarandi positis’. Dissertation, Kiel.
Mazzanti, Alex (2020). ‘With or without ut? Full evidence of subjunctive complementation of
facio in archaic Latin’, Transactions of the Philological Society 118: 79–93.
McDevitt, Arthur S. (1967). ‘Hysteron proteron in the Aeneid’, Classical Quarterly 17: 316–21.
Mednikarova, Iveta (1997). ‘Patterns of hyperbaton in Latin prose from Cato to Bulgaranus’, in
Carl Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VIII. Brussels: Latomus,
51–84.
Meini, Linda (2004). ‘Le interrogative indirette con si in latino: Modello greco o sviluppo
autonomo’, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 42: 153–71.
Meiser, Gerhard (1998). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Melander, Johan (1916). Étude sur MAGIS et les expressions adversatives dans les langues romanes.
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Mellado, Joaquín (1998). ‘El relativo y su antecedente en latín’, in Benjamín García Hernández
(ed.), 515–28.
Mellado, Joaquín (2011). ‘La relativa en la estructura sintáctica de la frase latina’, Les Études
Mellet, Sylvie (1992). ‘Opérations de détermination, remarques sur deux indéfinis latins: quis
et aliquis’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 87: 147–59.
Mellet, Sylvie (1994). ‘Éléments pour une étude de la synonymie syntaxique: L’exemple des
conjonctions de cause’, in Claude Moussy (ed.), 203–21.
Mellet, Sylvie (1995). ‘Quando, quia, quod, quoniam: Analyse énonciative et syntaxique des
conjonctions de cause en latin’, in Dominique Longrée (ed.), 211–28.
Mellet, Sylvie (1998). ‘Ita . . . ut, sic . . . ut: Polysémie et synomymie?’, in Benjamín García
Hernández (ed.), 529–40.
Mellet, Sylvie (2002). ‘Le système de conjonctions concessives en latin classique’, in
Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 249–61.
Mellet, Sylvie (2005). ‘Ponctuation et continuité dans les textes latins: La réception des
éditeurs-traducteurs’, in Anna Jaubert (ed.), 13–28.
Mellet, Sylvie (ed.) (1987). Études de linguistique générale et de linguistique latine offertes en
hommage à Guy Serbat. Paris: Société pour l’information grammaticale.
Melo, Wolfgang D. C. de (2006). ‘If in doubt, leave it in’, Oxford University Working Papers in
Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 11: 5–20.
Melo, Wolfgang D. C. de (2007). The Early Latin Verb System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Melo, Wolfgang D. C. de (2010). ‘Possessive pronouns in Plautus’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna
Mendell, Clarence W. (1917). Latin Sentence Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Menk, Edgar Allen (1925). ‘The position of the possessive pronoun in Cicero’s Orations.’
Dissertation, Iowa.
Meo, Cesidio de (20053). Lingue tecniche del latino. Bologna: Pàtron.
Merguet, Hugo (1905/6). Handlexikon zu Cicero. Leipzig.
Merten, Wilhelm (1893). ‘De particularum copulativarum apud veteres Romanorum scriptores
usu’. Dissertation, Marburg, Friedrich.
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard (2011). ‘Die Syntax der lateinischen Dokumente des Cartulario de
San Millán de la Cogolla (759–1076) entspricht nicht den “patrones del español antiguo”.
Bibliography 1281
Methodologische Anmerkungen zu Blake (1992)’, Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 127:

1–35.
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard (2015). ‘Zwischen latín und romance: Syntaktische Variation und
Sprachwandel in den Fueros de Coria Cima-Coa (12./13. Jh.)’, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 66,
277–333.
Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard (2019). ‘Auxiliar-Konstruktionen im llatí medieval katalanischer
Urkunden (10.–13. Jh.) und in den Usatici Barchinonae / Usatges de Barcelona (12.–15. Jh.)’,
Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 135, 507–34.
Meyers, Jean (2011). ‘La proposition relative dans la traduction cicéronienne du Timée de
Platon’, Les Études Classiques 79: 227–56.
Meyers, Jean (2019). ‘La proposition relative dans le livre 5 des Métamorphoses d’Apulée’, in
Joseph Dalbera and Dominique Longrée (eds), 279–92.
Michaelis, Laura A. (1992). ‘The comparative conditional in Latin’, Proceedings of the Eighteenth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 166–79.
Michaelis, Laura A. (1994). ‘A case of constructional polysemy in Latin’, Studies in Language 18:
45–70.
Mihaileanu, Peter (1907). ‘De comprehensionibus relativis apud Ciceronem’. Dissertation,
Berlin.
Mithun, Marianne (20152). ‘Discourse and grammar’, in Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton,
and Deborah Schiffrin (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell, 9–41.
Möbitz, Otto (1923). ‘Die Stellung des Verbums in den Schriften des Apuleius’, Glotta 13:
116–26.
Molinelli, Piera (1999). ‘De + ablativo: Marca di topic in latino’, in Hubert Petersmann and
Rudolf Kettemann (eds), 277–85.
Molinelli, Piera (2001). ‘Absolute constructions in Late Latin’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds),
473–84.
Molinelli, Piera, Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Fedriani, Chiara (eds) (2014). Latin vulgaire–latin
tardif X, 3 vols. Bergamo: Bergamo University Press.
Monserrat Roig, Catalina (2010). ‘Los vocativos metafóricos en las comedias de Plauto’,
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 30: 7–26.
Morel-Alizon, Aude and Thomas, Jean-François (eds) (2014). La causalité en latin. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
Moreno Sánchez, Ana Isabel (1995). ‘Sobre el empleo de quod, quia y quoniam con los verbos
de lengua y entendimiento en las Cartas de Pablo de la Vulgata’, Analecta Malacitana 18:
75–90.
Moretti, Paola Francesca (2017). ‘The verb phrase auxiliary + infinitive: Evidence of orality in
the epistolary genre?’, in Alfonso García Leal and Clara Elena Prieto (eds), 487–503.
Moretti, Paola Francesca (2019). ‘Is it possible to identify “orality”? Verb-phrases ‘auxiliary +
infinitive’ in spoken (late) Latin’, Mnemosyne 72: 488–508.
Moure Casas, Ana Maria (2013). ‘La interjección en los grammáticos latinos’, in José A. Beltrán
et al. (eds), 137–48.
Moussy, Claude (1987). ‘Les complétives en quin, quominus et le jeu des négations’, in Sylvie
Mellet (ed.), 279–91 (= 2010: 208–20).
Moussy, Claude (1998). ‘Négation et lexique en latin’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.),
583–95 (= 2010: 221–32).
1282 Bibliography
Moussy, Claude (2010). Synonymie et antonymie en latin. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Moussy, Claude (2012). ‘Négation et lexique en latin’, Linguarum Varietas 1: 80–90.
Moussy, Claude (ed.) (1994). Les problèmes de la synonymie en latin. Paris: Presses de
l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.
Moussy, Claude, Fruyt, Michèle, and Dangel, Jaqueline (eds) (2001). De lingua Latina novae
quaestiones. Actes du Xe Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23
avril 1999. Leuven: Peeters.
Moussy, Claude and Orlandini, Anna (eds) (2007). L’ambiguïté en Grèce et à Rome: Approches
linguistiques. Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.
Muldowney, Mary Sarah (1937). Word-order in the Works of Saint Augustine. Washington,
D.C.: Catholic University.
Müller, Alexander (1990). ‘Gallia est omnis oder das Prädikativum’, Altsprachliche Unterricht
33: 60–75.
Müller, Roman (1997). Sprechen und Sprache: Dialoglinguistische Studien zu Terenz. Heidelberg:
Winter.
Müller, Rudolf Wolfgang (1962). ‘Divinus homo in dicendo’, Glotta 40: 219–54.
Müller, Rudolf Wolfgang (1964). ‘Rhetorische und syntaktische Interpunktion. Untersuchungen
zur Pausenbezeichnung im antiken Latein’. Dissertation, Tübingen.
Müller-Lancé, Johannes (1994). Absolute Konstruktionen vom Altlatein bis zum Neufranzösischen.
Tübingen: Narr.
Muñoz, Bernardo (1976). ‘La hendíadis en Virgilio’, Estudios Clásicos 77: 45–7.
Murru, Furio (1977). ‘Esiste il genitivo assoluto in latino?’, Rivista di Studi Classici 25: 368–84.
Nägelsbach, Karl Friedrich von and Müller, Iwan von (1905). Lateinische Stilistik. Nuremberg
(repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966).
Nehring, Alfons (1929). ‘Studien zur Theorie des Nebensatzes I’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 57: 118–58.
Neville, Kenneth P. R. (1901). The Case-Construction after the Comparative in Latin, Cornell
Studies in Classical Philology, no. 15. Ithaca, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company.
Nicolas, Christian (1999). ‘Autonymie et autonomie syntaxique: Le latin confronté au métalan-
gage’, Revue de Philologie, 73: 43–68.
Niemeyer, Jürgen and Krenn, Herwig (1997). ‘Zur Stellung des attributiven Adjektivs im
Lateinischen und in den romanischen Sprachen’, in Andreas Gather and Heinz Werner
(eds), Semiotische Prozesse und natürliche Sprache. Stuttgart: Steiner, 411–23.
Nikitina, Tatiana and Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew (2016). ‘Syntactic nominalization in Latin: A
case of non-canonical subject agreement’, Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 25–50.
Nisbet, Robert G. (1923). ‘Voluntas fati in Latin syntax’, American Journal of Philology 44:
27–43.
Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch (1990). ‘Cola and clausulae in Cicero’s speeches’, in Elizabeth
M. Craik (ed.), Owls to Athens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 348–59.
Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch (1999). ‘Word order in Horace’s Odes’, in James N. Adams and
Roland G. Mayer (eds), 135–54.
Nocentini, Alberto (1987). ‘L’uso dei dimostrativi nella Peregrinatio Egeriae e la genesi dell’
articolo romanzo’, in Atti del convegno internazionale sulla Peregrinatio Egeriae. Arezzo:
Accademia Petrarca, 137–58.
Nølke, Henning, Fløttum, Kjersti, and Norén, Coco (2004). Scapoline: La théorie scandinave de
la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Éditions Kimé.
Bibliography 1283
Norberg, Dag (1937). In registrum Gregorii Magni studia critica. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Norberg, Dag (1943). Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen
Mittellateins. Uppsala: A.B. Lundeqvistka Bokhandeln / Leipzig: O. Harassowitz.
Norberg, Dag (1944). Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Norberg, Dag (1945). ‘Faire faire quelque chose à quelqu’un. Recherches sur l’origine latine de
la construction romane’, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 2: 65–106.
Núñez, Salvador (1991). Semántica de la modalidad en latín. Granada: Ediciones de la
Universidad de Granada.
Núñez, Salvador (1996). ‘Semántica y pragmática de los enunciados condicionales en latín’, in
Ana Agud et al. (eds), 257–70.
Núñez, Salvador (1998). ‘Habere + participio de perfecto y la categoría de la anterioridad en
latín y en las lenguas románicas’, in Actas del IX Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos III.
Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 199–203.
Núñez, Salvador (2002). ‘El ecuativo latino con atque: ¿Extensión o reanálisis?’, in Empar
Espinilla et al. (eds), 149–70.
Nuti, Andrea (2019). ‘Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: Sapir’s typology and different
perspectives on totality’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 219–40.
Nutting, Herbert C. (1916). ‘Hysteron proteron’, The Classical Journal 11: 298–301.
Nutting, Herbert C. (1920). ‘The ablative as an appositive’, Classical Philology 15: 389–92.
Nutting, Herbert C. (1925). The Latin Conditional Sentence. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Nutting, Herbert C. (1928). ‘The utor fruor group’, University of California Publications in
Classical Philology 10: 1–16; 17–36; 37–62; 63–150; 151–68.
Oberhelman, Steven M. (2003). Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First
Century B.C. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen.
Odelman, Eva (1972). ‘Études sur quelques reflets du style administratif chez César’. Dissertation,
Stockholm.
Odelstierna, Ingrid (1926). De vi futurali ac finali gerundii et gerundivi Latini observationes.
Accedunt de verbo imputandi adnotationes. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Olivera, Mari Cruz (1990). ‘Sobre el uso de quod, quia, quoniam con los verbos de lengua y
entendimiento en el Evangelio de Juan de la Vulgata’, Analecta Malacitana 13: 375–82.
Önnerfors, Alf (1956). Pliniana: In Plinii Maioris Naturalem Historiam studia grammatica,
semantica, critica. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Opelt, Ilona (1964). Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Orinsky, Kurt (1923). ‘Die Wortstellung bei Gaius’, Glotta 12: 83–99.
Orlandi, Giovanni (1994). ‘Le statistiche sulle clausole della prosa’, Filologia Mediolatina 6:
1–35.
Orlandi, Giovanni (2005). ‘Metrical and rhythmical clausulae in Medieval Latin prose: Some
aspects and problems’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds), 395–412.
Orlandini, Anna M. (1993). ‘Le rôle du locuteur dans l’interprétation des systèmes hypothé-
tiques: Une analyse sémantico-pragmatique des systèmes hypothétiques en latin et grec’,
Indogermanische Forschungen 98: 130–54.
Orlandini, Anna M. (1994). ‘De l’oratio obliqua comme papier de tournesol; une analyse
pragmatique d’un phénomène du discours indirect en latin: Le changement des modes’,
Indogermanische Forschungen 99: 130–54.
1284 Bibliography
Orlandini, Anna M. (1995). ‘De la connexion: Une analyse pragmatique des connecteurs latins
atqui et immo’, Lalies 15: 259–69.
Orlandini, Anna M. (1999a). ‘De la connexion: Une analyse pragmatique des connecteurs
latins autem et ceterum’, Indogermanische Forschungen 104: 142–63.
Orlandini, Anna M. (1999b). ‘Tamen. L’argumentation par ré-formulation rectifiante’, Lalies 19:
199–208.
Orlandini, Anna M. (2000). ‘Les pronoms indéfinis et la négation’, Papers on Grammar 5:
151–78.
Orlandini, Anna M. (2001). Négation et argumentation en latin. Leuven: Peeters.
Orlandini, Anna M. (2002a). ‘Les emplois adverbiaux de nisi: Une approche discursive’, in Lea
Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 277–86.
Orlandini, Anna M. (2002b). ‘Pour une pragmatique des propositions circonstancielles en
“sans que” en latin’, Papers on Grammar 8: 159–84.
Orlandini, Anna M. (2003). ‘Les complétives en ne, quin, quominus’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.),
482–527.
Orlandini, Anna M. (2005). ‘Fonctions adverbiales dans des structures corrélatives en latin’, in
Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 159–80.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2007). ‘Il y a nec et nec: Trois valeurs de la négation en
latin et dans les langues de l’Italie ancienne’, in Franck Floricic (ed.), La négation dans les
langues romanes. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 29–47.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2008). ‘Les relations sémantiques entre la coordination
connective, adversative et disjonctive en latin et dans les langues de l’Italie ancienne’, Papers
on Grammar 10: 179–203.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2009). ‘Corrélation, coordination et comparaison en
latin et dans les langues italiques’, Langages 174.2.53–66.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2010). ‘Magis quantitativum et magis correctivum’, Papers
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2016). ‘Nuovi percorsi oltre il ciclo di Jespersen: L’apporto
del latino’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 410–29.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2018). ‘La comparazione detta “epistemica” in latino’, in
Jesús de la Villa and Anna Pompei (eds), Classical Languages and Linguistics. Madrid: UAM
Ediciones, 143–58.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2019a). ‘Les parcours sémantiques vers l’adversatif: Une
approche typologique des langues anciennes’, in Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 259–79.
Orlandini, Anna and Poccetti, Paolo (2019b). ‘Entre corrélation, coordination et subordination:
Quand cum et nisi se rejoignent’, in Martin Taillade et al. (eds), 203–13.
Ortoleva, Vincenzo (2012). ‘Palladio III,30: Un autentico caso di nominativus pendens?’, in
Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 235–52.
Otto, Clemens (1912). ‘De epexegeseos in Latinorum scriptis usu’. Dissertation, Münster.
Palmén, Erkki (1958). ‘Die lateinischen pronominalen Ortsadverbien in Kasusbedeutung’,
Arctos n.s. 2: 104–42.
Panagl, Oswald (2005). ‘Linguistisches und Stilistisches zum Hendiadyoin’, in Gualtiero Calboli
(ed.), 877–84.
Panagl, Oswald and Krisch, Thomas (eds) (1992). Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des
Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.–26. September 1986. Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Bibliography 1285
Panchón, Federico (1986). ‘Orden de palabras en latín’, Studia Zamorensia 7: 213–29.

Panchón, Federico (2003). ‘Les complétives en ut’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 335–481.
Panchón, Federico (2007). ‘Ut sans valeur transitive’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 161–78.
Panchón, Federico (2011). ‘Relatives au subjonctif avec prédicat factif en latin’, Les Études
Panchón, Federico (2012). ‘Le grammème id dans la relative parenthétique id quod’, in Camille
Denizot and Emmanuel Dupraz (eds), 169–208.
Panchón, Federico (2013). ‘Le morphème uti: Étymologie et emploi, spécialement chez Salluste
et Lucrèce’, in Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 463–76.
Panhuis, Dirk G. J. (1980). ‘Gapping in Latin’, The Classical Journal 75: 229–41.
Panhuis, Dirk G. J. (1981). ‘Word order, genre, adstratum: The place of the verb in Caesar’s
topographical excursus’, Glotta 59: 295–308.
Panhuis, Dirk G. J. (1982). The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study in Latin
Word Order. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Panico, Maria (2001). ‘La digressio nella tradizione retorico-grammaticale’, Bollettino di Studi
Latini 31: 478–96.
Parkes, Malcolm Beckwith (1992). Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of
Punctuation in the West. Aldershot: Scolar Press.
Parzinger, Peter (1910). Beiträge zur Erkenntnis der Entwicklung des Ciceronischen Stils.
Landsut: J. Thomann.
Pascucci, Giovanni (1961). ‘Nedum’, Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica 33: 127–53.
Pascucci, Giovanni (1968). ‘Aspetti del latino giuridico’, Studi italiani di filologia classica 40:
3–43.
Pasoli, Elio (1957). In Properti Monobiblon Commentationes. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Pasoli, Elio (1962). ‘De quodam particulae itaque usu peculiari’, Latinitas 10: 100–6.
Pasoli, Elio (1963). ‘Cicerone Rep. 1.16’, Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 91: 46–51.
Pasoli, Elio (19662). Saggi di grammatica latina. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Pausch, Dennis (2011). Livius und der Leser: narrative Strukturen in Ab urbe condita (Zetemata
140). Munich: Beck.
Pennell Ross, Deborah (1987). ‘The order of words in Latin subordinate clauses’. PhD, The
University of Michigan.
Pennell Ross, Deborah (1991). ‘The role of displacement in narrative prose’, in Robert Coleman
(ed.), 453–66.
Pennell Ross, Deborah (1996). ‘Anaphors and antecedents in narrative text’, in Hannah Rosén
(ed.), 511–23.
Penney, John H. W. (1999). ‘Archaism and innovation in poetic syntax’, in James N. Adams and
Roland G. Mayer (eds), 249–68.
Penney, John H. W. (2005). ‘Connections in archaic Latin prose’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al.
(eds), 37–51.
Penney, John H. W. (ed.) (2004). Indo-European Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perdicoyanni-Paléologou, Hélène (2002). ‘Les emplois de ecce, eccum, eccistum, eccillum chez
Plaute’, Faventia 28: 41–52.
Perrochat, Paul (1932a). L’infinitif de narration en latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Perrochat, Paul (1932b). Recherches sur la valeur et l’emploi de l’infinitif subordonné en latin.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Perutelli, Alessandro (2004). Prolegomeni a Sisenna. Pisa: ETS.
1286 Bibliography
Petersmann, Hubert (1977). Petrons urbane Prosa: Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text
(Syntax). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Petersmann, Hubert and Kettemann, Rudolf (eds) (1999). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif V.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Petersen, Lauren Hackworth (2003). ‘The baker, his tomb, his wife, and her breadbasket: The
monument of Eurysaces in Rome’, The Art Bulletin 85: 230–57.
Pettersson, Oscar (1930). ‘Commentationes Livianae’. Dissertation, Uppsala.
Pezzini, Giuseppe (2005). Terence and the Verb ‘To Be’ in Latin. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pfister, Raimund (1995). ‘Der Nebensatz, Ein Fachwort ohne Randschärfe’, in Dominique
Longrée (ed.), 237–46.
Pieroni, Silvia (2010). ‘Deixis and anaphora’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
III.389–501.
Pinkster, Harm (1969). ‘A B and C coordination in Latin’, Mnemosyne 22: 258–67.
Pinkster, Harm (1972). On Latin Adverbs. Amsterdam: North-Holland (reprint on demand
from Amsterdam University Press).
Pinkster, Harm (1983). ‘Praedicativum’, in Harm Pinkster (ed.), 199–217.
Pinkster, Harm (1987). ‘The pragmatic motivation for the use of subject pronouns: The case of
Petronius’, in Sylvie Mellet (ed.), 193–223.
Pinkster, Harm (1990). ‘La coordination’, L’Information Grammaticale 46: 8–13.
Pinkster, Harm (1991a). ‘Praedicativum’, in Christian Touratier (ed.), 72–8.
Pinkster, Harm (1991b). ‘Evidence for SVO in Latin?’, in Roger Wright (ed.), Latin and the
Romance Languages in the early Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 69–82.
Pinkster, Harm (1992). ‘Notes on the syntax of Celsus’, Mnemosyne 45: 513–24.
Pinkster, Harm (1993). ‘Chronologie et cohérence de quelques évolutions latines et romanes’,
in Gerold Hilty (ed.), Actes du XXe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes.
Tübingen: Francke, III: 239–50.
Pinkster, Harm (1995). ‘Word order in the Late Latin Gesta conventus carthaginiensis’, in Louis
Callebat (ed.), 549–60.
Pinkster, Harm (2004a). ‘Luce . . . ac palam (Amm. 24.4.21): Een geval van hyperbaton?’, Lampas
37: 216–21.
Pinkster, Harm (2004b). ‘Attitudinal and illocutionary satellites in Latin’, in Henk Aertsen, Mike
Hannay, and Rod Lyall (eds), Words in Their Places: A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie.
Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 191–8.
Pinkster, Harm (2005). ‘The language of Pliny the Elder’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al. (eds),
239–56.
Pinkster, Harm (2009). ‘De Latijnse voegwoorden quia en quoniam (en Nederlands aangezien)’,
in Egbert Beijk et al. (eds), Fons Verborum: Feestbundel Fons Moerdijk. Leiden: INL, 313–20.
Pinkster, Harm (2010a). ‘The use of quia and quoniam in Cicero, Seneca, and Tertullian’, in
D. Richard Page and Aaron D. Rubin (eds), Studies in Classical Linguistics in Honor of Philip
Baldi. Leiden: Brill, 81–95.
Pinkster, Harm (2010b). ‘Notes on the language of Marcus Caelius Rufus’, in Eleanor Dickey
and Anna Chahoud (eds), 186–202.
Pinkster, Harm (2015). ‘Een nieuwe syntaxis voor een dode taal?’, Lampas 48: 168–87.
Pinkster, Harm (2020). ‘Evidence for word order change in Latin OV>VO?’, in Rosario López
Gregoris, Antonio M.ª Martín Rodríguez, Carmen González Vázquez, and Luis Unceta
Bibliography 1287
(eds), Estudios lingüísticos en homenaje al profesor Benjamín García-Hernández. Madrid:

Ediciones de la UAM.
Pinkster, Harm (ed.) (1983). Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Poccetti, Paolo (2010). ‘Greeting and farewell expressions as evidence for colloquial language:
Between literary and epigraphical texts’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna Chahoud (eds),
100–26.
Poccetti, Paolo (ed.) (2016). Latinitatis Rationes. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Poccetti, Paolo (ed.) (2017). ‘Oratio obliqua’: Strategies of Reported Speech in Ancient Languages.
Ricerche sulle lingue di frammentaria attestazione 9. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra editore.
Poirier, Michel (1996). ‘Dum ( jusqu’au moment où) = dum non (tant que . . . ne . . . pas). Ce
paradoxe se vérifie-t-il?’, in Alfred Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds), 322–36.
Poirier, Michel (1998). ‘Dum, donec, quoad, suite et extension de la recherche présentée au
précédent colloque: Le témoignage d’Ovide et de Tacite’, in Benjamín García Hernández
(ed.), 641–57.
Poirier, Michel (2001). ‘Dum, donec, quoad en latin tardif et patristique: La mutation d’un sys-
tème’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 553–68.
Poirier, Michel (2009). ‘Dum, donec, quoad, du latin classique au latin tardif: La mutation d’un
système syntaxique’, Latomus 68: 351–72.
Poirier, Michel (2012). ‘Regards sur la mutation des emplois de dum, donec, quoad: Comment
a pu se faire l’évolution du système’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 325–33.
Polo, Chiara (2004). Word Order between Morphology and Syntax. Padua: Unipress.
Pompei, Anna (2011a). ‘De la classification typologique des phrases relatives en latin classique’,
Emerita 79: 55–82.
Pompei, Anna (2011b). ‘Typologie des constructions relatives en latin’, Les Études Classiques
79: 65–91.
Pompei, Anna (2011c). ‘Relative clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
427–547.
Possanza, D. Mark (2008). ‘Quippe ubi in Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 1.167–8 and 4.925–8’,
Classical Review 58: 692–8.
Potůček, Petr (2000). ‘Some syntactic and textual aspects of existence, possibility and occur-
rence in Latin’, Listy Filologické 123: 1–11.
Powell, Jonathan G. F. (2005). ‘Cicero’s adaptation of legal Latin’, in Tobias Reinhardt et al.
(eds), 117–50.
Powell, Jonathan G. F. (2010). ‘Hyperbaton and register in Cicero’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna
Preuss, Siegmund (1881). De bimembris dissoluti apud scriptores Romanos usu solemni.
Edenkoben.
Prévost, Sophie (2018). ‘Increase of pronominal subjects in Latin evidence for a starting-point
in Late Latin’, in Anne Carlier and Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds), 171–200.
Priess, Hubert Hermann (1909). ‘Usum adverbii quatenus fugerint poetae Latini quidam
dactylici’. Dissertation. Marburg.
Probert, Philomen (2015). Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Probert, Philomen and Dickey, Eleanor (2016). ‘Six notes on Latin correlatives’, in James
Probert, Philomen and Willi, Andreas (eds) (2012). Laws and Rules in Indo-European. Oxford:
1288 Bibliography
Pultrová, Lucie (2018). ‘Periphrastic comparison in Latin’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 17:
93–110.
Purnelle, Gérald (1998). ‘Une étude diachronique de la syntaxe de licet’, in Benjamín García
Purnelle, Gérald (2001). ‘Licet et subjonctif, verbe ou conjonction? Seconde enquête’, in Claude
Moussy et al. (eds) 569–82.
Purnelle, Gérald and Denooz, Joseph (eds) (2007). Ordre et cohérence en latin, Biblothèque de
la Faculté de philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège CCXCIII. Geneva: Droz.
Questa, Cesare (2007). La Metrica di Plauto e Terenzio. Urbino: QuattroVenti.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Radatz, Hans-Ingo (2001). Die Semantik der Adjektivstellung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Raible, Wolfgang (1993). ‘Die Entwicklung ideographischer Elemente bei der Verschriftlichung
des Wissens’, in Wolfgang Kullmann and Jochen Althoff (eds), Vermittlung und Tradierung
von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur. Tübingen: Narr, 15–37.
Ramírez de Verger, Antonio (2011). ‘Quoque in Ovid, Met. 6.27’, Philologus 155: 383–6.
Raviolo, Francesca (2002). ‘Elementi di latino volgare nei sermoni 1–5 di Agostino’, Orpheus
23: 90–104.
Reggio, Grazia (2005). ‘Relative clauses in juridical Latin’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 653–61.
Reggio, Grazia (2006). ‘Quelques considérations sur la syntaxe dans les Digesta d’Alvénus
Varus’, in Jean-Paul Brachet and Claude Moussy (eds), 251–62.
Reinhardt, Tobias (2010). ‘Syntactic colloquialism in Lucretius’, in Eleanor Dickey and Anna
Reinhardt, Tobias, Lapidge, Michael, and Adams, James N. (eds) (2005). Aspects of the Language
of Latin Prose, Proceedings of the British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Revuelta, Antonio (1999). ‘Focusing particles in Latin. Some remarks’, in Benjamín García
Revuelta, Antonio (2002). ‘Oraciones comparativas de igualdad: Niveles de integración’, in
Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 191–228.
Reynolds, Suzanne (1996). Medieval Reading: Grammar, Rhetoric and the Classical Text.
Richmond, John A. (1965). ‘A note on elision of final ĕ in certain particles used by Latin poets’,
Glotta 43: 78–103.
Richter, Elise (1903). Zur Entwicklung der romanischen Wortstellung aus der lateinischen. Halle:
Niemeyer.
Ricottilli, Licinia (1978). ‘Quid tu? Quid vos?’ Materiali e Discussioni 1: 215–21.
Rieken, Elisabeth and Widmer, Paul (eds) (2009). Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion
und Diachronie. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Riemann, Othon (1885). Études sur la langue et la grammaire de Tite-Live. Paris: Thorin.
Ripoll, Arthur (2012). ‘Le changement invisible ou “que tout reste identique pour que tout
change” ’, in Alain Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 299–323.
Riquelme, José (2005). ‘El participio concertado regente de aditamentación sintáctica en
Annales I de Tácito: Variedad de construcciones’, Faventia 27: 25–46.
Risselada, Rodie (1984). ‘Coordination and juxtaposition of adjectives in the Latin NP’, Glotta
62: 202–31.
Risselada, Rodie (1989). ‘Latin illocutionary parentheticals’, in Marius Lavency and Dominique
Longrée (eds), 367–78.
Bibliography 1289
Risselada, Rodie (1994). ‘Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives’, in
József Herman (ed.), 319–42.
Risselada, Rodie (1998a). ‘The discourse functions of sane: Latin marker of agreement in
description, interaction and concession’, Journal of Pragmatics 30: 225–44.
Risselada, Rodie (1998b). ‘Tandem and postremo: Two of a kind?’, in Rodie Risselada (ed.),
85–116.
Risselada, Rodie (1998c). ‘Nunc’s use as a discourse marker of “cohesive” shifts’, in Charles-
Marie Ternes (ed.), 142–59.
Risselada, Rodie (2016). ‘The pragmatics of “at least”: saltem, utique, dumtaxat, certe’, Pallas
102: 191–9.
Risselada, Rodie (ed.) (1998). Latin in Use (Amsterdam Studies in the Pragmatics of Latin).
Amsterdam: Gieben.
Risselada, Rodie, Jong, Jan R. de, and Bolkestein, Alide Machtelt (eds) (1996). On Latin:
Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Harm Pinkster. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Roby, Henry J. (1882). A Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius, 2 vols.
London: Macmillan.
Roca, María José (1997). ‘Quod, quia, quoniam en Amiano Marcelino’, Fortunatae 9: 237–51.
Roca, María José (2001). La subordinación completiva en latín tardío: La extensión de las
subordinadas conjuncionales (QVOD, QVIA, QVONIAM, EO QVOD). Santa Cruz de
Tenerife: Universidad de La Laguna.
Rochette, Bruno (2007). ‘Éléments hors structure dans la Cena Trimalchionis (26.7–78.8):
Remarques sur la structure de la phrase de Pétrone’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 265–94.
Rodríguez Martín, V. E. (1993). ‘Quod, quia, quoniam en las Epístolas católicas de la Vulgata:
Su uso con los verbos de lengua y entendimiento’, Analecta Malacitana 16: 43–8.
Roegiest, Eugeen (1983). ‘Do tibi aquam bibere: À propos d’une construction infinitive dans les
langues Romanes’, Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 99: 267–87.
Roesch, Sophie (2002). ‘Les stratégies de clôture du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute’, in
Alide Machtelt Bolkestein et al. (eds), 317–32.
Roesch, Sophie (2005). ‘L’échec des clôtures du dialogue dans les comédies de Plaute’, in
Roesch, Sophie (2008). ‘Les débuts de dialogue dans la comédie et la tragédie latines’, in
Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicolas (eds), Commencer et finir. Lyon: Collection du CRGR,
207–22.
Rohde, Dietrich (1884). Adjectivum quo ordine apud Caesarem et in Ciceronis orationibus
coniunctum sit cum substantivo. Programm Hamburg.
Rohde, Dietrich (1887). Adjectivum quo ordine apud Sallustium coniunctum sit cum substantivo.
Programm Hamburg.
Ros, Hilke (2001). ‘Binding Theory and Valency Grammar in Latin’, Glotta 77: 244–61.
Ros, Hilke (2005). ‘Gratias agere quod: Causal or complement clause’, Mnemosyne 58: 416–23.
Roschatt, Alois (1885). ‘Ueber den Gebrauch der Parenthesen in Ciceros Reden und rhetorischen
Schriften’, Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlangensis 3: 189–244.
Rosén, Hannah (1981). Studies in the Syntax of the Verbal Noun in Early Latin. Munich:
Fink.
Rosén, Hannah (1983). ‘The mechanisms of Latin nominalization and conceptualization in
historical view’, in Wolfgang Haase (ed.), 178–211.
Rosén, Hannah (1989a). ‘General subordinators and sentence complements’, in Gualtiero
Calboli (ed.), 197–217.
1290 Bibliography
Rosén, Hannah (1989b). ‘The use and function of sentential particles in Classical Latin’, in
Marius Lavency and Dominique Longrée (eds), 391–402.
Rosén, Hannah (1990). ‘La coordination asymmétrique comme critère de fonction syntaxique
en latin’, L’Information Grammaticale 46: 34–7.
Rosén, Hannah (1992). ‘Die Arten der Prolepse im Lateinischen in typologischer Sicht’, in
Oswald Panagl and Thomas Krisch (eds), 243–62.
Rosén, Hannah (1993). ‘Demum: A message-articulating particle’, in Jan de Clercq and Piet
Desmet (eds), Florilegium historiographiae linguisticae (= CILL 75). Leuven: Peeters,
173–84.
Rosén, Hannah (1994). ‘The definite article in the making’, in József Herman (ed.), 129–50.
Rosén, Hannah (1996). ‘ “Eam vitam vivere quae est sola vita nominanda”. Reflections on
cognate complements’, in Rodie Risselada et al. (eds), 127–49.
Rosén, Hannah (1998). ‘Latin presentational sentences’, in Benjamín García Hernández (ed.),
723–42.
Rosén, Hannah (1999). Latine loqui: Trends and Directions in the Crystalization of Classical
Latin. Munich: Fink.
Rosén, Hannah (2003). ‘Immo—its atypical use in Petronius’, in József Herman and Hannah
Rosén (eds), 169–81.
Rosén, Hannah (2005). ‘Particles—Hypercharacterization and status shift in Latin and
Romance’, in Sándor Kiss et al. (eds), 227–36.
Rosén, Hannah (2007a). ‘La mise en relief par apodose aux subordonnées en si . . ., qu . . .,
quando . . ., et sim.’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 75–90.
Rosén, Hannah (2007b). ‘On particles and otiose emendations: Epitactic sed’, in Juhani Härmä,
Elina Suomela-Härmä, and Olli Välikangas (eds), L’art de la philologie, Mémoires de la
Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 70: 231–8.
Rosén, Hannah (2008). ‘Latin epitaxis in historical and typological view’, Papers on Grammar
10: 205–42.
Rosén, Hannah (2009). ‘Coherence, sentence modification, and sentence-part modification—
the contribution of particles’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 317–441.
Rosén, Hannah (2011). ‘Zeroing in on Latin asyndesis’, STUF 54: 136–47.
Rosén, Hannah (2013). ‘About non-direct discourse: Another look at its parameters in Latin’,
Journal of Latin Linguistics 12: 231–68.
Rosén, Hannah (2015). ‘Le continuum des discours rapportés en latin: Du discours indirect
vers le discours direct’, Revue de Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua
Latina 10: 1–33 [online]: http://lettres.sorbonne-universite.fr/sites/default/files/media/2020-
05/dll_10_h-rosen.pdf.
Rosén, Hannah (ed.) (1996). Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium
on Latin Linguistics. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Rosén, Hannah and Shalev, Donna (2017). ‘Quasi: Its Grecizing (?) syntactic patterns’, Pallas
103: 273–82.
Roveri, Alessandro (1959). ‘Osservazioni sull’uso di potius (citius, prius) quam ut in Cicerone’,
in Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani. Rome: Centro di studi ciceroniani,
II.423–32.
Rubio, Gonzalo (2009). ‘Semitic influence in the history of Latin syntax’, in Philip Baldi and
Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 195–239.
Ruggiero, Ettore de (1956). Dizionario epigrafico di antichità Romane, 3 vols. Rome: L. Pasqualucci
(repr. Rome: l’Erma di Brettschneider).
Bibliography 1291
Ruiz Castellanos, Antonio (2005). ‘Los capítulos como unidades textuales. Enunciados temáticos
+ quippe en Veleyo Patérculo, H.R. 2,1–57’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 933–42.
Saastamoinen, Ari (2010). The Phraseology of Latin Building Inscriptions in Roman North
Africa. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.
Salonius, Aarne H. (1920). Vitae patrum: Kritische Untersuchungen über Text, Syntax und
Wortschatz der spätlateinischen Vitae patrum. Lund: Gleerup.
Salvi, Giampaolo (2004). La formazione della struttura di frase romanze. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Sánchez Manzano, María Asunción (2001). ‘Quippe y nam en el estilo histórico de Veleyo
Patérculo’, in M. José Barrios and Emilio Crespo (coords.), X Congreso Español de Estudios
Clásicos, II. Sociedad de Estudios Clásicos.
Sánchez Martínez, Félix (1996). ‘La construcción personal activa: A propósito de Propercio
2.1.41–2’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica (Lat) 11: 17–27.
Sánchez Martínez, Jesús (2000). Morfosintaxis latina coordinativa. Murcia: Universidad de
Murcia.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1987). ‘The thetic/categorical distinction revisited’, Linguistics 25: 511–80.
Saur, Hugo (1913). ‘Die Adversativpartikeln bei lateinischen Prosaikern’. Dissertation,
Tübingen.
Sawicki, Lea and Shalev, Donna (eds) (2002). Donum Grammaticum. Leuven: Peeters.
Scaglione, Aldo D. (1970). Ars grammatica. The Hague: Mouton.
Scaglione, Aldo D. (1972). The Classical Theory of the Composition from its Origins to the
Present. Chapell Hill: North Carolina University Press.
Schaffner, Emil (1954). Die Entwicklung des lateinischen Adverbs quamvis zur Konjunktion.
Winterthur: Keller Verlag.
Scherer, Anton (1975). Handbuch der lateinischen Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter.
Schlicher, John J. (1933). ‘Non-assertive elements in the language of the Latin historians’,
Classical Philology 28: 289–300.
Schlicher, John J. (1936). ‘The development of Caesar’s narrative style’, Classical Philology 31:
212–24.
Schmalz, Joseph Hermann (1884). ‘Ablativi absoluti im Perf. Depon. mit Objekt’, Archiv für
lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 1: 344–7.
Schneider, Nikolaus (1912). ‘De verbi in lingua Latina collocatione’. Dissertation, Münster.
Schrickx, Josine (2009). ‘Namque als Variante von nam?’, Mnemosyne 62: 250–71.
Schrickx, Josine (2011). Lateinische Modalpartikeln: Nempe, quippe, scilicet, videlicet und
nimirum. Leiden: Brill.
Schrickx, Josine (2016). ‘Nedum: “much less” or “much more”?’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 15:
117–44.
Schrickx, Josine (2017). ‘Polar questions in Latin with and without the enclitic particle -ne’, in
Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 235–55.
Schrickx, Josine (2018). ‘Waarom nedum altijd “laat staan” betekent’, Lampas 51: 112–25.
Schrijnen, Josef (1939). ‘Ein nominativus absolutus im Altlatein’, in Collectanea Schrijnen.
Nijmegen/Utrecht: Dekker & van de Vegt, 197–201.
Schrijvers, Piet H. (1970). Horror ac divina voluptas: Études sur la poétique et la poésie de
Lucrèce. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Schünke, Emil (1906). ‘De traiectione coniunctionum et pronominis relativi apud poetas
Latinos’. Dissertation, Kiel.
Schuster, Meinhard (1950/51). ‘Kritisch-exegetische Nachlese zu Catull’, Wiener Studien 65:
42–53.
1292 Bibliography
Scivoletto, Nino (1962). ‘ “Dico quod”, “dico quia” ’, Giornale Italiano di Filologia 15: 1–34.
Selig, Maria (1992). Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten im Spätlatein. Tübingen: Narr.
Serbat, Guy (1979). ‘L’ablatif absolu’, Revue des Études Latines 57: 340–54.
Serbat, Guy (1984). ‘Erat Pipa quaedam’, Revue des Études Latines 62: 344–56.
Serbat, Guy (1988a). ‘Le nominativus pendens’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 21.2: 359–66.
Serbat, Guy (1988b). Linguistique latine et linguistique générale. Leuven: Peeters.
Serbat, Guy (1991). ‘Intégration à la phrase latine d’un groupe nominal sans fonction syntax-
ique (le “nominativus pendens”)’, Langages 104: 22–32.
Serbat, Guy (1996). L’emploi des cas en latin. Grammaire fondamentale du latin VI. Leuven:
Peeters.
Serbat, Guy (2003). ‘Les complétives en quod’, in Colette Bodelot (ed.), 528–753.
Setaioli, Aldo (2000). Facundus Seneca. Bologna: Pàtron.
Shalev, Donna (1998). ‘Vocatives in responses: A bridging mechanism in dialogue exchange’, in
Shalev, Donna (2001). ‘A pattern of agent expression in non-active and non-personal expres-
sions in Latin’, in Claude Moussy et al. (eds), 583–96.
Shackleton Bailey, David R. (1956). Propertiana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shipley, Frederick William (1913). ‘Preferred and avoided combinations of the enclitic -que in
Cicero’, Classical Philology 8: 23–47.
Siegert, Hans (1939). Die Syntax der Tempora und Modi der ältesten lateinischen Inschriften (bis
zum Tode Caesars). Würzburg: Triltsch.
Sievers, Gualterus (1907). ‘De zeugmatis quod dicitur usu Horatiano’. Dissertation, Jena.
Siewierska, Anna (1988). Word Order Rules. London: Croom Helm.
Siewierska, Anna (1998). ‘Variation in major constituent orders: A global and European
perspective’, in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 475–551.
Siewierska, Anna (1999). ‘Word order and linearization’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller (eds),
412–18.
Siewierska, Anna (ed.) (1998). Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Siewierska, Anna and Uhlířová, Ludmila (1998). ‘An overview of word order in Slavic languages’,
in Anna Siewierska (ed.), 105–49.
Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). A New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sjögren, Håkan (1900). ‘De particulis copulativis apud Plautum et Terentium quaestiones
selectae’. Dissertation, Uppsala.
Sjöstrand, Nils (1891). De vi et usu supini secundi Latinorum. Lund: H. Möller.
Sluiter, Ineke (2000). ‘Seven grammarians on the ablative absolute’, Historiographia Linguistica
17: 379–414.
Smith, Carlota S. (2003). Modes of Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sörbom, Gunnar (1935). Variatio sermonis Tacitei aliaeque apud eundem quaestiones selectae.
Sörés, Anna (2004). ‘La notion d’ “ordre de base” dans la typologie des langues et son applica-
tion à la langue hongroise’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 99: 281–310.
Solin, Heikki (2004). ‘Parerga zu den lateinischen Fluchtafeln’, in Kai Brodersen and Amina
Kropp (eds), Fluchtafeln. Frankfurt a.M.: Verlag Antike, 115–28.
Solin, Heikki, Leiwo, Martti, and Halla-aho, Hilla (eds) (2003). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif VI.
Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.
Bibliography 1293
Solodow, J. B. (1978). The Latin particle quidem. Boulder, Colo.: American Philological
Association.
Somers, Maartje H. (1994). ‘Theme and topic. The relation between discourse and constituent
fronting in Latin’, in József Herman (ed.), 151–77.
Song, Jae Jung (2010). ‘Word Order Typology’, in Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 253–80.
Soubiran, Jean (1966). L’élision dans la poésie latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
Spevak, Olga (1998). ‘L’emploi de licet en latin tardif ’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Graecolatina
Pragensia 16: 95–114.
Spevak, Olga (2001). ‘La concession en latin tardif ’. Thesis, Université de Paris IV–Sorbonne.
Spevak, Olga (2004). ‘Verb–subject order in Latin: The case of existential and locative sen-
tences’, Classica et Medievalia 55: 381–96.
Spevak, Olga (2005a). ‘Itinerarium Egeriae: L’ordre des constituants obligatoires’, Mnemosyne
58: 235–61.
Spevak, Olga (2005b). La concession en latin. Brussels: Latomus.
Spevak, Olga (2005c). ‘Concession et corrélation’, in Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert
(eds), 141–57.
Spevak, Olga (2006a). ‘Les enclitiques en latin’, Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 249–74.
Spevak, Olga (2006b). ‘Quod, quia et les locutions conjonctives (Isidore de Séville, Étymologies
10)’, in Carmen Arias (ed.), 535–47.
Spevak, Olga (2006c). ‘Tamen. Essai d’une description syntaxique’, Glotta 82: 221–48.
Spevak, Olga (2006d). ‘L’ordre des constituants en latin’. Habilitation, Sorbonne.
Spevak, Olga (2010a). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Spevak, Olga (2010b). ‘Le syntagme nominal en latin: Les travaux des trente dernières années’,
in Olga Spevak (ed.), 23–40.
Spevak, Olga (2010c). ‘La place des déterminants et leur combinaisons’, in Olga Spevak (ed.),
57–75.
Spevak, Olga (2012a). ‘La disjonction en latin tardif ’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds),
253–69.
Spevak, Olga (2012b). ‘Les enclitiques enim et autem dans la diachronie du latin’, in Alain
Christol and Olga Spevak (eds), 335–52.
Spevak, Olga (2013). ‘La dislocation à droite en latin’, Glotta 89: 195–221.
Spevak, Olga (2014a). The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose. Leiden: Brill.
Spevak, Olga (2014b). ‘Causa et ses compléments’, in Aude Morel-Alizon and Jean-François
Thomas (eds), 17–29.
Spevak, Olga (2015a). ‘Appositive construction or noun phrase? On the status of postnominal
adjectives in Latin and Ancient Greek’, Journal of Latin Linguistics 14: 307–23.
Spevak, Olga (2015b). ‘Les noms verbaux en latin’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
110: 289–321.
Spevak, Olga (2016a). ‘L’ordre des mots en latin après J. Marouzeau’, Revue des Études Latines
93: 107–28.
Spevak, Olga (2016b). ‘La place des génitifs chez Vitruve et Pline l’Ancien’, in Paolo Poccetti
(ed.), 731–47.
Spevak, Olga (2018). ‘La construction à participe dominant vs. le nom verbal chez Cicéron’,
Revue de Philologie 92: 63–84.
Spevak, Olga (2019). ‘La construction à participe dominant (ab urbe condita): Emplois prépo-
sitionnels’, Listy filologické / Folia philologica 142: 283–306.
1294 Bibliography
Spevak, Olga (ed.) (2010). Le syntagme nominal en latin: Nouvelles contributions. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Stamm, Peter (1885). Die Partikelverbindung et . . . quidem (ac . . . quidem) bei Cicero. Programm
Rössel.
Stassen, Leon (2000). ‘AND-languages and WITH-languages’, Linguistic Typology 4: 1–54.
Steele, Robert Benson (1898). ‘Affirmative final clauses in the Latin historians’, The American
Journal of Philology 19: 255–84.
Steele, Robert Benson (1902). ‘The ablative absolute in Livy’, The American Journal of Philology
23: 295–312.
Steele, Robert Benson (1904). ‘The ablative absolute in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, and
Fronto’, The American Journal of Philology 25: 315–27.
Stegmann, Carl (1890). ‘Zur lateinischen Schulgrammatik III’, Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie
und Pädagogik 142: 25–37.
Stengaard, Birte (1985). ‘Shift tipológico Tema/Rema y el futuro románico’, Revue Romane 20:
208–30.
Stinton, T. C. W. (1976). ‘Si credere dignum est: Some expressions of disbelief in Euripides and
others’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 22: 80–9.
Stockert, Walther (2004). ‘Schwören auch Frauen bei Herkules?—Bemerkungen zu Cist. 52
und anderen Plautusstellen’, in Rolf Hartkamp and Florian Hurka (eds), Studien zu Plautus’
Cistellaria. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 363–9.
Storme, Benjamin (2010). ‘Sicilia amissa: Syntagme nominal ou proposition subordonnée?’,
Revue de Philologie 84: 119–36.
Stotz, Peter (1998). Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, IV: Formenlehre, Syntax
und Stilistik. Munich: Beck.
Suárez, Pedro Manuel (2002). ‘Subordinación o coordinación con quam’, in Empar Espinilla et
al. (eds), 229–49.
Suárez, Pedro Manuel (2012). Catégories grammaticales, systèmes grammaticaux et autres ques-
tions de linguistique latine. Hildesheim: Olms.
Sutter, Marc de (1986). ‘A theory of word order within the Latin noun phrase, based on Cato’s
De agri cultura’, in Carl Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV.
Brussels: Latomus, 151–83.
Svennung, Josef (1934). ‘Nebensätze ohne Subordinationswort’, Glotta 22: 163–93.
Svennung, Josef (1936). Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache.
Svennung, Josef (1948).‘Sprachliche Bemerkungen zum Irenaeus’, Kungl. Hum. Vet.-Samfundet
i Uppsala, Årsbok: 45–57.
Svennung, Josef (1958). Anredeformen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Sweetser, Eve (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szantyr, Anton (1970). ‘Bemerkungen zum Aufbau der Vergilischen Ekphrasis’, Museum
Helveticum 27: 28–40.
Szantyr, Anton (1972). ‘Missverstandene quod-Sätze’, Gymnasium 79: 499–511.
Szantyr, Anton (1974). ‘Zu Sall. (?) Rep. 2.13.6’, Gymnasium 81: 41–8.
Sznajder, Lyliane (1987). ‘Un procédé d’art chez César: Les complétives paratactiques’, in Sylvie
Mellet (ed.), 293–306.
Sznajder, Lyliane (1996). ‘Construction paratactique et sermo cotidianus dans la langue de
Plaute’, in Jacqueline Dangel and Claude Moussy (eds), Les structures de l’oralité en latin.
Paris: Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 167–80.
Bibliography 1295
Sznajder, Lyliane (1998). ‘Verbes transitifs sans objet en latin’, in Benjamín García Hernández
(ed.), 791–808.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2001a). ‘Complétives latines sans mot subordonnant’, Les Études Classiques
69: 369–88.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2001b). ‘Discours indirect et dépendance syntaxique’, in Claude Moussy
et al. (eds), 609–26.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2003). ‘Les complétives au subjonctif sans conjoncteur’, in Colette Bodelot
(ed.), 13–95.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2005). ‘Stratégies de prise en charge énonciatives dans le discours indirect’,
Sznajder, Lyliane (2012). ‘Dixit autem serpens ad mulierem / mulier quoque dixit: La double
expression de l’allocutaire dans les propositions introductrices de discours directs dans la
Vulgate’, in Frédérique Biville et al. (eds), 271–88.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2017a). ‘Complétives en quod/quia/infinitives en latin biblique’, Pallas 103:
263–72.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2017b). ‘Quelques réflexions sur des discours hybrides du latin biblique:
oratio obliqua ou oratio recta?’, in Paolo Poccetti (ed.), 95–111.
Sznajder, Lyliane (2019). ‘Les complétives en quoniam: Étude à partir du latin biblique’, in
Lidewij W. van Gils et al. (eds), 174–98.
Taillade, Martin (2019).‘Réflexions sur la syntaxe de fieri en latin classique’, in Martin Taillade
et al. (eds), 163–86.
Taillade, Martin, Gallego, Julia, Fatello, Fabienne, and Gibert, Guillaume (eds) (2019). Nemo
par eloquentia: Mélanges de linguistique ancienne en hommage à Colette Bodelot. Clermont-
Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal.
Tarrant, Richard J. (2002). ‘Parenthetically speaking (in Virgil and other poets)’, in Peter E. Knox
and Clive Foss (eds), Style and Tradition: Studies in Honor of Wendell Clausen. Leipzig:
Teubner, 141–57.
Tarriño, Eusebia (1991). ‘Observaciones sobre el acusativo absoluto en Gregorio de Tours’, in
Ramos, Agustín (ed.), Mnemosynum C. Codoñer a discipulis oblatum. Salamanca: Ediciones
Universidad de Salamanca.
Tarriño, Eusebia (1996). ‘Algunos usos irregulares del nominativo en Gregorio de Tours’, in
Ana Agud et al. (eds), 237–55.
Tarriño, Eusebia (2002). ‘Sobre la construcción NcI en Plinio el Viejo’, in Maria José García
Soler (ed.), ΤΙΜΗΣ ΧΑΡΙΝ: Homenaje al Profesor Pedro A. Gainzarain. Vitoria: Universidad
del Pais Vasco, 275–87.
Tarriño, Eusebia (2004). ‘Elementos metacomunicativos en la prosa de Plinio el Viejo’, in
Antonio López Eire and Agustín Ramos (eds), 355–77.
Tarriño, Eusebia (2007). ‘Pseudo-comparativas en latín: “factis potius quam dictis” ’, in Gregorio
Hinojo and José Carlos Fernández Corte (eds), Munus quaesitum meritis: Homenaje a
Carmen Codoñer. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 815–24.
Tarriño, Eusebia (2011). ‘Comparative clauses’, in Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds),
373–426.
Taylor, Margaret E. (1951). ‘The development of the quod clause’, Yale Classical Studies 12:
229–49.
Ternes, Charles-Marie (1998). Oratio soluta—Oratio numerosa: Études Luxembourgeoises
d’histoire et de littérature romaines, vol I. Luxembourg: Centre Alexandre-Wiltheim.
Tesnière, Lucien (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
1296 Bibliography
Thielmann, Philip (1886). ‘Facere mit dem Infinitiv’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Thomas, François (1956). ‘Dominance et résistance dans la syntaxe latine’, in Hommages à Max
Niedermann. Brussels: Latomus, 315–23.
Thomsen, Hans Christian (1930). Der Pleonasmus bei Plautus und Terenz, I. Uppsala: Almqvist
& Wiksell.
Timpanaro, Sebastiano (1970). ‘Positivus pro comparativo in latino’, in Studia Florentina Alexandro
Ronconi sexagenario oblata. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, 455–81 (repr. in Contributi di filo-
logia e di storia della lingua latina. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Atheneo and Bizzarri, 1978: 39–81).
Toledo, Rogelio (2016). ‘Speech act conditionals in two works of Cicero: In Verrem and ad
Atticum’, Pallas 102: 247–54.
Torrego, Esperanza (1986). ‘The system of substantive clauses as complements in Classical
Latin’, Glotta 64: 66–83.
Torrego, Esperanza (1987). ‘Las construcciones pasivas de nominativo con infinitivo en latín
clásico. Estudio sintáctico’, Emerita 55: 71–84.
Torrego, Esperanza (1988). ‘Variantes conjuncionales para la expresión de la finalidad en las
oraciones subordinadas latinas’, Revista española de lingüística 18: 317–29.
Torrego, Esperanza (1998). ‘Praeter + accusativo: Descripción funcional y semántica’, in
Torrego, Esperanza (ed.), 111–45.
Torrego, Esperanza (1999). ‘Cohésion et rupture dans les propositions irréelles latines’, Les
Études Classiques 67: 391–411.
Torrego, Esperanza (2001). ‘Typologie sémantique des propositions finales latines’, in Claude
Moussy et al. (eds), 626–39.
Torrego, Esperanza (2002). ‘Los SN comparativos: El segundo término de la comparación’, in
Empar Espinilla et al. (eds), 251–79.
Torrego, Esperanza (2005). ‘Grammar and pragmatics: The textual uses of repente and subito’,
Torrego, Esperanza (2013). ‘Iubeo saluere: Una forma de saludos con directivo léxico’, in José
A. Beltrán et al. (eds), 173–84.
Torrego, Esperanza (2014). ‘De l’empêchement à l’interdiction: Échelle de causativité et codage
dans le verbe latin prohibeo’, in Bernard Bortolussi and Peggy Lecaudé (eds), 177–97.
Torrego, Esperanza (2016a). ‘Variantes de complémentation: Infinitif complétif / proposition
complétive à conjonction après les verbes de manipulation’, Pallas 102: 47–56.
Torrego, Esperanza (2016b). ‘Verbos y argumentos: Las combinaciones sintáctico-semánticas
del verbo latino cogo’, Emerita 84: 291–316.
Torrego, Esperanza (2017a). ‘Le verbe latin veto: De Plaute à l’Histoire auguste’, in Pedro Duarte
et al. (eds), 335–47.
Torrego, Esperanza (2017b). ‘Res gestae Divi Augusti: Word order and pragmatics of the Latin
original’, in Camille Denizot and Olga Spevak (eds), 159–79.
Torrego, Esperanza (ed.) (1998). Nombres y funciones: Estudios de sintaxis griega y latina.
Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.
Torrego, Esperanza, Baños, José Miguel, Cabrillana, Concepción, and Méndez Dosuna, Julián
(eds) (2007). Praedicativa II: Esquemas de complementación verbal en griego antiguo y en
latín, Monografías de Filologia Latina 15. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
Tóth, Alfred (1994). ‘Thema, Topik und Koda. Zu einigen syntaktischen, semantischen und
pragmatischen Problemen der lateinischen Grammatik’, Papers on Grammar 4: 177–210.
Bibliography 1297
Töttössy, Csaba (1998). ‘The development of the usage of the Latin gerundive’, Acta Antiqua
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38: 381–9.
Touratier, Christian (1980). La relative: Essai de théorie syntaxique. Paris: Klincksieck.
Touratier, Christian (1994). Syntaxe latine. Leuven: Peeters.
Touratier, Christian (1998). ‘L’imparfait, temps anaphorique?’, in Bruno Bureau and Christian
Nicolas (eds), 265–79.
Touratier, Christian (2002). ‘Discussions épistémologiques et théoriques autour de la relative’,
in Lea Sawicki and Donna Shalev (eds), 351–65.
Touratier, Christian (2005). ‘Esquisse de l’histoire de la complétive en quod’, in Sándor Kiss
et al. (eds), 77–86.
Touratier, Christian (2011). ‘Qu’entend-on par “relative”?’, Les Études Classiques 79: 5–19.
Touratier, Christian (ed.) (1985). Syntaxe et latin: Actes du IIème congrès international de
linguistique latine, Aix-en-Provence, 28–31 mars 1983. Aix-en-Provence: Université de
Provence.
Touratier, Christian (ed.) (1991). Compléments prédicatifs et attributs du complément d’objet en
latin. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Traenkle, Hermann (1968). ‘Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen
Sprache’, Wiener Studien N.F. 2: 103–52.
Traglia, Antonio (1947). Valore e uso dell' ablativo latino di comparazione. Rome: Editrice
Studium.
Trappes-Lomax, John M. (2007). Catullus: A Textual Reappraisal. Swansea: The Classical Press
of Wales.
Ulbricht, Edmundus (1875). Taciti qui ad figuram dicendi ἓν διὰ δυοῖν referuntur ex minoribus
scriptis locos concessit atque interpretatus est E. U. Programm Freiberg.
Ulrich, Miorita (1985). Thetisch und kategorisch: Funktionen der Anordnung von Satzkonstituenten
am Beispiel des Rumänischen und anderen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Unceta, Luis (2012). ‘Cuando los sentimentos irrumpen I: Valores expresivos de las interjecciones
primarias en las comedias de Plauto’, in Rosario López Gregoris (ed.), Estudios sobre teatro
Romano: El mundo de los sentimentos y su expresión. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico, 347–95.
Unceta, Luis (2016a). ‘Congratulations in Latin comedy: Types and functions’, Journal of
Politeness Research 12: 267–90.
Unceta, Luis (2016b). ‘Cuando los sentimentos irrumpen II: Valores expresivos de las interjec-
ciones primarias en las comedias de Plauto’, in Benjamín García Hernández and Azucena
Penas (eds), Semántica latina y románica: Unidades de significado conceptual y procedimental.
Bern: Peter Lang, 213–41.
Unceta, Luis (2017a). ‘Quando las emociones irrumpen: Análisis comparativo del empleo de las
interjecciones en las comedias de Terencio y las tragedias de Séneca’, Onomázein 38: 107–46.
Unceta, Luis (2017b). ‘Discursive and pragmatic functions of Latin em’, in Camille Denizot and
Olga Spevak (eds), 63–82.
Vaan, Michiel de (2008). Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages.
Leiden: Brill.
Väänänen, Veikko (1951). Il est venu comme ambassadeur, il agit en soldat, etc. Helsinki:
Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae.
Väänänen, Veikko (19813). Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck.
Väänänen, Veikko (1987). Le journal Épître d’Égérie (Itinerarium Egeriae). Étude linguistique.
Helsinki: Suomainen Tiedeakatemia.
1298 Bibliography
Vallejo, José (1948). ‘Quippe (qui)’, Emerita 16: 201–20.

Van Laer, Sophie (2010). ‘Approche syntaxique et discursive de la comparaison “identifiante” ’,
in Peter Anreiter and Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 345–57.
Van Laer, Sophie (2013). ‘Ut comparatif en latin étude syntaxique et sémantico-logique’, in
Colette Bodelot et al. (eds), 411–24.
Van Laer, Sophie (2014). ‘Ut causal en latin quelle relation de causalité?’, in Aude Morel-Alizon
and Jean-François Thomas (eds), 109–36.
Van Laer, Sophie (2015). ‘Ut comparatif en latin: Un marqueur de dialogisme?’, Revue de
Linguistique Latine du Centre Alfred Ernout: De Lingua Latina 11: 1–25 [online].
Vecchio, Tommaso del (2008). ‘Problemi di interpretazione delle interiezioni nelle commedie
di Plauto e Terenzio’, in Ghislaine Viré (ed.), 109–22.
Vester, Elseline (1977). ‘On the so-called “participium coniunctum” ’, Mnemosyne 30: 243–85.
Vester, Elseline (1983). Instrument and Manner Expressions in Latin. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Vester, Elseline (1989). ‘Relative clauses: A description of the indicative–subjunctive opposi-
tion’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 326–50.
Vester, Elseline (1990). ‘The satellite status of gerunds and gerundives in Latin’, in Mike Hannay
and Elseline Vester (eds), Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational
Applications. Dordrecht: Foris, 103–13.
Vester, Elseline (1994). ‘The internal structure of adverbial ut-clauses’, in József Herman (ed.),
269–79.
Vester, Helmut (1987). ‘Zum Verhältnis von Prädikativum und Adverbialbestimmung’,
Gymnasium 94: 346–66.
Vincent, Nigel (2016). ‘Causatives in Latin and Romance’, in James N. Adams and Nigel Vincent
(eds), 294–312.
Viré, Ghislaine (2005). ‘Structures corrélatives dans quelques ouvrages techniques latins’, in
Paolo de Carvalho and Frédéric Lambert (eds), 226–34.
Viré, Ghislaine (ed.) (2008). Autour du lexique latin. Brussels: Latomus.
Viti, Carlotta (2013). ‘The Latin construction of the cum inversum’, in Colette Bodelot et al.
(eds), 115–29.
Vogel, Wilhelm S. (1938). Zur Stellung von esse bei Caesar und Sallust. Würzburg-Aumühle:
Triltsch Verlag.
Vonlaufen, Joseph (1974). Studien über Stellung und Gebrauch des lateinischen Relativsatzes
(unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Lukrez). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Wachter, Rudolf (2004). ‘Cicero der Sprachkünstler, oder Plauderei über lateinische Wortstellung’,
in Angela Hornung et al. (eds), Studia humanitatis ac litterarum trifolio Heidelbergensi dedi-
cata. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 359–76.
Wakker, Gerry C. (1994). Conditions and Conditionals: An Investigation of Ancient Greek.
Amsterdam: Gieben.
Wanner, Dieter (1987). The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns: From Latin to Old
Romance. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Watt, William S. (1962). ‘Noctuabundus’, Glotta 40: 118–19.
Watt, William S. (1963). ‘Heus’, Glotta 41: 138–43.
Watt, William S. (1980). ‘Enim Tullianum’, Classical Quarterly 21: 120–3.
Wehr, Barbara (1984). Diskursstrategien im Romanischen. Tübingen: Narr.
Wehr, Barbara (2008). ‘Spätlatein aus der Sicht der Romanistik: zu Apodosis-einleitendem et’,
in Roger Wright (ed.), 179–90.
Weinrich, Harald (1982). Textgrammatik der französischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Klett.
Bibliography 1299
Weische, Alfons (2005). ‘Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch von Präpositionen im klassischen

Latein’, in Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), 811–20.
Westman, Rolf (1961). Das Futurpartizip als Ausdrucksmittel bei Seneca. Helsinki: Societas
Scientiarum Fennica.
Whitton, L. C. (2011). ‘Dubitatio comparativa’, Classical Quarterly 61: 267–77.
Wieland, Hans (1966). ‘iubeto (zu Verg. Ecl. 5,15)’, Museum Helveticum 23: 212–15.
Wiesthaler, Franz (1956). Die oratio obliqua als künstlerisches Stilmittel in den Reden Ciceros.
Innsbruck: Wagner.
Wilkinson, Lancelot Patrick (1963). Golden Latin Artistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wingo, Elvis O. (1972). Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age. The Hague: Mouton.
Wirth-Poelchau, Lore (1977). AcI und quod-Satz im lateinischen Sprachgebrauch mittelalter-
licher und humanistischer Autoren. Erlangen-Nürnberg: J. Hogl.
Wistrand, Erik (1936). ‘De Vitruvii sermone parum ad regulam artis grammaticae explicato’, in
Apophoreta Gotoburgensia V. Lundström oblata. Göteborg: Elander, 16–52.
Wistrand, Erik (1967). ‘Gerundium mit Subjektsakkusativ im Latein’, Eranos 65: 65–72.
Wistrand, Magnus (1979). Cicero imperator: Studies in Cicero’s Correspondence 51–47 b.c.
Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Wölfflin, Eduard (1888). ‘Quatenus’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 5:
399–414.
Wölfflin, Eduard (1889). ‘Der Ablativus comparationis’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Wölfflin, Eduard (1896). ‘Die Lokalsätze im Lateinischen’, Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie
und Grammatik 9: 447–52.
Woodcock, Eric Charles (1959). A New Latin Syntax. London: Methuen.
Woolsey, Robert B. (1953). ‘Quod, relative pronoun and conjunction’, American Journal of
Philology 74: 52–69.
Wright, Roger (ed.) (2008). Latin vulgaire–latin tardif VIII. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.
Zanker, Paul (1990). The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: Michigan
University Press.
Zelenai, Nóra (2018). ‘The variants of the se vivo fecit expression in Latin language inscriptions’,
Graeco-latina Brunensia 23: 227–44.
Zgoll, Christian (2012). Römische Prosodie und Metrik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Zieliński, Thaddeus (1904). Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden: Grundzüge einer oratorischen
Rhythmik. Leipzig: Dieterich.
Zieliński, Thaddeus (1914). Der constructive Rhythmus in Ciceros Reden: Die oratorische
Rhythmik IIer Teil. Leipzig: Teubner.
Zilliacus, Henrik (1949). Untersuchungen zu den abstrakten Anredeformen und Höflichkeitstiteln
im Griechischen. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum XV.3. Helsingfors: Societas
Scientiarum Fennica.
C. Commentaries and editions
Ambrosetti, Maria (2009). Q. Claudio Quadrigario Annali (Supplemento n. 25 al Bollettino dei

Classici). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
1300 Bibliography
Austin, Roland Gregory (1971). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Primus. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Bailey, Cyril (19492). Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Barchiesi, Alessandro and Rosati, Gianpiero (2007). Ovidio Metamorfosi, vol. II. Milan:
Mondadori.
Barsby, John (1986). Plautus: Bacchides. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Berry, D. H. (1996). Cicero pro P. Sulla Oratio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Binder, Gerhard (2019). P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis: Ein Kommentar, 3 vols. Trier: WVT.
Boeft, Jan den, Drijvers, Jan Willem, Hengst, Daniel den, and Teitler, Hans C. (1987/2018).
Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XX–XXXI, 12 vols.
Groningen: Forsten; Leiden: Brill.
Bömer, Franz (1969/1986). P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen, 6 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Briscoe, John (1981). A Commentary on Livy Books XXXIV–XXXVII. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Briscoe, John (2008). A Commentary on Livy: Books 38–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Briscoe, John (2012). A Commentary on Livy: Books 41–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calboli, Gualtiero (1993). Cornifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium. Bologna: Pàtron.
Cavarzere, Alberto (1983). Marco Celio Rufo Lettere (Cic. fam. l. VIII). Brescia: Paideia Editrice.
Christenson, David (2000). Plautus: Amphitruo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Citroni, Mario (1975). M. Valerius Martialis Epigrammaton Liber I. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
Conte, Gian Biagio (2009). P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Cornell, Timothy J. (ed.) (2013). The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Courtney, Edward (1995). Musa Lapidaria. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.
Diercks, Gerardus Frederik (1978). Luciferi Calaritani opera quae supersunt. Turnhout: Brepols.
Dingel, Joachim (1997). Kommentar zum 9. Buch der Aeneis Vergils. Heidelberg: Winter.
Dougan, Thomas Wilson (1905–35). M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum Disputationum Libri
Quinque, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyck, Andrew R. (2004). A Commentary on Cicero, de Legibus. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Dyck, Andrew R. (2010). Cicero: Pro Sexto Roscio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dyck, Andrew R. (2013). Cicero: Pro Marco Caelio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eden, Paul T. (1975). A Commentary on Virgil: Aeneid VIII. Leiden: Brill.
Enk, Pieter-Jan (1932). Plauti Truculentus. Leiden: Sijthoff.
Goodyear, Frank R. D. (1972/81). The Annals of Tacitus, books I and II, 2 vols. Cambridge:
Gowers, Emily (2012). Horace: Satires Book I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius (2004). Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses Books
IV, 28–35, V and VI, 1–24. Groningen: Forsten.
Hall, Jon B. (2008). P. Papinius Statius, vol. III: Thebaid and Achilleid. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Harrison, Stephen J. (1991). Vergil: Aeneid 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heubner, Heinz (1963). P. Cornelius Tacitus: Die Historien, Band I. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Heubner, Heinz (1976). P. Cornelius Tacitus: Die Historien, Band IV. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.
Bibliography 1301
Horsfall, Nicholas (2000). Virgil, Aeneid 7: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill.

