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

Next Sub2Sect

11.2.1 The finite verb forms

In this section I first treat the forms of the indicative, then the forms of the subjunctive and finally the forms of the imperative. Within each subsection I follow the order present, future, future perfect, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect.

11.2.1.1 Indicative

11.2.1.1.1 Present (i) The present indicates that the predication is contemporaneous with the moment of speaking (or with another predication that

-- 224 --

in its turn is contemporaneous with the moment of speaking), e.g. (26):

(26) P. Servilius … adest de te sententiam laturus (`P.S. is here to pronounce a judgment on you', Cic. Ver. 1.56)

In this instance P. Servilius was present in person during Cicero's oration. Furthermore, as in English, the present is also used:

(a) in predications that refer to general situations, e.g. the sun sets in the west, all's well that ends well; see (27):

(27) ut enim magistratibus leges, ita populo praesunt magistratus (`For as the magistrates are subordinate to the laws, so the people is subordinate to the magistrates', Cic. Leg. 3.2)

(b) in predications that refer to a future, posterior situation, e.g. I am at home tomorrow (so-called present for future (praesens pro futuro); see below under (ii)).

(c) in predications that refer to a past, anterior situation (so-called historic present; see below under (iii)).

Some linguists have concluded from the fact that the present (more precisely: the present indicative) can be used in utterances that do not refer to the speech situation as such that the present indicative is a neutral or unmarked verb form. [14] It is true that in terms of temporal reference (and illocutionary force) the present indicative is the most widely applicable form, but this is not, of course, to say that the present indicative can replace every other verb form, or that there is no difference between, for example, a historic present and a perfect form (see below under (iii)).

(ii) Present for future. An example is (28):

(28) Lentulus Spinther hodie apud me; cras mane vadit (`L.S. is staying with me today; he is leaving early tomorrow morning', Cic. Att. 14.11.2)

For examples see K.–St. I.119; Sz. 307–8 (dynamic states of affairs (especially with `to go') predominate). In (28) a future would also be possible. The fact, however, that both forms are possible does not entail that they are absolutely identical in meaning. Moreover, they are not equally common in all circumstances. Future forms are, for instance, often used with an imperative illocutionary force (see crosssection 10.2.1.1 and the following sections). For the present this is exceptional (see Sz. 327). Also, it is striking that in comedy ibo is used in asides, rather than eo. [15] Further research is required into the distribution and interchangeability of present and future.

(iii) Historic present. In Latin narrative texts (both prose and poetry) the historic present is the most frequent narrative tense, with differences in frequency between authors and sometimes even within the same work. Here I limit myself to the question of whether the present can always be

-- 225 --

used in predications that refer to the past. The answer to this question is no. The historic present cannot normally be used to begin an episode [16] (though some poets and also Tacitus use it very extensively). To avoid confusion, a clear signal that the past is being referred to is necessary. Such a signal need not be an explicit past tense, but can also be a temporal subordinator, e.g. ut in (29):

(29) Turnus ut infractos adverso Marte Latinos defecisse videt … attollit … animos (`When Turnus saw that the Latins were crushed and lost heart as a result of the defeat, … he raised his spirit', Verg. A. 12.1–4)

N.B.: Also the position of Turnus at the beginning of the sentence marks the new episode.

The historic present cannot be used to close an episode either, if the boundary between this and the next episode is not marked in some way or other, e.g. by an explicit introduction of this new episode. [17] However, when the past reference is sufficiently marked, the present is used on a large scale to refer to past events and situations. But this, too, need not mean that present and past tense are interchangeable. Most linguists-correctly, in my view-hold that the present is used to create the impression of an eye-witness report. The transition from past tense to present enlivens the story; also, by the mere alternation of tenses the story becomes less monotonous. Further research into the alternation of historic present and past tenses is required in order exactly to determine its effect. See further crosssection 11.3.2 on p. 239. For examples see K.–St. I.114–7; Sz. 306–7).

