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

Next SubSect

7.1. Introduction 7.1.1 Working definition of the notion `complex sentence'

In the preceding chapters, examples have been given, without any further explanation, of subordinate clauses functioning as arguments or satellites within predications. In this chapter we will discuss such clauses in more detail. By way of introduction, I repeat a number of the examples already given above:

(1) Caesar cohortatur suos, ne animo deficiant (Caes. Civ. 2.43.1)

(2) me a portu praemisit, ut haec nuntiem uxori suae (Pl. Am. 195)

(3) (Romani) ex loco superiore … strage ac ruina fudere Gallos, ut nunquam postea nec pars nec universi temptaverint tale pugnae genus (Liv. 5.43.3)

(In (1) the italicized part of the sentence is an argument with the syntactic function Complement. In (2) the italicized part of the sentence is a satellite, with the function (Purpose) Adjunct. In (3) the italicized part of the sentence is a satellite as well, with the function (Result) Adjunct. Subordinate clauses with the function Disjunct may be found in crosssection 4.1.3–7 on pp. 34–7. Besides the predicate and its arguments, these clauses may in their turn contain satellites (e.g. numquam postea in (3)). In other words, a subordinate clause constitutes a predication which forms part of – is embedded in – the main (or matrix) predication.

Besides occurring as argument or satellite with their own function within a main predication, embedded predications may, as we have seen in chapter 6, also occur on the NP level. Examples are (4) and (5):

(4) 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)

(5) hostes qui fugiunt non sunt timendi (`Enemies who flee need not be feared', see K.–St. II. 279)

-- 100 --

In (4) we find a so-called Accusative and Infinitive construction (AcI) which further specifies the content of nuntius (see p. 78). In (5) we see a relative clause in the function Attribute with hostes.

In this chapter we understand by `complex sentences' only those instances in which we find an embedded predication functioning as an argument or as a satellite with the main predicate. [1] Embedded predications may take the form of clauses introduced by a subordinator (e.g. ne, ut), but also that of an AcI, gerund, supine, infinitive, etc.

The grammars (Sz. XI; K.–St. II. 5) also treat as complex sentences cases like (6):

(6) ego hanc amo et haec me amat (`I love her and she loves me', Pl. As. 631)

In (6) the coordinator (so-called `coordinating conjunction') et connects two predications in one sentence. This instance differs from examples (1)–(3), however, in that here one predication is not embedded in the other as an argument or satellite. The grammars call (6) an instance of parataxis (`coordination', `Beiordnung') and (1)–(3) instances of hypotaxis (`subordination', `Unterordnung'). [2] To distinguish particles such as ne in (1) and ut in (2) and (3) from et, sed and other coordinators, they will be called `subordinators' (`subordinating conjunctions'). I will return to parataxis in chapter 12.

7.1.2 The modality of the embedded predication (semantic differences between types of embedded predication)

In chapter 10 on sentence types various types of independent sentence will be distinguished:

- declarative sentences (including `potential' sentences);

- interrogative sentences:

(a) questions with regard to the truthfulness of the statement (`yes–no' or `sentence' questions);

(b) questions introduced by a question word (`word' questions or `wh-questions');

- imperative sentences.

The difference between these sentence types often appears from their form, e.g. in Latin the presence of certain words and particles (num, -ne in questions) and in other languages the position of the finite verb in interrogative sentences; imperative or subjunctive verb forms in imperative sentences and subjunctive verb forms in potential and imperative sentences; the negation in imperative sentences.

Apart from these formal characteristics, some sentence types are subject to semantic restrictions, viz. (a) on the addibility of certain satellites, and (b) on the types of states of affairs that may occur in certain sentence types. For

-- 101 --

instance, certain Disjuncts cannot be added to imperative sentences and wishes (e.g. haud dubie, fortasse, see p. 33) or to interrogative sentences (cf. English: `Will he undoubtedly come?'). Incompatibility of sentence type and state of affairs plays a role in the case of non-controlled states of affairs. As a rule, such states of affairs do not occur in imperative sentences (see p. 17). The formal and semantic characteristics mentioned above are the expression of what is sometimes called the `modality' of each of these sentence types. In chapter 10 we return to this at greater length.

Semantic characteristics such as those mentioned above also hold for certain types of embedded predication. This appears from the fact that certain main predications do not allow embedding of certain predications. Thus, it is obvious that main predications with the Predicate to order can only embed predications with imperative modality. Main predications with the Predicate to tell, on the other hand, may embed both predications with declarative modality and predications with imperative modality, e.g.:

(7a) John told me (= said to me) that he would vacate the house

(7b) John told me (= ordered me) to vacate the house

The difference in modality between the embedded predications in (7a) (declarative) and (7b) (imperative) is reflected by the fact that the former allows the addition of a Disjunct such as perhaps, whereas the latter does not.

(7'a) John told me (= said to me) that he would perhaps vacate the house (e.g. if he finds a buyer)

(7'b) *John told me (= ordered me) perhaps to vacate the house

Like independent imperative predications, embedded imperative predications cannot be extended by the Disjunct perhaps ((7'b)), whereas declarative predications can ((7'a)). This also holds for Latin. In the treatment of embedded predications as arguments I return to the issue of possible restrictions on the modality of embedded predications.

Next SubSect

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