Horsfall, Nicholas (2008). Virgil, Aeneid 1: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill.
Hutchinson, Gregory (2006). Propertius: Elegies Book IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jocelyn, Henry David (1967). The Tragedies of Ennius. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kenney, Edward John (20142). Lucretius: de Rerum Natura Book III. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Koestermann, Erich (1963/68). Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen, 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Krapinger, Gernot and Stramaglia, Antonio (2015). [Quintilian] Der Blinde auf der Türschwelle
(Grössere Deklamationen, 2). Edizioni Università di Cassino.
Leeman, Anton Daniël, Pinkster, Harm, and Rabbie, Edwin (1989). M. Tullius Cicero de Oratore
Libri III, vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter.
Lindsay, Wallace Martin (1904). T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press
(OCT).
Luck, Georg (1967/77). P. Ovidius Naso: Tristia, 2 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Madvig, Johan Nicolai (1876). Cicero de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum Libri V. Copenhagen.
Manuwald, Gesine (2007). Cicero Philippics 3–9, 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Martin, Ronald H. and Woodman, Anthony J. (1989). Tacitus: Annals Book IV. Cambridge:
Marx, Fridericus (1915). A. Cornelii Celsi quae supersunt. Leipzig: Teubner.
Maurach, Gregor (1975). Plauti Poenulus. Heidelberg: Winter.
Mayer, Roland (1981). Lucan: Civil War III. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Meusel, Heinrich (1913). C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii de Bello Gallico, 3 vols. Berlin:
Weidmann.
Munro, Hugh Andrew Johnstone (19084). T. Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, vol. II:
Explanatory Notes. London: George Bell and Sons.
Nisbet, Robin George Murdoch and Hubbard, Margaret (1970). A Commentary on Horace:
Odes Book I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norden, Eduard (19273). P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI. Leipzig: Teubner.
Oakley, Stephen (1997/2005). A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X, 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Ogilvie, Robert Maxwell (1965). A Commentary on Livy, Books I–V. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pease, Arthur Stanley (1920/23). M. Tulli Ciceronis de Divinatione. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Pease, Arthur Stanley (1935). Publi Vergili Maronis Aeneidos liber quartus. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Pease, Arthur Stanley (1955/58). M. Tulli Ciceronis de Natura Deorum, 2 vols. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Pestelli, Angela (2007). P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroidum Epistula VIII Hermione Oresti. Florence: Le
Monnier.
Petersmann, Hubert (1973). T. Maccius Plautus: Stichus. Heidelberg: Winter.
Powell, Jonathan G. F. (1988). Cicero: Cato Maior de Senectute. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reinhardt, Tobias (2003). Cicero’s Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzo, Silvia (1991). M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro A. Cluentio Habito Oratio. Milan: Mondadori.
1302 Bibliography
Schmeling, Gareth (2011). A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Shackleton Bailey, David R. (1965/1970). Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, 7 vols. Cambridge:
Shackleton Bailey, David R. (1977). Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols. Cambridge:
Skutsch, Otto (1985). The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Smith, Martin S. (1975). Petronii Arbitri Cena Trimalchionis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tarrant, Richard J. (2012). Virgil: Aeneid Book XII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tränkle, Hermann (1990). Appendix Tibulliana. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Warmington, Eric H. (1940). Remains of Old Latin, IV: Archaic Inscriptions. London/
Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb.
Waszink, Jan Hendrik (1947). Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De Anima. Edited with introduc-
tion and commentary. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
Watson, Lindsay C. (2003). A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Weissenborn, Wilhelm and Müller, Hermann Johannes (1968). Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri,
10 vols. Zurich: Weidmann.
Williams, Robert Deryck (1960). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quintus. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Williams, Robert Deryck (1962). P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Tertius. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Winterbottom, Michael (1984). The Minor Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Wisse, Jakob, Winterbottom, Michael, and Fantham, Elaine (2008). M. Tullius Cicero: de
Oratore Libri III, vol. 5. Heidelberg: Winter.
Woodman, Anthony J. (1977). Velleius Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94–131).
Woodman, Anthony J. and Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth (2014). Tacitus: Agricola. Cambridge:
Woodman, Anthony J. and Martin, Ronald H. (1996). The Annals of Tacitus Book III. Cambridge:
INDE X LOCORUM
The Index contains all the examples that are discussed in the two volumes of this Syntax. The additional
examples that are given in the Supplements are not included. The examples of volume I come first.
Thereafter follow the examples in volume II, preceded by II. (only once per example). The Index was
prepared by Akke Pinkster.
Abbreviations wherever possible follow the Oxford Latin Dictionary and (for Late Latin authors) Blaise’s
Dictionnaire.
Accius 20.4.1 II.971 Met.

trag. 20.4.17 II.772, 971 1.12.1 902
76 132 20.8.10 533 1.18.6 916
86 1025 20.8.17 II.971 2.6.8 II.374
119–21 785 21.6.9 654 2.13.6 II.887
217–18 116 22.4.7 II.1130 2.23.5 1107
283–4 247 24.2.1 II.203 3.6.1–2 II.796
455 1235 25.3.10 II.367 4.27.8–28.1 1112
529–30 198 26.9.5 551 4.28.1 II.835,
Acta Carth. 26.10.8 II.567 951
3.186–7 751 27.11.1 199 5.1.6 II.374
Afranius 28.1.22 II.799 5.2.1 279
com. 28.1.49 423 5.7.5 277
31 117 29.2.15 135 5.19.2–4 II.1218
133 1025 29.6.5 II.160 7.12.2 992
386 688 30.7.11 II.260 7.26.2 155
Africanus 30.9.1 285 7.26.4 II.624
dig. 31.2.13 II.803 8.29.6 1233
13.6.21.1 II.294 31.10.8 II.264 9.4.1 II.888
Alfenus Année Épigraphique 9.12.3 244
dig. 1941, nr 6 II.818 9.15.1 II.168
33.2.40 898 2001, nr 333 892 9.16.1 II.566
39.2.43.pr. 82 2001, nr 441.12 9.23.3 II.892
Ambrose of Milan II.1109 9.40.1 880
Hex. Anonymus Valesianus 10.5.2 1291
3.5.20 II.76 81 257 10.6.8 874
Luc. Anthimus 10.34.3 157
5.83 435 1 1186 11.10.5 II.743
Virgin. 10 258 Arnobius
130 II.73 Anthologia Latina Nat.
Ammianus 407.11 144 1.29 II.1121
14.2.14 422 Antonius 7.4 II.69
14.11.26 574 Att. Augustine
15.2.15 241 10.8a.1 885 Adim.
15.4.3 229 orat. 7 572
15.5.21 II.416 16b 1212 Civ.
16.5.6 1084 Apicius 3.15.11 II.101
16.6.3 381, 449 4.2.13 313 8.14.2 II.227
17.2.3 981 8.8.3 1241 14.27.1 112
17.3.5 284 Apuleius 21.12.4 150
17.12.17 1084 Apol. Conf.
18.5.7 849 16.9 II.381 1.18 II.1022
18.6.16 II.203 53.8 1093 Doctr. Christ.
18.8.13 1290 75.10 1003 2.38.58 480
20.2.5 II.198 81.5 368 4.11.26 150
1304 Index Locorum
Augustine (cont.) 95.3 898 8.13.2 II.638

Ep. 96.2 II.520 8.14.1 89
22.5 II.1073 Bellum Alexandrinum 8.16.2 1270
46.15 334 7.1 704, II.154 8.17.1 820, II.914
104.7 II.770 10.4 138 Caesar
227 469 17.3 II.519 Att.
Ev. Joh. 22.1 II.88 9.13a.1 II.1219
4.8 II.118 35.2 985 Civ.
7.1 440 38.3 1049 1.1.1 II.1003, 1024
12.6 435 46.4 II.742 1.2.6 511, 599, II.1003
Imm. 66.3 788 1.2.7 II.1021
8.14 II.408 68.1 II.217 1.3.3 II.1023
Locut. Hept. 74.3 II.237 1.3.6 1017
2.91 880 Bellum Hispaniense 1.4.3 1039
2.91 = Vet. Lat.Ex. 17.5 883 14.1 II.403 1.4.5 1000
Ord. 14.2 1289 1.5.3 II.1092
1.16–17 423 16.3 II.374 1.6.1 II.1013
Psal. 18.9 II.435 1.6.8 II.1003
66.1 195 23.2 615, II.255 1.9.1 295
66.2 435 28.4 II.772 1.9.2 II.62
90.10 573 29.1 991 1.9.4 389, II.188
121.4 441 33.3 304 1.10.1 II.1026
148.8 572 36.1 627, II.64 1.10.2–3 II.50
Psal. Don. 37.3 II.579 1.11.4 821, II.1026
40 II.106 42.2 149 1.13.1–2 II.1152
Serm. Brutus (D. Iunius) 1.13.5 II.1008
2.1 572 Fam. 1.14.1 419
17.7 II.76 11.4.1 II.146 1.14.1–2 II.1227
25.3.3 97 11.10.4 990 1.15.2–3 II.1002, 1008
96.1 555, 559, 567 11.11.1 143 1.15.3 II.1002, 1026
225.4 II.385 11.11.2 II.201 1.17.1–2 II.560
349.3.3 extr. 135 11.13.2 833 1.18.6 955
Serm. Nov. 11.15 II.16 1.24.1 II.510, 962
14D.8 II.797 11.20.1 1253 1.24.3 II.1007
Augustus Brutus (M. Iunius) 1.26.1 45, 933, 993
Anc. ad Brut. 1.30.2 II.1019
16.1 1298 1.4a.2 1171 1.32.1 II.837, 856
1.6.1 105 1.32.7 II.50, 158
Balbus 1.16.4 774 1.36.5 II.861
Att. 1.16.6 159 1.40.3–4 II.557
9.7b.3 1202 1.17.6 981 1.41.1 458
Balbus & Oppius Brutus & Plancus 1.41.2–3 II.1057
Att. Fam. 1.41.4 II.177
9.7a.1 II.701 11.13a.2 II.645 1.44.3 102
Bellum Africanum 1.45.3 II.1038
4.4 II.763 Caecina 1.46.1 845
8.5 II.523 Fam. 1.46.2–3 II.1179
10.1 1199 6.7.2 1131 1.46.4 II.1021
16.2 1241 Caelius Aurelianus 1.48.3 II.1203
25.1 II.853 Chron. 1.49.1 II.1007, 1027
39.5–40.1 II.1154 2.41 292 1.49.2 1000
45.1 II.18 Caelius Rufus 1.51.1–2 416
46.3 II.138 Fam. 1.51.6 II.1027
48.3 II.743 8.1.1 879, II.995 1.55.1 172
66.3–4 II.1153 8.1.2 802 1.60.1 II.978
69 II.100 8.3.1 II.436 1.61.3 II.1023
78.4 II.262, 451 8.4.1 395 1.64.2 II.1127
78.8 828 8.5.3 II.439, 441 1.66.2 175
80.1 II.566 8.7.2 853 1.66.3 II.1020
84.1–3 407 8.9.1 II.161, 182 1.67.5 II.393
86.2 II.336 8.10.3 II.369 1.67.6 II.2, 583, 633
91.3 II.260 8.12.2 II.533 1.69.4 831
Index Locorum 1305
1.76.4 II.1014 3.44.2 II.1166 1.18.1–10 II.837

1.79.2–3 II.340 3.50.2 II.438 1.18.2 II.610
1.80.1 271 3.51.6 1232 1.19.1 II.231, 799
1.82.2 II.178 3.55.1 II.313 1.19.3 1168
1.84.2 443 3.60.4 616 1.20.6 141, 1193, II.1042
1.84.3 II.158 3.63.1 II.1084 1.26.5–6 II.1222
1.84.5–85.1 II.830 3.65.3 1111 1.26.6 II.129
1.85.1 II.837 3.66.1 II.1047, 1156 1.27.4 1300, II.1047
1.85.12 598 3.66.2 454 1.28.3 1286
2.3.3 II.1009 3.72.2 1216 1.30.2 II.1092
2.5.1 250 3.73.2 II.998 1.31.2 1002, II.811
2.9.7 827 3.80.3 II.132 1.31.10 II.774, 1074
2.11.1 817 3.82.4 II.298 1.31.11 534, 592
2.11.2 II.1009 3.87.5 II.1037, 1060 1.31.14 592
2.12.3 592 3.87.7 614 1.31.16 172
2.15.3 607 3.95.1 II.711 1.33.2 II.2, 583
2.17.4–18.3 II.834 3.97.5 1006 1.33.2–4 356
2.19.4 1260 3.103.5 II.1065 1.36.4 II.1103
2.20.8 942 3.105.5 1011 1.36.5 II.643
2.21.4 24, 850 3.106.5 804 1.37.2 II.1074
2.23.4 178 3.109.4 II.823 1.39.1 II.254
2.24.1 826 3.110.3 1278 1.40.4 599, 1128
2.26.1 II.969 3.110.4 660, II.340 1.40.4–5 510
2.27.2 743 Gal. 1.40.5 1297, II.488
2.27.3 II.843 1.1.1 235, 259, 1007, 1086, 1.40.12 531
2.28.1 II.836 II.824, 835, 992, 1076 1.42.3 II.52
2.32.14 II.171 1.1.2 II.585, 611 1.43.2 803
2.34.1 II.681, 845 1.1.3 1009, II.835 1.43.8 II.33
2.35.5–6 II.843 1.1.4 1195, 1198, II.831 1.44.5 1117
2.37.2 II.1086 1.1.5 II.1018 1.44.6 II.280
2.38.4 872 1.1.6 1195, II.835, 1096 1.47.6 1130
2.38.4–5 II.1150 1.2.1 1144, 1293, II.836, 1.48.2 803, II.1096
2.41.6 II.1039 841, 1021 1.49.1 II.531
2.43.2 II.1041 1.2.3 1059, 1197, 1283 1.49.3 898
3.1.4 II.286 1.3.2 251, II.1227 1.52.4 872
3.2.2 II.452 1.3.4 253 1.54.2 1034
3.4.3 939 1.3.5 II.563 2.5.6 II.845
3.4.6 962, II.497 1.4.2 II.457 2.6.3 1288
3.5.1 II.844 1.4.4 II.1123 2.7.3 802
3.6.3 1281 1.5.3 1208 2.9.1 II.845
3.6.3–8.1 II.388 1.5.4 1194 2.9.3 1284
3.8.3 533 1.6.1 II.829 2.9.4 1004
3.9.1 II.497 1.6.1–4 II.1227 2.10.2 II.817
3.9.2 II.1037 1.6.1–9.1 II.845 2.10.4 II.1097
3.9.2–3 II.1164 1.6.4 II.530 2.10.5 II.868
3.10.5 II.636 1.7.1 II.1052 2.11.2 175, 1196, II.397,
3.15.6 II.521 1.7.2 409, II.177 1058
3.19.3 199, 990 1.7.5 1195 2.15.6 531
3.19.7–8 II.1214 1.8.1 405, 826, 875, 1199 2.16.1 523
3.20.5 II.437 1.8.4 180, 628, II.55, 100 2.17.5 422
3.21.3 II.791 1.9.1 259 2.19.2 422
3.22.2 II.1038 1.10.1 II.526, 1065 2.19.4 1260
3.26.5 846 1.12.4 II.824, 1076 2.19.8 1117
3.28.1 1273 1.12.7 II.496 2.20.3 II.176
3.29.3 804 1.13.2 21, II.1009 2.21.3 II.536, 578
3.30.3 1291, II.861 1.13.3 669 2.23.2 1294
3.32.3 II.550 1.14.3 II.186 2.29.2 986
3.37.2 II.845 1.15.1 1293 2.31.6 II.1047
3.37.5 II.1037 1.15.2 II.1147 2.33.1 II.179
3.40.4 II.522 1.16.1 527 2.35.1 667, II.400
3.41.5 821 1.16.5 II.783 2.35.2 454
3.43.1. 449 1.17.6–18.1 II.1154 2.35.4 986, II.625
1306 Index Locorum
Caesar, Gal. (cont.) 5.33.4 II.71 7.58.6 II.778

3.1.1 II.1039 5.35.6 243, 920 7.59.2 II.496
3.2.1 II.588 5.37.2 II.254 7.62.6 II.594
3.5.2 1275 5.37.3 1212 7.62.7 II.995
3.6.4 II.30 5.37.5 II.792 7.62.10 II.1156
3.8.1 II.864 5.39.2 II.482 7.68.3–69.3 417
3.9.6 II.576 5.39.4 II.792 7.69.7 II.1124
3.9.6–7 II.629 5.40.1–4 II.607, 1219 7.72.2 II.698
3.10.1 II.900 5.41.6 1270 7.72.3 II.1081
3.11.1 II.1020, 1226 5.41.7–8 511, 599 7.72.4 181
3.11.3 II.629 5.44.4 454 7.73.4 II.514
3.12.1 852 5.44.6 II.561 7.73.5 826
3.13.1 II.1225 5.46.1–3 II.837 7.77.5 II.548
3.14.1 103 5.46.2 II.1017, 1021 7.80.4 907
3.14.3 II.661 5.48.8–9 II.795 7.80.9 II.810
3.16.2 1020, II.502, 702 5.49.4 II.397, 560 7.81.3 II.594
3.18.1 II.1156 5.49.7 II.896 7.83.2 802
3.18.8–19.1 II.1145 5.54.1 II.1096 7.90.1–5 II.1149
3.19.2 548 5.55.3 126 gram.
3.19.4 1004 5.58.4 II.128 3a II.72
3.19.6 II.703 6.2.3 II.1156 poet.
3.21.2 II.1096 6.3.5 II.1065, 1093 1.3 II.874
3.22.1 II.1225 6.7.2 420, II.246 Caper
3.23.2 850 6.7.5–6 II.1017 Orth.
3.23.7 704 6.8.9 1254 8 314
3.27.1 454 6.10.5 II.585 Cassiodorus
3.28.1 II.452 6.12.1 614 Var.
4.1.7 847 6.13.6 II.239 1.45.10 441
4.2.5 II.177 6.13.10 1015 Cassius
4.4.4 1214 6.16.1 II.824 Fam.
4.6.2 536 6.17.1 II.1108 12.13.2 II.991
4.12.1 II.261 6.21.1 122 15.19.4 II.81
4.12.2 945, II.592 6.32.1 719 Cato
4.17.10 103 6.33.1 II.861 Agr.
4.21.3 414 6.34.8 II.1022 praef. 2 II.21
4.21.8 II.131 6.35.2 570 praef. 4 II.773
4.22.5 1051 6.35.6 II.739 1.2 II.1139
4.23.6 805 6.35.7 II.1167 2.1 II.1060
4.25.2 II.1195 6.36.2 II.1113 2.5 1278
4.28.1 282 6.37.4 II.335 2.7 II.1063
4.31.2 1194 6.37.6 409 4.1 827, II.327
4.37.3 77 6.37.8 II.543 5.2 II.831, 1035
5.3.1 1119 6.37.10 277 5.3 II.851
5.3.5 650 6.38.2 II.1018 5.5 762, II.784
5.6.1 1143 6.40.6 II.422 5.6 863
5.8.1 II.30 7.4.1 II.395 5.8 1028, II.1036
5.9.1 II.1058 7.6.2 II.445 6.2 II.537
5.9.6 II.817 7.13.3 II.1058 6.3 802
5.9.6–7 421 7.14.10 II.614 10.4 751
5.11.6 II.858 7.17.3 575 14.1 II.1037
5.12.1 II.1096 7.23.1 II.1225 15 1029
5.12.2 1052 7.26.3 II.56 18.1 1215
5.13.1 125 7.32.4 II.1083 18.3 228
5.16.2 900 7.33.2 872 18.5 1242
5.24.2 II.861 7.36.3 II.336 18.6 140
5.25.2–4 1143 7.37.5 600 20.1 696
5.27.2 1253 7.39.3 158 23.3 151
5.28.6 II.188 7.40.4 569 24.1 1004, 1015
5.29.1–5 600 7.43.5 821 27 174
5.29.5 389 7.48.1 II.449 28.1 519
5.31.1 271 7.50.1 449 30 II.774
5.32.1 II.398 7.55.10 II.71 33.3 517
Index Locorum 1307
36 163 orat. 1.3.22 78

38.1 1075 31 111 1.4.1 44
38.4 777 46 845 1.8.2 II.833
41.4 II.760 51 1291, II.578 2.1.2 II.774
43.2 685 74 181 2.1.6 II.833
44.1 II.570 126 120 2.1.9 II.368
46.1 II.775 128 834 2.3.4 148
48.1 988, II.755 130 1198 2.8.33 83
48.2 II.260 132 642 2.10.7 II.511
50.2 640, II.265 169 360, II.34 2.12 175
53 II.981 206 1301 2.17.4 II.308
54.2 II.604 Catullus 2.17.6 II.110
58.1 II.860 2b.1–2 II.721 3.4.3 II.877
61.1 767 4.1–2 II.169 3.5.4 648
62.1 II.716 5.5–6 1215 3.5.6 149
73.1 II.140 8.10–11 871 3.5.11 849
76.4 645 16.12–13 698 3.7.2C 1171
79.1 II.572 22.9–11 938 3.15.6 751
87.1 381 23.20 853 3.18.22 1036
88.1 150, 852 31.13 II.871 3.21.6 314
88.2 193 32.1–3 II.946 3.27.1C 948
93.1 1069 33.5–6 II.604 4.11.4 II.675
100 II.763 36.16–17 II.319 4.16.2 II.896
103 163 45.8–9 85 4.22.3 II.1206
109.1 1069 49.1–5 838 5.27.3C 238
112.1 845 56.1–2 1276 5.27.3E 956
114.2 147 61.169–71 II.729 5.27.5 1136
128 272 63.61 II.932 5.28.1B II.250
135.2 II.1113 64.52–67 1161 5.28.16A 890
141.1 II.173 64.58 II.974 6.4.2 1085
141.2 281, 1061 64.60–2 II.924 6.6.1.K II.862
143.1 696 64.65 266 6.8.2B.1 981
143.2 835 64.95 1208 6.15.3 262
144.2 1005 64.140–1 II.205 6.15.4 II.292
144.4 II.231, 324 64.143 1208 7.7.15A 1026
145.2 690 64.228 II.1134 7.18 279
147 II.1161 64.171–4 II.1132 7.20.2 1187
151.2 II.537 68.110–12 209 7.25.1C 891
151.4 II.309, 322 68.131–2 II.465 7.31.3 879, 1200
155.1 193, 210 68B.55–6 214 8.1.5 II.1007, 1086
155.2 210 77.1 1225 8.1.11 II.1009
156.1 II.71 77.1–3 II.946 8.3.2 860
156.7 101, 358, 996 79.1–2 941 8.7.4 = 8.4.11 875
157.1 275, 783, II.1105 85.1 14, II.2 8.24 II.481
157.3 1210, II.850, 851, 1221 86.1–2 927 Cicero
157.4 852, II.239 109.5–6 845 Ac.
157.5 731 113.1–2 211 1.28 245
157.10–11 1097 CEL 1.39 686
157.12 846 3.4–8 II.1183 1.46 766
157.14 II.239 74.15–16 1069 ad Brut.
158.1 1018 142.63–5 II.1231 1.2 1196
Fil. 146.28–9 106 1.2.2 179
1(J) II.66 146.11–14 453 1.15.9 699
hist. 146.21–3 1237 Agr.
22=15C 178 146.32 II.1042 1.4 705
52=47C 818 147.3 740 1.25 859
83=76C 178, 1290 147.verso II.1230 1.26 1257
95g=93C II.1221 214quater.3–5 1212 2.1 710
99=95C 100 Celsus 2.6 1116
Mil. praef. 20 878 2.7 677
1(J) II.902 1.3.13–15 II.838 2.10 II.481, 1077
6(J) II.421 1.3.18 II.993, 999 2.13 17
1308 Index Locorum
Cicero, Agr. (cont.) 1.1.5 885 2.24.3 447, II.460

2.23 1172 1.3.2 II.1123 2.24.5 465
2.32 1166 1.5.3 II.1021 3.1.1 1177, II.42
2.36 693 1.5.4 849, II.213 3.4 178
2.48 II.603, 702 1.5.6 II.185 3.5.1 II.709
2.49 633, II.122 1.5.7 II.278 3.7.1 837
2.50 II.666 1.5.8 29, 31, 235, II.828, 3.8.3 1001
2.52 871 951, 972, 1021 3.9.1 II.454
2.81 463, 1252 1.6.1 155 3.10.3 160
2.87 274 1.6.2 413, II.1020 3.12.3 II.360
2.90 II.562 1.7 II.152 3.13.2 290, 902, II.285
2.92 II.482 1.8.1 1248 3.14.1 977
2.93 II.507 1.8.3 1259 3.15.4 II.102
2.102 762 1.9.1 II.1070 3.15.5 II.689
3.8 II.666 1.9.2 II.478, 1022 3.15.6 II.7918
3.13 II.218 1.10.1 II.969 3.15.7 II.1074
3.16 329 1.10.2 II.592 3.19.1 468
Amic. 1.10.3 413, 774 3.20.2 II.67
2–3 II.1212 1.11.3 891 3.23.4 II.1070
5 II.962 1.12.3 875, II.164 3.24.1 II.20
6 960 1.13.4 1100, II.914 3.25 II.153
10 II.439 1.13.5 II.1123 3.25.1 II.913
11 496 1.13.6 II.828, 958 4.1.6 II.417
12 II.1047 1.14.3 889, II.87 4.1.7 664, 847
15 779 1.14.5 II.457 4.1.8 II.511
16 II.989 1.15.2 II.988 4.2.4 613, 643
22 219 1.16.1–2 452 4.3.3 825, 830
24 195, 750 1.16.3 II.473 4.3.6 II.893
25 II.30 1.16.9 II.993, 1225 4.4a.1 1039
28 II.619 1.16.11 II.511 4.4a.2 II.922, 1034
32 949, II.1130 1.16.12 1266 4.5.3 1187
33 625 1.16.17 II.1124 4.6.1 50, II.898
39 1166 1.17.2 II.57, 71 4.7.2 472
40 998 1.17.7 II.1124 4.15.7 1255
41 II.882, 984 1.18.4 II.1015 4.16.8 1300
50 224 1.18.5 1029 4.18.2 II.987
53 II.1173 1.19.5–6 741 4.18.3 II.1046
57 II.1089 1.20.1 891 4.19.1 II.344
62 II.62 1.20.3 II.987 5.1.3 II.1175
64 485 1.20.5 890 5.1.4 II.931
67 1072 1.20.7 II.989, 1133 5.2.1 573
78 II.128, 446 2.1.6 451, 1222, II.31, 451 5.3.1 203
80 1123 2.1.8 1251, II.1214 5.4.1 1038, II.324
81 II.87 2.1.12 620, II.544 5.4.4 II.161
82 II.746 2.4.4 II.1192 5.8.1 817, II.267
86 II.1097 2.6.1 1014 5.11.6 581
98 60 2.8.1 II.1218 5.11.7 642, II.683
99 709, 724 2.11.1 II.1095 5.13.1 II.764
104 495, II.647 2.13.2 II.279 5.13.3 II.696
Arch. 2.14.2 586 5.14.1 830
1 II.47, 1055 2.15.2 II.329 5.14.3 457
4 1064 2.15.3 368 5.18.4 663, 1104
6 578 2.16.1 II.696 5.20.1 II.923
14 II.609 2.16.3 II.238, 241 5.20.4 1009
18 II.916 2.17.1 1253 5.21.7 II.177
19 1130 2.18.3 1126 5.21.13 II.918
23 II.1084 2.19.1 892 6.1.6 576
36 543 2.20.1 624 6.1.7 II.15, 379, 863, 872
Att. 2.20.2 II.260 6.1.10 II.202
1.1.1 872, II.992, 1230 2.20.3 II.1076 6.1.20 II.1084
1.1.2 II.894 2.21.6 II.225 6.1.21 890
1.1.4 1198 2.22.5 112, II.34 6.2.4 888
Index Locorum 1309
6.2.8 246, 576 10.5.3 867, II.1149 14.1.1 658

6.3.5 II.1225 10.7.1 805 14.10.2 537
6.4.2 II.95 10.8.2 II.87 14.11.2 400
6.6.1 II.254 10.8.4 1256, II.486 14.13.2 125, 1129
6.8.5 180 10.8.10 616 14.16.3 91
6.9.1 646, II.82, 553 10.9.2 584, II.1036 14.17a.7 724
7.2.3 44 10.10.2 II.1098 14.19.1 II.929
7.2.6 II.864, 988 10.10.5 734 14.19.2 779
7.3.2 1114 10.10.6 724 15.1.2 II.595
7.3.5 II.598 10.11.1 II.730 15.2.2 II.376
7.5.5 667 10.11.3 904 15.4.2 II.1011
7.6.1 949 10.12a.1 207 15.4.3 II.914
7.6.2 667 10.13.1 231 15.11.2 1126
7.7.4 II.615 10.15.3 1057 15.13.1 II.772
7.7.7 II.303 10.15.4 149, 1234 15.15.1 II.1214
7.8.2 687 10.16.1 II.152 15.15.3 585
7.9.3 II.493 10.16.5 605 15.21.1 1134
7.9.4 486 10.18.2 717 15.22 II.170
7.11.4 II.30, 387 11.2.3 II.723 15.25.1 II.1126
7.12.2 703 11.6.1 839 15.26.4 II.321
7.13.3 977 11.6.7 II.668 16.1.6 350, II.703
7.13.4 625, II.994 11.8.2 20, 1046 16.4.4 745
7.13a.3 822 11.9.1 1151 16.5.1 II.1009
7.17.3 809 11.13.5 II.250 16.6.2 820, II.803
7.18.2 364 11.15.2 II.822 16.7.2 II.357, 364, 1192
7.24 II.1047 11.15.3 622, 704, II.54 16.7.5 802
7.26.1 850 11.16.4 II.780 16.8.2 339
8.2.2 II.879 11.18.1 1042 16.11.5 II.936
8.3.3 1223, II.233, 666 11.24.5 563 16.11.6 889
8.5.1 834 12.5c 289 16.14.4 II.281
8.7.1 625 12.7.1 534 16.15.1 II.72
8.9.2 541 12.8 330 Balb.
8.11.4 716 12.12.2 II.347 2 566
8.11b.2 820 12.14.4 889 7 30, 1166, 1262
8.11d.2 820 12.20.2 1001 24 162
8.12.1 II.42 12.26.1 1177, II.11, 446 27 II.991
8.13.2 631 12.27.2 II.99 29 1270
8.15.1 II.1000 12.29.2 401 47 669, II.97, 250
9.1.1 98 12.38.2 II.325 50 II.1030
9.2a.1–2 II.51 12.38a.2 684, II.7 51 II.533
9.5.2 II.299 12.40.5 843 56 II.707
9.6.5 II.889 12.52.1 1020 60 567
9.6.7 II.922 13.1.3 1046, 1123 62 II.867, 994
9.7.5 891, 1268 13.2.1 II.887 Brut.
9.7.7 297 13.4.2 II.891 1 384
9.9.1 II.78 13.7.1 II.596 8 II.366, 1102
9.9.2 765 13.8.1 II.112 10 II.1104
9.9.3 II.96 13.13–14.1 II.684 12 II.1102
9.10.3 II.252 13.14–15.2 1156 13–17 1119
9.11a.2 II.457 13.19.4 II.428 16 II.988
9.13a.1 II.655 13.21a.1 1170 17 II.362
9.15.2 134 13.21a.4 II.551 20 II.1103
9.15.5 698 13.25.3 II.865 25 310
9.19.3 50 13.26.2 II.887 27 II.387
10.1a.4 II.748 13.27.2 900 32 II.1102
10.2.2 428 13.28.3 II.30, 432 39 1283, II.487, 1130
10.3a.2 II.77 13.29.3 II.1010, 1086 48 II.379
10.4.4 1125, II.396 13.32.3 962, II.976 52 689, II.1202
10.4.5 II.887 13.37.3 589 56 II.763
10.4.6 II.430, 1073 13.40.2 485, 1084 61 II.30, 428
10.4.8 II.612 13.42.1 1146 65 II.883
10.4.9 416 13.52.2 201 68 1248
1310 Index Locorum
Cicero, Brut. (cont.) 16 733 2.11 1112, II.712

70 II.462 21 II.685 2.16 665
72 II.617, 975 22 559 2.19 1122
76 II.1019 23 II.241 2.20 II.764
78 1011 26 687 2.21 II.603
79 409, 552 27 II.683 2.22 II.1099
80 II.1103 33 II.866 2.25 112
81 II.525 37 476 3.1 1042
87 II.189 43 1035 3.2 II.725
106 II.617 49 671 3.5–6 252
113 1105 62–3 II.882 3.8 868, 1055, II.336
124 995 73 1145 3.9 1255
126 580, II.751 77 746, II.54 3.10 II.28, 30, 387, 388,
128 548 96 II.178 394, 396, 1084
129 1079 97 II.26 3.12 952, II.49
131 II.467 101 II.296 3.13 II.941
133 672 102 II.379 3.17 579
140 724, 756, II.1185 Cael. 3.18 1254
142 II.143 1 II.74 3.22 1118
144 II.417 4 II.108 3.24 900
148 741, II.907 6 133 3.25 II.471, 571
152 338, 741 7 1034 3.26 II.987
161 II.1103 8 690 3.27 II.476
164 900 9 147, II.351 4.3 II.753
169 1277 10 993 4.8 II.822
171 II.37, 906 14 196, II.92 4.13 61
179 II.1130 16 II.720 4.18 997
180 543, II.666 18 1200, II.394 4.19 24, 573, 1129, II.552,
183 929, II.548 26 II.458 965
184 II.344 29 484 4.21 II.711
188 437 31 II.252 4.23 II.487
203 II.545 33 II.902 Clu.
219 106 34 764, 1188, II.55, 156, 206 1 II.968
220 1135 48 625, 1185, II.85 3 II.33
227 II.994 51 294 6 II.1061
229 II.617, 993 55 1104 7 II.745
238 II.652 56 II.580 9 1196
239 79 57 II.364 16 670
240 1057 62 580 18 1196, II.1172
252 1011 67 II.369 27 181, 820, II.797
258 II.565 76 1030 28 942
262 1264 Catil. 36 II.895
264 310 1.1 II.940 41 789
268 1013 1.3 II.74 45 II.237
279 856 1.4 II.144 47 458
280 II.1102 1.6 343, 1168, II.693 49 810
281 1130 1.7 II.956 51 II.250
285 II.1215 1.8–9 II.1016 58 II.802
288 328 1.10 699 60 II.68
296 890 1.15 1229, II.803 64 II.551
297 II.825 1.16 362 65 II.860
298 II.1106 1.17 II.724, 989 67 723, II.92, 765
300–1 II.1184 1.19 665, 1038 80 488
302 II.460 1.20 II.172 82 II.1033
306 1267 1.21 603, 612 84 959, II.1009
310 886 1.22 347 88 984
313 II.195 1.25 959 89 II.133, 720
332 565 1.27 327, II.992 95 839
Caec. 2.3 769, II.573 99 II.74
4 875 2.5 II.724 100 589
8 II.36, 159 2.7 211 101 936
Index Locorum 1311
103 II.681 1.114 1211 2.60 II.913

104 777 1.116 936 2.69 950
106 II.523 1.121 585 2.75 II.379
107 1076 1.123 646 2.77 342
111 II.1203 1.126 882, 1200 2.79 1071
112 II.913 1.129 II.807 2.83 II.178
114 II.147 1.132 1115 2.85 198, 503, II.995
121 937 1.137 953 2.86 296
127 II.1171 1.140 122 2.88 687
129 147, II.419 1.149 II.886 2.93 1251
138 II.191 1.154 II.988 2.94 1301
141 589 1.160 387 2.98 II.865
143 II.440 1.162 II.325 2.103 II.740
146 573, II.298 1.164 II.869 2.107 1034
151 731 1.168 1030, II.1122 2.108 721
155 683 1.169 II.733 2.110 II.1075
156 868, II.485 1.171 321 2.117 II.1083
158 433 1.179 1079 2.119 765
168 II.560 1.182 II.1080 2.122 II.508
176 939 1.183 II.1065, 1093 2.129 II.147
177 1169 1.185 II.921 2.131 II.304
188 211, II.61 1.190 563 2.132 II.948
190 II.1082 1.194 644, 876 2.133 II.463
202 II.1082 1.196 577 2.138 II.299
Corn. 1.197 456 2.146 II.545
fr. II.9 II.970 1.203 II.290 2.150 II.876
de Orat. 1.204 II.1069 2.151 II.911
1.4 II.684 1.208 177 2.159 141
1.6 342 1.209 II.877 2.170 679
1.7 733 1.213 788 2.178 1105
1.11 II.717, 718 1.214 63 2.182 41, 1285
1.20 II.317 1.220 974 2.183 II.1115, 1160
1.24 II.193 1.221 II.655 2.186 41, 1154
1.28 II.1069 1.222 II.312 2.195 612
1.29 II.424 1.223 1131 2.207 234, 268
1.32 II.900 1.226 II.428 2.208 1151
1.33 25, 807 1.231 1083 2.210 II.373
1.38 II.708, 819 1.232 166 2.217 732
1.39 II.3, 596, 958 1.236 II.655 2.219 972, II.1201
1.40 II.1081 1.240 II.413 2.222 543
1.49 II.496 1.244 II.15 2.224 743
1.50 II.317 1.250 331 2.233 624
1.53 II.691 1.251 II.135 2.236 949
1.54 991 1.253 148 2.237 289, 290, 296
1.61 II.122 1.254 211 2.240 820
1.62 II.525 1.255 387, 1066 2.242 1274
1.65–6 II.1159 1.259 II.548 2.245 II.522
1.70 II.682, 1178 2.4 II.85 2.250 1150
1.73 II.371 2.5 II.817 2.253 II.682
1.74 120 2.7 688, II.448 2.254 II.345
1.75 II.747 2.9 987 2.259 1082
1.82 II.542 2.15 977 2.261 379, II.3, 271
1.87 557 2.16 286 2.262 II.242
1.89 167 2.18 II.1066 2.270 807
1.91 1110 2.24 747 2.281 109, 755, 1221, II.55,
1.94 II.227 2.25 II.885 67, 223
1.95 534, II.378 2.33 469 2.302 II.733
1.96 1266, II.83 2.38 1102, 1106, II.733 2.307 441
1.99 903 2.54 957 2.318 819
1.102 1105 2.58 815, II.546 2.322 II.901
1.107 II.122 2.59 II.813 2.327 747
1312 Index Locorum
Cicero, de Orat. (cont.) 19 201, II.762 52 719

2.333 774 21 977 55 1081, II.525
2.334 1099 25 1126 57 1034
2.335 425 26 999 65 48
2.343 1268 27 145 72 997
2.344 II.175 30 II.1036 Dom.
2.350 719 33 688, II.637 1 II.69
2.355 959 35 1126 8 131, 910, 975
2.356 550, II.667 Div. 11 II.398, 1090
2.357 II.774 1.4 873 12 II.995
2.364 II.1046 1.8 II.692 17 531
2.365 385 1.24 II.1171 18 731
2.366 741 1.26 473 19 290
3.2 854 1.29 960 20 II.1012
3.8 II.500, 1125 1.40 II.671 22 II.347
3.13 911 1.60 II.1037 23 940
3.16 II.498, 1019 1.63 132, 1116, 1130 26 II.1046
3.17 400 1.71 1164 34 II.782, 1207
3.18 II.864, 895 1.82 725 35 834
3.23 II.673 1.87 398 37 II.263
3.28 942 1.90 176 39 II.1028
3.34 951 1.96 II.556 40 587
3.37 II.568 1.101 534, II.51 41 833
3.38 II.206 1.104 1176 48 31, II.847
3.42 II.991 1.111 II.548 51 680, II.982
3.46 40 1.121 II.190 53 II.338, 584
3.53 887 1.125–6 II.1143 62 523
3.55 145, II.1024 2.1 446 66 II.562
3.57 20 2.9 1194 68 878
3.58 145 2.11 1212 69 II.584
3.60 872, II.568 2.20 1067 74 II.986
3.66 II.60 2.21 II.84 75 II.983, 1032
3.68 II.808 2.25 II.1082 76 II.313
3.82 1275 2.32 509 78 II.1014
3.91 II.205 2.36 324 80 II.609
3.93 II.997 2.37 590 82 707
3.98 1275 2.62 27 92 1150
3.102 991 2.68 II.191, 718 93 II.290
3.110 399 2.71 1171 96 II.1046
3.119–20 II.1210 2.73 779, 986 105 II.562
3.124 II.311, 628, 996 2.78 929 107 731
3.132 332 2.79 202 109 180
3.138 845 2.91 183 111 454
3.141 II.550 2.108 659 112 982
3.142 144 2.116 456, II.1042 115 123, 884, 1122
3.143 II.366 2.117 II.242 116 II.1028
3.145 231 2.118 835 117 II.1032
3.147 II.1071 2.140 II.595 118 II.572
3.151 732, II.1071 2.143 II.1050 124 138, 152
3.156 II.560 2.146 205 125 1047
3.178 1050 2.150 II.945 125–6 II.1200
3.182 II.893, 1103 Div. Caec. 131 II.1111
3.185 1258 2 1131 132 II.1032
3.188 1101 19 655 139 II.200, 405
3.192 II.714 20–1 II.1060 141 273
3.204 II.468 22 733, II.172 145 839
Deiot. 27 II.707 Ep. fr.
8 1234 35 II.896 VII.13W II.960
13 II.716, 762 39 II.587, 687 Fam.
16 II.877 44 II.633 1.1.1 II.495
17 368, II.931 50 II.39 1.2.1 II.804
Index Locorum 1313
1.2.2 II.1056 5.12.6 II.548 11.24.1 362

1.4.2 708, II.155 5.13.3 II.52 11.27.5 458
1.5b.1 70 5.13.5 724 11.27.8 II.457
1.5b.2 353 5.17.2 II.643 12.1.2 351
1.7.2 II.425 5.17.3 508 12.4.2 II.860
1.7.3 995 5.20.3 1189, II.167 12.17.1 1044, II.228
1.7.7 II.751 5.21.3 864 12.19.1 581
1.7.8 1177 5.21.5 1286 12.22a.1 295
1.7.10 586 6.3.2 1171 12.27.1 151
1.8.7 17, 66, II.722 6.4.1 II.363 12.30.1 1083
1.9.1 1158 6.4.2 II.897 12.30.6 II.655
1.9.4 586 6.6.2 II.764 13.2 470, 732
1.9.9 697 6.6.6 839 13.3 470
1.9.13 757 6.6.8 II.221 13.6.2 II.988
1.9.15 1010, 1299 6.7.3 II.922 13.6.4 564, II.603
1.9.19 II.675 6.10a.3 II.56 13.8.1 1251
1.9.25 II.549 6.10b.1 II.1094 13.8.2 II.183
1.10 940, II.790 6.12.1 II.610 13.10.2 867
2.1.2 II.153 6.18.2 II.997 13.16.3 II.1093
2.5.1 II.67 6.18.4 1210 13.21.2 II.880
2.6.3 945 6.20.2 II.1103 13.25.1 II.838
2.7.2 840 6.22.3 II.321 13.29.4 II.668
2.10.2 II.909 7.1.4 834 13.32.1 935
2.10.4 II.55 7.1.6 II.32 13.34.1 18
2.11.1 1044 7.3.6 II.432 13.35.1 765
2.13.1 II.910 7.4 850 13.41.1 II.915
2.13.2 773 7.6.1 1070 13.55.1 II.486
2.16.3 169 7.11.1 II.578 13.63.1 1253
2.19.1 II.435 7.13.1 II.553 14.2.2 963, II.934
2.19.2 135, II.901 7.15.1 1168 14.3.3 785
3.3.2 II.15 7.17.1 II.1097 14.4.2 II.526
3.5.1 II.914 7.28.1 II.699 14.4.3 485
3.5.3 II.280, 992 7.30.1 II.537, 561 14.5.1 1250, II.95
3.5.4 183 7.32.2 209 14.5.2 1296
3.6.2 II.960 8.9a.2 II.201 14.7.1 570
3.6.5 II.62 8.14.3 II.164 14.8 II.1230
3.7.3 268 9.1.2 1284 14.14.1 860
3.8.1 II.93 9.2.1 932, 1203 14.19.1 1177
3.8.2 II.226 9.5.2 297 14.23.1 II.730
3.8.3 II.746 9.5.3 II.331 15.2.4 II.1145
3.8.4 II.790 9.8.2 II.889 15.2.8 98
3.8.9 227 9.12.2 1080, 1085 15.4.7 II.1120
3.8.10 II.854 9.14.2 44 15.4.11 297, II.549
3.9.3 II.93 9.14.3 II.572 15.7 890
3.9.4 311, 428, 664, 945 9.15.5 II.1070 15.13.1 975
3.11.1 1041 9.16.2 II.440 15.14.1 1130
4.1.2 II.1231 9.17.1 153 15.14.4 II.1007, 1086
4.2.4 619 9.18.4 926 15.17.2 245
4.4.1 II.1056 9.19.1 II.1170, 1173 15.20.2 II.325
4.4.3 1002 9.21.2 254 16.3.1 1265, II.897
4.5.4 II.335 9.22.3 168, 755 16.5.2 II.345
4.7.2 295 9.24.4 II.1231 16.7 II.784
4.7.3 792 9.26.2 240, II.701 16.9.1 808
4.9.2 II.538 10.3.1 1136 16.9.4 357
4.9.4 II.118 10.6.3 II.535 16.12.1 289, 293, 299, 1105
4.13.2 1213 10.10.1 II.904 16.12.2 60
4.14.1 989 10.22.2 1262 16.18.1 II.784
5.2.9 556 10.25.3 587, II.396 16.20.1 II.915
5.8.2 1248 10.30.2 1125 16.22.1 II.1082
5.12.1 968, II.436 11.21.2 1250 16.22.2 II.938
5.12.5 II.17 11.21.5 II.420 17.10.2 II.466
1314 Index Locorum
Cicero (cont.) 3.1 II.997 12 II.458

Fat. 3.15 II.327 13 781, II.1066
10 905 3.16 II.72 14 207
12 II.315 3.18 1135 21 II.1173
15 679 3.22 II.193 22 1126
33 II.17 3.24 1112 23 II.469
Fin. 3.25 II.705 30 II.183
1.1 58 3.29 318, 862 41 155
1.2 II.593 3.34 II.195 43 1219
1.6–7 II.1193 3.36 II.739 44 606
1.7 II.138 3.37 337 46 II.648
1.10 565, II.382 3.39 1258 52 II.899
1.11 II.746 3.44 II.705 59 340
1.22 945 3.45 II.916 70 843, II.38
1.25 1293 3.57 998 73 II.844
1.26 II.1183 3.59 1148 87 II.356
1.27 II.99 3.64 723 99 II.1051
1.29 1280 3.68 II.89 Font.
1.36 1065 3.72 1268 2 II.217
1.42 656 3.75 1172 4 983, II.1000
1.44 II.876 4.12 1279 12 826
1.47 II.848 4.13 II.878 22 II.1060
1.48 II.647 4.17 991 36 293
1.49 1220 4.20 861 44 1255
1.50 1255, 1256 4.31 II.756 48 814
1.56 289 4.32 705 Har.
1.59 91 4.37 II.773 5 581
1.60 II.493 4.45 II.981 10 984
1.62 70 4.50 1253 11 II.619
1.66 482 4.56 II.652 12 II.608
1.67 1155, II.754 4.57 II.889 19 II.369
2.1 1295 4.62 II.191, 702 27 936
2.2 II.557, 1044, 1295 4.64 II.756 32 II.1056
2.14 551 4.68 949 34 II.35
2.18 686, 943 4.77 II.670 35 1076, II.599
2.23 II.498 5.2 118, II.312 37 339
2.24 624 5.6 II.1000 41 II.979
2.40 1065 5.9 803 52 II.356
2.41 490, 717 5.21 II.294 54 II.557
2.43 603, 615, 944, 1228 5.26 II.996 59 II.745
2.44 584 5.27 858 62 II.35
2.46 II.456 5.33 II.680 inc. orat. fr.
2.49 581 5.37 1012, II.767 B1S=26Cr 776
2.54 952 5.44 II.176 Inv.
2.55 158 5.47 1136 1.6 II.957, 1180
2.59 1261 5.53 II.1055 1.9 398, II.1011
2.60 II.660 5.55 II.660 1.10 997
2.61 361, 644 5.57 II.230 1.11 II.110
2.62 1156 5.65 1133 1.12 II.54
2.65 1151 5.69 1075 1.19 874, II.574, 608
2.66 907 5.71 1269 1.20 996
2.68 1228, II.605 5.76 II.1030 1.28 II.240
2.70 987, 1279 5.79 II.282 1.29 218, II.141
2.74 941 5.81 1169 1.35 1288
2.75 1071 5.83 II.476, 615 1.36 995
2.81 II.676 5.93 II.719 1.43 II.1069, 1217
2.83 663 Flac. 1.44 II.328
2.86 II.1051 1 II.632 1.45 II.86, 328, 1212
2.89 II.822 2 1042, 1177, II.85 1.47 781, II.328
2.92 883 6 839 1.48 23
2.104 II.668 9 952 1.50 1081
Index Locorum 1315
1.51 41, 340, II.106 2.32–3 II.1019 122 335, II.534

1.52 II.721 2.37 1030 123 231
1.57 II.736 2.43 713 125 719
1.59 II.338 2.45 II.896 135 II.1037
1.66 II.869 2.46 II.1116 137 945
1.70 II.136 2.55 754 143 1247
1.80 1166 2.57 1061 Man.
1.82 122 2.58 459 3 1263
1.84 II.328 2.60 755 7 844
1.85 II.20, 195 2.60=LEX XII.10.8 II.1174 11 1259
1.86 200, II.15, 315 2.64 720 15 966
1.87 737, II.316 3.1 II.42, 55, 62, 1050 16–17 II.1168
1.106 II.398 3.2 398 19 II.312
1.108 II.513 3.6 II.678, 691 20 II.290
2.2 18 3.7 771 27 II.81
2.4 722 3.8 520 31 II.1082
2.7 1152, II.824 3.9 718, II.1174 32 337, 781
2.9 716, 958 3.11 692 34 II.1045
2.14 II.525 3.14 II.538 35 1199
2.27 II.192 3.22 II.540 38 1155
2.32 II.580 3.23 1170 51 1249
2.33 216 3.24 II.367 54 770
2.36 839 3.26 213 57 II.668
2.63 722 3.32 II.694 66 II.688
2.75 II.580 3.33 1177, II.495 68 705
2.81 II.641 3.37 II.488 69 II.128
2.82 II.190 3.45 1046 71 II.87
2.98 II.438 Lig. Marc.
2.106 II.795 8 1127 5 II.721
2.113 690, II.520 20 II.147 9 240
2.118 II.1036 23 496, II.869 12 II.825
2.124 II.1125 24 421, II.692 16 838
2.130 II.54 26 II.114, 367 20 II.440
2.148 773 27 1105 21 342, 953, 1297
2.166 751, 1029 28 II.683, 897 27 II.899
2.167 907 30 II.683 31 1170
2.168 937 33 II.271 Mil.
2.175 II.582 34 661 1 1197
Leg. 38 764, 1189, II.24, 55, 156 3 II.486
1.1 1269 Luc. 5 1195
1.3 731 2 1110 8 II.352
1.5 II.267 11 II.683 8–9 II.1142
1.12 II.94 22 II.1071 11 288
1.15 624, II.86 28 586 17–18 II.1212
1.25 287 32 II.124 23 II.121
1.30 177 40 II.102 24 II.1141
1.41 1104 48 1154 26 1135
1.42 966 54 460, 1130 28 II.690
1.49 1282 58 177 31 II.124
1.51 113 59 411 33 II.821
1.52 324, 420, II.341 63 590 44 1125
1.62 II.436, 470 72 417 46 II.353, 850
2.7 127 75 509 49 257, 361
2.10 II.904 82 II.735 50 II.329, 813
2.15 771 83 629, 953 55 II.605
2.17 II.908 89 936, 965 57 II.1082
2.18 466 98 II.276 59 II.295
2.21 512 101 226 64 337, 586
2.29 185 110 II.338 66 1199, II.748
2.30 753 113 1252 68 II.986
2.31 648 119 534 73 II.613, 091
1316 Index Locorum
Cicero, Mil. (cont.) 1.88 762 1.23 II.364, 594, 745

74 179 1.89 II.693 1.26 II.69, 1051
75 II.330 1.97 II.982 1.28 750
76 II.357 1.98 II.1042 1.30 II.181
78 II.748 2.2 II.1184 1.35 II.546
79 II.359 2.4 710 1.39 684
83 II.996 2.6 1256 1.43 1040, 1045
94 367 2.12 546, 727 1.56 II.364
99 886, 1020 2.21 545 1.58 1267
101 365, II.1093 2.24 1136, II.998 1.75 II.1226
103 II.1036 2.37 1286, II.413 1.78 II.1042
105 988 2.41 II.657 1.81 1254
Mur. 2.43 136 1.86 1285
2 II.1061 2.44 II.379 1.88 424
3 658, II.591, 797 2.49 563 1.90 601, II.235
7 II.496 2.52 849 1.100 603
9 1151 2.54 176 1.104 960
12 II.481 2.69 II.669 1.105 287, II.916
13 II.352, 1012 2.73 II.441 1.108 1247
14 97, 237 2.75 II.488 1.112 319
15 1086, 1252 2.79 952, 1249 1.113 II.172
17 II.81, 963 2.92 245 1.119 II.383
20 1149 2.96 846 1.120 II.1052
21 494, 656 2.105 992 1.122 1295
23 1024 2.116 259 1.126 II.620
25 II.537 2.118 565 1.127 II.1022
28 825 2.122 414 1.132 II.362
29 906 2.127 874, 1012, 1116 1.134 859, II.1226
31 740 2.128 1135 1.143 603
32 689 2.138 752 1.144 II.1202
36 938 2.144 II.329 1.147 1261
43 208 2.148 II.1050 1.148 1253
45 II.83, 774 2.158 61 1.150 II.1166
48 840, II.29 2.166 II.901 2.2 II.1081
51 II.34 2.167 105 2.3 508, II.436
54 II.795 2.168 II.228 2.8 II.1024
56 1099 3.24 327 2.16 II.393
58 614 3.31 281 2.17 II.443
60 310 3.42 II.697 2.19 II.438, 1098
61 986 3.43 II.293, 1214 2.21 II.564
64 1033 3.47 176 2.22 II.53
65 711, II.378 3.51 II.1216 2.23 1100, II.1097
67 II.300 3.59 198 2.25 920, II.792, 813
74 655 3.63 II.450 2.27 II.1103
77 250, 770 3.80 939 2.30 II.1106
80 II.346 3.84 1030 2.31 447
90 II.1097 3.86 186 2.37 1062
N.D. 3.87 91 2.38 903
1.21 II.82 3.90 II.438 2.40 575
1.28 713 3.92 1228 2.42 II.911
1.31 II.495 3.93 437, 985, 1088 2.48 II.406
1.33 259 Off. 2.51 1099, 1224, II.437
1.35 II.515 1.1 1285 2.53 620
1.36 947 1.3 938 2.56 II.269
1.45 II.486 1.7 II.37 2.57 II.1106
1.53 II.1062 1.9 II.1026, 1227 2.59 II.616, 899
1.60 II.453, 493 1.11 960 2.69 II.372
1.63 II.93 1.17 1124 2.70 953
1.65 II.1210 1.18 II.911 2.71 II.1095
1.75 1021 1.19 II.525, 598 2.72 II.314
1.82 II.1075 1.20 II.1225 2.75 II.90, 249
Index Locorum 1317
2.76 647 186 1104 2.29 1160

3.6 644 217 985 2.30 II.1221
3.9 II.445 219 1152 2.31 II.738
3.12 224 224 II.45 2.32 II.922, 1031
3.13 120 228 II.761 2.33 739, II.570
3.15 II.279 234 579 2.34 II.1054
3.27 II.208 Parad. 2.39 II.1023
3.28 1246 11 II.433 2.44 176
3.30 491 12 1284 2.45 II.579
3.36 II.643 14 II.602 2.47 II.1126
3.38 205 20 1001, 1016 2.48 II.1031
3.44 189, 1282 22 624 2.54 II.936
3.45 653 24 523, II.839 2.55 1279, II.493
3.46 202 30 202 2.60 577
3.49 II.1042 Part. 2.61 II.994
3.50 II.1064 19 II.608 2.62 II.901, 1039
3.58 II.648, 765 31 1110 2.63 II.1097, 1099
3.59 II.112 32 957 2.64 II.916
3.66 II.41 53 II.899 2.66 II.965, 1108
3.67 842 61 840 2.68 II.1127
3.73 318 64 II.241 2.69 893, 1128
3.74 612 86 744 2.73 II.1039
3.75 II.309, 685 88 II.362, 424 2.75 27
3.76 1164 89 495 2.76 165
3.79 II.159 90 141 2.77 1032
3.80 804, II.883 99 II.109 2.78 II.613
3.82 II.984 114 II.222 2.79 II.178, 198, 1083
3.92 701 Phil. 2.81 II.842
3.94 246, 955 1.1 1046 2.86 504
3.95 II.1052 1.2 II.1026 2.92 177
3.97 1165, II.23, 681 1.3 330 2.96 1131
3.100 591, 702, II.50 1.5 II.1039 2.97 II.1125
3.101 857 1.12 II.1033 2.99 II.1030, 1031
3.105 II.114, 1099 1.14 II.999 2.100 II.428
3.112 II.185 1.16 572 2.101 1257
3.113 674, II.317 1.17 II.1036 2.104 II.453
3.114 II.546 1.19 II.1000 2.105 88
3.119 II.1056 1.20 II.1028 2.107 II.521
3.121 47, II.882 1.21 155, 340, 959, II.1033 2.110 II.1093
Opt. Gen. 1.23 II.542 2.111 1066
6 II.748 1.26 1279 2.112 II.1033
10 680, II.349 1.27 II.1039 2.113 360, 768
Orat. 1.29 II.1179 2.115 II.1127
3 II.692 1.33 II.1126 2.118 1155
4 964 1.36 II.1029 2.119 II.1126
6 II.581, 1054 1.37 1280 3.1 II.591
29 1252 2.4 II.1127 3.3 757
41 918 2.5 II.161 3.4 II.821
54 287 2.6 II.591 3.7 1277
77 687 2.7 620, II.544 3.8 II.404
87 888 2.11 110 3.14 II.404
101 349, 360, 509 2.11–12 II.1073 3.16 II.1207
105 938 2.12 126 3.20 841
109 II.499 2.16 II.1050 3.21 II.327
131 II.1063 2.17 II.571 3.24 II.610
132 956, II.986 2.18 1125 3.28 176, 868, II.1005
143 936 2.20 II.1026 3.29 II.941
151 746, II.764 2.21 642 3.31 II.729
157 910 2.23 914 4.4 II.789
162 551 2.25 202, II.1031 4.9 1264
169 90 2.26 1058 4.11 II.1109
1318 Index Locorum
Cicero, Phil. (cont.) 13.15 1028, II.118 45 II.28

4.15 II.162 13.17 II.574 51 1275
5.2 977 13.18 1063 53 993
5.5 165, 433 13.24 335, II.712 55 216
5.6 137, 138, 1196 13.28 738, 1122 56 II.592
5.10 II.605, 676 13.33 553 59 II.719
5.22 1232 13.37 II.635 62 II.331, 1094
5.23 II.358 13.49 II.146 65 II.108
5.33 II.682 14.3 II.1035 75 II.605
5.36 II.1094 14.4 II.523 76 II.401
5.39 1279 14.6 138, II.964 80 II.353
5.41 II.503 14.13 II.1024 84 444
5.48 II.732 14.17 558 87 II.695
5.51 II.987 14.18 237 89 952
6.5 803, 1024 14.22 852 93 766
6.6 II.70, 446 14.31 367 94 1110, II.567
6.16 II.688 14.32 II.1175 95 162
6.17 II.417 14.36–7 671 97 II.680
7.7 941 Pis. 101 II.811
7.18 II.1102 3 191 Prov.
7.27 II.1146 8 1262 1 II.890
8.3 768 14 662, 1106 28 1219
8.5 II.18 18 660 43 1169, II.764
8.9 II.1014 24 II.889 44 208, 285
8.11 II.897 25 966 47 527
8.13 731, 1029 36 836 Q. fr.
8.14 488, 657, 1251 38 974 1.1.7 II.1176
8.15 II.1010 44 II.775 1.1.32 II.344
8.17–18 II.1169 46 889 1.1.38 731
8.20 II.298 51 801 1.2.6 II.584, 590
8.21 II.172 55 829 1.2.11 224
8.28 955 56 1057, II.936 1.2.12 II.849
8.31 524 58 250 1.3.1 568, 936, II.945
8.33 670 61 II.1048 1.3.6 II.612
9.7 II.223 62 II.860 2.1.1 II.72
9.9 548, II.721 69 562 2.1.3 85
9.10 II.1088 73 II.1094 2.3.7 834
9.15 II.780 75 II.1030, 1064 2.6.4 1225, II.628, 996
10.1 II.544, 774 77 326 2.8.1 II.161
10.4 II.485, 507 83–4 II.244 2.10.3 783, 1026
10.5 550, II.407 89 1064 2.12.1 II.1056
10.7 365 90 872 2.12.4 974
10.22 II.299 94 II.1014 2.13.1 II.1183
11.4 715, II.648 99 II.80, 609 2.14.1 197
11.10 130 Planc. 2.16.5 II.739
11.12 II.300 2 1075 3.1.1 96
11.16 189 7 II.281 3.1.9 II.854
11.18 165 12 II.705 3.1.10 587
11.22 II.743 13 II.172 3.3.1 II.912
11.30 II.541 14 603 3.5.1 II.157, 168
11.34 1251 16 1044 Q. Rosc.
11.37 II.692 18 766, 769, II.1011, 2 707
12.2 II.863 1031 3 471, 975
12.4 681 20 330 9 374
12.7 134 21 II.683 16 II.595, 755
12.9 895 22 1273 17 1113
12.11 821 29 962, 1203 21 1175, II.121
12.15 II.111 30 II.1105 25 350, 909
13.7 993, II.69 34 II.993 26 II.580
13.13 812 37 II.748 30 II.371
13.14 II.372 40 II.628 33 641
Index Locorum 1319
52 1123 1.19 II.338 90 1179

