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

Next Section

6 The (internal) structure of noun phrases

In chapters 1–5 we have dealt with the structure of sentences and the role played within sentences by nominal and other constituents. This chapter concentrates on the internal structure of noun phrases which consist of more than a noun, pronoun, etc. Examples of such noun phrases [1] (NPs) are the italicized constituents in (1):

(1) oblitaque ingenitae erga patriam caritatis … consilium migrandi ab Tarquiniis cepit (`She forgot her innate love for her fatherland and conceived the plan to leave Tarquinii', Liv. 1.34.5)

Example (1) contains two NPs, viz.:

(1a) ingenitae erga patriam caritatis

(1b) consilium migrandi ab Tarquiniis

The NP in (1a) is a Complement governed by oblita; the internal structure of (1a) is as follows: the constituent caritatis is the `Head' of the NP. The Head constituent is the obligatory element of the NP (but see crosssection 6.5); any modifying adjective agrees with the Head noun in gender, number and case. The Head noun is specified by the prepositional phrase erga patriam. By virtue of its lexical meaning, caritas is a two-place noun (see p. 2), requiring the presence of `someone who feels the love' and `someone/something whom/which this love concerns', unless the context provides sufficient information for the identification of these in principle obligatory constituents. We see this illustrated in (1), since caritas is understood as being felt by the implied Subject of the sentence. The entire phrase erga patriam caritatis is modified by the `Attribute' ingenitae. An Attribute has been defined as an omissible constituent on the noun phrase level. [2] The syntactic function of erga patriam has so far been left out of consideration. The grammars usually speak of `Attribute' also in this case, i.e. they do not make a distinction between obligatory and non-obligatory `Attributes'. I will follow the current terminology, specifying where necessary an Attribute as `obligatory'. [3] The structure of the NP in (1a) may now be represented as in figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: The structure of ingenitae erga patriam caritatis

In cases where an NP consists of an Attribute and a second, hierarchically lower NP

-- 74 --

which functions as Head and in turn has an Attribute of its own we speak of `nesting'.

The NP (1b) functions as Object of the Predicate cepit. Within the NP migrandi ab Tarquiniis is an `embedded' predication which is an obligatory Attribute with the Head consilium. Within the embedded predication ab Tarquiniis is a satellite.

Special attention will be devoted to apposition; an example of an Apposition is (2):

(2) cum … legio … Albae constiterit, in municipio fidelissimo … (`When the legion had pitched camp at Alba, a very loyal municipium', Cic. Phil. 3.39)

In example (2) in municipio fidelissimo and Albae are said to be in apposition. See further crosssection 6.8.

In the following sections a number of problems with regard to NPs will be addressed. First, a number of types of constituent which can occur as Head will be discussed ( crosssection 6.1.), followed by a discussion of constituents which can occur as Attributes ( crosssection 6.2.). These two sections are not intended to be exhaustive. crosssection 6.3. concerns the distinction between obligatory and non-obligatory Attributes. In this connection I also deal with the influence of the syntactic function of the NP on the omissibility of Attributes, as well as complex Attributes. In crosssection 6.4. I discuss NPs with two or more Attributes which occupy different hierarchical positions, their relative order and, in relation to this, a subclassification of adjectives. In crosssection 6.5. I deal with the possible omission of the Head constituent (so-called substantive use of adjectives and

-- 75 --

participles). crosssection 6.6. concerns the semantic structure of NPs, similarities with the semantic structure on the sentence level and the formal means used to mark the relations which determine this structure (particularly case) [4]. In crosssection 6.7. I discuss the distinction between `definite' and `indefinite' NPs and the fact that Latin does not have articles. In crosssection 6.8., finally, I discuss apposition.

6.1. Head constituents

The most frequent type of constituent which occurs as Head within NPs is the noun. Examples are given in (1) and (2) above. Apart from cases of substantive use of adjectives and participles (which are discussed in crosssection 6.5.), sometimes pronouns (e.g. (3)) and occasionally an infinitive may function as Head (e.g. (4)) (for examples see K.–St. I.666; Sz. 343–4). The Head constituents are italicized. In (3) cum irraso capite is the Attribute modifying the (pronominal) Head te, in (4) hoc ipsum functions as Attribute with the infinitival Head nihil agere et plane cessare.

(3) di te ament cum irraso capite (`May the gods love you with your shaved head', Pl. Rud. 1303) [5]

(4) me … hoc ipsum nihil agere et plane cessare delectat (`It is exactly this idleness and complete rest which please me', Cic. de Orat. 2.24)

6.2. Categories of constituents in the function Attribute

Attributes are most frequently adjectives (e.g. bonus in vir bonus (`the/a good man')), certain types of pronoun (ille, quidam (`a certain')), as well as nouns or NPs in the genitive (e.g. praedae in spes praedae (`hope for booty')). Further illustration of these `normal' instances is not required. In addition, the following types of Attribute are found:

(a) NPs in case forms other than the genitive;

(b) prepositional phrases;

(c) adverbs;

(d) embedded predications (subordinate clauses) of various kinds.

I give some examples of each of these types below.

6.2.1 NPs as Attributes

As we have already discussed above, the genitive is the `normal' case on the noun phrase level (see crosssection 5.2.1–5.2.5), but occasionally we also find examples of the dative ((5)), accusative ((6), (7a)) and ablative ((7)). (7b) is an example of the so-called ablativus qualitatis. [6]

(5a) quid mihi scelesto tibi erat auscultatio (`Why did I have to listen to you, villain', Pl. Rud. 502)

-- 76 --

(5b) receptui signum aut revocationem a bello audire non possumus (`We are unable to hear any signal or call for retreat', Cic. Phil. 13.15)

(6a) quid tibi hanc curatiost rem (`What business of yours is this matter', Pl. Am. 519)

(6b) Quid mi auctor es? (`What do you advise?', Cic. Att. 13.40.2)

(7a) quid tibi hanc digito tactio est (`Why are you laying a hand on her', Pl. Poen. 1308)

(7b) Aristoteles, vir summo ingenio, scientia … dicere docere … coepit adulescentes (`A., a man of the greatest talent and learning, began teaching young people how to speak', Cic. Tusc. 1.7)

The role played by the cases in NPs functioning as Attributes will be discussed in crosssection 6.6.

