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

Next Sub2Sect

7.4.1 Criteria to distinguish between arguments and satellites

A number of grammars, e.g. K.–St. (II. 272; 208; 232), make a distinction between final (i.e. Purpose) `noun clauses', i.e. arguments, and final `adverb clauses', i.e. satellites. Examples are (73) and (74), respectively:

(73) quod me ut scribam aliquid hortaris (`As to the fact that you incite me to write something', Cic. Att. 2.12.3)

-- 123 --

(74) maiores nostri ab aratro adduxerunt Cincinnatum illum ut dictator esset (`Our forefathers got the famous C. from behind the plough in order that he become dictator', Cic. Fin. 2.12)

Other, largely historically oriented grammars such as Sz. do not make the distinction noun clauses: adverb clauses, but simply speak of `Purpose clauses'. The equation or combined treatment of constructions of this kind has several causes.

(a) Formal similarities

There is a formal similarity between the two types of embedded predication, in spite of their different functions in the sentence and the fact that they are not semantically equivalent. The Complement clause introduced by ut in (73) does not represent the purpose of the exhortation, but its content. In (74), on the other hand, the ut-clause does indicate the Purpose of the state of affairs of the main predication.

(b) Nominal equivalents

Some constructions occurring with the predicate hortari are adduced to prove that the Complement of hortari in fact fulfils the semantic function Purpose, e.g. (75):

(75) ipsum tamen Pompeium separatim ad concordiam hortabor (`Yet, I will encourage P. himself separately to adopt a concordant attitude', Cic. Att. 7.3.5)

In many grammars we do not find a clear distinction between the use of prepositions to mark obligatory constituents and their use to mark satellites. As a result, instances like (75) are interpreted as Purpose Adjunct, on the basis of the presence of the so-called `final' ad. (For `final' ad in satellites see examples (64) and (66) above). In reality, ad concordiam in (75) indicates the content of the exhortation. There are also unequivocal instances, which impose the conclusion that the ut-clause with hortari is an argument and fulfils the syntactic function Complement. Examples are:

(76) sin tu, quod te iam dudum hortor, exieris (`If, as I have been encouraging you to do for a long time, you have gone away', Cic. Catil. 1.12)

(77) equidem pacem hortari non desino (`I do not stop urging for peace', Cic. Att. 7.14.3) [33]

(78) hortantibus dehinc quibusdam inediam et lenem exitum (`While some were offering the advice of a gradual death as a result of starvation', Tac. Ann. 11.3.2)

From these examples it becomes clear that hortari can also govern nominal constituents in the function Complement, and that an anaphoric pronoun in the accusative may be used to refer to the embedded predication.

-- 124 --

(c) Restrictions on tense

Satellite and argument ut-clauses with verbs such as hortari share at least one restriction: the tense of the subordinate clause cannot be anterior to the tense of the main sentence. The following instances would be impossible:

(73') *quod me ut scriberem aliquid hortaris (`* As to the fact that you incite me to have written something')

(74') *maiores nostri ab aratro adduxerunt Cincinnatum illum, ut dictator fuisset (`*Our forefathers got the famous C. from behind the plough in order that he had become dictator')

Besides similarities between argument and satellite ut-clauses such as those discussed here, there are also differences.

(a) Omissibility

A fundamental difference between the two constructions is, of course, the fact that argument clauses with hortari cannot be omitted, whereas satellite clauses can.

(b) Question words

A second difference, which was already mentioned above, lies in the fact that satellite ut-clauses provide the answer to a question cur?/quo consilio?, whereas argument ut-clauses do not.

(79) tene me, obsecro :: Cur? :: ne cadam (`Hold me, please :: Why? :: In order that I do not fall', Pl. Mil. 1260)

(c) Correlating expressions

In crosssection 7.3.1. (ix) (p. 119) we have seen that satellite ut-clauses may correlate with an adverb (idcirco) or another expression with a similar function (e.g. eo animo) in the main sentence. Argument clauses cannot.

(d) Juxtaposition/coordination

In crosssection 7.3.1. (viii) (p. 119) we have seen that satellite ut-clauses can be coordinated with other satellite clauses. This possibility of coordination usually entails identity of semantic and syntactic function (see above p. 30). Juxtaposition, on the other hand, proves that there is a difference in semantic and syntactic function. Example (80) shows that the argument clause (ut … consequare) is juxtaposed to the ut-satellite (ut … uteremur).

(80) intellexi … nihil mihi optatius cadere posse quam ut tu me quam primum consequare ut … tuo tuorumque praesidio uteremur (`I understand that nothing better could happen to me than for you to join me as soon as possible, so that I can make use of the protection offered by you and your companions', Cic. Att. 3.1) [34]

-- 125 --

(e) Referential identity

Argument ut-clauses with three-place predicates as a rule involve referential identity between one of the three arguments of the main predication and one of the arguments of the embedded predication. For an example of a three-place predicate see (43a):

(43a) patri persuasi, ut aes alienum filii dissolveret

The Addressee (patri) is referentially identical to the Agent of dissolveret. [35] In the case of two-place predicates, there is either identity of the first arguments of the two predications, or there is no identity at all, see (29c) and (29a), respectively:

(29c) virtutum in alia alius mavult excellere

(29a) tu malim … actum ne agas

Satellite ut-clauses do not necessarily require such referential identity, see (81):

(81) Caesar singulis legionibus singulos legatos et quaestorem praefecit uti eos testes suae quisque virtutis haberet (`C. gave each legion a legate and a quaestor as leaders, in order for everyone to have in them witnesses of their own courage', Caes. Gal. 1.52.1)

Satellite ut-clauses are naturally also found with one-place predicates, see (82):

(82) eo … ad te animo venimus, ut de re publica esset silentium (`We have come to you with the following intention, viz. that there be no talk of politics', Cic. Brut. 11)

(f) Controllability

In the case of argument ut-clauses with certain classes of verbs (e.g. hortari) the embedded predication has to be controllable. This is relatively obvious: it is no use exhorting someone to do something which is not in his power. This means, for instance, that the Addressee of the main sentence may not fulfil the semantic function Patient in the embedded predication and that this embedded predication may not be a state. Cf. in contrast (74).

(g) Omissibility of the conjunction

The two types of construction furthermore differ in that in argument ut-clauses the subordinator (ut (ne)) is omissible (type fac venias (`make sure that you come')), something which is impossible in `real' Purpose clauses. [36]

We see, thus, that there are four general criteria (viz. (a)-(d)) [37] to prove the difference between the constructions, while there are also specific criteria to bring to light the differences in the case of verbs of communication and emotion. Particularly (e) and (f) show that the constructions merely seem to be the same. In reality there appear to be semantic restrictions on the content of

-- 126 --

this construction if it is used as an embedded predication with e.g. hortari. We have already seen such restrictions in crosssection 2.4., and will again in what follows.

Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect

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