53 346 1.32 501 91 615, 777
Quinct. 1.38 474 94 1107
1 839 1.51 1275, II.813 98 1129
5 II.296, 596 1.58 851 100 437, 815, II.219, 314
9 II.1094 1.63 1132 101 137, 187, II.705
11 II.1068 2.2 1067, II.34 104 II.60
18 II.14 2.5 218 109 II.1035
21 824 2.11 575 111 II.278
24 841 2.27 II.730 117 410
30 990 2.31 543 118 II.1192
31 669 2.34 1214 120 606
32 156, II.535 2.43 942 121 II.89, 591
41 840, II.86 2.45 513, 976, II.486 128 II.181
43 29 2.49 1252 135 983
46 II.521 2.53 II.1067 136 144
49 II.687 2.64 II.660 139 952
51 II.1052 3.16 II.176 141 646
53 II.450 3.23 689 147 II.69
57 II.1105 3.34 897 148 II.75
59 II.784 5.11 107 151 II.127
74 II.687 6.9 979 154 91, II.1035
79 65, 182, 589, 826, II.1032 6.10 II.806 Scaur.
86 II.596 6.11 II.999 4 273
Rab. Perd. 6.15 863 13 362
4 II.821 6.18 1049 31 II.1109
12 II.137 6.19 II.1015 39 II.669
18 1111 6.24 II.876 44 722
19 II.337 6.26 II.964 Sen.
20 II.286, 693 S. Rosc. 1 II.589
Rab. Post. 4 II.60 2 206, 1153
7 1178 6 1076, II.584, 600 4 620
17 184 9 768 5 II.594
24 II.68 10 II.279, 551 10 1037
26 1064 15 252 13 II.4, 426
33 II.811 16 189 16 625, II.83
42 284 18 II.783 17 876
Red. Pop. 19 824, II.636 19 188, II.433, 589
10 954 23 152 20 II.856
12 II.778 25 II.1069 21 295, II.416
Red. Sen. 27 II.907 22 II.112
3 1110 28 II.599 24 II.275
11 1277 29 II.632, 794, 874 30 524
14 124 30 867 32 II.885
18 975 31–2 II.1199 35 550, 628, II.103
20 II.754 33 1153 36 690
22 II.814 37 II.187 38 1021
23 975 39 II.17, 737 41 II.588
25 II.495 47 136, 1169 42 II.93
29 175 48 II.645, 687 45 1038
31 II.1101 50 641 50 II.1191
34 II.723 57 1008, II.216 54 II.792
35 976 58 II.997 55 II.588, 716, 772
36 II.1015 61 II.688 56 111, 1252, II.813
37 1257 69 151 59 1006, II.486, 499
Rep. 70 588 60 II.900
1.2 1041 72 954 67 658
1.4 II.418 80 250 68 795
1.14 II.1169 81 84 73 668
1.15 1087 84 II.1222 79 II.359
1.18 II.1020 85 227 84 II.453, 693
1320 Index Locorum
Cicero (cont.) Top. 2.10 247

Sest. 1 II.220 2.11 668, II.964
1 II.1091 2 II.751 2.14 509
6 128 5 160 2.16 625, II.535
8 II.127 25 333 2.20 265
11 II.1058 28 1040 2.29 767
13 II.907 32 979 2.33 1108
19 II.427 35 918 2.35 643, 919
21 II.1051 38 286, II.25 2.39 II.976
26 174, 1158 59 II.357 2.41 II.879
28 II.811 84 II.115 2.43 II.185
29 1214 95 965, 1281, II.987 2.52 665, II.468
37 163 Tul. 2.53 643, 1037
38 1299 5 677 2.54 II.759
42 490 24–5 857 2.56 648
52 947 26 II.1050 2.58 26
60 585 29 679, II.589 2.60 91
74 II.453 49 II.245 2.61 543, II.186, 368
75 99 Tusc. 2.62 II.521
76 II.1015 1.1 556, 889 2.64 II.296
79 II.93 1.3 1252 3.4 1039, II.654
83 II.324 1.4 421 3.5 1254
85 1110, II.913 1.5 II.1188 3.6 II.615
93 689 1.6 II.984, 1130 3.8 324, II.1029
95 1075, II.177, 1.7 144, 1274, II.984 3.10 II.726
1065 1.9 II.999 3.11 562
101 719 1.13 715 3.12 II.899
103 1073 1.14 II.125, 658 3.14 775
120 II.1083 1.15 II.765 3.16 1211, II.535
122 246 1.16 768, II.150, 376 3.21 747
127 124 1.17–18 II.1210 3.23 II.1069
128 975 1.21 128 3.26 II.1082
134 89 1.23 310 3.27 70, II.997
142 1079, 1132 1.24 II.1016 3.34 928
145 89 1.30 II.534 3.36 737
Sul. 1.32 988 3.38 II.1095
12 II.899 1.34 318 3.40 1279
15 1127 1.41 1132, 1173 3.49 1072, II.579
18 976, II.554 1.42 II.331 3.53 II.829
19 II.629 1.49 949 3.66 II.1028
20 II.695 1.52 272, II.130 3.73 II.636, 989
21 532 1.62 II.499, 527 3.74 II.448
27 II.377 1.67 580 3.84 II.1187
35 985 1.71 II.269 4.3 II.1098
38 681 1.72 453 4.4 725
39 II.19 1.76 II.88, 347 4.7 39
43 II.277 1.81 494 4.14 546
45 II.902 1.82 534, II.1032 4.17 750
46 355 1.88 196, 1116 4.20 750
49 II.762 1.89 1253 4.21 II.131
51 385 1.90 488 4.28 II.271
57 855 1.93 753 4.40 II.541, 1203
70 935, 1038 1.94 II.759 4.44 II.102
72 210 1.97 II.71, 493 4.46 1164
73 988 1.99 II.813 4.50 763
81 1079, 1134 1.101 II.251 4.53 II.375
82 681, II.1095 1.102 1054, 1071, II.509 4.58 II.766
88 1132 1.108 II.611, 792 4.66 360
92 II.55, 502 1.116 II.802 4.71 738, 1068
Tim. 1.118 II.603 4.75 765
8 284 2.2 886, II.38 4.78 II.244
Index Locorum 1321
4.79 1130 1.12 575 2.27 II.771

5.4 1108 1.13 1160 2.32 685
5.7 II.713 1.14 984 2.36 II.167
5.12 507, II.194 1.20 850 2.37 II.446
5.17 705, II.98 1.22 II.143 2.38 560
5.21 324 1.26 II.531 2.39 721
5.22 775, II.199 1.27 211, 836 2.41 II.128, 597
5.25 177 1.30 II.1075 2.46 668
5.26 748 1.32 1234 2.47 II.684
5.33 943 1.34 II.260 2.52 102
5.36 978 1.36 1167, II.1064 2.60 728
5.38 II.426 1.51 II.110 2.64 II.1129
5.40 II.63 1.55 1063 2.68 1111
5.41 795 1.56 396, II.905 2.70 II.721
5.45 II.632 1.57 II.1035 2.72 II.1052
5.54 1123 1.63 901 2.74 532
5.57 24, II.855, 997 1.64 II.1128 2.76 II.1035, 1187
5.61 1034 1.65 859, II.461, 1010 2.82 994
5.62 II.586, 1164, 1218 1.66 405, 776 2.84 190
5.63 II.482 1.67 1126 2.86 1058, II.540
5.66 II.241, 528 1.71 II.869 2.89 825, II.1068
5.72 II.595 1.72 560, 915 2.93 707
5.81 II.890 1.75 570 2.94 714
5.82 120 1.78 II.1129 2.97 533, 534
5.83 II.130 1.79 II.1029 2.110 II.808
5.87 II.141, 615 1.80 142 2.117 II.582
5.98 1171 1.83 142 2.121 995
5.102 II.570 1.84 143 2.122 II.737
5.104 733 1.85 II.535 2.123 1052
5.105 502, 620, 646, 1034 1.86 1134, II.586 2.127 284, 553
5.108 789 1.87 1032 2.130 229, 1216
5.109 861 1.92 1249 2.132 II.233
5.111 787 1.98 639 2.139 II.271
5.114 583 II.618 1.105 II.554 2.144 II.1177
5.116 II.362 1.107 II.128 2.149 966, II.802
Vat. 1.108 661 2.150 903
5 571, 580, 629 1.111 1149 2.155 153
10 II.146 1.115 II.917 2.160 1015
12 II.174 1.116 II.381 2.163 937
15 II.447 1.120 268 2.166 II.673
18 II.119 1.122 II.1033 2.169 II.36, 641, 1199
22 II.710 1.125 II.585, 614 2.172 II.568
40 II.510, 1091 1.130 1057, II.616 2.176 1004
Ver. pr. 1.136 74 2.178 II.454
1 670 1.141 839, II.685 2.181 284
4 II.35 1.146 II.1115 2.182 1062
14 702, 1266 1.147 II.1050 2.185 II.1101
16 II.1154 1.149 II.259 2.186 858
19 983 1.153 1264 2.191 578, 1012
23 II.19 1.154 706, II.311 3.3 238
26 II.353 1.155 727 3.6 90
31 II.1005 1.157 318 3.12 946, 1006
46 II.371 1.158 II.867 3.16 II.868
54 287, II.445 2.2 547, 557, 572, II.1118 3.20 149
56 II.372 2.6 807, II.714 3.23 II.1128
Ver. sec. 2.13 1273, II.522 3.26 130, II.239
1.1 II.33 2.14 953 3.27 II.637
1.2 715, II.1019 2.15 709 3.28 II.954
1.6 1203 2.20 II.941 3.29 898
1.9 II.1045 2.23 II.821 3.35 1171, II.22
1.11 770 2.24 879, II.1030 3.41 II.22
1322 Index Locorum
Cicero, Ver. sec. (cont.) 4.13 159 5.20 1011

3.42 184 4.14 659 5.22 II.136, 207
3.43 247, 884, 995 4.16 660 5.27 213
3.49 II.739 4.18 801 5.30 II.482
3.50 1167 4.22 II.559 5.32 917
3.57 II.252 4.26 1107, II.822 5.34 973
3.63 583 4.28 II.121 5.40 II.579, 712
3.67 II.865 4.29 II.1223 5.43 589
3.69 II.596, 1220 4.31 388, 487, II.1150 5.53 II.1077
3.70 II.315 4.32 991, 1086 5.58 II.351
3.71 554, 559, 560 4.35 159, II.763, 1018, 1187 5.59 II.576
3.75 II.208 4.38 399, II.855, 1071 5.62 II.999
3.76 1017, II.113 4.39 II.261 5.64 125
3.78 889 4.40 560 5.65 II.853
3.81 506 4.42 II.258 5.67 588
3.85 II.764 4.44 238 5.68 II.131, 198
3.91 II.136, 168 4.46 II.1031 5.79 611
3.92 1144 4.48 1113 5.81 1109
3.93 1144 4.58 371, 1099 5.82–3 II.1223
3.96 II.1014 4.59 1063, II.749 5.88 II.131
3.97 II.682 4.62 II.497, 1018 5.89 770
3.103 1117 4.63 II.500 5.94 II.620
3.108 II.867 4.64 695, II.300, 829, 1153 5.95 553
3.109 II.988 4.67 II.597 5.105 706
3.110 II.679 4.71 II.1029 5.108 238, II.607
3.111 322 4.72 II.876 5.109 156
3.112 679 4.76 869 5.119 983
3.116 1017 4.78 II.1045 5.120 II.808
3.118 II.906 4.81 II.898 5.129 921, 1290, II.342
3.120 II.636, 812, 1150 4.84 680, II.263 5.131 699
3.121 792 4.86 731, 859 5.133 913
3.122 217, II.257 4.92 1251 5.136 935
3.132 701 4.94 254, 491, II.1045 5.139 580
3.137 II.977 4.95 254 5.149 II.216
3.140 216 4.96 271, II.597, 957, 1082 5.151 II.825
3.142 II.168 4.98 II.286 5.152 II.868
3.147 135, 883 4.104 156 5.154 613
3.149 II.1150 4.107 752 5.168 II.360, 367
3.151 II.722 4.112 226 5.171 II.372
3.159–60 1144 4.113 II.446 5.174 255
3.162 II.723 4.115 II.55 5.177 952
3.163 II.86 4.117 1260 5.178 613
3.164 589 4.119 241, II.819, 1020 5.182 29
3.168 107 4.124 II.559 5.188 293
3.178 II.185 4.126 II.747 [Cicero]
3.185 139, 152, II.27 4.128 II.1031 Sal.
3.186 1259 4.132 318 5 576
3.187 II.294 4.133 II.41, 374 20 38
3.193 228 4.135 1173 CIL
3.194 II.941 4.140 695, 984 I2.10.7–8 II.581
3.195 II.696 4.142 II.771 I2.11.1 II.1089
3.199 II.503 4.143 II.994 I2.13 II.738
3.209 254 4.148 1076 I2.42 897
3.213 1135 4.151 1240 I2.366.II.1–2 185
3.216 855 5.4 509 I2.366.II.3–7 II.588
3.223 II.890 5.5 II.8, 242 I2.395 II.1139
3.227 698 5.9 808, II.747 I2.561b 820
3.228 II.596 5.11 1083, II.369 I2.581.2 II.225
4.3 II.774 5.14 1000, II.684 I2.581.2–3 764, II.1136
4.5 II.633, 726 5.15 II.1055 I2.581.3 538
4.7 816, 909, II.299 5.16 626 I2.581.7–9 II.625
4.11 580 5.17 1134 I2.581.10 539
Index Locorum 1323
I2.581.10–11 II.1136 VIII.9109.1–5 II.1078 7.1.9 744

I2.581.27 177 VIII.21671.5–7 II.1078 8.1.52 543
I2.582.12 II.349 VIII.23245.2–3 II.228 8.9.17 II.536
I2.582.17 517 X.1032 1210 8.13.21 689
I2.582.20 720 X.2567 II.432 9.9.6 II.686
I2.583.6 II.578 X.4053.1 II.10 10.1.6 II.28
I2.583.26 II.577 X.8192 76 Cyprianus
I2.583.35 502 XII.882.6 II.993 ad Quirin.
I2.583.39 II.532 XII.3151 II.1010 2.30 1014
I2.583.55 154 XIII.1983.13 962 Eleem.
I2.583.61 II.574 XIII.11757 649 13 879
I2.583.63 II.199 XIV.4494.6–7 II.418 Ep.
I2.583.68 II.567 XI.1827 II.1148 21.4.2 II.566
I2.583.A28 II.288 Codex Theodosianus 56.2 1240
I2.584.1–2 1277 9.23.1.2 1120 66 II.490
I2.584.35 707 12.1.4 429 73.5.1 134
I2.585.1 II.617 Coelius Mort.
I2.585.6–7 II.663 hist. 2 442
I2.585.8 II.624 24B=46C II.957 Unit. eccl.
I2.585.25 II.674 Columella 11 651
I2.585.31 550 1.3.5 541
I2.585.56–7 537 1.6.18 II.292 Donatus
I2.587.7–11 II.529 1.6.24 II.871 Ter. Ad. pr.
I2.590.9–11 1128 1.7.5 990 1.4 II.225
I2.590.39–42 II.308 1.9.8 771
I2.593.153–4 II.667 2.2.1 860 Ennius
I2.608 815 2.2.25 93 Ann.
I2.614.1–7 II.178 2.4.5 II.127 10.332–3V=330–1S II.464
I2.638.3–4 809 2.9.6 859 22V=19S 1011
I2.661 815 2.10.24 II.648 49V–50V=48–9S 887
I2.800.2–3 304 2.10.28 74 51V=50S II.1117
I2.981.7–9 304 3.7.1 1170 82V=77S II.125
I2.1251.3–5 II.431 4.29.5 1165 83–8V=78–83S 408
I2.1606 314 5.6.12 II.314 109V=104S II.908
I2.1722.3–5 II.227 5.9.16 206 164–5V=227–8S II.1106
I2.2174 358 6.1.1 II.831 173V=163S 860
I2.3121.4–6 II.10 6.22.2 61 183–4V=170–1S II.639
I2.App.268 II.1139 7.3.21 78 230 1032
II.172 309 8.5.19 794 240–1V=274–5S II.644
II.1963.II.6–7 II.712 9.15.7 1291 260V=222S II.1117
II.1964.54.10–15 II.738 10.23–4 II.800 311V=310S 242
II.4365.1–2 396 10.364–5 193 332–3V=330–1S 1300
II.4365.1–5 442 11.3.10 827 341–2V=333–4S 881
II.5.1022.XCVIII.8–10 12.12.1 1015 378V=369S II.1121
II.738 12.46.2 II.676 381–2V=371–2S II.1132
III.6825 80 Arb. 400V=519S 265
III.9504.2–4 II.467 9.2 428 405V=395S 996
IV.118 II.1139 11.1 980 609V=Spur.5S II.1134
IV.3494i 312 Corippus 620V=619S 1263
IV.3779 1210 Io. Epich.
V.7007.12–13 1278 6.88–9 441 2V=2FRL 151
VI.1287.5 II.625 Cornelia Euh.
VI.2135.10 II.566 Nep. fr. 10V=11FRL II.384
VI.4912.1–2 II.734 2 335 scen.
VI.6049 1068 59 527 35–9V=50–4J II.560
VI.7901 845 Curtius Rufus 65–6V=43–4J 805
VI.9232.1–2 II.433 3.1.8 1162 181V=165J 88, II.610
VI.9545.3 II.10 3.7.13 II.814 197–8V=182J 147
VI.9632.6–7 770 4.15.23 260 241V=202J 269
VI.28138.10–11 II.751 4.15.24 876 250–1V=212–13J 997
VI.30898 1277 5.3.13 730 338J 807
VIII.2728 654 6.7.29 891 355–6V=339–40J II.1116
1324 Index Locorum
Ennius, scen. (cont.) 3.1.7 1107 455–6 539

360V=307J 100 3.2.14 568 Carm.
410V=396J 265 3.7.11 II.407 1.2.1–2 1276
Ennodius 4.6.2 262 1.5.4 1177
Carm. 4.8.3 192 1.18.3–4 859
1.9.33 279 5.4.2 II.334 2.7.1–2 II.936
5.8.7 901 2.7.1–4 II.947
Favorinus 7.2.5 292 2.8.21 131
orat. 10.15.21 313 2.13.30–2 79
1 186, 214 10.27.1 II.440 2.15.18–20 II.714
Festus 13.22.1 537 3.10.13–16 249
190.9L. 99 16.3.1 II.467 3.11.39–42 II.933
Florentinus Germanicus 3.13.13 777
dig. Arat. 3.30.11–12 116
15.1.39 II.145 377–8 II.371 4.14.14–15 1010
Florus Gracchus Ep.
Epit. orat. 1.1.62–3 II.106
1.45.10 II.656 44 546, II.792 1.1.94–5 243, 249
2.12.12 II.858 58 II.931 1.6.12 II.126
2.13.74 1084 Gregory of Tours 1.6.20 II.788, 811
Fredegarius Hist. 1.10.49–50 II.381
Chron. 8.20 II.93 1.16.31–2 II.755
3.81 812 Vit. patr. 1.18.3–4 122
4.pr. II.227 3.1 479 1.19.44–5 88
4.37 II.227 5.4.59 440 2.1.17 438
4.63 II.45 Epod.
Frontinus Hirtius 1.5–6 II.433
Aq. Gal. 5.57–60 II.571
5.3 II.1088 8.6.2 147 11.7–8 II.934
15.1 II.781 8.12.7 II.157 11.11–12 II.1000
129.10 1163 8.36.2 989 12.15 212
Str. 8.41.6 II.687 S.
1.5.19 1235 Historia Apollonii 1.4.1–2 II.513
2.7.4 II.443 Regis Tyri 1.4.47–8 122
2.11.3 1294 RA.17 764 1.6.14–16 II.489
3.3.6 II.350 RA.31 97 1.6.72–5 266
4.6.1 946 Historia Augusta 1.6.113–14 II.787
Fronto Car. 1.6.127–8 II.788
Aur. 9.4 II.264 1.6.128–9 69
3.14.2 777 Carac. 1.7.20–1 II.817
5.25.1 II.719 8.8 II.200 1.10.70–1 550
Ep. ad M. Caes. Gall. 2.1.35–7 II.304
4.6.2 II.953 19.7 435 2.2.76–7 1172
5.55.1 468 Heliog. 2.2.106 785
29.3 II.33 2.2.135–6 II.964
Gaius Maximin. 2.3.26–7 150
dig. 29.5 531 2.3.79–80 II.678
9.2.2.1 570 Pius 2.3.182–3 II.787
10.4.13 918 2.3 650 2.5.16–18 324
47.2.49 II.54 quatt. tyr. 2.5.68–9 944
Inst. 13.6 953 2.5.76–8 II.919
1.67 696 Tac. 2.6.23–4 II.933
1.102 II.174 8.1 97 2.6.65–6 1256
2.18 686 16.2 962 2.7.47 66, 216
2.78 625 Horace Saec.
4.32 157 Ars 25 540
4.72 621 24–5 1068 Hyginus
[Epit.] 55–6 240 Astr.
2.3.2 II.596 173–4 1039 2.4.1 II.92
Gellius 218–19 225 Hyginus Gromaticus
1.26.7 II.412 372–3 1271 agrim.
2.21.6 1166 429–30 88 T95 1113
Index Locorum 1325
Inc. trag. 1.7.9 II.741 2.46.4 II.808

34 312 1.9.5 II.158 2.47.5 II.255
Inscr. Christ. Diehl 1.10.7 II.172 2.47.6 II.1154
3739E II.432 1.13.5 1074 2.58.5 II.738
ISIS 1.14.4 995 2.59.6 1028
321 1298 1.15.1 II.284 2.64.8 1028
1.19.3 447 2.65.2 II.1146
Javolenus Priscus 1.20.7 II.233 3.2.8 II.593
dig. 1.21.3 1050 3.8.8 100
8.3.13.1 II.529 1.21.4 260 3.13.1 840
Jerome 1.23.6 610 3.13.10 805
Ep. 1.25.13 II.769 3.14.6 II.701
26.1 479 1.28.6 958 3.16.4 II.658
32.1.3 II.253 1.28.9 II.37 3.19.3 II.262
49.4 871 1.29.5 II.898 3.27.1 20
49.15.2 II.297 1.30.9 II.686 3.28.1 569
123.9 II.304 1.32.1 191 3.28.7 757
in Psal. 1.32.13 1256, II.262 3.36.8 II.340
II.88.272 573 1.33.8 804 3.43.2 896
Julianus 1.34.1 543 3.45.3 535
dig. 1.34.2 II.392 3.47.7 684
23.4.21 605 1.34.5 1031 3.50.2 1075
47.2.57[56]2 240 1.34.11 1211 3.51.1 II.358
Julius Valerius 1.39.2 93 3.52.5 209
I.42.51K.=I.1348.R. II.409 1.40.2 186, II.183, 852 3.53.6 895
Justinus 1.44.3 409 3.54.6 900
1.7.5 961 1.46.1 II.29 3.56.3 1125
25.1.7 II.461 1.47.5 520 3.57.2 II.620
36.1.9 II.460 1.51.3 236 3.58.1 II.593
1.51.6 II.992 3.62.6 1129
Lactantius 1.53.1 II.223 3.68.9 II.370
Inst. 1.55.6 II.639 3.71.3 II.345
4.14.17 II.339 1.56.7 1260 4.2.9 II.53
Largus (Scribonius) 1.56.10 584 4.4.3 II.12
38 922 1.57.3 II.100 4.5.1 773
40 477 1.57.10–58.1 II.883 4.7.1 838
114 879 1.58.10 II.852 4.8.5 II.357
157 493 2.1.11 632 4.9.1 544
159 851 2.2.8 405 4.10.9 860
171 II.378 2.4.5 641 4.12.9 II.750
Lentulus 2.5.3 863 4.15.5 II.192, 1193
Fam. 2.5.6 II.1021 4.17.3–4 1072
12.14.8 II.900, 1231 2.6.3 598 4.21.9 252
12.15.5 II.200 2.7.2 1261 4.31.4 702
Lex XII 2.7.9 623 4.32.3 II.484
1.1 517, 751, II.318 2.7.12 963 4.34.3 II.257
1.9 II.403 2.8.4 189 4.35.7 II.241
3.4 478 2.10.2 II.343 4.38.5 569
5 692 2.12.9 289 4.39.9 II.489
8.3 920 2.12.11 711 4.41.3 II.871
10.1 519 2.14.1 122 4.43.2 II.424
Livius Andronicus 2.16.1 II.1146 4.44.10 II.397
poet. 2.17.3 II.654 4.44.12 II.526
18[20] 261 2.18.1–2 II.1147 4.46.10 II.526
Livy 2.23.11 1067 4.49.14 II.720
1.pr.6 550, II.230 2.29.11 381 4.51.4 II.192
1.1.4 1052 2.38.1 II.263 4.57.6 1268
1.4.4 1052 2.38.5 1282 4.58.2 979
1.6.4 1254 2.40.11 184 4.58.5 II.811
1.7.3 II.1075 2.42.9 277 4.58.7 817
1.7.6 II.163 2.45.9 II.768 5.3.2 755
1.7.6–7 1111 2.45.10–11 529 5.3.8 720
1326 Index Locorum
Livy (cont.) 9.38.4 II.746 22.53.11 658

5.4.4 1257 9.40.4 II.168 22.54.10 II.892
5.5.5 828 9.43.4 1292 22.59.10 540
5.10.11 II.270 9.43.4–5 II.1182 22.59.14 311
5.15.12 1254 9.43.26 861 22.60.17 II.243
5.18.5 II.931 10.4.9 99 22.60.23 1156
5.27.7 268 10.4.10 1269 22.61.1 II.1053
5.27.8 874 10.17.8–9 199 23.3.2 II.825
5.30.7 II.739 10.22.9 II.1088 23.4.7 702
5.33.6 1005 10.25.12 1154 23.9.11 768
5.33.11 II.303 10.26.7 II.813 23.14.3 II.528
5.37.7 II.742 10.29.5 1210 23.17.6 II.53
5.40.7 II.414 10.35.9 510 23.18.4 693, II.873
5.44.4 1276 10.36.2 II.1023 23.29.4 1013
5.51.5 1036 10.36.6 992 23.29.5 1270
5.53.3 II.364 10.38.3 II.438 23.30.7 1075
5.54.1 II.678 10.39.2 1058 23.39.8 907
5.54.7 1257 10.42.1 228 23.42.7 II.35
6.10.5 II.180 21.2.4 II.892 23.42.13 II.6, 459
6.11.6–7 749 21.2.6 1134 23.46.11 II.1023
6.12.8 961 21.4.3 743 24.3.7 II.190
6.12.11 407 21.6.3–4 II.806 24.5.3–4 II.550
6.17.3 II.186 21.8.5 458 24.9.5 II.387
6.17.6 II.527 21.10.11 427 24.12.4 907
6.26.6 II.750 21.11.5 II.273, 703 24.13.8 II.385
6.41.3 681 21.11.13 937 24.16.19 II.462
7.1.7 II.303 21.15.4 568 24.25.11 955
7.2.4 74 21.19.11 126 24.28.5 II.742
7.2.5 1292 21.23.1 II.398 24.36.8 616
7.2.11 610 21.25.9 800 25.1.11 II.97
7.4.6 II.187 21.30.10 II.187 25.9.1 228
7.9.1 715 21.32.10 II.861 25.9.12 561
7.14.8 98 21.33.3 II.812 25.11.3 241
7.22.10 II.302 21.35.1 688 25.15.9 II.751
7.26.7 II.945 21.35.11 II.273 25.23.1 II.689
7.31.6 II.102 21.38.1 II.1157 25.25.13 547
7.33.2 II.1074 21.39.4 615 25.27.6 214
7.33.15 241 21.39.8 1127 25.31.14 II.342
7.34.2 611 21.42.1 II.1157 25.36.5 776
8.2.1–3 592 21.45.1 145 26.3.8 186
8.7.15–17 II.294 21.46.4 II.619 26.5.4 280
8.10.10 II.303 21.48.2 II.795 26.10.1 1278
8.11.1 II.214 21.50.10 782 26.10.2 1278
8.14.2 II.383 21.60.3 792 26.18.8 II.979
8.19.7 1035 21.63.6 II.906 26.26.11 II.699
8.25.9 192 22.1.14 II.763 26.27.12 II.192
8.25.9–10 II.847 22.3.2 II.214 26.30.2 911
8.27.9 II.1020 22.4.4 255 26.37.6 1219, II.223
8.31.5 389 22.9.1 831 26.51.1 II.689
8.32.5 662 22.9.10 II.495 27.1.2 907
8.36.7 294 22.14.7 30 27.3.1 882, 1200
9.2.6 II.767 22.15.1 607 27.3.2 1131
9.2.10 II.498 22.25.4 II.230 27.5.14 II.173
9.3.3 817 22.27.3 85 27.12.15 II.818
9.6.3 1235 22.31.7 877 27.27.9 1006
9.10.9 103 22.36.6 II.177 27.29.9 173
9.16.6 1032 22.40.8 778 27.30.8 II.332
9.16.13 225 22.45.2 172 27.36.14 984
9.18.1 224 22.46.4 190 27.44.9 732
9.33.5 II.720 22.51.3 II.463 27.48.7 II.715, 747
9.37.11 II.1118 22.51.9 II.805 28.2.1 II.248
Index Locorum 1327
28.3.6 II.258 33.9.2 1291 42.57.10 837

28.7.7 818 33.26.9 832 42.58.3 841
28.7.9 II.394 33.37.2 830 42.64.5 II.179
28.13.7 445 33.40.3 II.561 43.13.1 729
28.17.14 II.432 33.42.6 734 43.13.4 193
28.22.12 II.96 34.3.5 II.115 44.3.3 955
28.24.7 II.188 34.4.14 668 44.24.1 1268
28.26.6 II.221 34.7.3 139 44.29.8 II.1105
28.27.10 992 34.20.6 II.462 44.33.2 II.47
28.27.15 451 34.20.7 II.699 44.35.3 II.195
28.28.9 II.612 34.48.5 II.245 44.36.7 626
28.29.12–30.1 II.1157 35.16.12 704, II.97 44.38.6–7 II.823
28.31.3 561 35.20.8 II.232 45.15.2 II.736
28.35.1 II.891 35.20.9 II.1088 45.19.4 II.546
28.41.4 II.1069 35.26.9 1289 45.19.15 II.187
28.43.17 II.281 35.31.16 II.750 45.23.18 II.891
29.1.1 II.1053 35.40.7 93, 98 45.31.1–2 II.69
29.2.1 II.397 35.47.5 1272 45.35.8 II.25
29.3.10 577 36.1.9 II.179 LP
29.4.2 II.614 36.4.9 II.39, 324 2 1227
29.6.7 59 36.11.1 1152 Lucanus
29.8.11 II.963 36.16.1 II.636 2.547 248
29.9.5 II.254 36.43.11 280 4.346–7 234
29.10.4 II.404 37.26.12–13 II.189 5.313–14 520
29.11.7 861 37.32.13 1269 9.982 261
29.15.5 II.1198 37.39.1 II.979 Lucceius
29.27.1 1274 37.45.12 774 Fam.
29.32.11 846 37.53.24 1250 5.14.2 328
29.33.8 1221, II.225 37.53.25 427 Lucifer
29.34.12 II.1217 38.10.4 868 De non conven.
29.37.3 114 38.14.9 953 5.58 334
30.4.8 II.487 38.26.7 II.670 De non parc.
30.7.10 63, 289 38.28.2 II.1012 9 l.35D II.227
30.20.7 II.789 38.31.3 577 Lucilius
30.23.1 167 38.36.4 1028 126M=127K 1024
30.28.5 II.40 38.39.8–10 II.1010 189–90M=192–3K 205
30.35.2 II.1023 38.47.7 II.1059 693M=707K II.134
30.37.4 II.675 38.50.10 II.457 1142M=1159K 983
30.40.10 985 38.52.8 II.16 Lucretius
30.44.7 540 39.4.11 600 1.84–6 951
31.1.6 II.961 39.5.7 433 1.112–13 541
31.12.1 II.519 39.11.1 II.444 1.248–9 712
31.15.6 911 39.16.3 480 1.259–61 242
31.18.6 1041 39.28.5 773 1.474 1052
31.22.7 694 39.40.2 1277 2.3–4 1167
31.22.8 984 39.52.1 II.562 2.94 II.993
31.23.7 II.744 40.32.5 625 2.240–1 712
31.35.3 146 40.48.1 1283, II.487 2.272–3 II.760
31.47.1 1281 40.51.7 768 2.336–7 II.296
31.47.3 1273 41.4.4 II.502 2.526–7 II.466
32.9.2 II.1090 41.11.1 1250 2.692–3 973, 982
32.16.11 723 41.18.3 931 2.834–6 II.292
32.17.6 II.37 41.20.4 1170 2.842–4 200
32.19.7 1135 41.20.12 II.24 2.891–3 II.513
32.23.8 569 42.5.2 1190 2.930 686
32.24.4 II.1059 42.5.11 246 2.1103–4 735, II.1134
32.24.5 II.253 42.28.3 II.444 3.31–4 II.679
32.26.2 459 42.31.7 II.570 3.68–9 539
32.29.1 1255 42.46.6 511 3.149–50 II.654
32.37.5 444 42.47.9 1022 3.207–8 210
33.5.12 277 42.53.1 847 3.276–7 II.655
1328 Index Locorum
Lucretius (cont.) Mulomedicina Chironis Milt.

3.333–4 II.654 37 440 2.3 II.362, 367
3.391–2 296 104 730 3.1 II.576
3.403–5 II.368 133 II.408 7.4 II.746
3.421–4 II.295 170 II.16 7.5 650
3.487–91 1214 220 279 Paus.
3.489 915 379 1239 1.1 II.273
3.705–6 1257 526 1186 2.4 1051
3.776–7 II.1119 840 760 4.6 1129, II.129
3.790–3 II.655 997 1239 Pel.
3.798–802 II.1201 3.2 II.961
3.811 846 Naevius Them.
3.859 II.1133 poet. 2.6 584
3.990–1 981 3.2 176 10.3 II.576
3.1008–10 256 Nepos Thr.
3.1018–19 II.373 praef. 4.1 II.557
3.1087–8 1232 2 876, 1194, II.817 Tim.
3.1092–4 II.729 5 781 1.3 II.800
4.384–5 II.903 Ag. Timol.
4.473–5 II.376 4.1 598 4.2 1179
4.532 II.871 4.5 II.777 Neratius
4.610–11 819 7.4 1132 dig.
4.984–6 136 8.2 II.799 27.10.9 II.84
4.1024–5 II.1118 Alc. Nigidius Figulus
4.1170–80 178 4.1 1224 gram.
4.1242–6 II.287 6.4 811 11 879
5.31 II.646 9.4 II.176
5.33–4 865 Ar. O. Did.
5.680–1 II.374 1.2 575 417 II.79
5.739–40 1008 Att. Orosius
5.1148–50 II.36 7.1 459 7.4.10 135
5.1276 295 13.6 II.366 Ovid
6.85 II.1116 17.1 482, II.799 Am.
6.164–6 II.722, 725 22.2 1128 1.7.51 1029
6.214–15 1299 Ca. 1.8.43–4 II.319
6.300–1 1276 1.2 II.636 2.4.25–6 II.788
6.341 II.409 Cim. 2.7.6 II.217
6.519–20 848 1.3 II.812 2.7.17–18 II.198
6.601–3 II.375 3.1 1132 Ars
6.742 811 Dat. 1.59 940
6.771–2 779 5.6 II.1023 1.259–60 879
6.1002–3 II.666 6.3 II.835 Ep.
6.1005–7 II.997 6.8 1131 3.41 II.145
6.1112–13 887 Di. 3.122 879
6.1232 157 3.3 II.136 7.87 II.461
9.5 II.515 8.46 1014
M (see p. 1247) Ep. 8.110 II.605
1107.6–8 761 1.4 II.1217 9.106–8 II.768
Manilius 5.1 II.309 9.149–50 191
2.176–7 20 Epam. 10.137–8 246
Martial 5.2 II.765 16.19 691
2.40.8 1224 Eum. 16.98 II.734
7.6.8 209 6.1–2 334 18.18–19 II.250
12.52.3–4 1153 Ham. 19.173 II.590
Matius 3.2 II.177 Fast.
Fam. Han. 2.215–16 II.465
11.28.8 II.95 1.1 746 3.357 88
Metellus Pius 3.4 II.240 4.731 II.955
in Macr. 6.2 22 5.537 828
3.13.12 1216 Lys. 6.173 893
Minucius Felix 1.1 978 6.287 991
16.5 171 3.5 112 6.288 62
Index Locorum 1329
Met. Pacuvius 20.1 II.10

1.1–2 152 trag. 25.2 II.547
1.132–4 II.628 22 116 26.8 1114
1.133–4 II.497 340 903 30.3 800
1.757–8 941 pall. 33.2 313
2.63 II.547 47 II.155, 305 33.5 628
2.165 74 Palladius 37.8 1014
2.692–5 720 1.6.14 269 37.9 II.853
3.456 II.871 1.39.2 258 38.4 840
4.631–2 1008 3.25.18 278 38.8 II.624
4.678 II.927 9.9.2 478 40.8 II.1105
5.405–6 92 Panegyrici Latini 43.1 449
6.118–19 1076 3.6.4 92 43.4 885
6.195 II.536 Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis 44.15 II.854
6.592–3 107 10.1–5 II.1137 44.16 1096
7.12–13 789, 796 Passio Petri et Pauli 45.4 434
7.224 1299 23 441 46.1 II.940
7.615–16 II.927 Passio Fidelis, Exanti et Carpofori 45.10 II.77
7.690–1 II.915 1 II.579 46.7 II.570
8.215 168 Paulus 47.2 278
8.451–2 176 dig. 47.4 696
9.101–2 242 2.14.4.3 II.755 50.5 II.258
9.753 63 3.3.77 II.1080 50.7 894
10.185–6 II.758 5.3.36.3 II.97 52.10 491
10.220–1 II.114 46.2.20 980 53.9 901
10.254–5 II.125 Pelagonius 58.4 930
10.277–9 1073 456 163 58.5 II.359, 682
10.322–3 II.324 Peregrinatio Egeriae 61.1 895
10.423–4 II.915 1.2 97 62.1 814
10.705–7 II.946 2.2 398 62.9 528
12.187–8 1215 2.6 II.269 62.10 II.803
14.243–5 II.914 2.7 II.624 62.11 106
14.785–7 74 3.2 693 64.9 II.592
15.375–7 II.466 3.6 1241, II.263 66.1 II.1073
15.720–2 867 4.5 1163 67.7 440
Pont. 5.1 207 71.1 II.373
1.1.37–8 1053 6.4 II.1083 71.10 269
1.3.48 II.1121 8.2 II.66 72.8–9 II.883
1.5.7–8 II.999 8.5 II.679 74.4 258, 761
1.8.33 280 9.5 815 97.2 441
1.8.45–6 II.914 10.4 1031 111.2–3 II.1149
1.10.10 89 10.7 281, 1150 127.1 865
3.1.41–2 210 10.8 II.308 140.6 II.342
3.3.57–8 241 13.1 1172 Plancus
3.9.23–4 II.768 15.5 II.805 Fam.
4.6.17–18 II.571 16.7 II.402 10.15.3 II.526
Rem. 19.3 654 10.17.1 1070
72 62 24.9 1241, II.264 10.17.2 II.127
445 II.950, 964 25.3 1186 10.24.1 1285
694 357 25.7 279 10.24.3 479
Tr. 28.3 992 Plautus
1.1.18–19 II.1062 30.1 1213 Am.
2.459 271 36.1 1114 7 II.638
2.504 936, 961 36.3 478, 710 11–12 856, II.905
3.42 163 36.5 895 17–18 618, 909,
4.3.61 II.62 39.5 125 II.995
4.4a.10 209 44.3 II.1181 18–19 1151, 1159
4.4a.53–4 II.554 47.4 207 20 1121, 1243
5.8.27 248 49.2 II.1133 24–7 II.1199
5.9.13–14 II.211 Petronius 26–7 1170
5.12.45–6 507, 4.1 II.534 28–9 128, II.212
539 9.3 858 30–1 II.870
1330 Index Locorum
Plautus, Am. (cont.) 195 482, 574 336 553, 1022

33 II.3, 598 195–6 1131, II.618 336–7 675
34 II.962 199–200 II.1187 340 653
37 952 203–4 II.43, 261 341 24
46 49 205 390, II.1054 344–5 II.956
46–7 II.90 205–9 601 350 806
50 633 209–10 1089 351 989
52–3 531 212–13 112 361 341
54–5 II.979 214–15 180, 1089, 1132 362 373
71 875, 1154 221 II.599 364 1174
75–6 II.637 225–6 1089 366–7 310
76–7 II.510 231–2 1123 370 357
79 745, II.514, 981 231–4 II.610 373–4 II.126, 864
79–80 II.487 236 945, II.860 379 739
83–5 699, II.662 242 1245 386 508
87–8 430 242–4 II.1144 387 308
91–2 779 243 842 390 II.293
94 841 246–7 II.591 391 II.117
94–5 430 249 1252 393 II.22
97–8 56, 971 250 1245 396 II.293
97–103 1119 251–2 II.625 400 1057
100–1 II.1195 253 86 404–7 319
102–3 745, 1153 253–5 1089, II.1068 407 12
103 788 254 647 407–8 372
103–7 II.1195 256 30 408 44, 919
107–9 452, 1121, II.977 257 1131, II.133 409 824
110–11 II.299, 603 258–9 II.690 411 938
111 II.641 260–1 253 425–6 II.910
112–13 971, II.588 261–4 1090 433 323
120 807, II.930 263 424 434 II.907
123 1123 263–4 713 438 673, II.319
124–5 1055 265–7 II.1169 440 II.318
124–7 652, II.300 266–7 II.869 447 310, 442
129–30 711, 1167 267 II.215 450 125
130 387 268 II.181 450–1 659
131 738, 744, II.831 268–9 179 453–4 II.1195
133–4 443, 744, 763 270 57, 633 464–5 1217
133–5 1142 273–5 694, II.629 466–8 1054
134–5 49, 745 276 842 468–9 II.874
135–6 II.983 282 737 470–1 150, II.587
135–9 II.1147 284 190 470–3 II.256
140 833 286 355 477 139
140–1 II.488 287 336, 1090, II.480, 825 487–92 II.1193
142–3 II.979 288 II.233 491–2 II.277
146–7 710, 1005 293–4 1090 492–3 788
148 1057 295 1245 500 354
157 94 297 1245 501 II.147
161–2 237, 918 299 362 515 II.586
163–4 1022 302 II.849 516–17 II.759
166 1038 304–5 767 518 322
170 222 304–7 1091 519 77, 1039
175 1090 309 II.568 522–3 II.555
180–1 809 310 II.182 525–6 II.321
185 1126 311 355 531–2 967
186–7 946 317 1091 534–9 II.1179
188 1245, II.7 319 II.211 536 II.271
188–9 1221 321 1109, II.933 537 II.571
190–1 1091 327 1123 541 1080, 1084
191–2 II.901 328 711 548–9 II.766
193 146, 764 329 260 550–1 739
194 923, 1132, II.995 331 632, 924 556–7 740
Index Locorum 1331
561–2 1146, II.184, 943 749 579, 926, II.377, 555 991 27
566–9 310 750 812 1004 105
567–8 804, 968 751 II.13, 171 1009 II.490
574 II.1011 755 372 1014 287, 709
575 508 758–9 372 1015–16 1099
578–80 II.937 760–1 1145 1020 1165, II.926
580–2 II.1158 760–2 376 1021 739
581–3 II.1195 761 253 1026 891
587 64 763–4 II.885 1029 II.14
592–3 II.911, 923 765–8 II.643 1030 II.556
597 505 772–3 1146, II.101 1033–4 II.283
599–600 207, 1172 778–9 II.864 1037 II.128
601 941, II.723, 748 782–3 II.54, 589, 669, 775 1038 II.236
603 456 791 256 1042 832
607 273, II.907, 954 799–800 543 1045 II.9
608 II.152 799–801 II.905 1046–7 II.591
609 935, 938 812 354, II.945 1051–2 622
610 107, II.430 814 II.38 1056 365, 618
612–15 II.1074 820 678 1057–8 215
617 813 822 1225, II.921 1059 44, 694
617–18 II.524 822–4 II.859 1060 694, II.723
619 742 825–6 972, 981, 1106 1061–2 1210
626–7 II.1187 825–7 II.1075 1066 1046
628 II.1014 826–7 115 1067 414
630 II.460 829 II.743 1067–9 II.1154
632 506 831–2 II.600 1068 II.838
640 II.286 835 1140, II.290 1068–9 1097
641–1a II.719 839–41 1040 1071 942
644–5 652 852 330 1072–3 24
646–7 1020 857 II.323 1073–4 328
646–8 II.323 861–2 205 1080–1 II.936
649 II.959 862–3 1150 1085 1150
652–3 101 869–70 154, II.484 1088–9 315, 323
654–5 1229, II.563 869–72 II.1195 1098–9 615
654–6 II.895 876 783 1098–9 II.254
660 353 880–1 II.332 1102 13, II.1, 259, 1047
665–6 II.1202 895–6 II.1085 1103–4 II.977
668 606 899–900 II.1162 1105–6 657
669 II.414 910–11 II.721 1112 743
671 634 913–14 648 1114–15 981
676–83 II.1229 916–17 II.1172 1122–4 523
682–3 870 922 553 1124–5 162
684 853 924 499 1125 949
687 II.282 933–4 II.326 1131 II.800
695 521 941–2 II.984 fr.5 587, 1069
696–7 639 951 II.515 As.
699–700 II.576 962 341 1 356
709 106 962–5 1143 7 967
714–17 318 963 1200 8 II.281
718–19 II.1210 964 1200 30 345
720 1213, II.139 966 1298 40 502
721 936, 949 972 471, 712, II.10 43 130, II.345
732 808, 1214 973 II.706 47 167
733–4 27, 812 974 987 52–3 627, II.63
741 II.924 974–5 784 57–8 II.827
742 II.693 976 II.152 71–2 1022
744–5 II.1201 977 II.371 80–1 II.267, 533, 895
745 1283 984 II.653 95 169
745–7 1140 986–7 320 101 789, 894
747 II.908, 999 989 II.1085 116–17 466
748 493, II.17, 54 990 II.557, 581 118 673
1332 Index Locorum
Plautus, As. (cont.) 429–30 690, II.629 741–2 672, 674

118–19 II.201 444–5 II.1029 741–3 1005
126 123 445 659 747–8 II.1005
131–2 471 447–8 310, II.917 749 471
132–3a II. 946 448 II.146 750 354, II.917
137–8 212 449 123 751–2 27
141–2 60 450 757 755 II.153
147 1149 458–9 II.316 756 711
153–4 988, 1103 462 718 756–8 II.831
158 II.770 465 II.123 761–3 714
159 1196 478–9 110, 625, II.260 762–3 696
162 II.720 486–7 II.903 787–8 262
163 II.604 490 743 790 369
164 659 491–3 714 797–8 664
166 II.306 493–4 66 801–2 112
167 286 497–8 II.354 805 II.124
171 II.1169 497–9 924 806–7 788
182 215 499 1027 807 II.746
183–5 II.866 502–3 1157 809 376
192 II.719 511 II.942 825–6 806
193 II.959 514 II.978 828 356
194 II.1089 515 180 835–6 236, II.1044
198 1145 516 1012 836 740
208 1172 517 II.454, 640 837–8 374
218 II.339 522–3 II.1089 839–40 66
233 685 527 II.510 840 501
239 350, 424 568 II.779 841 II.930
243 24 587 958 842 790
245 1276 592 495 843–4 II.299
247 II.213 593 II.792 844 678
253 834 598 II.156 844–5 648, II.34,
257–8 1039 609–10 910 684
264 II.669 613–14 II.935 845 II.175
267 II.658 614 927 847–8 II.437
269 1046 614–15 II.1202 850 791
273 II.937 616 1283, II.475, 487 851–3 1097
274–6 II.873 616–17 378, II.739 855 225
282–3 II.644 619 767, II.982 856–7 224
284 844 622 913, II.238 862–3 II.819
286 102, 623, 703, II.55 624 II.596 865 II.75
288 1127 627 342 868 II.782
289 83 631 14, II.584 869 790
307 161 632–5 1160 877–9 341
313–14 II.533 634 II.169 893 II.1084
318–19 II.909 636 631, II.155, 996 894 II.910
327–8 638, II.255 637 673, 1263 894–5 78
330 1245 638 375 897–8 II.10
337 II.407, 492 641 948, 1149 899–900 II.1149
338 304 644 II.135 902–3 II.902
339–41 II.513 644–5 II.881 904 376
343–4 II.263 668 162 915 424
347 1057 680 56 917–18 115
351 788 680–1 689, 1061 920 968
352–5 II.48 687 339 921–2 711
354–5 II.484 691–2 1068, 1226 923 856
358–9 1146 697 1082 926 524
381–2 232, 238, II.20, 43 699 II.324 927 379
392 385, 415 707 307, 312 928 318
396 II.959 714 1137 938 411, II.126
408 710 724 II.761 944 766
427 II.349 736 1001 944–5 II.311
Index Locorum 1333
Aul. 224–5 906 609 1167

1–3 740 229–30 162 620–1 652, II.117, 335
3–4 II.849 231 732 621–2 1198
3–5 843 232 II.641 624 II.848
7–9 1284 236–7 II.771 629 611
9 783 241–2 II.922 634–40 676
9–10 II.248 243 II.181 640–1 II.930
10–12 II.978 243–5 749 642 II.650
11–12 666 244–6 117 643–4 II.977
13–14 685, 866, II.806 251 II.42 645 1168
14 II.706 269 II.939 645–6 II.662
15–16 II.119 287–8 II.1168 647–8 II.937
23–5 140, 185 293 321 654 II.1121
23–30 1142 296 755 661 483
28–36 1096 297 II.752 688–9 1088
29–30 714 321 1174 702–3 982
32–3 II.304 322 742 704–5 II.936
34–6 II.480, 483 323 767 708 1121
35–6 II.492 333–4 740, II.975 709–10 II.1060
39 II.9 340–1 825 712 1162
40 355 351 II.13 713 447
42 909 357–8 II.1210 714 II.782
42–3 1075 361 II.175 715 II.151
47 278 361–2 376 715–16 1217
52 1122 371–2 835 718–19 II.349
56–7 826 373–5 II.612 721 365, II.924, 934
56–9 464 389–92 238 722–3 935, 1018
67–9 692, II.662, 996 391–2 II.933 723 1009
69–70 852 393 925 727 967
71 672 407 II.142 727–7a 337
79 II.779, 802 412–12a 1185 729–9a II.165
82 332 416–17 913 729–30 II.123
91–2 1168 418 II.73 732 1254
96 293 419 710 741–2 656
101 II.9 419–20 II.726 742 488
103 515 421 II.359, 370 749–50 1233, II.166
109–10 715 422 733, II.728 768 II.360
111–12 158 423 1041 772 968
118–19 II.278, 574 426 II.105 772–3 373
125–6 752 431 101, 341 777–8 128, II.1071
142–2a 307 443 759, II.7, 40 790–1 706
147–8 847 457 473 810 1103
148 377 474 491, II.311 811 954, 956
153 II.179 477 II.706 817 II.151
154 II.91 487–8 II.643 817–18 II.1211
164 705 527 270 820 II.942
166 II.597 536 II.930, 938 823 II.139
170 II.507, 848 536–8 331 829 486
175–6 739, II.942, 1230 547 678 Bac.
178 II.244 550 570 35 II.32, 908
178–9 II.1212 551–2 931 37 109
182–3 II.939 561–2 II.880 44 130, 1146
183 346 565 II.681 47–8 947
192–3 II.939 569–71 677 58–9 II.34
196 II.500 573–4 II.857 73 48
198 1171 574 II.107 73–4 II.932
208 II.242 579 652 83 96
215–16 1031 580 983 87 377
217–19 II.551 582–3 II.146, 423 90 710
218 II.587 591 II.309 100 354
220 II.933 605 II.13 120 733
1334 Index Locorum
Plautus, Bac. (cont.) 521–2 II.128 814 1224

121 II.927 524–5 105 816–17 II.54, 516
125 105 530–1 1046, II.259 818–19 660
129 986 533 683 824–5 II.1177
132 II.650 536–7 644, II.284 831–2 984, II.875
137–8 II.859 537 100 834–7 II.833
147 130 540 872 837–8 324
152 366 548 612 839 374
158 756 549 II.755 842–3 878
159–60 1218 550–1 II.278 854 208
163 1214 554–5 563 866–7 695, II.592
189 II.55 555 759, 1188 873–4 II.306
200 II.878 559 II.99 884 1165
204 II.981 568 987 887 II.39, 326
206 118 571–2 377 890–2 II.867
206–7 335, 374 572 713 891–2 124
209–10 711 573–4 966 900–1 II.24, 385
213 920 575–6 II.123 900–2 II.1210
214 II.755 581–2 II.923 905–6 1231
214–15 742 583 1093 913–15 658
216 766 584–5 II.543 923 110
223 II.420 586–8 II.943 925 II.200
224 II.306 587–93 1138 936 II.40
230–1 II.636 589–91 II.671 943 II.684
235–6 823, II.119 597–8 303 963–5 1126
237–8 1213 599 900 973–4 100
247 308 599–600 II.1106 978 II.930
248 372 610–11 467 981 196
258 166 611 46, 1265 981–2 184
263–4 II.474, 479 612–14 786 984–5 1195
269–72 II.880 625 293, 297 986 773
271–2 547 629 II.186 989a–90 II.1189
276 355 630a 776 991–2 II.519, 880
281 971 633 II.977 994 625, II.89
282 227 638 16 1006 848
293 364 649–50 II.659 1016 132
299–300 II.843 653 817 1017 536
351–2 II.314 668–8a 107 1018 1195
354 II.385 673–6 332 1019–20 II.32
357 742 680–1 369 1024 II.501
388 835 681 447, 889 1030–1 819
397 1153 682 812 1031–2 II.1111
398 786 686–90 II.1208 1036 1169
409–10 II.102 688 II.261 1037–8 728, II.19
410 838 699–700 1087, 1187 1039–40 664
418–19 13, II.1, 5 702 622 1040 II.749
419 II.237, 430 707–8 1173 1044 132
420 897 711 1235 1053 769
421 414 722 553 1055 221
422–3 1216 729–30 909, II.1005 1058 498
437 771 729–32 II.840 1060 II.975
451 II.163, 510 735–6 II.585 1064–5 II.785
456 505 737 1001 1067 II.141
456–7 II.938 739 130 1068–9 220, II.83, 310
460 II.905 745 631 1070–1 547
468 506 759 80 1076 102
472 815, II.1067 767 II.745 1076–8 II.770
472–3 370, II.827 775 II.946 1079 II.681
491 625, II.87 775–6 II.11, 15 1085–6 II.1161
506 680 786 759 1091–1a II.769
514 II.409 806 20 1095 1299
Index Locorum 1335
1100–1 174 237 483 558 130

1102 366 241 II.680 561 1130
1105 1276 244–7 II.133 563–4 II.943
1109–10 373 249–50 118 569–70 II.274
1114–15 II.1162 255–6 1096 570 125
1121–1a 342 257 II.144 573–4 II.523
1127 852 268–9 II.19 574–5 740
1146 39 272 67 579 174
1155a–6 1169 273 II.758 583 774, 1116
1160–1 II.1192 277 128 587 II.1173
1162 306, 374 282 84 620–1 II.642
1162–3 331 285–7 1160 630 II.790
1178 365 304 II.590 640 II.654
1181 914 305 379 653 876, 878
1191 II.211 308 II.658 654 789
1192–2a 323 310–12 II.717 663 II.265
1196 342, 400 316 II.750 664 807
1201 II.704 319–20 503 691–2 814
1202 481 326 30 695–6 465
Capt. 327 II.725 731 847
4 1265 328 II.1139, 1163 739 1221
17–20 1143 330 II.830 742–3 II.359
23 870 334 103 772 972
32 652 336 54, 193, 952, II.715 776–7 II.743
44–5 1165 337 351, II.979 780 II.52
46–7 758 338 652 783 366
49 124 341–3 II.806 783–5 II.1157
50 980 346–7 II.546 795 350
54 II.959 352 II.771 807–8 903, II.1122
61–2 II.210 359–60 143 809–10 1168
75–6 726 360 II.152 810 1158
76 II.592 364 142, 158 818 220
77 381 369 745 824 II.103
79 892 371–2 II.908 827 321
91 721 373–4 II.80 831 987
98–9 II.900 378 II.602 833 1283
102 891 382–3 738, 1088, 1128, 833–5 1174
105–6 II.903 II.408 837 II.577
118 483 383–4 1227 846 340
124–5 II.1184 387 II.649 860–2 II.298
126 977 389–90 1103, II.649 862–3 1005
126–7 II.118 394 II.381 866 892
127 835 399 1263 870–1 489, 657
139 516 400 744 872–4 II.830
139–40 344 405–6 II.1118 887 II.1032
148 711 408 215 894–7 II.1197
152–3 II.32, 78, 453 410–11 II.597 909–10 514
162 II.865 414 41 916 II.300
165–6 362 420 56 917 212
167–8 1232 459 II.119 929 806, 1233
169–70 1025 461 1157 938 II.134
172–3 II.1031 474 II.552 945–6 II.937
179–81 II.40, 513 478 II.259, 263 950–1 739
190 41 529–30 1104 956–7 937
191 619 531 427, 485 960–1 859, II.707
194 456 537 508 966 1081
200–1 II.935 539 972 970 II.820
222 659 543–4 II.370, 886 971–2 II.692
228 II.271 545–6 628, II.101, 691 972 II.587
232–3 II.251 554–5 II.565 985 II.228
233 410 555 II.214 991–2 848
1336 Index Locorum
Plautus, Capt. (cont.) 421 II.356 893–5 II.920

996 II.61, 329 445 1008 893–6 II.1214
998–1000 II.1188 456 335 899–900 863
999–1000 II.755 477–8 892 936 29
1006 346, 547 481–2 897 970 629
1008 II.456 490 629 976 854, 927
1011–12 763 491–2 II.683 998 II.321
1020 968, 997 519 II.868 1007 327
1021 354, II.151 539–40 II.100 1008 709, 1169
Cas. 542 II.336 1010–11 709
5 115 552–4 II.1168 1011 990
17 II.258 554 203 1013 523
21 18 563–4 926 1018 II.844
21–2 890 574–5 623 Cist.
27–8 833 575 703 1–3 II.702
36 897 583 II.248 17 706
39–62 1141 585–6 II.148, 214 21–2 II.237
60–1 947 591 II.115 27–8 948
67 II.5 604 II.549 33 II.719
68 342, II.917 619–20 824 44 742
73–4 II.607 620 1232 45 234
82–3 II.959 621 770 55 II.639
84–6 1227, II.404, 421 627–8 1020 55–6 II.648
117 153 630 II.75 59–60 260
134–8 1226 633 II.654 60 917
142 132 634 703 62 II.491
148–9 II.927 645 793 67 II.327, 337
162 II.421 659–61 II.934 68 II.640
166 1166 662–5 II.1160 73–4 II.544
204–5 683 688–9 II.926 78–9 II.520
205 350 691–2 II.696 80–1 II.1188
205–6 352 692–3 521 83 789
211 105 695 265 86–7 II.931
214–16 II.1230 697 708 101 1121
215–16 II.1211 698–9 673, II.761 101–2 647, 842
217–18 240 699 532, II.421 127 147
219–20 II.481 705 388 131 27, 1201
227–8 II.655 706 II.149 131–2 31, II.777
233 684 719 818 140–1 II.602
234 355, II.151 725 83 145–6 II.484
235 II.927 735 II.693 152–3 660
236 91 742 336 158–9 1051
243 II.723 746 190 168–9 570, II.14, 119
246 II.105, 155 758 271 190–3 II.832
248 515 758–8a 515 194 II.274
259–60 118 763 992, 1231 204 697
282 II.183 766 537 206–10 259
307–8 789 767–8 547 213 110
317–18 II.605 772–3 II.33 214–15 1076
333–4 II.350 782–4 703 223–4 II.381
341–3 II.1162 790 II.515 229 II.424
345 II.758 795 698 239 215
370 II.1133 801 II.692 283 368
371 1137, II.1116 802 786 284 178
372–3 II.943 805 II.572, 767 299–300 II.1160
382–3 966 813 271 309 II.159
388 II.917 837 II.926 310 II.779
389–90 II.402 837–9 II.938 315 II.868
408 302, II.283 841–2 II.955 364–6 793
409 II.338 855 II.792 369 973
419 514 877 134 369–70 II.38
Index Locorum 1337
465 II.144 216–17 II.293 Epid.