6.2.2 Prepositional phrases as Attributes

We have already seen instances of prepositional phrases as Attributes in examples (1), (3) and (5b). See also the following instances:

(8) sequebatur raeda cum lenonibus (`A cart with pimps followed', Cic. Phil. 2.58)

(9) Auli autem filius, o di immortales! quam ignavus ac sine animo miles (`But A.'s son, my god! What a weak and spiritless soldier', Cic. Att. 1.18.5)

(10) quoius modi reliqui … filium? :: cum pedibus, manibus, cum digitis, auribus, oculis, labris (`What kind of son did I leave here? :: One with feet, hands, fingers, ears, eyes, lips', Pl. Most. 1117–18)

(11) L. Sullae, C. Caesaris pecuniarum translatio a iustis dominis ad alienos (`The transfer of money by L.S. and C.C. from the rightful owners to strangers', Cic. Off. 1.43)

For examples see K.–St. I.213–8. [7] Example (9) is an instance of coordination of an attributive adjective and an attributive prepositional phrase (see Sz. 817). Note that in this example both Attributes are modified by the intensifier quam. Example (11) is a neat instance of one Head constituent (translatio) with more than one Attribute. On this example, see also crosssection 6.3.1 on p. 83. Observe that in (1) the prepositional phrase erga patriam is framed by ingenitae and caritatis. Thus, the word order reflects the close relation between erga patriam and caritatis.

-- 77 --

6.2.3 Adverbs as Attributes


(12) neque ictu comminus neque coniectione telorum … magnas copias pulsas esse (`That large armies have been chased neither by close combat nor by spears thrown from afar', Cic. Caec. 43)

(13) intuemini enim horum deinceps annorum vel secundas res vel adversas (`For look at the prosperity or adversity of these past years', Liv. 5.51.5)

(14) fugam magis retro quam proelium aut hostem spectante milite (`While the soldiers were thinking more of retreat than of battle and enemies', Liv. 8.19.7)

(15) neque enim ignari sumus ante malorum (`For we are not ignorant of past trouble', Verg. A. 1.198)

For examples see K.–St. I.218–20. [8] The examples given in the grammars of attributively used adverbs in reality represent three separate uses of adverbs:

(i) The attributive use of adverbs in the strict sense of the term. Examples (12)–(15) are clear instances of this use. In (12) ictu comminus is on a par with coniectione telorum, as in (14) fugam retro with proelium and hostem. In (13) we see an adverb framed by another Attribute and the Head constituent (see crosssection 6.2.2 about example (1)).

(ii) A second group of uses is formed by cases such as example (16), which among others K.–St. take as an instance of an attributively used adverb.

(16) non tu nunc hominum mores vides? (`Don't you see how the morals of people of today are?&rsquo, Pl. Pers. 385)

There is, however, no decisive reason to take nunc as forming part of an NP with hominum as Head. Formal characteristics, such as the framing in (13), are absent. Nunc could also be interpreted as a Time Position Adjunct on the sentence level (`Don't you see now how the morals of the people are?&rsquo), even though this does not make much sense in this context. [9] Also ante in (15) is sometimes interpreted as an Adjunct (`For a long time we have not been ignorant of trouble&rsquo, see Austin (1971) ad locum).

(iii) A third group is formed by instances such as (17).

(17) matrem in Biturigibus homini illic nobilissimo ac potentissimo collocasse (`That he had married off his mother among the B. to a man who was very distinguished and powerful there', Cases. Gal. 1.18.6)

Illic modifies nobilissimo and is therefore an optional extension of the Attribute and not itself an Attribute with the Head noun homini (see further crosssection 6.3.).

The attributive use of adverbs becomes more common in Augustan poetry due to Greek influence. In Greek the phenomenon is more productive. In this

-- 78 --

language ambiguities such as those described above were to some degree avoided owing to the existence of the article ("οἱ νυ̃ν ἀνθρωποι").

6.2.4 Embedded predications on the noun phrase level

In chapter 7 we will discuss the various types of subordinate clause (henceforth these will be called embedded predications) on the sentence level (arguments and satellites). On the noun phrase level we also find various types of embedded predication. Examples are (18)–(20):

(18) cum … nuntium accepissem te mihi quaestorem obtigisse (`When I had received word that you had been assigned to me as quaestor', Cic. Fam. 2.19.1)

(19) omnia … bene sunt ei dicenda, qui hoc se posse profitetur (`He who professes to be able to do this should be able to speak eloquently about everything', Cic. de Orat. 2.5)

(20) me … expectatio tenet, quibusnam rationibus quibusque praeceptis ea tanta vis comparetur (`My expectation is that I will hear with what methods and rules such a great skill is acquired', Cic. de Orat. 2.74)

In (18) we find an AcI construction te … obtigisse depending on nuntium, in (19) a relative clause introduced by qui, and in (20) a so-called `dependent question' embedded with the noun expectatio. Below I first give a number of examples of subordinate clauses with a subordinator and infinitive constructions. Then I discuss some aspects of relative clauses. I will not discuss dependent questions in this account.

(a) Clauses with a subordinator and infinitive constructions, etc.

(21) uterer mea consuetudine ut vobis nulla in re molestus essem (`I would continue my habit not to cause you trouble in any way', Cic. Fam. 13.76.1; ut (non), cf. K.–St. II.244–6)

(22) de voluntate tua ut simul simus … non dubito (`I have no doubts as to your wish that we be together', Cic. Att. 12.26.1; ut (ne), cf. K.–St. II. 226)

(23) et cum … quoque religio obstaret ne non posset nisi ab consule dici dictator (`And when another obstacle was formed by the fear that a dictator could only be appointed by a consul', Liv. 4.31.4; ne (non), cf. K.–St. II.254)

(24) percipietis etiam illam … laetitiam … quod … tum facillime intellegetis (`You will then also experience the joy of understanding with the greatest ease …', Cic. de Orat. 1.197) [10]

(25) nullam moram interponendam putavimus quin videremus hominem (`We felt that greeting a friend should not be put off, Cic. Acad. 1.1; quin, cf. K.–St. II.259)

-- 79 --

(26) (Galli) consilium ceperunt ex oppido profugere (`The Gauls conceived the plan to flee from the city', Caes. Gal. 7.26.1; infinitive, cf. K.–St. II.670)

The embedded predications (27) and (28) differ from those in (21)–(26), in that they themselves consist of an NP in a specific case form.

(27) sibi enim bene gestae, mihi conservatae rei publicae dat testimonium (`He testifies that the state has been governed well by him, but saved by me', Cic. Att. 2.1.6; dominant participle, cf. K.–St. I.767 and crosssection 7.4.7.)

