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

Next Section

8 Praedicativum

In chapter 3 I have treated the syntactic and semantic functions of satellites, leaving out of account the so-called Praedicativa. [1] Examples of Praedicativa are the italicised constituents in (1)–(4). They can be omitted without the remaining sentence becoming ungrammatical. [2]

(1) Galli laeti in castra pergunt (`The Gauls gladly enter the camp')

(2) Cicero consul coniurationem Catilinae detexit (`As consul, Cicero discovered the conspiracy of C.')

(3) rura colentes ab equitatu oppressi sunt (`While they were working the land they were attacked by the cavalry') [3]

(4) Hannibalem iam puerum pater secum in Hispaniam duxit (`Already as a boy H. was taken to Spain by his father')

The italicized constituents contain more specific information concerning the entity referred to by one of the constituents in the sentence, and they agree grammatically with this constituent: in (1) and (2) the Subject constituent, in (4) the Object constituent; in (3) the persons implicitly referred to by oppressi sunt are given in the context. The Praedicativa in (1)–(4) differ, therefore, from the satellites treated above (Adjuncts and Disjuncts) in that they specify a constituent of the predication. The satellites treated earlier, on the other hand, specify the predication as a whole (Disjuncts) or the nuclear predication (Adjuncts).

This chapter is organized as follows: in crosssection 8.1. I discuss the various categories of lexemes which may occur as Praedicativum. We will see that different classes may be construed in different ways. In crosssection 8.2. I discuss the distribution of Praedicativa, i.e. in relation to which types of constituent in the sentence they may occur (Subject constituents, Object constituents, etc.). crosssection 8.3. is devoted to the status of Praedicativa as embedded predications. In crosssection 8.4. I discuss the relation between Praedicativa and the satellites treated thus far, among which adverbs. The examples given above involve agreement of a Praedicativum and an argument. Formally, therefore, Praedicativa can often not be distinguished from Attributes (e.g. laeti in (1)), Subject Complements, so-called Dominant

-- 143 --

participles and instances of apposition ( crosssection 8.5.). In crosssection 8.6., finally, I will discuss the frequently found view that Praedicativa are the constituents which are most strongly emphasized in the sentence.

8.1. The categories of lexemes which may occur as Praedicativum

Of three categories of lexemes it is generally assumed that they can occur as Praedicativum: adjectives, nouns and participles, though this does not hold true for all individual members of these categories. Besides these, however, we also find certain pronouns (ipse, idem, alius), preposition phrases and nouns in the ablative. Each of these categories is treated below. [4]

8.1.1 Nouns

As Praedicativum we find primarily those nouns which express age or social position (puerum in (4), and consul in (2) and privatus in (5), respectively). Instances such as (6) are difficult to distinguish from those mentioned above. While in examples (2) and (4) properties/functions of a non-permanent nature are mentioned, (6) involves permanent properties. In this case, the property is relevant only at this particular moment. Incidentally, it is difficult to indicate the difference with Appositions (see for this crosssection 8.5.; cf. aquilifer in example (19)). [5]

(5) magno usui rei publicae Ser. Sulpicius et privatus et in magistratibus fuerit (`S.S. was of great use to the state, both as a private person and while holding public offices', Cic. Phil. 9.15)

(6) mihin domino servus tu suscenses? (`You, a slave, are angry with me, your master?', Pl. Ps. 472)

8.1.2 Adjectives

As Praedicativum we find adjectives of various semantic classes. On p. 85 ff. we have seen that an exhaustive description on the basis of semantic characteristics of the so-called open class of adjectives is lacking. Moreover, it turns out that particularly in poetry (from Virgil onwards) all kinds of distinctions are not relevant with regard to the possibility for a certain adjective to occur as Praedicativum. The division given here is, therefore, highly tentative. [6] The following groups may be distinguished (see also K.–St. I.234 ff.):

(a) Quantifying adjectives: unus (`sole, only'), omnis (`all', `every'), singuli (`separate'), universus (`total'), totus (`whole'), uterque (`both'), creber (`numerous'), solus (`alone'), pauci (`few'), plerique (`most'). [7]

(7) Milo unus urgebat (`Milo alone stood in his way', Cic. Mil. 88)

-- 144 --

(8) ut … scire omnes possemus nihil habuisse quod diceret (`So that all of us could see that he did not know what to say', Cic. Ver. 1.71)

(9) binae singulis quae datae nobis ancillae (`The two slave girls we had each been given', Pl. Poen. 222)

(10) quas (insidias) ille plerasque evitavit (`Which he managed to escape for the most part', Nep. Dat. 9.1)

(b) Ordinals etc.: primus (`first'), posterior (`later'), princeps (`first'), etc.

(11) (Hannibal) princeps in proelium ibat, ultimus … excedebat (`H. was the first to begin a fight, the last to stop', Liv. 21.4.8)

(c) Adjectives which indicate a physical or mental condition that is in principle non-permanent: laetus (`glad'; cf. (1)), aeger (`ill'), caecus (`blinded', `with one's eyes closed'), cruentus (`bloody'), ebrius (`drunk'). This is the largest group of lexemes occurring as Praedicativum.

(12) se recipiebat … cruentus sanguine civium Romanorum (`He returned … covered with the blood of Roman citizens', Cic. Phil. 4.4)

(13) beluarum modo caecos in foveam missos (`That they had blindly been thrown into a pit like wild beasts', Liv. 9.5.7)

(d) Besides the semantically rather homogeneous and very large class of adjectives mentioned in (c), we also find adjectives that express a value judgment (e.g. carus (`dear'), bellus (`beautiful')), place/direction (diversus (`in different directions')), time (assiduus (`incessant')), etc.