472 II.760 221 213 3–4 II.935
487 1196 225–6 822 9–10 II.772
493 II.573 240 II.213 10 47
494 II.745 246–8 II.937 14 863
494–5 II.1189 260–1 808 16 1083
497 109 270–1 II.1034 35–6 II.1221
510–11 676, 678 288–90 84 38 142
511 618 288–93 545 45 906
528–31 II.1172 302 II.224 49 II.759
533 664 325–6 352, II.141 60–60a 1060
535 II.1158 330 755 66 II.719
543–4 1058 331–3 487 70–1a 213
543–5 806, II.398 336–7 II.463 73 295
568–9 1246 343–4 881, 1200 80 II.537
582–3 1246 355 83 121–3 474
582–4 639 362 II.107 136 1172
585–7 668 370 870, II.1034 153 983
613 372 371–2 1217 153–5 II.845
645 II.348 377–8 II.33, 908 154 247
653–4 973 380–1 II.403 175–6 II.250
663 1112 404–5 II.506 183 1001
666–8 676 409–10 992 188–9 II.508
668–70 II.1171 414 II.16 191 II.164
673 703 419–20 195 196–7 177, 359
692 273 423 374, 486, 682 201 II.847, 983
695 II.398 429–31 II.1230 201–2 II.940
727 II.704 433 II.502 210 1019
733 II.100 435 634 210–11 362
735 II.1071 447–8 851 211–12 254
736–40 969 452 815 213–14 966
781 23 457 562, 898 213–15 1288
782–3 1123 464 II.95 217 II.624
Cur. 467 II.1121 217–18 II.633
1–2 812 475 24 223–4 II.275
6 290 477 II.689 257–8 II.183
28 40, 933, 935, 943 483–4 II.671 261–2 II.933
30 701 486 297 267–9 500
32 830 490–2 524 270–2 674
41–2 345 494–5 979, 1116 285 443
51 II.349 494–6 1297 289 180
58 1108 508 II.704 289–90 1103
67–8 73, 167, 822 512 494 295 884
87–8 II.1159 518–19 15 296 983, 1229
88–9 769 520 1224 312–13 1103
96–7 1190 521 351 314–16 83
97 27 531 398 320–1 247
100 215 541–2 II.32 322–3 340
117 183 546 974 332–3 II.52
130–1 II.932 596 913 338 1270, II.22, 149
132 385 605 894 360 1158
141–2 II.759 608 570 371–2 1104
142 II.403 615–16 324 378–9 II.887
161 II.522 619 II.587 388–9 917
170 II.487 632 562 414 II.6
176 886 642–3 1186 414–16 820
176–7 747 655–6 767, II.515 417–18 1188
182 864 658–9 II.821 420 II.976
183 737 672 II.943 448–52 II.1207
203 II.598 715–16 II.299 471 746, II.149, 374
206–7 822 724–5 346 484–5 887
1338 Index Locorum
Plautus, Epid. (cont.) 282 25 835 II.421

486–7 1156 295 II.347 837 716
500 II.1050 303–4 1217 840–1 554, II.11, 14, 131
501–2 1011 309 II.540 845 II.516
507–9 752 312–13 II.540 845–6 618
508–9 588 327 350, 683 850–1 515
514 679 331 II.166 853 687
516 901 340–1 972 858–9 916
516–17 II.1173 357–8 781 868 105
522 II.735 359–9a 824 876–7 II.137
533–4 336 361–3 644 882–3 1221
570–2 336, 974 370 729 889 II.188
574 374 373–4 1063 892–4 II.863
586 184, II.137, 208 378 II.989 895–7 II.1013
588 191 379 448 903 1132
600 II.263 379–80 800 911–12 315
605 287, II.225 385 860 925 II.377
607–8 698 416 307 926 II.249
609 II.74 417–18 652 929 II.515
620 1174 445 II.551 950 1106
637 II.704 446 II.737 954 377
658–9 88 446–8 II.244 955–6 II.179
664–5 II.170 460 495 968–9 1160
688 689 461 II.750 989 87
699 II.334 469–70 II.398 1011 II.506
710 913 483–4 II.862 1024 373
730–1 237 485 201 1029 II.921
fr. 487–8 II.732 1048 II.354
147 195 504 484 1051–3 II.516
164–5 683 509 II.593 1053–4 420, 606, II.246
Men. 511–12 265 1064 687
8–9 48 524 886 1071 II.681
22–3 677 587 II.669 1073 II.151
24–5 149 600 426 1074 II.818
26–7 738 611 357, 504 1082 II.344
31 28 612 345, 377 1107–8 316, 373
32 972 613 679 1110 856
32–3 1111, II.843 620–1 II.658 1114–15 307
35–6 842 626 105 1115 605
37–40 1246 632–3 II.162 1117–18 982
59 1019 649–51 1109 1119 1174
72–3 767 670–1 467, 824 1119–20 212
95 II.770 676 1233 1130–1 II.1162
96–7 II.577 678–9 II.483 1131 1271
104 844 680 II.741 1132 II.936
111–11a 186 690 894 1133–4 899
114–15 307 690–1 II.679 1135 913
115–16 1019 704 II.120 1146 330
119 II.874 712 342, 653 1152 497
122–3 II.1215 714–15 554 1154–5 238
141–2 463 718 254, 929 1162 65, 515, 869
153 II.293 722 II.123 Mer.
192 733, 1167, 1293, II.728 726 II.718, 728 11 1214
199–201 II.717 727–8 361 13 1220
218 819 746–7 II.337 18–19 II.651
221–2 II.703 761–2 II.120 35–6 1079
250–1 II.1101 782–3 246 45 875
268–9 1002 784–5 444 46 527
269 968 790–1 II.10 49 863
270–1 II.662 801 788 50 II.874
270–2 467 802 II.213 51 804
Index Locorum 1339
61–3 668, II.980 557 II.37 1017–19 II.673

71–2 931 559–60 640 1021–2 514, II.308
100–1 II.488, 928 566–7 II.885 Mil.
103 629 568 946 16 936
139–40 II.1221 574–5 486 16–17 964
141 709, 973, II.725 582–3 785, II.884 21–3 1095
147 448, II.219 589 II.330 25–8 757
154–5 1107 596 527 31–2 681
155 II.265 596–7 II.74 35 284
164 378 598 1162 62 II.842
168 II.320 633 490 72 625, II.54
173 328 633–5 II.107 72–4 II.504
180 II.880 636 II.43 75–6 758
180–1 346, II.842 659 1273, II.629 81 350, 497, II.514
180–6 319 659–60 126 111–13 II.1070
183 526 666 973 121 810
186 II.659 674 II.607 123–4 622
189 II.925 678–9 II.652 130–1 1088
190–1 II.283 692 II.69 131–3 II.538
198 629 700 200 136–7 II.653
215 328 700–1 II.540 145 1086
219 424 744 II.514 148–9 568, 624
221 424 758–9 II.846 162–3 II.279
222–3 815 760–1 71 174–6 II.656
238–9 1128 760–4 1142 179 542
240–1 562, II.89 761–2 20 181 II.244
245–6 II.1175 778 616 186–7 1296
250–1 II.1205 781 II.669 189–90 II.651
256–7 1030 790–1 1167 204 875
271 41 792 II.928 212 992
290–1 208 810–11 II.698 223–5 212
295–6 751 812–13 1087 226–7 II.300
305–6 323 819–20 784, II.332 243–5 II.217
312 II.26 823 359 255–6 658
325 904, 1202 832–3 II.993 262–3 706
330–2 II.135 862 711 266 II.501
333–4 256 864 921 290 976
335 708, II.760 868 169 301 II.925
355–6 787 873 II.831 342 196
377 II.209 884 381, 385, 411, II.423 347 II.797
381 1117 884a–5 II.927 355 703
384 274 890 782 361–2 371, II.827, 839,
387 847 894–5 II.859 841, 951
410–11 1116 897–8 II.729 365 27, 29
413–15 II.669 903 958 368 II.695
418 II.578 909 II.38, 903 369–70 667
418–19 14 912–13 255 383–4 823, 1109
434 280 924–5 1159 389–90 II.216
434–5 1093 930 II.725, 772 407 II.360
446–7 204, 258 939 125 409 615
466–7 1154 942 84 430–2 1103
492–4 II.906 943 II.48 447–8 966
507–8 II.1197 948 II.614 455 II.240
510 39 951 685 460–1 121, 1173, II.504
511 II.491 953–5 II.1195 463 II.10
514 II.572 978 II.400 464–5 II.758
524 II.737 980 642 472 968
528–9 772 980–1 411 497–8 II.542
536–8 II.872 992 695, II.151 501–3 848
540 67 993–4 II.662 535–6 945
547 982 1015–16 II.530 561–2 234
1340 Index Locorum
Plautus, Mil. (cont.) 1169–70 928 166 II.110

591 1080 1189–90 II.127 185 II.800
592–3 801 1200–1 II.1110 188–9 II.896
616–21 II.840 1202 237 192–3 II.320
626 911, 1233 1213–14 II.322 197 II.725
635–6 II.770 1215 II.1184 198–9 256
641 II.602 1225 102 208 II.882
643 1042 1233–4 II.442 211 II.959
649–50 II.695 1242 376 214 709
651 II.719 1251–2 905 220–1 II.753
686–7 II.548 1260 II.298 235–6 1167
718 496, 657 1263 731 250 273, 1121, II.504
738–9 II.602 1277–8 369 253 1019
740 779 1281–3 II.880 263 679
744 687 1284–5 911, 1202 270 213
745 1219, II.414 1301–3 II.522, 779 272 700
778 823 1305 284 272–3 913
787 856 1311 682 280 II.874
795–7 II.104 1330 II.926 298 884
806–9 311 1340–1 350 324 82, 515
822 678 1342 706 339–41 II.1229
826 II.215 1342–3 II.923 364–6 43
828–30 321, II.1028 1349–50 II.36 372 736
867 443 1361 349 378–9 II.599
920–1 II.319 1368–9 II.329 381 630
960 II.1055 1369 II.637 389–90 II.687
962–3 117 1371 656 392 II.43
966 II.790 1382–4 II.943 422–3 II.8
971–3 657 1391 II.165 422–4 695
974–5 820 1406 312 423 II.142
989 928, 1203 1411 728, II.166 432 1082
993 II.119 1424 1220 454 490
994 979 1428–9 II.841 457 II.937
1001–3 II.1178 1429 484 458–9 634
1006–7 II.921 1430 1117 461–2 659
1008 1283 1432–3 276 470–1 II.263
1012 II.1071 Mos. 481 1195
1014 716 1–2 356 486–8 II.1167
1016 777 15–16 1069 487–8 474
1036 105 19 1069 505 II.155
1040–1 1149 27–8 II.148 507 320
1041–2 II.103 34 II.444 513 II.869
1043 733 37–8 II.508 515 428
1046–7 1174 42 91 534 834
1048 II.589 42–3 II.336 542 1166
1049 223 49–50 42 545–6 II.907
1060 1107 58 II.114 551 II.1202
1071 II.504 58–9 II.750 557–8 II.481
1074–5 629, 634 66 441 573–4 II.788
1076 882 68 745, 1165 576–7 377
1083 641 71 II.306 578–9 517
1084 II.153 76 342 589 399, 1086
1086 701 81 1002 614 629, II.115
1099–1100 1285 100 229 624 788
1116 1081 101–3 753 630–2 II.878
1118 497 111–12 1040 633 526
1139–40 II.735 114–15 1288 637–8 14
1140 217, II.459 116–17 854 639 231
1143 1117 124–5 714 642 II.732
1149 II.1178 131–2 II.1212 647–8 610, II.270
1158 II.75 149 634 654 401
Index Locorum 1341
661 37 1077 1218 472 II.1217

684–5 II.1160 1091–2 II.13 479 II.139, 171
686–9 467 1094 II.1068 492 42
692 29 1099 156 493–4 1109
696 II.209 1117–18 1029 503 II.586
697 1179 1158 864 507–8 1054
734–5 444, 1172 Per. 514–15 629
740 II.806 21–2 844 520–1 968, 999
743–5 700 33–4a II.123 545 1088
745 1164 38 357 553 II.507
749 917 42 366 564–8 II.610
764 835 46 II.91 565–6 II.910
769 II.38, 324 50–1 350 569 11, 19, 24
772–3 II.1189 52 II.255 572 350
783 II.113 55–6 1295 580 1221
784 346 77–9 II.112 590 884
803 376 101–2 71 594 395, 941
811 783 107 II.937 594–5 660, II.318
812 890 127–8 550 605–6 II.612
820–1 474 146 430 608 II.55, 140
827 769 153 II.740 615–16 II.11, 360
829–30 737 170–70a II.356 635 632, 759
836 II.887 179 13, II.1, 14 642 73, II.220
843 II.925 179–80 II.507 645 426
857 712 191–1a 808 648 788, 942
858–9 II.269, 479 195–6 II.1054 655 84
860–1 II.259 198–9 84 656 350
870–1 105 207 352 665 882
899–900 894 210 II.1133 668 882
900 281 214 481 683–4 II.739
905 883 219–20 346 686–7 II.94
906–7 377 228 II.285 695 II.976
908 1080 234–6 II.1204 696 II.139
909 II.884 241 18 700–5 II.930
911 II.775 247 140 713 161
916 II.428 249–50 371 735 936, 946
931 125 259 II.298 743–4 II.868
934 II.796 268–9 472 753–6 II.30, 400
935 1280 281 II.119 761 II.423
941 II.352 293 II.139 762 II.471
950–1 446 300 281 765 1226
958 255 300–1 II.900 773b–4 245, 746
959 675 304 II.471 777–8 II.515
961–2 II.1086 306 1079 778 1009
966–7 II.729 314 833 783–4 II.632, 655
970–2 II.1214 322 36, II.831 806 II.935
977–9 693 329 II.557 821 II.24, 384
980 II.1085 341 189, 340, 789 825 682, II.115
985–6 II.406 365–6 1286 847–8 1282
998 396 373 388 Poen.
999 329 373–4 1173 13 II.1110
1000 958 380 476 21–2 II.660
1027–9 412, II.1160 385 1036 35 II.640
1034 II.271 386 267 59–60 1186
1041 II.502 389 352 66–7 II.266
1043–4 II.981 394 1017 102–3 907, II.480
1045 17 396 II.875 104–5 803
1046 17 405–6 II.1229 106–7 988
1050 II.39 415 II.165 111 863
1072 191 428 II.468 112–13 II.681
1073 711, II.719 435–6 II.984 116–17 II.152
1342 Index Locorum
Plautus, Poen. (cont.) 721–2 II.329 1342–4 II.1179

119–20 II.506 741 II.214 1346 898
131–2 II.586 770–1 II.32 1364–5 II.1113
140–1 1202 798 II.943 1407 II.145
145 781 799 359, 507 1414 II.659
149 II.895 802–3 1018 1422 349
156 II.884 811–13 1101 Ps.
156–7 1039 812 II.730 3–5 563
157–8 1057 818 II.210 4–5 II.24
172–3 713 819 II.615 13–14 506
179 46, 222 821–2 1054 25–6 709
181 316, II.14, 108 851 441 28–9 994
208 II.936 852 964 29–30 1103
219–21 260 860–1 II.511 41–3 979
221–3 989 871 240 75 682
224 1221 872 538 78 697, 710
225–7 II.1190 881–2 622 78–9 II.924
233–4 II.542 887 952 80 II.1222
262 40 896–8 371 88–9 876
263 II.925 904 603 105–6 430
272–3 1023 916 II.144 108–10 II.1067
282 II.641 950 1285 109–10 634
283–4 378 974 II.727 114 139, 164
284–5 II.122 1008 629, 755 135 1220
289 II.922 1011–12 II.17 136 728, 1037
290 II.8 1021–2 II.615 143 177
310 1023 1028 711 153 633, II.122
312–14 II.1175 1038 II.11 157–8 739
313 756 1044 334 158 1033
315–16 II.38 1065 43, 923, II.861 160 II.1064
317 II.1115 1066–7 1282 162 1149
327–8 II.1198 1067–8 II.1163 163 II.1060
361 II.680 1068–9 II.1073 167 II.13
368 II.1058 1069–70 II.852 171 473
382–3 II.930 1070 189 184 II.269
392–5 695 1072–3 II.85 185 980
396 II.600 1079 II.982 191 111
401–2 1165 1088 116 192–3 II.1120
403–9 II.1230 1094–5 1056 201 902
430–3 345, 431 1107–8 364 204–4a 146
445–6 II.907 1112 685 206–7 II.138
449–51 II.506 1122 II.954 214 II.142
458–9 II.249 1122–3 1225 218 187
460–2 II.743 1131–2 II.1090 230 316
515–17 675 1140 221 233 1250
533 869, II.445 1187 II.1110 236 485
533–4 II.572 1187–8 II.1092, 1111 252–3 678, II.330
541 12 1188 II.928 256 II.251
552 167 1196–7 II.1176 259–60 863
553–4 II.1200 1205–6 73 273 232, 267
557–9 II.81 1207 849, 1265 281 133
572–3 857 1214 39, II.719, 938 285 II.90
576 1247 1245–6 187 293–4 II.268
583 48, 227 1264 II.305 294–5 II.872
588 II.73 1269 277 316–17 849
620 1093 1277 77 321 985
644–5 II.483 1304 102 323 II.946
649–59 402 1308 1220 325–6 76, 678
653–4 364 1313–14 222 326 375
653–5 842 1320–1 519 329 II.1220
670 1017 1324–5 100 337 II.251
Index Locorum 1343
344 373, 889 948 1114 51–2 II.512

360–1 682 950–50a 881 54–5 II.135
378 117 952–3 II.920 58–63 1151
383 II.947 963 1093 59–60 968, II.5, 492
385–6 618, II.545 971 630 69 865
427–8 II.820 973 988 70–1 II.716
430–2 II.115 978 1151 80 933
442 II.101 978–9 372 100 116
445 316 979 II.860 104–5 340
446–8 742 995 II.147, 658 127 1002
447–9 II.905 1000–1 1061 133–5 II.676
453–4 54, 267 1015 499 139 94
460–1 II.902 1017–18 II.921 142–3 15
468 66 1017–31 1095 146 105
490–1 II.1157 1051 829 160–2 II.927
517 II.132 1057–8 867 161 II.195
524–5 86 1066–7 375 162–77 397
543–4 II.691 1067 309 168 401
553–4 665 1071 115 175 1235
562–4 909 1080 140 191 115, 688
581–2 1220 1091 178 198 II.991
590–1 II.1161 1091–2 II.633 220 II.146
596 1063 1097 1254 235 319
598–9 1057 1103 1130 241 II.928
600–600a II.318 1104 II.464 246–7 149
608 II.615 1105–6 272 249 307
615 898 1105–8 381 261–2 1080
616 818 1106 274 264–5a 860
616–17 II.515 1107–8 1024 268–9 829, 889
623–4 639 1121a–23 II.13 281 1005
640 656 1124 767 285–5a 210
654 677 1130 967, 1104 290–1 II.896
656–7 369 1132 950 327 II.857
665 23 1134–4a II.752 343–7 327
674 788 1140–3 1160 361 II.917
679–80 425 1148 II.332 366–7 607
690–1 II.501 1154–5 1057 369–70 245
697–8 554 1156–7 400 372–3 II.570
702–3 II.484 1164 1240 379 580
705–5a 878 1178 631 406–7 II.533
724–5 1025 1193–4 165 408–10 1127
731 837 1200 II.619 428–9 II.868
748 335 1222–3 26, II.857 451–2 1285
753 898 1239–41 74 462 II.541
759 1021 1248 424 472–3 II.857
766 1151 1259 61 494–5 667
771–2 II.577 1279 II.925 497–8 359
798–9 411 1282 645 502 1217
851–2 332 1284 143, 1246, II.926 502–3 1047, II.663
861 945 1298–9 1066, 1099 520 II.933
869–71 854 1302–4 851 521 II.741
870–1 II.21 1314 II.354 521–2 II.515
888 66 1318–19 534 543–4 II.175
903–4 701 1320 II.934 545–6 1274
908–8a 343 Rud. 552–3 1105
912 II.932 1–2 II.523 559–60 548
913 II.11, 148 3–5 II.277 564 770
915 II.21, 22 13–15 II.524 565 15
916–18 682 29 867 572 II.240
925–5a II.920 41 II.1070 582 357
947 II.649 49–50 117 583 1023
1344 Index Locorum
Plautus, Rud. (cont.) 1252 824 437–8 II.25

586–7 101 1267–8 II.1169 451–2 832
590–1 489 1269 II.919 464 745
615–16 1297 1270 373 490–1 II.790
620 892 1277 684 506–7 II.77, 590
621 II.749 1295 968 536 II.930
622–3 1263 1298 1217 539 200
629–30 968 1304–6 328 542 107, 933
634 II.215 1315 1023 547 II.549
639 950 1326 83 550–1 II.48
645–6 II.534 1328 737 561 II.879
661 II.917 1333 II.1068 577 932
675–6 951 1337 115 578 222
691–2 186 1353–4 II.337 582–3 II.1145
694–5 548 1362–3 II.876 590–1 496
700–1 719 1365–6 II.80 602–3 677, II.26
712 II.430 1368–9 II.1190 608 701
712–13 1113 1417–19 II.868 608–9 II.650
739 II.17 1421 65 610 536
739–41 322 St. 612 400
743 160 12–13 II.1114 623 II.876
746 135 20–1 720 627 1170
752–4 II.340 27–8 700, 715 647–8 II.875
790–1 1117 31–3 II.108 664 II.874
798–9 II.692 32–3 II.119 664–6 II.838
811–13 639 51 133 667 262
830 II.183 52 II.121 676–7 II.249
833 130 57 257 678 551
845 II.824 59 II.427 682 800
846–7 614 71 II.1110 686 II.568
875 II.400, 573 92–3 400, 676 693–4 II.649
922 1127 97 189, II.988 696 1175
930 1196 117 662 706 II.573
933–4 II.1146 127 537 713–14 132
943–3a II.718, 751 141 710 715–17 355
960–1 II.12 142 II.577 722 II.36
979–80 1012 145 II.776 731 766
1010 1060 148 517 744 783
1023 355 159 844 757 II.239
1024 976 169 II.1115 Trin.
1033 334 171–2 II.332 14–15 II.249
1034 800 174 1272 15 618, II.537
1049 790 190 II.321 22 867
1055–6 II.385, 422 247 385 25–7 659
1064 256 251–2 185 29 986
1069 857 270 1061 33 102
1072 II.271 274 191 34–5 1243
1077–8 1032 274–5 II.474 42 II.775
1085 708 289 II.650 46–7 785
1102–3 II.885 295 1021 50 379, 442, II.654
1103 655, II.322 307 362 61 II.817
1117 333 310 868 65 271
1120–1 894 312 II.140 69 II.761
1148–9 739, II.942 324–5 211 70 II.110
1170 II.600 351 376 87 702
1171 1087 362 II.520 89–90 1106
1188 744 370 277, 1067 90 863
1201 1145, II.36 396 761 96 170
1205 549 410 630 98 627
1212 482 419–20 II.348 106 II.841
1230–1 208, II.89 419–22 984 124–7 II.864
Index Locorum 1345
127 132, 372 585–7 II.1170 1154 II.725

129 262 618 349, 505 1156–7 721
133 504 627 352, 720 1159 295
133–5 490 640 704 1162 526, 1246
137 II.491 645–6 II.639 1184–6 II.337
153–4 II.600 646–7 II.901 Truc.
156 1137 666–7 II.680 1–3 178
157–8 877 688–9 II.683 4 340
158–9 1129 696–7 1280 6 1034
160–1 455 725–6 II.653 12 1271
174 II.148 729–30 706, II.99 38–9 638, II.255
181 896 734–5 II.100 47 914
210–11 II.613 740 483 64–5 1018
217–18 II.1173 756 870, II.1208 84–5 198, II.20
223–4 983 762 II.719 105 1068
227–8 974 767–72 II.1085 116–17 15
233–4 990 797 1083 127 II.284
245–6 II.943 799–800 II.867 132 154
258 659 800 168 151 947
261–3 753 803 1019 153–4 1175
265a–6 816 814 521 165 II.251
277–8 786 819–20 II.780 184 II.510
284 1127 820–1 II.615 184–5 306
285 II.500 825 791 186 1034
289–90 II.1052 827 192 223 62
309 1014 832–3 96, II.1134 228 II.568
310 II.548 837 784 229–31 II.1170
313 1217 842 II.365 235 737
321–2 273 848–50 712 239 1130
328 722 869 290, 302 250–2 1115
337 1033 894–5 971 251 117
341 II.295 894–902 1160 258 1038, 1044
347–8 II.215 896 1125, II.7 261 630
349 II.1113 905–6 II.1109 267–8 II.320
370 II.138, 208 926 683 282 II.250
377 105 940–1 1049 296 II.722
380 87 944 II.21 303–4 989
386 II.609 954–5 II.534 305 II.103
392–3 47 963 285 335 II.1177
400–1 1162 967 1186 340–1 843
402–3 II.735 970–1 771 343 837
403–5 1284 979 499 352–3 II.314, 535
405 877 986–7 766 368–9 II.1034
425–6 1300 987 II.999 372 151
428 II.492 987–8 372 378 1203
436–7 505 988 II.1029 380–1 414
473 339 991 II.284 384–5 II.780
482–3 II.555 1005 II.659 394 136
484 854 1022–3 II.567 401–4 1286
485–7 II.146 1023 946, 1006 409 368
486–7 II.889 1035 58, 747 417 877
493–4 II.754 1039 177 433–7 1139
508–10 II.1144 1040 460 439–40 II.166
524 988 1048–9 549, 698, II.21 440–4 347
536–7 II.930 1071–2 II.977 444–5 II.893
547–8 II.544 1094–5 337 457 647
549–52 II.1188 1094–6 1031 510 II.880
554 II.367 1095–6 II.705 511 611
559 II.327 1115 1010 518 II.485
567–8 841 1122–3 1298 534 923
577–8 376 1149–50 II.818 538 113
1346 Index Locorum
Plautus, Truc. (cont.) 5.52 II.48 28.10 II.444

543 680 5.57 887 28.122 869
576 275 5.87 189 29.101 1162
606 158 5.121 278 29.103 387
616–17 II.1086 6.58 II.1199 29.126 II.1149, 1219
622–3 1038, 1047 6.113 386 31.28 II.268
634 II.930 7.3 II.934 31.43 677
645–6 II.800 7.21 II.883 32.144 248
697–8 980 7.46 1220 33.26 1016
712 306 7.97 992 33.155 244
731 II.27, 230 7.112 II.1066 34.22 II.1086
746 II.491 7.121 139 34.66 II.1087
747 II.181 7.146 II.161 34.81 II.268
747–8 II.327 7.159 753 35.17 II.760
748 658 7.166 149, 1234 35.25 II.110
758 347 8.103 1062 36.35 262
762 156 8.136 1008 36.42 1251
768 886 8.142–4 1086 36.45 II.904
779 II.108 8.193 II.274 36.62 II.39
787 II.782 8.216 398 36.124 II.892
787–8 718 9.71 II.511 37.57 1211
801 766 9.78 II.527 Pliny the Younger
821 II.119 9.144 1249 Ep.
838 353 9.164 744 1.5.8 II.697
840 1086 10.93 1084 1.23.2 294
844–5 II.991 10.129 919 2.11.17 II.1006
846–7 II.1183 10.158 121 3.1.4 175
872–3 1105 10.171 1115 4.27.1 II.849
894 II.300 10.207 1266 5.6.42 II.148
900 699 11.3 II.902 5.14.8 II.708
907 849 11.18 II.268 6.9.1 II.32
945 1061 11.33 II.389 6.9.2 II.57, 74
948 120 11.42 II.136 6.31.15 386
Vid. 11.139 1013 8.1.2 1299
103 933 11.162 809 9.13.24 II.73
Pliny the Elder 11.253 1116 9.26.6 II.902
Nat. 12.97 689 10.96.10 962
praef. 18 767, II.1011 13.19 II.568 Pan.
praef. 29 II.454 13.138 II.1206 44.1 II.552
2.85 101 14.148 II.716 60.3 386
2.91 II.888 15.22 852 84.6 II.34
2.110 II.898 16.48 1116 Pollio
2.135 II.856 17.27 651 Fam.
2.159 971 17.74 193 10.31.3 II.179
2.187 183 17.214 286 10.32.4 II.245
2.194 259 17.243 II.571 10.33.2 1039
2.201–4 II.1198 18.062 137 Pompeius
2.234 II.292 18.175 II.1083 V.133.27–9K 1162
2.235–6 II.855 18.187 II.174 Pomponius (L.)
3.3 II.429 18.339 208 com.
3.7 II.25, 425 19.33 II.889 65 96
3.24 II.579 19.84 829 Pomponius (Sex.)
3.39 931 19.187 122 dig.
3.56 802 21.11 755 40.7.29.1 605
3.59 442 21.68 II.962 Priscian
3.67 II.1183 22.135 173 8.53 448
3.70 1060 22.145 897 17.105 II.953
3.107 754 24.39 897 Propertius
3.152 910 24.135 896 1.3.11–12 243
4.5 921 25.22 II.1070 1.4.25–7 978
4.66 1219 25.87 956 1.10.25 258
4.83 100, 755 25.102 II.904 1.15.1 951
Index Locorum 1347
1.16.6 II.169 12.10.29 686 6.2 II.424

1.18.31 1213 12.11.24 II.12 6.6 910
1.19.9 22 [Quintilian] 7.6 1280
1.19.9–10 217 Decl. 11.4 448
1.19.13 1070 2.8 II.535 11.8 II.303
2.5.3 II.212 6.16 II.373 17.5 II.728
2.19.32 728 12.27 89 19.5 1119
2.33b.25 II.785 14.10 904 24.4–25.1 II.1186
3.9.7 1008 17.6 581 25.5 528
4.8.49 II.787 19.5.5 II.1177 29.2 II.144
Publilius Syrus Quintus Cicero 31.6 1075
Sent. Pet. 33.5 719
I.20 847 39 198 36.4 1285
37.4 26, II.851
Quadrigarius Rhetorica ad Herennium 43.2 II.961
hist. 1.1 1023 44.5 II.50
10b=6C II.1219 1.2 II.597 45.1 II.136
12 113, 418, 1211, II.137, 1.4 996 48.4 II.221
399 1.5 297 51.26 II.1182
Quintilian 1.8.11 472 51.30 II.754
Decl. 1.9 240 52.9 II.365
246.pr. 1179 1.14 851 52.11 II.887
259.15 II.285 1.26 1223 52.22 918
265.7 II.283 2.7 285 52.32 II.609
270–2 924 2.16 II.702 54.1 1268
322.9 II.282 2.27 650 57.6–58 II.941
344.pr. 1202 2.42 122 58.1 479
Inst. 2.45 184 58.3 II.304
1.1.18 II.369 2.50 II.640 58.14 766, 770
1.3.15 II.285 3.1 II.56 Hist.
1.5.11 165 3.39 970 1.55.6 954
1.6.1 579, II.300 4.2 II.868 1.55.8 II.453
1.7.26 448 4.7 II.374 1.55.12 1074
1.12.14 415 4.13 II.529 1.77.3 II.453
2.15.3 II.12 4.19 II.265 2.28 950
2.19.2 114 4.33 160 2.37 II.733
3.6.28 II.1182 4.38 II.1130 2.87B 949
3.6.72 II.603 4.39 1177 2.98.1 II.746
3.7.28 985 4.44 II.957, 1098 3.24 242
3.8.7 II.891 4.46 115 3.48.26 1073
4.2.66 II.295 4.50 906 4.10 269
6.1.24 II.857 4.52 II.580 Jug.
6.3.83 956 4.53 942, II.201 1.4 II.536
7.4.21 1175 4.55 895, 1198 1.5 II.722
7.9.10 II.958 4.68 II.1216 2.4 II.686
8.2.16 1187, II.1042 Rufinus 4.1 II.1225
8.3.40–1 II.1183 Hist. 6.3 II.461
8.6.30 540 4.26.7 423 10.4 876, II.963
8.pr.6 II.1208 Rutilius Lupus 11.2 II.1007
9.3.101 1110 2.6 II.860 13.1 II.1009
9.4.19 II.955 14.10 II.252
9.4.23 II.958 S.C. de Gn. Pisone patre 15.2–16.1 II.1189
9.4.26 II.952 21 777 16.2 1266
9.4.27 II.960 148–51 II.881 18.3 II.1059
9.4.28 II.953 Copy A.61–2 II.559 18.12 II.724
9.4.29 II.952 Sacerdos 20.2 II.749
10.1.12 723 VI.432.11K 438 20.3 1235
10.1.105 1171 Sallust 25.4 II.961
11.1.85 II.508 Cat. 27.2 141, 1193
11.2.29 II.872 1.6 257 28.2 1293
11.2.35 II.229 3.2 754 31.12 II.848
12.10.23 972 6.1 1058 31.22 II.554
1348 Index Locorum
Sallust, Jug. (cont.) 3.pr.14 II.104 9.3.5 II.1080

31.26 787, 1265 4.pr.2 II.849 10.13.4 II.206
32.1 1222, II.223 5.3.1 27, 905 10.18.5 145
35.2 II.135 7.pr.1 195 11.8.3 II.89
35.9 II.858 7.pr.1–2 417 Ep.
40.1 II.856 7.1.23 973 4.3 II.1222
40.3 II.1054 8.4.1 978 7.5 1271
43.1 II.357 8.5.1 913 20.2 122, 873
44.4 844 9.1.4 626 20.3 II.112
46.8 II.711 9.2.8 248 27.1 II.1203
48.3 949 9.2.17 94 46.1 II.309
49.2 II.201 9.2.18 518 47.1 378
51.1 II.618 9.3.11 1157 53.3 II.137
51.2 II.248 9.4.8 II.101 66.41 270
52.1 120 9.5.1 II.798 70.21 1178
56.5 1235 10.pr.1 II.104 75.3 121
58.3 II.340 10.pr.4 II.707 75.11 II.299
61.5–62.1 II.1008 10.1.1 458, 775 77.18 164
64.5 850 10.1.10 889 87.15 79
65.1–3 II.1009 10.2.4 299, 893 87.17 II.571
68.1 1258 10.4.5 921 87.30 268
70.5 608 10.5.19 374 88.15 II.613
71.1 614 Suas. 88.27 523
71.4 737 1.3 774 90.14 II.87
71.5 960 1.8 289, 298 90.16 II.427
81.3 77 2.21 912 92.15 II.143
84.3 782 Seneca the Younger 94.3 858
87.1 II.686 Apoc. 94.36 II.273
87.4 785 8.2 II.278 109.16 II.1190
88.4 II.233 12.1 832 117.22 II.331
91.5 II.235 Ben. 118.6 II.744
91.7 II.286 1.2.1 II.901 Her. O.
92.4 II.686 1.11 626 1661–2 II.986
94.7–95.1 II.1182 1.13 II.747 Nat.
97.3 106 2.6.1 886 1.15.4 II.564
98.2 608 2.24.3 II.286 3.11.1 II.580
98.3 219, 1136 3.6.1 II.110 3.25.5 856
98.7 II.425 4.28.2 II.723 3.25.6 II.580
100.4 II.796 4.36.1 II.928 3.30.8 II.424
101.5 899, II.563 5.10.3 273 5.9.4 847
103.7 II.398 5.17.3 II.900 6.17.1 II.249
106.1–2 II.829 6.3.3 II.409 6.32.2 85
106.3 665 7.2.1 1022, Thy.
107.1 270 II.179 713–14 895
107.7 271 7.3.2 299 771 562
111.1 135 7.30.1 861 [Seneca the Younger]
112.3 810 Cl. Oct.
Rep. 1.12.1 II.207 863–4 II.282
2.6.5 II.440 1.26.5 II.451 Servius Honoratus
Scaevola 2.5.3 782 A.
dig. 2.6.1 II.287 1.576 II.886
23.2.54 II.199 Dial. Sidonius
44.7.61.1 627 1.9.4 II.812 Ep.
Seneca the Elder 3.2.1 114 7.14.10 649
Con. 3.7.4 II.207 Silius Italicus
1.pr.16 1147 3.8.7 611 1.93–4 II.640
1.1.11 335 3.18.3 226 3.231–3 169
1.1.19 437, II.219 3.20.2 182 4.585–6 II.466
2.1.1 II.372 4.22.4 1123 5.333–4 249
2.1.25 II.84 5.8.5 II.743 7.680–2 787
2.4.7 912 6.4.3 II.378 14.281 249
2.7.9 512 7.9.3 945 15.3–4 249
Index Locorum 1349
Sisenna Tab.Vindon. 6.32.3 II.1001

hist. 2 1017 6.33.1 II.206
123=79C II.123 Tacitus 6.42.4 II.432
32=28C II.1105 Agr. 6.48.4 794
Mil. 10.6 II.647 6.51.3 II.252
2 114 27.1 1289 11.7.1 II.189
Statius 32.1 II.426 11.10.4 II.133
Ach. Ann. 11.11.1 II.8
1.935 II.924 1.2.1 II.769 11.16.3 II.187
Silv. 1.3.1 II.1183 11.25.5 II.303
4.pr.20 II.22 1.5.1 II.401 11.26.1 II.676
Theb. 1.6.3 535 11.27 II.699
1.657 701 1.8.2 II.679 11.35.2 II.357
3.115–17 92 1.8.6 746, II.27, 30 12.12.2 1250
4.28–9 II.815 1.10.1 II.965 12.47.2 II.262
4.434 828 1.18.3 929 12.65.2 1251
4.607–8 II.676 1.19.5 II.30, 235 13.3.1 II.1058
5.361–2 828 1.21.2 707 13.5.1 II.1225
10.8–9 1289 1.27.1 1072 13.14.2 II.12, 459
11.522 121 1.36.2 967, II.30, 235, 387 13.16.2 910
12.784–5 II.133 1.40.1 II.67 13.42.4 600
Suetonius 1.40.4 II.598 13.43.4 II.188
Aug. 1.42.1 1213 13.49.2 511
28.1 II.104 1.44.2 1267 13.57.1 II.468
33.1 319 1.46.1 II.1225 14.4.4 II.414
64.3 165 1.59.1 782 14.20.5 1290
65.1 II.781 1.61.1 1011 14.29.1 704
86.3 1253 1.67.1 160 14.32.1 II.432
94.9 1163 1.68.4 II.769 14.35.2 II.661
Cal. 2.4.3 II.261 14.46.2 1295
16.2 868 2.6.4 640 14.64.2 II.440
38.1 1273 2.31.3 198 15.5.3 II.228
Cl. 2.33.3 II.192, 353 15.16.4 II.1001
15.2 II.444 2.38.2 II.698 15.27.2 1073
28.1 964 2.40.1 II.247 15.44.1 II.1220
Dom. 2.59.1 II.414 15.54.1 891
10.3 650 3.1.2 1291 15.62.2 1266
Jul. 3.12.4 II.105 16.16.1 II.639
20.1 II.442 3.23.2 701 16.21.2 157
20.3 110 3.28.2 II.401 Dial.
37.2 451 3.32.2 II.728 25.4 II.71
Tib. 3.34.3 II.186 Ger.
59.1 89 3.60.1 II.756 21.2 1171
Tit. 3.62.2 II.1186 29.1 II.543
5.3 99 3.74.4 II.858 Hist.
Sulpicius Rufus 4.2.1 526, 592 1.3.1 II.607
Fam. 4.4.1 578 1.9.1 II.257
4.12.1 II.142 4.10.2 1257 1.10.2 965
Symmachus 4.21.1 II.360 1.49.3 216
Ep. 4.22.1 II.105 1.50.3 II.188
1.78.1 1003 4.24.2 978 1.62.2 II.713
1.86 II.113 4.29.1 II.230 1.64.2 II.343
4.58.2 911 4.29.2 1292 1.79.3 II.500
Rel. 4.34.1 II.439 1.79.4 II.512
4.1 1120 4.57.1 II.113 1.83.2 II.749
4.66.2 285 2.4.2 544
Tab. devot. Audollent 5.11.2 640 2.43.2 199
283.9–11 1239 6.3.3 II.23, 218 2.45.2 707
Tab. Vindol. 6.10.3 1074 2.74.1 868
II.211 68 6.12.1 1013 2.77.3 59
III.645.ii.16–18 6.29.3 II.469 2.91.3 II.73
413 6.30.4 II.357 3.10.3 608, 616
1350 Index Locorum
Tacitus, Hist. (cont.) 713 286 678 303, II.213

3.29.1 817 751 958 690 913, II.288
3.31.3 II.264 758 365 691 461
3.38.4 II.333 796–8 II.910 693–4 1246
3.53.2 II.74 803–4 1136 698 II.729
3.63.2 II.620 822–4 745 699–700 708
3.70.3 1269 828 95 713 356
3.71.2 II.343 832 917 748 II.663
3.77.1 1294 850–1 II.372 763–5 371
3.78.2 II.294 854 II.532 771 II.412
4.1.1 II.749 855–7 942 787 638, 772
4.18.3 1272 865 892 796 1187, II.20, 193
4.24.1 II.527 886 192 796–8 II.910
4.34.2 547 902–3 1027 819 838
4.47 1073 924–6 372 827 II.37
4.50.3 1111 958 876 828–30 121
4.66.2 II.257 An. 839 990
4.71.1 II.419 9–10 1171 842 II.204
4.80.1 62 53–4 1255 850–1 372
5.21.2 410 55–7 II.450 915 344
5.26.2 288 74–5 76 950–1 1261
Terence 93–5 1152 958 110
Ad. 100–1 II.981 977 760
40 128 103 II.581 Eu.
44–5 527 117–19 1115 1–3 1296
106–8 657 125–6 1279 10–12 II.577
107–10 664 129–31 II.772 22 642
126 914 175 628 27–8 II.296
136 323 175–6 II.40 36–9 94
150–1 II.914 186–7 774, II.183 44 868
155–6 II.1035 191 II.512 98 905, 1202
160–1 II.940 196–7 II.304 107 414
209 II.817 215–17 II.1166 107–8 453
254 II.55 219 II.144 108–11 373
279–80 499 224–5 368 114–15 II.166
309–10 90 238 II.144 116–17 II.349
344 804 248–9 II.813 170–1 236
347 II.332 266 II.660 193–5 88
364–5 404 281–4 II.940 208–9 366
392–3 II.913 289–91 II.1173 216 II.371
411–12 II.935 314 400 223 1237
413 II.577 327 766 226–7 II.730
470 II.596 334–5 II.155 232–3 956
490 170, 184 338 II.921 234–5 942, 1169
507 734 347 II.863 238 952
536–7 902 349 II.95 252–3 II.22, 131
545 1065 357 1001 296–7 1100
549 II.116 399–401 II.1179 297–8 II.928
560–1 322 405 705 302–3 II.540
582–3 963 423 126 305 118
606 795 428–9 524 305–6 727
608 II.581 460 1218 312 II.578
614 180 472 II.304 316–17 II.1208
618–19 456 481 94 319–20 II.671
657–8 1246 481–2 1028, II.201 345–7 319
660–1 375 484–5 II.384 351 390
662–4 II.346 489 485 360 366
671 338 490 II.121 381 II.932
694 II.1126 499–500 343 391–2 II.1063
698 II.36 607 1299 392–3 88
704–5 II.768 617 373 442–3 II.22
Index Locorum 1351
451–3 II.1184 399–400 II.381 501 624

460 388 429 330 503 860
486–7 II.181 436 375 516 427
496 37 452–4 727, II.303, 699 519–20 II.559
504–5 II.932 454 II.105, 108 529 II.214
514–15 II.905 473–4 II.656 560–1 1157
517–18 1247, II.56 601 1300 566 1220
527 II.724 617 507 572 256
530 854 644–8 II.887 623–4 698
547–8 II.351 652 1034 648–9 II.359
572 162 662–4 II.940 667 973, 990
573 338, II.303 686–7 90 670–1 1151
581–2 200 689–90 762 704–5 644
600 36 704 64, II.423 721 II.151
622–3 II.1190 705–6 311 728 705, II.98
633–4 II.246 743 232, 267, 498 734–5 II.461
638–9 II.319 747 1018 773 1112
639–40 II.319 865–6 II.19 788 975, 1046
640–1 722 871 632 839 701
653 II.490 886–7 II.925 863 II.377
664 935 916–17 II.577 866 II.172
666 922 952 190 Ph.
679 681 981 II.307 27–9 250
728 1080 990–1 375 29 106
773–4 930 1004–5 1021 30 868
806–7 II.138 1006–7 363 30–1 II.715
809 154 1008 II.324 30–2 II.752, 754
838–9 II.116 1012 II.1189 56 1245
846–7 II.804 1017 II.217 67–8 1016
889–90 652 1038 II.278 89–90 585
912–13 262 1050–1 375 91–3 529
914–15 II.629 1064–5 II.293 94 1261
926–8 II.61 Hec. 113–14 715
981–2 537 10–11 II.531 117–18 528
1035 759, 763 74–5 II.934 126 981
1043 733, II.97 90–1 1223 155 734
1044 924 91–2 II.229 159–60 716
1045–8 339 141–2 672 163 111
1067–8 515 160–2 1155 168–9 II.64
Hau. 172 871 228 234
20–1 II.530 174–5 1121 233–4 II.936
25–7 II.1160 181–3 II.339 247 888
31–2 II.160 194 87 260–2 1099
63–4 1002 205–6 375 292–3 303
77 1020, 1265 214 190 298 413
78 II.671 249 948, 1149 305–7 1101
87 II.490 259–60 1155 315 548
95 341 277–8 678 318 520
104 795 278–9 II.752 328 II.766
115–16 II.824 283 1085 360 364
126–7 II.820 293 673 364–5 299, 437, II.798
133 II.234 296 II.376 400–1 658
158 269 298 457 408–10 665
199 770 313 970 416 II.177, 198
203 873 314 1106 429 279
248 716 330–2 II.911 441–2 II.597
258–9 II.1111 372 217 445 II.115
259–60 699 378–9 102 454 202
269–70 II.195 406 II.940 468 II.890
305–6 212 435 II.411 476 II.702
333–5 153 458 399 531–2 526
1352 Index Locorum
Terence, Ph. (cont.) Mart. 14.4.9.pr 807

569–72 617 2.7 698 16.3.1.10 II.893
586–7 625 Mon. 18.4.2.20 988
594 457, II.607 9.1 II.338 19.1.13.5 114
618 II.483 Nat. 21.1.1.10 II.441
676 II.211 1.4.1 II.268 24.1.32.27 764
682 346 1.10.45 284 24.3.22.8 II.306
692–4 II.1204 1.10.49 325 26.5.3 II.455
739 322 Orat. 27.4.3.3 527
754 317 3.3 1290 32.11.3 II.23
756–7 II.550 Pall. 38.5.1.6 426
795–6 II.947 5.3 278 42.4.7.6 59
799 212 Praescr. Haer. 47.2.46 912
808–9 II.922 11.2 533 50.17.2 205
846 328 Prax.
882–3 II.1229 13.4 195 Valerius Flaccus
885–6 II.448 17.2 II.295 2.52 134
899–900 319 Pud. 2.231–2 690, II.638
901–2 II.94 16.10 574 3.412 358
908–9 II.259 Res. 7.354 207
933–4 II.36 40.7 434 Valerius Maximus
947 170 40.11 438 1.1.ext.3 967
965 703 51 551 1.1.14 II.281
974–5 II.313 Scorp. 2.4.5 II.384
979–80 II.987 12.5 551 2.7.4 395
982–3 II.1205 Spect. 3.7.1e 986
1028 II.746 3 429 5.4.7 II.231
Tertullian Test. 6.5.5 II.689
An. 5.1 II.770 8.2.3 II.267
14.3 651 Uxor. Varro
18.7 II.454 1.5.4 1036 apud Plin. Nat.
Apol. Virg. 36.92 229
1.2 692 5.2 570 L.
9.1 574 Tibullus 5.1 557, 558
11.4 604 1.2.33–4 880 5.4 II.790
14.5 912 1.7.21–2 940 5.5 204
30.4 546 [Tibullus] 5.6 II.1062
33.3 136 3.7.136 II.756 5.8 807, 927
38.2 585 3.17(4.11).3–4 II.995 5.14 816
39.12 162 4.7.7–8 729 5.21 880
Carn. Traianus 5.31 II.566
18.6 965 Plin. Ep. 5.40 II.379
Hermog. 10.34.2 II.800 5.55 II.274
14.1 II.358 Tryphoninus 5.83 II.640
Idol. dig. 5.106 151
22.3 II.79 28.2.28.4 II.861 5.121 II.274
Iud. Turpilius 5.123 1263
3.5 II.292 com. 5.137 II.406
4.1 II.273 142–3 II.771 5.149 II.265
13.26 535 167–8 II.802 5.157 II.1041
Marc. 5.174 114
1.24.5 541 Ulpian 6.8 1049
2.4.6 [= Gen. 2.17] 865 dig. 6.23 1260
2.16 168 1.9.12.1 302 6.24 990
3.7.6 169 2.15.8.22 312 6.25 816
3.16.7 II.761 3.3.27 303 6.50 944
4.1.8 1031 4.2.14.2 II.462 7.3 762
4.8.1 440 4.6.26.4 II.298 7.8 1262, II.618
4.33.8 434 4.8.31.1 II.903 7.10 1060
4.40.1 438 8.5.10.1 730 7.16 830
5.4.3 896 9.1.1.6 312 7.32 173
5.18.4 473 14.3.4 478 7.42 813
Index Locorum 1353
8.10 1251, 1266 2.11.11 725 12.12 II.734

8.64 II.512 2.pr.3 1268 13.13 II.297
9.24 182 2.pr.5 63, II.29 Virgil
9.61 1249 3.1.9 1274 A.
9.76 873 3.2.10 1030 1.1–7 II.967
9.83 II.279 3.2.14 726 1.8–12 II.27
9.106 262 3.2.16 730 1.19–20 II.1186
9.110 771 3.5.3 II.160 1.60–1 II.713
10.2.4 21 3.9.6 991 1.67 831
10.4 II.56 3.12.1 199 1.69–70 II.811
10.4.73 II.563 3.14.4 889 1.71 100
10.25 879 3.16.6 106 1.159–61 275
Men. 3.16.23 II.759 1.172–3 1197
45 730 3.17.7 1062 1.195 149
428 151 Vatinius 1.198 1036
R. Fam. 1.217 II.1108
1.1.3 II.874 5.9.2 II.23 1.229–32 II.947
1.1.6 725 Vegetius 1.242–4 1024
1.2.10 885 Mil. 1.292–3 II.656
1.2.14 II.594 2.23.2 880 1.293–4 II.713
1.2.19 II.1209 4.11.1 493 1.300–1 II.785
1.2.20 1060 Mul. 1.305–9 544, II.125
1.2.23 730 1.27.2 879 1.318–19 873
1.2.24 II.1017 Velleius Paterculus 1.439–40 II.425
1.6.2 II.200 1.4.2 II.871 1.476–8 408
1.6.4 1116 1.11.2 1256 1.479–80 II.802
1.6.5 II.647 1.14.8 1272 1.479–82 418
1.6.6 812 2.11.3 840 1.480–1 548
1.7.6 II.752 2.26.1 1036 1.524–5 396
1.14.1 954 2.37.5 777 1.637–8 138
1.14.3 144 2.48.5 130 1.658–9 266
1.16.5 II.470 2.54.2 915 1.683–4 II.785
1.21 302 2.80.1–2 653 1.713–14 266
1.23.6 714 2.92.5 873 1.748–9 79
1.30.1 II.563 2.109.2 792 2.5–6 II.563
1.32.1 845 2.111.3 119 2.31 279
1.35.1 II.565 2.127.2 113 2.49 II.872, 993
1.35.2 1228, II.605 Venantius Fortunatus 2.54–6 461
1.41.3 II.266 Carm. 2.141–3 1228
1.41.5 II.324 11.19.2 II.806 2.163–9 II.265
1.46.1 1281 Vetus Latina 2.265–7 252
1.53.1 76 Act. 2.270–1 II.929
1.54.1–2 314 8.37 II.149 2.272–3 242
1.57.1 1258 17.24 208 2.274–5 II.483
1.62.1 292 Gen. 2.282–3 1225, II.947
2.1.16 219 21.17 1164 2.314 II.785
2.1.19 II.1041 21.23 II.567 2.323 II.246
2.2.3 II.850, 854 30.18 II.289 2.325–6 446
2.2.15 313 III Esdr. 2.333–4 896
2.3.1 II.732 7.10 1148 2.353 II.711
2.3.6 30, II.761 III Reg. 2.376–7 II.169
2.4.2 1070 21.19 II.297 2.538–9 II.211
2.4.4 1267 Joh. 2.692–3 II.623
2.4.8 751 2.07 150 2.736–40 II.125
2.4.11 801 6.52 II.384 2.801–4 420
2.5.15 285 Luc. 3.141 II.811
2.7.5 685 9.44 442 3.379–80 II.974
2.7.9 II.206 11.46 170 3.411 1052
2.7.12 II.219 15.27 1148 3.447 124
2.8.5 198 19.8 149 3.700–1 241
2.9.13 II.1134 Mat. 4.8 II.1106
2.10.8 1296 2.13 442 4.66–9 408
1354 Index Locorum
Virgil, A. (cont.) 10.149–50 II.672 4.457–9 II.255

4.281–7 II.51 10.324–8 II.947 4.490–1 II.935
4.296–7 II.914 10.491–2 II.663 Vitruvius
4.322–3 421 10.501–4 425 1.1.5 993, 1273,
4.518–19 266 10.521–2 II.785 II.403
4.553–7 419 10.680–3 II.125 1.1.6 II.392
4.563–4 II.464 10.698–9 916 1.2.1–2 II.1181
5.6–8 II.222 10.700–1 177 1.5.4 II.734
5.200 863 10.723–9 II.272 1.5.6 818
5.268–72 II.246 10.762–3 II.786 1.6.7 256
5.401–3 II.786 10.786–8 II.786 1.7.2 862
5.450–1 1217 11.55–6 999 2.1.3 1219
5.451 814 11.57–8 II.933 2.3.1 493
5.608 266 11.61–2 II.1132 2.4.1 772
5.733–4 II.974 11.105 189 2.5.1 480
5.755–6 II.856 11.112–13 II.343 2.6.4 II.160
5.857–9 II.623 11.164–5 II.67 2.8.6 477
6.45–6 II.929 11.621–2 420 2.8.9 545
6.95–6 516 11.631–3 II.974 2.8.11 1049
6.116–18 II.1197 11.693 107 2.8.20 II.411
6.133–4 22 11.702–3 127, 1235 2.9.14 240
6.175–6 II.897 12.52 785 3.1.3 II.760
6.179–82 252, II.1228 12.326–7 II.789 3.4.4 II.1087
6.268 1053 12.680 86 3.pr.2 II.675
6.313 II.133 12.783 II.786 4.3.3 1027
6.346 II.931 12.951–2 404 4.4.1 984
6.358–61 II.341 Cat. 4.4.3 284
6.400–1 848 16.03 120 4.5.2 299
6.434–5 II.786 Ecl. 5.3.4 1209
6.566–9 II.964 1.12–13 1162 5.9.2 94
6.574–5 805 1.33 983 5.9.9–10.5 II.833
6.595–7 828 1.33–4 II.1132 5.11.1 II.371
6.679–96 II.1181 1.64–6 823 6.1.7 809
6.695–6 811 3.78 85 6.1.10 481
6.700 II.1132 3.80–1 768 6.6.4 II.773
6.805 818 3.106–7 244 6.6.5 1200
6.879–80 275 4.40–1 II.871 6.8.6 284
7.5–7 II.711 5.49 II.734 6.8.8 II.760
7.35–6 II.204 5.54 II.465 6.pr.5 II.205
7.71–3 II.915 5.65–6 II.928 7.3.2 881
7.73–5 243 6.53–4 266 7.9.2 793
7.255–7 970 7.6–8 II.623 7.pr.6 167
7.304–10 II.1175 7.35–6 769 7.pr.15 911
7.471–2 277 8.101–2 717 8.3.7 190
7.500 II.956 9.28 II.937 8.3.20 1115
7.638–40 265 G. 8.4.2 II.795
7.676–7 863 1.1–3 1208 8.6.3 980
7.796 244 1.49 450 9.2.2 1017
7.805–6 69 1.92–3 II.678 9.2.4 838
8.29–30 II.787 1.181–2 II.646 9.3.3–4.1 II.1197
8.39–40 261, 520 1.365–6 126 9.4.5 861
8.72–7 1226 1.496–7 II.964 9.8.6 1240
8.83–5 II.1205 2.35–6 II.935 9.pr.3 955
8.489–90 85 2.510 II.169 9.pr.18 1095
9.30–1 867 3.30–3 241 10.2.14 1239
9.31–2 II.802 3.203 817 10.2.15 459, 828
9.171 II.786 3.276–7 II.1113 10.4.2 1240
9.211–12 II.672 3.325 40 Vulgate
9.595–7 217 3.355 829 Act.
10.14 539 4.13–14 916 13.44 II.385
10.116–17 1050 4.453 721 17.24 208
Index Locorum 1355
Ex. Job 4.9 II.454

20.13–15 429 37.2 865 15.4 156
32.6 II.386 Luc. Mat.
Gen. 13.10 545 5.6 89
12.14 760 14.3 334 6.5 429
Jac. 15.23 1149 26.69 1114
1.13 II.79 23.10 546 Rom.
Jer. Marc. 8.18 438
25.8–9 II.293 3.16 1211
INDE X OF GR A M M ATICA L TER MS
A ND LATIN WOR DS
The Index covers both volumes of this Syntax. References to volume I are by page number only. References
to volume II are preceded by II (only once per lemma). Numbers in italics signal pages where a definition
or description of a term is given. In longer lemmas, numbers in bold signal pages with the most relevant
information on the subject. The Index for volume I was prepared by Jeremy Brightbill, the Index for
volume II and the integration of the two by Olga Spevak.
a(h) (interjection) II.932 distinguished from adjuncts of attendant

ab (preposition) circumstances 855
combined with alius and aliter II.761 expressions to make semantic relationship to
in comparisons of (dis)similarity II.753 main clause explicit II.392
to mark agent adjuncts in non-passive in relative clauses II.561
clauses 245 internal word order II.1044–7
to mark agent arguments 237, 239, 245, 269 nominal (verbless) absolute ablatives II.427
in gerundive + sum construction 297 of one-place (‘impersonal’) verbs (sortito) II.402
of deverbal nouns 245 relationship with arguments of main
to mark arguments of adjectives 220, 226 clause II.394
to mark arguments of verbs 123 relative clause as subject II.398, 526
to mark cause adjuncts 904 relative order with respect to main clause II.1057
to mark extent of time adjuncts indicating semantic relationship with main clause II.388
relative order of events (‘after’) 849 strings of ablative absolutes II.400
to mark instrument adjuncts 880 subject complement in II.25
to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 adjective in 1125, 1130
to mark reason adjuncts 911 with connective relative expressions II.555,
to mark respect adjuncts 917 556, 560
to mark source adjuncts 818 with relative words or phrases II.487
to mark source arguments 73, 126, 127, II.133 with si qui(s) relative clause II.570
with adjectives of lacking 220 with so-called elliptical utinam 360
with comparatives II.734 with substantival participle as subject 954
with verbs of asking 167 without a subject II.400
with verbs of depriving 149, 1233 ablative case 1179, 1183, 1199, 1207, 1219–21
with verbs of descent or provenance 127 ablativus
with verbs of difference 121 absolutus II.387
ab urbe condita construction 1266, II.404 causae 90, 112, 903
abante 1229, 1242 comparationis 1220, II.185, 726, 730, 759
abest copiae 110
with quin clause II.96 explicativus 862
with ut clause II.87 instrumenti 146, 875, 1193, 1206
abhinc 834 limitationis 914, 1076
ablative absolute clauses 13, II.387–402 loci 1206
agent of passive ablative clauses II.396 mensurae 842, II.258, 572, 735, 739, 766
agreement within clause 1267 modi 862, II.706
as afterthought II.396, 858 normae 871
as setting constituent II.856 pretii 113, 882
as summarizing device II.1155 prosecutivus 830, 832
compared with cum clauses II.389 qualitatis 782, 938, 965, 1025, 1117, 1206,
compared with secondary predicates II.394 II.553, 801
complex ablative absolute clauses II.397 respectus 914
containing question words 337 separativus 126, 150, 1206
distinguished from ablative of description or temporis 835
quality II.802 viae 830
Index of grammatical terms and Latin words 1357
archaic forms of 1207, 1236 of way by which 830

cognate ablative 88, 864 to mark accompanying circumstance
locative, separative, and instrumental use 1207 adjuncts 900
of accompaniment, see cum (preposition): to to mark adjuncts denoting weather conditions
mark associative arguments; to mark and attendant circumstances 854
associative adjuncts to mark agent arguments (bare ablative) 249
of accompanying circumstances 900; see also to mark arguments of adjectives 1220
cum (preposition): to mark to mark cause adjuncts 903
accompanying circumstance adjuncts in non-passive clauses 245
of accordance 872 to mark cause arguments 237, 245
of agent 245, 249; see also ab (preposition): to to mark direction and goal adjuncts 814
mark agent arguments to mark extent of space adjuncts 827
of association, see below, with verbs: of to mark extent of time adjuncts 845
treatment or supplying with to mark manner adjuncts 862
of cause 89, 903 so-called cognate ablative 88, 864
of comparison II.726, 729 to mark means and instrument adjuncts 146,
adjectives of amount in expressions of 875, 1193, 1200
dissimilarity II.761 distinguished from arguments 146
compared with quam II.730 to mark non-finite clauses 1220
competing with quam II.732 to mark norm adjuncts 872
in preparative expressions for accusative and to mark object complements 793
infinitive clause II.185 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1220
with alius and (ad)aeque II.759 of description or quality 1025
with expressions of (dis)similarity II.753 of other semantic relations 1026
with expressions of age II.736 to mark path adjuncts 830
with expressions of quantity and extent of to mark position in space adjuncts 803, 819
space or time II.735 to mark position in space arguments 175, 1196
of description or quality 1025 to mark position in time adjuncts 835, 1199
as object complement 793 to mark price adjuncts 882, 1200
as optional attribute 1025 with substantival neuter singular adjectives 883
as secondary predicate II.779, 801 to mark price or value arguments 113, 158
as subject complement 782 to mark qualified truth disjuncts 926
compared with cum phrase 1031 to mark reason adjuncts 910
compared with genitive of description 1002, to mark respect adjuncts 914
1025 to mark respect expressions with adjectives 1075
position of II.1090 to mark second arguments (ablative
relative phrase functioning as II.553 objects) 29, 110–16, 1193
of fine or penalty 155, 156, 876 to mark source adjuncts 816, 819
of instrument 146, 875, 1193, 1200 to mark source arguments 125, 178, 1196
of manner 862, II.706 to mark subject complements
of material 1033 in ablative absolute clause 188
of means 146, 875, 1193, 1200 to mark subject in ablative absolute
of measure clauses 736
quo and quanto in proportional to mark subjective evaluation disjuncts 928
comparison II.766 to mark time within which adjuncts 849
quanto plus II.572 with adjectives of abundance and lacking 219
with antequam II.266 with adjectives of fullness (and their
with postquam II.258 opposites) 222
of measure of difference II.739 with adjectives of sharing and power 222
of origin 127 with dignus 221
of place whence 125, 178, 816, 819, 1196 with expressions of descent or provenance 127
of place where 803, 819 with verbs
of price 113, 158, 882, 1200 facio and fio 152, 877
of quality 782, 793, 1002, 1025, 1031 fruor 115
of respect 914, 1075 fungor 115, 1193
of separation 110, 125, 178, 184, 219, 1189, judicial verbs 155, 156, 876
1193, 1196, 1233 of abundance and lacking 110, 1189, 1193
of source 27 of depriving 184, 1233
of specification 914, 1075 of dressing 264
of time during which 845 of eminence or superiority 113, 1193
of time when 835, 1199 of emotion 89
of time within which 849 of flowing 88
1358 Index of grammatical terms and Latin words
ablative case (cont.) accomplishments (state of affairs) 23

of motion 125 accordance adjuncts, see norm adjuncts
of sacrificing and praying 185 accusative and infinitive clauses 13, II.17, 157–94
of sprinkling 163 accusative subject 736, 1186
of surpassing 151 ambiguity between subject and object 235,
of teaching 168 1187
of treatment or supplying with 146, 1195 first and second person usually
potior 115 expressed 743
utor 115, 1193 unexpressed (implicit) subject 1265, II.18
vescor 115 agreement of subject complements and
weather verbs 193 secondary predicates 196
absolute constructions, see participial clauses announced by preparative (cataphoric)
(dominant participles) determiner 1098–9
absolute use of tenses 552; see also sequence of announced by preparative (cataphoric)
tenses pronoun 1145
absolute use of verbs 78, 80, 98, 756 as competitor of quod clause II.44
absque est 96 as non-declarative clause II.170, 180
absum, impersonal abest with quin clause 704 as subject of passive verb II.192
abundance, adjectives of 219, 1189 compared with accusative and participle
abundance, verbs of 110, 1189, 1193 construction II.163
abusque (preposition) 837 compared with finite imperative clauses II.126
ac/atque compared with nominative and infinitive
as comparative particle construction II.21
co-occurring with statim, ilico, and compared with prolative infinitive
protinus II.261 clauses II.18, 156, 168
co-occuring with talis, totidem, and containing pleonastic negation 730
tam II.746 containing question words 337
in combination magis/minus ac/atque II.729 diachronic development II.202
in combination proinde ac/atque II.273 exclamatory accusative and infinitive
in combination simul ac/atque II.260 clauses 365, II.186
with comparative forms of adjectives and governed by cognition verb in oblique
adverbs II.729 subjunctive 620
with expressions of (dis)similarity II.752, historical and structural explanations for 1187
753, 755, 756 in indirect speech 510, 591, 669, II.48
as connector II.629, 1166, 1167–8 in interrogative clauses or sentences II.186
as coordinator 68, II.628–32 in Late Latin II.202
co-occurring with etiam, paene, potius, and in sentences with relative connexion II.189,
quoque II.631 II.486
correlative atque . . . atque II.640 in ut . . . sic and ante . . . quam structures II.190
correlative et . . . ac/atque II.646 internal word order II.1041–4
correlative nec/neque . . . ac/atque II.647 interpreted as a command II.168
correlative -que . . . atque II.646 introduced by quamquam II.1193
in combination atque adeo II.631, 874 negator climbing in 683
in epitactic coordination II.693 perfect participle agreeing with subject as
in main clause after time clause II.623 alternative to II.169
of negative declarative clauses 715 quin clauses as alternative to 705
of subject constituents 1249 quod and quia clauses as alternatives to 533
with locally negated constituents 689 relative order with respect to main
with the last conjoin in multiple clause II.1055
coordination II.652 tense of infinitive in 521, 525
position of II.973 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive
accedit adjective in 1125, 1130
with accusative and infinitive clause II.160 use of infinitives II.17, 162
with quia clause II.76 use of tenses in subordinate clauses depending
with quod clause II.59 on 586
with ut clause 624, II.82 used at various levels II.19
accidit used in relative clauses II.486
with quod clause II.71 used in subordinate clauses II.191
with ut clause II.82 with adjective as subject or object
accompanying circumstance adjuncts 899–902 complement II.146
distinguished from manner adjuncts 899 with adjectives of cognition and emotion II.463
with noun phrase as subject or object Greek accusative 242, 264, 915, 1076
complement II.147 in calendar expressions 1229
with nouns of cognition and emotion II.448 in exclamations 363
with nuntius II.435 as object-like constituent with ecce II.928,
with verbs 931
accedit II.160 as object-like constituent with em II.930
arguo II.216 combined with interjections II.932, 933, 934,
cogo II.137 936
decerno II.144 to mark age expressions with natus II.737
est and subject complement II.183 internal accusative 86, 102, 213
facio II.143 object accusative 101, 137, 140, 146, 153, 163,
impersonal est 95 183, 186, 754
iubeo and veto II.176 of degree 330, 334, 697, 885, 1080, 1215
licet and oportet 94 of extent of space 827
mereo(r) II.145 of extent of time 844, 847
mitto and praetereo II.161 of inner object 86, 102, 213; see also expansion
of allowing and tolerating II.175 of arguments
of causation 624, II.159 of limit of motion 92, 178
of communication II.17, 162 of person or thing affected 101, 137; see also
of deciding and determining II.172 object: affected objects
of demanding II.175 of respect 242
of emotion 89, II.161 of result produced 101, 137; see also object:
of fearing 623 effected objects
of happening II.159 of so-called local object, see below, to mark
of manipulation II.19, 173 direction and goal arguments
of obligation and permission II.181 of so-called locative object 92
of ordering and commanding II.131 replacing nominative in Late Latin non-literary
of perception and cognition II.17, 162 texts 1186
of praising, blaming, congratulating, and retained with autocausative passives 264
thanking II.170 retained with passive participles 242
of striving II.140 synecdochical accusative 242, 264, 915
of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.171 to mark arguments of deverbal nouns 1039,
permitto II.136 1215
persuadeo II.135, 168 to mark cognate object 86, 102, 213
prohibeo II.138 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 810, 819
relinquitur II.86 to mark direction and goal arguments 178
volo II.139 to mark extent of space adjuncts 827
without esse 197 to mark extent of time adjuncts 844, 847
distinguished from participial clause II.223 to mark items in a list 1216
without governing verb II.158, 186 to mark manner adjuncts 865
accusative and participle construction II.163, 796 to mark modifiers of adverbs 1215
accusative case 1179, 1183, 1213–16 to mark non-finite clauses as object 1216
accusativus adverbialis 330, 697, 828, 847, 885 to mark object complements 186, 787, 1211
exclamationis 363, 365, II.924, 932, 933, 934, to mark optional attributes of nouns 1028
936 to mark optional modifiers of adjectives 1215
Graecus 244, 267, 1076 to mark price adjuncts 885
adverbial accusative 85, 330, 334, 697, 827, 828, to mark pseudo-object in proleptic
844, 847, 865, 885; see also expansion of construction 631, 759, 1188
arguments to mark quantity and degree adjuncts 330, 334,
quod as II.75 697, 885
anticipatory 759 to mark quantity and degree modifiers of
as ‘base form’ in Late Latin 1216 adjectives 1080
bare accusative of gerund II.408 to mark respect adjuncts 915
bare accusative of gerundive as purpose to mark respect expressions with adjectives 1075
adjunct II.416 to mark second arguments (accusative
cognate accusative 86; see also below, to mark objects) 101, 137, 140, 146, 153, 163,
cognate object 183, 186, 754
double accusative 163 to mark subject of accusative and infinitive
with compound verbs 171, 1185 clause 736, 1186
with verbs of asking 165, 1185 with compound verbs of motion 102
with verbs of teaching 167, 1185 with impersonal verbs of emotion 132
accusative case (cont.) addressee (semantic function) 27

with judicial verbs 157 with impero II.131
with verbs with oro II.133
of concealing 168 with persuadeo II.135, 168
of dressing 264 with suadeo II.134
of filling 150 with verbs of blaming, excusing, praising,
of producing a sensation 91 congratulating, and thanking II.67
of remembering and forgetting 117 with verbs of communication 143
weather verbs 193 adeo
accusing, verbs of as emphasizing particle II.874
with infinitive II.216 in combination atque adeo II.632
with quod clause II.66 adhuc 856
with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 co-occurring with comparatives II.743
achievements (state of affairs) 23 in combination quoque adhuc II.871
actions (state of affairs) 22 to mark gradual change II.744
active voice 54, 230–305 adicio, with ut clause II.83
ad (adverb) 1229 adiungo, with ut clause II.83
ad (preposition) adiuvo, with quod clause II.70
as alternative to dative case 1027 ‘adjective’ clauses II.478; see adnominal relative
to mark arguments of adjectives 222, 227 clauses
beneficiary arguments 218 adjective phrases 17, 215–29, 1074–85; see also
to mark arguments of verbs 123 adjectives: two-place adjectives; valency:
to mark beneficiary adjuncts 897 of adjectives
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 arguments of adjectives 215–29, 1074, 1204
to mark extent of space adjuncts 829 as secondary predicate II.789, 812
to mark instrument adjuncts 880 compound adjective phrases II.599
to mark manner adjuncts 868 coordination of their arguments II.599, 620
to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 optional modifiers of adjectives 1074–85
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 position of their arguments and
to mark purpose adjuncts 907 satellites II.1080
to mark respect adjuncts 917 with degree modifier 1079–85
with adjectives of desire 222 adjectives
with adjectives of helpfulness 218 adverbial use, see accusative case: adverbial
with gerund as competitor of infinitival accusative
purpose clause II.384 arguments of, see adjective phrases; valency: of
with gerundi(v)al clause as attribute of adjectives
nouns II.454, 456 as a word class 45
with gerundi(v)al purpose clause II.406, 414 as attributes 216, 993; see also attributes
with infinitive as purpose adjunct II.384, 385 anteposed before preposition in
with judicial verbs 157 poetry II.1117
with verbs of preparing 896 coordination of adjectives II.597
with verbs of sending letters 142 factors determining position of
ad sensum/sententiam construction 1287; see also adjectives II.1076
agreement: notional agreement position of comparative and superlative
adaeque, see aeque forms of adjectives II.1083
additive coordinators, see coordinators: position of modifiers of attributes II.1084
conjunctive (copulative) coordinators rarely expanded by optional modifiers 1075
addo as modifiers of relative phrases II.503
with accusative and infinitive clause II.166 as object complement 790
with quod clause II.64 as secondary predicate 780–9; see also
with ut clause II.83 secondary predicates: adjectives as
address 1224, II.937–47 as alternative to adverbs in poetry II.784,
as extraclausal constituent II.937 788
at conversation opening II.1229 comparable to manner adverbs II.778, 816
autonomous relative clause as II.519 distinguished from apposition and tail
combined with summonses II.925, 926 constituent II.818
compared with summonses II.938 with conditional interpretation II.812
long addresses with o in poetry II.936 as subject complement 215, 769
modified by appositions 1068 comparative degree 46, 1075
vocative case 1224, II.1103 absolute use II.772
addressee arguments 27, 1192 constraints on formation II.726
in comparisons of non-equivalence II.724 with gerundival clause II.435

