Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect

9.3.1 Survey of the standard approach

The description of word order in Sz. (397 ff.) is to a large extent determined by considerations with regard to the prehistoric Indo-European situation. Thus, in Indo-European certain categories of words, viz. `particles', [8] `conjunctions' (i.e. connectors and subordinators), (certain) pronouns and other `unaccented' words, are said to have been placed `clitically' in the second position of the sentence, and consequently as a rule connected to the Subject constituent, for which the initial position had more or less naturally been reserved (Sz. 401; see K.–St. II.592; 597). According to the grammars, to some extent this also holds for Classical Latin, although some words belonging to the categories mentioned above usually occur in initial position. Furthermore, it is remarked that the initial position is often occupied by non-Subject constituents, which are, as a result, `emphasized'; in more modern terms, we might say that such constituents have (contrastive) Focus or Theme function in the sentence. The Subject constituent, on the other hand, may be placed at the end of the sentence, and thus receive `emphasis', i.e. have Focus (Sz. 402; K.–St. II.597–8). [9]

On the position of the finite verb in Indo-European there is little agreement among scholars. Sz. (402) and K.–St. (II.598) assume that the finite verb did not have a fixed position. Others, however, assume either a fixed position for the finite verb (viz. end position) or a certain relative order of the finite verb and its arguments Subject and Object. Some postulate the order S(ubject) O(bject) V(erb), others SVO. [10] In Latin the finite verb is said to be most often found at the end, both of main sentences and of subordinate clauses. There are, however, great differences between individual authors (or genres) and

-- 169 --

even within authors. In Plautus, for instance, the finite verb is very frequently followed by other constituents (among which also an Object constituent). In Caesar the finite verb is placed at the end of 84% of main sentences (Gal. II). This percentage varies from 32% to 52% in his contemporary Cicero, and is quite low in Varro (33%). In topographical digressions, however, Caesar does not place the finite verb at the end of the sentence (e.g. Gal. 1.1.5–7). [11]

According to K.–St. (II.611–12) non-Subject arguments as a rule precede the finite verb. Thus, SOV is considered the `normal' order for Classical Latin. Also the Praedicativum [12] and the Subject Complement precede the finite verb (K.–St. II.611). The least fixed position with regard to the finite verb seems to be that of satellites (`Adverbien und adverbiale Bestimmungen'; K.–St. II.613, in a very carefully formulated statement).

Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect


Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Powered by PhiloLogic