11.2.1.1.2 Future I mainly limit myself to the so-called simple future.

(30) (aside) ibo ad Diabolum, mandata dicam facta ut voluerit/atque interea ut decumbamus suadebo … /poste demum huc cras adducam ad lenam (`I go to D., tell him that his orders have been executed as he wished, and propose to dine together. Then, only tomorrow, I bring him here, to my mistress', Pl. As. 913–5)

(31) (Pseudolus reads that his beloved has been sold to a Macedonian soldier) `… ei rei dies/haec praestituta est, proxuma Dionysia'. cras ea quidem sunt … ille abducturus est mulierem cras (`The next Dionysus holiday has been decided upon as the day for this. But that is tomorrow … He will take away my girl tomorrow', Pl. Ps. 56–58; 82)

(30) is a `normal' example of the simple future in predications that in relation to the moment of speaking refer to the future (or that are contemporaneous with another–itself future-moment). For the so-called `modal' uses see below examples (32)–(36). The periphrastic future (-urus sum; see (31)) is far less frequent than the simple future. It almost always contains a nuance of

-- 226 --

`intention', `predestination' or `purpose'. Further research is required. For examples see K.–St. I. 160–2; Sz. 312.

The future is often used with a so-called `modal' nuance. In other words, the predication is formulated as referring to the future and as a rule does, in fact, have future reference, but the attitude of the speaker with regard to the predication is such, that the hearer does not interpret it in an exclusively temporal way. Statements in the future concerning a first person will often be understood as `intention' or `will', concerning a second person as an expectation as to future behaviour and thus as an `order', concerning a third person as a `possibility' or a general rule. Examples are (32), (33) and (34)–(36), respectively:

(32) fatebor enim, Cato, me quoque in adulescentia … quaesisse adiumenta doctrinae (`For I am prepared to confess, Cato, that I, too, have looked for support in philosophy in my youth', Cic. Mur. 63)

(33) si igitur tu illum conveneris, scribes ad me, si quid videbitur (`So, if you meet him, write to me, if there is something that is worthwhile', Cic. Att. 12.28.1)

(34) quaeret fortasse quispiam, displiceatne mihi legum praesidio capitis periculum propulsare (`Someone might perhaps ask whether I have any objections against a defense on the basis of the laws in a capital case', Cic. Clu. 144)

(35) tamen excellet illud … quod honestum, quod rectum, quod decorum appellamus (`Yet that which we call honourable, correct and fitting will turn out best', Cic. Tusc. 2.30)

(36) haec erit bono genere nata (`She is presumably of good descent', Pl. Per. 645)

Note that the expression quaeret fortasse quispiam is very similar to the–exceptional–use of the (potential) subjunctive in dicat aliquis (`someone might say') (Liv. 9.4.12). [18] Further research into the interchangeability of the present subjunctive and the future indicative is required. For examples see K.–St. I.142.–4; Sz. 310–11). [19]

11.2.1.1.3 Future perfect The future perfect is used in predications that are anterior to a moment that itself lies in the future. (33) above is a normal example. The future perfect also occurs in situations where no clear anteriority is concerned. Examples are (37)–(39):

(37) … oratorem sic iam instituam, si potuero, ut quid efficere possit ante perspiciam (`Then I will organize the training of an orator in such a way, if I can, that I first determine his natural capabilities', Cic. de Orat. 2.85)

-- 227 --

(38) ego cras hic ero. / cras habuero, uxor, ego tamen convivium (`Tomorrow I will be here. Yet, tomorrow, wife, I will eat my dinner', Pl. Cas. 786–7)

(39) si ea (salus) praecisa erit, nusquam facilius hanc miserrimam vitam vel sustentabo vel, quod multo est melius, abiecero (`If this hope is taken away from me, this is the best place to continue this terrible life or, much better, end it', Cic. Att. 3.19.1)

The grammars (K.–St. I.147–9; Sz. 323) assume that the future perfect originally differed from the simple future in terms of aspect: the simple future would in that case have been `imperfective', the future perfect `perfective' (`faciam: Ich werde mit der Ausführung beschäftigt sein'; `fecero: Ich werde zur Ausführung bringen'). They also agree that as early as Plautus this distinction no longer existed systematically, though disagreeing as to the extent to which it still existed. Sz. maintains, for instance, that (39) is a good illustration of the continued existence of aspect in Cicero's time. The example is, however, misleading, in that sustentare and abicere presuppose different states of affairs (non-dynamic vs. momentaneous): in this way the difference in interpretation possibly felt by some readers may be explained. It is characteristic that in comedy most cases of the future perfect are found at the end of the line. This is another reason not to assume a systematic semantic difference between future perfect and simple future. Sometimes there is such a difference, sometimes there is not. [20]