with ablative of comparison II.729 with interrogative clause II.461
with ut clause II.462 with participial clause II.466
coordination with constituents belonging to with relative clause II.514, 532
different categories II.705 used with relative pronouns (apparent
descriptive adjectives 45, 1047 secondary predicates) II.500
combined with alius 947 used with supine in -u II.424
enallage or transference of 1051 valency of, see adjective phrases; valency: of
evaluative adjectives 64, 208, 362, 369, 1047, adjectives
II.424, 784 with degree modifier 1079–85
modifying proper name 938 with gerundi(v)al clause II.467
first and second declension 38, 45, 770, 1021 adjunct clauses II.238
neuter frequently used substantivally 951 concessive adjunct clauses, see concessive
generic use of 1116 clauses
gradable adjectives 46, 686, 734, 982, 1082 conditional adjunct clauses, see conditional clauses
modified by degree expressions 888 degree adjunct clauses, see degree clauses
inflection of 37 manner adjunct clauses 663; see also manner
neuter singular as subject or object complement clauses
with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 purpose (final) adjunct clauses, see purpose
with gerundi(v)al clause II.229, 233 (final) finite clauses
with imperative clause II.145 reason adjunct clauses, see reason (causal) clauses
with prolative infinitive clause II.212 respect adjunct clauses, see respect clauses
of amount, see quantifiers: adjectives of amount result (consecutive) adjunct clauses, see result
of non-permanent mental or physical (consecutive) clauses
condition II.777, 780 space adjunct clauses 638, II.240
of physical condition, age, or socio-economic stipulative adjunct clauses 652, II.306; see also
position II.782 stipulative clauses
of relative position II.783, 819 time adjunct clauses II.241; see also time
of size or substance 983, II.787 clauses
of space or time II.782 adjuncts 25, 30, 797, 798–923, 1198–1202;
of volition, ability, and suitability see also satellites
with gerundi(v)al clause II.466, 467, 468 distinguished from disjuncts 797
with prolative infinitive clause II.464 distinguished from arguments 25, 72, 797
one-place adjectives accompanying circumstance adjuncts 899–902
with gerundial clause II.466, 467 adjunct clauses II.238; see also adjunct clauses
with prolative infinitive clause II.464 agent adjuncts 28, 245, 902–5; see also agent
optional modifiers of 1074–85 adjuncts
partitive use of medius, summus, etc. 1048, associative adjuncts 28, 897–99
1049–51 relative clauses as II.520
positive degree 46 beneficiary adjuncts 28, 129, 141, 892–7, 1192;
with partitive genitive 1011 see also beneficiary adjuncts
possessive adjectives, see possessive adjectives cause adjuncts 28, 90, 91, 245, 247, 902–5;
proleptic use in poetry II.811 see also cause adjuncts
semantic classes of 45 coordination with secondary predicates II.708
substantival use 41, 216, 948 diachronic developments in marking of 1240
modified by other adjectives 952 direction and goal adjuncts 808–15; see also
neuter modified by determiner or direction and goal adjuncts
possessive 948 extent of space adjuncts 182, 825–9
neuter singular in prepositional phrase 951 extent of time adjuncts 842–9
so-called elliptical substantivation 954 with sum + quod clause II.848
superlative degree 46, 1075 frequency adjuncts 851
constraints on formation II.773 instrument adjuncts, see below, means and
elative use 47, II.773 instrument adjuncts
with partitive genitive 1009 manner adjuncts 28, 784, 858–71; see also
temporal stability (semantic feature) 46 manner adjuncts
third declension 38, 45, 770 means and instrument adjuncts 28, 152, 154,
rarely used in neuter + genitive of 874–81, 1193; see also means and
quantity 1021 instrument adjuncts
two-place adjectives norm adjuncts 871–4
as expressions of (dis)similarity II.752 of weather conditions and attendant
with argument clause II.459, 460, 462 circumstances 854
adjuncts (cont.) in the accusative and infinitive II.189, 486

path adjuncts 829–32 interrogative and imperative relative
position in space adjuncts 182, 800–8; see also clauses II.485
position in space adjuncts use of moods in II.539, 542
position in time adjuncts 833–42; see also reduction of preposition with relative
position in time adjuncts pronoun II.494
price adjuncts 881–5; see also price adjuncts reduction of verb II.495
purpose adjuncts 28, 905–9; see also purpose relative order of head and relative clause II.496
(final) adjuncts repetition of head noun in relative
quantity and degree adjuncts 885–92, 690; clause II.530, 531
see also quantity and degree adjuncts restrictive and non-restrictive relative
reason adjuncts 28, 909–13; see also reason clauses II.474, 484
adjuncts restrictive clauses II.474, 479
respect adjuncts 914–18; see also respect descriptive clauses II.479, 481, 545, 547
adjuncts determiners of their head II.482
distinguished from theme identifying clauses II.479, 481, 544
constituents II.854 sentence-initial clauses resembling theme
source adjuncts 815–19; see also source adjuncts constituents II.483, 490
space adjuncts 800–32 structure of head noun + relative
distinguished from setting clause II.483
constituents II.856 use of moods in II.544
relative clauses as II.521 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive
statistical data on frequency 1181 adjective in 1127, 1132
sympathetic dative adjuncts 919; see also dative with relative adverbs of space II.575
case: to mark sympathetic dative adpositions 67, 1176; see also prepositions
adjuncts adsum, with gerundial clause II.225
time adjuncts 833–56; see also time adjuncts adusque (preposition) 837
distinguished from setting advenio 123
constituents II.856 adverb phrases 17
relative clauses as II.521 adverbials, see adjuncts; disjuncts; satellites
time within which adjuncts 849–51, 852 adverbs; see also connective adverbs
admodum, in answers to questions 373 as a word class 65
admoneo as arguments of nouns 1047
with accusative and infinitive clause II.167 as attitudinal disjuncts 309
with prolative infinitive clause II.156 as attributes of nouns 1035
admonishing, verbs of as degree of truth disjuncts 924
with argument clause II.134 as direction and goal adjuncts 812
with prolative infinitive clause II.205 as extent of space adjuncts 829
adnominal arguments 44, 966, 1037–47, 1190, as extent of space arguments 183
1204, II.11 as extent of time adjuncts 847
distinguished from optional attributes 966 as illocutionary disjuncts 931
retaining same case or preposition as at clause as manner adjuncts 869
level 1041, 1204 as object complements 794
adnominal relative clauses II.474, 476, 478–501; as path adjuncts 832
see also head (of adnominal relative as position in space adjuncts 807
clause) as position in time adjuncts 841
agreement in number and gender with as price adjuncts 884
apposition 1283 as purpose adjuncts 909
agreement in number and gender with as quantity and degree adjuncts 887, 890, 1023
head 1283 as quantity and degree modifiers of
as secondary predicate II.806 adjectives 890, 1081
deviations from sequence of tenses II.537 as reason adjuncts 912
enclosed between determiner and head II.497 as respect adjuncts 918
exceptional case marking (attraction) II.489 as setting constituents II.856
indefinite relative clauses II.567 as source adjuncts 818
multiple clauses with one head II.498 compared with agents in passive clauses 246
non-restrictive clauses II.474, 484 as subject complements 783
compared with relative connexion II.485 as subjective evaluation disjuncts 928
containing an ablative absolute II.561 causal adverbs + quod II.287
distinguished from autonomous relative causal/resultative adverbs with conditional si
clauses II.524 clause II.326
causing discontinuity II.1102 aequo animo, as expression with fixed

comparative degree of order II.1079
absolute use II.772 aequus, as expression of similarity II.752
constraints on formation II.726 aes alienum, as expression with fixed
in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 order II.1079
co-occurring with conditional si clause II.322 aestimo 158, 159
co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 affected objects 27, 101, 1190
co-occurring with time clause II.245, 255, 258 affero, as support verb 75
coordination with constituents belonging to afterthought
different categories II.706 ablative absolute clauses as II.392, 858
distinguished from emphasizing nisi clauses of exception as II.351
particles II.866 participial secondary predicates as II.794, 858
governing a gerundial clause II.436 relative clauses or connective relative sentences
governing a subordinate clause II.469 as II.555
gradable adverbs 1082 age (particle) 349, 353, 356, 361, II.923
manner adverbs agent (semantic function) 19, 26
as correlative expression with conditional si agentless impersonal verbs II.82
clause II.325 distinct from main clause subject in ablative
comparable to adjectives as secondary absolute II.396
predicates II.778, 780, 816 identical with main clause object
in expressions of similarity II.760 in infinitival construction II.127, 216
with sum 860 identical with main clause subject
mente developing into adverbial suffix 871 in ablative absolute clauses II.396
modifying appositions, attributes, and in fused clauses II.21
secondary predicates 1037 in gerundial clauses II.411
of certainty or contrast with conditional si in gerundival clauses II.416
clause II.319 in imperative clauses II.140
of evaluation in nominative and infinitive
with sum + quod clause II.848 construction II.20, 194
with verbs of happening + quod clause II.71 in prolative infinitive clauses II.12, 209
of space or time in comparison of non- position of II.958
equivalence II.724 agent adjuncts 28, 245, 902–5
relationship with prepositions 1228 distinguished from agent arguments 247, 905
scalar degree adverbs II.366 distinguished from cause adjuncts 902
sentence valence of 65 in dative with prolative infinitive II.212
substantival use of 964 intermediate agents 249, 875
superlative degree of, elative use II.773 agent arguments 26
use as subordinators II.264 in passive clauses 245
use in poetry II.784 distinguished from agent adjuncts 247
use in complex sentences to make semantic frequency of 239
relations explicit II.38 with adjectives in -bilis 248
adversative clauses, see concessive clauses with gerundive + sum construction 296
adversative connectors, see connectors: with impersonal passives 269
adversative connectors agentful passives 237
adversative coordination II.680–9, 696; see also agentless passives 237, 1123
coordination; asyndetic coordination ago
substitution and modification as types of II.680 as support verb 75
‘adversative/concessive’ relative clauses II.539, with ut clause II.93
550 agreement 39, 736, 1243–1301
adversative coordinators, see coordinators: grammatical agreement 1243, 1244–87
adversative coordinators cross-clausal and cross-sentential 1282
adversus/um (adverb) 1229 of relative pronouns with subject
adversus/um (preposition) 812 complement II.552
advising, verbs of of secondary predicates II.779, 807
with imperative clause II.134 of subject and object complements with
with prolative infinitive clause II.205 pronouns 1278
aeque of subject complement in accusative and
as correlative expression with conditional infinitive clauses II.17
comparative clause II.349 of verb with subject 1244–72
combined with ablative of comparison II.759 with compound subject II.596
combined with quam II.756 within noun phrase 1244, 1272–8
agreement (cont.) in distributive apposition 1067

notional agreement 1243, 1287–1301 to express reciprocity 276
of pronouns across clause boundary 1295 with ab prepositional phrase II.734
of relative pronouns II.488 with partitive genitive 1008
of subject and object complements and alternative coordinators, see coordinators:
secondary predicates 1292 disjunctive (alternative) coordinators
of verb across clause or sentence alternative indirect questions, see interrogative
boundary 1293 (subordinate) clauses: multiple indirect
of verb with subject 1287 questions
with metonymical expressions 1299 alteruter 1113, 1171
within noun phrase 1298 altus 228
aio, generic third person ait 753 amabo
Aktionsart, distinguished from grammatical as illocution converter 307, 312, II.910
aspect 380 combined with summonses II.925
alibi 808 typical of female speech 354
aliquando 841 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353
aliquanto, to express measure of difference II.740 used to strengthen questions 341
aliqui(s) 49 ambiguity
as determiner 972, 1104 amphibolia in accusative and infinitive
combined with cardinal numerals 985, 1105 clauses II.1042
combined with proper names 1106 of word order II.953, 958
combined with unus or alter 970 ambo 987
meaning ‘some other’ 1105 as apparent secondary predicate II.823
of autonomous relative clauses II.511 compared with duo 987
of head of restrictive relative clauses II.480 compared with uterque 991
position with respect to head noun II.1071 amens, as secondary predicate in poetry II.785
as pronoun 1165 amnis, in apposition to name 1058
combined with unus or alter 942 amplius: in expressions of quantity and extent of
neuter with genitive of quantity 1019 space or time II.735
with second person plural imperative 512, 1246 an
compared with qui(s) and quisquam 1103, as disjunctive coordinator II.658, 667
1104, 1164, 1165, 1167 as question particle 316
statistical data on frequency 1102 an and an non in multiple questions 339
with potential subjunctive 483 in indirect questions II.108, 109, 112, 113
aliquotiens 852 in multiple indirect questions II.123, 125,
aliter 668
combined with ab prepositional phrase II.761 in sentence questions 330
combined with quam II.756 anacoluthon 1211, II.853, 980
aliubi 808 anaphora, as repetition of the same word in
alius 981 asyndetic coordination II.609
alius atque alius II.632 anaphoric adverbs
as expression of dissimilarity II.752 as summarizing device II.1157
as subject complement meaning ‘different’ 771 referring to discourse participants II.1150
combined with descriptive adjectives 947 anaphoric use
modified by determiners and quantifiers 946 of facio and fio 372, 376
position with respect to head noun II.1074 of res 1096
repeated in distributive apposition 1067 anaphoric(ally used) determiners
to express reciprocity 276 with result clauses II.309
with ablative of comparison II.759 anaphoric determiner is 970, 1096; see also is
with partitive genitive 1008 anaphoric use of demonstrative
with prepositional phrases II.761 determiners 970, 1096
alliteration, in asyndetically coordinated as cohesive device when combined with lexical
constituents II.614 repetition II.1146
‘all-new’ sentences II.828, 951 as preparative device II.1161
allowing, verbs of position with respect to head noun II.1067
with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 used with nouns as summarizing
with imperative clause II.136 device II.1153
with prolative infinitive clause II.207 anaphoric(ally used) pronouns; see also
alter 981, 989 resumptive expressions; preparative
combined with aliqui(s) 942, 970 (cataphoric) expressions
in combination alter . . . alter, notional anaphoric pronoun is 1139, 1144; see also is
agreement with implied plural 1301 anaphoric use of demonstrative pronouns 1139
as means of discourse coherence II.1143 .ăuztxzŪ figura

as preparative device II.1161 coordinated nouns sharing a modifier 1275
as summarizing device II.1157 reduction of preposition from the first
as topic II.832 conjoin II.604
frequency and distribution of II.1151 reduction of preposition with relative
grammatical agreement with preceding pronoun II.605
constituent 1282 use of neque II.637
compound constituent 1284 apodosis II.315; see also conditional periods
grammatical agreement with subject or object apparet, with nominative and infinitive
complement 1278 construction II.200
notional agreement with preceding apposition 1053–74
constituent 1295 agreement of relative pronoun with 1283
‘pleonastic’ use inside relative clauses II.566 agreement of verb with subject modified
position of II.976 by 1259
referring to discourse participants II.1150 attributive apposition 1055
resuming theme constituents II.853 autonomous relative clause as II.514, 524, 551
anastrophe (inversio), postposition of clausal apposition 1053, 1070, II.551
prepositions II.1112 distinguished from tail constituents II.858
animacy compared with genitive of definition 1023
as factor determining word order II.958 co-occurring with relative clause II.526
in choice between active and passive voice 251 distinguished from adjective or noun as
in choice of agreement with compound secondary predicate II.818
subject 1247, 1284 distinguished from epitactic
animadverto 173 coordination II.698
animus, genitive animi as respect adjunct 917 distinguished from tail constituents II.857
annalistic use (of historic present) 409 distributive apposition 1067
anne, see an explicative apposition 1055
annon, see an modified by adverbs 1037
ante (adverb) 841, 1229 nominal apposition 1053, 1054–66
with ablative indicating extent of time 842 non-referring noun phrase as 1117
ante (preposition) non-restrictive apposition 1055, 1061
in calendar expressions 841 of noun phrase with first person subject 738
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 partitive apposition of measure
to mark position in time adjuncts 840 expressions 1069
antecedent II.474; see head (of adnominal relative position of preposition in restrictive
clause) apposition II.1119
antecedent (protasis) II.315; see conditional restrictive apposition 1055, 1056
periods with toponyms 1058, 1260
antequam clauses II.265 terminology for 1056
ante . . . quam as comparative expression II.717 to forms of address 1068
ante . . . quam in accusative and infinitive to unexpressed first and second person
clause II.191 subjects 1068
use of moods in 638 ‘appositive’ nouns II.790
use of tenses in 611 ‘appositive’ quod clauses II.74
anteriority, expression of 383 ‘appositive’ relative clauses II.474, 484
in imperative clauses II.139 approaching, verbs of 104, 1192
in secondary predicates II.778, 811 apte, with gerundial clause II.436
with perfect participles II.792 aptus, with relative clause as argument II.533
in time clauses II.242, 257 aquae ductus, as expression with fixed
anticausative 275; see passive voice: autocausative order II.1087
passives arbitror, in answers to questions 373
anticipation arceo, with dative beneficiary adjunct 894
as form of interlacing II.39 argument clauses II.11, 52, 56
of constituent of subordinate clause in main as subject or object II.53
clause II.1153 as subject of an ablative absolute
‘anticipation’ of case form of extraclausal clause II.399
constituents II.852; see also theme distinguished from satellite clauses II.11
constituents finite clauses II.56
anticipatory, see proleptic declarative clauses II.57
antonyms, occurring in similar exclamatory clauses II.155
constructions 109, 110, 118, 140, 146, imperative clauses II.126
622, 1191 interrogative clauses II.105
argument clauses (cont.) aspect 380

governed by adjectives II.459 distinguished from Aktionsart 380
governed by nouns II.436 perfective aspect of perfect tense 444
governed by prepositions II.56 assentio/assentior 283
governed by verbs II.52 assertion (illocutionary force) 308, 309
non-finite clauses asseverative expressions 375, 427, 676, 677;
accusative and infinitive clauses II.157 see also swear words
gerundial clauses II.224 assimilation (back agreement) 1278
gerundival clauses II.229 assimilation of moods 667, 669
nominal (verbless) clauses II.234 associative adjuncts 28, 897
participial clauses II.220 associative anaphora or subtopic II.832
prolative infinitive clauses II.204 associative arguments 27, 119, 121, 161
relative order with respect to main with adjectives 227
clause II.1049 associative (semantic function) 27
use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive ast II.326, 1172, 1174
adjective in 1126, 1130 asyndetic connexion of sentences II.1139, 1163
use of moods in 621, II.57 asyndetic coordination II.585, 606–20
use of tenses in 566 adversative interpretation of II.611
with neuter singular adjectives as subject or combined with syndetic coordination II.649
object complement II.53 disjunctive interpretation of II.613, 614
with nouns as subject or object distinguished from apposition 1056
complement II.52 multiple asyndetic coordination II.613, 617
with support verbs II.52 of arguments and satellites II.614
argumentative discourse mode II.1141 of clauses II.609
argumentative texts, see text types of constituents at adjective phrase level II.620
arguments 11, 24, 72, 736–87, 797, 1176–98; of modifiers at noun phrase level II.619
see also argument clauses of nouns in prepositional phrases II.620
addressee arguments 27, 143, 1192 of proper names II.616
adnominal arguments 44, 966, 1037–47, 1190, of subject constituents 1249
1204, II.11; see also adnominal of verbs sharing subject or object II.611
arguments with anaphora (repetition) II.609
agent arguments 26; see also agent arguments asyndeton II.606
associative arguments 27, 119, 121, 161, 227 asyndeton causale or explicativum II.1163
autonomous relative clauses as II.514, 532 asyndeton sollemne II.614, 617
cause arguments 27, 245 concessive/adversative asyndeton II.1221
compound arguments II.596 interpreted as conclusion or summary
diachronic developments in marking of (asyndeton summativum) II.1222
1238 interpreted as consequence or result II.1221
direction and goal arguments 28, 124, 142, 175, statistical data on frequency II.1163
176, 178 at II.1172
experiencer arguments 27, 116, 132 as connector 12, 33, 68, II.1175
of adjectives, see valency: of adjectives combined with saltem II.888
of nouns, see adnominal arguments; valency: of in combination at enim or at vero II.
nouns 1176
of verbs; see also valency: of verbs as coordinator
first arguments 81, 100, 139, 1181, 1186 at noun phrase level II.681
second arguments 100, 139, 1181 as correlative expression
use of cases and prepositions to with concessive clause II.356
mark 1189–95 with conditional si clause II.319, 326, 336
third arguments 139, 1181 with ut clause with concessive
use of cases and prepositions to interpretation II.375
mark 1195 as non-mobile word II.956
patient arguments 27 position of II.973
place arguments 28 atque, see ac/atque
position of II.1006, 1021, 1091 atqui
recipient arguments 27, 141, 142, 1192 as connector II.1172, 1176
source arguments 28, 125, 178, 1196 position of II.973
statistical data on frequency 1181 atquin II.1176; see atqui
arguo, as two- and three-place verb II.216 attendant circumstances and weather conditions,
asking, verbs of 164, 165, 1185 adjuncts of 854
performative use of 354, 630 attitudinal adverbs 309; see also disjuncts:
with simple subjunctive clause II.150 attitudinal disjuncts
attitudinal disjuncts 923; see also disjuncts: definite and indefinite clauses II.505
attitudinal disjuncts determiners of II.505, 507, 510, 512, 515;
attraction see also determiners (of autonomous
distinguished from autonomous relative clause relative clauses)
with relative phrase II.490, 504 functioning as address II.519
inverse attraction (attractio inversa) II.483, 490 generic clauses II.511, 550
of infinitive to match perfect tense of governing in cleft constructions II.846
verb 540 indefinite clauses II.568
of moods 667, 669 resembling theme constituents II.504
of pronouns to agree with subject or object syntactic functions of II.514
complement 1278 as indirect object 763
of verb to agree with subject complement 1261 as subject of clause 744
progressive attraction (attractio relativi) II.489 use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive
attributes 17, 965–1047 adjective in 1126, 1130
adjectival attributes compared with secondary use of moods II.547, 550
predicates in poetry II.786 with adjectives modified by tam and
agreeing attributes compared with tantus II.534
genitives II.1085 with comparative constituent containing
argument or satellite clauses at noun phrase quam II.536
level II.436 with cum as time adverb II.245
autonomous relative clauses as II.514 with partitive genitive 1005
distinguished from adnominal arguments 965 with relative space adverbs II.577, 578; see also
genitives anteposed before prepositions II.1117 space clauses
modified by adverbs 1037 with relative word or phrase II.501, 502
position of adjectival attributes II.1062 with res II.509
position of genitival attributes II.1084, 1095 with resumptive expressions II.504, 506, 515
relative clause as II.474, 478 repetition of noun II.528, 532
audeo, sigmatic subjunctive ausim 491 with sum + relative phrase in ablative or
audio, with subject complement 209 genitive of quality II.553
aut with sum + subject complement II.553
as connector II.583, 1171 auxiliary phrase 211
as coordinator 68, II.586, 658, 676 auxiliary verbs 210–15
conjunctive interpretation II.679 distinguished from full verbs 210
correlative aut . . . aut II.586, 668 habitual, modal, and phasal verbs II.219
with locally negated constituents 691 order of infinitive and auxiliary II.1126
as substitute for vel in comparisons of with infinitive distinguished from prolative
non-equivalence II.728 infinitive clause II.23
autem with passive infinitives 254
as connector II.1172
co-occuring with sed and tum II.1177 back agreement 1278
in parenthetical sentences II.911 basis of comparison II.717
in combination sin autem II.330 befalling, verbs of
position of II.973 with a dative 104, 1192
causing discontinuity II.1101, 1123 with ut clause 624, II.83
authorial perfect (statement) use 409, 416, 425, 552 begging, verbs of
autocausative passives, see passive voice with imperative clause II.133
autonomous relative clauses II.474, 501–55 with prolative infinitive clause II.205
as apposition II.524, 551, 554 bene est 785
as argument with two-place adjectives II.532 beneficiary adjuncts 28, 129, 141, 892–7, 1192
as qualified truth disjunct II.519, 520 compared with (ethic) dative illocutionary
as secondary predicate II.522, 806 disjuncts 931
sequence of tenses in II.537 compared with sympathetic dative 923
with subjunctive mood II.549 beneficiary arguments, of adjectives 218
as space or time adjunct II.521 beneficiary (semantic function) 28
as subject of ablative absolute clause II.398, 526 beneficio (as preposition) 912
as substitute for deverbal noun II.502 Bible translations; see also Greek influence
at adjective or noun phrase level II.514, 523, 532 (probable or proposed)
complex clauses II.527 accusative and infinitive clauses with
co-occurring with adnominal relative facio II.159
clause II.476 adverbs as modifiers of nouns 1036
co-occurring with ipse II.513 competitors to simple future 436
co-occurring with talis and eiusmodi II.535 compound verbs with double accusative 171
Bible translations (cont.) relationship with preverbs 1234

concrete nouns with gerundi(v)al clauses II.454 statistical data on frequency 1179–85
eo and do with purpose infinitival clause II.385 casus obliqui 1209
genitive of description without attribute 1003 casus recti 1209
gerund and infinitive as adnominal argument cataphoric expressions, see preparative
clause II.450 (cataphoric) expressions
‘gnomic’ use of the perfect 450 causa (noun); see also ob eam causam
ille to translate a definite article 1148 as head of adnominal relative clauses II.580
mox used as subordinator II.264 causa est ut/ne II.143
pleonastic use of magis with comparatives II.743 with interrogative clause II.445
pluo used as two-place verb 194 causa (preposition) 1202, 1233
postposition of degree modifiers II.1083 position of II.1088
present participle in ablative absolute to mark purpose adjuncts 907
clause II.388 gerundial purpose adjuncts II.406
propter quod used as complex to mark reason adjuncts 911
subordinator II.288 gerundial reason adjuncts II.412
pseudo-object in proleptic construction 759 causal clauses, see reason (causal) clauses
quod and quia clauses with verbs of perception, ‘causal conjunctions’ II.1165, 1193
cognition, and communication II.64, ‘causal’ relative clauses II.539
77, 202 causation, verbs of 567, 624
quoniam clauses with verbs of perception, with accusative and infinitive clause II.159
cognition, and communication II.79 with imperative clause II.129, 142
use of ab prepositional phrase with with prolative infinitive clause II.211
comparatives II.734 causative constructions 282
use of future indicative with directive force 429 cause adjuncts 28, 90, 91, 245, 247, 902–5
bibo, valency of 78 compared with norm adjuncts 872
binary quantifiers 989 compared with purpose adjuncts 903
biographies 451 compared with reason adjuncts 902, 909
bitransitivization 172 compared with respect adjuncts 914
bivalent, see verbs: two-place verbs compared with secondary predicates 903
blaming, verbs of distinguished from agent adjuncts 902
with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 cause arguments 27
with cum clause II.80 in passive clauses 245
with nominative and infinitive cause expressions modifying adjectives 1078
construction II.197 cause (semantic function) 27
with quia clause II.78 caveo
with quod clause II.66 cave functioning as negator II.152
with tamquam and quasi clause II.104 metadirective cave 349, 351
brachylogy compared with other directive expressions 513
as form of clausal coordination II.590; see also metadirective caveto ne 519
conjunction reduction with dative or accusative 129
in ut argument clauses II.82 with simple subjunctive clause II.152
censeo
cadit, with quod clause II.72 censesne as parenthesis II.919
calendar expressions 841 in answers to questions 373
agreement with 1265 with accusative and infinitive clause II.172
calling, verbs of 191 certe 309, 348, 575, 680, 924
capio as correlative expression
as support verb 75 with concessive clause II.363
consilium capio with a prolative infinitive with conditional clause II.326
clause II.449 with etiamsi II.372
caput est, with ut clause II.82 co-occurring with disjunctive
caring and their opposites, verbs of 104, 1192 coordinators II.679
carus, with sum and price adjunct 881 in answers to questions 373
case 35, 1176 in questions 319
cases and prepositions as system 1176–1242 used as emphasizing particle II.890–1
contribution to meaning of clauses and ceterum
phrases 1177 as connector II.1172, 1181–4
diachronic developments of 1236 as coordinator II.680, 685
relationship with prepositions 1231 used as respect adjunct II.1183
choice between bare case and ceterus 981, 1051
preposition 1233 with partitive genitive 1008
ceu (subordinator) cognition, adjectives of

introducing conditional comparative with accusative and infinitive clause II.463
clauses II.349 with finite argument clause II.460
introducing manner clauses II.270 with gerundival clause II.468
change (feature of state of affairs) 22 with prolative infinitive clause II.464
changing, verbs of 151 cognition, nouns of
chiasmus II.963 with accusative and infinitive clause II.448
cingor 265 with tamquam or quasi clause II.443
circa/circum (adverb) 1229 cognition, verbs of II.9
circa/circum (preposition) as parentheses II.917
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 in answers to questions 373, 375
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 in perfect passive participle with habeo 479
circiter (preposition) use of moods in argument clauses 627
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 use of tenses in argument clauses 567, 591
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 with accusative and infinitive clause 620, II.17,
cis/citra (preposition) 162, 172
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 in Late Latin II.203
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 with imperative clause II.141
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 with indirect question II.107
citius, combined with quam (corrective use) II.749 with infinitival construction II.200
citra (adverb) 1229 with nē in pseudo-indirect question II.117
clam (adverb) 869, 1229 with nominative and infinitive
clausal apposition 1053, 1070, II.551 construction II.194
clause 11, II.1002; see also subordinate clauses with present infinitive 525
complex clauses 13, II.1, 9, 583 with pseudo-object 759
compound clauses II.2, 583, 584 with quia clause II.77
hierarchical structure of 25 with quin clause 705, II.98
main and superordinate clause II.2 with quod clause II.63
multiple clauses 14 with quomodo or quemadmodum clause II.80
subordinate clauses II.2 with quoniam clause II.79
clause combining II.1, 9, 504, 583 with ut clause II.92
clause negation 672 cognomen, agreement with 1276
‘clauses of comparison’ (with quam) II.717 cogo
clausulae 197, 517, II.960, 966 with finite imperative clause II.137
as rhythmic ending II.970 with prolative infinitive clause II.208
use of atque in II.628 coherence, see discourse coherence
with verbal hyperbaton II.1104 colon (membrum) 16, II.45
cleft constructions 31, 342, II.846 as syntactic unit (Fraenkel’s definition) II.969
magis est ut II.91 position of personal pronouns and forms of
time adjuncts used in 842 sum II.985
clitics 17, 69, II.976 comitative adjuncts 28, 897
as non-mobile words II.956 comma (incisum) II.45, 969
causing discontinuity of prepositional commanding, verbs of
phrases II.1120 with imperative clause II.131
distinguished from words 17 with prolative infinitive clause II.204
enclitics 69 commands 349–58; see also imperative sentences
forms of sum as II.992 commands and prohibitions of the past 503
personal pronouns as II.989 containing metadirectives 351
position of II.983, 995 containing parenthetic inquam 355
proclitics 67 directive expressions compared 512
clueo modulation of 350
with infinitival construction II.200 of non-controlled states of affairs 356
with subject complement 209 responses to commands and prohibitions 376
coepi statistical data on frequency 513
relative order of auxiliary and infinitive II.1128 use of subject pronoun with 353, 740
with infinitives II.219 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main
passive infinitives 254 clause containing a command 562
cogito, with indirect question II.106 with future imperative 351, 517
cognate objects 86 with present imperative 351, 514
with one-place verbs 86 with so-called jussive infinitive 358
with two-place verbs 102 with subjunctive 351
with verbs governing a non-accusative object 103 committo, with ut clause II.93
communication, nouns of use of moods in 664–6

with accusative and infinitive clause II.435 use of quo instead of quam II.728
with tamquam or quasi clause II.443 with comparative element containing quam
communication, verbs of 166 (maior quam) 1075
as parentheses II.917 and autonomous relative clause II.536
as three-place verbs 763 and ut clause II.462
use of moods in argument clauses 627 with magis quam II.749
use of tenses in argument clauses 591 with potius quam 664, II.749
with accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 157, ‘comparative correlative’ II.766; see also
162, 166, 194 proportional comparative pattern
in Late Latin II.213 comparison; see also comparison, degrees of
with addressee or direction arguments 143, ablative of comparison II.729, 759
166, 1192, 1195 ac/atque and et in expressions of (dis)
with declarative or imperative clause II.131 similarity II.753, 754, 755
with goal adjuncts 808 ac/atque and et with comparatives II.729
with indirect question II.106, 107, 113, 122 adjectives of amount and longe II.761
with infinitival construction II.200 comparative expressions of quality II.762, 763
with nominative and infinitive discussion of terminology II.718
construction II.194 double comparison II.733
with present infinitive 525 equivalence and non-equivalence II.716–51
with pseudo-object 759 expressions of measure of difference II.739
with quia clause II.77 expressions of quantity and extent of space or
with quin clause 705, II.98 time II.735
with quod clause II.63 magis and plus + adjective or adverb II.726
with quoniam clause II.79 magis/minus quam II.747
with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 manner adverbs and conditional comparative
with ut clause II.92 subordinators II.760
communicative function, see illocutionary force negation II.725, 746
communicative purpose 33 nisi clauses II.761
communicative situation 379 preposition ab II.761
comparative clauses; see also comparative proportional comparative pattern II.766
constructions proportional superlative pattern II.770
agreement of verb with subject of 1263 quam in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756
discussion of terminology II.718 -que in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756
formal ambiguity with interrogative clauses quo as ablative of comparison II.728
(indirect questions) 633 similarity and dissimilarity II.752–62
use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive tam . . . quam II.745
adjective in 1127 types of II.715
use of moods in 664 use of dative, genitive, ab, and prae in basis of
comparative clauses of manner, see manner comparison II.733
clauses; degree clauses use of quisquam, ullus, and aut as substitutes for
comparative conditional clauses, see conditional negative words II.727
comparative clauses, with tamquam and ut clauses and phrases II.762, 763
quasi with ut(i), sicut(i), quemadmodum, and
‘comparative conditional’ clauses quomodo II.758
(quanto . . . tanto) II.766; see also ‘comparison, clauses of ’ II.3, 271; see also manner
proportional comparative pattern clauses; degree clauses
comparative constructions II.3, 717 comparison, degrees of 46; see also comparison
agreement of verb with subject in 1263 absolute (‘elative’) use of comparatives 47,
as obligatory constituents (ante . . . quam) II.717 II.725, 772
comparative element II.717 absolute (‘elative’) use of superlatives 47, II.773
coordinated with relative clauses II.545 age expressions with maior and minor annos/
‘double comparison’ II.733 annis natus II.737
negated by implication 733, II.727 comparatives + quam II.724, 727, 748
negated comparative expressions (non minus comparatives + quam . . . tam II.769
quam) II.725 constraints on formation of comparative
of (non-)equivalence with quam 733, II.718, forms II.726
727 constraints on formation of superlative
purpose clauses with quo as II.304 forms II.773
reduction of shared elements II.721 superlatives with quam . . . tam II.771
use of ac/atque and et II.729 with magis (pleonastic) II.743
‘complement’ clauses II.52; see argument clauses with historic present 607
‘complementary infinitive’, see prolative infinitive concessive illocutionary force 348, 360
clauses concessive interpretation
complements, see arguments; object complements; of relative clauses II.570
subject complements of time clauses II.243
problems of terminology 30 of ut clauses II.375
complex clauses 13 conclusion, of conversations or letters II.1229
complex sentences II.2, 45, 972, 1147 concord, see agreement
coreferentiality of constituents of subordinate condemno, with quod or quia clause II.68
clauses 1124 conditional clauses II.314–54; see also conditional
order of clauses in II.1047–8, 1062 periods
use of tenses in 552, 564, 582 as adjuncts II.314
zero-anaphora 757 adversative/concessive interpretation of
complex subordinators II.15, 378–83 conditional clauses II.336
causal expression + quod II.287 alternative conditional clauses with
preposition directly combined with quod II.381 correlative sive/seu II.346
prepositional expressions + quod or quia II.378 alternative conditional clauses with si . . . sive/
prepositional expressions + ut II.382 seu II.348
pro eo quod II.292 alternative conditions with sīn or si(n)
pronominal support (cum eo) distinguished minus II.330
from preparative pronoun II.378 as second term of comparison of (dis)
with indirect question (ex eo quomodo) II.383 similarity II.753
complex verb forms 51 causal interpretation of conditional
agreement of the nominal part 1245, II.16 clauses II.337
auxiliary sum in 197–200 combined with tam . . . quam II.745
position of -que and -ve II.998 conditional interpretation of time
relative order of components II.1026, 1122–5 clauses II.243
complexity, increase of within a sentence II.45 coordinated by sive/seu II.665
compound clauses 14, II.584 coordinated by -ve II.662
compound sentences II.2, 585, 606, 610 correlative expressions in main clause II.325
compound subjects 1244, 1246–58 ‘elliptical’ si clauses II.332
compound verbs 141, 1185 idiomatic expressions with pignus do/
preverbs 1228 accipio II.334
separation of components (tmesis) II.1132 multiple si clauses II.331
use of cases and prepositions with 1234 ni/nisi de rupture clauses II.341
concealing, verbs of 168 nisi clauses of exception II.350
concedo, with prolative infinitive clause II.207 position of si clauses II.327
concessions, as imperative sentences with ‘purpose’ si clauses II.333, 334
concessive illocutionary force 348, 360 si clauses contrasted with time cum
internal word order II.1036 clauses II.314
use of subjunctive in 509 temporal interpretation of si clauses II.339
concessive clauses II.354–77 with consecutive particle as correlative
as adjuncts II.354, 360 expression II.328
distribution of subordinators formed with with etiam si II.371
si II.369 with ni II.317
so-called concessive conditional with nisi II.317, 320
clauses II.358 with si II.314, 322
with etiamsi II.371 with si minus II.321
with etsi II.370 with si non II.319
with licet 663, II.373 without main clause II.329
with quamquam 663, II.365 as disjuncts
with quamvis 662, II.366 attitudinal disjuncts II.343
with tamenetsi II.373 illocutionary disjuncts II.333, 345
with tametsi II.371 with siquidem II.338
as disjuncts distinguished from si argument clauses II.101,
attitudinal disjuncts II.362 102
illocutionary disjuncts II.364 forms of negation and their distribution II.316
frequency and distribution of position with respect to main clause II.1050
subordinators II.354, 355, 365 use of moods in 654–61
use of moods in 662 conditional comparative clauses, with tamquam
use of tenses in 566, 578 and quasi II.348
conditional periods (sentences) II.315 verbs with different case patterns II.593
abbreviated periods II.332 of preposition in coordinated phrases II.600
alternative conditions with sive II.331 of preposition in the first conjoin II.604
choice between potential and counterfactual of subject 749, II.591, 610, 611
subjunctive 655 of third argument or satellite II.595
condensed protasis or apodosis II.329 of verb 1253
conditional interpretation of a conjunction (word class), see coordinators;
constituent II.329 subordinators
counterfactual conditions 494–7, 654, 660 conjunctive (copulative) coordination II.620;
potential conditions 484, 488, 491, 654, 658 see also coordination; syndetic
‘predictive use’ for logical reasoning II.328 coordination; coordinators: conjunctive
real conditions 654 (copulative) coordinators
tenses and moods in apodosis 484, 654–61 agreement with coordinated subjects 1249
future imperative 518 conjunctive epitactic coordination II.693
imperative clauses as apodosis 657 correlative coordination II.638
imperfect subjunctive (counterfactual emphatic et . . . et and neque . . . neque 1252
use) 495 multiple coordination II.649
imperfect subjunctive (past potential semantic relationship between conjoins II.653,
use) 488 655
indicative tenses 660 connective adverbs
interrogative clauses as apodosis 657 deinde, tum, post, primo, and postremo II.1216
perfect subjunctive 491 distinguished from connectors and
pluperfect subjunctive 495, 496 interactional particles II.1165
present indicative 401 tunc, nunc, interea, and denique II.1217
present subjunctive 484 connective relative pronouns
tenses and moods in protasis 654–61 as part of ablative absolute clause II.555, 556,
future indicative 401 560
future perfect indicative 401 as part of accusative and infinitive clause II.559
imperfect subjunctive (counterfactual preceding subordinators II.556
use) 495 quod(si) II.1174
imperfect subjunctive (past potential connective relative sentences II.555
use) 488 compared with et + is II.555
perfect subjunctive 491 distinguished from relative clauses as
pluperfect subjunctive 495, 496 apposition II.525
present indicative 401 imperative or interrogative sentences II.559
present subjunctive 484, 659 in the accusative and infinitive II.189
congratulating, verbs of with repetition of noun II.1147
with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 connectors 12, 33, 68, II.1165; see also individual
with cum clause II.80 connectors; particles: interactional
with nominative and infinitive particles; connective adverbs
construction II.197 adversative connectors II.1172–93
with quia clause II.78 adverb contra II.1188
with quod clause II.66 adverb nihilominus II.1189
coniunctivus (modus) 56, 387, 481 adverb tamen II.1188
adhortativus 497 adverb/connector vero II.1190
concessivus 509 ast II.1174
exhortativus 497 at II.1175
irrealis 388, 494, 654, II.315 atqui II.1176
iussivus 497 autem II.1177
potentialis 388, 482, 654, II.315 ceterum II.1181
realis 388, 654, II.315 sed II.1184
volitivus 388 verum II.1187
conjoin (coordinated unit) II.584 as means of discourse coherence II.1143
conjugation 53 as non-mobile words II.955
conjunction (clause combining) II.2, 583; see also causing discontinuity II.1101
coordination conjunctive (copulative) connectors
conjunction reduction II.589, 721 II.1166–71
in multiple questions 339 ac/atque II.1167
in second conjoin in adversative et II.1168
coordination II.683 nec/neque II.1170
of head noun 1277 -que II.1166
of object 757, II.592, 611, 613 connecting paragraphs II.1224
consecutive connectors II.1208–16 contingency adjuncts 899–913; see also cause

igitur II.1209 adjuncts; agent adjuncts;
itaque II.1212 continuity of perspective, in choice between active
pleonastic combinations ergo igitur or itaque and passive 252
propterea II.1208 contra (adverb) 1229
statistical data on frequency II.1209 as connective adverb II.1172, 1188
contrastive connectors as expression of dissimilarity II.752
etsi, tametsi, and quamquam II.356, 1191 as position in space adjunct 808
disjunctive (alternative) connectors contra (preposition)
aut II.1171 to mark beneficiary adjuncts 897
explanatory and justificatory to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812
connectors II.1193–1208 to mark position in space adjuncts 806
etenim II.1198 to mark price adjuncts 885
nam II.1194 contraction (prodelision), of est and es II.993
namque II.1197 contrast II.859, 859–62, 951, 1098
quippe II.1199 control (feature of state of affairs) 22, 349, 538
statistical data on frequency II.1194 as explanation for non-accusative objects 1190
placement in first or second sentence in imperative sentences 23, 356, 359
position II.973–6 in ‘purpose’ si clauses II.333
to mark the relation between main clause and in purpose ut clauses II.42, 302
subordinate clause II.39 in pseudo-indirect questions with nē II.1177
connexion of sentences II.1162; see also in sentences with passive imperative 520
connectors in ut argument clauses II.42, 127
asyndetic connexion II.1163 influencing choice of indirect reflexive
adversative relation II.1220 pronoun 1124
enumerative and continuative with beneficiary adjuncts 23
relation II.1218 with manner adjuncts 23, 860, 1201
explanatory and justificatory relation II.1222 with means and instrument adjuncts 23
distinguished from coordination of with passive verbs 239
clauses II.583, 1164 convenio
syndetic connexion II.1164–1216 impersonal convenit with perfect infinitive by
adversative connexion II.1172 attraction 540
conjunctive connexion II.1166 with dative or accusative 129
consecutive connexion II.1208 conventional reduction of arguments 77, 80, 98,
disjunctive connexion II.1171 756
explanatory and justificatory converbs II.777; see secondary predicates
connexion II.1193 convertible verbs 231
sequential connexion II.1216 statistical frequency of active and passive
conqueror forms 235
with accusative and infinitive clause II.162 convicting, verbs of
with quod clause 626, II.62 with infinitive II.216
consecutio temporum 555; see also sequence of with quod clause II.66
tenses coordination 14, 68, II.2, 583; see also asyndetic
consecutive clauses, see result (consecutive) coordination; syndetic coordination;
clauses connexion of sentences
‘consecutive’ noun clauses 623, 625, II.81 adversative coordination 713, 716, II.680
‘consecutive’ relative clauses II.479, 533, 537, 548 agreement of verb with compound subject 1249
‘consecutive’ ut clauses with dignus II.462 as a test to distinguish types of adjuncts 799
consequent (apodosis) II.315; see conditional conjunction reduction II.589; see also
periods conjunction reduction
constat, with nominative and infinitive conjunctive coordination 713, 715, II.620
construction II.200 correlative coordination II.586, 638, 668, 686
constituent questions, see interrogative discontinuity of coordinated
sentences constituents II.1129
constituent scope 318 disjunctive coordination 713, 716, II.657
constituents 19 epitactic coordination II.691, 698
constructio ad sensum/sententiam 1287; see also hendiadys II.713
agreement: notional agreement hierarchical ordering of sequences of
consulo conjoins II.689
with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 hysteron proteron II.710
with dative or accusative 129 multiple coordination II.586
contamination 134, 171, 184, 304, 1007, 1010 conjunctive coordination II.649, 650
coordination (cont.) sive/seu II.655

disjunctive coordination II.676 -ve II.662
mixed coordination II.651, 678 vel II.660
of adjectives 45, 993 in expressions of (dis)similarity II.754
adjective of amount and descriptive semantic classes of II.586
adjective 982 simple and correlative uses II.586
of adjuncts 797 statistical data on frequency and
of clauses and constituents II.584 distribution II.622
of clauses, compared with connexion of copia, with gerundial clause II.456
sentences II.583, 1164 copular verbs 204–10, 765–87
of complex noun phrases II.1093 copulative coordinators, see coordinators:
of conjoins with different functions II.707 conjunctive (copulative) coordinators
of constituents at different clause levels II.709 coram (adverb) 1229
of constituents of different categories II.704, coram (preposition) 806
705, 706 core 11, 19, 25
of events within a single time clause 616 coreferentiality
of locally negated constituents 688 at phrase level 1129, 1130, 1132
of negative declarative clauses 713 clause-internal and clause-external 1128
of negative imperative clauses 717 of agents of infinitives II.209, 216, 385
of negative interrogative sentences 340 of constituent of subordinate clause 1124–7,
of nouns or noun phrases 1131–2
agreement of modifiers with 1273 of first argument of gerundial clause II.24
agreement of pronouns with 1284 of pronouns in adnominal relative
of prepositions governing same noun 1228 clauses II.474, 477
of subordinate clauses of reflexive pronouns and adjectives 132, 979,
alternative conditional si clauses with 1120–5
correlative sive/seu II.346 of subject of ablative absolute with argument of
imperative argument clauses II.127 main clause II.431
multiple relative clauses of subject of accusative and infinitive
attached to one head II.498 clause II.17, 64
with anaphoric pronoun instead of second of subject of finite imperative clause II.139
relative pronoun II.565 with ‘logical’ subject 1130
ne clauses with verbs of fearing and with non-subject 1133–5
worrying II.94 ‘correlation’, as combination of relative and
negative purpose clauses II.300 resumptive expressions II.504, 574
negative result clauses II.312 correlative coordination II.586
syndetic and asyndetic coordination II.585 as indicator of focality II.844
types of II.587 conjunctive coordination II.638
use of cum resembling a comitative correlative use of adversative
coordinator 899, II.656 coordinators II.686
zeugma II.711 disjunctive coordination II.668
coordinators 14, 68, II.584; see also individual of prepositional phrases with repetition or
coordinators; quasi-coordinators; reduction of preposition II.602
connectors correlative expressions II.31
adversative coordinators II.586, 680–9 in subordinate and superordinate clauses II.31
ceterum II.685 with conditional si clause II.326
sed II.682, 696 with dum clause II.251
verum II.684 with manner clause II.271
conjunctive (copulative) coordinators II.586, with purpose clause II.298
620–49 with quando time clause II.249
ac/atque II.628 with quoniam clause II.291
disjunctive or adversative with reason clause II.283, 287
interpretation II.654 with stipulative clause II.306
‘epexegetic’ (explicative) interpretation II.655 with subordinators of satellite clauses II.238
et II.632 counterfactual, see subjunctive mood:
nec/neque II.637 counterfactual use
-que II.624 crassus 228
disjunctive (alternative) coordinators II.586, crebro 852
657–76 credo
an (anne) II.667 as parenthesis II.9, 918
aut II.658 compared with qualified truth disjuncts 926
conjunctive interpretation II.679 cuias 336
cum clauses cum (relative adverb) II.43, 245

as arguments II.80 introducing clauses with extent of time adjunct
as alternative to quod clauses II.67 + sum II.848
with verbs of emotion II.80, 245 introducing relative clauses II.43, 575, 579
with verbs of happening II.73 cum (subordinator) 68
with verbs of praising, blaming, combined with praesertim II.266, 269
congratulating, and thanking II.80 in combination cum primum II.258
as satellites in combination quippe or utpote cum II.266
as attitudinal or illocutionary disjunct II.268 introducing argument clauses II.80
combined with idcirco, ideo, and introducing reason clauses II.284
propterea 912 introducing time clauses II.243
cum identicum 611, 613, 641, 643 cum . . . tum
cum narrativum 611, 613, 641, 643 as correlative quasi-coordinator II.701
cum temporale 611, 613, 641, 643 combined with praecipue II.897
inverse cum clauses (cum inversum) 420, cunctus 804, 985
457, 605, 608, II.244, 245, 622 co-occurring with a determiner 971
with historic infinitive 608 substantival use 1172
with historic present 605 cupido 22, 1039
time clauses 611, 641, II.243–5 cupidus 22, 215, 222, 1039
comparable with participles or relative with gerundival clause II.435
clauses fuctioning as secondary cupio 21, 215
predicates 643, II.807 with dative or accusative 129
compared with time ubi, simulac, and cur 336
postquam clauses 613 introducing reason clauses II.285
contrasted with conditional si introducing relative clauses II.575, 580
clauses II.314 curo
with anterior meaning 613, II.257 in imperative used as metadirective 351
with causal interpretation 578, 644, II.266 with gerundial clause II.226
with concessive interpretation 578, II.269 with gerundival clause II.231
with habitual or iterative meaning 611 with imperative clause II.140
with simultaneous meaning 613, II.243 with object and gerundive as secondary
use of moods in 641, 644 predicate II.799
use of tenses in 589 curses, see swear words
with historic present 605 cursus, as rhythmic ending II.966, 971
cum eo quod (complex subordinator) II.379 with verbal hyperbaton II.1104
cum eo tamen, with quod, ut, or ne as equivalent to
stipulative clauses II.308 damno 157
cum inversum clauses 420, 457, 605, 608, II.244, with quod or quia clause II.68
245, 622 dating formulae 835, 841, 1229
cum (preposition) dative case 1179, 1183, 1206, 1216–19
as alternative to et and ac/atque with associative archaic forms of 1236
expressions II.656 dativus
in postposition II.1109 auctoris 247, 269, 301, 1217
in result expressions 163 commodi/incommodi 892, 1192
to mark accompanying circumstance ethicus 895, 931, 1203, II.928
adjuncts 901 finalis 778, 895, II.801
to mark arguments of adjectives 227 iudicantis 926, 1203, II.519
to mark associative adjuncts 897 possessivus 107
to mark associative arguments 119, 144, 151, sympatheticus 917, 919, 1217
161 double dative construction 780, II.800
to mark manner adjuncts 866 ethic dative 931, 1203
to mark means and instrument adjuncts 878 ‘local’ dative, see below, to mark direction and
to mark optional attributes of nouns 898, 1030 goal adjuncts
compared with ablative of description 1031 of advantage/disadvantage 141, 892, 1192
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 of agent 245, 248, 269, 296
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 of direction and limits of motion 813
to mark subject complements 786 of indirect object 29, 104–10, 138, 141, 162,
with relative clause as associative adjunct II.520 763, 1192, 1195
with verbs of changing 151 of interest 141, 892, 1192
-cumque compounds of local standpoint 926, 1203
introducing relative clauses II.472 of person judging 926, 1203
tmesis of II.1133 of possessor 107, 301
dative case (cont.) of approaching and befalling 104, 1192

of purpose 77, 186, 778, 780, 793, II.801 of asking 166
of reference 141, 892, 1192 of communication 141, 184, 763, 1192, 1195
of separation 106, 1191 of difference 122
possessive dative 107 of helping, caring, and their opposites 104,
predicative dative 778 1192
as object complement 186, 793 of mixing 150
as secondary predicate II.801 of motion 813
as subject complement 77, 778 of pleasing, flattering, and threatening 104,
with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 1192
redundant use of sibi with suus or se 980, 1136 of preparing 896
replaced by prepositional phrases with ad 1027 of ruling, obeying, and serving 104, 1192
to mark addressee arguments (indirect of sacrificing and praying 185
object) 141, 763, 1192, 1195 of sending letters 142
to mark agent adjuncts of sprinkling 163
in non-passive clauses 248 of supplying with 149
with prolative infinitive II.212 of surpassing 151
to mark agent arguments 245, 269 of transfer and giving 138, 140, 763, 813,
in gerundive + sum construction 296, 301 1192, 1195
of adjectives in -bilis 248, 296 de (preposition)
to mark associative arguments 120 de prepositional phrase as theme
to mark beneficiary adjuncts 141, 892, 1192 constituent 762, II.854
compared with illocutionary disjuncts (ethic to mark arguments of adjectives 227
dative) 931 to mark arguments of verbs 123
compared with sympathetic dative 923 to mark cause adjuncts 904
so-called dative of purpose with abstract to mark instrument adjuncts 880
nouns 895 to mark manner adjuncts 868
to mark beneficiary arguments of adjectives 218 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 813 to mark partitive attributes 1034, 1234
to mark illocutionary disjuncts (ethic with numerals 1006
dative) 931, 1203 to mark position in time adjuncts 837
with ecce II.928 to mark respect adjuncts 917
with em and en II.930 to mark source adjuncts 818
to mark non-finite clauses 1218 to mark source arguments 126, 127
to mark nouns as secondary predicate with with facio and fio 153
verbs of giving or taking and going or with judicial verbs 154, 155
sending II.800 with verbs of communication 73
to mark optional attributes of nouns 1027 with verbs of concealing 168
to mark possessor 107, 301 with verbs of depriving 149
compared with habeo 108 with verbs of descent or provenance 127
compared with possessive genitive 773, 1001 with verbs of reminding 160
to mark qualified truth disjuncts 926, 1203, deagentivization, forms of 253
II.519 debeo
to mark recipient arguments (indirect as auxiliary verb 212
object) 138, 141, 162, 763, 1192, 1195 compared with other directive expressions 298,
to mark second arguments (dative objects) 29, 512
104–10, 1192 debeo + infinitive construction, as competitor of
to mark subject complements 188 simple future 440
to mark sympathetic dative adjuncts 242, 919 in passive 255
compared with possessive genitive 921 with infinitive II.219
with adjectives of helpfulness, interpersonal with deductive meaning 427, 440
relations, and similarity and decausative passives, see passive voice
suitability 217 decerno
with adjectives of sharing and power 222 with accusative and infinitive clause II.172
with comparatives II.733 with imperative clause II.144
with compound verbs 106, 1191 decet
with ei II.932 used personally with infinitive II.201
with vae II.924, 936 with imperative clause II.149
with verbs deciding, verbs of
copular verbs 110 with accusative and infinitive clause II.172
judicial verbs 157 with imperative clause II.129, 144
libet 110 with prolative infinitive clause II.211
declarative (finite subordinate) clauses II.9, 57 with present subjunctive 485

as alternative to accusative and infinitive demanding, verbs of
clauses II.59 with accusative and infinitive clause II.175
at adjective phrase level II.460 with imperative clause II.134
at noun phrase level II.440 demonstrative determiners 969–72
with cum II.80 anaphoric use 1096
with ne II.94, 442 deictic use 1093
with quia II.76, 441 diachronic developments of 1146
with quin II.96, 443 exophoric use 1099
with quod II.59, 440 of head of adnominal relative clause II.480
with quomodo and quemadmodum II.80 position with respect to head noun II.1067
with quoniam II.79 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098
with si II.100 with result clause II.309
with tamquam and quasi II.104, 443 statistical data on frequency 1148
with ut II.441 to mark autonomous relative clause as
declarative sentences 16, 306, 308–14, 388 definite II.505
coordination of negative declarative demonstrative pronouns 1137–49
sentences 713 anaphoric use 1139
declarative main clause as apodosis of as topic II.832
condition 657 grammatical agreement with preceding
internal word order II.1003 constituent 1282
negation of 675 notional agreement with preceding
use of subjunctive mood in 483, 490 constituent 1295
with indirect directive illocutionary force 311, as a word class 49
513 combined with relative pronoun in the same
with indirect interrogative illocutionary clause II.566
force 310 deictic use 1137
declension 36, 42 diachronic developments of 1146
of adjectives, see adjectives exophoric use 1146
decrees 538 grammatical agreement with subject or object
deductive modality 426, 427, 440 complement 1278
definite article preparative (cataphoric) use 1145
absence of in Latin 1087 resumptive use 1145
later development from ille 1149 statistical data on frequency 1148
later development from ipse 1149, 1162 used as substitute for third person
definite noun phrases 1088–1101 pronoun 1118
degree adjuncts 885–92 with partitive genitive 1005
degree clauses II.3, 278–9 demum
degree expressions combined with conditional si clause II.37
as correlative expressions with result used as emphasizing particle II.902
clauses II.309 denique II.904
of dissimilarity II.761 as connective adverb to mark sequence of
of similarity with conditional comparative events II.1217
clause II.349 denuo 853
position of II.1081 deontic (‘obligative’) value
degree of comparison 46; see also comparison, of gerundive 288–90, 294, 298–304, 435, 472
degrees of of habeo + infinitive 437, 439
degree of truth disjuncts 924 deontic use of subjunctive mood 56, 388, 481,
dehinc 818 497–510
deictic use in autonomous relative clauses II.548
of demonstrative determiners 970, 1093 in comparative constructions 664
of demonstrative pronouns 1137 in imperative clauses 619, 621–3, 629
deinceps, causing discontinuity II.1102 in purpose (final) clauses 651
deinde in relative clauses II.539
as connective adverb to mark sequence of in stipulative clauses 652
events II.1216 deponent verbs 54, 234, 282–5
as position in time adjunct 841 gerundives of deponent verbs 284
as source adjunct 818 used with passive meaning 283
co-occurring with ablative absolute word order of complex forms with sum II.1122
clause II.392 depositio, to mark sense units II.967
deliberative questions depost 1229
with imperfect subjunctive 489 depriving, verbs of 169, 1233
descent or provenance, expressions of 127 passive with nominative and infinitive

descriptive adjectives 45, 1047 construction II.194
combined with alius 947 to accompany tail constituents II.857
desententialization II.9 valency of 19, 71
deserving, verbs of with accusative and infinitive clause II.166
with imperative clause II.129, 145 with finite imperative clause or accusative and
with prolative infinitive clause II.212 infinitive clause II.126
desino didactic texts, see text types
as auxiliary verb 210 diegetic narrative mode 402, II.1143
more often in perfect than historic present 445 dies
not with momentaneous states of affairs 24 in calendar expressions 841
with infinitives II.219 repetition in relative clauses II.529
passive infinitives 254 with gerundial clause II.452
desire, adjectives of 222 difference, adjectives of 226
desiring, verbs of difference, verbs of 121
with accusative and infinitive clause II.171 difficultas, with interrogative clause II.445
with imperative clause II.129, 139 dignus 215, 221, 953
with prolative infinitive clause II.209 with prolative infinitive clause II.464
desisto, with gerundial clause II.227 with relative clause as argument II.514, 533
despero, with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 with ut clause II.462
determinative pronouns, as a word class 49; with various argument clauses II.459
see also idem; ipse; is dimension, adjectives of 228
determiners 49, 969–74 direct object 29
anaphoric determiners 970, 1096 direct questions, see interrogative sentences
co-occurring with omnis, cunctus, or totus 971 direct speech (discourse) II.48
demonstrative determiners, see demonstrative direction (semantic function) 28
determiners direction and goal adjuncts 808–15
indefinite determiners, see indefinite determiners distinguished from arguments 808
interrogative determiners 336, 969, 974 domus and rus in 819
modifying infinitives 943 in apposition to toponym 1063
modifying noun phrase with possessive multiple goal adjuncts in a clause 810
adjective 976 towns and small islands in 819
relative determiners 969 direction and goal arguments 28, 124, 142, 175,
unusual combinations of 969 176, 178
determiners (of autonomous relative distinguished from adjuncts 808
clauses) 1147, II.505, 551 in apposition to toponym 1063
distinguished from head of adnominal relative directive illocutionary force 307, 348
clauses II.510 disco 448, II.219
governed by preposition II.520 discontinuity (hyperbaton) II.949, 956, 964,
idem II.510 1097–1101; see also hyperbaton
is with anaphoric meaning II.507 ‘alien’ discontinuity II.1099
omnis and pauci II.512 as emphasizing device II.863
quidam and aliqui II.511 constituents causing discontinuity II.1101–8
semantically empty is II.508 distribution in authors II.1100
to mark syntactic function of relative double discontinuity II.1104, 1108
clause II.515 of auxiliary and infinitive II.1126
to modify a relative phrase II.506, 513 of complex verb forms with sum II.1125
determining, verbs of, with accusative and of constituents of non-restrictive apposition 1061
infinitive clause II.172 of constituents of restrictive apposition 1055
devenio, with perfect passive participle 258 of coordinated adjectives II.597
deversorium, with gerundival clause II.453 of coordinated constituents II.587, 1113,
di boni, as swear expression or exclamation II.921 1129–32
di deaeque, as coordinated pair II.625 of coordinated nouns II.598
di immortales of noun phrases II.1097
as expression with fixed order II.1079 of possessive adjective and noun 1057
as parenthesis II.909 of post(ea)quam II.258
as swear expression or exclamation II.921 of prepositional phrases II.1113, 1120–2
di (obsecro) vostram fidem, as invocation of types of discontinuity II.1099
gods II.922 with contrastive elements II.862
diathesis 233; see also voice with negators non and haud 732
dico discourse 32, II.1138
in expression dixisse liceat 539 paragraphs as discourse units II.1223
discourse coherence 33, II.1143 in relative clauses II.486

address as means of structuring II.940 qualified truth disjuncts
anaphoric devices autonomous relative clause as II.519, 520
reference to participants II.835, 1144 distinguished from adjuncts 797
reference to states of affairs and segments of illocutionary disjuncts 923, 930–2
discourse II.1153 expressions of politeness II.345
use of anaphoric pronouns and adverbs II.1150 modifying adjectives 1079
cohesive devices linking sentences II.1162 outside scope of negation 798, 925
grammatical devices contributing to II.1226 subjective evaluation disjuncts 928
lexical repetition and variation II.1144 distinguished from manner adjuncts 861, 928
openings and conclusions of conversations or not used in imperative sentences 348
letters II.1228 truth value disjuncts 924–8
preparative (cataphoric) devices II.1161 degree of truth disjuncts 924
use of connectors and interactional particles not used in imperative sentences 348
connecting paragraphs II.1223 qualified truth disjuncts 924, 926
verbs in initial position as cohesive compared with respect adjuncts 914
device II.1016 use of cases and prepositions to mark 1203
zero-anaphora II.1148 dissolutio (asyndeton) II.606
discourse modes (text types) II.1140 distinctio, to mark sense units II.967
‘discourse particles’ II.1165; see connectors; distributive apposition 1067
interactional particles diu 841
discourse topic 33, II.836 diversus, as expression of dissimilarity II.752
in choice between active and passive 251 do
disjunct clauses II.238 as support verb 75
ablative absolute clauses II.389 imperative of operam do used as
autonomous relative clauses with quod II.554 metadirective 351
concessive clauses II.362, 364 potestatem do with ut clause II.437
conditional si clauses II.343, 345 valency of 20
cum clauses II.268 with gerundival clause II.231
manner clauses II.274, 277 with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797
purpose clauses II.300 with object and gerundive II.799
qualification clauses with quod or with purpose infinitival clause II.23, 383
quantum II.377 with supine in -um II.421
quod clauses as theme constituent II.854 doceo 164, 1185, 1271
reason clauses with quoniam 642, 650, II.289, with accusative and infinitive clause II.167
290 doleo, with quod clause II.61
relative clauses II.553 domain integrity
respect clauses II.279 as factor determining word order II.956
so-called pseudo-final ut/ne disjunct of subordinate clauses II.1048
clauses 566 dominant (participle) construction II.31, 220, 223
use of tenses and moods in 566, 579 domus
disjunctive (alternative) coordination 713, 716, ablative as source adjunct 816, 819
II.657, 658; see also coordination; accusative as direction or goal adjunct
syndetic coordination; coordinators: 811, 819
disjunctive (alternative) coordinators locative as position in space adjunct 803, 819
agreement with subjects joined by 1253, 1267, donec clauses 420, II.252, 255, 256
1286 use of moods in 638
correlative coordination II.668 donicum, donique, doneque, see donec clauses
multiple coordination II.676 dono 138, 152
of exclusivity, non-exclusivity, and passivization of 253
equivalence II.657 with dative as secondary predicate II.800
semantic relationship between conjoins II.679 double negation 726
disjunctive indirect questions, see interrogative doubting, verbs of 704, 733
(subordinate) clauses: multiple indirect with quin clause II.96, 97
questions dressing, verbs of 264
disjunctive questions 315, 339–41 dubitatio, with quin clause II.443
disjuncts 25, 30, 66, 797, 923–32, 1203; see also dubitative questions 327
disjunct clauses dubito 581
attitudinal disjuncts 309, 310, 348, 923, 923–30 with indirect question II.109, 113
compared with degree adjuncts 889 with quin clause II.97
in negative declarative sentences 680 dubius, with quin clause II.461
in questions 319 dudum 841
dum (clitic particle), used to modulate directive ‘ellipsis’ of subject, see subject: conjunction
expressions 355 reduction of; zero-anaphora
dum clauses ‘ellipsis’, of verbs, see reduction (ellipsis of shared
stipulative clauses 652 constituents)
distinguished from time clauses II.306 elliptic substantivation 954
time clauses 615, 645, II.250–7 elliptical clauses, purpose ut clauses II.303
to indicate co-extensive event (‘as long elliptical interrogative sentences 346
as’) II.251 em (interjection) 368, II.930
to indicate lasting event (‘while’) II.254 embedded clauses, see subordinate clauses
to indicate limit (‘until’) II.255 eminence, verbs of 113, 1193
to locate events in time (‘when’) II.250 emotion, adjectives of, with accusative and
use of moods in 615, 638, 645, 652 infinitive clause II.463
use of tenses in 615 emotion, nouns of
historic present 616 with accusative and infinitive clause II.448
with causal intepretation II.268 with tamquam or quasi clause II.443
dum (subordinator) emotion, verbs of 89, 116, 132
introducing stipulative clauses II.306 use of moods in quod and quia clauses 626
introducing time clauses II.242, 250, 251 with accusative and infinitive clause II.161
as equivalent to cum II.254 with cum clause II.80
dummodo (subordinator) with quia clause II.76
introducing stipulative clauses II.306 with quod clause II.61
dumtaxat, used as emphasizing particle II.893 with reason clause with cur II.285
duo, compared with ambo 987 with tamquam or quasi clause II.104
dynamic (state of affairs) 22 emphasis II.859, 862–5, 951; see also preferential
host; particles: emphasizing particles
ea (adverb) 832 causing discontinuity of noun phrases II.1098
eapropter, as correlative expression with reason conveyed by personal pronouns 740
clause II.283 distinguished from focus II.862
eatenus (adverb) 812 ‘emphatic’ use of is II.507
ec- compounds, in indirect questions II.108, 118 non in initial position 731
ecastor 320, II.919 personal pronouns and possessive adjectives
typical of female speech 353 with -met II.907
ecce (interjection) 368, II.923, 928 preparative expressions as emphasizers II.908
combined with ille and iste 1093, 1148 reduplicated forms of personal
eccum, and other semi-declinable forms II.929 pronouns II.865, 906
ecquis 1165 en (interjection) II.931
ecquid as question particle 335 in exclamations 368
in sentence questions 334 in indirect questions II.108
edepol 320, II.919 in sentence (yes/no) questions 333, II.931
effected objects 27, 101 enallage adiectivi 1051–3
efficio enim 12, II.1193, 1201–6
imperative used as metadirective 351 as connector in parenthetical sentences II.911
with accusative and infinitive clause II.159 as non-mobile word II.956
ego, see personal pronouns as sentence connexion device II.1164
ehem (interjection) II.932 combined with nempe II.1207
eheu (interjection) II.923, 933 combined with quippe II.1200
eho (interjection) II.925 in combination at enim II.1176
ei (interjection) II.932 position of II.973
eia (heia) II.933 causing discontinuity II.1101, 1123
eiusmodi, combined with relative clause II.535 so-called adversative use II.1205
elative use, of superlative 47; see also comparison, so-called affirmative use II.1204
degrees of: absolute (‘elative’) use of so-called causal use II.1201
comparatives; superlatives entitling, verbs of 191
electing, verbs of 191 enumquam II.931
‘ellipsis’, in coordinated clauses, see conjunction eo (adverb)
reduction as summarizing device II.1160
‘ellipsis’ of object, see object: conjunction referring to discourse participants II.1150
reduction of; reduction (conventional) eo (verb) 812
of arguments; zero-anaphora idiomatic expressions with 811
‘ellipsis’, of obligatory constituents, see iri in future passive 532
zero-anaphora position of iri as auxiliary II.1125
with purpose infinitival clause II.383 of complex numerals II.636

with supine in -um II.421 of negative declarative clauses 715
eo consilio, as correlative expression with purpose of subject constituents 1249
clause II.298 use in main clause after time clause II.623
epexegetic, see ‘explicative’ with locally negated constituents 689
‘epexegetic’ coordination II.691; see epitactic with the last conjoin in multiple
coordination coordination II.652
‘epexegetic’ negation 726 as scalar emphasizing particle II.872
epexegeticum, ut II.442 in combination et ipse 1153
epiphonema II.1160 position of II.973
episode 32, 453, II.1155, 1157, 1216 etenim
epitactic coordination II.691–8 as connector II.1193, 1198
asyndetic coordination II.698 in combination quippe etenim II.1200
to signal expanding focus II.844 position of II.973
use of ac/atque II.628, 693 etiam 856, II.869, 872
use of et II.633, 693 as scalar adverb to mark gradual change II.744
use of -que and nec/neque II.693 co-occurring with comparatives II.743
use of sed II.696 co-occurring with et II.635
with imprimis II.865, 899 co-occurring with quoque II.873
with maxime II.900 co-occurring with superlatives II.774
with praecipue II.897 in answers to questions 373
with quidem II.880 in combination atque etiam II.632, 655
equidem 309, II.884–8 etiam atque etiam II.632
combined with ego II.885 in combination etiam ipse 1153
compared with quidem II.877 in combination etiam si II.371
in combination atque equidem II.695 in combination non modo . . . sed/verum
in quod clauses of qualification II.377 etiam II.687
equivalence (of two terms under in combination quoque etiam II.870
comparison) II.716 in combination vel etiam II.679
equivalence (type of disjunctive in questions 341
coordination) II.657 with indirect directive illocutionary force 345
erga (preposition) 1042 etiamsi clauses II.371–3
ergative 280 so-called concessive conditional clauses II.358
ergo (particle) etiamsi, as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355
as correlative expression etsi
with causal clause II.1215 as contrastive connector II.356, 1191
with conditional clause II.326, 328, 1215 as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355
as interactional particle II.1208, 1213–16 with constituents below the clause level II.357
combined with nempe II.1207 etsi clauses II.370–1
combined with question particles 317 so-called concessive conditional clauses II.358
position of II.973 euphony, as factor determining word order II.960
ergo (preposition) 911 evado 1234
with gerundial reason adjunct II.412 evaluative adjectives 64, 208, 362, 369, 1047,
erudio 168 II.424, 784
et modifying proper name 938
as comparative particle evenit, with quod clause II.72
in expressions of (dis)similarity II.754, 755 ex (preposition)
with adjectives and adverbs in comparative to mark arguments of verbs 123
degree II.729 to mark cause adjuncts 904
as connector II.633, 1164, 1166, 1168 to mark instrument adjuncts 880
connecting sentences II.583 to mark manner adjuncts 868
in combination et quoniam II.289 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030
as coordinator 14, 68, II.584, 586, 621, 632–7 to mark partitive attributes 1034
co-occurring with etiam and quoque II.635 with numerals 1006
correlative et . . . ac/atque II.646 to mark position in time adjuncts 837
correlative et . . . et 1252, II.586, 640, 844 to mark source adjuncts 818
with discontinuity of conjoins II.1130 to mark source arguments 126, 127
correlative et . . . nec/neque II.647 with superlative, to mark entity in
correlative -que . . . et II.644 comparison II.774
in epitactic coordination II.693 with verbs of depriving 149
nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 with verbs of descent or provenance 127
ex quo, introducing time clauses II.264 facio 152

excepto quod (complex subordinator) II.381 anaphoric use
exchange (communicative) 12 in answers to questions 372
exclamatory sentences 16, 306, 361–8 in epitactic coordination II.695
combined with interjections II.924, 936 in responses to directive utterances 376
evaluative and non-evaluative exclamatory as support verb 75
sentences 363 certiorem facio aliquem with argument
exclamatory (subordinate) clauses II.105, 155 clause II.460
exclusivity (type of disjunctive coordination) II.657 future or future perfect faxo 470
excusing, verbs of as idiomatic parenthetical expression II.10
with quod clause II.66 (ut) + subjunctive II.10
with tamquam or quasi clause II.104 future perfect gratissimum feceris as idiom 470
exhorting, verbs of impersonal facit 97
with imperative clause II.134 metadirective fac 349, 351, II.152
with prolative infinitive II.205 compared with other directive
eximius, with partitive genitive 948 expressions 512
exinde 818 subjunctive faxim 491
exophoric use equivalent to present subjunctive 503, 506
of demonstrative determiners 969, 970, 1099 suppletive passive forms from fio 234
of demonstrative pronouns 1146 valency of 20
expansion of arguments 78, 84 with accusative and infinitive clause II.143, 159
experiencer (semantic function) 27 with gerundival clause II.232
of dative adjuncts (sympathetic dative) 919 with prolative infinitive clause II.142, 211
of dative disjuncts (dativus iudicantis) 927 with pseudo-object II.142
of dative disjuncts (ethic dative) 931 with quod clause II.72
experiencer arguments 27, 116, 132 with simple subjunctive clause II.16, 142, 152
expletive use of negation, see negation with ut clause II.93, 143
‘explicative’ (epexegetic) interpretation of factivity 388
conjunctive coordinators II.655 of conditional periods 654
‘explicative’ quod clauses II.35, 439, 440 of indicative mood 388, 626, 636, 638, 641, 654
‘explicative’ ut clauses II.85, 438, 439 of quod and quia argument clauses 626
expository discourse mode II.1142 of satellite clauses 636
exsisto 205 of space adjunct clauses 638
as suppletion for non-existing forms of of subordinate clauses in indirect speech 669
sum 207 of time cum clauses 641
exspecto si II.117 of ut argument clauses 623
extent of space adjuncts 182, 825–9 factum, as summarizing anaphoric
extent of space arguments 97 expression II.1153
compared with extent of space adjuncts 181 facultas, with ut clause II.438
with adjectives 228 fateor, in answers to questions 373
extent of time adjuncts 842–9, II.251 fear clauses 623, 702, II.94
extent of time arguments 97 fearing, verbs of 623
extra (adverb) with indirect question II.118
as direction or goal adjunct 812 with ne clause II.94
as source adjunct 819 female speech 353
extra (preposition) fere, as modifier of attributes II.1084
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 fero
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 as support verb 75
to mark source adjuncts 818 moleste fero, with quod clause II.61
extra quam si II.324 fervidus, as secondary predicate in poetry II.785
extraclausal constituents 26 fido 112, 1193
curses and swear words II.919 figura .ăuztxzŪ, see .ăuztxzŪ figura
functioning as address 738, II.937 figura etymologica 86, 102, 213, 864
interjections II.923 filling, verbs of 150
marked by nominative case 1209 final adjuncts, see purpose (final) adjuncts
parenthetical constituents II.909 final clauses, see purpose (final) finite clauses
theme, setting, and tail II.849–58 ‘final’ gerundival expressions II.233, 453
vocatives 1224 ‘final’ infinitive II.383, 386
extremus 1050 ‘final’ noun clauses 621, II.81, 126
with partitive genitive 948 final position, see position (in clause/sentence):
extrinsecus 819 last position
exuor 265 ‘final’ relative clauses II.522, 537, 543, 549
‘final’ substantive clauses, see imperative fors 924

