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

Next Sub2Sect

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 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]

Next Sub2Sect

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