(14) carus omnibus expectatusque venies (`When you come you will see that you are loved and expected by all', Cic. Fam. 16.7)

(15) fac bellus revertare (`Make sure you return safely', Cic. Fam. 16.18.1)

(16) diversi pugnabant (`They were fighting on opposite sides', Caes. Civ. 1.58.4)

(17) qui Romae erant assidui (`Who were continually in Rome', Cic. S. Rosc. 81)

Several uncoordinated Praedicativa may occur in one sentence, if the lexemes fulfilling these functions belong to different classes. [8] This resembles the phenomenon called `Nesting' discussed in crosssection 6.4. Conceivable is, e.g.:

(18) Hannibal puer unus laetus primus in proelium ibat (`As a boy, H. alone was glad to be the first to go into battle')

Some classes of adjectives do not occur as Praedicativum, e.g. denominal adjectives which indicate origin (Romanus) and material adjectives (unless they are used metaphorically). [9] These adjectives express permanent properties.

-- 145 --

8.1.3 Participles

Participles in the function Praedicativum are in the grammars classified under the heading predicative (or `adverbial') participle (participium coniunctum). They are generally said to fulfil a function similar to that of adverbial subordinate clauses (see K.–St. I.771 ff.; Sz. 384 ff.). See crosssection 8.4.

(19) Lucius Petrosidius aquilifer … pro castris fortissime pugnans occiditur (`L.P., the standard-bearer, was killed in front of the camp while he was fighting most courageously', Caes. Gal. 5.37.5)

(20) Persae etiam (mortuos) cera circumlitos condunt (`The Persians even bury their dead covered with wax', Cic. Tusc. 1.108)

(21) hanc adepti victoriam in perpetuum se fore victores confidebant (`Having obtained this victory, they thought they would be victorious for ever', Caes. Gal. 5.39.4)

(22) P. Servilius … adest de te sententiam laturus (`P.S. is here to pass judgment on you', Cic. Ver. 1.56)

Cf. also example (3). Unlike, as we have seen, nouns and adjectives, participles in the function Praedicativum can also express anteriority ((20), (21)) [10] and posteriority ((22)) to the state of affairs of the main predication (see below p. 150).

8.1.4 Gerundives

In active sentences we find the gerundive in the function Praedicativum with the Object (`Object Praedicativum'). Examples are (23) and (24):

(23) populus Romanus consuli potius Crasso quam privato Africano bellum gerendum dedit (`The Roman people preferred the consul C. to the private person A. as their leader in the war', Cic. Phil. 11.18)

(24) domos nostras et patriam ipsam vel diripiendam vel inflammandam reliquimus (`We have left our homes and our very fatherland to be destroyed or set on fire', Cic. Fam. 16.12.1)

For further examples see K.–St. II.731 f.

8.1.5 Pronouns

I limit myself to one example of ipse in the function Praedicativum. In most cases, the pronoun agrees with the Subject of the sentence, e.g. (25):

(25) de te tu videris, ego de me ipse profitebor (`You take care of your own matters, I myself will make a statement about mine', Cic. Phil. 2.118)

-- 146 --

8.1.6 Preposition phrases

Preposition phrases are also found in the function Praedicativum:

(26) te … stetisse in comitio cum telo (`That you were standing on the comitium with a weapon', Cic. Catil. 1.15)

(27) stare tristis, turbido vultu, subductis cum superciliis senes (`The old men stood there, worried and frowning', Turp. com. 169) [11]

(28) nemo tam sine oculis, tam sine mente vivit (`Nobody is so blind, so unthinking', Cic. de Orat. 1.249)

(29) plerique ut fusi sine mente ac sine ullo sensu iacerent (`Most of them would be lying about the place fuddled and unconscious', Cic. Ver. 5.28) [12]

The nouns in the preposition phrases generally refer to objects (weapons, clothes), parts of the body of the entity referred to by the Praedicativum, and its mental state during the period during which the state of affairs of the main predication obtains.

8.1.7 Noun phrases in ablative or genitive (so-called ablative and genitive of
description)

In example (27) we have already seen a noun phrase in the ablative (turbido vultu) functioning as Praedicativum. Other examples are:

(30) eos infenso animo atque inimico venisse (`That they had come with angry and hostile intentions', Cic. Ver. 2.149) [13]

(31) pura mente atque integra Milonem, nullo scelere imbutum … Romam revertisse (`That M. returned to Rome with a mind stainless and untarnished, with no taint of crime', Cic. Mil. 61)

(32) te prodire involuto capite, soleatum (`That you appeared with a hood on your head and slippers on your feet', Cic. Pis. 13)

(33) eodem (vultu) semper se vidisse exeuntem illum domo et revertentem (`That she (Xanthippe) had always seen him (Socrates) leave and come back home with the same expression on his face', Cic. Tusc. 3.31)

Occasionally we also find noun phrases in the genitive:

(34) cum annorum octoginta … in Aegyptum iisset (`When at the age of 80 he had gone to Egypt', Nep. Ag. 8.2)

(35) redis mutatae frontis (`You return with a different expression on your face', Hor. S. 2.8.84)

The grammars treat these instances under the headings ablative and genitive

-- 147 --

of description (for examples see K.–St. I.456–7; Sz. 70; 119). The nouns within the noun phrase in the ablative or genitive generally refer to mental and physical properties. [14]