(28) eadem natura cupiditatem ingenuit homini veri videndi (`Nature has also instilled in man the desire to see the truth', Cic. Fin. 2.46; gerundive, cf. K.–St. I.737)

Just as with verbal predicates, some nouns allow different categories of embedded predication, sometimes involving a semantic difference. This is, for instance, the case with so-called dominant participle constructions and gerundive constructions, see (29)–(30):

(29) suspicio acceptae pecuniae (`The suspicion of having received money', cf. Cic. Ver. 38)

(30) suspicio regni adpetendi (`The suspicion of wanting to seize power', cf. Cic. Phil. 2.114)

Example (29) concerns a suspicion of having received money. In (30) the persons named in the context are suspected of having the intention to seize power. The dominant participle expresses a fact (`factive'), the gerundive a state of affairs which is `potential' (or `non-factive'). Some nouns (such as suspicio) occur with both constructions, others only with one of them (see table 6.1). We return to this phenomenon in crosssection 7.4.7 on p. 132.

Table 6.1
quodDominantParticipleAclGerund.ut inf.
fama-++---
dolor+++---
mandatum--++++
occasio---+++
Source: Bolkestein 1980b: 90–2.

The embedded predications treated so far (apart from example (19)) are similar to embedded predications on the sentence level. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether we are dealing with a predication on the noun phrase level or an embedded predication which is itself an argument in the sentence, e.g. example (31): 10a

-- 80 --


(31) tibi potestatem dedi, cum hac annum ut esses (`I've given you the chance to be with her for a year$', Pl. As. 847–8)

Dare occurs with a large number of similar nouns, and we might regard potestatem dare as a complex predicate with which ut … functions as a Complement. See also examples (26) and (27). A similar observation might be made with regard to example (18) nuntium accepissem and example (20) me expectatio tenet. [added 12-08: Notice that, with the exception of (22), the Head nouns are arguments of their respective verbs.] [11]

(b) Relative clauses

I discuss the following problems here:

(i) the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses;

(ii) the so-called connecting use of the relative pronoun with reference to an antecedent in the previous sentence or clause (e.g. qui = et/sed is); [12]

(iii) the functions which relative pronouns may fulfil;

(iv) the historical explanation of relative clauses.

In crosssection 6.5.1 I deal separately with the problem of the description of relative clauses without antecedents.

(i) Restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. In a very large number of languages a distinction is made between so-called restrictive and non-restrictive Attributes. In such cases the distinction is applied to, for example, adjectives, participles and relative clauses. I limit myself here to the latter category. English examples of a restrictive and a non-restrictive relative clause are (32) and (33), respectively: [13]

(32) The queen who was wearing a blue dress was cheered loudly

(33) The queen, who was wearing a blue dress, was cheered loudly

In written English the punctuation makes clear whether a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive. In spoken language the distinction formally appears from intonation and pause. The semantic difference between the two sentences is that (32) presupposes the existence of more than one queen, of whom that particular queen who was wearing a blue dress was cheered. This interpretation also means that on the basis of the modification the reader/hearer is able unequivocally to identify the referent of the Head (`queen'). As to (33) it cannot be said that the number of possible referents of the Head `queen' is limited by the modification. There is one queen, of whom it is remarked that at a certain moment she was wearing a blue dress. The semantic distinction described here is also assumed to be relevant for Latin. In the case of Latin, however, we are confronted with the problem that little is known about formal characteristics such as pause and intonation. [14] In general, it may

-- 81 --

be said that in only a few languages the semantic distinction described here is marked by a formal syntactic or morphological characteristic (Comrie 1981a: 131–2; Mallinson & Blake 1981: 359–67 [15] give some examples). There are, of course, situations in which a non-restrictive interpretation is more or less obvious. Thus an Attribute with a proper name is often to be interpreted as non-restrictive, since a proper name usually unequivocally refers to one specific person: [16]

(34) armaverat contraxeratque eos Didas Paeon, qui adulescentem Demetrium occiderat (`They had been armed and engaged by the Paeonian Didas, who had killed the young D.', Liv. 42.51.6)

A non-restrictive interpretation is also obvious if a relative clause contains sentence Disjuncts which express the view of the speaker/writer, e.g. (35)–(36): [17]

(35) tegentibus tumulis, qui peropportune circa viae flexus oppositi erant, occultus processit (`He proceeded unnoticed, protected by hills, which most fortunately surrounded the winding road on both sides', Liv. 29.34.9)

(36) causam tibi exposuimus Ephesi; quam tu tamen coram facilius meliusque cognosces (`I have told you about this case at Ephesus; yet, you will get to know it more easily and better if you are yourself present', Cic. Fam. 13.55.1) [18]

Compare also the English example (37):

(37) The queen, who was, of course, wearing a blue dress, was cheered loudly. 18a

(ii) `Relative connection'. In Latin the relative pronoun is also used to connect sentences in those cases in which an independent sentence and a personal, anaphoric or demonstrative pronoun would be used in English. Examples of this so-called `relative connection' are (38)–(39). Additional examples may be found in K.–St. II. 319–23.

(38) multas ad res perutiles Xenophontis libri sunt, quos legite, quaeso, studiose, ut facitis (`The books of X. are very useful for many subjects; I ask you to read them with attention, as you are doing', Cic. Sen. 59)

(39) L. Cornelius Lentulus … rediit. qui cum in senatu res … gestas exposuisset, … res triumpho dignas esse censebat senatus (`L.C.L. returned. When he had given an account of his activities to the senate, the senate judged that they were such as to justify that he might enter Rome in triumph', Liv. 31.20.1–3)

Note that in (38) the sentence connected by the relative pronoun contains an imperative. Normally the imperative does not occur in subordinate clauses. In (39) the relative pronoun forms part of a subordinate clause introduced by

-- 82 --

cum. Furthermore, the relative pronoun can always be replaced by a form of is and a sentence connected by a relative pronoun cannot be introduced by et, autem, etc. From this it appears that so-called connecting relative clauses are essentially different from `real' relative clauses (this does not, of course, mean that no doubtful instances exist in which it is not unequivocally clear which phenomenon is concerned). This use, rather infrequent in Classical Greek, is relatively frequent in Latin Classical prose, in Caes. Civ., for instance, more than 20% of the clauses are introduced by a relative pronoun. [19]

(iii) The syntactic and semantic function of the relative pronoun. [20] In the relative clause, the relative pronoun plays a role similar to that of `normal' nominal constituents in other types of sentence. In (39), for instance, qui is Subject in the cum … exposuisset clause, as also appears from the case form. In some languages the number of functions which can be fulfilled by a relative pronoun is limited. There are, for instance, languages in which a relative pronoun can exclusively function as Subject in the relative clause. In Latin there are no restrictions; see (40), where qua is a so-called ablativus comparationis: [21]

