Volume 14, Issue 2 -

This paper reconsiders some of the arguments on free-choice indefinite pronouns in Latin dealt with in Maraldi (2000, Maraldi 2002) and Bertocchi et al. (2010) and tries to deepen the analysis of some of the points introduced there. Since Latin has four different forms all expressing a free-choice meaning, we try to determine in which features they are equivalent and in which they are distinct. We also take into consideration the relation existing between free-choice pronouns, on the one hand, and other indefinite pronouns, on the other, which come to occur in contexts usually reserved to free-choice pronouns.

This paper addresses the problematic issue of the distinction between constituents obligatorily demanded by the predicate for the grammaticality of the construction and elements which are not necessary for this. The issue arises not only from a general perspective, but also in specific cases, such as that of three Latin predicates that share a semantic notion of “permanence”: maneo , permaneo , and remaneo . At the same time, and given that these verbs are also linked by the mechanism of preverbation, it is essential to examine also whether the presence of different preverbs modifies the syntactic characteristics of structures forming the verbs, as well as the potential semantic differences between them. For this reason, the current investigation consists of two different but closely interrelated blocks. In the first section I will begin with a study of material drawn from use-based lexicons and corpus analysis of the verbs in question, with the aim of facilitating a first approach to the differentiation (i) of the semantic content that they can have, and (ii) of their possible general valency frames. The study of lexical features of the various constituents with which the verb combines, the comparison with the behaviour of other (quasi-)synonymous predicates, and the importance of pragmatic information, will be mechanisms to help identify the syntactic-semantic nature of each case, without the existence of ambiguous cases being possible to rule out entirely. The examination of syntactic-semantic differences between the simple verb and its corresponding compounds will be addressed in the second section. For this purpose, various procedures of analysis will serve to confirm the possible differences proposed thus far; these procedures will be, essentially, the study (a) of the expression of the duration of permanence, and (b) of the contexts of co-occurrence of simple verbs and verbs with a preverb. Differences will not always be clear, which suggests a possible neutralization of the expected distinctions in some cases, in such a way that the language is seen to be compelled occasionally to draw on additional lexical and grammatical means for explicitly specifying these presumed distinctions.

Between end of May and beginning of August 44 M. Junius Brutus, praetor urbanus, and C. Cassius Longinus, praetor peregrinus, sent two letters to M. Antony who was consul. These letters were different in content and style but also the two senders were different. If we take into account the facts of this time we see that the situation in Rome changed and M. Antony gave up his previous position (assumed 17 March 44), which was oriented towards the concordia , for a new position directed towards the vengeance for Caesar’s murder. This depended upon the intervention of Octavian who took the hereditary name of C. Iulius Caesar and gave himself as aim Caesar’s vengeance, an aim M. Antony had to assume in order to remain head of the Caesarian party. Brutus’ and Cassius’ attitudes were different: Brutus tried to save the concordia , Cassius to defend with weapons the Liberators’ position; Brutus was formed in Stoic culture, Cassius was rather inspired by old Roman tradition. Such a different position appears in the first part of this paper. Therefore the first letter, where Brutus and Cassius invite M. Antony to save the concordia , seems to be inspired by Brutus and the second letter, a kind of ultimatum to M. Antony, rather inspired by Cassius. More interesting is that also the style of the first letter is closer to Brutus’ than Cassius’ style, while the second letter is more connected with Cassius’ language as it appears from Brutus’ and Cassius’ letters we read in Cicero’s correspondence. It seems therefore that the first letter, where the Liberators tried to save the Concordia , was written mostly by Brutus, the second one, the ultimatum letter, by Cassius. The style confirms this hypothesis.

This paper deals with the use of ille and ipse in the veterinary treatise Mulomedicina Chironis (fourth century AD). We will first give the quantitative analysis of the data, then we will focus on the cases in which ille and ipse co-occur with a noun or as pronouns. Regarding ille , we will propose that, even in the absence of morphological distinctions, it presents the syntactic features of three different categories, namely (a) an anaphoric demonstrative, which will turn into the definite article; (b) a strong pronoun; (c) a weak pronoun from which clitic pronouns will develop in Romance. As for ipse , we will show that it can both co-occur with a noun already known in the context expressing anaphoricity, and be a subject and a direct/indirect object pronoun. Furthermore, it can be introduced by a preposition. When it is a pronoun, ipse expresses anaphoricity as well, although in many contexts (especially when it is used as a subject pronoun), it is possible to identify an emphatic value for ipse , which can presumably be due to the realisation of the subject in a pro-drop language.

The aim of this article is to examine the status of postnominal modifiers in Latin and Ancient Greek. Compared to prenominal modifiers, modifiers in postposition are more loosely integrated into the noun phrase. However, whereas modern scholars analyse them as integral parts of noun phrases, Classical philologists claim that postnominal modifiers are, at least originally, appositive elements. Furthermore, from a typological point of view, there are languages in which postnominal modifiers do not form a part of noun phrases at all. Several criteria of a semantic, syntactic, or pragmatic nature can help us with distinguishing between true modifiers belonging to noun phrases and apposed elements, specifically, semantic completeness and incompleteness of referents, restrictions on predication of modifiers, coordination, and context.