8.2. The distribution of Praedicativa

In the vast majority of the instances the Praedicativum refers to the Subject constituent. The predicates of the main predication belong to a limited number of groups, e.g. verbs meaning `to go' [15] and a number of copula-like verbs (`to remain', `to come into being', etc.; see crosssection 8.5.3. on p. 159). In (10) and (20) above the Praedicativum refers to the Object. Other examples are (36) and (37):

(36) parvum ego, Iugurtha, te amisso patre sine spe sine opibus in meum regnum accepi (`I., I took you into the royal household when you were a small boy, an orphan without prospects or means', Sal. Jug. 10.1)

(37) erum saluto primum, ut aequumst (`I first greet my lord, as I should', Pl. Ps. 455)

An example of a Praedicativum referring to a Complement is (38):

(38) mi inani atque inopi subblandibitur (`She will flatter me, while I am poor and without money', Pl. Bac. 517)

Examples of a Praedicativum referring to an Indirect Object are (39) and (40):

(39) vobis …, patres conscripti, singulis et egi et agam gratias (`You, members of the senate, I have thanked separately, and will do so again', Cic. Red. Sen. 30)

(40) Athenienses, quibus primis post regiam legationem dicendi … potestas facta est (`The Athenians, who were the first to be given the word after the royal delegation', Liv. 35.32.12)

Praedicativa occur much less frequently with other types of constituent, such as satellites and constituents on the noun phrase level. Some exceptional examples are (41) (Beneficiary) and (42) (Attribute):

(41) iam intellegis … sibi soli, societati nihil Roscium petisse (`You already understand that R. has asked something merely for himself, not for the group', Cic. Q. Rosc. 51)

(42) cuius … iniurati nutu … terrarum orbis regebatur (`Who, unsworn, controlled the earth by his nod', Cic. Font. 24)

It turns out that the various categories distinguished in crosssection 8.1. differ as to the existence of restrictions on their occurrence. There do not seem to be any restrictions on the occurrence of pronouns, quantifying adjectives, adjectives indicating a certain order (ordinals and the like) and participles. The

-- 148 --

restrictions are strongest for preposition phrases and the ablative of description, which seems to occur only with Subject constituents (but see example (36) above). [16]

8.3. The Praedicativum as `embedded predication' 8.3.1 Possible paraphrase with esse + Subject Complement, casu quo finite verb forms

Praedicativa can often be paraphrased with a construction of esse + Subject Complement; e.g. (2a):

(2a) Cicero consul coniurationem Catilinae detexit (`Cicero discovered the conspiracy of Catiline. At that time he was consul')

A Praedicativum consisting of a present participle may be paraphrased with a finite verb form; e.g. (3a):

(3a) rura colentes ab equitatu oppressi sunt (`They were attacked by the cavalry. At that time they were working the land')

Praedicativa consisting of preposition phrases ( crosssection 8.1.6) and noun phrases in the ablative ( crosssection 8.1.7) can also be paraphrased with esse, as appears from the occurrence of such constituents as Subject Complement. Examples of preposition phrases [17] and ablative of description [18] are (43)–(44) and (45)–(46), respectively:

(43) quod confessus esset se cum telo fuisse (`Because he had confessed that he was armed', Cic. Att. 2.24.3)

(44) sine metu, sine cura omnes erant (`All were without fear and without worries', Cic. Ver. 2.70)

(45) (Britanni) capilloque sunt promisso (`The Britons have long hair', Caes. Gal. 5.14.3)

(46) (Hannibalis) nomen erat magna apud omnes gloria (`The name of H. was very famous among all people', Cic. de Orat. 2.75)

I now discuss a number of problems with regard to adjectives and participles.

(a) Adjectives

Not all adjectives can be paraphrased with esse. [19] For the most part, the quantifying adjectives mentioned as group (a) in crosssection 8.1.2 do not occur as Subject Complement. Thus, (47) is not an adequate paraphrase of example (8) on p. 144:

(47) ut scire possemus nihil habuisse quod diceret; * omnes eramus

-- 149 --

In itself, this deviant behaviour of quantifying adjectives need not be surprising; it manifests itself in other ways as well ( crosssection 6.4 on p. 86; crosssection 10.2.1.4 on p. 203). Also the pronouns occurring as Praedicativum cannot easily be regarded as embedded predications, not surprisingly, in view of the fact that they, too, exhibit deviant behaviour also in other ways.

A greater problem is presented by certain lexemes that seem to form part of group (c) (mental or physical state), but do not occur as Subject Complement, e.g. invitus (`against one's will') and libens (`willing'): [20]

(48) quod invitus ac necessario facio (`Which I do unwillingly and out of necessity', Cic. S. Rosc. 123) $ quod facio; * invitus sum

Furthermore, many compound lexemes with the negative prefix in- do not occur as Subject Complement, e.g. insepultus (`not buried'), insciens (`not knowing'). Diversus (group (d)), said of people, in its literal, local sense, is not found either. Example (49), therefore, would not be a correct paraphrase of (16) on p. 144:

(49) pugnabant; * diversi erant

The phenomenon that not all adjectives can occur both as Subject Complement and as Attribute has received considerable attention in modern linguistics. Quirk et al. (1985: 428 ff.) point out that in English adjectives such as faint and ill predominantly or exclusively occur as Subject Complement, other adjectives (e.g. hungry, sick) both as Subject Complement and as Attribute, whereas adjectives of various semantic classes cannot occur as Table 8.1
+ Attribute- Attribute
+ Subj. Compl.tristis miser? EXSORS ?INDEMNIS (classification difficult owing to low frequency)
- Subj. Compl.diversus (local) assiduus arboreus AETERNUSinvitus (not of persons) libens (from Gellius onwards used attributively of persons)