(40) ecce ad me advenit mulier, qua mulier alia nullast pulchrior (`Look, a woman comes towards me, a more beautiful woman does not exist', Pl. Merc. 100–1)

In Latin, certainly in Classical prose, the form of the relative pronoun is usually determined by the function which the pronoun fulfils in the relative clause. Occasionally, however, the case form of the relative pronoun corresponds to that of the NP which functions as its antecedent (`attractio'). A related phenomenon is `attractio inversa': the NP which is referred to by the relative pronoun takes the case form of that pronoun. For examples see K.–St. II.287 ff.; 289 ff.; Sz. 566 ff. These phenomena are more frequent in Greek, and also occur in other languages. [22] Latin examples are (41) and (42), respectively:

(41) … nulla beatior possit esse … et delectatione qua (v.l. quam) dixi et saturitate (`No life could be happier, both on account of the pleasure of which I have spoken and on account of the abundance', Cic. Sen. 56)

(42) Naucratem quem convenire volui in navi non erat (`N., whom I wanted to meet, was not on the ship', Pl. Amph. 1009)

(iv) The historical explanation of relative clauses. As I will point out in crosssection 7.6., hypotaxis is usually explained as having arisen from parataxis. Relative clauses are also explained in this manner. However, contrary to what we will see with respect to ut and other subordinate clauses, it is often assumed that Indo-European already had relative clauses. A current explanation for the Latin situation is, for instance, that the relative pronouns have arisen from indefinite/interrogative pronouns. For other Indo-European languages other origins are assumed. [23]

-- 83 --

6.3. Obligatory and non-obligatory Attributes; complex Attributes 6.3.1 Polyvalent nouns

In the examples in the preceding sections we have already seen several NPs with a polyvalent noun functioning as Head (e.g. caritas in (1), translatio in (11), cupiditas in (28)). See furthermore (43)–(45):

(43) propter animi multarum rerum brevi tempore percursionem (`On account of the review of many things by the mind in a short time', Cic. Tusc. 4.31)

(44) est lex iustorum iniustorumque distinctio (`Law is the distinction between just and unjust', cf. Cic. Leg. 2.13)

(45) declinatio brevis a proposito (`A short digression from the subject', cf. Cic. de Orat. 3.205)

With polyvalent nouns, which are often morphologically related to a verb, we also find optional Attributes (ingenitae in (1), brevi tempore in (43), brevis in (45)), in addition to obligatory Attributes. As with predicates, it is often difficult to determine the exact valency of nouns. As we see in example (11), the distinction between the Agent of translatio (Sullae, Caesaris) and the Patient pecuniarum on the one hand and the `Source' Adjunct a iustis dominis and the Direction Adjunct ad alienos, on the other, is difficult to determine.

6.3.2 Non-omissibility of Attributes in certain types of context

Not every Attribute can be omitted if in the sentence it occupies an essential position in the information. This is the case, for example, if the Head noun refers to something so obvious that it would be trivial to mention it by itself, without modification. Examples are (46) and (47):

(46) eos infenso animo atque inimico venisse (`That they had come with menacing and hostile intentions', Cic. Ver. 2.149)

(47) erant illi compti capilli (`He had well-combed hair', Cic. Pis. 25)

In (46) we find an NP in the ablative functioning as Praedicativum (so-called ablativus qualitatis, see p. 146). Omission of infenso atque inimico would be impossible, [24] and this holds almost always for the so-called ablativus qualitatis. In (47) we are dealing with the so-called dativus possessivus construction. Here, too, omission of the Attribute would result in superfluous information: after all, most people have hair.

6.3.3 Complex Attributes

With Attributes, obligatory and non-obligatory constituents may occur in a way similar to that of arguments and satellites on the sentence level in combinations of copula + adjective (examples on p. 22). [25]

-- 84 --


(48) humano cultu digniora loca (`Places more suitable for human habitation', Liv. 21.37.5)

(49) homini illic nobilissimo (`To a man who was most distinguished there', see example (17) on p. 77)

(50) mihi vos nunc, inquit Crassus, tamquam alicui Graeculo otioso et loquaci et fortasse docto atque erudito, quaestiunculam … ponitis (`Do you put to me, said Crassus, as if I were some garrulous Greek with lots of spare time, and perhaps wise and learned, some little questions', Cic. de Orat. 1.102)

In (48) we find an obligatory addition to digniora. Illic in (49) and fortasse in (50), on the other hand, are not obligatory. They are comparable to Adjunct and Disjunct, respectively, on the sentence level. In (48)–(50), therefore, we cannot speak of `nesting' (see crosssection 6.4.), but of `expansion'. Example (48) can be represented graphically as in figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2

6.4. Hierarchical structure of NPs (nesting)

In example (1a) on p. 73 and figure 6.1 on p. 74 we have seen an instance of an NP which, in its turn, itself consisted of an Attribute and a smaller NP. This phenomenon is called `nesting'. The two Attributes in this example differ from one another as to their hierarchical position. In this respect there is a difference with the two Attributes in veri a falso distinctio (`the distinction between true and false') (Cic. Fin. 1.64). The structure of this latter example may be represented as in figure 6.3.

I have already explained above that in example (1a) the Attributes have a different relation with regard to the governing Head. One (erga patriam) is

-- 85 --

Figure 6.3

obligatory because of the valency of the word caritas (in the meaning `affection of someone with regard to someone'), while the other (ingenitae) is optional. There are, however, also cases of nesting of non-obligatory Attributes. This phenomenon occurs in many languages. English examples are:

(51) Those first three beautiful days of the month of November

(52) Some intricate old interlocking Chinese designs (Quirk et al. 1985: 1340)

In Latin we find similar cases (for examples see K.–St. I.240–1; Sz. 160–1; 444):

(53) cum consuleretur (Themistocles) utrum bono viro pauperi an minus probato diviti filiam collocaret: `Ego vero', inquit, … (`When Th. was asked whether he would give his daughter in marriage to a poor good man or to a rich, less virtuous man, he answered: "I … " ', Cic. Off. 2.71)

(54) duae potentissimae et maximae finitimae gentes superatae sunt (`The two most powerful and greatest neighbouring tribes have been defeated', Liv. 2.53.3)

(55) ut multis fortissimis viris placuit (`As many brave men have wanted', Cic. Dom. 63)

(53)–(55) are examples of nesting; in (53) it is nesting of two `qualifying' [26] adjectives and in (54) of a numeral (duae), two qualifying adjectives and an adjective indicating location, while (55) is an example of a quantifying and a qualifying adjective. Some types of constituent which can occur in a nesting construction cannot as a rule be coordinated. An exception is formed by the quantifying adjective multus, which can in fact be coordinated with a qualifying adjective. [27] An example is (56):

(56) multi et graves dolores inventi parentibus (`Many terrible ordeals were thought of for the parents', Cic. Ver. 5.119)

The internal structure of example (54) can be represented graphically as in figure 6.4.