(subordinate) clauses forsan 924
‘final’ ut clauses with adjectives II.462 forsitan and fors fuat an 924, II.114
fio 152, 200, 204 fortasse (adverb) 309, 348, 924
anaphoric use fortasse (an) II.114
in answers to questions 372 in concessive clauses II.362
in responses to directive utterances 376 in responses to questions 370
as alternative passive auxiliary 257 forte, with nisi clauses of exception II.352
as suppletive passive for facio 234 forte fortuna, as asyndeton II.614
fit, with quod clause II.72 free indirect speech II.50, 186
with deverbal nouns as passive periphrasis 253 accusative and infinitive clauses without
first person, see personal pronouns; subject governing verb II.159
first position, see position (in clause/sentence): ‘free’ relative clauses II.474, 501; see autonomous
first position relative clauses
flagito, with imperative clause II.134 frequency adjuncts 851
flattering, verbs of 104, 1192 fruor 115
fleo, valency of 84 full verbs, distinguished from auxiliary
floating quantifiers 710, II.819–24, 1076 verbs 210
flowing, verbs of 88 fullness, adjectives of 222
flumen, in apposition to name 1058 fungor 115, 1193
agreement of verb with 1260 furo, valency of 85
focalization (narratology), distinguished from fused clauses II.21
pragmatic focus 32 argument clause with admoneo II.157
focus (pragmatic function) 31, 108, 686, 731, gerundial clauses II.24
II.827, 839–49, 951 prolative infinitive clauses II.22
accusative pseudo-object as 759 supine clauses II.25
completive focus 676, 739, II.827, 841 future anterior, see future tense: future perfect
complex focus II.828, 842, 951 indicative
contrastive focus 269, 676, 678, 739, II.861 future of the past 472
conveyed by personal pronouns 739 future periphrastic, see future tense
distinguished from emphasis II.862 future tense
expanding focus 739, II.692, 841, 844 future imperative 351, 512, 517
focus constituents in first position II.832, 1005 difference from present imperative 515
indicators of focality II.843; see also passive forms 520
presentative sentences; cleft statistical data on frequency 513
constructions future indicative 423–35
introduction of new information 31, 748 competitors to simple future 435
with quidam 1111 future perfect indicative 462–72
nominative pseudo-subject as 761 difficulty of distinguishing from perfect
parallel focus 739, II.861 subjunctive 462, 491
possessive genitive as 773 idiomatic expressions 469
replacing focus 739, II.692, 841, 844 in conditional periods 401
with non modo . . . sed etiam II.688 in dum time clauses II.253
with non . . . sed II.680 indicative retained in subordinate clauses in
with non tam . . . quam II.750 indirect speech 670
restricting focus II.842 retrospective value of 467
scope of focus II.843 shift of infectum to perfectum forms of
focus(ing) particles, see particles: emphasizing sum 473
particles so-called sigmatic forms 464, 470
foras (adverb) 1229 statistical data on frequency 463
forbidding, verbs of with deductive interpretation 471
with ne clause 701 with indirect directive illocutionary
with quin clause 704 force 472
with quominus clause 706 periphrastic future in -urus + sum 429–35, 553,
forcing, verbs of 581
with imperative clause II.137 as future of the past 472
with prolative infinitive clause II.208 as substitute for missing subjunctive
fore, see sum forms 433
forgetting, verbs of 117–18, 1222–3 compared with simple future 429
foris (adverb) 1229 in ne clauses with verbs of fearing and
as direction or goal adjunct 812 worrying II.94
formality (of discourse) 32 prospective value of 430
future tense (cont.) in apposition to possessive adjective 1066

simple future 423 in exclamations 368
compared with periphrastic future with -urus objective genitive 1039, 1190
+ sum 429 accusative used instead of 1041, 1204
compared with present subjunctive 427 of pronouns 1044
gnomic use 425 possessive adjective used instead of 975,
in conditional periods 401 1045
in relative clauses II.536 relative order with subjective genitive 1040,
indicative retained in subordinate clauses in II.1091
indirect speech 670 of charge 153, 156
so-called assumptive use 426 of definition 1023
so-called authorial use 425 as gerundival clause II.454
so-called deductive use 426 of description or quality 1002
so-called dubitative use 427 as object complement 792
so-called potential use 426 as optional attribute 941, 1002
statistical data on frequency 463 genitive noun without adjective modifying
with indirect directive illocutionary another noun 1003
force 312, 427 as relative phrase II.553
futurum exactum 441, 462 as secondary predicate II.799
futurum simplex 423 as subject complement 775
compared with ablative of description 1002,
‘gapping’ II.585; see conjunction reduction 1025
gaudeo coordination with adjectives II.705
with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 position of II.1090
with cum clause II.80 of measure 1003, 1004, 1015–23
with quia clause II.42, 55, 77 of origin 1000
with quod clause II.61 of possession 1001
gender 35, 39 as object complement 792
agreement of verb in 1245, 1256 as optional attribute 1001
general (encyclopedic) knowledge II.830 as subject complement 773, 910
generic noun phrases, see noun phrases with accusative and infinitive clause II.183
‘generic’ (‘generalizing’ or ‘consecutive’) relative compared with habeo 773
clauses II.479 compared with possessive dative 773, 1001
generic subjects compared with sympathetic dative 921
first person plural 743 substantival use of 962
second person singular 487, 743 of price 158, 884
with potential subjunctive 483 of quality 775, 792, 941, 1002, 1003
third person plural 483, 752 of quantity 941, 1004, 1015–23, 1169
third person singular inquit and ait 753 distinguished from partitive genitive 1003,
with impersonal passives 271 1015
genitive case 1203, 1221–4 of respect (animi) 917
appositional genitive 1023 of separation 150, 1189
ellipsis of head noun 962 of the rubric 161, 1017
with names of gods 963 of the whole (partitive genitive) 941, 1003,
epexegetic genitive 1023 1003–14, 1223
explicative genitive 1023 as object complement 792
genetivus as subject complement 777
causae 906 distinguished from genitive of
criminis 153, 1222 quantity 1003, 1015
definitivus 1023 modifying substantival adjectives 948
explicativus 1023, II.454 multiple head constituents with one
forensis 153, 1222 whole 1007
obiectivus 1039 pseudo-partitive construction 949
partitivus 709, 1003, II.502 replaced by ex or de 1234
possessivus 208, 1001 with numerals 1006
pretii 884 substantival use of 962
proprietatis 774, II.183 with relative pronoun II.502
qualitatis 775, 1002, 1025, 1117, II.553 with superlative, to mark term of
relationis 1223 comparison II.774
subiectivus 253, 1038 of value 158, 884
tituli 1017 partitive genitive, see above, of the whole
idiomatic uses of 161 statistical data on frequency 1179, 1183
subjective genitive 253, 1038 at adjective phrase level II.466, 469

possessive adjective used instead of 1045 at noun phrase level II.452, 454, 458
relative order with objective genitive 1040, reason adjuncts with causa, gratia, ergo, or
II.1091 ob II.412
to mark age expressions with natus II.738 respect and other adjuncts II.413
to mark non-finite clauses 1222 time adjuncts II.412
to mark object complements 792 with one-place adjectives II.467
to mark optional attributes 946, 1000–25 gerundival clauses II.25, 29
in any semantic relationship 1000 at adjective phrase level II.466, 469
of pronouns 941 at noun phrase level II.453, 456, 458
of substantival adjectives 948 as arguments II.229–34
to mark price adjuncts 884 as subject or object complement II.233
to mark price or value arguments 158 compared with object + gerundives as
to mark purpose adjuncts 906 secondary predicates II.231, 799
to mark respect adjuncts 917 compared with participial clauses II.229
to mark respect expressions with adjectives 1075 with adjectives as subject or object
to mark second arguments (genitive complement II.233
objects) 116–19 with adjectives of volition, ability, and
to mark subject complements 188, 772, 775, suitability II.468
777, 910 as competitors of deverbal nouns II.457
with adjectives 222 as satellites II.414–20
of abundance and lacking 220 instrument/manner adjuncts II.416
with comparatives II.732 purpose adjuncts II.414
with gerunds II.456 with verbs of movement II.385
with present participles 223 reason adjuncts II.419
with verbs respect and other adjuncts II.419
interest and rēfert 135 so-called final gerundival clauses with
impersonal verbs of emotion 132 nouns II.453
judicial verbs 153, 156 time adjuncts II.418
of abundance and lacking 112, 1189 with subordinators or adverbs to make
of depriving 149 semantic relationship explicit II.418
of emotion 116 gerundives
of filling 150 as future active participle 295
of remembering and forgetting 117 as secondary predicate 293, 299, II.797
of reminding 160 as competitors of gerundial purpose
of separation 150 adjuncts II.797
gentilicium, agreement with 1276 as competitors of infinitival purpose
genus verbi 54, 233; see also voice clauses II.383
gero, as support verb 75 as substitutes for present participles in Late
gerundial clauses II.24 Latin II.799
as arguments II.224–9 distinguished from gerundival clauses II.799
as competitors of prolative infinitive with do, mitto, rogo, and suscipio II.797
clauses II.227, 228 with habeo + object II.798
in the accusative as second argument II.226 as subject complement 769
in the dative with adsum II.225 attributive use 998
in the dative with sum II.226 developing into future passive participle 299,
with adjectives as subject or object 551
complement II.229 ‘final’ gerundives II.797
with adjectives of volition, ability, and gerundive + sum
suitability II.467 as future of the past 472
with sum and noun as subject developing into periphrastic future passive
complement II.228 expression 435
as satellites II.406–13 with esse as future passive infinitive 535
gerundial absolute clauses II.403 gerundive + sum as passive deontic
instrument/manner adjuncts II.409 expression 62, 288–90, 298, 301, 550
purpose adjuncts II.406 compared with other directive
as competitors of gerundives as secondary expressions 298, 512
predicates II.797 with ab to mark agent 297
bare accusative as alternative to ad with dative agent 296
phrase II.408 impersonal use 288, 290
prepositional expressions with ad, causa, morphosyntactic properties of 62
or gratia II.406 of deponent verbs 284
gerundives (cont.) attraction of relative word II.489

personal use 288, 292 complex ablative absolute clauses II.388
referring to non-factive state of affairs 299, 550 correlative use of -que . . . -que II.638
relationship with gerund 301 dative agents with true passive verbs 247
substantival use 961 dative with sum and participle or adjective of
temporal value of 550 volition 782
use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive dative with verbs of motion 125, 813
adjective with 1125 double accusative construction 170, 172, 243
used as future passive participle II.418 expanded use of present participle 996
voice value (active or passive) 285–305 expressions of measure 1069
with habeo 299 exsistens as present participle of sum 207
gerunds genitive with adjectives of abundance and
compared with deverbal nouns proper 59 lacking 220
in ablative as equivalent to present genitive with verbs of ruling 116
participle II.804 genitive with verbs of separation 150
in bare accusative with verbs of movement II.408 habeo + infinitive construction 437
morphosyntactic properties of 58 impersonal est 95
relationship with gerundive 301 impersonal gerundive of verb that governs
temporal value of 549 accusative 291
voice value (active or passive) 285–305 in + ablative as instrument adjunct 880
with a noun in the genitive II.456 incipio to translate Greek whvv 442
with ad, as competitors of infinitival purpose indicative mood in licet clauses II.374
clauses II.384 infinitive in result clauses II.314
giving, verbs of 137, 140–2, 188 infinitive with verbs of movement II.385
glorior interrogative use of si II.117
use of moods in quod or quia argument neuter accusative plural adjectives as manner
clauses 626 adjuncts 865
with accusative and infinitive clause II.162 neuter accusative plural adjectives as quantity
with quod clause II.62 adjuncts 887
gnomic future 425 neuter plural agreement with feminine abstract
goal adjuncts, see direction and goal adjuncts nouns 1258
gradable words neuter singular adjective as subject
gradable adjectives, see adjectives complement 768
gradable opposites nouns governing prolative infinitive
one-sided 686 clauses II.450
two-sided 686 participial absolute clauses in case forms other
modified by degree adjuncts 885 than ablative II.402, 403
grammatical aspect, see aspect partitive genitive with same noun 1014
granting, verbs of passivization of verbs with non-accusative
with imperative clause II.136 objects 241
with prolative infinitive clause II.207 perfect infinitive with non-anterior
gratia (preposition) 1202, 1233 meaning 539
position of II.1088 perfect participle agreeing with subject as
to mark purpose adjuncts 907 alternative to accusative and infinitive
to mark reason adjuncts 911 clause II.169
with gerundial purpose adjunct II.406 prepositions governing genitive or dative 1230,
with gerundial reason adjunct II.412 1233
gratis 882 present participle with anterior meaning 543
gratus, gratissimum feceris as idiom 470 prolative infinitive clause as alternative to
Greek influence (probable or proposed) 33; accusative and infinitive clause II.169
see also Bible translations prolative infinitive clauses with one-place
ablative cognate object 865 adjectives II.464
accusative cognate object 865 quia and quoniam clauses to translate Ø~t and
accusative object of navigo 831 ot~t II.63, 64, 79
accusative object retained with passive relative pronoun in combination with
verbs 242, 265 anaphoric or demonstrative
accusative to mark respect adjuncts 915 pronoun II.566
ad + infinitive as purpose adjunct II.384 si as question particle 334
adjectives as secondary predicates with subject complement with audio and sono 209
conditional interpretation II.812 subject complements agreeing with non-subject
adverbs as modifiers of nouns 1036 arguments 1270
sum + present participle 545 with quod clause II.71

use of adjectives of space or time as alternative with ut clause 624, II.83
to adverbs in poetry II.788 haud 691–2
use of determiners, ipsum and totum to modify as prosodic unit with word modified 732
infinitives 943 combined with coordinators 689
use of genitive with comparatives II.734 compared with non 691
use of quam without comparative haud + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero
expression II.728 quantifier 711
ut in combination with interrogative expression in declarative sentences 675
to translate Èxl ~j II.303 in negative answers 376
variation of moods in concessive quamvis position of 730, II.1000
clauses II.367 preferred with locally negated constituents 685
verb + reflexive pronoun governing an head (of adnominal relative clause) II.474
object 275 agreement of relative pronoun II.488
vocative case to mark secondary predicate as distinguished from determiner of autonomous
form of address II.947 relative clause II.510
vocative subject complements and secondary governing multiple clauses II.498
predicates 1225 ‘incorporated’ into relative clause II.497
Greek words ‘internal’ head II.475
as answers to questions in Plautus and inverse attraction (attractio inversa) II.490
Terence 374 is and demonstratives and personal pronouns
grammatical agreement with 1281 as II.484
proper names as II.483
habeo repetition in relative clause II.528, 530, 531
as support verb 75 syntactic functions of II.492
compared with possessive genitive and use of determiners II.480
dative 108, 772 head (of noun phrase) 16; see noun phrases
habeo + infinitive construction 436, II.219 head proximity, as factor determining word
abilitive meaning 437 order II.956
as alternative to potential subjunctive 440 ‘headless’ relative clauses II.474; see autonomous
as competitor of simple future 436 relative clauses
as future of the past 472 Hebrew influence (probable or proposed)
as source of synthetic future in Romance ablative cognate object 865
438 accusative cognate object 865
deontic meaning 437, 439 frequency of cunctus in Vulgate 986
obligative meaning 437 genitive of description without attribute 1003
idiomatic expressions with in + accusative in + ablative as instrument adjunct 880
abstract noun 809 postposition of degree modifiers II.1083
idiomatic use with reflexive pronoun 278 relative pronoun in combination with
impersonal habet 97 anaphoric or demonstrative
so-called shifted use of pluperfect for pronoun II.566
imperfect 458 use of ab prepositional phrase with
statistical data on tense usage 394 comparatives II.734
used in future perfect without anterior heia (interjection) II.933
meaning 466 helpfulness, adjectives of 217
valency of 186 helping and their opposites, verbs of 104, 1189,
with adverb as object complement 794 1192
with object and gerundive as secondary hem (interjection) 346, II.934
predicate 299, II.798 hendiadys, hendiadyoin 1254, II.713
with perfect passive participle replacing active hercle 320, II.919
perfectum forms 478 combined with vero II.1190
with predicative dative as object in combination nam hercle II.1197
complement 778 typical of male speech 353
with quod clause II.70 heri 841
habito 123 hesitating, verbs of
hahahae (interjection) II.923, 924 with quin clause 705
happening, verbs of 93, 567 with quominus clause 707
with accusative and infinitive clause hesitation clauses, see quin clauses: with verbs of
II.159 doubting
with evaluation disjuncts 928 heu (interjection) 364, II.934
with quia or cum clause II.73 heus (interjection) II.923, 925
hic hyperbaton (discontinuity) II.964, 1097–1108;

as demonstrative determiner 970 see also discontinuity
anaphoric use 1096 ‘alien’ hyperbaton II.1099
as cohesive device when combined with caused by autem II.1180
lexical repetition II.1147 caused by namque II.1198
deictic use 1093 caused by vero II.1190
exophoric use 1100 double hyperbaton II.964
position with respect to head noun II.1068 ‘internal’ hyperbaton II.1099
preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 verbal hyperbaton II.957, 1098, 1104
to mark autonomous relative clause as hypothetical clauses, see conditional clauses
definite II.505 hysteron proteron II.710
as demonstrative pronoun 49
anaphoric use 1139 iaceo, as copula 207
as summarizing device with ablative iam 856
absolute II.1156 causing discontinuity II.1102
neuter form haec as summarizing co-occurring with comparatives II.743
device II.1157 co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246
referring to discourse participants II.1150 co-occurring with manner, time, or conditional
deictic use 1137 clause II.37
hoc + genitive noun (idiom) 1022 in combination iam ut with concessive
hoc as ablative of comparison in combination interpretation II.375
with quam II.733 in combination si iam II.323
hoc as correlative expression with reason in questions 341
clause II.283 used as emphasizing particle II.904–6
hoc as preparative expression of argument with actions continuing from past into
clause II.31 present 398
hoc as resumptive expression of argument ibi 808, 841
clause II.36 referring to discourse participants II.1150
preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 ibidem 808
resumptive use 1145 iconicity
used as substitute for third person as factor determining word order 451, 544, II.961
pronoun 1118 relative order of subordinate and main
as subject complement 771 clause II.1049
compared with ille and iste 1094, 1097, 1137, ictus 69
1142 idcirco
compared with is 1097, 1142 as correlative expression
diachronic developments of 1146 with conditional clause II.338
statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148 with purpose clause II.298
hīc (adverb) 1137 with quod clause II.287
hierarchical structure of noun phrase 1031, 1047; with reason clause II.283
see also nesting as purpose adjunct 909
hinc (adverb) 818 as reason adjunct 912
referring to discourse participants II.1150 idem 981, 1149
hindering, verbs of 622 as determiner
with imperative clause II.138 of autonomous relative clause II.510
with ne clause 701 position with respect to head noun II.1074
with prolative infinitive clause II.208 as expression of similarity II.752
with quin clause 704 as pronoun 49
with quominus clause 706 as secondary predicate II.825
historic infinitive, see infinitives as subject complement 771
historic tenses 554 combined with determiners 947
hoc est cur II.580 combined with omnis and other quantifying
hoc est quod II.75 adjectives 948
hodie 841 meaning taken over by ipse 1163
homo identifiers 981; see also alius; alter; ceterus; idem;
combined with nemo 973 reliquus
developing into indefinite pronoun 1171 substantival use of 946
with descriptive adjective, in apposition to with partitive genitive 1008
proper name 1171 ideo
horreo, ‘impersonal’ horret 134 as connective adverb II.1164, 1208
hortor, with argument clause II.126 as correlative expression
hui (interjection) II.935 with conditional clause II.326, 338
with purpose clause II.298 indicativus pro imperativo 312

with reason quia clause II.283 indirect assertive illocutionary force 342, 510
with reason quod clause II.283, 287 indirect directive illocutionary force 307
as summarizing device II.1160 of declarative sentences 311–14
as purpose adjunct 909 indirect interrogative illocutionary force 310
as reason adjunct 912 information-requesting illocutionary force 315
idoneus, with relative clause as argument II.533 interrogative sentences 342, 345, 510, 682
igitur modulation of illocutionary force
as connector II.1208, 1209–12 assertive force 309
as correlative expression directive force 350–6
with conditional clause II.326, 328, 338, 1211 information-requesting force 341
with time clause II.1211 verbs of perception, cognition, and
combined with nempe II.1207 communication as modulators of II.917
combined with question particles 317 of declarative sentences 427, 431
position of II.973 of exclamatory sentences 361
causing discontinuity II.1101 of future participles 546
so-called temporal use with tum II.1211 of imperative sentences 348–50, 357, 377, 497
ignoro 712 optative illocutionary force 348, 357, 359
ilico 841 illuc 812, 1137
ilico atque, in time clauses II.261 immo 377
ille combined with vero II.1190
as demonstrative determiner 970 impar, with dative for basis of comparison II.733
anaphoric use 1096 imperative (subordinate) clauses II.126–55
deictic use 1093 anterior tense in II.139
developing into Romance definite article 1149 as simple subjunctive clause II.150
exophoric use 1099 at adjective phrase level II.462
position with respect to head noun II.1068 at noun phrase level II.446
preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 classes of and governing expressions II.129
to mark autonomous relative clause as compared with accusative and infinitive and
definite II.505 prolative infinitive clauses II.126
used to mark case of uninflected words 1148 expression of addressee II.131, 133, 134, 135
as demonstrative pronoun 49 expression of source argument II.133, 134
anaphoric use 1139 negation in II.126
as head of non-restrictive relative preparative expressions II.130
clause II.484 subordinators ne, quin, and quominus II.138
illud as summarizing device II.1157 subordinators quin, quo, and quī II.154
referring to discourse participants II.1150 subordinators ut and ne II.149
deictic use 1137 use of disjunctive coordinator -ve with ne
exophoric use 1146 clauses II.662
illud as preparative expression of argument use of moods in 621–5
clause II.31 use of neve as subordinator II.674
illud as resumptive expression of argument use of tenses in 554, 566, 567, 597
clause II.36 use of ut, ne, and non in negative clauses II.149
preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 with adjectives as subject or object
resumptive use 1145 complement II.145
used as substitute for third person with impersonal verbs II.148
pronoun 1118 with nouns as subject or object complement II.147
used instead of reflexive pronoun 1133 with verbs
as subject complement 771 facio II.142
combined with ecce 1093, of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding,
compared with hic and iste 1094, 1097, 1137, 1141 and admonishing II.134
compared with is 1097, 1141 of begging and requesting II.133
diachronic developments of 1146 of causation II.142
statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148 of deciding and resolving II.144
illīc 808 of deserving II.145
illocution converters 307, 310, 312 of forcing II.137
illocutionary disjuncts 923, 930–2 of hindering and preventing II.138
illocutionary force 307, 307–78 of inducing and persuading II.135
assertive illocutionary force 308 of ordering and commanding II.131
basic vs. indirect illocutionary force 307 of perception and cognition II.141
concessive illocutionary force 348, 360 of permitting, granting, and allowing II.136
directive illocutionary force 307, 348 of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.139
imperative mood 512–21 counterfactual use 494

asyndetic coordination of imperative verb in commands and prohibitions of the
forms II.612 past 503
difference between imperative and subjunctive in conditional periods 488, 495
in commands 351, 498 in declarative sentences (potential use) 487
difference between present and future in interrogative sentences 489
imperative 351 in nisi clauses to mark interruption II.341
future imperative, see future tense: future in time dum clauses 615
imperative in unrealizable wishes 507
in connective relative sentences II.559 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main
in relative clauses II.485 clause with imperfect subjunctive 563
inhibitive use of 516 imperfectum de conatu 381, 420
position of imperative verb forms II.1034, 1036 imperfectum modestiae 414, 415
present imperative, see present tense: present impero 554
imperative with prolative infinitive clause II.204
statistical data on frequency 513 with ut clause II.131
use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main impersonal passive construction
clause with imperative 562 compared with nominative and infinitive
imperative sentences (commands) 16, 306, construction II.20
348–61, 388 impersonal passives, see passive voice
asyndetic connexion with declarative or impersonal verbs 192, see verbs: impersonal verbs
interrogative sentence II.1221 implied indirect discourse, see free indirect speech
coordination of negative imperative imprimis, used as emphasizing particle II.865, 899
sentences 717 imus 1050
directive illocutionary force of 350–8 in- (negative prefix) 734
modulation of 350–6 in compounds with tmesis 735, II.1134
imperative main clause as apodosis of in (preposition)
condition 657 choice between ablative and accusative
in indirect speech 511 case 175, 1232
internal word order II.1033–7 governing ablative
introduced by vel II.1172 in prepositional phrases as theme
negation of 682 constituents II.854
negative imperative sentences (negative to mark adjuncts denoting weather
commands), see prohibitions conditions and attendant
use of imperative mood in 512 circumstances 854
use of subjunctive mood in 497–504 to mark manner adjuncts 868
with concessive illocutionary force to mark means and instrument adjuncts 880
(concessions) 348, 360 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030
with enim II.1203 to mark position in space adjuncts 806
with modo II.877 of abstract location (limitativum) 807
with optative illocutionary force (wishes) 359 to mark position in space arguments 175
imperativus (modus) 56 to mark position in time adjuncts 837
imperfect tense to mark respect adjuncts 917
imperfect indicative 410–23 to mark subject complements 786
compared with other narrative tenses 408, to mark time within which adjuncts 851
416, 528 with gerundival time adjunct II.418
compared with perfect indicative 412 with judicial verbs 154, 155, 157
compared with present indicative 411 governing accusative
in time clauses 609 idiomatic sum + in + abstract noun 809
in time dum clauses 615 to mark arguments of adjectives 222, 228
modal use (to make state of affairs less to mark arguments of deverbal nouns 1042
direct) 414 to mark direction and goal arguments 175
so-called aoristic use 412 to mark extent of space adjuncts 829
so-called conative use 420 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030
so-called epistolary use in letters 413 to mark purpose adjuncts 809, 907
so-called narrative use 411 to mark subject complements 786
used in narration 453 with adjectives of desire 222
to report words or thoughts of with verbs of changing 151
character 415 in eo quod (complex subordinator) II.59
imperfect subjunctive incipio 450
ambiguity between potential and as auxiliary verb 210
counterfactual use 487, 656 not with momentaneous states of affairs 24
used to translate Greek whvv 442 in reason clauses 646

valency of 20 in relative clauses II.481, 539, 544, 567
with infinitives II.219 in result (consecutive) clauses 653
passive infinitives 254 in si clauses meaning ‘to see if ’ 628, 652
inconcinnitas, see variatio in si conditional clauses 654
inde in siquidem clauses 651
as connective adverb II.1208 in space adjunct clauses 638
as source adjunct 818 in subordinate clauses in indirect speech 669
as summarizing device II.1160 in subordinate interrogative clauses (indirect
in extent of time expressions 848 questions) 629
indefinite article in time clauses 638
absence of in Latin 1087 perfect indicative, see perfect tense
possible early development from unus and pluperfect indicative, see pluperfect tense
quidam 1114 present indicative, see present tense
indefinite determiners 969, 972, 1101–15 relevance of sequence of tenses 602
in negative sentences 1107 indicativus (modus) 56
not combined with adjectives of amount 985 pro imperativo 312
pleonastic use 1102 indidem 818
position of II.983 indignus 221
position with respect to head noun II.1071 with relative clause as argument II.533
statistical data on frequency 1102 indirect commands, see imperative (subordinate)
indefinite noun phrases, see noun phrases clauses
indefinite pronouns 1164–72 indirect discourse, see indirect speech
as a word class 49 indirect illocutionary force, see illocutionary force
in negative sentences 1167 indirect object 29, 763; see also dative case: to
negative indefinite pronouns, see zero quantifiers mark addressee arguments; dative case:
neuter with genitive of quantity 1019 to mark recipient arguments
pleonastic use 1102 indirect questions, see interrogative (subordinate)
position of II.983 clauses
statistical data on frequency 1102 indirect reflexive pronouns or adjectives 1122,
used in negative clauses 1167 1124, II.7
with genitive modifier 941 indirect speech 389, II.48; see also
with negator as alternative for zero communication, verbs of; free indirect
quantification (nemo) 711 speech
with partitive genitive 1005 as indicator of non-subordinate status of cum
indefinite relative clauses II.567–70 (. . . tum) II.701
comparable with si qui(s) II.570 imperative sentences in 511
with indefinite relative pronouns II.567 interrogative sentences in 510
indefinite relative pronouns II.472, 567 use of tenses in 599
‘independent’ relative clauses II.501; see rhetorical questions in 510
autonomous relative clauses use of moods in subordinate clauses in 668
independent speech, see free indirect speech use of subjunctive in 510
indicative mood 56, 395–481 use of tenses in 591–600
clauses in which indicative competes with inducing, verbs of
subjunctive 601, 618 with imperative clause II.135
factive value of 388, 395, 626, 636, 638, 641, 654 with prolative infinitive clause II.206
future indicative, see future tense induo 264
future perfect indicative, see future tense infectum stem 50, 51, 382
imperfect indicative, see imperfect tense diachronic developments of 473
in ‘causal’ relative clauses II.539 in time clauses 609
in concessive clauses 662 inferior 1050
in conditional periods 401, 654 as secondary predicate II.783
in cum clauses with dative for basis of comparison II.733
reason cum clauses 644 infimus 1050
time cum clauses 641 infinitival clauses 156–94, 383–6; see also
in licet clauses II.374 nominative and infinitive construction
in manner clauses 663 accusative and infinitive clauses II.157, 204
in quamvis clauses II.367, 368 at adjective phrase level II.463
in quando clauses 651 at noun phrase level II.448
in quatenus clauses 651 prolative infinitive clauses II.204, 448, 464
in quod and quia clauses 626 purpose infinitive clauses II.383
in quoniam clauses 650 with verbs of movement in poetry II.23
infinitive clauses (‘substantival infinitives’) with possum 441, II.219

as object complement 796 with verbs of accusing and convicting II.216, 218
as subject complement 787 with volo 441
as subject or object of clause 746 infinitivus historicus 527
infinitives 57, 521–41 infinitivus pro imperativo 358, 530
agreement of subject complement after infitias, with eo 811
prolative infinitive 1271 inflectional categories 35, 52
as head of noun phrase 942 inflectional endings 35
as part of prepositional phrase 944 information questions 316, 336–9, 370
compared with deverbal nouns proper 59 information-requesting illocutionary force 315,
directive use 358, 530 341
future infinitive 521, 531–5 information structure II.826, 849, 863, 951, 1060;
compared with present infinitive 525 see also word order; pragmatic functions
temporal value of 531–5 infra (preposition)
future passive infinitive to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812
fore ut and futurum esse ut as to mark position in space adjuncts 806
alternative 533 ingredior, with gerundial clause II.227
gerundive + esse 535 inhibitive use of imperative 516
other alternatives to supine + iri 525, 533 initial position, see position (in clause/sentence):
supine + iri 522, 525, 532 first position
future perfect infinitive 536 iniuria, ablative as subjective evaluation
historic infinitive 522, 527 disjunct 928
compared with other narrative tenses 528 inquam
in subordinate clauses 608 generic third person inquit 753
in time ut clauses II.264 inquit with direct speech II.48
use of tenses in subordinate clauses after used parenthetically in imperative sentences 355
main clause with historic infinitive 561 inscribo 446
in accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 162 inscriptio, as greeting formula II.1230
in interrogative clauses II.106 insons, as secondary predicate in poetry II.785
in nominative and infinitive construction II.20 instituo 168
in result clauses II.314 instrument adjuncts, see means and instrument
in ut argument clauses II.16 adjuncts
perfect infinitive 521, 536–41 instrument (semantic function) 28
in prohibitions 538 instruo 1195
perfect by attraction 540 insuper 1242
resulting state interpretation with integer, replacing totus in meaning ‘whole’ 992
terminative state of affairs 537 inter (preposition)
temporal value of 536–41 coordination of prepositional phrases II.602
use of tenses after 559, 588 to express reciprocity 276
used as prolative infinitive 526 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812
without anterior meaning 538 to mark position in space adjuncts 806
present infinitive 521, 522–31 to mark time within which adjuncts 851
as purpose adjunct II.383 interaction management II.345
with ad II.384, 385 interactional particles 12, 68; see also particles:
compared with future infinitive 525 interactional particles
instead of finite verb in indirect question 531 interactive texts, see text types
present passive as alternative to future interdico 184, 1185
passive infinitive 525 interea
temporal value of 522 as connective adverb to mark sequence of
used as prolative infinitive 526 events II.1217
with verbs of promising 525 co-occurring with dum clause II.254
prolative use 164, 183, 522, 526, II.23; see also interest 135
prolative infinitive clauses with si clause II.102
statistical data on frequency 521 interim, co-occurring with dum clause II.254
temporal value of 521–41 interjections 923–37
with auxiliary verbs II.219 at conversation opening II.1229
with debeo 440, II.219 combined with exclamatory sentences II.924
omitted (conventionally) 213 expressive interjections II.931
with future reference in accusative and introductory interjections II.927
infinitive clauses II.19 sound reproducing interjections II.924
with habeo 436, 472, II.219 summonses II.925
interlacing II.31, 39, 492 as a word class 49

constituent(s) of main clause preceding as non-mobile words II.955
subordinate clause II.1051 combined with quod argument clauses II.74
constituent(s) of subordinate clause preceding combined with relative clauses II.580
main clause II.1053 combined with ut purpose clauses II.303
incorporation of subordinate clause into main position of II.983
clause II.1052 with genitive modifier 941
of ablative absolute clause with main interrogative (question) particles 316, 322–33
clause II.1058 in accusative and infinitive clause II.186
of connective relative with a subordinate in indirect questions II.109–17, 123–6
clause II.556 position of II.982
of relative clause with another subordinate statistical data on frequency 320
clause II.492 interrogative sentences 16, 306, 315–48, 388
of relative clause with si clause II.571 connective relatives in II.559
of relative clauses II.476 constituent questions 316, 336–9
of subordinate clause with main clause II.1048 in accusative and infinitive clauses II.188
of two noun phrases (double responses to 370
hyperbaton) II.950, 964 coordination of negative interrogative
intermediate agents 249, 875 sentences 340
‘internally’ headed relative clauses, see dubitative questions 327
autonomous relative clauses elliptical interrogative sentences 346
interpersonal relations, adjectives of 217 internal word order II.1027–33
interrogative adverbs 336 interrogative main clause as apodosis of
interrogative (subordinate) clauses II.105–26 condition 657
announced by preparative expressions 1099, 1145 multiple questions 315, 339–41
as cleft sentences II.846 negation of 681
at adjective phrase level II.461 repudiating (polemical) questions 344
at noun phrase level II.444 rhetorical questions 343; see also rhetorical
constituent questions II.121 questions
coordinated by sive/seu II.665 sentence (yes/no) questions 316, 316–35
coordinated by -ve II.662 difficulties of analysis 320
distinguished from direct questions 316, II.106 responses to 371
distinguished from relative clauses II.122 scope of sentence questions 318
governing verbs II.106 with question particle 322–34
formal ambiguity with relative and comparative without question particle 321
clauses 633 simple questions 315
multiple indirect questions II.107 use of tenses in indirect speech 599
marking of the second alternative II.125 with enim II.1203
with an(ne) II.123 with imperfect subjunctive 489
necne and an non in second of multiple with indirect assertive illocutionary force
questions 340 (rhetorical questions) 319, 343, 374, 600
pseudo-indirect question with nē II.117 becoming accusative and infinitive clauses in
use of indirect reflexive pronoun and possessive indirect speech 510
adjective in 1126, 1130 with indirect directive illocutionary force 342,
use of moods in 628–36 345, 513, 600, 630
diachronic changes in use of moods 635 becoming subjunctive in indirect speech 510
indicative mood 629 with present subjunctive 485
subjunctive mood 618, 628–36 interruption (de rupture) technique 420
use of tenses in 552, 566, 570, 599 coordination as II.623
with adjectives of cognition II.460 donec clauses II.256
with complex subordinator (ex eo inverse cum clauses II.246
quomodo) II.383 ni/nisi clauses II.341
with ec- compounds II.118 intervallum, ablative intervallo as extent of space
with infinitive II.106 adjunct 827
with question particles II.109–17, 123–6 intimus 1050
with si II.115 intonation contour 15, 16, 306, 676, 994
with verbs of fearing II.118 for distinguishing between restrictive and
with verbs of seeing II.115 non-restrictive relative clauses II.474
without question particle II.108 for identification of complex clauses II.8, 9
interrogative determiners 336, 969, 974 of ablative absolute clauses II.1045
interrogative pronouns 336 of asyndetic coordination II.606, 609
intonation contour (cont.) pregnant ipse highlighting object 1155

of attributes in ante- and postposition II.1064 to avoid ambiguity between coreferential
of contrast and emphasis II.859 constituents 1128
of interjections II.924 iri, see eo (verb)
of parenthetical constituents II.910 irrealis conditional 388, 494, 654, II.315; see also
of participles as secondary predicates II.794 conditional periods: counterfactual
of restrictive and non-restrictive conditions
appositions 1055 irregular verbs 53
of theme constituents II.850 is
of vocatives 1224 as anaphoric determiner 970, 1096
to mark emphasis II.862 anteposed before preposition II.1115
intonation structure, of utterances II.966 combined with lexical repetition as cohesive
intonation units, distinction of II.967 device II.1147
intra (adverb) 812, 1229 demonstrative use in place of hic 1095
intra (preposition) of head of relative clause II.481
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 position of II.976
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 position with respect to head noun II.1067
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 preparative (cataphoric) use 1098
to mark time within which adjuncts 851 as anaphoric pronoun 49, 1139, 1144
intransitive use of transitive verbs 78, 80, 84 as head of relative clause II.484
intransitive verbs 81; see also one-place verbs; as pronominal support of a preposition +
indirect object subordinator II.15
with non-accusative object 1190 as resumptive expression of restrictive
intransitivization 279 relative clause II.482
intro (adverb) 808 eo as correlative expression with reason
intro (preposition) 806 clause II.283
intus (adverb) genitive as non-reflexive possessive
as direction or goal adjunct 812 pronoun 980
as position in space adjunct 808 used instead of suus 1134
as source adjunct 819 position with respect to head
intus (preposition) 806, 1233 noun II.1073
invado 1234 id + genitive noun (idiom) 1022
invicem, to express reciprocity 276 id as preparative expression of argument
invideo 184 clause II.31
invitus 769 id as resumptive expression in epitactic
ipse 1150–64 coordination II.693, 696
as pronoun 49 id as resumptive expression of argument
as secondary predicate II.824 clause II.36
combined with relative clause II.513 id ‘for that reason’ II.755
developing into meaning ‘the same’ 1163 in an expression of confirmation of a
developing into Romance definite article 1149, preceding statement II.1160
1162 in proportional comparison quo . . . eo II.766
developing into Romance demonstrative instead of second relative pronoun in
pronoun 1162 multiple relative clauses II.565
difficulty of assigning to lexical category 1156 position of II.976
discretive use 1152, 1153 preparative (cataphoric) use 1145
as scope of negation 1154 referring to discourse participants II.1150
insertion in ablative absolute clause as form of resumptive use 1145
interlacing II.1059 used as substitute for third person
neuter ipsum modifying infinitive 943 pronoun 1119
pregnant use 1152 used instead of reflexive pronoun 1133
combined with various focusing as determiner of autonomous relative clause II.507
(emphasizing) particles 1153 ‘emphatic’ use II.507
ipse as inherently contrastive element governed by preposition II.520
II.860 relative clause as apposition II.551
to stress agent/subject identity semantically empty II.508
in ablative absolute clause II.396 with anaphoric meaning II.507
in gerundial clause II.411 as subject complement 771
with reflexive verbs 273 compared with hic, ille, and iste 1097, 1140
discretive ipse highlighting involvement of diachronic developments of 1146
subject 1155 statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148
iste with accusative and infinitive clause II.176,

as demonstrative determiner 970 178, 180
anaphoric use 1096 with nominative and infinitive
deictic use 1093 construction II.177, 198
exophoric use 1101 with prolative infinitive clause II.180, 204
in derogatory sense 1101 with (ut) argument clause II.179
position with respect to head noun II.1068 iungo 144
preparative (cataphoric) use 1098 iuris consultus, as expression with fixed
to mark autonomous relative clause as order II.1087
definite II.505 ius, ablative iure as subjective evaluation
as demonstrative pronoun 49 disjunct 348, 928
anaphoric use 1139 ius civile, as expression with fixed order II.1079
neuter forms as summarizing iuvo 104, 1191
device II.1157 iuxta (adverb) 1229
referring to discourse participants II.1150 as expression of similarity II.752
istud as preparative expression of argument iuxta (preposition) 806
clause II.31
istud as resumptive expression of argument judicial verbs 153, 912
clause II.36 jussive infinitive 358, 530
deictic use 1137
preparative (cataphoric) use 1145 knowledge, general (encyclopedic) II.830
resumptive use 1145 knowledge and memory, adjectives of 222, 227
used as substitute for third person
pronoun 1118 laboro 91
combined with ecce 1093 lacking, adjectives of 219, 226, 1189
compared with hic and ille 1094, 1097, 1137, lacking, verbs of 110, 1189, 1193
1140 last position, see position (in clause/sentence): last
compared with is 1097, 1140 position
diachronic developments of 1146 lativus 1215
statistical data on frequency 1092, 1148 latus (adjective) 228
istic 808 lavo 261, 280
istinc 1137 left-dislocation II.850; see also theme constituents
istuc 812 legal texts, see text types
ita; see also ut . . . ita (sic) levior plumā, as hyperbolic expression II.730
as correlative expression lex
with conditional clause II.325 repetition in relative clause II.529
with conditional comparative clause II.349 with ut clause II.437
with manner clause II.271 lexeme 36
with result clause II.309 lexical aspect 380
with stipulative clause II.306 lexical categories 34–70
with ut/ne clause II.313 lexical negation, see negation
as expression of similarity II.752 libet 110
as preparative device II.1161 -libet compounds, introducing relative
as preparative expression of argument clause II.472
clause II.35, 184 licet (subordinator)
as summarizing device II.1159 combined with quamvis II.375
in an expression of confirmation of a preceding introducing ablative absolute clauses II.374
statement II.1160 introducing concessive clauses II.355
in elliptical interrogative sentences 346 with conditional interpretation II.359
in wishes 504 with constituents below the clause level II.357
itaque licet (verb) 94
as connector II.1208, 1212 agreement of complements and secondary
position of II.973 predicates 1270
item, combined with conjunctive development into concessive subordinator 663,
coordinators II.655 II.373
iubeo in expression dixisse liceat 539
accusative as object or pseudo-object 761 use of moods with 663
as two- and three-place verb II.180 used in future perfect without anterior
double accusative construction II.179 meaning 466
expression of addressee II.179 with accusative and infinitive clause II.181
statistical data on tense usage 394 with imperative clause II.148
licet clauses II.373–5 malum quod (idiom) 1104

litotes 686, 712, 715, 721 maneo, with dative or accusative 129
loca lautia, as asyndeton II.614 manipulation, verbs of
local negation, see negation as three-place verbs 183
locative case with accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 173
former locative forms used as adverbs 841 with imperative clause II.129
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 814 with present infinitive 525
to mark position in space adjuncts 803, 819 with so-called final infinitive II.386
‘locative’ object 92 manner adjuncts 28, 784, 858–71
loco compared with means and instrument
with gerundival clause II.231 adjuncts 874
with object and gerundive as secondary compared with norm adjuncts 872
predicate II.799 distinguished from accompanying circumstance
locus adjuncts 899
in ablative as position in space adjunct 803 distinguished from subjective evaluation
repetition of noun in relative clause II.529 disjuncts 861, 928
logical subject 1123, 1124 gerundial clauses as II.409
long distance reflexive 1122, 1124 gerundival clauses as II.416
longe modifying adjectives 1078
as extent of space adjunct 829 object-oriented 859
as modifier of comparative expressions II.742 subject-oriented 859
as position in space adjunct 808 verb-oriented 860
combined with superlatives II.774 manner clauses 663, II.270–8
to express degree of dissimilarity II.761 as adjuncts II.271
longe lateque, as coordinated pair II.625 as attitudinal disjuncts II.274
longius, in expressions of quantity and extent of as illocutionary disjuncts II.277
space or time II.735 conditional or ‘unreal’ manner clauses II.348
longus 228 with reduction of constituents
loquor 283 (‘condensed’) II.274
luci (adverb) 841 distinguished from comparative expressions
of quality II.763
macte 1225 manner expressions
magis as correlative expressions
as adversative adverb, ‘rather’ II.682 with conditional comparative clause II.349
combined with ac/atque II.729 with result clause II.308
‘corrective’ and pleonastic uses with manner (semantic function) 28
comparatives II.743 mare, ablative mari as position in space adjunct 803
in combination magis quam II.747 maxime
‘corrective use’ II.749 as correlative expression with conditional
in combination non magis quam II.725 clause II.336
in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 combined with conjunctive coordinators II.655
in proportional comparative pattern in affirmative answers 376
quam . . . tam II.769 used as emphasizing particle II.900
magis atque magis II.632 me dius fidius, as swear expression II.922
with adjective/adverb in positive degree II.726 means and instrument adjuncts 28, 152, 154,
with comparative and ab prepositional 874–81, 1193
phrase II.734 compared with manner adjuncts 874
magister equitum, as expression with fixed compared with price adjuncts 881
order II.1087 compared with respect adjuncts 914
magnopere 18, 890, 1085 distinguished from ablative arguments
main clauses 13, II.2 146, 1196
as reference point for tense of subordinate gerundial clauses as II.409
clause 552 gerundival clauses as II.416
relative order with respect to subordinate human beings as instrument adjuncts 875
clause 560, 565, II.1047–62 multiple means and instrument adjuncts in one
male (adverb), indicating degree rather than clause 874, 877
manner 698 use of ablative case to mark 1200
male speech 353 mecastor II.919
malo medical texts, see text types
in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 mediopassive voice 231; see also passive voice:
with imperative clause II.139 autocausative passives
malum, as exclamation II.922 medium (spoken or written) 32
medius with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797

partitive and non-partitive uses 1048 with infinitival purpose clause II.383
with partitive genitive 948 with quod clause II.61
mehercle II.919 with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.421
melle dulcior, as hyperbolic expression II.730 mixing, verbs of 150
memini 448 mobile words II.955
tense of infinitive with 524 modal assimilation (attraction) 667
memor modal verbs
as secondary predicate in poetry II.786 auxiliary modal verbs 212, II.219
with argument clause II.460 debeo 212, 386, 436, 439, 512, II.219
mens, ablative mente developing into adverbial habeo 436
suffix 871 impersonal licet 94, 466, II.53
mereo/mereor 283 developing into concessive
with imperative clause II.145 subordinator 663, II.373
with prolative infinitive clause II.212 impersonal oportet 94, 466, 512, II.53
merger 184, 288, 1185, 1215, 1237–9 in present subjunctive 483
merito (as preposition) 912, 1202 in the imperfect 460
-met (suffix) 69, 1162 possum 212, 386, 439, 466, II.219
combined with ipse 1153 negated 724
combined with personal pronouns and with accusative and infinitive clause II.192
possessive adjectives II.907 with infinitive 535, II.219
combined with reflexive pronouns 273 perfect infinitive 539
metadirectives 349, 351, 519, 630 modality
statistical data on frequency 513 deontic 388, 651, 653
‘meta’-questions 315 epistemic 388
metarogatives 630 assumptive 426, 431, 435, 471
metuo, with dative or accusative 129, 1189 deductive 426–7, 431, 435, 440, 471
middle voice 231; see also passive voice: moderor, with dative or accusative 131
autocausative passives modification (type of adversative
mille, agreement of verb with 1300 coordination) II.680
mimetic narrative mode 402, II.1143 modifiers 17, 933; see also adjective phrases;
minime attributes
as emphasizing particle II.901 grammatical agreement with compound
as strong negator 699 constituent 1273
in negative answers 376, 377 grammatical agreement with single noun 1272
minus (comparative adverb) multiple modifiers with one head referring to
combined with ac/atque II.729 different entities 1277
in combination (non) minus quam II.725, notional agreement with head noun 1298
738, 747 modo (particle) 841, II.875
in comparison of non-equivalence II.724 combined with with si II.323, 343
in expressions of quantity and extent of space in combination modo ut/ne II.306
or time II.735 in imperative sentences and relative clauses II.877
with ablative of comparison II.730 used to modulate directive expressions 355
minus (negative adverb) modo (subordinator), introducing stipulative
as mild negator 699 clauses II.306
in combination quo minus introducing negative modulation
purpose clause II.304 of assertions 309
in combination si(n) minus II.321, 330 of commands and prohibitions 350
miror of requests for information 341
use of moods in quod or quia clauses 626 modus, ablative nullo modo as negator 700
with quod clause II.61 momentaneous (state of affairs) 23
with si clause II.101 use of perfect tense with 397
mirus monovalent, see verbs: one-place verbs
impersonal mirum est mood 50, 56
with quod or quia clause 626 modal assimilation 667
with si clause II.102 statistical data on frequency 391
mirum quantum (idiom) 632 theoretical discussion of 386–90, 617
mirum with quin clause II.100 use of moods in conditional comparative
miseret 132 clauses II.349
mitto use of moods in cum clauses with concessive
valency of 142 interpretation II.269
with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 use of moods in etiamsi clauses II.372
mood (cont.) compared with namque II.1198

use of moods in etsi clauses II.370 in parenthetical sentences II.911
use of moods in finite argument clauses 621–35, position of II.973, 1197
II.57 as enclitic question particle 341
use of moods in licet clauses II.374 combined with question words 337
use of moods in nisi clauses of exception II.351 in combination ecquidnam 335
use of moods in quamquam clauses II.365 in combination numquidnam 329
use of moods in quamvis clauses II.367 naming expressions
use of moods in relative clauses II.538, 547 agreement of gentilicium with two or more
use of moods in si clauses with temporal praenomina 1276
interpretation II.340 agreement with 1271
use of moods in subordinate clauses 617–71 namque II.1193, 1197
use of moods in tametsi clauses II.371 position of II.973, 1198
morpheme 17 narrative discourse mode II.1141
morphosemantic category 37 narrative texts, see text types
morphosyntactic category 37 nascor 283
mos est natus, with expressions of comparison II.737
agreement of complements and secondary ne, as affirmative particle 309
predicates 1270 nē, as question particle in pseudo-indirect
with gerundial clause II.228 questions II.108, 117
mos maiorum, as expression with fixed ne (negative subordinator) 675, 700–3, II.41
order II.1087 introducing argument clauses II.126, 149,
motive adjuncts, see reason adjuncts 150, 442
movement, verbs of 92, 102, 178, 813, 814, 1194 with adjectives of fearing and
with direction and goal adjunct 808 worrying II.461
with extent of space adjunct 826 with verbs of fearing and worrying
with gerundive in bare accusative II.416 II.94
with purpose gerundial clause in bare with verbs of hindering and
accusative II.408 preventing II.138
with purpose gerundival clause II.385 introducing purpose clauses II.297, 300, 303,
with purpose infinitival clause II.23, 383, 385 312
with source adjunct 815 introducing result clauses II.312
with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.385, introducing stipulative clauses II.306
421 ne clauses with correlative ita, sic, or tantus
moveo 261 interpreted as purpose, result, or
valency of 93 stipulative clauses II.313
mox ne (negator) 694–6
in combination mox ut II.258 in imperative quī clauses II.155
use as subordinator II.264 in imperative sentences 348, 682
mulier, with descriptive adjective, in apposition to in imperative ut clauses II.57, 81, 82, 126, 147, 149
proper name 938 in prohibitions
multiple clauses 14 with perfect subjunctive 352
multo with present subjunctive 499
as modifier with adjectives II.1082 in purpose ut clauses II.297, 300
combined with superlatives II.774 in stipulative clauses II.306
to express degree of dissimilarity II.761 in wishes 359
to express measure of difference II.740 ne + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero
multus quantifier 711
neuter multum used in the sense of nedum II.701
as degree modifier with adjectives 1080 -ne (question particle) 69, 316, 323
as measure of distance 827 as emphasizer II.864
with genitive of quantity 1017 as non-mobile word II.956
partitive use 1051 attached to velitis iubeatis II.609
position with respect to head noun II.1075 combined with igitur or ergo 317
with partitive genitive 946 combined with question words 337
in Christian authors 325
nam in exclamatory sentences 363
as connector 68, II.1193, 1194–7 in the first part of multiple questions 339
‘affirmative’ nam combined with in indirect questions II.108, 109, 110
hercle II.1197 with verbs of seeing II.115
combined with quoniam II.289 in multiple indirect questions II.123, 125
in questions with indirect directive negation 672–735; see also zero quantifiers
illocutionary force 345 (negative indefinites)
in rhetorical questions 344 clause negation 672
in ut clauses functioning as indignant double negation 726
questions 347 epexegetic negation 726
position of II.110, 999, 1029 expletive use of negator 700
ne clauses in comparison of non-equivalence II.725
as arguments 700, II.94 in comparison non tam . . . quam
imperative clauses (indirect commands) 567, II.746, 750
621, II.138, 150 in conditional clauses with minus II.321
with verbs of fearing 623, 702, II.94 in conditional clauses with (si) non and
with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and nisi II.316
preventing 622, 701, II.138 in declarative clauses II.57, 59
as satellites ut clauses II.81, 83
as illocutionary disjuncts 566, II.299 in declarative sentences 308, 675
pseudo-final ne clauses 566, II.299, 302 in imperative clauses II.126, 149
purpose (final) ne clauses 566, 573, 703, II.302 ut clauses II.57, 81, 82, 144, 148
ne . . . quidem (emphasizing particle) 680, 695, in imperative sentences 348, 682
1153 in independent accusative and infinitive
combined with superlatives II.774 clauses II.186
position of II.994 in indirect questions with nē II.118
ne/nec . . . saltem, as emphasizing particle II.889 in indirect questions with si II.116
nec/neque 308, 692–4 in interrogative clauses II.57
as connector II.1166, 1170 in interrogative sentences 681
as coordinator II.637–8 in litotes or negatio contrarii 686, 712, 715, 721
correlative nec . . . nec with discontinuity of in multiple indirect questions II.124
conjoins II.1130 in ne clauses with verbs of fearing and
correlative nec/neque . . . ac/atque or et II.647 worrying II.94
correlative nec/neque . . . nec/neque 1252, II.642 in participial clauses II.29
correlative nec/neque . . . -que II.647 in prolative infinitive clauses II.204
in combination nec non 725 in purpose clauses II.297
in epitactic coordination II.693 in result clauses II.312
nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 in sentences with indirect directive
nec/neque + indefinite pronoun as alternative illocutionary force 314
to zero quantifier 711 in si argument clauses II.101
of argument clauses II.81, 127 in stipulative clauses II.306
of clauses II.588 in ut clauses with concessive
of constituents II.637 interpretation II.375
of negative declarative clauses 308, 713 in wishes 359
of negative imperative clauses 717, II.150 indefinite pronouns and determiners in
of result clauses II.312 negative sentences 1107, 1167
so-called .ăuztxzŪ use II.637 lexical negation 734
as local negator 685, 688 distinguished from negative verbs 734
distribution of nec vs. neque 694 local negation 672, 684–91
in negative answers 376 position of negators 731
in non-coordinating function 675, 692 multiple negators in one clause 721–30
nec used in sense of ne . . . quidem as double (or pleonastic) negation 727
emphasizing particle 1153, II.873 negation adverbs 672, 674–708
omission of second conjoin (particula position of 730
pendens) II.642 negative verbs 672, 712
necesse est, with imperative clause combined with negation adverb 722
622, II.147 distinguished from lexical negation 734
necne negator climbing 683–4, II.7
as negating expression in multiple indirect pragmatic negation 673, 732, 1107, 1167;
questions II.124 see also negation by implication
in the second of multiple questions 340 resumptive negation 726
nedum scope of, see scope: of negation
as quasi-coordinator II.699, 700 semantic negation 673, 1107, 1167
as subordinator introducing purpose with ablative of comparison II.730
clauses II.303 with expressions of (dis)similarity aeque and
negatio contrarii 686 aliter II.756
negation by implication (pragmatic missing forms supplied by nulla res 710

negation) 673, 732 nihilo to express measure of difference II.740
of sentences with num and numquid 328 use as determiner 973
in main clause of nisi clause II.353 nihilominus (connective adverb) II.1172, 1189
in main clause of quin clause II.311 with concessive clause II.356
with comparison of non-equivalence 733, with cum clause II.269
II.727 nimio
with expressions of (dis)similarity aeque and to express measure of difference II.740
aliter II.756 nimis, with genitive of quantity 1022
with indefinite quisquam 1167 nimium, as degree modifier with adjectives 1080
with ne, quin, and quominus 675, 700 nisi II.101
negative imperative sentences (negative as adverb, ‘except that’ II.353
commands), see prohibitions as comparative element in comparison of (dis)
negative indefinite pronouns, see zero quantifiers similarity, ‘except’ II.753
negative verbs, see negation as connector, ‘except that’ II.352
nego as negative subordinator of conditional
sigmatic subjunctive negassim 491 clauses II.320
with pleonastic negation in accusative and combined with alius in expressions of
infinitive clause 730 dissimilarity II.761
neive, see neve/neu in ablative absolute clauses 392
nemo 709 with quod or quia as complex
as determiner of head of restrictive relative subordinator II.381
clause II.482 nisi clauses 420
combined with homo 973 argument clauses with miror II.101
combined with quisquam 709, 942, 1169 conditional clauses as attitudinal
genitive and ablative supplied by nullus 710 disjunct II.343
nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 conditional clauses of exception II.350
use as determiner 973 ni/nisi conditional de rupture clauses II.341
nempe 310, II.1193, 1206 nitor 112, 1193
nequaquam 700 nive, see neve/neu
neque, see nec/neque noceo 103, 1189
nequeo 712 noctu 841
as auxiliary verb 212 nolo 712
in passive 255 metadirective noli 349
with infinitive II.219 noli + infinitive in prohibitions 352
nescio 712 compared with other directive
nescio an, as idiom II.114 expressions 513
with indirect question II.109, 113 nolito and nolitote + infinitive 519
nescio quis/quid, as idiom 632, 972, 1102 with imperative clause II.139
with infinitive II.219 nomen 1271
nesting (hierarchical structure of noun nomina
phrase) 1031, 1047 interrogandi, investigandi, and declarandi
of head and relative clause II.498, 499 II.444
of noun phrase attributes II.1094 sciendi and sentiendi II.445
neuter 709, 973, 989 nominal apposition 1053, 1054–66
neutiquam 700 ‘nominal’ clauses II.52; see argument clauses
neve/neu 697 ‘nominal infinitives’, see infinitive clauses
as coordinator (‘substantival infinitives’)
correlative neve . . . neve II.674 ‘nominal’ questions 316, see interrogative
of negative imperative clauses 717, II.127, sentences: constituent questions
150 ‘nominal’ or ‘nominalized’ relative clauses II.501;
of negative purpose clauses II.300 see autonomous relative clauses
as subordinator of imperative clauses II.674 nominal sentences (without sum) 201
ni (negative conditional subordinator), as as exclamations 367
equivalent to si non and nisi II.317 nominal (verbless) clauses II.25, 29
ni (Early Latin equivalent to ne) 696 as arguments II.234–6
in interrogative sentences 681 as satellites II.427–34
nihil 709 ablative absolute clause II.427
accusative as degree adjunct 697, 709 absolute clauses in cases other than
accusative as measure of distance 827 ablative II.433
combined with quicquam 1169 adjectival ablative absolute clauses II.430
complex ablative absolute clauses II.432 in declarative sentences 308, 675

prepositional absolute clauses II.433 with indirect illocutionary force 314
subordinators to make semantic relationship in imperative clauses II.126
explicit II.432 in imperative sentences 348
substantival ablative absolute clauses in indirect questions II.57, 116, 118, 124
II.427 in interrogative sentences 326, 681
nominative and infinitive construction 232, II.20, with indirect illocutionary force 345
194–200 in ne clauses with verbs of fearing and
as alternative to accusative and infinitive worrying II.94, 95
clause II.169 in negative answers 375, 377
compared with accusative and infinitive in prolative infinitive clauses II.204
clause II.21, 197 in result clauses II.311
compared with impersonal passive in ut clauses II.81, 83, 143, 150
construction II.20, 192 as equivalent to quin II.99
continued by accusative and infinitve with concessive interpretation II.375
clause II.199 local negation 684
distinguished from prolative infinitive in declarative ut clauses II.83
clause II.23 non + indefinite pronoun as alternative to zero
resemblance between infinitival constructions quantifier 711
with intransitive verbs and nominative non eo . . . quo as reason expression II.296
and infinitive construction II.200 non modo/tantum(modo) . . . sed/verum
with arguo II.216 (etiam) II.686
with impersonal apparet and constat II.200 non . . . sed to mark contrastive elements II.859
with infinitive in the passive II.20 non solum . . . sed/verum (etiam) II.586, 686,
with iubeo II.177, 198 844
with passive verbs of perception, cognition, and position of 730, II.1000
communication II.194 nondum 856
with verbs of ordering and commanding II.131 non-dynamic (state of affairs) 22
with verbs of praising, blaming, congratulating, perfect tense leading to negative
and thanking II.197 interpretation 446
nominative case 1209–13 non-equivalence (of two terms under
in exclamations 367, 1213, II.936 comparison) II.717
with ecce II.928, 931 non-exclusivity (type of disjunctive
in literal quotations 1212 coordination) II.657
independent use in names and titles 1210 non-factivity
nominativus pendens 1211, II.852 of gerundives 299, 550
statistical data on frequency 1179, 1183 of subjunctive mood 388, 571, 620
to mark address constituents 1209 in argument clauses with verbs of
to mark non-finite clauses as subject 1213 fearing 623
to mark subject complements 188, 767, 1186, in conditional periods 654
1209 in quod and quia argument clauses 626
to mark subjects 736, 1186, 1209 in satellite clauses 636
pseudo-subject in personal passive in space adjunct clauses 638
construction 761 in time cum clauses 641
to mark tail constituents 1209 non-mobile words
to mark theme constituents 1209 position of II.973
used instead of accusative case to mark object restrictions on placement II.955
complements 1211 non-momentaneous (state of affairs) 23
used instead of oblique case for names 1212 use of present tense with 397
used instead of vocative 1226 nonne (question particle) 316, 321, 326
non 309, 691–2 in indirect questions II.108, 111
archaic form noenum 692 position of II.1030
as prosodic unit with word modified 732 nonnulli, as determiner of head of relative
combined with zero quantifier or negative clause II.482
verb 721 non-referring noun phrases 1085, 1117
compared with haud 691 non-restrictive apposition 1055, 1061
in combination nec non 725 non-terminative (state of affairs) 23
in comparison non magis/minus . . . quam II.725 norm adjuncts 871–4
in comparison non tam . . . quam II.746 compared with cause and manner
in conditional si clauses II.319 adjuncts 872
in declarative clauses II.57, 59 nos, see personal pronouns
nosco, perfect novi 448 position of possessive adjectives II.1072

