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

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.
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 --

Previous Sub2Sect

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