Exact rules for when nesting must occur and when coordination is obligatory cannot yet be given. The remarks made below require further research. In Latin we can distinguish a so-called `closed' class of pronouns, numerals, etc. and a so-called `open' class of adjectives, which may in principle

-- 86 --

Figure 6.4

be extended (i.e. it is productive). The former, closed, class in reality contains four subcategories: [28]

(a) anaphoric (is), demonstrative (hic, iste, ille) and interrogative (qui) pronouns;

(b) `indefinite' pronouns (quidam, (ali)qui(s)); [29]

(c) quantifying adjectives, numerals, etc. (unus, duo, primus, multi, aliquot); [30]

(d) identifying adjectives (alius, alter; idem);

A reason to distinguish these four subcategories lies in the fact that they can occur nested without coordination within an NP, but cannot be coordinated. Thus, (57) is possible, (58) is not.

(57) illi centum alii equites (`Those 100 other horsemen') [31]

(58) *illi et centum et alii equites

The `open' class mentioned above sometimes allows – apart from nesting ((59b)) – coordination ((59a)). Consider the following example:

(59a) Marcus amoenum et fructuosum hortum emit (`M. buys a delightful and fertile garden')

(59b) Marcus amoenum fructuosum hortum emit (`M. buys a delightful fertile garden')

Cf. also nesting with a material adjective in example (60):

(60) columna aurea solida (`A massive gold pillar', cf. Liv. 24.3.6)

Coordination is, however, not possible in the case of adjectives belonging to different semantic classes, e.g. expressing a `quality' and an `origin':

(61a) *populus Romanus et imperiosus

(61b) imperiosus populus Romanus (`The imperious Roman people')

A further subdivision of the `normal' adjectives is necessary. Finally,

-- 87 --

coordination between members of the open and closed classes is generally also impossible; see (62): [32]

(62) *populus ille et Romanus (`That and Roman people')

English often requires a certain order of Attributes. This order depends in part on the syntactic and semantic classes to which the Attribute constituents belong. This can be shown with the aid of the examples from Quirk et al. (1985: 1340) in table 6.2. Table 6.2
DeterminativeZone I: PrecentralZone II: CentralZone III: PostcentralZone IV: PreheadHead
(63)ournumeroussplendidAfrican touristattractions
(64)thesecrumbling greyGothic churchtowers
(65)acertaingreychurchtower
(66)someintricateold interlockingChinesedesigns
Source: Quirk et al. (1985: 1340).
There are, however, also cases in which the difference in order of two words correlates with a difference in meaning: see example (67):

(67a) beautiful old paintings

(67b) old beautiful paintings [33]

Example (67a) is a more common expression than (67b), in that in English more subjective qualifications generally precede more objective and inherent characteristics. Example (67b) is, however, not impossible, and differs semantically from (67a): (67a) concerns old paintings that are beautiful, (67b) beautiful paintings that are old. This difference may be represented graphically as in figure 6.5(a) and (b).

In the English examples a certain order is observed, which may be formulated generally as follows: the adjective which is most closely connected with the noun is placed most closely to the noun. For Latin the same seems to

Figure 6.5

-- 88 --

apply. Matters are, however, complicated by the fact that – much more so than in English – adjectives can be pre- and postposed to the noun which they modify (for details see crosssection 9.4. on word order). Yet, there are sufficient instances which reflect the same ordering principle:

(68a) statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas, quae caryatides dicuntur (`Marble statues of women wearing a stola, which are called caryatids', Vitr. 1.1.5) [(Head Attr. 1), Attr. 2] Attr. 3

(68b) tunicae … hibernae bonae (`Good winter clothes', Pl. Mil. 688) [Head Attr. 1] Attr. 2

(68c) secundo Punico bello (`The Second Punic War', V. Max. 7.2 ext. 16) Attr. 2 [Attr. 1 Head]

Exceptions are formed by those cases in which the adjective most closely connected with the noun carries special emphasis (Focus) in the context and is, therefore, dislocated, away from the noun which it modifies:

(68d) nocturnos quosdam inanes metus (`Some useless nocturnal feelings of fear', Cic. Cael. 36) Attr. 1 [Attr. 3 (Attr. 2 Head)]

The closeness of the relation between an Attribute and a noun is connected with the meaning of the Attribute. There is, then, also an indirect relation between the meaning of the Attribute and its position with regard to the Head, if one Head is modified by more than one Attribute. [34] See further also crosssection 8.1.2 on p. 143 and crosssection 9.4. on p. 184.

6.5. Absence of a Head constituent and so-called substantive use

If in a certain context it is sufficiently clear which entity is modified by an Attribute, this entity (the Head of the NP) need not be mentioned explicitly. This is an aspect of a general principle of natural languages, that what is already clear need not necessarily be formulated explicitly. This also applies in cases where it is not so much the context as the situation which makes clear who or what is referred to. An English example would be a situation in which a dinner guest is offered a choice between two types of wine (red or white); the answer could then simply be white, please. This very frequent phenomenon is often called `ellipsis' in the grammars. Examples are:

(69) concita perditos cives, secerne te a bonis (`Stir up the depraved citizens, but keep away from the good ones', Cic. Cat. 1.23)

(70) ut legi tuas (sc. litteras) de Varrone (`When I read your remarks about Varro', Cic. Att. 13.19.5)

(71a) non Homero soli locus est … aut Archilocho … sed horum vel secundis vel etiam infra secundos (`There is not only room for Homer and Archilochus, but also for second or even third–rate people', Cic. Orat. 4)

-- 89 --

(71b) nempe illum dicis cum armis aureis (`You surely mean that one there with the golden suit of armour', Pl. Mil. 16)

(71c) lucernam lucidam gerebat una, … gladium altera … Infit illa cum gladio … (`One was carrying a burning lamp, the other a sword … The one with the sword said … ', Apul. Met. 1. 12)