Subject Complement. [21] This applies also to Latin, as exemplified in table 8.1. The italicized lexemes also occur as Praedicativum in Classical prose. The capitalized lexemes occur in this way in Augustan and later prose and/or in poetry. In the `Classical' Latin of Cicero and Caesar we find as Praedicativum especially adjectives from the left top section; under the influence of poetry the

-- 150 --

number of adjectives from the left bottom section increases strongly. [22] Some remarkable instances are:

(50) quibus ibat in armis aureus (`In what armour he rode, the golden Turnus', Verg. A. 9.269)

(51) sollemnis … dies … crastinus advenit (`The holiday is tomorrow', Apul. Met. 2.31)

(52) nec gregibus nocturnus obambulat (`At night he prowls about the herds', Verg. G. 3.538)

(53) Aeneas se matutinus agebat (`Early in the morning A. was up and about', Verg. A. 8.465)

(54) navus mane forum et vespertinus pete tectum (`Go diligently to the forum early in the morning and go home in the evening', Hor. Ep. 1.6.20) [23]

This phenomenon fits in with a general preference in poetry to use adjectives rather than adverbs, i.e. to specify persons (and things) rather than actions. Intuitively, in instances such as (51)–(54) it is not very attractive to say that the adjectives predicate a property or state of the referent of the Subject argument. The adjectives rather indicate the moment at which the state of affairs obtains. This intuition correlates with the non-occurrence of these adjectives in the copula + Subject Complement construction. I return to the semantic function of such Praedicativa in crosssection 8.4. on p. 154.

The `adjectives' in the bottom right section constitute a separate problem. They are called `adjectives' on morpho-syntactic grounds (agreement) and because they are not closely related semantically to a verbal lexeme. From a syntactic point of view they should rather be regarded as a kind of participle (for participles as a rule do not occur as Subject Complement and rarely as Attribute either). [24]

(b) Participles (+ gerundive)

Praedicativa consisting of a present participle cannot easily be paraphrased with a copula + Subject Complement construction, on account of the limited use of copula + participle, as was already pointed out above. This does not, however, apply to the perfect participle of terminative (resultative) verbs:

(55) laudationem Porciae tibi misi correctam (`I have sent you the corrected version of the funeral speech for P.', Cic. Att. 13.48.2)

In such cases the participle indicates the state resulting from the state of affairs corrigere (for examples see Laughton 1964: 9–10); in the paraphrase laudatio correcta est the distinction between the copula and the auxiliary esse is not clear (see chapter 1, note 4).

-- 151 --

The use of participles as Praedicativum strongly increases in the course of time and the constructions become ever more complex (at any rate in literary Latin); there are no restrictions on the meaning of the predicates which may occur as Praedicativum, but there are, especially in Cicero and earlier, classes of verbs which predominate statistically. [25]

(i) Present participle

As has already been pointed out, in principle every verbal lexeme in the form of a present participle can occur as Praedicativum. A lexical group that is rather frequent in Cicero (about one-third of all instances) concerns physical and mental activity and state, e.g. flens (`crying'), lacrimans (`weeping'), maerens (`mourning'), expectans (`full of expectation'), and the like: 25a


(56) rex … in foro, inquam, Syracusis flens ac deos hominesque contestans clamare coepit (`In Syracuse, I say, on the forum, the King began to shout, crying and calling upon men and gods as witnesses', Cic. Ver. 4.67)

(56a) [added 12-08: at Homerus … Laertem … colentem agrum … facit (`But Homer represents Laertes as cultivating his land', Cic. Sen. 54) 25b]

(ii) Perfect participle

Praedicativa formed by a perfect participle in Cicero predominantly express the motive, the urge, the mental state or a possible obstacle in realizing the state of affairs of the main predication, e.g. hoc commoti dolore (`moved by this sadness'), benignitate aut ambitione adductus (`induced to do so by beneficence or ambition'), metu coacti (`forced by fear'), voluptate victi (`conquered by desire'):

(57) genus hominum … non prudentium consiliis compulsum potius quam disertorum oratione delenitum se oppidis moenibusque saepsisse (`Mankind surrounded itself with cities and walls, not so much adduced to do so by the advice of wise men as by the speeches of eloquent men', Cic. de Orat. 1.36)

The resultative verbs have already been mentioned above.

(iii) Future participle

There are no restrictions on the types of lexeme that may occur as Praedicativum. The future participle does not often occur as Praedicativum. The first unequivocal instance is:

(22) P. Servilius adest … de te sententiam laturus (`P.S. is here to pass judgment on you', Cic. Ver. 1.56) [26]

(iv) Gerundive

On p. 79 I have shown that the perfect participle and the gerundive are in opposition as `factive' and `non-factive', respectively. The same opposition manifests itself in the case of the use of the two forms as Praedicativum.