‘noun’ clauses II.52; see argument clauses position of quantifiers II.1075
noun phrases 16, 933–1175, 1203 position of relative and interrogative
adnominal arguments 44, 966, 1037–47, 1190, determiners II.1071
1204, II.11; see also adnominal specific noun phrases 1086, 1087–1115
arguments nouns
applicability of concept to Latin 934 as a word class 42
as host for parenthetical constituents II.915 abstract nouns 43, 748, 937, 983, 1109, 1140
asyndetic coordination distinguished from agreement of verb with 1254
hierarchical structure II.607 agreement of verb with compound abstract
asyndetic coordination of modifiers II.619 subject 1248
attributes (optional) 17, 965–1047; see also as form of address II.944
attributes of quality in ablative used instead of
compound noun phrases attributive adjective in Late Latin II.803
agreement of modifiers with 1273 with gerundi(v)al clause II.452, 454, 456
agreement of pronouns with 1284 agent nouns
with one or more modifier(s) II.598 with gerundi(v)al clause II.452, 454, 456
coordination of attributive noun phrases II.597 as head of relative clause II.492
coordination with constituents belonging to as secondary predicate 789–91
different categories II.704 distinguished from apposition and tail
coordination with -ve II.662 constituent II.818
correlative coordination with with conditional interpretation II.812
-que . . . -que II.638 as subject or object complement
definite noun phrases 1087, 1088–1101 with accusative and infinitive clauses II.183
statistical data on frequency 1091 with gerundial clauses II.228
diachronic developments in marking of with imperative clauses II.147
modifiers 1240 with prolative infinitive clauses II.213
discontinuity II.1097; see also discontinuity; as summarizing device II.1153
hyperbaton collective nouns 983
generic noun phrases 1086, 1115 notional agreement with 1287–1301
referred to by plural relative pronoun 1296 common nouns 42
grammatical agreement within 1272 as head of noun phrase 937
head (of noun phrase) 16, 934–65 compound nouns, order of nominal and verbal
types of constituents that may function element II.966
as 934 concrete nouns with gerundi(v)al
hierarchical structure of (nesting) 1031, 1047, clauses II.452
II.1094 count nouns 983
in ablative of description or quality, as denoting inalienable entities 43
secondary predicate II.801 deverbal nouns
in genitive of description or quality, as agent rarely marked by ab 245
secondary predicate II.799 arguments of 44, 1037–47, 1190
indefinite noun phrases 1087, 1101–15 compared with gerund 59
statistical data on frequency 1091 compared with gerundive 302
internal word order II.1062, 1093 compared with infinitive 59
non-referring noun phrases 1085, 1117 compared with substantival participles 955,
notional agreement within 1298 957, 960
order of modifiers within 1047 compared with supine 64
referring noun phrases 1085, 1086–1117 from verbs governing non-accusative
relative order of head and attribute II.1066–93 object 1190
position of adjective phrases II.1080 in competition with gerundival
position of adjectives II.1076 clauses II.457
in comparative and superlative II.1083 in competition with relative clauses II.502
position of adnominal arguments II.1091 one-place nouns 44, 1038
position of anaphoric and demonstrative passive periphrasis with fio 253
determiners II.1067 retaining same case or preposition as at
position of eius, eorum, and earum II.1073 clause level 1041, 1204
position of genitives II.1084 three-place nouns 44, 1040
position of identifiers II.1074 two-place nouns 44, 1039
position of indefinite determiners II.1071 kinship nouns as form of address II.942
position of modifiers of attributes II.1084 mass nouns 983
position of phrases of description or of age or social position as secondary
quality II.1090 predicate II.789
of social relation, age, or profession as forms of position with respect to head noun
address II.942 II.1075
relational nouns 43 with partitive genitive 946, 1006
types of entities 43 with prepositional phrase with ex or
first order entities (concrete) 43, 937 de 1006, 1034
second order entities (events or combined with aliquis 1105
situations) 43, 937 coordination of complex numerals by et
third order entities (mental constructs) 43, II.636
748, 937, 1109, 1140 distributive numerals 982
zero order entities (properties) 43, 748 numquam
valency of 21, 44, 966, 1037–47 as frequency adjunct 852
with argument clause as attribute 436–59 as position in time adjunct 841
accusative and infinitive clause II.448 numquid 328
distinguished from nouns as subject or object in indirect questions II.112
complement and from nouns with num quid vis, as closure formula II.1229
support verbs II.437 numquis 1165
gerundi(v)al clause II.452, 454, 456 nunc
interrogative clause II. II.444 as connective adverb to mark sequence of
ne clause with nouns of fearing and events II.1217
worrying II.442 nuntius, with accusative and infinitive clause
participial clause II.451 II.435
prolative infinitive clause II.449 nuper 841
quia clause II.441 nusquam
quin clause II.443 as direction or goal adjunct 812
quod clause II.440, 441 as position in space adjunct 808
quominus clause II.447
tamquam and quasi clause II.443 o(h) (interjection)
ut clause II.446 as summons 364, II.926
with gerundi(v)al clause as satellite II.458 combined with swear words II.921
with participle, as equivalent to deverbal noun expressive use of II.935
+ genitive, see participial clauses ob (preposition)
(dominant participles) to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812
novus, superlative novissimus as partitive to mark position in space adjuncts 806
adjective 1050 to mark purpose adjuncts 907
NP, see noun phrases to mark reason adjuncts 911
nubo, valency of 894 gerundial adjuncts II.412
nucleus of clause 11, 19, 25 gerundival adjuncts II.419
nugae/nugas 364 ob eam causam/rem
nullatenus 700 as correlative expression
nullus 710 with conditional clause II.338
as floating quantifier negating sentence or with purpose clause II.298
clause 710 with reason clause II.283
as subject complement 710, 770 ob hoc/id ipsum, as correlative expression with
genitive and ablative supplying missing forms reason clause II.283
of nemo 710 obeying, verbs of 104, 1192
in nullo as negator 700 object 29, 754–63; see also pseudo-objects
nulla res supplying missing forms of nihil affected objects 27, 101, 1190
710 clauses as object 755
nullo modo as negator 700 conjunction reduction of II.592
nullum as equivalent to non 698 verbs with different case pattern II.593
position with respect to head noun II.1075 conventional reduction of 70, 80, 98, 756
used as determiner 973 effected objects 27, 101
num (question particle) 316, 328, 681 in first position II.1006, 1010
combined with igitur or ergo 317 in last position II.1022
in indirect questions II.108, 109, 111 ‘inner’ object 865
position of II.1030 nouns and noun phrases as object 754
number (nominal category) 35, 36 object-like constituent with ecce II.928
number (verbal category) 50, 53 object-like constituent with em II.930
numerals relative order of verb and object II.1135
as a word class 50 shared objects in coordinated clauses
as subject complement 771 II.611, 613
cardinal numerals 982 unexpressed object (zero-anaphora) II.1149
object clauses, see argument clauses compared with other directive expressions 298,
object complements 30, 186–92, 787–96 512
adjectives, neuter singular used in future perfect without anterior
with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 meaning 466
with gerundial clause II.229 used personally with infinitive II.201
with prolative infinitive clause II.212 with accusative and infinitive clause II.181
with quod argument clause II.69 with imperative clause II.149
agreement with object 1264, 1265, 1267 with perfect infinitive by attraction 540
notional agreement with collective oppido, in answers to questions 373
object 1292 oppidum, in apposition to name 1058
with pronominal objects 1278 agreement of verb with 1260
autonomous relative clauses as II.514 opposing, verbs of 622
distinguished from accusative and infinitive with ne clause 701
with esse omitted 789 with quin clause 704
distinguished from secondary predicates with quominus clause 706
II.779 optative illocutionary force 348, 357, 357
gerundival clauses as II.233 opus est 116
in first position II.1010 used personally with infinitive II.201
in last position II.1023 with imperative clause 622
in nominative case 1211 with nominal (verbless) clause II.236
non-referring noun phrase as 1085, 1117 with (past perfect) passive participle 256,
with verbs of calling and entitling 191 II.224
with verbs of electing and proclaiming 191 oratio obliqua II.48; see indirect speech
with verbs of showing oneself as, behaving as 192 oratio recta (direct speech) II.48
object incorporation 173 ordering, verbs of
oblique cases 1209 with imperative clause II.131
obsecro 312 with prolative infinitive clause II.204
used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353 oriundus 295
used to increase urgency of questions 341 oro
obviam 812 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353
occīdo 262 with imperative clause II.133
odi 448 with simple subjunctive clause II.151
officium est, with imperative clause II.147
ohe (interjection) II.927 paene, co-occurring with atque II.632
oiei (interjection) II.933 paenitet 132
omission of object, see object: conjunction palam (adverb) 869, 1229
reduction of; reduction (conventional) palam (preposition) 806
of arguments; zero-anaphora paragraphs, as discourse units 32, II.1223
omission of subject, see subject: conjunction parallelism, as artistic word order pattern II.963
reduction of; zero-anaphora parataxis
omitto, imperative used as metadirective 351 juxtaposition of two related words II.962
omnino, co-occurring with sed or verum II.683 juxtaposition of two sentences II.6, 154
omnis 804, 985 parco
as apparent secondary predicate (floating imperative used as metadirective 351
quantifier) II.820, 824 valency of 894
as determiner of autonomous relative parenthetical constituents 26, II.909–19; see also
clause II.512 swear words; interjections
as determiner of head of relative clause II.482 amabo, used as 353
combined with idem 948 containing supine in -u II.425
co-occurring with a determiner 971 in complex clauses II.9
omnium combined with nostrum and relative clause as II.911
vestrum 1044 sentence types of II.914
position with respect to head noun II.1076 verbs of asking and praying, used as 353
so-called predicative use II.824 verbs of perception, cognition, and
substantival use 1172 communication, used as II.917
one-place verbs, see verbs pariter, as correlative expression with conditional
opening, of conversation or letter II.1228 comparative clause II.349
operam do, imperative used as metadirective 351 pars
opinor 309 in ablative as position in space adjunct 803
as parenthesis II.909, 917 repetition of noun in relative clause II.529
compared with qualified truth disjuncts 926 with partitive genitive 1012
oportet 94, 622 participant 11
participant tracking II.835, 1143 neuter singular (responsum) II.222

participation (monologue or dialogue) 32 resulting state interpretation with
participial clauses (dominant participles) II.25, terminative state of affairs 541, 547
29, 31, 404; see also ablative absolute so-called impersonal use II.402
clauses; nominal (verbless) clauses substantival use 958
as arguments II.220–4 used as tail constituent 547
compared with gerundival clauses II.229 with habeo replacing active perfectum
distinguished from accusative and infinitive forms 478
clauses without esse II.223 with opus est and usus est 256, II.224
distinguished from noun phrases II.220 without anterior meaning 548
with neuter singular perfect passive word order of complex forms with
participle II.222 sum II.1122
with opus est and usus est II.224 present participle 541, 542–6
as satellites 386–406 as competitor of agent nouns in ablative
ablative absolute clauses II.386, 387 absolute clause II.428
ablative participles without a subject II.400 as secondary predicate 542, II.777
absolute ablatives of one-place verbs II.402 compared with substantival use 958
absolute clauses in case forms other than compared with time cum clause 542, 643,
ablative II.402, 403 II.807
prepositional participial clauses II.404 various semantic interpretations II.813
at adjective phrase level II.466 as subject complement II.26
at noun phrase level II.451 attributive use 995
containing question words 337 combined with sto 545
participial phrases 955 genitive argument with 223
participium coniunctum II.394, 791; see also in ablative absolute clauses II.387
secondary predicates: participles in accusative and participle
participles 541–9 construction II.796
morphosyntactic properties of 60 in participial clauses II.220
‘adverbial’ use II.791 so-called predicatively used participles II.3
as secondary predicate II.791; see also substantival use 956
secondary predicates compared with secondary predicate 958
distinguished from afterthought and tail distinguished from deverbal nouns 957
constituent II.858 used with forms of sum 544
position and pragmatic function of II.794 with anterior meaning 543
as subject complement 769 with posterior meaning 544
attributive use 546, 547, 994–8 statistical data on frequency 541
distinguished from participial substantival use 954–61
clauses II.220 lexicalized as noun 955
distinguished from secondary predicates 994 with arguments or satellites 955
future participle 531, 541, 546 temporal value of 541–9
as purpose expression 546 particles II.37; see also connectors; coordinators
as secondary predicate 546, II.792 as a word class 65
as substitute for missing subjunctive comparative particles in expressions of (dis)
forms 433 similarity II.754
attributive use 546, 998 comparative particles of non-
gerundive developing into future passive equivalence II.726
participle 299, 435, 551 consecutive particles as correlative expression
in ablative absolute clauses II.388 with conditional si clause II.328
in participial clauses II.220 co-occurring with conditional si clause II.323
in result (consecutive) clauses 577 emphasizing particles II.865, 865–906
prospective value of 429, 553, additive, exclusive, and particularizing
577, 581 particles II.866
substantival use 960 certe ‘at least’ used as II.890
used as periphrastic future with sum 429–35 demum II.902
generic use of 1116 distinguished from adverbs II.866
perfect participle 541, 547 dumtaxat used as II.893
as secondary predicate II.778, 792 equidem II.878
various semantic interpretations II.813 etiam, et, and quoque II.868, 872
attributive use 547, 997 iam used as II.904
in ablative absolute clauses II.387 imprimis used as II.899
in participial clauses II.220 maxime used as II.900
lexicalized as noun 960 modo, solum, and tantum(modo) II.875
particles (cont.) with object incorporation 174

potissimum used as II.901 passus, instead of passuum 1069
praecipue used as II.896 pater familias, as expression with fixed
praesertim II.894 order II.1087
quidem II.695, 877 path adjuncts 829–32
saltem II.888 compared with manner and means/instrument
utique used as II.891 adjuncts 831
interactional particles 12, 68 patient (semantic function) 19, 27
connecting paragraphs II.1224 patior 283
distinguished from connectors II.1165 with accusative and infinitive clause
enim 12, II.1201 II.176, 181
ergo II.326, 1213 patres conscripti
nempe II.1206 as asyndeton II.614
position of II.867, 994 as expression with fixed order II.1079
causing discontinuity II.1101, 1102 pauci
particula pendens, omission of nec/neque 496 as determiner of autonomous relative
partim, notional agreement with implied clause II.512
plural 1300 as determiner of head of relative clause II.482
partitive apposition, of measure expressions 1069 with partitive genitive 946
partitive attributes, see genitive case: of the whole; paulo, to express measure of difference II.740
prepositional phrases: as partitive paulum, with genitive of quantity 1017
attributes of nouns pause, at sense boundary II.967
parts of speech 34–70 paveo, with dative beneficiary adjunct 893
passim (adverb) 808 pello (and depello), with dative beneficiary
passiva tantum 234 adjunct 894
distinguished from deponent verbs 283 per- (prefix), compounds with tmesis II.1133
passive voice 54, 230–305; see also voice; per (preposition) 1202
passivization in combination per se 1136
agentful passives 237 combined with discretive ipse 1154
agentless passives 237 to mark cause adjuncts 904
reflexive pronouns with 1123 to mark extent of space adjuncts 828
autocausative passives 231, 254, 260–7, 288 to mark extent of time adjuncts 846
in imperative sentences 520 to mark intermediate agents 249, 875
choice between active and passive voice 250 to mark manner adjuncts 866
compared with reflexive pronouns 272–9 to mark means and instrument adjuncts 878,
decausative passive 231, 258–9 1200
in imperative sentences 520 to mark path adjuncts 831
diachronic developments 257 to mark position in time adjuncts 837
frequency of agent expressions 239 perception, verbs of 208
impersonal passives 103, 232, 253, 254, 267–72 as parentheses II.917
compared with personal passives II.192 use of moods in quod and quia clauses 627
of deponent verbs 284 with accusative and infinitive clause II.17, 162,
of gerundives 290 194
with directive illocutionary force 314 in Late Latin II.203
passive imperative forms 520 with accusative and participle
passive verb forms in initial position II.1019 construction II.796
personal passives 232, 236–67 with imperative clause II.141
with pseudo-subject 761 with indirect question II.107
statistical data on frequency 232, 239 with infinitival constructions II.200
third person passive forms in declarative with nē in pseudo-indirect questions II.117
sentences with directive illocutionary with nominative and infinitive
force 314 construction II.194
true passives 231, 236–58 with quia clause II.77
passivization with quod clause II.63
of compound verbs of motion 102 with quomodo or quemadmodum clause II.80
of idiomatic expressions 241 with quoniam clause II.79
of one-place verbs 86 with ut clause II.92
of three-place verbs 164 peregre 812
of verbs governing a non-accusative object 103, pereo, as suppletive passive for perdo 234
240 perfect tense
restrictions on 239 perfect indicative 442–55
with auxiliary verbs 211 compared with other narrative tenses 408, 528
in main clause with ni/nisi de rupture peropportune, as attitudinal disjunct in relative

clauses II.342 clause II.486
in time dum clauses 615 person (verbal category) 50, 53
origins of tense forms and meaning 444 personal hierarchy, as factor determining word
resulting state interpretation with order II.958
terminative state of affairs 446, 537 personal passive construction, see nominative and
retrospective value of 445 infinitive construction
shift of infectum to perfectum forms of personal passives, see passive voice
sum 473 personal pronouns 738, 1118–20
so-called authorial use 454 agreement of verb with compound subject
so-called citative use 398 containing 1250
so-called gnomic use 450 as head of relative clauses II.484
so-called negative use of perfect 446 causing discontinuity II.1103
supposed ‘ingressive’ interpretation 448 clustering of II.991
use of tenses in subordinate clauses after definiteness of 1087
main clause in perfect 559 first person pronouns
used in narration 451 in exclamations 365
perfect subjunctive in ut clauses functioning as indignant
difficulty of distinguishing from future questions 347
perfect indicative 462, 491 plural nos 1118
in commands and prohibitions 352, 498 forms of objective genitive 1044
difference between present and perfect genitive nostri 977
subjunctive 498 genitive nostrum replacing possessive
in concessions 509 adjective 977
in conditional periods 491 used instead of singular (rhetorical plural
in declarative sentences (potential use) 490 and plural of majesty) 1119–20
rarely with anterior meaning 490 singular ego 1118
in interrogative sentences 493 as head of noun phrase 940
in realizable wishes 505 mei as objective genitive 1044
jussive use of third person 502 positioned after words that must come first
retrospective value of 573 in clause 741
shift of infectum to perfectum forms of position of II.984, 987
sum 476 reduplicated forms II.865, 906
sigmatic forms 491 reflexive use 1120
use of tenses in subordinate clauses after required when explicit verb form is absent 742
main clause in perfect 559 second person pronouns
without anterior meaning 491, 503, 579 favoured in commands 580
perfectum stem 51, 382 form of address 738
diachronic developments of 473 in ut clauses functioning as indignant
in time clauses 609 questions 347
perficio plural vos 1118
imperative used as metadirective 351 forms of objective genitive 1040
more often in perfect than historic present genitive vestrum replacing possessive
445 adjective 977
performative use of verbs 354, 396, 630 used instead of singular for
perinde politeness 1120
as correlative expression with conditional singular tu 1118
comparative clause II.349 as head of noun phrase 940
in combination perinde atque in expressions of in imperative sentences 353
(dis)similarity II.756 positioned after words that must come first
period II.45; see also conditional periods in clause 741
periodus II.969 tu as form of address II.942
periphrastic constructions 74; see also support tui as objective genitive 1044
verbs used to underline urgency of question 341
with facio, ago, and committo II.93 substitutes for third person pronouns 1118
periphrastic future, see future tense used for emphasis 740
periphrastic verb forms 51; see also complex verb usually expressed in accusative and infinitive
forms clauses 743
permitto persuadeo
with accusative and infinitive clause II.175 with accusative and infinitive clause II.168
with imperative clause II.136 with imperative clause II.135
with prolative infinitive clause II.207 with prolative infinitive clause II.168, 206
pessum, with eo or do 811, II.423 pluralis maiestatis 1120

peto pluralis modestiae 1119
valency of 73, 167 pluralis reverentiae 1120
with imperative clause II.133 plus
phasal auxiliary verbs 212–4, II.227 as measure of distance 827
philosophical texts, see text types in age expressions with natus II.737
phrase 16 in combination (non) plus quam II.725
distinguished from word 17 in combination plus quam II.738
piget 132 in expressions of quantity and extent of space
with prolative infinitive clause II.215 or time II.735
pignus do/accipio, with si clause II.334 with adjective/adverb in positive degree
place arguments 28 II.726
place names, see toponyms plusquamperfectum 455; see also pluperfect tense
place (semantic function) 28 poetry (and poeticizing prose)
placet ablative of comparison with adjectives in
used in future perfect without anterior comparative II.730
meaning 466 accusative case as respect adjunct 916
with accusative and infinitive clause II.172, 182 adhortative present subjunctive in the first
plane, as degree adjunct 888 person singular 498
pleasing, verbs of 104, 1192 adjectives in -ax with genitival arguments 225
plebis scitum, as expression with fixed adjectives with respect expressions 1076
order II.1087 adnominal relative clause preceding
pleonastic negation, see negation head II.497
plerique 1008 agreement of verb with compound
with partitive genitive 946 subject 1249
pluperfect tense anteposition of adjectives before
pluperfect indicative 455–61 preposition II.1117
in conditional periods 495 audio and sono, with subject complement 209
in dum time clauses II.253 authorial use of simple future 425
in time clauses 610 bare ablative as source adjunct 816
interpreted as a past state with terminative bare accusative as direction adjunct 811, 822
state of affairs 457, 610 bibo, with various entities as arguments 79
modal use (to make state of affairs less ceu in manner clauses II.270
direct) 460 clausal apposition 1073
shift of infectum to perfectum forms of complex forms of address II.946
sum 473 concessive subordinators II.355
so-called shifted use as equivalent to with -si avoided II.369
imperfect 458 coordinated nouns sharing a modifier 1275
used in narration 453 correlative combination of -que and et II.644
to report words or thoughts of character 415 dative case
used instead of subjunctive in conditional as alternative to prepositional phrase 120,
periods 461 122
pluperfect subjunctive as direction adjunct 1217
counterfactual use 496 as illocutionary disjunct (dativus
in commands and prohibitions of the past 503 ethicus) 931
in conditional periods 496 to mark agent arguments 248
in nisi clauses to mark interruption II.341 with verbs of preparing 896
in unrealizable wishes 507 with verbs of sharing 162
shift of infectum to perfectum forms of disjunctive coordinators with conjunctive
sum 476 interpretation II.679
so-called shifted use as equivalent to double discontinuity II.1108
imperfect 459 eo and do with purpose infinitival clause II.385
use of tenses in subordinate clauses after expansion of arguments with one-place
main clause with pluperfect verbs 84, 88
subjunctive 563 extension of ablativus copiae 111
used instead of imperfect of volo and extension of dative case 151
possum 460 extension of double accusative 168, 169
plural freedom of word order II.950
of majesty 1120 genitive case with verbs of separation 150
rhetorical (sociative) plural 1119 historic infinitive 527
plurale/pluralia tantum 36, 974, 989, 1059, 1259, historic present resembling the use of
1265 imperfect 408
‘impersonal’ est 95 venio with perfect passive participle 258

in + ablative as position in time adjunct 838 verbs denoting a position or state as alternative
infinitival clauses with verbs of movement to sum 205
II.23 vocative case forms 1125
infinitival constructions with intransitive pol II.919
verbs II.200 polemical questions, see rhetorical questions:
infinitive as purpose adjunct II.383, 385 repudiating questions
insertion of preposition between noun and politeness expressions II.345
modifier II.1113, 1114, 1118 pone (adverb) 1229
interruption (de rupture) technique 420 pone (preposition)
inverse cum clause II.246 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812
ita in wishes 359 to mark position in space adjuncts 806
long addresses with o II.936 porro, as connective adverb II.1164
multiple disjunctive coordination II.677 posco
negation nec preferred over ne 437 with imperative clause II.134
negator ni in conditional clauses II.316 with prolative infinitive clause II.205
nominative case used instead of vocative 1226 position (in clause/sentence)
omission of auxiliary sum 198 first, intermediate, and last II.1003
one-place adjectives first (or second) position
with genitive case 216 as device contributing to discourse
with prolative infinitive clause II.464 coherence II.1228
passive participles with accusative objects 242 contrastive elements II.862
passivization of verbs with non-accusative non-mobile words II.956, 973
objects 241 first position
perfect infinitive with non-anterior ablative absolute clauses with connective
meaning 539 relative II.560
perfect tense instead of pluperfect 443 affirmative particles and attitudinal
position of at, atque, nam, namque, and adverbs 309
sed II.974 anaphoric constituents II.976
preference for bare cases over prepositions 126, anaphorically used pronouns qui, is, hic, and
179, 218, 1183 ille II.1151
preference for coordination over cum inversum arguments in declarative sentences
clause II.622 II.1006
prepositions with finite clauses 1227–8 as emphasizing device II.863
prohibitions with ne + present imperative 516 attributive genitives II.1085
prolative infinitive as alternative to imperative ceterum II.1181
clause II.129 contrastive and emphatic constituents in
prolative infinitive clause II.204 interrogative sentences II.1028
proleptic use of adjectives II.811 emphatic words II.959
question particles in indirect questions II.125 etenim II.1198
reason clauses with quod II.287 focus constituents II.832
reduction of preposition II.604 itaque II.1213
si non as alternative to nisi II.316 nam II.1197
so-called final infinitive with verbs of nempe II.1206
manipulation II.386 non 317, 676, 679, 731
so-called gnomic use of perfect tense 450 passive verb forms II.1019
substantivally used adjectives with partitive question words and subordinators II.954
genitive 948, 950, 1008 quippe II.1201
time clauses with simul II.260 relative words II.981
transference of adjective (enallage satellites in declarative sentences
adiectivi) 1051–3 II.1012
use of adjectives as alternative to adverbs II.784 secondary predicates in declarative
use of dative with compound verbs 106, 126 sentences II.1013
use of faxo 471 subordinators II.978
use of indicative in indirect questions 630, 635, topic constituents 31, II.832, 959
636 in subordinate clauses II.1038
use of indicative in quia reason clauses 647 various constituents in declarative
use of neve (neu) for coordination of negative sentences II.1005
imperative clauses 717 verbs in declarative sentences 361, 409,
use of simple subjunctive (without ut) II.153 II.1015, 1137
use of supines II.421 intermediate positions in declarative
use of -ve II.657, 662, 672 sentences II.1027
position (in clause/sentence) (cont.) post (adverb) 1229

last position to mark sequence of events II.1216
arguments in declarative sentences with ablative indicating extent of time 842
II.1021 post (preposition)
satellites in declarative sentences II.1024 in calendar expressions 841
subjects in subordinate clauses II.1039 to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030
verbs in declarative sentences II.950, 1020, to mark position in space adjuncts 806
1025 to mark position in time adjuncts 840
verbs in sentence (yes/no) questions II.1029, posteriority, expression of 383
1031 in secondary predicates II.811
verbs in subordinate clauses II.1037 future participles II.792
second position in time clauses II.242, 265
autem II.1180 postponement
igitur II.1211 as form of interlacing II.39
indefinite pronouns and determiners II.983 of connectors at, atque, nam, namque, and
vero II.1190 sed II.974
Wackernagel’s law II.984 postpositions, see prepositions
position in space adjuncts 182, 800–8 postquam clauses 609, 610, II.258
in apposition to toponym 1063 distribution of postquam and
modifying adjectives 1077 posteaquam II.258
multiple space adjuncts in a clause 801 use of subjunctive mood II.259
towns and small islands in 819 with causal or concessive interpretation II.270
with domus and rus 819 postremo 841
position in space arguments 123, 174, 1196 to mark sequence of events II.1216
in apposition to toponym 1063 postridie, in calendar expressions 841
position in time adjuncts 833–42 postulo
modifying adjectives 1077 with accusative and infinitive clause II.175
multiple position in time adjuncts in a with imperative clause II.134
clause 833 with prolative infinitive clause II.205
use of ablative case to mark 1199 potential use of subjunctive mood 56, 388, 481,
positions (state of affairs) 22 482–94, II.340
possessive adjectives 48, 974–81 in argument clauses 623
as adnominal argument 975 in clauses of qualification II.377
as attribute 974–81 in clauses with indefinite pronouns 1165, 1166
as inherently contrastive elements II.860 in comparative constructions 664
as subject complement 772 in concessive clauses II.365, 370, 371
with sum and ut clause II.91 in conditional comparative clauses II.349
corresponding to objective genitive 1045 in conditional periods 484, 488, 491, 654
corresponding to subjective genitive 1045 in indirect questions 570
frequently unexpressed 976 in relative clauses II.539, 548
in noun phrase modified by determiners 976 in si clauses II.753
in noun phrase modified by quantifiers 976 in subordinate clauses 619, 629
position with respect to head noun II.1072 in time clauses 654–6, 658
reflexive possessive suus, see reflexive possessive potentialis conditional 388, 482, 654, II.315
adjective suus potior (verb) 115
replaced by genitive nostrum or vestrum 977 potissimum, used as emphasizing particle II.901
substantival use 945 potius
with genitive noun phrase in apposition 1066 combined with quam (corrective use) II.749
with interest and rēfert 135 combined with -ve II.679
possideo, compared with possessive dative 108 co-occurring with atque II.632
possum in combination sive potius II.665
as auxiliary verb 211 in combination vel potius II.660, 679
in passive 255 potius quam, with subjunctive mood 665
negated with quin clause II.99 prae (adverb) 1229
order of auxiliary and infinitive II.1126 prae (preposition)
possum + infinitive construction, as competitor prae prepositional phrase in comparative
of simple future 441 construction II.735
potisne ut/ne II.143 to mark cause adjuncts 904
use of future perfect without anterior to mark position in space adjuncts 806
meaning 466 to mark qualified truth disjuncts 926
use of pluperfect for imperfect subjunctive 460 with relative clause II.520
with infinitive II.201, 219 praeceptum, with ut/ne argument clause II.437
praecipue, used as emphasizing particle II.896–7 as emphasizers II.908

praedicativum 30, II.777; see also secondary distinguished from pronominal support (pro eo
predicates quod) II.32
praenomen, agreement with 989 neuter pronouns as II.31
praesertim noun phrases as II.33, 35
combined with cum II.266, 269 to announce state of affairs II.1161
used as emphasizing particle II.894–6 use of demonstrative and anaphoric
praesto (verb), in comparison of non- determiners 1098
equivalence II.724 use of demonstrative and anaphoric
praeter (preposition) pronouns 1098, 1145
combined with alius in expressions of with accusative and infinitive clause II.158, 184
disimilarity II.761 with argument clause governed by a
praeter prepositional phrase to mark replacing noun II.437
focus II.844 with direct speech II.49
praeter quod (complex subordinator) II.16, 381 with est + quod II.75
praetor urbanus, as expression with fixed with quia argument clause II.78
order II.1079 with quod argument clause II.60, 70, 73
praetereo with relative clause introduced by reason
with accusative and infinitive clause II.161 adverb II.580
with quia clause II.76 with satellite clauses II.33
with quod clause II.61 with si argument clause II.100, 101
praeterquam quod (complex subordinator) II.381 with si indirect question II.115
pragmatic functions 31; see also focus; topic with space clause II.240
as motivation for use of explicit third person with subject or object complement and
subjects 748 argument clause II.33, 69, 89, 90, 147
as motivation for use of first and second person with ut argument clause II.85, 92, 130
pronouns 739 preparing, verbs of 896
extraclausal pragmatic functions theme and prepositional phrases 17, 1227–35; see also
tail II.849 prepositions
intra-clausal pragmatic functions topic and ab urbe condita (dominant participles) II.803
focus II.827 as accompanying circumstance adjuncts 901
of constituents in first position II.1005 as arguments of adjectives 226
of constituents preceding subordinators II.978 as arguments of nouns 1044
of noun phrases, influencing internal word as arguments of verbs 119–23, 163, 1194,
order II.1063, 1077, 1085, 1089 1197
of subordinate clauses II.1052 as attributes of nouns 1029, 1204
pragmatic negation, see negation; negation by distinguished from secondary
implication predicates 1033
praising, verbs of as beneficiary adjuncts 897
with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 as cause adjuncts 904
with cum clause II.80 as degree adjuncts 890
with nominative and infinitive as degree modifiers of adjectives 1085
construction II.197 as direction and goal adjuncts 812
with quia clause II.78 as direction and goal arguments 141
with quod clause II.66 as extent of space adjuncts 828
prayers 517 as extent of time adjuncts 846
praying, verbs of 185 as manner adjuncts 866
performative use of 354 as means and instrument adjuncts 878
predicates 30; see also object complements; as norm adjuncts 873
secondary predicates; subject as object complement 795
complements as partitive attributes of nouns 1034
predicative dative, see dative as path adjuncts 831
preferential host, attracting personal pronouns as position in space adjuncts 806
and forms of sum II.985, 991 as position in time adjuncts 837
preferring, verbs of as purpose adjuncts 907
in comparisons of non-equivalence II.724 as reason adjuncts 911
with accusative and infinitive clause II.171 as respect adjuncts 917
with imperative clause II.129, 139 as respect modifiers of adjectives 1075
with prolative infinitive clause II.209 as secondary predicate II.803
pregnant use of intensifier ipse 1152 as source adjuncts 818
preparative (cataphoric) expressions as subject complement 786
of argument clauses II.31 with sum and ut clause II.91
prepositional phrases (cont.) in relative clauses II.538

as subject or object complement in subordinate clauses 605
with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 so-called annalistic use 409
with prolative infinitive clause II.213 use of tenses in subordinate clauses
as time within which adjuncts 851 after main clause with historic
asyndetic coordination of constituents II.620 present 559
containing substantival neuter singular in conditional periods 401
adjective 951 in time dum clauses 615
internal word order II.1108–20 praesens de conatu 410
discontinuity II.1120–2 praesens historicum 401
insertion of preposition between noun and praesens pro futuro 399
modifier II.1115, 1118 referring to future events 399
prepositional phrases with(out) so-called citative use 398
modifier II.1109, 1113 so-called conative use 409
introducing relative clauses with space so-called reproducing use 398
meaning II.575 timeless present 396
nominal (verbless) absolute clauses II.433 present subjunctive
position of the coordinator -que 69, II.996 adhortative use 497
substantival use of 963 compared with future indicative 427
prepositions 67–8, 1227–35; see also in commands and prohibitions 351, 498
prepositional phrases difference between present and perfect
anteposition of adjectives before preposition in subjunctive 498
poetry II.1117 in concessions 509
as non-mobile words II.956 in conditional periods 484, 659
cases and prepositions as a system 1176–1242 in declarative sentences (potential use) 483
cases governed by 1230 in interrogative sentences 485
combined with -que and -ve II.996 in realizable wishes 505
compound prepositions 1242 jussive use of third person 502
contribution to meaning of clauses and presentative sentences 1114, II.828, 835, 844
phrases 1177 with verb in first position II.1015
coordination of different prepositions II.605 pretending, verbs of, with quasi clause II.103
coordination with repetition or reduction of preventing, verbs of 566, 622
preposition II.600, 602 with imperative clause II.138
diachronic developments of 1236, 1241 with prolative infinitive II.208
governing argument clause II.15, 56; see also with quin clause II.154
complex subordinators preverbs
governing infinitives 944 relationship with prepositions and
governing non-finite clauses 1227, II.404 adverbs 1228
governing satellite clauses II.75 relationship with prepositions and cases 1234
position of II.1108, 1120 price adjuncts 881–5
monosyllabic prepositions II.1109, 1113 as subcategory of means and instrument
polysyllabic prepositions II.1111 adjuncts 881
position of preposition with restrictive compared with arguments 882
apposition II.1119 use of ablative case to mark 1200
reduction with relative pronoun (.ă uztxzŪ price or value arguments 113, 158
figura) II.494, 605 compared with adjuncts 882
relationship with adverbs 1228 pridie
relationship with cases 1231 in calendar expressions 841, 1229
choice between bare case and use of moods in pridie + quam clause 640
preposition 1233 primary tenses 554
relationship with preverbs 1234 primo (adverb) 841
statistical data on frequency 1179 to mark sequence of events II.1216
with relative clause II.520 primum (adverb)
present tense in combination cum primum II.258
present imperative 351, 512, 514 in combination simul (ac/atque) primum II.260
difference from future imperative 515 in combination ubi primum II.261
statistical data on frequency 513 in combination ut primum II.258, 262
present indicative 395–410 used as subordinator II.264
actual present 396 primus 1050
historic present 401 as secondary predicate II.783
compared with other narrative tenses prius
408, 528 as equivalent to priusquam II.266
combined with quam (corrective use) II.749 used to modulate directive expressions 355
priusquam clauses II.265 prolative infinitive 164, 183, 522, 526, II.23
use of moods in 618, 638 prolative infinitive clauses II.22, 204–20
use of tenses in 611 agreement of subject complement II.22
pro consule, as secondary predicate II.804 as attribute at noun phrase level II.449
pro eo ac, as expression of similarity II.752 compared with finite imperative clauses II.127
pro (eo) quod (complex subordinator) II.75, 289, competing with gerundial clauses II.227
292 competing with ut or quod clauses II.204
pro (interjection) II.921 distinguished from accusative and infinitive
pro (preposition) clauses II.18, 156
pro prepositional phrase to mark replacing distinguished from infinitives with auxiliary
focus II.844 verbs II.23
to mark beneficiary adjuncts 897 distinguished from nominative and infinitive
to mark cause adjuncts 904 construction II.23
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 with adjectives of cognition, volition, ability,
to mark subject complements 786 and suitability II.464
with causal intepretation II.292 with impersonal verbs II.149, 215
probe, in answers to questions 373 with passive three-place verbs II.23
process adjuncts 857–99, 1201; see also with subject or object complement II.212, 213
beneficiary adjuncts; manner adjuncts; with verbs
means and instrument adjuncts facio II.142
processes (state of affairs) 22 of advising, warning, exhorting, reminding,
proclaiming, verbs of 191 and admonishing II.205
procul 1229 of begging and requesting II.133, 205
prodelision (contraction), of est and es II.993 of causation II.211
producing a sensation, verbs of 91 of deciding and resolving II.211
profecto 309, 348, 924 of deserving II.212
as attitudinal disjunct in relative clause II.486 of forcing II.208
as correlative expression of hindering and preventing II.138, 208
with concessive clause II.363 of inducing and persuading II.206
with etiamsi clause II.372 of ordering and commanding II.131, 204
as emphasizing particle II.892 of permitting, granting, and allowing II.207
proficiscor, statistical data on tense usage 394 of striving II.209
prohibeo of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.209
with dative beneficiary adjunct 894 persuadeo II.168
with imperative clause II.138 prolepsis (anticipation), of constituent before
with prolative infinitive clause II.208 subordinator II.978
prohibitions 349–58, 497–504 proleptic accusative 759
commands and prohibitions of the past 503 proleptic (‘anticipatory’) use of adjectives in
containing metadirectives 351 poetry II.811
coordination of 717 proleptic constructions 631; see also interlacing;
inhibitive use of present imperative 516 pseudo-objects
modulation of 350 promising, verbs of 525, 567
ne + future imperative 519 pronominal support (of preposition +
ne + perfect subjunctive 352, 498, 683 subordinator) II.15, 56; see also
ne + present imperative 516, 682 complex subordinators
ne + present subjunctive 351, 499, 682 pronominals 50
referring to mental activities 516 pronouns 48, 49
ne quis velit + perfect infinitive 538 anaphoric pronouns, see anaphoric(ally used)
noli + infinitive 352, 513, 683 pronouns
nolito and nolitote + infinitive 519 as head of relative clauses II.492
non + perfect subjunctive 683 demonstrative pronouns, see demonstrative
responses to commands and prohibitions 376 pronouns
statistical data on frequency 513 determinative pronouns, see idem; ipse; is
use of tenses in subordinate clauses after main indefinite pronouns, see indefinite pronouns
clause containing a prohibition 562 interrogative pronouns, see interrogative
proin(de) pronouns
as correlative expression personal pronouns, see personal pronouns
with conditional comparative clause II.349 preparative (cataphoric) use II.15, 31
with manner clause II.271 relative pronouns, see qui (relative)
as expression of similarity II.752 prope (adverb) 1229
in combination proinde ac/atque II.273 as position in space adjunct 808
prope (preposition) agreement of complements and secondary

to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 predicates 1270
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 with accusative and infinitive clause II.161
proper names 42 with quod clause II.61
as form of address II.942, 943 punctuation 15, 68
as head of noun phrase 937 in antiquity 16
as head of relative clause II.483, 484, 492 to mark non-restrictive apposition 1055
as secondary predicate 940 punishment, verbs of, with quare reason
combined with aliquis 1106 clause II.285
coordinators used with proper names II.632 purpose (final) adjuncts 905–9
definiteness of 1087 compared with cause adjuncts 903
expressions with filius II.1088 compared with purpose disjuncts 905
modified by appositions 938, 1056 compared with reason adjuncts 909
modified by evaluative adjectives 938 purpose (final) finite clauses 703, II.297–306
propius as adjuncts II.297
in expressions of quantity and extent of space as competitors of prepositional gerundial
or time II.735 purpose clauses II.406
proportional comparative pattern II.766 combined with idcirco, ideo, and
quam . . . tam + comparatives II.769 propterea 909
quo . . . eo and quanto . . . tanto II.766 final interpretation of time clauses II.243
without correlating element II.766, 768 implying a controlled state of affairs II.302
proportional superlative pattern II.770 ne clauses as equivalent to ut non II.302
quam . . . tam and ut . . . ita II.770 negated clauses with ne II.312
proprius, compared with suus 980 quī clauses II.297, 305
propter (adverb) 1229 quo clauses II.304
propter (preposition) use of indirect reflexive pronoun and
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 possessive adjective in 1127, 1131
to mark purpose adjuncts 907 use of subjunctive mood in 651
to mark reason adjuncts 911 use of tenses in 566, 573
with gerundival reason adjunct II.419 ut and ut (ne) clauses II.300
propter quod II.15, 289 ut clauses combined with interrogative
propterea 909 expressions II.303
as connective adverb II.1208 with adjectives of helpfulness 218
as correlative expression with future participle 546
with quod clause II.287 as attitudinal or illocutionary disjuncts 930,
with reason clause II.283 II.299
prosodic unit 67, 69, 732 relative order with respect to main
prospective value, of future participle 423, 553, clause II.1049
577, 581 purpose (final) non-finite clauses
prospicio first supine (in -um) II.385, 421
with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 gerundial clauses II.406
with dative or accusative 129 gerundival clauses II.385, 414
protasis II.315; see also conditional periods infinitival clauses II.383
protinus atque, in time clauses II.261 purpose (semantic function) 28
provideo ‘purpose’ si clauses II.333, 334
with dative beneficiary adjunct 893 puto
with dative or accusative 129 more often in perfect than historic present 445
proviso clauses 652, II.306; see stipulative clauses putasne as parenthesis II.919
prox (interjection) II.924
proxime, as expression of similarity II.752 qua (interrogative) 336
‘pseudo-conditionals’ II.343 quaero
‘pseudo-final’ ut/ne clauses 566, 930, II.299, 302 followed by indicative indirect question II.115
pseudo-objects 631, 759, 1188, II.7, 39; see also valency of 167
interlacing with indirect question II.106, 110, 111
with facio II.142 si question II.115
with iubeo II.179 quaeso
pseudo-partitive genitive 949, 1008 typical of male speech 354
pseudo-subjects 761 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353
-pte (suffix) 69 used to strengthen questions 341
as emphasizing device II.865 qualification clauses II.377–8
combined with possessive adjectives II.908 qualified truth disjuncts 924
pudet 132 qualis (interrogative) 336
qualis (relative) quamvis clauses II.366–8

introducing relative clauses II.471, 571 use of moods in 662
qualiter (interrogative) 336 quando (indefinite adverb) II.983
quam, as part of complex degree modifier quando (interrogative adverb) 336
(admodum quam) with adjectives 1080, quando (subordinator) II.43
1083 (quidem) introducing reason clauses II.282,
quam clauses, with possum, as qualification 284, 293
disjunct clauses II.775 in combination quandocumque II.43
quam (comparative) clauses, see comparative in combination quandoquidem II.880
constructions introducing time clauses II.249
quam (comparative particle) II.725 quando clauses II.249
combined with magis or minus II.747 as reason clauses 651
combined with minus and plus to indicate use of moods in 651
extreme degree II.738 quandocumque time clauses II.249
competing with ablative of comparison II.730, 732 quandoque
co-occurring with ablative of reason clauses II.281, 284, 294
comparison II.733 time clauses II.249
co-occurring with comparative and relative quantifiers 982–91; see also zero quantifiers;
clause II.536 floating quantifiers
co-occurring with comparative and ut adjectives of amount 46, 946, 982, 1006, 1017
clause II.462 ablative neuter form to express measure of
in combination non minus/magis/plus difference II.740
quam II.725 accusative neuter form to express measure of
in comparison of (dis)similarity II.753, 756 difference II.741
in comparison of non-equivalence II.724, 727 in expressions of dissimilarity II.761
with expressions of quantity and extent of space position with respect to head noun II.1075
or time II.736 anteposed before preposition II.1116
without a comparative element II.728, 751 as apparent secondary predicate (floating
quam (degree adverb); see also tam quantifier) II.819
quam (potest) + superlative II.774 attributive use distinguished from ‘predicative’
quam . . . tam + comparative II.769 use II.824
quam . . . tam + superlative II.771 binary quantifiers 989
quam (interrogative adverb) 337 comparison of use as attribute and with
quam ob rem partitive expression 1007
as connective relative phrase II.556 modifying noun phrase with possessive
as prepositional phrase with anteposed adjective 976
modifier II.1115 numerals, see numerals
quamobrem as reason adverb introducing quantifying pronouns 1172–4
relative clause II.580 substantival use of 946
quamobrem as summarizing device II.1160 universal quantifiers 985
quamdiu time clauses II.252, 255 with partitive genitive 1006
quamlibet quantity and degree adjuncts 885–92
as scalar degree adverb II.369 compared with attitudinal disjuncts 889
as scalar degree modifier with adjectives 1082 derived from manner expressions 888
quamobrem (interrogative) 336 modifying adjectives 1079–85
quamquam quanto . . . tanto, proportional comparison II.766
as contrastive connector II.356, 1191 quantopere (interrogative) 337
as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 quantum
in accusative and infinitive clause II.1193 as measure of distance 827
with constituents below the clause level as part of complex degree modifier (mirum
II.357 quantum) with adjectives 1082, 1083
quamquam clauses II.365–6 in complex expressions of quantity 887
use of moods in 663 introducing clauses of qualification II.377
quamvis introducing degree clauses II.278
as contrastive connector II.1193 quantus (interrogative) 336
as scalar degree adverb II.366, 369 quantus (relative)
compared with etiamsi II.359 introducing relative clauses II.554, 571, 572
as scalar degree modifier with adjectives 734, quanto to express measure of difference II.740
1082 quantuslibet
as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355 introducing relative clauses II.472
combined with licet II.375 quantusquantus
with ablative absolute clause II.392 introducing relative clauses II.472
quapropter (interrogative) 336 as auxiliary verb 212

quare (interrogative) 336 in passive 255
quare (relative adverb) with infinitive II.219
as summarizing device II.1160 queror
introducing reason clauses II.285 use of moods with quod or quia argument
introducing relative clauses II.575, 580 clause 626
quasi (adverb), in combination quidam with accusative and infinitive clause II.162
quasi 1109 with quia clause II.77
quasi clauses with quod clause II.62
with nouns of emotion, cognition, and question (interrogative) particles 316, 322–33
communication II.443 in accusative and infinitive clause II.186
with verbs of accusing, blaming, excusing, in indirect questions II.109–17, 123–6
emotion, and communication II.104 position of II.982
with verbs of pretending II.103 statistical data on frequency 320
quasi (subordinator) question words 336
in comparative expressions of quality II.763 as a test to distinguish types of adjuncts 799
in comparison of (dis)similarity II.753, 760 combined with -ne and -nam 337
introducing argument clauses II.103, 104, 443 in exclamatory clauses II.155
introducing conditional comparative in first position II.1031
clauses II.348 in indirect questions II.119
negative by implication 733 in subordinate clauses 337
with causal interpretation II.350 position of II.982–3
quasi-coordinators II.698–703 questions, see interrogative sentences; rhetorical
cum . . . tum II.701 questions
nedum II.699 qui (indefinite adverb), position of II.983
ut . . . ita (sic) II.190, 702 qui (particle), in wishes 359
quatenus clauses II.252 qui (relative) 13, II.471
as reason clauses 651 as determiner 969
use of moods in 651 anteposed before preposition II.1115
quatenus (relative adverb) 812 in combination with lexical repetition as
introducing degree clauses II.278 cohesive device II.1147
introducing manner clauses II.273 position with respect to head noun II.1071
introducing purpose clauses II.305 as pronoun 49
introducing reason clauses II.282, 294 agreement with preceding compound
-que 69 constituent 1284
as connector II.1166 agreement with subject or object
as coordinator 68, II.621, 624–8 complement 1278
correlative combination of -que and agreement in gender with subject
atque II.646 complement II.552
correlative combination of -que and et II.644 connective use II.555
correlative combination of -que and nec/ as part of ablative absolute clause II.560
neque II.647 compared with anaphoric pronouns 1139
correlative -que . . . -que II.638 grammatical agreement with preceding
creating tmesis 735, II.1132, 1134 constituent 1282
in epitactic coordination II.693 in ablative absolute clauses as
in legal texts II.621, 624 summarizing device II.1155
of negative declarative clauses 715 neuter form quod as summarizing
of subject constituents 1249 device II.1157
position of II.627, 995 notional agreement with preceding
in prepositional phrase 69, II.996 constituent 1295
as emphasizing particle, ‘even’ II.871 referring to discourse participants II.1150
as non-mobile word II.956 coordination with repetition of relative
in expressions of (dis)similarity II.756 pronoun II.498
quemadmodum clauses in ablative of comparison II.730
in expressions of similarity II.758 in proportional comparison quo . . . eo II.766
with verbs of perception and cognition II.80 neuter quod with genitive of quantity 1019
quemadmodum (interrogative) 336 quo as ablative of comparison co-occurring
quemadmodum (relative) with quam II.733
in expressions of (dis)similarity II.760 quo as ablative of comparison of non-
introducing manner clauses II.270 equivalence II.728
queo with partitive genitive 1005
with preposition, synonymous with relative reason clauses 647, II.285, 286
adverbs of space II.575 use of moods in 647
coordination with repetition of relative variation between authors 649
pronoun II.562 with complex subordinator (ex eo
quī (relative adverb) quia) II.379
as subordinator of imperative clauses II.149, 155 quicumque
in combination quippe qui II.1200 as indefinite determiner 1112
introducing purpose clauses II.297, 305 as indefinite pronoun 1170
qui et (vocatur), as idiom II.490 as relative pronoun 1113
qui(s) (indefinite) 1103 introducing relative clauses II.472, 567, 568
as determiner 972 quid est cur II.580
as pronoun 1164 quid est quod II.75
compared with aliqui(s) and quisquam 1103, quidam 49
1164, 1165, 1167 as determiner 972
in combination si qui(s) introducing indefinite in qualitative sense 1109
relative clause 570 in quantitative sense 1110
malum quod (idiom) 1104 in specifying sense 1108
position of II.983 of autonomous relative clause II.511
statistical data on frequency 1102 of head of relative clause II.480
qui(s) (interrogative) position with respect to head noun II.1071
agreement with subject or object supposed development into indefinite
complement 1278 article 1114
as determiner 49, 336, 974 to indirectly signal focus constituent II.843
anteposed before preposition II.1115 to mark entity as non-identifiable II.832
position with respect to head noun II.1071 as pronoun 1169
as pronoun 49, 336, 1174 neuter quiddam with genitive of
compared with uter 1175 quantity 1169
neuter quid statistical data on frequency 1102
as reason adverb (‘why?’) 913 uses in narrative discourse 1111
in elliptical interrogative sentences 346 quidem (emphasizing particle) 926 II.862, 867,
introducing sentence questions 317, 326 878–84
with genitive of quantity 1019 as non-mobile word II.956
with partitive genitive 1005 as sentence connexion device II.1165
in first sentence position II.954 combined with is as determiner of autonomous
quia (interrogative) 336 relative clause II.507
quia (subordinator) 68 compared with equidem II.877
introducing argument clauses II.76, 440 co-occurring with autem and tamen II.879
introducing reason clauses II.281, 285 co-occurring with ceterum II.685
to translate Greek Ø~t II.64, 77 co-occurring with negation and utinam II.881
quia clauses co-occurring with sed II.683, 879
as arguments II.76–9 co-occurring with verum II.685, 879
as alternative to accusative and infinitive in combination quando quidem
clauses 533, II.63, 77, 202 II.284, 880
compared with quod clauses II.59, 64, 76, 78 in combination quoniam quidem II.289
statistical data on frequency II.60 in combination si quidem II.323, 880
use of moods in 626 in epitactic coordination II.695
use of tenses in 572 in manner clauses II.274
with accedit II.76 in quod clauses of qualification II.377
with adjectives of cognition II.460 in relative clauses II.486
with praetereo II.76 in various subordinate clauses II.880
with preparative pronouns II.78 ne . . . quidem 680, 695, 1153, II.774, 994
with verbs of blaming, praising, position of II.994
congratulating, and thanking II.78 causing discontinuity II.1102
with verbs of emotion 626, II.76 to indicate scope of negation 674, 676
with verbs of happening II.73 quidni 336, 682
with verbs of perception, cognition, and quilibet
communication 627, II.77 as determiner 1112
as satellites as pronoun 1170
combined with idcirco, ideo, and quin clauses
propterea 912 as arguments 704–6, II.96–100
introduced by nisi quia II.381 as attributes governed by nouns II.443
quin clauses (cont.) quisquis 988, 1112, 1170, 1173

use of tenses in 567 as indefinite determiner 1112
with dubius II.461 as indefinite pronoun 1170
with negated expressions of doubting 704 as relative pronoun 1113
with negated expressions of necessity 705 introducing indefinite relative clauses II.567,
with negated impersonal abest 704, II.96 568
with negated main clause II.96, 138 neuter with genitive of quantity 1019
with negated possum II.99 used in sense of quisque 988
with negated verbs of cognition and quivis
communication 705, II.98 as indefinite determiner 1112
with verbs of doubting 581, 733, II.96 as indefinite pronoun 1170
with verbs of hesitating 705 as relative pronoun 1113
with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and introducing relative clauses II.472
preventing 622, 704, II.138 quo clauses
as satellites 706 purpose clauses II.304
reason clauses II.295 reason clauses II.296
result clauses II.311 quo (interrogative adverb) 336
with negated main clause 706 quo (relative adverb) 812
quin (interrogative adverb) 336, 682 as subordinator of imperative clauses II.149, 154
used to modulate directive expressions 345, 355 as summarizing device II.1160
quin (subordinator) 675, 703–5 in combination non quo II.296
as equivalent to ut non 705, II.99, 311 in combination quo minus or setius introducing
introducing argument clauses II.96, 149, 443 negative purpose clause II.304
without negative meaning II.154 introducing purpose clauses II.297, 304
introducing reason clauses II.295 introducing relative clauses II.534, 536, 579
quippe referring to discourse participants II.1150
as connector 68, II.1193, 1199–1201 referring to human beings II.576
combined with enim, etenim, and qui 911, quo setius (subordinator) 706, II.304
II.1200 quoad clauses II.252, 255
in combination quippe cum II.266 use of moods in 638
in combination quippe qui II.541 quoad (relative adverb), introducing degree
quippini 682 clauses II.278
quispiam 49 quod attinet/pertinet II.280
as determiner 972, 1106 quod clauses
statistical data on frequency 1102 ‘appositive’ quod clauses II.74
with potential subjunctive 483 as arguments II.59–76
quisquam 49 as alternative to accusative and infinitive
as determiner 972, 1107 clauses 533, II.44, 63, 202
as pronoun 1166, 1167 as alternative to prolative infinitive
as substitute for nemo in comparison of clauses II.204
non-equivalence II.728 as attributes governed by nouns II.440, 441
combined with nemo 709, 942, 1169 compared with quia clauses II.59, 64
combined with nihil 1169 distinguished from reason clauses II.67
nec quisquam preferred to et nemo 1168 governed by a preposition II.59
used in negative clauses 1167 position of II.64
used in questions with num(quid) 328 preparative and resumptive expressions
compared with qui(s) and aliqui(s) 1103, 1167 with II.73
not used with potential subjunctive 1168 statistical data on frequency II.60
statistical data on frequency 1102 use of moods in 626
quisque 987 use of tenses in 572
as apparent secondary predicate (floating used as heading II.71
quantifier) II.820 with accedit II.59
as pronoun 1173 with adjectives of cognition II.460
combined with unus 1173 with mitto and praetereo II.61
in distributive apposition 1067 with subject or object complement II.69
in ut . . . ita proportional superlative with verbs of blaming, excusing, praising,
pattern II.771 congratulating, and thanking II.66
inserted in ablative absolute clause as form of with verbs of emotion 89, 626, II.61
interlacing II.1059 with verbs of happening II.71
notional agreement with 1290 with verbs of perception, cognition, and
verb agreeing with quisque as secondary communication 627, II.63
predicate 1260 with verbs of wondering 628
as satellites combined with idcirco, ideo, and

as theme constituents II.854 propterea 912
combined with idcirco, ideo, and compared with quia reason clauses II.286
propterea 912 time clauses distinguished from reason
degree clauses II.278 clauses II.248
qualification clauses (disjuncts) II.377 use of moods in 650
reason quod clauses compared with quia quoniam (subordinator)
clauses II.285, 287 combined with connectors II.289
respect clauses II.279 introducing argument clauses II.79
use of moods in 647 introducing reason clauses II.282, 284, 289
variation between authors 649 as equivalent to quod and quia II.291
with sum and evaluative adverb II.848 introducing time clauses II.248
with sum and reason adjunct II.849 to translate Greek Ø~t and ot~t II.79
with sum and time adjunct II.848 quoque 1153, II.865, 866, 868, 872, 995
quod (relative) combined with atque II.632
introducing apposition-like relative combined with etiam II.870, 873
clauses II.554 co-occurring with et II.635
introducing degree clauses II.278 correlative non modo . . . sed/verum
introducing reason adjuncts (hoc est quoque II.687
quod) II.75 in combination quoque adhuc II.871
introducing relative clauses with temporal position of II.994
meaning II.579 as prepositive particle II.871
quod sciam, as restrictive expression II.377 to mark contrastive elements II.859
quod (subordinator) II.41 quor, see cur
as complex subordinator (cum eo quod) II.378 quorsum/s (interrogative adverb) 336
as conditional subordinator in Late Latin quorsum/s (relative adverb) 812
II.316 quot (interrogative) 336
combined with nisi, praeter, tantum, or quot (relative), introducing relative clauses II.571
excepto II.381 quotation, see direct speech; indirect speech
in combination quod(si) as connector II.1173 quotations (words quoted)
introducing argument clauses II.59, 440 case used for 1212
introducing clauses of qualification II.377 functioning as subject or object of clause 747
introducing reason clauses II.281, 287 quoteni (interrogative) 336
introducing respect clauses II.279 quotiens (interrogative adverb) 336, 852
meaning ‘provided that’ II.308 quotiens (relative adverb) 852
quodcumque, tmesis by preposition II.1116 introducing time clauses II.250
quom, see cum (subordinator) quotiens(cum)que (relative adverb) 852
quominus clauses 706 introducing time clauses II.250
governed by nouns II.447 quotienscumque clauses, use of moods in 638
with expressions of preventing 707 quotumus (interrogative) 336
with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and quotus (interrogative), combined with
preventing 622, 707, II.138 quisque 336
with verbs of hesitating 707 quotus (relative), introducing relative
quominus (subordinator) 675, 699, 706–8 clauses II.571
introducing argument clauses II.149
quomodo clauses raising, of the subject 1188, II.88, 197
as arguments with verbs of perception and reactive moves in discourse 370
cognition II.80 realis conditional 338, 654, II.315
in expressions of similarity II.758 reason adjuncts 28, 909–13
quomodo (interrogative) 336, 857 compared with cause adjuncts 902, 909
quomodo (relative), introducing manner compared with purpose adjuncts 909
clauses II.270 distinguished from charge arguments with
quomodo (subordinator), introducing argument judicial verbs 912
clauses II.80 prepositional gerundial clauses II.412
quoniam clauses prepositional gerundival clauses II.419
as arguments II.79–80 reason (causal) clauses II.281–97
as alternative to accusative and infinitive as adjuncts
clauses II.63, 202 correlative expressions II.283
with adjectives of cognition II.460 cum clauses interpreted as 578, 644
with verbs of perception, cognition, and quia reason clauses 647
communication II.79 distinguished from quia argument
as satellites II.289–92 clauses II.76, 78
reason (causal) clauses (cont.) decausative use 272, 275