(72) postquam satis tuta circa sopitique videbantur (`When all around seemed sufficiently safe and all seemed to be asleep', Liv. 1. 58.2)

Instances such as (69) and (70) are the most common. But instances such as (71) – prepositional phrase – and (72) – adverb – are also not uncommon. Cf. also an expression like in Telluris (= `in the temple of T.', Cic. Att. 16.4.1), where we find a noun in the genitive without a Head, as a constituent of a prepositional phrase. [35]

Apart from the instances mentioned above, we find the so-called substantive use of, especially, adjectives and participles. Examples are (73) and (74), respectively:

(73a) servitus (est) postremum malorum omnium (`Slavery is the worst of all evils', Cic. Phil. 2.113)

(73b) quis (potest) vituperare improbos asperius, quis laudare bonos ornatius (`Who is able to censure the wicked more sharply, who to praise the good more lavishly', Cic. de Orat. 2.35)

(74) semperne … vulgi iudicium cum intellegentium iudicio congruit? (`Does the judgment of the people always correspond with that of those who are informed?', Cic. Brut. 183)

Contrary to what was stated in the first paragraph above, these instances do not concern entities known from context or situation to which the Attribute is applied; the adjectives/participle have an independently referring function; they refer generally to all things/persons to which the qualification `bonus' etc. may be applied (the so-called categorial use). We also find the neuter singular form of adjectives in a similar use, such as bonum (`(the) good') in (75):

(75) neque exquirat oratione, summum illud bonum in animone sit an in corpore (`And that in his speech he does not pose the question, whether `the highest good' resides in the mind or in the body', Cic. de Orat. 1.222)

A substantively used constituent may in its turn be modified by an Attribute, see (76) and (77):

(76) antiquissimum sollemne (`the oldest religious phenomenon', Liv. 9.34.18)

(77) haud voluisti istuc severum facere (`You did not want to commit that act of violence', Pl. Cist. 646)

-- 90 --

For examples see K.–St. II.225–9; Sz. 154.

Apart from the two productive types mentioned above, there are also all kinds of idiomatic expressions which can be explained diachronically on the basis of the omission of the Head noun in a sufficiently clear situation. Well-known cases are dextra (= dextra manus (`the right hand')), grammatica (= grammatica ars (`grammar')), adulescens (`adolescent'), etc. See Sz. 152–4 and K.–St. I.231.

6.5.1 `Independent' (Headless) relative clauses

In cases like example (78) the relative clause is commonly said to fulfil independently the function of Subject of the sentence virtutem amat.

(78) qui deum amat virtutem amat (`Who loves god, loves virtue') (see K.–St. II.280)

This is obvious, because a sentence like (79) is also possible:

(79) amator dei virtutem amat (`A lover of god loves virtue')

Relative clauses often occur in other syntactic functions besides that of Subject, as in (80) and rare cases such as (81)–(82).

(80) Xerxes … praemium proposuit qui invenisset novam voluptatem (`Xerxes offered a reward for him who had thought of a new form of pleasure', Cic. Tusc. 5.20)

(81) nunc redeo ad quae mihi mandas (`I now return to your orders', Cic. Att. 5.11.6)

(82) Scipio cum quos paulo ante nominavi interiit (`Scipio died together with those whom I have just mentioned', B. Afr. 96.2)

For examples see K.–St. II.281–2. [36]

This description of the function of independent relative clauses is the same as that of the substantive use of adjectives and other Attribute constituents treated so far. K.–St. (II.280) and others, however, explain sentences like (78) with the aid of examples like (83):

(78) qui deum amat virtutem amat

(83) qui deum amat is virtutem amat

I cannot see the advantage of this explanation: the description of correlative patterns such as in (83) is difficult enough in itself. [37]

6.6. The semantic structure of noun phrases; formal characteristics

In the preceding sections we have seen a wide variety of semantic relations between Attribute and Head constituent, sometimes comparable to

-- 91 --

semantic relations which are found on the sentence level. Some examples follow:

(5b) receptui signum: signum receptui dare: Purpose relation

(7a) digito tactio: tangere aliquem digito: Instrument relation (see p. 76)

(84a) capillo … muliebri vel nervo funes (`Ropes made of women's hair or of sinews&rsquo, Vitr. 10.11.2)

(84b) duplicem gemmis auroque coronam (`A double crown of gold and jewels', Verg. A. 1.655): corona auro caelata/ex auro confecta: Material relation (see K.–St. I.393–4)

In the examples given above the formal characteristics are the same as those on the sentence level. However, the most frequently used case form for marking an NP which is itself an Attribute with another noun or NP is – as we have seen in chapter 5 – the genitive. There may be widely divergent semantic relations between Head and Attribute, see (85)–(88). [38]


(85) statua Dianae (`A statue of Diana')

(86) statua Myronis (`A statue of Myron')

(87) statua Ciceronis (`A statue of Cicero')

(88) amor Ciceronis (`Love of/for Cicero')

Since we know that Diana is the name of a goddess, (85) will in principle be interpreted as `a statue representing the goddess Diana (of Diana)'. Example (86), on the other hand, since we know that Myro is the name of a famous Greek sculptor, will at first sight be interpreted as `a statue made by Myro (of Myro)'. In (87) one might rather be inclined to think of the possessor of a certain statue. Only if we know what in the extra-linguistic reality is referred to by the expression, can we determine the semantic relation between Head and Attribute.

In (85)–(87) we are dealing with a noun that has no semantic relation with a certain predicate. With a noun like statua an Attribute is not necessary. Amor in (88), on the other hand, is a two-place noun with which in principle, as with the verb amare, an Agent and a Patient are required. For both semantic functions the genitive is the normal case form. When only one Attribute is expressed, this may result in ambiguity, as is the case in (88). Cicero can be Agent as well as Patient. In the following example this ambiguity is no longer present, because Ciceronis is much more readily interpreted as Agent and patriae as Patient than the other way round:

(88') Ciceronis amor patriae (`Cicero's love for his country')

In the `normal' situation, indicated in (85)–(88), either there is no correspondence with constructions on the sentence level, or, where this is the

-- 92 --

case, as in (88), the formal characteristic (the case form) differs from the case form used on the sentence level. The two genitives in (88'), for instance, correspond to the nominative and the accusative, respectively, of the arguments with the Predicate in (89).