-- 152 --

Examples of the gerundive as Praedicativum are (23)–(24) on p. 145, and (58)–(59):

(58) cum enim Brutus alteri … Crassi orationem legendam dedisset (`For, when B. had given one of them a speech of C. to read', Cic. de Orat. 2.223)

(59) aedem … habuit tuendam (`He had a house to watch', Cic. Ver. 1.130) [27]

8.3.2 Negation of the Praedicativum

The independently predicating nature of the Praedicativum appears from the fact that the Praedicativum can be negated. [28] For Latin it is difficult formally to determine this, since the word order is relatively free and a negation can often be interpreted as belonging to the (main) predication. Unequivocal instances of negated Praedicativa are examples (56) above and (60)–(63):

(60) non ego caede nocens in Ponti litora veni (`It is not true that I have come to the shores of Pontus guilty of murder', Ov. Pont. 2.9.67)

(61) non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco (`My excellent knowledge of evil teaches me to help the unhappy', Verg. A. 1.630)

(62) quem tamen haud expers Valerus virtutis avitae deicit (`Yet, V., in full possession of the courage of his ancestors, threw him down', Verg. A. 10.752–3)

(63) non hercule mihi nisi admonito venisset in mentem (`If I had not been reminded, I would never have thought of it', Cic. de Orat. 2.180)

8.3.3 The temporal reference of the Praedicativum

In the paraphrases of examples (2) and (3) at the beginning of crosssection 8.3.1. (p. 148) I have included the words `at that time' in order to indicate that Praedicativa involve embedded predications which have the same temporal reference as the state of affairs referred to by the main predicate and its arguments: Cicero was consul at the moment when he discovered the conspiracy. [29] Participles in the function Praedicativum involve an action or state which is anterior, simultaneous or posterior with regard to the moment in time referred to by the main predication. [30] As a rule, Praedicativa – leaving aside pronouns and quantifying adjectives – express a temporary, non-permanent property, state or action; cf. the English example:

(64) He left the bottle empty in the refrigerator

From (64) it is clear that earlier the bottle had been full. [31] The adjectives in Cicero, too, as a rule indicate a temporary property. Also lexemes that indicate a permanent property, however, can occur as Praedicativum. In such cases we

-- 153 --

interpret the property as relevant only for the duration of the state of affairs of the main predication; e.g. (65):

(65) (Cerberus) toto … ingens extenditur antro (`C. stretches his bulk all over the den', Verg. A. 6.423)

One may assume that Cerberus is always ingens, but here Virgil may want to call attention to the very impression created by his size with regard to the den. See also:

(66) Tiberinus … multa flavus harena in mare prorumpit (`The Tiber, yellow with plenteous sand, leaps forth into the sea', Verg. A. 7.30–2)

(67) Romam vos expugnaturos, si quis duceret, fortes lingua iactabatis (`You maintained, courageous with your tongues, that you were going to conquer Rome, if someone were to lead you', Liv. 23.45.9)

It is not clear whether the Tiber is always flavus or only when it flows into the sea. In (67) fortes lingua may mean that the Addressees always brag.

There are some exceptions to the description given in the preceding paragraph. Praedicativa containing adjectives belonging to the group described on p. 150 (matutinus and the like) do not have the same temporal reference as the main predication. Furthermore, there is the so-called `proleptic' use of participles and adjectives as exemplified in (68) and (69) (for further examples see K.–St. I.239–40):

(68) incute vim ventis submersasque obrue puppes aut age diversos (`Fill the sails with wind and sink the ships or scatter them', Verg. A. 1.69–70)

(69) tum sterilis exurere Sirius agros (`Then the fields were made infertile by the scorching heat of Sirius', Verg. A. 3.141)

In instances of this type the temporal reference of the Praedicativum is posterior to that of the main predication. [32]

This phenomenon is productive in English with verbs that imply a change of the Object and with `contact' verbs, e.g. he painted the door green and he rubbed his hands dry. In Latin this phenomenon is productive with agere. [33] See, apart from (68), also (70):

(70) agunt eum praecipitem poenae civium Romanorum (`The penalties he has inflicted on Roman citizens drive him mad', Cic. Ver. 1.7)

A comparable instance is (71):

(71) ipsum pronum sterne solo (`Hurl him prone to earth', Verg. A. 11.484–5)

8.3.4 The internal structure of Praedicativa

Predicates functioning as Praedicativum are accompanied by arguments (as many as required by their valency) [34] and sometimes also satellites. This is very

-- 154 --

often the case with participles, especially in literary language. Examples of an argument constituent are deos hominesque in (55) and consiliis in (56) above, and an example of a satellite is Romam in note 30. For an argument with an adjective see mali in (61) and virtutis avitae in (62); for a satellite (?) see multa harena in (66) and lingua in (67).

We also find instances of a Praedicativum within a Praedicativum. An example is:

(72) Q. Fabium … Tuscus incautum inter multas versantem hostium manus gladio … transfigit (`An Etruscan killed Q.F. with a sword while he was so imprudent as to stay in the midst of large groups of enemies', Liv. 2.46.4) [35]

8.4. Praedicativum and other satellites

The grammars point out that Praedicativa and Adjuncts are closely related. [36] Thus, adjectives in the function Praedicativum are said to occur `instead of' adverbs (see K.–St. I.234). [37] For participles in the function Praedicativum the term `adverbial participle' is used. As for a noun in the function Praedicativum see (73):

(73) et saepe alias et … censor (`Often at different occasions as well as as censor', Cic. de Orat. 1.38)

From the coordination with alias it may be deduced that censor was interpreted as a Time Position Adjunct. In what follows I restrict the discussion to adjectives and participles.

