Advanced Latin syntax

Dr Charlie Weiss

cw322

Lecture One: the semantics of the Latin verb

syllabus of topics for these lectures:
1. (today) the semantics of the Latin verb
2. gerunds and gerundives
3. conditional sentences
4. direct and indirect questions
5. temporal clauses etc.
6. indirect speech

1. Varro De lingua Latina 10.47-48

quadruplices deiunctae in casibus sunt vocabulorum, ut rex regi, <lex legi>, coniunctae sunt triplices in verborum tribus temporibus, ut legebam
[ab] lego legam, quod quam rationem habet legebam ad lego hanc habet lego ad legam. in hoc fere omnes homines peccant, quod perperam in
tribus temporibus haec verba dicunt, cum proportione volunt pronuntiare. nam cum sint verba alia infecta, ut lego et legis, alia perfecta, ut legi et
legisti, et debeant sui cuius<que> generis in coniungendo copulari, et cum recte sit ideo lego ad legebam, non recte est lego ad legi, quod legi
significat quod perfectum, ut haec tutudi, pupugi, tundo pungo, tundam pungam; item haec †catus sum, verberatus sum, verberabor, iniuria
reprehendunt, quod et infecti inter se similia sunt et perfecti inter se, ut tundebam tundo tundam et tutuderam tutudi tutudero; sic amabar amor
amabor, et amatus eram, amatus sum, amatus ero. itaque †reprehendunt qui contra analogias dicunt, cur dispariliter in tribus temporibus dicantur
quaedam verba, natura cum quadruplex sit analogia. (PHI text Goetz and Schoell 1910)

Loeb tr.

47. The Regularities are disjoined and fourfold in the cases of nouns, such as rex ‘king,’ dative regi, and lex ‘law,’ dative legi; they are conjoined
and threefold in the three tenses of verbs, such as legebam ‘I was reading,’ present lego, future legam, because the relation which legebam has to
lego, this same relation lego has to legam. In this, almost all men make a mistake, because they cite these verbs wrongly in the three tenses,
when they wish to express them in a proportion. 48. For since some verbs denote incomplete action, like lego ‘I read’ and legis ‘thou readest,’
and others denote completed action, like legi ‘I have read’ and legisti ‘thou hast read,’ and since in the conjoined form they ought to be
connected with others of their own kind and by this principle lego is rightly related to legebam—lego is not rightly related to legi, because legi
denotes something completed; so that they are wrong in finding fault with tutudi ‘I have pounded’ and pupugi ‘I have pricked,’ tundo and pungo,
tundam and pungam, as well as necatus sum ‘I have been killed’ and verberatus sum ‘I have been beaten,’ necor and verberor, necabor and
verberabor, because the tenses of incomplete action are like one another, and those of completed action are like one another. Thus we should say
tundebam tundo tundam, and tutuderam tutudi tutudero, and in the same way amabar amor amabor, and amatus eram, amatus sum, amatus ero.
Therefore those who speak against the Regularities are unfair in finding fault on the ground that whereas Regularity is fourfold by nature certain
words are cited in a different way, in three tense-forms merely.

2. Varro’s arrangement:

past present future

infectum amabam amo amabo
perfectum amaveram amavi amavero

3. Contemporary arrangement:

infectum perfectum
present amo amavi
past amabam amaveram
future amabo amavero

4. In the passive:

infectum perfectum
present amor amatus sum
past amabar amatus eram
future amabor amatus ero

5. non enim corona consessus vester cinctus est (Pro Milone 1) (clearly present perfect)
6. Ti. Gracchus est caesus (PM 13) (clearly simple past)

7. M. Drusus occisus est, quis tum non gemuit (PM 16) (clearly simple past)

8. Varro’s verbs with aorist aspect (ἀοριστικός < ἀ + ὅρος = ‘undefined’):

infectum aorist perfectum

present amo amavi
past amabam amavi amaveram
future amabo amavero

9. silent enim leges inter arma (PM 11): clearly ‘gnomic’ i.e. generalizing

10. pudicitiam cum eriperet…interfectus est (PM 10) (why not eripuisset?)

11. Clodio, qui ita iudicia poenamque contempserat, ut eum nihil delectaret quod aut per naturam fas esset, aut per leges liceret (PM 43)

12. praeclare enim vixero, si quid mihi acciderit prius quam hoc tantum mali videro (PM 99) (Greek is similar)

13. subjunctive forms:

infectum perfectum
present amem (‘present subjunctive’) amaverim (‘perfect subjunctive’)
past amarem (‘imperfect subjunctive’) amavissem (‘pluperfect subjunctive’)

14. a purpose clause in Greek:

οὕτως ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἵνα σὺ ταῦτα ποιῇς / ποιήσῃς / πεποιηκὼς ᾖς

15. a purpose clause in Latin:

sic ego facio ut tu haec facias / feceris

(cf. nec timet ne conciliarit [i.e. conciliaverit] [PM 95])

16. the Greek sentence in the past (using oblique optatives):

οὕτως ἐγὼ ἐποίουν / ἐποίησα / ἐπεποιήκη ἵνα σὺ ταῦτα ποιοίης / ποιήσαις / πεποιηκὼς εἴης

17. the Latin sentence in the past (exactly parallel with oblique optatives):

sic ego faciebam / feci / feceram ut tu haec faceres / fecisses

18. the Latin subjunctive with aoristic aspect:

infectum aorist perfectum

present amem => = ‘I am to love’ <= amaverim
past amarem => = ‘I was to love’ <= amavissem
19. the Sequence of Tenses:

leading verb in a primary tense perfect for anterior action

(i.e. present / present perfect / future) dependent subjunctive: present for contemporary or posterior action
future (e.g. facturus sim) for posterior action

leading verb in a secondary tense pluperfect for anterior action

(i.e. imperfect / aorist perfect / pluperfect) dependent subjunctive: imperfect for contemporary or posterior action
future (e.g. facturus essem) for posterior action

20. problems with the Sequence of Tenses (at least this version of it):

 the scheme ignores verbal aspect

 the scheme ignores Absolute Tense, i.e. when an author imposes his or her view on a given action (see Bernard Comrie’s classic 1985
text Tense), examples in 24 and 25 below
 it seems to have arisen from a perceived use of the infinitive in Latin Indirect Speech, i.e. how to deal with:
 dico te fecisse / facere / facturum esse: ‘I say that you have done / are doing / will do’
 dixi te fecisse / facere / facturum esse: ‘I said that you had done / were doing / would do’
 these Indirect Speech patterns then became expressed with subjunctives in some Italian and French subordinate clauses
 which were in turn read back into Latin systematically

21. rogabant ubi ille sit? (perfectly good Latin, breaking the Sequence)

22. faciebam illa ut hoc nunc fiat. (ditto)

23. infinitives in Indirect Speech approximate to the finite: fingi haec putatis?: fingi for fingebatur (PM 76)

24. subjunctives in Indirect Speech and Indirect Question also approximate: statuisse videtur quid vos in iudicando spectare oporteret (PM 15)
[for oportebat]