(89) Cicero amat patriam (`Cicero loves his country')

Remarkably, the opposition in case form (nominative: accusative) which we find in (89) is not present on the word group level. Generally speaking, we observe that with nouns of this type, which require one or more Attributes, the case form of the governed word is always, or can always be, the genitive, irrespective of the case form (s) which mark the arguments of the Predicate on the sentence level. See table 6.3.

Table 6.3
Sentence levelNoun phrase level
Nom. pater redit (in patriam) (`Father returns to his country&rsquo)reditus patris (in patriam) (`Father's return to his country&rsquo)
Acc. amare patriam (`to love one's country&rsquo)amor patriae (`love for one's country&rsquo)
Dat. favere filio (`to support one's son&rsquo)favor filiia (`support for one's son&rsquo)
Gen. oblivisci doloris (`to forget the pain')oblivio doloris (`forgetfulness of the pain')
Abl. uti virtute (`to use virtue')usus virtutis (`the use of virtue')
a For favor + so-called (objective) genitive see TLL. s.v. 385.4 ff.

On the other hand, semantic relations such as `Beneficiary' and `Instrument', which are fulfilled by satellites on the sentence level, are generally not marked by the genitive. The case form which would be used on the sentence level is also found on the word group level. There is, moreover, a semantic difference between, for example, digito tactio (7a) and digiti tactio. The latter means `touch of the finger' (finger: Patient). [39] Furthermore, the general statement made above, viz. that on the noun phrase level the genitive is the regular case form for those constituents which would be arguments in a similar construction on the sentence level, does not fully apply to constituents which on the sentence level would be arguments marked by a preposition. [40] Furthermore, the genitive seldom occurs as the counterpart on the word group level of the third argument of a three-place predicate. Compare, for instance, the noun deditio (`surrender'), with which both the person which executes the surrender and the thing/person surrendered can be formally marked by the genitive, while the third argument (the `Recipient') cannot. [41]

-- 93 --

The examples (90)–(91) involve NPs consisting of a noun and an Attribute which together function as an Attribute. The current term for this construction is genitivus and ablativus qualitatis.


(90) vir magni ingenii summaque prudentia (`A man of great talent and superior wisdom', Cic. Leg. 3.45)

(91) signa non maxima, verum eximia venustate (`Statues which were not very large, but of extraordinary beauty', Cic. Ver. 4.5)

In (91) the ablativus qualitatis is on a par with the adjective maxima. In (90), an exceptional instance, genitivus and ablativus qualitatis are coordinated. Much has been written on the question of whether the two expressions are synonymous. At any rate, not all types of lexeme occur in both cases, so that genitive and ablative are not entirely interchangeable. [42]

6.7. Definite/indefinite noun phrases

In English and in Classical Greek the article is one of the means which may serve to distinguish between `definite' and `indifinite' NPs. Examples from English are (92a) and (92b), respectively:

(92a) John has bought the house

(92b) John has bought a house

The presence of the definite article the in (92a) makes clear that the speaker is referring to one specific house and assumes that the hearer knows which house is concerned, or, at least, that he is able to identify it. In (92b) this presupposition is absent. [43] As is well-known, Classical Latin does not have an article. The Romance languages do have articles, derived from some Latin pronouns (ille, ipse) and the numeral unus. Also in Classical Latin texts there are instances which are cited as examples of the use of unus as indefinite article. One of these is (93):

(93) (mihi) qui sicut unus pater familias his de rebus loquor (`I, who speak about these matters as a father', Cic. de Orat. 1.132)

We cannot yet, however, speak of articles in the strict sense of the term. For details on the historical development see Sz. 191–4. [44] In spite of the absence of the definite and indefinite articles, in the Latin texts it is in a very large number of cases clear whether an NP is definite or indefinite.

(i) First of all, there are nouns of which under normal circumstances only one specimen exists, so that identification of the referent is obvious. Consider, for instance, a word like sol, which for the Romans was obviously `the sun'. Proper names, too, mostly refer to only one person, as do personal pronouns of the first and second persons.

-- 94 --

(ii) An example of a second type of instance is (94):

(94) pater Marci Tullii Ciceronis (`The father of M. Tullius Cicero')

In itself pater can mean both `the father' and `a father', but the genitive Attribute makes clear who is concerned.

(iii) A third type of case in which the thing or person referred to by the speaker/writer is unambiguously clear is illustrated by (95):

(95) Agrippam Postumum …, rudem … bonarum artium et robore corporis stolide ferocem … (`Agrippa Postumus, a man without any cultural sophistication and in a dull-witted way proud of his physical force', Tac. Ann. 1.3.4)

The body mentioned in the text could not easily be another body than that of Agrippa Postumus. Cf. also English cases like (96):

(96) John has bought a house. The roof needs repair, but in general everything is in excellent condition.

As soon as the word house has been introduced into the discourse, related matters are automatically referred to the house (`associative anaphora'). In the instances discussed under (i) and (ii) Latin uses no explicit definiteness marker, and yet the referent may be identified without any problem. In many of these cases English and Greek use the definite article. [45]

(iv) Latin does have means other than a definite article which may serve to indicate explicitly who/what the reader/hearer is supposed to be able to identify, viz. the demonstrative pronouns ille, iste, hic and the anaphoric pronoun is. As in English and other languages, the former type of pronoun can be used both deictically and anaphorically. We speak of deictic use if in a certain situation something is pointed out, e.g. during a meal: [46]

(97) Could you pass me that pâté, please?

The addressee is supposed to see which of the pâtés present in the situation is meant by the speaker. A neat example of deictically used ille is (98):

(98) agedum, pulta illas fores (`Come on, knock at that door', Pl. Cist. 637)

By anaphoric use we understand the use of pronouns in a coherent context, e.g. to refer to something which has already been mentioned:

(99) There was a book on the table. This book formed part of a collection …

As appears from example (97), the fundamental difference between a deictic/anaphoric pronoun and a definite article is that, when using a definite article, a speaker supposes (correctly or incorrectly) that his description fits only one person or thing, while the use of a deictic/anaphoric pronoun in

-- 95 --

principle presupposes a certain degree of choice: there are several pâtés (or possibly several dishes).


(97a) Could you pass me thát pâté?

(97b) Could you pass me that pâté?

(97c) Could you pass me the pâté?