distinguished from quod argument first and second person used reflexively 1120
clauses II.61, 67 idiomatic uses with verbs 278
quin and quo clauses II.295 in accusative and infinitive clauses II.17
quod reason clauses 647, II.59 in indirect speech II.49
time clauses interpreted as reason in purpose clauses II.298, 335
clauses 609, II.243 redundant uses 279
as disjuncts so-called passive use 278
distribution of quoniam, quando (quidem), statistical data on frequency 1122
quandoque, and quatenus II.284 third person 1121–9
quando (quidem) clauses 651, II.293 dative sibi combined with suus or se 980,
quandoque and quatenus clauses 651, II.294 1136
quoniam clauses 650, II.289 direct use 273, 1122, 1123
siquidem reason clauses 651 expressing coreferentiality at phrase
distribution of quod, quia, quoniam, and level 1129
quando II.282 in combination per se 1136
relative order with respect to main combined with discretive ipse 1154
clause II.1050 in genitive used instead of suus 977
use of moods in 646 indirect use 1122, 1124, II.7
use of tenses in 566 reduplicated form sese II.906
with historic present 607 referring to constituent other than
reason (semantic function) 28 subject 1124, 1137
recipient arguments 27, 141, 142, 1192 referring to implied subject 1123
recipient (semantic function) 27 referring to ‘logical subject’ of impersonal
recipio, with reflexive pronoun 279 verb 1123
reciprocal expressions replaced by is or ille to avoid ambiguity 1133
alius alium 1067 sui as objective genitive 1044
invicem 276 to avoid ambiguity between main and
reciprocal interpretation of reflexive subordinate clause 1128
pronouns 276 use of ipse to avoid ambiguity 1128
recta (adverb) 832 use of ipse to highlight subject or object 273,
recte (adverb), as subjective evaluation 1155
disjunct 348, 861 used in idiomatic expressions lacking
reduction (ellipsis of shared constituents) coreferentiality 1136
in comparative expressions II.721 true reflexive use 272, 273
in manner clauses II.274, 763 with reciprocal interpretation 276
of preposition with relative pronoun (.ă reflexive voice 231; see also passive voice:
uztxzŪ figura) II.494, 605 autocausative passives
of verb in relative clause II.495 regio, in ablative as position in space adjunct
reduction (conventional) of arguments 78, 80, 98, 803
756 relative adjectives 570–5
referring vs. non-referring noun phrases 1085, relative adverbs II.43, 575–82
1086–1117 introducing relative clauses II.536, 575
rēfert 135 position of II.981
with quod clause II.70 reason adverbs II.580
reflexive possessive adjective suus 1129 space adverbs II.240, 534, 575
combined with sibi or other dative referring to human beings II.576
pronoun 980, 1136 time adverbs II.242, 579
compared with proprius 980 used at adjective phrase level II.578, 581
direct use 1129 relative clauses 13, II.471, 473
in combination sua sponte 1154 adnominal clauses distinguished from
indirect use 1124, II.7 autonomous clauses II.475
non-reflexive use 979 adnominal relative clauses II.5, 478; see also
referring to constituent other than subject 1132 adnominal relative clauses
replaced by genitive of is to avoid agreement of verb with head in main
ambiguity 1134 clause 1262
replaced by genitive of reflexive pronoun 977 anticipation or postponement
reflexive pronouns 272–9 (interlacing) II.79
as beneficiary adjuncts in ‘pleonastic’ use 894 as parentheses II.911
autocausative use 272, 273 as secondary predicate II.779, 806
coreferential with subject 737 similarity to time cum clauses II.807
dative reflexives in Late Latin 894 at adjective phrase level II.578, 581
at noun phrase level II.473 with relative adverbs II.575, 579, 580
autonomous relative clauses II.5, 474, 501; without head (antecedent), see autonomous
see also autonomous relative clauses relative clauses
combined with apposition II.526 without relative pronoun II.472
complex relative clauses containing another relative connexion II.555–62; see also connective
subordinate clause II.477 relative pronouns; connective relative
containing modo II.877 sentences
containing quidem II.880 containing a relative clause II.476
coordination of clauses II.498; see also distinguished from relative clause II.485, 551, 555
coordination: of subordinate clauses distribution in authors II.556
with anaphoric pronoun instead of second in accusative and infinitive II.486
relative pronoun II.565 with particles or attitudinal disjuncts II.486
with repetition of relative pronoun II.498 with qualis II.571
without repetition of relative pronoun II.562 with quamobrem, quapropter, and quare 450,
distinguished from connective relatives II.555 II.581
distinguished from indirect questions II.122 with quantus II.572
exceptional case marking of relative words with relative pronoun or phrase II.556
(attraction) II.489 relative phrases II.471
formal ambiguity with interrogative clauses introducing relative clauses II.471, 502
(indirect questions) and comparative in combination with a determiner II.506
constructions 633 in combination with a modifier II.513
frequency of types of relative clauses II.475 syntactic function in relative clause and case
in cleft constructions II.846 marking II.487
in combination quippe, utpote, and ut with adjectival attribute II.503
qui II.541 with genitive of the whole II.502
in indirect speech 670 relative pronouns and determiners, see relative
indefinite relative clauses II.567; see also words; qui (relative)
indefinite relative clauses relative use of tenses 552; see also sequence of
inserted in another subordinate clause tenses
(interlacing) II.492 relative words II.471, 472, 501, 570
multiple relative clauses II.472 anticipation in main clause II.1055
of ‘characteristic’ II.537, 545 as non-mobile words II.955
of ‘purpose’ II.514, 522, 537, 806 attraction of relative adverbs II.491
relative words and phrases II.471 combined with comparative expression
repetition of head noun in relative talis . . . qualis II.573
clause II.528, 530, 531 in non-finite clauses II.487
syntactic function of relative words and case indefinite relative pronouns and adverbs II.472,
marking II.487 567
use of future indicative with directive position of II.978, 981
expression in main clause II.536 preceding subordinators II.493
use of moods in 663, II.538 relative adjectives II.570–5
use of subjunctive and indicative moods in relative pronouns 13
‘causal’ relative clauses II.539 agreement in gender II.488
use of tenses in 566 with subject complement II.552
subjunctive tenses II.537 attraction II.489
with adversative/concessive combined with adjectives (apparent
interpretation II.542, 550 secondary predicates) II.500
with causal interpretation II.537, 539 combined with anaphoric or demonstrative
with conditional interpretation II.550 pronouns in the same clause II.566
with consecutive interpretation II.537, 543, exceptional case marking (attraction) II.489
545, 548 in ablative of comparison II.730
with ‘contained’, ‘incorporated’, or ‘omitted’ head inverse attraction II.490
II.475; see autonomous relative clauses origin of II.504
with cum as time adverb II.245 reduction of preposition (.ă uztxzŪ
with final (purpose) interpretation II.304, 543, figura) II.605
549, 550 syntactic functions and case marking II.487
with historic infinitive 608 relativization, compared with subordination II.4
with historic present 607 relators 1176; see also agreement; case;
with qualis II.571, 572 prepositions; subordinators
with quod II.278; see degree clauses relinquitur, with ut clause II.82, 86
with quod with temporal meaning II.579 reliquus 981, 1051
with relative adjectives II.570, 573 with partitive genitive 1008
remembering, verbs of 117–18, 1222–3 quin clauses 706

tense of infinitive with 524 use of moods in 653
reminding, verbs of 160 use of tenses in 566, 574
with imperative clause II.134 ut clauses 623, II.311
with prolative infinitive II.205 with complex subordinator (in eo ut) II.382
renuntio, with quod clause II.63 with main clause in perfect tense 445
repente with verbs of causation 567, 624
co-ccurring with dum clause II.254 resulting state interpretation
co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 of perfect indicative 446
repetition of perfect participles 541
of noun in relative clause II.528 of pluperfect indicative 610
of preposition in coordinated phrase II.600 resumptive expressions
of relative pronoun in coordinated anaphoric pronouns resuming theme
clause II.498, 562 constituents II.853
of word or phrase to create coherence between in epitactic coordination II.693
sentences II.1144, 1146 in the main clause II.36
reporting (form of narration) 451, II.1143 resumptive use of anaphoric and demonstrative
repraesentatio 569, 574, 593, 599 pronouns 1145
repudiating questions 344 with adnominal relative clauses II.482
use of tenses and moods in 486, 489, 493 with autonomous relative clauses II.504, 506,
request for information 315, 341 515
requesting, verbs of with quod argument clause II.73
with imperative clause II.133 with respect clauses II.280
with prolative infinitive clause II.205 with space satellite clauses II.240
res; see also ob eam causam/rem resumptive negation 726
anaphoric use 1096 retrospective value
as generic expression with autonomous relative of future perfect tense 467
clause II.509, 551 of perfect tense 445, 573
as summarizing anaphoric expression II. ‘rheme’, as pragmatic function (Prague
1153 school) II.828
notional agreement with 1298 ‘rhetorical’ patterns, as factors determining word
nulla res supplying missing forms of nihil 710 order II.962
repetition in relative clause II.529 rhetorical questions 319, 343, 374, 600
with determiner, as preparative expression of becoming accusative and infinitive clauses in
argument clause II.33 indirect speech 510
with determiner, as resumptive expression of negated with indefinite pronouns 1107
argument clause II.36 repudiating questions 344
res publica, as expression with fixed order II.1079 use of tenses and moods in 486, 489, 493
resolving, verbs of use of indefinite pronouns in 732
with imperative clause II.129, 144 rhetorical (sociative) plural 1119
with prolative infinitive clause II.211 rhythm
respect adjuncts 914–18 as factor determining word order II.952, 953,
compared with qualified truth disjuncts 914 955, 960, 970
gerundival clauses II.419 clausula and cursus as rhythmic patterns II.966
respect expressions modifying adjectives 1077 right-dislocation, see tail constituents
respect clauses II.59, 279–81 rogo 164, 1185
as theme constituents II.280 followed by indicative indirect question 630
responses 368, 368–78 used as parenthesis in imperative sentences 353
responses to directive utterances 376 with gerundive as secondary predicate II.797
responses to questions 370 with indirect question II.106, 110, 111, 113
restat, with ut clause II.82, 86 with prolative infinitive clause II.205
restrictive apposition 1067 with simple subjunctive, compared with clause
‘restrictive’ clauses, so-called II.306; see stipulative with ut II.153
clauses Romance languages
restrictive relative clauses, see adnominal relative ad phrase as alternative to the dative 1239
clauses adverb male 698
result (consecutive) clauses II.308–14 certus, ‘a certain’ 1112
distinguished from purpose clauses II.309 combination of ille and iste with ecce 1093
distinguished from stipulative clauses II.306 compound prepositions (abante) 1242
expansion (correlative) result clauses II.308 coordinator et II.621
negation non and neque II.312 demonstrative determiners and
non-expansion result clauses II.309 pronouns 1146, 1148
development of subordinators II.44 finite clauses

developments in marking of arguments 1191 concessive clauses II.354
developments of cases and prepositions 1236 conditional clauses II.314
disjunctive coordinator aut II.657 degree clauses II.278
double negation 728 manner clauses II.270
gerund as equivalent to present purpose clauses II.297
participle II.804 reason clauses II.281
habeo + infinitive as competitor of simple respect clauses II.279
future 435–40 result clauses II.308
habeo with perfect passive participle replacing space clauses II.240
active perfectum forms 478 stipulative clauses II.306
infinitive as purpose adjunct with verbs of time clauses II.241
movement II.385 non-finite clauses
ipse 1162 gerundial clauses II.406
magis, as adversative adverb, ‘rather’ II.682 gerundival clauses II.414
-mente as adverbial suffix 871 infinitival clauses II.383
‘pleonastic’ use of reflexive pronouns 894 nominal (verbless) clauses II.427
replacement of synthetic passive forms 257, participial clauses II.386
478 supine clauses II.420
sedeo or sto as copula 207 resembling argument clauses II.239
shift of infectum to perfectum forms of subordinators of II.40, 238
sum 474, 478 with preparative expressions II.33
si as indirect question particle II.115 without subordinator II.239
so-called passive reflexives 278 satellites 12, 25, 72, 797; see also adjuncts;
subject verb object (word) order II.966 disjuncts
suus and its substitutes 980 autonomous relative clauses as II.514
unus, supposed use without a numerical diachronic developments in marking of
meaning 1114 1240
-urus + eram/fui resembling the in first position II.1012
conditional 431 in last position II.1024
use of genitive of description 776 satis
word order II.1135 satin (ut) used to make questions more
zero objects 758 emphatic 341
route adjuncts, see path adjuncts satis superque as coordinated pair II.625
ruling, verbs of 104, 116, 1192 with genitive of quantity 1022
rursus 853 saying, verbs of, see communication, verbs of
rus scalar particles
ablative as source adjunct 816, 819 additive particles II.872
accusative as direction or goal adjunct combined with superlatives II.774
811, 819 scilicet 310, 924
locative as position in space adjunct 803, 819 combined with conditional si clause II.322
scio 448, 552
sacrificing, verbs of 185 haud scio an
saepe 852 as idiom II.114
saltem with indirect question II.109, 113
as correlative expression with conditional with infinitive II.219
clause II.326 with quod clause in subjunctive mood II.63
used as emphasizing particle to mark scope 318, 674
contrastive element II.859, 888–90 of emphasizing particles II.865
sane 1081 of focus II.843
as degree adjunct 888 of ipse 1153
as sentence connexion device II.1165 of modifiers within noun phrase 1047
co-occurring with sed II.683 of negation 674, 676, 715, 731, 797, 1165
co-occurring with verum II.685 disjuncts excluded from 798, 925
in answers to questions 373 ipse as scope of negation 1154
in concessions 361 of sentence questions 318, 326
sarta tecta, as asyndeton II.614 constituent scope 318
satellite clauses 566, II.11, 237; see also individual repeated in answer 371
clauses; disjuncts sentence scope 318
as adjuncts or disjuncts II.238 with particle -ne 323
at adjective phrase level II.469 scribo, valency of 143
at noun phrase level II.458 second person, see personal pronouns; subject
secondary predicates 30, 46, 187, 206, II.3, 777, conditional interpretation of II.812
810; see also floating quantifiers in dative with verbs of giving or taking and
adjective phrases as II.789 going or sending II.800
adjectives as II.780–9 of age or social position II.789
as alternative to adverbs in poetry II.784, participles as II.791–6
788 compared with ablative absolute
combined with relative pronouns II.500 clauses II.394
comparable to manner adverbs II.778, 780, distinguished from attributive
816 participles 994
compared with attributes in poetry II.786 future participle 546, II.792
conditional interpretation of II.812 perfect participle II.778, 792
evaluative adjectives II.784 position and pragmatic function II.794
of amount 982 present participle 542, II.777, 791
of mental or physical condition II.777 various semantic interpretations II.813
of physical condition, age, or socio-economic with verbs of perception compared with
position II.782 accusative and infinitive clauses II.796
of relative position II.783, 819 prepositional phrases as 1033, II.803
of size or substance in poetry II.787 proper names as 940
of space or time II.782, 788 quantifiers as
agreement 1264–9, II.779, 807 adjectives of amount, omnis, and
notional agreement with collective quisque II.820
subject 1292 attributive use distinguished from
of verb with quisque as secondary ‘predicative’ use II.824
predicate 1260 omnis and cunctus 985
with implicit object 757 quisque 987
with non-subject arguments 1270 uterque 990
with unexpressed subject of accusative and solus and unus II.822
infinitive 1265 totus as apparent secondary predicate II.823
ambo as apparent secondary predicate 987, transference of adjective to 1053
II.823 with verbs of standing, moving, finding, and
autonomous relative clauses as II.514, 522 perceiving II.779
binary quantifiers as 989 secundum (adverb) 1229
comparative expressions of quality with secundum (preposition) 806
ut II.762, 763 secus, as expression of dissimilarity II.752
compared with cause adjuncts 903 sed
compared with clausal apposition 1074 as connector II.1172, 1184–6
compared with distributive apposition 1067 combined with nempe II.1207
compared with manner adjuncts 859, 861 co-occurring with autem II.1177
compared with time cum clauses 643 in combination sed tamen II.1184
containing question words 337 in parenthetical sentences II.911
coordination with adjuncts II.708 as coordinator 68, II.586, 680, 682
distinguished from attributive participles 994 co-occurring with quidem, omnino, sane,
distinguished from subject or object vero, and tamen II.683
complements 789, II.779 correlative use with non + modo, solum,
distribution of II.807 tantum, or tantummodo II.687
expressions to make semantic relationship to in epitactic coordination II.696
clause explicit 814 as correlative expression with conditional si
gerundives as 289, 293, II.231, 797 clause II.319
idem II.824 position of II.973
in first position II.1013, 1020 sedeo, as copula 207
in infinitive clauses 746 seeing, verbs of, with indirect question with si or
in relative clauses II.472 -ne II.115
in vocative case in poetry 1225, II.947 sei, see si (subordinator)
ipse 1161, II.824 semantic functions 26
medius as 1050 diachronic developments in marking of 1236
modified by adverbs 1037 marked by preposition vs. bare case 1176, 1201
multiple secondary predicates II.825 of adjuncts 799
noun phrases as of arguments 26
in ablative of description or quality II.779, of bare ablative 1199, 1206
801 of disjuncts 923
in genitive of description or quality II.799 of genitive attributes 1000
nouns as II.789–91 of gerundial clauses II.406–13
of gerundival clauses II.414–19 diachronic development of 604

of satellite clauses II.11, 238 factors determining application 552–66
of satellites 28, 798, 1207 relative use of tenses 552
with one-place verbs 82 relevance to indicative subordinate clauses 602
with three-place verbs 137 relevance to subjunctive subordinate
with two-place verbs 99 clauses 601
semantic negation 673, 1107, 1167 sequor 283
semantic passives 231, 236–58 sequitur, with ut clause II.86
semantic reflexive 272, 273 serving, verbs of 104, 1192
semantic role hierarchy, as factor determining setius (negative adverb)
word order II.958 in combination quo setius
semel 852 introducing negative argument clause 706
combined with ubi II.261 introducing negative purpose clause II.304
in combination semel si II.339 setting constituents II.856, 1005
in combination semel ut II.262 ablative absolute clauses as II.1057
semideponent verbs 55 in first sentence position II.1005
semper 852 participial secondary predicates II.794
senatus consultum, as expression with fixed preceding discourse topic II.837
order II.1087 preceding question words II.1032
senatus populusque Romanus, as coordinated space and time adjuncts resembling II.1012
pair II.625 subordinate clauses as II.1037, 1047, 1059–62
sending letters, verbs of 142 time, conditional, and reason clauses as II.1051
sentence 14 setting (pragmatic function) II.850, 856
complex sentence 552, 564, II.45; see also seu, see sive/seu
complex sentences sharing and power, adjectives of 222
compound sentence II.2, 585, 606, 610 shift
connexion of sentences II.583 of imperfect to pluperfect of sum and
presentative sentence II.835 habeo 458
sentence combining II.583 of infectum to perfectum forms 474
simple sentence II.1002 showing oneself as, behaving as, verbs of 192
sentence adverbs, see particles: emphasizing si clauses
particles as arguments II.100–3
sentence scope 318 distinguished from conditional
sentence types 16, 306–78 satellites II.101
as factor determining word order II.951, 954 negated by non II.101
declarative, see declarative sentences with impersonal expressions II.102
exclamatory, see exclamatory sentences with verbs of surprise II.101
imperative, see imperative sentences; with verbs of waiting in expectation and
commands; prohibitions trying 627, II.100
interrogative, see interrogative sentences as satellites, see conditional clauses
of connective relative sentences II.559 purpose si clauses 652, II.334
of parenthetical sentences II.914 resembling argument clause II.239
of relative clauses II.485 si (particle)
sentence valence, of adverbs 65 as question particle in indirect
sentence (yes/no) questions, see interrogative questions II.108, 115
sentences as question particle in Late Latin 334
separation, verbs of 150 development as question particle II.117
sequence of tenses 552–6 si (subordinator) 68, II.41
absolute use of tenses 552 of argument clauses II.100
ancient views on 555 of conditional clauses II.314, 322
deviation from 558, 568, 604 combined with modo and tantummodo II.323
after main verb in imperfect or pluperfect combined with quasi, tamquam, ut, and
subjunctive 563 ceu II.349
after main verb in perfect tense 559 in combination extra quam si II.324
in cum clauses 578 in combination semel si II.339
in disjuncts 579 in combination si iam or si quidem II.323
in indirect questions 570 in combination si minus II.321, 330
in purpose adjunct clauses 573 in combination si modo II.343
in relative clauses II.537 in combination si quando II.339
in result adjunct clauses 574 in combination si qui(s) II.570
semantic justification for retention of in combination si tamen II.308, 323
subjunctive tenses 579 meaning ‘to see if ’ 652, II.334
si me diligis, as illocutionary disjunct II.345 singulare/singularia tantum 36

sic; see also ut . . . ita (sic), as correlative quasi- singuli 988
coordinator sino
as correlative expression with accusative and infinitive clause II.176, 181
with conditional clause II.325 with simple subjunctive clause II.152
with conditional comparative clause II.349 siquando II.339
with manner clause II.271 siquidem (subordinator) II.880
with result clause II.308 with causal interpretation II.338
with stipulative clause II.306 siquidem clauses
with ut/ne clause II.313 as reason adjunct clauses 651
as preparative device II.1161 use of moods in 651
as preparative expression of argument siremps(e), as correlative expression with
clause II.35 conditional comparative clause II.349
as summarizing device II.1159 sis (particle) 349, 356
in wishes 505 as emphasizing device II.864
sicut (subordinator), introducing conditional as illocutionary disjunct II.345
comparative clauses II.349 typical of male speech 354
sicut(i) (relative adverb) sive/seu (coordinator) II.665
in comparative expressions of quality II.763 correlative sive/seu . . . sive/seu II.665, 672
in expressions of similarity II.758 introducing alternative conditional
in phrases of qualification II.765 period II.331
introducing manner clauses II.270 introducing alternative conditional si
sigmatic verb forms clause II.346, 665
future indicative 462, 464, 470 introducing alternative indirect question II.665
of infinitives 532 introducing alternative purpose si clause II.336
of subjunctive 491, 506 with conjunctive interpretation in Late
similarity and suitability, adjectives of 217, 227 Latin II.679
similis, as expression of similarity II.752 SoA, see state of affairs
similiter, as correlative expression with conditional sociative plural 1119–20
comparative clause II.349 sodes (particle) 356
simple clauses 14 typical of male speech 354
simple sentences II.1003 soleo
simple subjects 1244 as auxiliary verb 211
simple subjunctive clauses (without ut) II.10, 16, with infinitive II.219
149, 150 solum, as emphasizing particle II.867, 875
distribution in authors II.153 solus, as apparent secondary predicate II.822
with cogo II.137 solvendo, as idiom II.226
with decerno II.144 somnio, valency of 77
with facio II.142 sono, with subject complement 209
with iubeo II.179 sortito (ablative absolute clause) II.402
with licet II.149 source adjuncts 815–19
with noun phrase as subject or object compared with agents in passive clauses 246
complement II.147 compared with respect adjuncts 914
with verbs of ordering and commanding II.131 domus and rus in 819
with verbs of striving II.140 in apposition to toponym 1063
with volo, nolo, and malo II.139 multiple source adjuncts in a clause 816
simul (ac/atque) clauses II.260 towns and small islands in 819
use of tenses in 589 with verbs of asking 167
simul (adverb) 1229 source arguments 28, 125, 178, 1196
combined with correlative et . . . et II.641 in apposition to toponym 1063
simultaneity, expression of 50, 383 with verbs of asking 167
in secondary predicates II.778, 791, 810 with verbs of begging and requesting II.133
in time clauses II.242 with verbs of demanding II.134
sin (subordinator), introducing alternative source (semantic function) 28
conditional clause II.330 space adjuncts 800–32; see also direction and goal
sine (preposition) adjuncts; extent of space adjuncts; path
to mark accompanying circumstance adjuncts; position in space adjuncts;
adjuncts 901 source adjuncts
to mark associative adjuncts 897 relative clauses as II.521
to mark manner adjuncts 866 space clauses II.240–1; see also relative adverbs;
to mark optional attributes of nouns 1030 space adverbs
to mark subject complements 786 use of moods in 638
spatium, ablative spatio as extent of space as topic II.830, 1007

adjunct 827 compound subjects 1244, 1246
speaking, verbs of, see communication, verbs of conjunction reduction of II.591
species verbi 233; see also voice first person subjects 738–43
specific reference of noun phrases, see noun generic use 743
phrases use of plural instead of singular (rhetorical
spero 525, 581 plural and plural of majesty) 1119–20
sponte sua, combined with discretive ipse 1154 identity of subject in finite subordinate
sprinkling, verbs of 163 clauses II.13
st (interjection) II.927 in first position II.1006
standard of comparison II.717 in last position II.1021, 1039
state of affairs 11, 22, 51, 380 in participial, gerundival, and nominal
typology of 22 clauses II.27
states (state of affairs) 22; see also resulting state of ablative absolute clause, distinct from
interpretation constituents of main clause II.394
statim 841 of accusative and infinitive clauses 1186, II.17
as subordinator II.264 of prolative infinitive clause II.21
co-occurring with quod clause II.848 preceding subordinators II.1053
co-occurring with secondary predicate II.814 second person subjects 738–43
in combination statim atque II.261 generic use 743
in combination statim ut II.258 use of plural instead of singular for
stipulative clauses II.306–8 politeness 1120
use of moods in 652 shared subjects in coordinated clauses II.610,
with quod, ‘provided that’ II.308 611
with ut or ne, in combination with cum eo so-called logical subject with reflexive pronoun
tamen II.308 and possessive adjective 1123, 1130
with ut, distinguished from purpose third person subjects 743–54
clauses II.306 clauses as subject 745
with ut, distinguished from result clause II.306 demonstrative and anaphoric pronouns as
sto third person subjects 1118
as copula 207 generic use 752
combined with present participle 545 nouns and noun phrases as subject 744
storytelling (form of narration) 451, II.1141, 1143 quotations as subject 747
striving, verbs of unexpressed (implicit) subjects (fused
with imperative clause II.129, 140 clauses) II.21
with prolative infinitive clause II.209 unexpressed subjects (zero-anaphora) 748–52,
stulte 861 II.1144, 1148
style 33 agreement of verb with 1245, 1282
in choice between active and passive 251 in accusative and infinitive clause II.18
variatio (inconcinnitas) II.704 reflexive pronouns referring to 1123
suadeo, with imperative clause II.134 ‘subject’ clauses, see argument clauses
sub (preposition) subject complements 30, 195, 215, 710, 765–87
choice between ablative and accusative 175 adjectives, neuter singular, as
governing ablative substantival adjectives 768
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 with accusative and infinitive clause II.183
to mark position in space arguments 175 with gerundial clause II.229
governing accusative with prolative infinitive clause II.212
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 with quod clause II.69
to mark direction and goal arguments 175 with ut clause II.88
to mark position in time adjuncts 837 agreement
subito in accusative and infinitive clause II.17
co-occurring with dum clause II.254 in prolative infinitive clause II.22
co-occurring with inverse cum clause II.246 notional agreement with collective
subiunctivus (modus) 56 subject 1292
subject 28, 736 with non-subject arguments 1270
agreement of verb with with subject 1264, 1265, 1267
compound subjects 1246–58, II.595 with pronominal subjects 1278
grammatical agreement 1244–72 with unexpressed subject of accusative and
notional agreement 1287 infinitive 1265
simple subjects 1244–5 attraction of verb to agree with 1261
apposition to unexpressed first and second autonomous relative clauses as II.514
person subjects 1068 distinguished from secondary predicates II.779
subject complements (cont.) in quod argument clauses 626, II.63, 64

gerundival clauses as II.233 in quominus clauses 622
in ablative abolute clauses II.26 in quoniam clauses 650
in first position II.1010 in reason clauses 646
in last position II.1023 with quin and quo II.295
in vocative case 1225 in relative clauses 618, II.481, 580
manner clauses as II.271 to modulate statements II.545
marked by nominative case 1186, 1209 in relative clauses governed by two-place
negation of 685 adjectives II.533
neuter singular adjective as 768 in relative clauses with tam or tantus +
non-referring noun phrase as 1085, 1117 adjective II.534
nouns as in result (consecutive) clauses 623, 653
with accusative and infinitive clause II.183 in si argument clauses 627
with gerundial clause II.228 in si clauses with a time interpretation II.340
with quod clause II.69 in si purpose clauses ‘to see if ’ 652
with ut clause II.90 in siquidem clauses 651
with verbs of perception 208 in so-called causal relative clauses II.540
subjective evaluation disjuncts, see disjuncts in so-called generic or consecutive relative
subjunctive clauses without ut, see simple clauses II.480
subjunctive clauses in space adjunct clauses 638
subjunctive mood 56, 481–511 in stipulative clauses 652, II.306
adhortative use 349, 497 in subordinate clauses due to modal
clauses in which subjunctive competes with assimilation 666
indicative 601, 618 in subordinate clauses in indirect speech 668
counterfactual use 388, 481, 494–7 in tametsi clauses II.371
imperfect as either potential or in time clauses 638
counterfactual 487, 655 with antequam and priusquam II.265
in conditional periods 495, 496, 654, 660 with dum and donec II.254
deliberative subjunctive 485, 489 with postquam II.259
deontic use 56, 388, 481, 497–511 with quando II.249
hortatory subjunctive 349, 497 with simul (ac/atque) II.261
imperfect subjunctive, see imperfect tense with ubi II.261
in argument clauses with verbs of fearing 623 with ut II.264
in comparative constructions 664 in ut clauses 347, 619, 651
in concessions 360, 509 in wishes 359, 504–9
in concessive clauses 662 realizable wishes 505
in conditional comparative clauses II.349 unrealizable wishes 507
in cum clauses jussive use of third person 502
reason cum clauses 644 modal assimilation (attraction) 667
time cum clauses 641 non-factive value of 388
in time dum clauses 645 in argument clauses 626
in etiamsi clauses II.372 in relative clauses II.539, 544, 548
in etsi clauses II.370 in satellite clauses 636, 638, 641, 654
in imperative clauses 619, 621, 623, II.126 oblique use 620, II.544
in imperative sentences 351, 497–504 optative subjunctive 359, 504–9
commands and prohibitions of the past 503 perfect subjunctive, see perfect tense
difference between subjunctive and periphrastic expression with future
imperative 351, 498 participle 433
in indirect speech 510, 668 pluperfect subjunctive, see pluperfect tense
in interrogative clauses 618, 628 position of subjunctive verb forms in
in interrogative sentences 485 imperative sentences II.1035, 1036
deliberative questions 485, 489 potential use 56, 388, 481, 482–94; see also
repudiating questions 486, 489, 493 potential use of subjunctive mood
in manner clauses 663 imperfect as either potential or
in purpose (final) clauses 651 counterfactual 487, 655
in qualification disjunct clauses II.377 in conditional periods 484, 488, 491, 654, 658
in quamquam clauses II.365 use of tenses in subordinate clauses after
in quamvis clauses II.366 main clause containing potential
in quando clauses 651 subjunctive 562
in quatenus clauses 651 with generic subjects 483, 487
in quia argument clauses 626 present subjunctive, see present tense
in quin argument clauses 622 relevance of sequence of tenses 601
semantically justified (harmonic) vs. relative clauses II.471

grammatical uses of 390, 617, 621 relative order with respect to main clause 560,
so-called causal and concessive/adversative 565, II.1047–62
subjunctives in relative clauses II.539 use of moods in 617–71
so-called consecutive subjunctive in relative use of tenses in 552–617
clauses II.539, 545 variation of tenses 601
so-called final subjunctive in relative used at various levels II.11
clauses II.539, 806 verbal and nominal (verbless) clauses II.6
used to modulate a request for information 341 with unexpressed (implicit) subject, see fused
used to modulate an assertion 310, 491 clauses
volitive subjunctive 388, 481, 497–510 subordination 14, II.1, 5, 583; see also interlacing
with potius quam 665 cohesive devices II.37
with verbs of hindering, forbidding, and compared with relativization II.4
preventing 622 history of II.5
subjuncts 69, 693; see particles: emphasizing lacking sentential properties II.9
particles; see also the Preface of this volume resumptive expression in main clause II.36
subordinate clauses 13, II.1–31; see also subjunctive as subordination device 57, 387,
coordination: of subordinate clauses 390, 617, 663
arguments and satellites II.1 subordinators 13, 68, II.40–5; see also individual
at adjective phrase level II.435, 459–69 subordinators
at adverb phrase level II.469 as non-mobile words II.955
at noun phrase level II.435, 436–59 combined with prepositions II.15; see also
causing discontinuity II.1106 complex subordinators
constituent(s) of main clause preceding diachronic development II.41, 44
subordinate clause II.1051 causal subordinators II.288
constituent(s) of subordinate clause preceding following connective relative expression II.556
main clause II.1053 following relative words II.493
containing question words 337 negative subordinators 700–8, II.126, 138
devices to strenghten coherence with of argument clauses II.40
superordinate clause II.31 of concessive clauses II.354
distribution of II.12 of manner clauses II.270
finite and non-finite clauses II.1, 6, 237 of purpose clauses II.297
finite argument clauses II.13, 56 of reason clauses II.281
declarative clauses II.57 of result clauses II.311
exclamatory clauses II.155 of satellite clauses II.40, 238
imperative clauses II.126 of stipulative clauses II.306
interrogative clauses II.105 of time clauses II.242, 243
finite satellite clauses II.238 position of II.955, 978–81
in indirect speech 668 causing discontinuity II.1103
incorporation into main clause II.1052 relative adverbs II.43
interlacing of relative clause with another with ablative absolute clause II.374, 392, 432
subordinate clause II.492 with both argument and satellite clauses II.41
internal word order II.1038–47 subscriptio, as farewell formula II.1231
negator climbing II.7 ‘substantival infinitives’, see infinitive clauses
non-finite clauses (‘substantival infinitives’)
as arguments II.16 ‘substantival’ relative clauses II.501; see
accusative and infinitive clauses II.157 autonomous relative clauses
gerundial clauses II.224 substantival use of adjectives, see adjectives
gerundival clauses II.229 ‘substantive’ clauses II.52, 126; see argument clauses
nominal (verbless) clauses II.234 substitution (type of adversative
nominative and infinitive coordination) II.680
construction II.194 subter (adverb) 1229
participial clauses II.220 subter (preposition) 806
prolative infinitive clauses II.204 subtopic II.832
as satellites subtus (adverb) 1229
gerundial clauses II.406 suesco, with infinitive II.219
gerundival clauses II.414 sui, sibi, se (reflexive pronoun), see reflexive
infinitival clauses II.383 pronouns: third person
nominal (verbless) clauses II.427 sum 195–204
participial clauses II.386 auxiliary use 197
supine clauses II.420 forms of sum in last position II.1026
preparative expressions II.31 word order of complex forms II.1122
sum (cont.) supine clauses II.25, 420–7

combined with manner adverbs 860 first supine (in -um) II.421
copular use 195 as purpose adjunct with verbs of
est ‘to be the case’ with ut clause II.85 movement II.385, 421
est with subject complement and gerundial as substitute for future passive
clause II.228 infinitive II.421
est with subject complement and si second supine (in -u) II.423
clause II.102 as parenthesis II.425
est with subject complement and ut clause II.82 with adjectives II.424
existential use 200 with nouns II.426
in presentative sentences II.844 supines
future infinitive fore 532 compared with deverbal nouns 64
fore ut as alternative to future passive distinguished from deverbal nouns II.426
infinitive 533 morphosyntactic properties of 64
with perfect passive participle to form future origin of -u supine II.427
perfect infinitive 536 supines in -u as source adjuncts with verbs of
future infinitive futurum esse 533 motion 818
futurum esse ut as alternative to future supines in -um + iri as future passive
passive infinitive 533 infinitive 532
identifying use 195, 1085 suppetias, with eo 811
idiomatic expressions with in + accusative supplying, verbs of 137, 146, 149, 169, 1195
abstract noun 809 support verbs 74, 1041, II.52
imperative esto in concessions 361 consilium capio II.450
impersonal est 95 potestatem do or facio with ut clause II.437
with accusative and infinitive clause 95 with argument clause II.53, 437
with adverbs 96 with predicative dative 780
with ut clause 95, II.85 supra (preposition) 806
in first position II.1018 surpassing, verbs of 151
in gerundive + sum construction 288, 296, 301, surprise, verbs of, with si clause II.101
472 suscenseo, with quod or quia argument
in periphrastic future with -urus + sum 429, clause 626
472, 531 suscipio, with gerundive as secondary
in possessive dative construction 107, 773 predicate II.797
in possessive genitive construction 772 suspensio, to mark sense units II.967
in predicative dative construction 778 susque deque II.640
non-existing forms supplied by exsisto 207 suus (reflexive possessive adjective), see reflexive
omission of 197, 201, 532 possessive adjective suus
position of forms of sum II.984, 991 swear words II.919–23
predicational use 195, 1085 combined with namque II.1198
shift of infectum to perfectum forms in auxiliary di boni/immortales II.921
constructions 473 expressions related to Castor, Pollux, and
so-called shifted use of pluperfect for Hercules II.919
imperfect 458 ‘syllepsis’ (coordination of verbs with different
statistical data on tense usage 394 case pattern) II.593
used in future perfect without anterior syncretism 1215
meaning 466 syndetic coordination II.585, 588–606; see also
used in identity statements distinguished from coordinators
cleft constructions II.848 at adjective phrase level II.599
with adverbs 201, 785 at noun phrase level II.597
with gerundial clause II.226 conjunctive coordination of clauses or
with gerundival clause II.233 constituents II.588
with position in space argument 123 conjunctive coordinators II.620
with present participle 544 disjunctive and adversative coordination of
with subject complement 765 clauses II.589
summonses II.925, 938 multiple coordination II.649, 650, 651
summus of prepositional phrases II.600, 605
partitive and non-partitive use 1048 of subject constituents 1249
with partitive genitive 948 of verbs sharing subject or object II.591
super (adverb) 1229 of verbs sharing third argument or
super (preposition) 806 satellite II.595
superiority, verbs of 113, 1193 of verbs with different case pattern II.593
superordinate clause II.2 preferred in poetry II.622
syntactic functions 28 in nisi clause of exception II.352

of arguments 28 in relative clause II.486
of autonomous relative clauses II.508, 514, 515 tamenetsi, as subordinator of concessive
of constituents in first position II.1006 clauses II.355
of heads of adnominal relative clauses II.492 tamenetsi clauses II.373
of participial and nominal (verbless) tametsi
clauses II.29 as contrastive connector II.356, 1191
of relative words and phrases in their as subordinator of concessive clauses II.355
clause II.487 tametsi clauses II.371
of subordinating devices in their clause II.238 tamquam 1109
of satellites 30 in comparative expressions of quality
synthetic verb forms 51 II.763
in expressions of (dis)similarity II.760
taedet 132 tamquam clauses
tail (pragmatic function) II.849 with nouns of emotion, cognition, and
tail constituents 26, II.857 communication II.443
distinguished from adjectives or nouns as with verbs of accusing, blaming, excusing,
secondary predicates II.818 emotion, and communication II.104
distinguished from afterthought II.858 tamquam (subordinator)
distinguished from clausal apposition 1073, introducing argument clauses II.104, 443
II.858 introducing conditional comparative
participles as secondary predicates resembling clauses II.348
tails II.794 with causal interpretation II.350
marked by nominative case 1209 tandem, in questions 341
perfect participle used as 547 tantisper, with dum clause II.251, 255
Tail–Head linking construction II.1155 tantopere 890, 1085
talis tantum
as correlative expression with result as emphasizing particle II.875
clause II.309 as measure of distance 827
combined with autonomous relative in combination tantummodo or tantum ne II.306
clause II.535 tantum quod (complex subordinator) II.381
in an expression of confirmation of a preceding tantummodo
statement II.1160 as emphasizing particle II.875
talis . . . qualis II.573 combined with si II.323
tam; see also quam (degree adverb) tantus
as adjective modifier II.1081 as correlative expression with result
as correlative expression with result clause II.309
clause II.309 as correlative expression with ut/ne
tam . . . quam combined with clause II.313
tantus . . . quantus II.745 in an expression of confirmation of a preceding
tam . . . quam in comparison of statement II.1160
equivalence II.745, 750 in proportional comparison
with adjective + relative clause II.534 quanto . . . tanto II.766
tam diu, with dum clause II.251, 255 tanto as measure of difference II.740
tamen tantus . . . quantus combined with
as connective adverb 361, II.1165, 1172, 1188 tam . . . quam II.745
as correlative expression with adjective + relative clause II.534
with ablative absolute clause II.392 -te (suffix), in combination tute II.908
with concessive clause II.356, 360, 362, 363 teaching, verbs of 164, 167, 1185
with conditional clause II.326, 336 telic 397
with cum clause II.269 temperi 841
with etiamsi clause II.371 tempero, with dative or accusative 129
with postquam clause II.270 tense 50, 55
with ut clause II.375 absolute and relative use of tenses 552
combined with coordinators II.655 as grammatical device contributing to discourse
co-occurring with correlative nec/ coherence II.1226
neque . . . et II.648 historic tenses 554
co-occurring with secondary predicate II.814 primary tenses 554
in combination sed tamen II.683, 1184 sequence of, see sequence of tenses
in combination si tamen II.323 statistical data on frequency 391
in combination verum tamen II.685, 1188 theoretical discussion of 379–86
in connective relative sentence II.669 use of tenses in donec ‘de rupture’ clauses II.257
tense (cont.) use of preparative expressions with argument

use of tenses in dum clauses II.251, 253 clauses II.31
use of tenses in finite subordinate clauses use of tenses 391
552–617 ut clauses as indignant questions 347
use of tenses in indirect speech II.49 legal texts
use of tenses in postquam clauses II.259 absence of prohibitions with present
use of tenses in relative clauses II.536 imperative 516
use of tenses in simul (ac/atque) clauses II.261 correlative neve (neive) . . . neve II.674
tenus (preposition) 812 deviations from sequence of tenses 604
terminative (state of affairs) 23, 397 dumtaxat II.893
in perfect tense with resulting state lex siremps(e) esto II.349
interpretation 446, 537, 541, 547 lexical repetition as cohesive device II.1144
in pluperfect tense with resulting state mixed coordination II.586
interpretation 437, 610 natus + age expression in genitive II.738
terms (of comparison) II.715 prepositional gerundial purpose
lexical categories of II.719 adjuncts II.406
syntactic and semantic functions of II.720 quamdiu, ‘until’ II.255
used at various levels II.718 quatenus, ‘as long as’ II.252
terra, ablative as position in space adjunct 803 quod, ‘provided that’ II.308
terra marique, as coordinated pair II.625 repetition of noun in relative clause II.528
text II.1138, see discourse unspecified subjects 750
text types 33; see also poetry (and poeticizing use of ast II.1174
prose); discourse modes use of correlative expressions II.283
argumentative texts use of future imperative 513, 515, 517
imperative sentences with concessive use of future indicative with directive
force 361 force 312, 425, 429
use of connectors etsi, tametsi, and use of future participle with directive
quamquam II.1191 force 546
biographies, use of tenses 451 use of present passive infinitive instead of
decrees, use of ne quis velit + perfect supine + iri 525
infinitive 538 use of -que II.621, 624
didactic texts use of so-called jussive infinitive 358
ablative absolute clauses II.387, 392, 397 use of -ve II.657, 662
adnominal arguments 1041 medical texts
autocausative reflexives 274 declarative sentences with directive
decausative passives 281 force 313
declarative sentences with directive use of dative with iuvo 1191
force 313 use of enim II.1206
double accusative 172 use of future indicative with directive
gerundial adjunct clauses II.409 force 428
mixed coordination II.586 use of present participle 996
omission of auxiliary sum 198 narrative texts
omission of second arguments 97 ablative absolute clauses II.387, 392, 397,
relative infrequency of questions 326 560
support verbs 76 accusative and infinitive clauses II.157, 158,
use of future imperative 513, 517 186
use of future indicative with directive cum clauses II.244
force 312, 428 donec ‘de rupture’ clauses II.256
use of gerundive 298, 313 gerundial adjunct clauses II.409
use of passive with directive force 238 inverse cum clause II.246
use of so-called jussive infinitive 358 participles as secondary predicates II.794
use of subjunctive 481 prepositional participial clauses II.404
use of tenses 451 relative connexion II.555
use of vero II.1190 relative infrequency of questions 326
interactive texts so-called final gerundival clauses with
agentless passives 239 nouns II.453
summonses II.925 use of hic to close episodes II.1157
use of ecquis and similar compounds 334 use of historic infinitive 527
use of future indicative with directive use of quam without comparative
force 427 expression II.728
use of indicative in indirect questions use of subject pronouns 741
630 use of tenses 391, 409, 415, 416, 451
use of personal pronouns 739 use of time clauses 616
philosophical texts antequam clauses 611, II.265

agentful passives 239 cum clauses 611, 613, 641, 643, II.243, 258,
support verbs 76 266, 269
use of tenses 391 difference between infectum and perfectum
prayers, use of future imperative 517 stems in 609
technical texts dum clauses 615, 616, 645, II.250, 251,
adnominal arguments 1041 254, 268
declarative sentences with directive ex quo clauses II.264
force 313 mox, primum, and statim clauses II.264
relative clause as substitute for deverbal non-temporal meaning of II.243, 266
nouns II.502 post(ea)quam clauses 609, 610, II.258, 270
variation in priusquam clauses 611, 618, 638, II.265
asyndetic connexion of sentences II.1163 quamdiu, quoad, and donec clauses II.252, 255
concessive subordinators II.355, 369 quando, quandoque, and quandocumque
connectors and interactional particles clauses II.249
connecting paragraphs II.1224 quatenus clauses II.252
consecutive connectors and particles II.1209 quoniam clauses II.248
coordinators ac/atque, et, and -que II.621 relative order with respect to main
correlative -que . . . -que II.638 clause II.1050
discontinuity II.1100 simul (ac/atque) clauses II.260
disjunctive coordinators II.657 ubi clauses 609, II.261
explanatory and justificatory connectors and use of et and atque in main clause II.623
particles II.1194 use of moods in 638
functions of address II.939 use of tenses in iterative time clauses 602
interjections II.924 ut clauses 480, 609, 610, II.262
omissibility of third person subjects 748 variation in use of tenses 616
omission of auxiliary sum 202 with historic infinitive 608
question particles 321 time of speaking 380, 383
subordination II.5 freedom of speaker in determining 399
use of active and passive voice 233, 235, 239 time within which adjuncts 849–51
use of autem II.1180 combined with frequency expressions 852
use of tenses 450 timeo
word order II.955, 1135 with dative beneficiary adjunct 893
text, as suprasentential unit, see discourse with dative or accusative 129
thanking, verbs of tmesis 1231, II.989, 991, 1132–4
with accusative and infinitive clause II.170 created by -que II.1134
with cum clause II.80 of quodcumque by preposition II.1116
with nominative and infinitive separation of compounds with per- and
construction II.197 -cumque II.1133
with quia clause II.78 separation of parts of compound verbs II.1132
with quod clause II.66 tolerating, verbs of, with accusative and infinitive
‘theme’, as pragmatic function (Prague school) II.828 clause II.175
theme constituents 26, II.850 topic (pragmatic function) 31, 773, II.827,
compared with pseudo-subject and -object 762 829–39, 951
distinguished from respect adjuncts II.854 accusative pseudo-object as 759
in first position II.1005 associative anaphora (subtopic) II.832
marked by nominative case 1209 contrastive topic 676, II.860
respect clauses as II.280 discourse topic II.836
sentence-initial relative clauses formal properties of topic constituents II.839
resembling II.483, 490, 504 general (encyclopedic) knowledge as factor for
theme (pragmatic function) II.849 topic selection II.830
‘thetic’ sentences II.828 given topic II.835
thinking, verbs of, see cognition, verbs of with zero-anaphora II.1150
third person, see subject nominative pseudo-subject as 761
threatening, verbs of 104, 1192 choice between active and passive 251
three-place verbs, see verbs resumed topic II.836
time adjuncts 833–56 subject as topic II.830
gerundial clauses II.412 subtopic II.832
gerundival clauses II.418 topic constituents in first position II.832, 1005,
prepositional nominal absolute clauses II.433 1006
time clauses II.241–70; see also individual clauses topic shift 271
or subordinators; relative adverbs; time types of constituents to function as topic
adverbs II.838
toponyms ubi (indefinite adverb), position of II.983

grammatical agreement with 1281 ubi (interrogative adverb) 336
modified by restrictive apposition 1058 ubi (relative adverb) 808, II.43
agreement of verb with 1059, 1260 introducing relative clauses II.471
tot, in an expression of confirmation of a with a locative/temporal meaning II.240
preceding statement II.1160 ubicumque (adverb) 808
totiens 852 ubicumque clauses II.240
totus 804, 991, II.1076 use of moods in 638
as apparent secondary predicate II.823 ubique 808
co-occurring with a determiner 971 ubiubi, introducing relative clause II.472
neuter totum modifying infinitive 943 ullus 972, 1107
with meaning ‘all’ 992 as substitute for nullus in comparison of
towns and small islands, in space expressions 819 non-equivalence II.728
trans (adverb) 1229 ultimus 1050
trans (preposition) with partitive genitive 948
to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812 ultra (adverb) 1229
to mark position in space adjuncts 806 as expression of similarity II.752
transcategorial parallelism 21, 1191, 1204, 1215, ultra (preposition)
1217–18 to mark direction and goal adjuncts 812
transeo 172 to mark position in space adjuncts 806
transfer, verbs of umquam 841
as three-place verbs 137, 140, 763, 813, 1192, unde (interrogative adverb) 336, 818
1195, 1239 position of II.984
with accusative and infinitive clause II.166 unde (relative adverb) 818
with purpose infinitival clause II.383 introducing relative clauses II.575–6
transiectio (hyperbaton) II.957 referring to human beings II.576
transitive use of intransitive verbs 84, 172 introducing space clauses II.241
transitive verbs 1190; see verbs, two- and three-place undecumque 818
verbs; accusative case: to mark second universal quantifiers 985
arguments (accusative objects) unus
transmitto 172 as apparent secondary predicate II.822
treatment, verbs of 137, 146, 1195 combined with aliqui(s) 942, 970
tremo, valency of 85 combined with quisque 987, 1173
tribunus plebis, as expression with fixed combined with zero quantifier 973
order II.1087 co-occurring with superlatives II.774
trivalent, see verbs: three-place verbs developing into indefinite article 1114
true passives 231, 236–58 non-numerical uses of 1115
true reflexive 272, 273 unusquisque 987, 1173
trying, verbs of 627 urbs, in apposition to name 1058
implied with si clause II.335 agreement of verb with 1260
with si clause II.100, 117 usquam 808
with si or ut clause II.100 usque (adverb) 848, 1229
tu, see personal pronouns usque (adeo) with dum clause II.251, 255
tum 841; see also cum . . . tum: as correlative usque (preposition) 837
quasi-coordinator usus est 116
as connective adverb with imperative clause 622
in combination tum autem II.1177 with (perfect) passive participle 256, II.224
to mark sequence of events II.1216 ut (interrogative adverb) 336, II.44
as correlative expression ut (particle)
with conditional clause II.326, 339 in wishes 359
with time cum clause 641 with subjunctive commands,
with time quando clause II.249 similarity to ut clauses 500
tunc ut (relative adverb) II.44; see also ut . . . ita (sic)
as connective adverb to mark sequence of in combination ut qui II.541
events II.1217 in comparison of (dis)similarity II.753, 760
turbidus, as secondary predicate in poetry II.786 in comparison of quality II.762
tuxtax (interjection) II.924 introducing manner clauses II.270
two-place verbs, see verbs ut (subordinator) II.41, 44; see also ne (negative
subordinator)
ubi clauses 610, II.261 as equivalent to ne non II.95
use of tenses in 609 combined with nedum II.700
in combination modo ut/ne II.306 of happening and befalling 624, II.83

introducing argument clauses II.81, 126, 149, 441 of inducing and persuading II.135
with verbs of fearing and worrying II.95 of manipulation 183, II.42, 129, 170
introducing argument or satellite clause II.41 of ordering and commanding II.131
introducing purpose clauses II.297, 300 of perception and cognition II.92, 141
introducing result clauses II.308, 311, 312 of permitting, granting, and
introducing stipulative clauses II.306 allowing II.136
introducing time clauses II.42, 262 of striving II.140
omission of, see simple subjunctive clauses of wishing, desiring, and preferring II.139
(without ut) relinquitur, restat, or sequitur II.86
ut epexegeticum II.442 sum ‘to be the case’ II.85
ut . . . ita, in proportional superlative without ut II.10, 16, 149, 150; see also simple
pattern II.771 subjunctive clauses
ut . . . ita (sic), as correlative quasi- as indignant questions 347
coordinator II.190, 702 as satellites
with causal interpretation to translate Greek as illocutionary disjuncts 566, 930
Ø~t II.297 comparative clauses of quality II.762
ut clauses; see also ut (subordinator); ne (negative in expressions of similarity II.758
subordinator) manner clauses with causal
as arguments 651, II.81–93 interpretation II.274
as attributes governed by nouns II.441, 446 pseudo-final ut clauses 566, 930
competing with prolative infinitive purpose clauses 573, 651, II.300
clauses II.204 result clauses 574, 623, II.308
declarative clauses distinguished from stipulative clauses II.306
imperative clauses II.81 time clauses 609, 610, II.262
negated by ne or non II.149 with complex subordinator (in eo ut) II.382
preparative expressions 1099, 1145 with concessive interpretation II.375
similarity to cleft constructions II.91 with correlative ita, sic, or tantus II.313
use of indirect reflexive pronoun and ut epexegeticum II.442
possessive adjective in 1126, 1130 ut opinor, as idiom II.274
use of infinitive in II.16 ut phrases
use of moods in 619, 621–5 in comparative expressions II.763
use of tenses in 567 of qualification II.765
with adjective + sum II.88 ut quid/quo II.303
with adjective as subject or object ut temporale II.42
complement II.145 ut videtur, as idiom II.274
with adjectives of cognition II.460 uter (indefinite)
with comparative expression + quam II.462 as determiner 989, 1113
with dignus II.462 as pronoun 989, 1171
with impersonal verbs 624, II.87, 148 uter (interrogative) 336, 1174
impersonal est 95 as determiner 974, 989
with nouns as subject or object as pronoun 989
complement II.90, 147 compared with quis 1175
with ‘periphrastic’ construction facio ut II.93 uter (relative) 989
with possessive adjective or prepositional uterlibet 1113, 1171
phrase as subject complement II.91 uterque 989
with verbs as attribute or secondary predicate 990
accedit 624, II.82 combined with et . . . et II.641
efficio 190 compared with ambo 991
facio 190, II.142, 143 notional agreement with 1290
metadirective fac 351 used in plural 990
of advising, warning, exhorting, utervis 1113, 1171
reminding, and admonishing II.134 uti, see ut
of begging and requesting II.133 utinam
of causation 567, 624, II.142 in wishes 359, 504
of communication II.92 so-called elliptical use 360
of deciding and resolving II.144 utique
of demanding II.134 as correlative expression with concessive
of deserving II.145 clause II.363
of fearing 623, 702, II.94 used as emphasizing particle II.891–2
of forcing II.137 utor 115, 192, 292, 1193
utpote with locally negated constituents 691

co-occurring with secondary predicate II.814 as scalar particle II.874
in combination utpote cum II.267 combined with comparatives II.743
in combination utpote qui II.541 combined with imprimis II.899
utrimque combined with superlatives II.774
as position in space adjunct 808 in combination vel maxime II.900
compared with agent expressions in passive in combination vel praecipue II.896
clauses 246 introducing imperative sentences II.1172
utroque (versum/s) 812 velut(i) 1109
utrum (question particle) introducing conditional comparative
in indirect questions II.108, 113, 123 clauses II.349
in simple questions 333 introducing manner clauses II.270
in the first part of multiple questions 340 veneo, as suppletive passive for vendo 234
venio
vae (interjection) II.936 in suspicionem with infinitival
with dative II.924 construction II.200
valde 1081 with perfect passive participle 258
as degree adjunct 888 with supine in -um as purpose adjunct II.421
in answers to questions 373 venum, with eo or do 811, II.423
valency 19 verb forms; see also complex verb forms
of adjectives 21, 46, 215–29, 1074, 1204 finite and non-finite 50
methods of determining 215 synthetic and complex (‘periphrastic’) 51
of nouns 21, 44, 966, 1037–47; see also verb frames 20, 71–215
adnominal arguments; nouns: deverbal merger of 184
nouns verba
of verbs 19, 51, 71–215 affectuum 998, II.76
methods of determining 72, 756 declarandi II.107, 162, 194
statistical data on frequency 81 interrogandi II.106
theoretical discussion 21 investigandi II.106
valeo sciendi II.107
imperative vale as greeting or farewell 357 sentiendi II.107, 162, 164, 194
valency of 114 verbal nouns, see nouns: deverbal nouns
value arguments 113, 158, 882 verbs 50; see also individual (semantic groups of)
variatio (inconcinnitas), coordination of verbs; auxiliary verbs; support verbs;
constituents belonging to different verb frames
categories II.704 absolute use 78, 80, 98, 447, 756
variatio (variation), of construction II.203, 252, agreement with subject
367, 649, 677 grammatical agreement 1244–72
variation, of words or phrases as cohesive notional agreement 1287
device II.1145 ‘assertive’ or ‘veridical’ use II.1015
-ve (coordinator) 69, II.662 convertible verbs 231
as non-mobile word II.956 statistical frequency of active and passive
combination of si and -ve II.665 forms 235
combined with potius II.679 coordinated verbs with different case
correlative -ve . . . -ve II.672 pattern II.593
multiple coordination II.676 copular verbs 204–10, 765–87
in negative neve (neu) 697 deponent verbs 54, 234, 282–5
of conditional si and ni clauses and ne gerundives of deponent verbs 284
imperative clauses II.662 used with passive meaning 283
position of II.995 governing indirect speech II.49
use in legal texts and poetry II.657 governing interrogative clause II.106
with conjunctive interpretation II.679 impersonal verbs 94–7, 132–6, 192
vel of obligation and permission with accusative
as coordinator II.660 and infinitive II.181
combined with etiam and potius II.679 reflexive pronouns with 1123
correlative vel . . . vel II.671 used personally with nominative and
multiple coordination II.676 infinitive II.200
vel . . . vel as equivalent to et . . . et in Late with imperative clause II.148
Latin II.668 with prolative infinitive clause II.215
with conjunctive interpretation in Late with si clause II.102
Latin II.679 with ut clause 624, II.82, 87
in first position in declarative mihi videtur with accusative and infinitive

sentences II.1015, 1137 clause II.194
in last position in declarative sentences II.1020, metadirective videto ne 519
1025 passive videor as copula 208
intransitive verbs with infinitival videor with nominative and infinitive
construction II.200 construction II.197, 199
negative verbs, see negation visum est with accusative and infinitive
one-place (monovalent) verbs 19, 81–97 clause II.172
autocausative use of active forms 280 with accusative and participle
with argument clause as subject II.53 construction II.163
position in sentence (yes/no) questions II.1027 with nē in pseudo-indirect question II.117
requiring a space (position or source) with si indirect question II.117
argument 137, 174–83, 1196 vir, with descriptive adjective, in apposition to
sharing subject or object in coordinated proper name 938
clauses II.591 virgulae (oblique strokes) II.969
sharing third argument or satellite II.595 -vis compounds, introducing relative clause II.472
statistical data on tense and mood forms 391 viso, with indirect question II.106, 117
three-place (trivalent) verbs 19, 137–92, 264 vix, combined with inverse cum clause II.246
marking of arguments 1185 vocative case 1224–7
two-place (bivalent) verbs 11, 19, 97–136, as form of address II.1103
1189–95 development of vocative case forms 1225
decausative use of active forms 281 to mark addressee 1224
two- or three-place verbs with argument clause to mark invocation of gods as swear
as object II.54 expression II.922
valency of, see valency to mark secondary predicate as form of address
zero-valent verbs 19, 192–5 in poetry II.947
vereor, with dative or accusative 129 used instead of nominative in Late Latin
verisimile est, with ut clause II.82 inscriptions 1227
vero vocatives as extraclausal constituents 1224
as adverb/connector II.1190 voco, with supine in -um as purpose
as connective adverb II.1172 adjunct II.421
co-occurring with correlative nec/neque . . . et II.648 voice 50, 54, 230–305; see also passive voice
co-occurring with verum II.1188 active/passive variation
in combination at vero II.1176 as cohesive device II.1227
in combination sed vero II.683 as factor determining topic selection II.830
in combination sin vero II.330 active voice 54, 230–305
position of II.973 ancient terminology for 233
used to modulate directive expressions 355 choice between active and passive voice 250
with nisi clauses of exception II.352 volition, verbs of 567
versus/m (preposition) 812 volitive, see deontic (semantic value)
verto 280 volo
verum prohibitions with ne quis velit + perfect
as connector II.1172, 1187 infinitive 538
co-occurring with vero II.1188 subjunctive velim
in combination verum tamen II.685, 1188 used as metadirective 349
as coordinator II.680, 684 used to modulate directive expressions 355
co-occurring with quidem, omnino, and use of pluperfect for imperfect subjunctive 460
sane II.685 used in future perfect without anterior
correlative use with non + modo, solum, or meaning 466
tantum(modo) II.687 volo + infinitive construction, as competitor of
position of II.973 simple future 441
vescor 115 velitis iubeatis, as idiom II.609
vesperi 841 visne and velim with simple subjunctive
veto, with accusative and infinitive clause II.171, clause II.151
176, 181 with accusative and infinitive clause compared
videlicet 310, 924 with prolative infinitive II.171
with conditional si clause II.322 with dative or accusative 129
with relative clause as apposition II.524 with imperative clause II.139
video with personal object 169
future perfect videro as idiom 469 with prolative infinitive clause II.23
imperative used as metadirective 351 vos, see personal pronouns
Wackernagel’s law, placement in second posi- in prepositional phrases II.1108

tion II.976, 984, 1018 in subordinate clauses II.1038
waiting in expectation, verbs of order of terms of comparison II.723
implied with si clause II.335 position of
with si or ut clause 627, II.100 anaphoric constituents II.976
warning, verbs of bound clitics 18, II.995
with imperative clause II.134 connectors and interactional particles II.973
with prolative infinitive clause II.205 emphasizing particles II.994
weather conditions and attendant circumstances, forms of sum II.984
adjuncts of 854 indefinite pronouns and determiners II.983
weather verbs 193 objects with coordinated verbs II.593
wishes, as imperative sentences with optative personal pronouns 741, II.984, 987
illocutionary force 348, 367, 359 question words II.982
internal word order II.1036 relative pronouns II.981
use of subjunctive mood in 504–9 subordinators II.978
realizable wishes 505 Quintilian’s considerations about II.952
unrealizable wishes 507 relative order of
wishing, verbs of ablative absolute clause and main
with accusative and infinitive clause II.171 clause II.1057
with imperative clause II.129, 139 accusative and infinitive clause and main
with prolative infinitive clause II.209 clause II.1055
wondering, verbs of 627 arguments, satellites, secondary predicates,
word 17 and verbs II.1001
word classes 34–70 auxiliaries II.1122
word order II.949; see also position (in clause/ habeo and infinitive 439
sentence) head and apposition 1055
as device contributing to discourse relative clause and its head II.496, 497
coherence II.1228 subordinate and main clause II.1049
at clause/sentence level II.972 typological considerations II.965, 1135
at noun phrase level II.1062 word questions, see interrogative sentences:
basic word order II.965 constituent questions
correlation with agreement 1243 worrying, verbs of, with ne clause II.94
determining factors II.954–66
artistic factors II.962 yes/no questions, see interrogative sentences:
complexity II.960 sentence (yes/no) questions
domain integrity and head proximity II.956
euphony and rhythm II.960 zero-anaphora (ellipsis of obligatory constitu-
iconicity II.961 ents) 757, 1150, 1152, 1159, II.835,
mobile and non-mobile words II.955 1148
personal and semantic role hierarchy II.958 zero-coordination II.585; see also asyndetic
pragmatic factors 31, 1038, II.959 coordination
sentence type II.954 zero quantifiers (negative indefinites) 672, 708
syntactic factors II.959 as negators of argument clause II.57
text type II.955 negated by non later in clause 724
diachronic developments II.1135 negated by preceding non 721
in Late Latin 1238 negator + indefinite pronoun as alternative
in ablative absolute clauses II.1044 to 711
in accusative and infinitive clauses II.1041 neuter with genitive of quantity 1019
in complex sentences II.1047, 1050 used as determiners 973
in declarative sentences II.1003 with partitive genitive 1005
in imperative sentences II.1033 zero-valent verbs 19, 192–5
in interrogative sentences II.1027 zeugma, as unconventional instance of
in main clauses II.1037 coordination II.603, 711

The Oxford Latin Syntax Volume II The Complex Sentence and Discourse 9780199230563 0199230560 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Latin Syntax Volume II The Complex Sentence and Discourse 9780199230563 0199230560 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE OXFORD

THE COMPLEX SENTENCE

14 Subordinate clauses: common properties and internal structure 1

14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms of clause combining 1

15 Subordinate clauses filling an argument position 52

15.1 The functions of argument clauses 53

15.27 The use of ut clauses with verbs and expressions of happening

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

15.54 The use of num in indirect clausal questions 111

15.80 The use of finite imperative clauses with so-called impersonal

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

15.109 The use of the accusative and infinitive in subordinate (especially

15.132 Participial argument clauses (dominant participles) 220

16 Subordinate clauses filling a satellite position 237

16.l Verbal and nominal satellite clauses 237

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

16.19 Time clauses denoting anterior events 257

16.59 Purpose si clauses 334

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

16.96 Participial genitive absolute clauses 403

17 Subordinate clauses with nouns, adjectives, and adverbs 435

17. I Introductory remarks 435

17 .11 Imperative subordinate clauses functioning as attribute at

18 Relative clauses 471

18. l Introduction 471

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

18.4 Semantic types of adnominal relative clauses 478

19.1 Introductory remarks 583

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

19.36 Correlative combination of et and ac/atque 646

19.75 Less common types of coordination 703

20.l Introduction 715

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

20.22 The use ofprepositions and nisi in expressions of dissimilarity 761

21 Secondary predicates 777

21. l Secondary predicates: introductory remarks 777

21.24 Ipse and idem 824

22 Information structure and extraclausal expressions 826

22.1 The information structure of clauses 826

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

22.39 Demum 902

23 Word order 948

23.1 Methodological preliminaries 949

23 .22 Anaphoric constituents 976

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

23.62 Word order in accusative and infinitive clauses 1041

23.97 The relative order of constituents in phrases with the auxiliary

24.1 Introduction 1138

Copy· 1ghted ~•te

24.27 The adversative connector ceterum 1181

Addenda and corrigenda to Volume I 1233

* indicates a nonexistent or ungrammatical expression

AcI accusative and infinitive (accusativus cum infinitivo)

suppl. supplevit ‘supplied by X’

Subordinate clauses: common properties

14.1 Subordinate clauses and other forms

¹ For a typological analysis of Latin subordination, see Lehmann (1989).

subordination s.s. relativization coordination comparison

Chs. 15–17 Ch. 18 Ch. 19 Ch. 20 Ch. 21

Figure 14.1 Subordination and other forms of clause combining

(v) Subordination sensu stricto and relativization

(m) Sunt hic inter se quos nunc credo dicere: . . .