11.2.1.1.4 Imperfect The imperfect is used in predications that refer to a situation or event that occurred at a certain moment in the past (or contemporaneous with a moment that itself is in the past; see example (17) on p. 219). That such events were still going on can be proved with the aid of instances in which the imperfect cannot be replaced by a perfect, because then an implication would be created that is contrary to reality, see (40)–(42):

(40) extinctus pudor et, qua sola sidera adibam, / fama prior (`My chastity is lost and my former reputation, by which alone I was winning a title to the stars', Verg. A. 4.322–3)

(41) ergo in Graecia musici floruerunt discebantque id omnes nec qui nesciebat satis excultus doctrina putabatur (`So in Greece musicians flourished; everybody would learn music, and who was unacquainted with it was not considered completely educated', Cic. Tusc. 1.4)

(42a) (Eutychus:) quo nunc ibas? :: (Charinus:) exulatum (`Where were you going? :: Into exile', Pl. Mer. 884)

(42b) (Eutychus:) quem (sc. Charinus) quidem hercle ego, in exilium cum iret, redduxi domum; nam ibat exulatum :: (Demipho:) An abiit? :: (Lysimachus:) etiam loquere, larva (`And, for the love of God, I have

-- 228 --

even taken him back home when he was going into exile; for he was on his way :: And he did not leave? :: Shut up, you devil', Pl. Mer. 980–1)

In (40) adii would incorrectly imply (terminative state of affairs) that she had already reached the stars; 20a in (41) didicerunt would incorrectly suggest that everyone became a fully educated musician. In the encounter between Eutychus and Charinus ((42a)) quo nunc iisti would be absurd: Charinus is on his way when Eutychus sees him. See also the joke an abiit in (42b).

In specific contexts, and with certain (in particular terminative) states of affairs, it can appear that an action was being carried out, but was not fully ended. In such cases, the imperfect is interpreted as `conative'. An example is (43):

(43) veniebatis igitur in Africam … Prohibiti estis in provincia vestra pedem ponere (`So you were on your way to Africa … You were prevented from setting foot in your own province', Cic. Lig. 24)

See also (44):

(44) ipsi ex silvis rari propognabant nostrosque intra munitiones ingredi prohibebant. at milites legionis septimae testudine facta et aggere ad munitiones adiecto locum ceperunt (`The enemy came out of the woods to fight in small groups, and sought to prevent our troops from entering the fortifications, but the soldiers of the seventh legion formed a "tortoise" and threw up a ramp against the fortifications, and so took the position', Caes, Gal. 5. 9.5–6)

This instance, cited by K.-St. (I. 121) as an example of a conative imperfect, is not in itself remarkable in terms of the use of the tenses. Prohibebant is to be compared with the preceding propugnabant; in both forms the imperfect is used for the same reason: they present the background situation in which the milites legionis septimae carried out their actions. The conative interpretation of prohibebant depends on the information given in the following sentence, introduced by the contrastive connector at. Likewise, we could also translate ibas in (42a) as conative (`Where were you trying to go?'), but the fact that Charinus does not reach the destination he mentions (exile) can be deduced from the situation on stage (ire + Direction Adjunct: terminative) and is not connected with the imperfect. Incidentally, a conative interpretation is also possible in the case of a present tense form or a present participle (for examples see K.-St. I. 120–2). [21] Like the conative interpretation, iterative and other interpretations of the imperfect completely depend on the context. I do not discuss them here.

The grammars (e. g. K.–St. I. 124; Sz. 317) sometimes also distinguish a `narrative' use of the imperfect. An example cited by Sz. is (45):

(45) (Diniarchus:) sed opsecro hercle, Astaphium, <i> intro … / (Astaphium:) licet :: audin etiam? :: quid vis? :: di me perduit/qui te

-- 229 --

revocavi. non tibi dicebam "i" modo? :: / quid iam revocabas? lnprobe nihilique homo: / tute tibi mille passum peperisti morae (`But come on, Astaphium, please go inside :: All right :: Listen :: What do you want? :: May the gods curse me for having called you back. Didn't I just say to you "go"? :: Then why did you call me back? You are terrible and good-for-nothing. You have caused yourself a delay of a mile', Pl. Truc. 329–34)

The situation is that Diniarchus is not (or, rather, no longer) very coherent and has forgotten that he has sent Astaphium inside. With dicebam he recalls the moment he gave the order, and Astaphium reacts accordingly (revocabas). This instance makes clear that `a moment in the past' must be understood as a moment that in the mind of the speaker is regarded as such. Sometimes it is hard to reconstruct these thoughts. Sometimes, as here, the imperfect could be replaced by a perfect without essentially changing the situation. This does not, of course, mean that the two expressions are synonymous. I return to the function of the imperfect in narrative texts in crosssection 11.3.1 on p. 237.