8.4.1 Adjectives `instead of' adverbs

Older studies devote a great deal of attention to the relationship between adjectives and adverbs (K.–St. I.234 ff.; Sz. 171 ff.). On the one hand, it is argued that in cases where in principle there is a choice between an adjective and an adverb the two forms differ slightly in meaning. An example of this approach is K.–St. I.235: `in such cases, the Latin construction is undoubtedly more lively, more energetic and more expressive, because the specific circumstances in which an action occurs are at the same time included in the character of the entity that performs the action, e.g. Socrates venenum laetus et libens hausit ("S. gladly and willingly drank the poison")'. [38] On the other hand, adjectives in the function Praedicativum and adverbs are said to occur `without any essential semantic difference' (K.–St. I.237). Below I will discuss the semantic relationship. First I will make some remarks about the distribution of adjectives and adverbs.

(i) The distribution of adjectives and adverbs

(a) For a number of adjectives there is no morphologically related adverbial

-- 155 --

counterpart, e.g. dirus (`horrifying'), discors (`discordant'), rudis (`rough'). [39]

(b) In post-Ciceronian poetry and prose there is a general tendency to use adjectives in the function Praedicativum instead of adverbs (see p. 149). Sometimes there are metrical reasons for doing so, as in (74):

(74) turbidus aeria Capaneus occurrit in hasta (`C. fiercely comes towards him, a towering spear in his hand', Stat. Theb. 7.669) [40]

The adverb turbide does not fit in this hexameter.

(c) Adjectives that may occur as Praedicativum are not found as Attribute, or at any rate less frequently as Attribute than as Subject Complement (Sz. 172); most of them indicate non-permanent properties; morphologically related adverbs occur less often or not at all.

(d) As was pointed out above, adjectives in the function Praedicativum agree with a constituent of the predication; an `impersonally' construed predicate does not, therefore, allow the occurrence of a Praedicativum, but an adverb is possible: [41]

(75) Romam inde frequenter migratum est (`From there people moved in large numbers to Rome', Liv. 1.11.4)

(76) conveniunt frequentes prima luce (`In large numbers they gather at drawn', Liv. 1.50.2)

(ii) Difference in meaning
A difference in meaning can be determined only if morphologically related adjectives and adverbs can both occur in the same sentence. Such a semantic difference can be seen clearly in the following examples:

(77) ut … prudens et sciens … ad interitum ruerem (`So that I consciously and knowingly brought ruin upon myself', Cic. Marc. 14) (K.–St. I.238 contrast this translation with prudenter et scienter `in a prudent and skilful manner')

(78) (Britanni) ex silvis rari propugnabant $ raro (`The Britons made sorties from the woods in small groups', Caes. Gal. 5.9.5)

(79) occulte tacitique … praestolari occipiunt $ occulti (`Secretly and in silence they begin to wait for … ', Sis. fr. 25)

Besides instances which clearly reflect a semantic difference between adjective and adverb, there are also instances (such as (79) above) of coordination or parallel construction of adjective and adverb; from these one might conclude that there is, on the other hand, a certain similarity in semantic function (see p. 30). Examples are (80) and (81) (see also K.–St. I.238):

-- 156 --


(80) dum alii trepidi [42] cedunt, alii segniter subeunt (`While one group retreated fearfully, and another advanced slowly', Liv. 27.12.15)

(81) quaeso ignoscas si quid stulte dixi atque imprudens tibi (`Please forgive me, if I have said something stupid or rash to you', Pl. Men. 1073)

The grammars often remark that it is also difficult to indicate the exact difference between id libens feci (`I was glad to do this') and id libenter feci (`I have gladly done this') and between (82) and (83):

(82) libentes cupidique condicionem acceperunt [43] (`They were glad and eager to accept the conditions', B. Afr. 90.2)

(83) cupide accipiat faxo (`I will make sure that he accepts eagerly', Ter. Ad. 209)

The tendency to equate the adjective in the function Praedicativum in cases of this kind with an adverb in the function (Manner) Adjunct is perhaps connected with the fact that the instances adduced are limited to cases in which a Praedicativum agrees with a Subject consisting of a human being and to those adjectives that can indicate a property both of human beings and of states of affairs. An instance in which a Praedicativum agrees with a non-Subject argument (e.g. caecos in example (13) on p. 144) would not equally readily be called an instance of an adjective instead of an adverb.

Conclusion: sometimes it does not matter very much whether in performing a certain action a person is attributed a certain property (e.g. that of being cupidus) or the action performed by that person is specified (e.g. as being performed cupide); this also explains the instances of coordination mentioned above. This is not to say that the two ways of representing reality are synonymous. Further research, e.g. as to the addibility of certain particles, might be able to demonstrate this. [44]

We have already seen above (p. 149) that especially in poetry and poeticizing prose the number of categories of adjectives occurring in the function Praedicativum increases, at the expense of adverbial expressions. One might call this a poetical `transformation', replacing Adjuncts with Praedicativa. We also find instances in which adjectives occur as Praedicativum instead of what would `normally' be expressed as a Disjunct. An example is (84):

(84) numquam potuisti mihi magis opportunus adven <ire quam & advenis (`You could not have come at a more opportune moment', Pl. Mos. 573–4) [45]

On the one hand, grammars consider adverbs and adjectives in the function Praedicativum as practically synonymous Manner expressions. On the other, it is pointed out, e.g. in K.–St. I.239, that `normal' adjectives that indicate a physical or mental state sometimes have to be interpreted in a particular way, as more or less equivalent to an adverbial clause. Examples of Praedicativa

-- 157 --

that are to be interpreted as more or less equivalent to a temporal and a causal clause, respectively, are:

(85) nec enim cuiquam bono mali quicquam evenire potest, nec vivo nec mortuo (`For no good man can fall victim to any evil, either alive or dead', Cic. Tusc. 1.99)

(86) huius coniugii cupidus Callias quidam … egit cum Cimone … (`Because he wanted to marry her, a certain C. addressed himself to C.', Nep. Cim. 1.3)

In the following section, on participles, we will again encounter interpretations of this kind. [46]

8.4.2 Participles and adverbial clauses

The so-called predicative (or `adverbial') participle is currently said to fulfil a function in the sentence that can also be fulfilled by subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions, so-called adverbial clauses (K.–St. I.771; Sz. 384). This is correct. But participles differ from such clauses, in that the `adverbial relation' is not expressed explicitly but appears from the meaning of the verbal lexeme and/or from the context. Under certain circumstances, participles may be interpreted in the following ways (besides temporally): causally ((87)–(88)), conditionally ((89)–(90)), concessively ((91)–(92)) and as expressing Purpose ((93)).

(87) C. Servilius Ahala Spurium Maelium regnum appetentem … interemit (`C.S.A. killed Sp. M., because he was striving after absolute power', Cic. Sen. 56)

(88) quare istam quoque aggredere, tractatam praesertim et ab aliis et a te ipso saepe (`So discuss this too, especially since it has been dealt with both by others and often by you yourself', Cic. Fin. 4.1)

(89) idem traducti a disputando ad dicendum inopes reperiantur (`The same people are found to be insufficiently eloquent if instead of engaging in a discussion they have to make a speech', Cic. Brut. 118)

(90) epistulae offendunt non loco redditae (`Letters are offensive if they are sent at an inappropriate moment', Cic. Fam. 11.16.1)

(91) (risus interdum) ita repente erumpat ut eum cupientes tenere nequeamus (`Sometimes laughter bursts forth so suddenly that we cannot suppress it, even if we want to', Cic. de Orat. 2.235)

(92) et quae iam diu gesta et a memoria nostra remota tamen faciant fidem vere tradita esse (`And even though they occurred a long time ago and long before our times, yet these events make the impression of having been handed down to us truthfully', Cic. Inv. 1.39)

-- 158 --

(93) quam perverse fugiens Hegesias … saltat incidens particulas (`Unsuccessfully attempting to avoid this, H. writes sentences that are too short', Cic. Orat. 226) [47]

In some cases, the exact interpretation of these participles is clear on account of other words in the context, e.g. praesertim in (88) and tamen in (92). See also Sz. (385) for `stützenden und eingliedernden Partizipialkonjunktionen'. Sometimes the meaning of the verbal lexeme plays a role: the causal interpretation is largely found with verbs meaning `to fear', `to think', etc., the so-called `Purpose' interpretation largely with verbs meaning `to strive', `to avoid'.

8.5. Structural ambiguity

Owing to the formal similarities it is often impossible to distinguish between Praedicativa and

– Attributes

– Appositions

– Subject Complements

– Object Complements

– Dominant participles

Each of these constructions has been treated elsewhere. Here they are discussed only in as far as they are relevant to the treatment of the Praedicativum.

8.5.1 Praedicativum and Attribute

(94) Galli laeti in castra pergunt (`The Gauls gladly enter the camp')

(95) laeti in castra pergunt (`They gladly enter the camp')

(96a) Galli qui laeti in castra pergunt (`The Gauls who gladly enter the camp')

(96b) qui laeti in castra pergunt? (`Who gladly enter the camp?')

(96c) ei laeti in castra pergunt (`They gladly enter the camp')

Example (94) is ambiguous. It may mean (a) that the Gauls entered the camp and while doing so they were glad, or (b) that the glad Gauls (e.g. in contrast to `the unhappy Gauls') entered the camp. In other words: either there are two constituents (interpretation (a)) or there is one constituent consisting of a Head and an Attribute (interpretation (b)). In (95) only one interpretation is possible, viz. (a): there is no Head with which laeti could function as Attribute. [48] In (96), too, only one interpretation is possible: Attributes with pronouns do not occur. Consequently, in instances such as (94), in which a noun and an adjective (or a participle) occur and the adjective can occur both as Attribute and as Praedicativum (see p. 149), [49] it must be determined on the

-- 159 --

basis of the context whether we are dealing with one or two constituents (viz. with an Attribute or a Praedicativum). Especially in poetry, where so-called epitheta ornantia abound, this often gives rise to problems of interpretation.

The distinction `one or two constituents' can be made with the aid of the following tests: [50]

(a) pronominalisation

(b) relativisation

(c) question-test

With the aid of these tests an instance like (94) can in fact be shown to be ambiguous:

(94) Galli laeti in castra pergunt

(a) :: ei in castra pergunt (one constituent)
:: ei laeti in castra pergunt (two constituents)

(b) :: Galli laeti, qui in castra pergunt (one constituent)
:: Galli, qui laeti in castra pergunt (two constituents)

(c) Qui in castra pergunt?
:: Galli laeti (one constituent)
:: Galli, ?atque id laeti (`and gladly at that': two constituents)

8.5.2 Praedicativum and Apposition

(97) Cicero consul coniurationem Catilinae detexit is ambiguous. Its meaning can be:

(97a) `Cicero discovered the conspiracy of Catiline as consul (during his consulate)'

(97b) `Cicero, the consul, discovered the conspiracy of Catiline'

Ambiguity may arise if on account of its lexical meaning the agreeing noun (consul) refers to an easily identifiable entity: there is only a limited number of consuls in Rome, and the conclusion that Cicero and consul refer to the same entity is obvious; in Cicero puer etc. puer would not easily be interpreted as Apposition. [51]

8.5.3 Praedicativum and Subject Complement

Examples of constituents in the function Subject Complement have been given on p. 22. Some predicates mentioned there are esse and manere, so-called copulas; Subject Complements are not omissible. The distinction between copulas and `normal' predicates is difficult. K.–St. reckon among the `Kopulaartige Verben' also fieri (`to become'), nasci (`to be born'), existere (`to come into being'), etc.; furthermore manere (`to remain'), videri (`to seem'), apparere

-- 160 --

(`to appear'), etc., verbs which are `resulting' and `current', respectively. [52] There are no thorough studies in this area.