In coherent texts this opposition between deictic/anaphoric pronoun and definite article is not always completely clear, cf. above (97b) and (97c). This provides an explanation for the diachronic relationship between such pronouns and articles, which we find in many languages. An instance from Cicero is (100):

(100) nam et illud nobis non obest, videri nostrum testimonium non valuisse; missus est sanguis invidiae sine dolore, atque etiam hoc magis quod omnes illi fautores illius flagitii rem manifestam illam redemptam esse a iudicibus confitentur. Accedit illud, quod illa contionalis hirudo aerari … me ab hoc Magno unice diligi putat (`That my testimony was not accepted does me no harm; my unpopularity has been tapped like a dropsy and painlessly reduced, and another thing has done me even more good: the supporters of that crime confess that that open scandal was due to bribery. Besides, that bloodsucker of the treasury thinks I am a prime favourite with the "great man" Pompey', Cic. Att. 1.16.11)

The italicized pronouns do not have a clear deictic/anaphoric function; rather, they serve to express Cicero's contempt and anger.

From what has been said above we may conclude the following: the distinction `definite': `indefinite' cannot be equated to the presence or absence of articles. `Definiteness' may also be indicated by other means. For Latin further research is required, e.g. into word order, frequency of anaphoric pronouns, etc. [47] Incidentally, this discussion on definiteness to some extent forms part of the exposition on textual coherence, to which I return in chapter 12.

There is a difference between `definiteness' and `specificity'. [48] A well-known example is:

(101) Mary wants to marry a Norwegian

This can be interpreted as:

(101') Mary wants to marry any Norwegian

(101'') Mary wants to marry a particular Norwegian

Latin has pronouns which the grammars call `indefinite', e.g. quidam and aliqui. Of these, quidam presupposes that the speaker has a certain person or thing in mind, without assuming that the hearer knows who or what is concerned (or: feigning to assume that the hearer does not know, as in cases

-- 96 --

like (101')). This presupposition need not be present in the case of aliqui; in other words, aliqui can also be `non-specific'. Both quidam and aliqui differ from the English indefinite article: cf. the examples in note 29. 48a

6.8. Apposition

In (102) Albae and in municipio fidelissimo are said to be `in apposition' or to be `appositives'. Similarly M. Antonius Q. Cassius and tribuni plebis in (103) are `appositives'.

(102) cum … legio … Albae constiterit, in municipio fidelissimo … (`When the legion had pitched camp at Alba, a very loyal municipium', Cic. Phil. 3.39)

(103) intercedit M. Antonius Q. Cassius tribuni plebis (`The tribunes M.A. and Q.C. intervened', Caes. Civ. 1.2.7)

From a semantic point of view, in municipio fidelissimo predicates something of Alba (Alba is a municipium fidelissimum). Albae and in municipio fidelissimo, and likewise M. Antonius Q. Cassius and tribuni plebis, form a referential unit; the relation between two appositives resembles that between a Head and an Attribute in a noun phrase (see p. 73). [49] Syntactically, the apposition relation differs from the Head–Attribute relation in that omission of the constituent referred to by the Apposition as a rule leaves a grammatical sentence:

(102') cum legio constiterit in municipio fidelissimo

(103') intercedunt tribuni plebis

Usually, the two appositive units each have the same referential and semantic function in the sentence. In Latin a number of distinctions which do play a part in English and other languages are not expressed (at least, there is no evidence to show that they are).

(i) In English, word order provides an indication as to which of the appositive units defines which, as in (104):

(104a) Elizabeth, Queen of England

(104b) The Queen of England, Elizabeth

In (104a) the proper name is defined by the function (the particular is generalized); in (104b) it is the other way round. In (104a) the Apposition is non-restrictive; in (104b), however, the Apposition is restrictive.

Latin instances such as (105) are similar:

(105a) Garumna flumen (`The river G.', Caes. Gal. 1.1.2)

(105b) flumine Rhodano (`From the river R.', Caes. Gal. 1.1.5) 49a

-- 97 --

Consider also the Latin example (106), in comparison with the distinctions exemplified in the English instances (107a) and (107b).

(106) senis nostri, Dave, fratrem maiorem Chremem nostin? (`Do you, Davus, know the older brother of our boss, Chremes?', Ter. Ph. 63–4)

(107a) Charles, my brother, lives in Stoke-on-Trent

(107b) My brother Charles lives in Stoke-on-Trent

We do not, however, know whether in Latin word order was also used to indicate the difference between `naming' and `generalizing/specifying'.

(ii) Example (107a) is an instance of non-restrictive apposition (see also p. 80 on relative clauses); (107b) is an example of restrictive apposition. In Latin, restrictive appositive units can as a rule only be placed immediately after the word they modify:

(108) hunc secutus Marcius Rufus quaestor navibus XII (`The quaestor Marcius Rufus followed him with twelve ships', Caes. Civ. 2.23.5)

Quaestor could not very well be separated from Marcius Rufus. [50] As would also be possible in English, in an instance like (107) the non-restrictive Apposition could be introduced by dico (`I mean' – naturally with the accusative).

Constituents which occur in apposition are generally nouns. Sometimes we also find a gerund(ive) construction and rarely an infinitive (for examples see K.–St. I.244; 665). As a rule, apposition occurs with nominal constituents. Chapters on apposition in the grammars mostly also treat instances of so-called `Satzapposition', even though this is another matter. An example is (109) (for more examples see K.–St. I.247–8):

(109) … admoneor, ut aliquid etiam de humatione et de sepultura dicendum existimem; rem non difficilem … (`I am reminded of the fact that I should also speak about inhumation and funeral, something which is not too difficult …', Cic. Tusc. 1.102)

Here, rem non difficilem is predicated of the complex de humatione … dicendum.

Bibliographical information

The most elaborate studies on the NP in Latin are Fugier (1983) and Kaczmarkowski (1985). The constructions of the cases within the NP are treated by Rosén (1981: 41–100; 1983). A treatment within the framework of Functional Grammar is de Jong (1979). Relative clauses, especially in Latin, have been dealt with by Lavency (1981a) and Touratier (1980a). Kurzová (1981) contains many remarks that are relevant for Latin. Typological studies are Comrie (1981a), Lehmann (1984) and Mallinson & Blake (1981). For the

-- 98 --

notions `restrictive' and `non-restrictive' see Vester (1977: 253–66) and Touratier (1980a: 240 ff.). For criteria to distinguish connecting relative clauses from `normal' relative clauses see Lavency (1981a: 456–7). A classification of adjectives may be found in Fugier & Corbin (1977), Fugier (1983), Risselada (1984) and de Sutter (1986). The most elaborate discussion of genitive Attributes is de Groot (1956a). See also Lavency (1981b). A thorough study of the notion `definiteness' is Hawkins (1978). For apposition in Latin Fugier (1973) may be recommended. 50a

-- 99 --

Previous Section

Next Section


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