A similar explanation holds for example (15) (cited above on p. 218):

(15) sed si domi est, Demaenetum volebam (`But I wanted to see D., if he is at home', Pl. As. 452)

The speaker locates his wish in the past; he could also formulate it as referring to the moment of speaking (volo), but, as has been pointed out above, this would have been considerably more direct (volui (perfect) is, of course, impossible). A remarkable use of the [corr. 12-08: im-]perfect indicative is that in predications that did not occur, but could have occurred (where, therefore, a pluperfect subjunctive would be possible: counterfactual). Examples are found from Cicero onwards, but are especially frequent in Tacitus (K.–St. II. 404–5). An example is (46):

(46) nec multo post urbem ingredienti offerebantur communes liberi nisi Narcissus amoveri eos iussisset (`And a little while later, when he was driving into town, their mutual children would have shown themselves to him, if N. had not ordered them to be taken away', Tac. Ann. 11.34. 4)

Instances of this kind are to be explained on the basis of the meaning of the imperfect as described above (at a certain moment in the past something was happening). The `showing themselves' had already begun, but was interrupted (cf. the discussions of the cum inversum construction on p. 237 and the pluperfect on p. 233).

11.2.1.1.5. Perfect Above I have described the perfect as a mark of `anteriority with regard to the moment of speaking'. Predications in the perfect refer to events or situations that are `ended', `over'. This appeared from

-- 230 --

the addibility of quantifying expressions such as bis and ter (example (25) in crosssection 11.1.3 on p. 223). It also appears from the addibility of other expressions (that, as it were, require an overview of the situation or event as a whole), e.g. non (`not'), paene (`almost'), Manner Adjuncts (e.g. prospere pugnavit (`he fought successfully'), though in these cases we merely find a very clear preference for the perfect. The imperfect, on the other hand, seems to emphasize the event or situation itself, without any further modification.

The perfect is the most disputed verb form of the Latin verb system. Above (p. 222) I have shown that Priscian (and other grammarians) called both the perfect and the imperfect `praeteritum'. Some linguists consider this an argument to support the assumption that the perfect is not related to the present moment, but is simply a past tense without semantic aspects like `ended', `anterior', etc. [22] The perfect and the imperfect do, indeed, behave similarly in some respects. (47a–b), for instance, may be replaced by the same AcI in indirect speech:

(47a) Socrates doctrinam amavit (`Socrates has loved philosophy')

(47b) Socrates doctrinam amabat (`Socrates loved philosophy')

(47c) aiunt Socratem doctrinam amavisse (`Socrates is said to have loved philosophy'/`They say that Socrates loved philosophy')

Yet, there are the facts pointed out at the beginning of this section, and instances in which the perfect indicates anteriority with respect to the moment of speaking, e.g. example (16):

(16) rogo quid fecerit (`I ask what he has done')

I conclude, therefore, that it is impossible to assume for the perfect the semantic value `passé pur et simple', as is often done in French linguistics. There are too many instances where not only `past' is at stake, but also anteriority. Moreover, anteriority also plays an important role in the other forms of the perfectum stem.

Besides the view mentioned just now (`passé pur et simple'), there is another, defended by, among others, K.-St. and Sz., which assigns two separate values to the perfect. The perfect occurs in two text types: both in `present' contexts and in past, narrative texts. For examples of the former see (48)–(49):

(48) ubi tu hunc hominem novisti? (`Where have you met this man?', Pl. Men. 379)

(49) quotiens tu me designatum, quotiens vero consulem interficere conatus es? (`How often have you tried to kill me while I was consul elect, and even while I was consul?', Cic. Catil. 1.15)

Here the perfect indicates that the state of affairs has occurred before the moment of speaking. In English we translate them with the present perfect (with the auxiliary have). For the use of the perfect in narrative texts see (50):

-- 231 --


(50) Orgetorix … suam familiam … coegit et omnes clientes … conduxit. per eos … se eripuit (`O. gathered all his retainers and assembled all his clients. Thanks to them he escaped from … ', Caes. Gal. 1.4. 2)

In the English translation we use the simple past for such series of successive events (see further crosssection 11.3.1 on p. 237). Because of this, many linguists assume two separate values for the perfect, the so-called `present perfect' and the `historical perfect.'

