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

Next Sub2Sect

7.6.1 Hypotaxis in general

All known languages, in spite of their considerable formal differences, have complex sentences, both those treated in this chapter and relative clauses. In view of this, it is not desirable to assume that earlier stages of Latin (e.g. Indo-European) did not allow the possibility of embedding predications in other predications. Yet, this is currently assumed, and in many cases complex sentences are explained as arising from two independent, simple sentences. [74] Such an assumption presumably arises from ideas on the development of the human brain, by analogy with the development of child language, regardless of the existence of empirical support (e.g. K.–St. II. 1). A second reason may be the fact that a number of subordinators can in all likelihood be shown to have developed from connectors [75] and adverbs, and it seems difficult to develop a hypothesis as to which subordinators existed in pre-historic periods. But the fact that we are unable to determine which specific subordinators existed does not mean that there were none. The Romance languages show no trace of highly common Latin subordinators such as ut and cum; if Latin had not been preserved, we would never be able to reconstruct these subordinators. General statements such as `In der √§ltesten indogermanischen Zeit gab es keine Nebens√§tze' (`In the oldest Indo-European period there were no subordinate clauses') are unfounded. [76]

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