(98) virum me natam (natum edd.) vellem (`I wish I had been born a man', Ter. Ph. 792)

(99) quia nati sunt cives (`Because they were born citizens', Cic. Catil. 2.27)

In the context presented here, virum in (98) and cives in (99) cannot very well be omitted, as the resulting expression would be trivial or even meaningless, but as such nasci can certainly be used – with the same meaning – without addition. Possibly, something similar can be said about memor nostri with regard to vivas in (100):

(100) memor nostri, Galatea, vivas (`May you remember me, G.', Hor. Carm. 3.27.14)

Especially in poetry, the `colourless' esse is avoided. And perhaps we may also regard stare in example (26) on p. 146 as a kind of copula.

8.5.4 Praedicativum and Object Complement

Just as the group of verbs that may be regarded as copulas is not well defined, it is often difficult to determine whether we are dealing with three-place verbs of the type habere, putare, etc., which require an Object Complement agreeing with the Object, or with two-place verbs whose second argument is specified by a Praedicativum (e.g. exurere agros sterilis in example (69) on p. 153). An example is (101):

(101) non te Penelopen difficilem procis Tyrrhenus genuit parens (`An Etruscan father did not conceive you as a Penelope difficult towards suitors', Hor. C. 3.10.11–2)

Gignere might perhaps be considered the causative counterpart of nasci (see examples (98) and (99) in crosssection 8.5.3. above). As such, the criterion to distinguish between two- and three-place verbs is clear enough, but sometimes it seems to me that poets consciously create three-place predicates on the basis of two-place predicates.

8.5.5 Praedicativum and Dominant participle

The Dominant participle has been discussed in crosssection 7.4.7 on p. 132 ff. I give two more examples:

(102) occisus dictator Caesar … pulcherrimum facinus videretur (`The assassination of the dictator Caesar seemed a wonderful deed', Tac. Ann. 1.8.6)

-- 161 --

(103) auctorem senatus extinctum laete … tulit (`He was pleased with the death of the leader of the senate', Cic. Phil. 9.7) 52a

In these instances the participle cannot be omitted. In this respect, they differ from a participle in the function Praedicativum. There are, of course, also numerous cases in which the distinction between Dominant participle and Praedicativum (or, possibly, Attribute) can be made only on the basis of the context. Sometimes the distinction cannot be made at all, because the two interpretations are hardly different. An example of a sentence which – considered out of its context – allows two interpretations is:

(104) ea res saepe temptata … eius consilia … tardabat (`The fact that this had been tried often before paralysed his plans', Caes. Civ. 1.26.2)

In my translation I follow the interpretation of K.–St. (I.767): omission of saepe temptata would, however, result in a grammatical sentence; a translation `this paralysed his plans, because it had been tried often before', following the interpretation of the participle as Praedicativum, is also possible.

8.6. The Praedicativum as bearer of Focus

K.–St. (I.234) remark that the constituents described by me as Praedicativa often contain `the essential information of the sentence'. [53] In the examples of Praedicativa given by K.–St. this does not always hold true. In instances such as (105)–(107) the Praedicativum does, indeed, seem to have Focus function:

(105) quarta autem est, quae quia postrema coaedificata est, Neapolis nominatur (`There is a fourth city, which is called Naples, because it was built last', Cic. Ver. 4.119)

(106) haec gens litteras prima aut docuit aut didicit (`This nation was the first to either teach or learn writing', Curt. 4.4.19)

(107) princeps in proelium ibat, ultimus conserto proelio excedebat (`He was first to enter into the battle, the last to leave it once the fighting had begun', Liv. 21.4.8)

These instances involve an order of importance, which is often accompanied by emphasis. Cf. also:

(108) omnium mihi videor … eloquentissimos audisse Ti. et C. Sempronios (`The most eloquent of all I think I have heard were Ti. and C.S.', Cic. de Orat. 1.38)

By translating the Praedicativum as a main sentence we can clearly express the emphasis. Many of the instances discussed above, however, involve hardly any emphasis, or none at all. Further research is required on this point.

-- 162 --

Bibliographical information

Happ (1976: 284–303) discusses tests by which it may be determined that the syntactic function of the Praedicativum is highly similar to that of satellites. A description of the Praedicativum within the framework of Functional Grammar is given by Vester (1983: 138–53). Criteria for the distinction between Praedicativa and Attributes are given by Fugier (1978). The categories of lexemes that may occur as Praedicativum, the distribution of the Praedicativum and its relation with adverbs are treated in Pinkster (1982; 1983a). For the predicative participle see Laughton (1964) and Vester (1977). For a comparison with German see Kienpointner (1985). Longrée's (1987) approach is similar to mine. Various points of view have been collected in Touratier (ed.) (1989). [54]

-- 163 --

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