To explain this allege doubled value of the perfect, linguists generally point at the history of the forms of the perfect. There is a great variety of forms, including forms that cannot easily be traced back to Indo-European (e.g. -vi), but also forms in -si (e.g. scripsi (`I have written'), cf. the Greek sigmatic aorist) and forms with reduplication (e. g. tetigi (`I have touched'), cf. the Greek perfect). It is, then, assumed, that the Latin perfect not only preserves Indo-European forms, but also the corresponding Indo-European values of aorist and perfect. It may, of course, be objected against this assumption that syncretism of originally different perfect and aorist forms into one paradigm can much better be explained by assuming that the semantic differences between them had disappeared than by assuming that the original differences were preserved.

It remains to be explained how, if we assume only one value for the perfect, its occurrence in two different text types can be explained. The use of the perfect in narrative (past) texts and the difference between the perfect and the imperfect in such texts are a consequence of the value of the perfect as indicated in table 11.2 on p. 220 above (`anterior to', `ended before the moment of speaking'). `Anterior to the present' naturally also implies `past'. The occurrence of the perfect in two text types, then, results from this very duplicity of the perfect (see crosssection 11.1.2).

Depending on the context or on the type of state of affairs the perfect is (like the imperfect, as we have seen above) sometimes interpreted in a special way.

(i) There are in Latin several fossilized perfect forms that occur in predications that refer to the present. The best-known example is memini (`I remember'). Also novi (perfect of noscere (`to get to know') is usually used in this way. These cases are, of course, among the favourite examples of those linguists who want to distinguish a `present' and a `historical' perfect; owing to their idiomatic nature, however, they are unsuitable as evidence for anything at all in Classical Latin (see also example (48) on p. 230 above!).

(ii) When the perfect of a terminative state of affairs occurs in a present context, it often refers to a state obtaining at the moment of speaking that has resulted from a preceding action or process. Novi (`I know') is a good example, as is consuevi (`I am accustomed') and, in the passive, occisus sum, e.g. (51):

(51) occisi sumus (`We are dead', Pl. Mil. 172)

-- 232 --

In narrative contexts, however, the anteriority of the action plays the most important part, e.g. (52):

(52) duo … reguli … eo proelio cecidereunt. octo elephanti capti, tres occisi (sc. sunt) (`In this battle two princes were killed. Eight elephants were captured, three killed', Liv. 24. 42.8)

For examples see K.–St. I. 125–6; Sz. 318. [23]

(iii) Especially with non-dynamic states of affairs (states) in the perfect, in `present' contexts it is sometimes implied that the state no longer holds at the moment of speaking (the so-called `negative' or `logical' perfect), e.g. (53):

(53) fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium et ingens gloria Teucrorum (`We Trojans are non, Ilium is not, and the great glory of the Teucrians', Verg. A. 2.325–6)

Another example is dixi (`I have finished my speech'). For examples see K.-St. I. 125; Sz. 318. [24]

(iv> For the ingressive interpretation of non-dynamic states of affairs in the perfect, which some linguists assume in narrative texts, see example (54) from Petersmann (1977: 178–9):

(54) molestus fuit, Philerosque proclamavit (`He was a bore, and Phileros shouted out: … ', Petr. 43.1)

In such cases the perfect is not used in order to bring about an ingressive interpretation (something like `he became a bore'), but because it is the normal tense in a sequence of successive events (see crosssection 11.3.1 on p. 238).

Interpretations of this kind, in reality determined by the context or the type of state of affairs involved, are often put forward as evidence for the existence of an aspectual verbal system in Latin. The instances discussed in (i) and (ii) are often compared with the resultative value of the Greek perfect, instances such as those discussed in (iv) with the ingressive value of the Greek aorist. I emphasize, however, that (i)–(iv) concern marginal exceptions, and that these special cases can be described as resulting from the interaction in a certain context of the type of state of affairs and the semantic value of the perfect.

