Volume 12, Issue 1

The Latin distributive pronoun quisque exhibits specific constraints on its position. These positional constraints contrast with the “floating” uses of the corresponding distributive pronouns of fixed word-order languages (Engl. each , Fr. chacun ). My hypothesis is that constraints on word order reflect semantic and syntactic properties of quisque . In particular, when quisque is added to an NP, it shows up a bijective distributive relation between two sets of elements, so that an indirect quantification is produced. In this case I assume that quisque has actually become a specifier of the NP to which it is added.

In Hittite (habitually), in Vedic and Sanskrit (very frequently), in Greek and Latin (sometimes) a relative/indefinite theme is placed in an enclitic position after the referred noun, e.g., Virg. Aen. 1,573 urbem quam statuo uestra est . In the SC de Cn. Pisone patre relative clauses are employed with an incredible frequency (88 relative clauses in 176 lines, 37.76% of all pronouns) and even placed within one relative clause, or within another inside it. Subordination is a topic of many papers and books produced in recent years, nevertheless the key point of the relationship coordination∼subordination as well as of other types of linking calls for further refinements. There are points still remaining relatively unexplored, namely the enclitic position of the relative theme (better to say of the * k w e/o- theme), the case/position relationship of the word at a time when the case system was not yet constituted and the main + relative clause pair was not yet clearly made up. Without rejecting different methods of linguistic explanation such as transformational grammar, typological and functional approaches, cross-linguistic analysis, or Asymmetry Assumption, I think that we must explore the collected data more in depth. In this sense I would like to show that at least three steps may be distinguished in the syntactic use of the relative/indefinite theme: firstly, the use of an enclitic to produce a kind of clause; secondly, an introduction of a couple of clauses, the first of which is considered a relative clause; thirdly, its use as an adjective similar to the use we meet in classical Latin. It is however not excluded that other steps took place and were overwhelmed; at any rate it is presupposed that “there are languages that at a certain stage in their history, do not have any specific construction for the expression of particular cognitive relations between States of Affairs” (S. Cristofaro 2004: 49). Anyhow we must start from the enclitic relative(-indefinite) pronoun after excluding the attractio inversa , albeit upheld until now by some great scholars.

The Accusativus cum Infinitivo , a syntactic construction proper to Latin and a few other Indo-European languages, was gradually replaced in Latin by an explicit subordinate clause and did not survive in Romance, except as a rather sophisticated Latinism in literary texts. The new subordinate clause was introduced in particular by the conjunctions quod and quia , whose occurrences outnumber those of other conjunctions such as quoniam or ut . However, the fact that quod and quia occur much more frequently than the other conjunctions and often in the same context should not conceal the fact that there are some basic differences between them. In particular, as for their origin, whereas the development of quod as subordination marker can be explained according to the dynamics of the internal history of Latin, nevertheless a sociolinguistic analysis of the first examples of quia shows that this conjunction is the result of Greek influence.

This paper deals with the Latin functional marker ut ita dicam ‘so to speak’ and argues that its function is pragmatic in essence, since it operates both as a discourse marker, namely an interpretative device favoring the cooperative construction of the contextual meaning, and as a pragmatic marker capable of modulating the force of a potentially face-threatening statement or the employment of a daring term. Other formally related markers such as ut non dicam and ne dicam ‘not to say’ are also considered. Drawing on the Antiquitas section of the Bibliotheca Teubneriana Latina , a corpus-based approach is employed to integrate both quantitative and qualitative observations with a view to providing a semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic account of these markers as they were used across different texts and genres of the Latin language. Sociolinguistic remarks are offered as well. The paper closes with a reassessment of the status of ut ita dicam and cognates as functional markers and the implications for a functional-based approach to the pragmatics of Latin.

This contribution offers a concrete, textually based account of the functional possibilities for the expression of different types of possession (exclusive and inalienable “ownership” versus “accidental belonging,” established by convention or on an occasional event) in Archaic Latin. This account is based on the competition between the genitive-marking morphemes - i and - osio in archaic Faliscan inscriptions, which has been documented synchronically and for which we suggest a parallelism with the diachronic development of these two morphemes in Archaic Latin. We also confirm the theoretical insights concerning the semantic-functional structures that encode different possession relations and we propose an explanatory path for the generalization of the - ī versus - osio genitives (cf. Bolkestein 1983, 2001; Maurel 1989).

In Plato's Gorgias , in 513d6ff, Callicles is no longer cooperating with Socrates, grudgingly emitting the response formula πάνυ γε in an unusually long repetitive sequence. Here Plato is deliberately avoiding his more familiar variatio . The use of variatio and its avoidance, with special reference to response formulae, is discussed both through literary parallels, and through analysis of three cases of variatio in the use of response formulae: one on the dimension of structural strategies adopted in different language types; and two in terms of scales of affirmation in Platonic dialogue – a taxonomy, and a sketch of how cyclical shifts from aporia to prehension are reflected through manipulation of patterns of varying response formulae. Ficino's reputation as a translator of Plato has fared far better than that of most of his precursors, but not as well as, say, that of Leonardo Bruni. However, Ficino's Latin Gorgias has been deemed superior in its eloquence as well as in its clarity and fidelity. I look at how Ficino handles Plato's deliberate avoidance of variatio , and in tandem, I compare and contrast his choice of the term prorsus in this scene, and elsewhere in the dialogue, with other response expressions used by him and by previous neoplatonist Latin translators – both literal and literary. Within the context of the changing use of those expressions I take a closer look at the adverb prorsus , which developed (a) into a modalizing particle, and (b) into a standalone response formula.