11.2.1.1.6 Pluperfect The pluperfect is used to locate states of affairs at a moment that is anterior to a moment in the past. An example is (55):

(55) Darius in fuga cum aquam turbidam et cadaveribus inquinatam bibisset, negavit umquam se bibisse incundius; numquam videlicet sitiens biberat (`When in flight Darius had drunk water full of mud and polluted by corpses, he said that he had never drunk anything more pleasant, apparently he had never drunk when he was thirsty' Cic. Tusc. 5. 97)

-- 233 --

The occurrence of the pluperfect in (56) is similar to the use of the imperfect in example (46) on p. 229:

(56) praeclare viceramus nisi … Lepidus recepisset Antonium (`We would have won a splendid victory, if L. had not come to the aid of A.', Cic. Fam. 12.10.3)

11.2.1.2 Subjunctive

The subjunctive forms show certain similarities with the temporal values of the indicative forms. The subjunctive forms of the perfectum stem, for instance, indicate anteriority, those of the infectum stem contemporaneousness. In the subjunctive, however, there is not the same temporal variety as in the indicative. There is, for instance, no subjunctive form of the future or the future perfect. Instead, either the periphrastic form with -urus or the present or perfect subjunctive must be used.

The perfect subjunctive has a number of non-anterior uses. Some of these have already been mentioned in crosssection 10.2.1.1 and crosssection 10.2.1.3. Examples are (57)–(59), instances of the so-called potential subjunctive, and (60):

(57) cuius ego iudicium, pace tua dixerim, longe antepono tuo (`Whose judgment, if I may say so with your permission, I value much more than yours', Cic. Tusc. 5.12)

(58) sed fortasse dixerit quispiam tibi propter opes … tuam tolerabiliorem senectutem videri (`But somebody might perhaps say that thanks to your riches your old age seems more bearable', Cic. Sen. 8)

(59) sic ego istis censuerim … novam istam … orationem fugiendam (`In this way I think they ought to avoid this new style', Cic. Brut. 288)

(60) ne vos quidem, iudices i qui me absolvistis, mortem timueritis (`Not even you, judges, who have acquitted me, should fear death', Cic. Tusc. 1.98)

For examples see K.–St. I. 177; Sz. 189. For lack of a satisfactory temporal explanation, many explain these instances in terms of aspect, especially the prohibitions exemplified by (60). K.–St. (I. 189) describe the perfect as (at least originally) momentaneous and as `aoristic'. See Sz. 337. [25] The aspectual explanation poses problems, in that there are hardly any pairs of expressions in the same authors that differ only in terms of tense.

In crosssection 10.2.1.1 on p. 194 ff. I have remarked that the imperfect subjunctive is used in predications that refer to a hypothetical situation. We have already seen that the imperfect indicative can be used in predications that refer to the present and that in such cases it creates an impression of non-immediacy and modesty (volebam in example (15) on p. 218). The use of the imperfect subjunctive can be seen as the non-factive counterpart of this use of the indicative. It is in accordance with the system that anteriority with regard to the imperfect subjunctive is expressed by the pluperfect subjunctive. Examples

-- 234 --

of the use of the imperfect subjunctive and pluperfect subjunctive in hypothetical sentences for `present' and `past', respectively, are (61)–(62):

(61) quodsi semper optima tenere possemus haud sane … consilio multum egeremus (`But if we could always have the best, we would certainly not be in such a need of advice', Cic. Part. 89)

(62) in ipsa enim Graecia philosophia tanto in honore numquam fuisset nisi doctissimorum contentionibus dissensionibusque viguisset (`For in Greece itself philosophy would never have enjoyed such respect, if it had not shown its powers in disputes and differences of opinion among respected scholars', Cic. Tusc. 2.4)

For examples in Classical Latin see K.–St. II. 399, as well as for archaic Latin. [26]

11.2.1.3 Imperative

As to the imperative, there is little to add to what has been said in chapter 10. A semantic difference is assumed between fac and facito: facito would refer to a more distant future. Expressions of the type ne fac would be an order to stop performing an ongoing action. This would, at any rate, be consistent with the value of the infectum stem mentioned elsewhere (`contemporaneousness with'). But see crosssection 10.2.1.3 (b) on p. 200 ff.

Next Sub2Sect


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