Talk:Latin syntax

[Untitled]

Seadowns (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Prepositions preceding nouns -- The page as it stands fails to take into account monosyllabic prepositions following their noun in phrases like "silva lupus in Sabina" (Horace Odes 1.22.9) or "thalamoque relictus in uno" (Ovid Heroides 6.95). However, I lack the knowledge to formulate the rule for such phrases, and hope somebody else will be able to do it. Seadowns (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have emended it now. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but isn't there a bit more to it?

The problem is with monosyllabic prepositions (mps) also, and I think an example would be helpful. I believe that, in verse, there is no constraint against putting them after their noun or pronoun provided there is a following adjective, as in the examples I gave from canonical poets, but my questions would be

Is this true of all mps?

Does it only apply in verse?

Does there have to be an accompanying following adjective?

I have temporarily no access to sources that might answer these questions. I have been composing Latin verse for many years on the assumption that the answer to the first question is "yes", and nobody has ever pulled me up! It is an important point for composers. Seadowns (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Later -- There is a very strong but false statement about mps, to which Note 7 is appended. This needs to be changed.(signed) Seadowns (computer is playing up and won't type tilde) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, "in verse" is too specific; I have changed it. I have also changed that over-dogmatic statement at note 7. Thanks for that! But to give all the exact rules of syntax and examples of all the exceptions would surely be going beyond what this article is about; if we did that, it would make it as long as Gildersleeve and Lodge or even longer! I wrote it having in mind as much basic syntax as might be needed, say, by a person studying Latin at high school, reading set books by Cicero or Virgil, or perhaps a linguist from a different region (e.g. Japan) who is interested in finding out about Latin. Neither Gildersleeve & Lodge and Allen & Greenough mention examples of the type silva in Sabina. Even if a rule for this could be found, say in Szantyr, I don't think it would be appropriate to include it in the present article. Even as it is I think the article goes on too much about certain things; for example, there are possibly too many examples for quīn. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The preposition, whether monosyllabic or not, following a noun and with an adjective, as in silva...in Sabina is very common in verse. Anyone can find examples in a few minutes. Perhaps the grammars thought it too obvious to be mentioned. That being so, the present wording is actually inaccurate. While I see that the article should not be over-long, it should not be untruthful either, so I suggest it should add "save that in verse a preposition may follow the noun, at least when there is an accompanying adjective, as in 'silva lupus in Sabina' (Horace Odes 1.22.9).Seadowns (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the statement "There are occasional exceptions, especially with two-syllable prepositions, e.g. haec inter (Virgil) 'in the midst of these'." is inaccurate or untruthful. It is true that it is easy to find examples such as silva lupus in Sabina once you begin to look (Horace also has rebus in arduis, reges in ipsos, Volture in Apulo, collibus in suis in the Odes, and finem sub utrumque and amnis Ostia sub Tusci in the Satires). However, the vast majority of examples of in and sub come before the noun, and of course in prose they nearly all do; so to say "there are occasional exceptions" seems to hit the mark. To go into further detail, and mention the exact conditions in which this occurs, might be more appropriate if we start a separate article on prepositions, which might in fact be a good idea, since there is a lot to say. Kanjuzi (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"Almost always" may be true of prose, but it is untrue of verse, and therefore untrue if applied to the language without qualification. Nor do I know what the basis is for the remark about postponement being more common with dissyllabic prepositions, which I doubt is true. If, as you say, the grammars quoted do not mention this trope at all, they cannot be the source. Also, I think "occasionally" gives a false impression. I can't see the objection to inserting the words "in prose" at the beginning, and later saying "In verse they usually precede their noun, but quite commonly follow it, with an accompanying adjective." There seems to be no source for this, unless one can be found in an English grammar, since verse writing was very important in England (though not so in Scotland, as I believe Nisbet and Watt both said), and this is essential information for verse writers. Instead of a source one could provide examples from canonical poets. Brevity could be gained by omitting the suspect remark about dissyllabic prepositions.Seadowns (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The remark about dissyllabic prepositions comes from Gildersleeve & Lodge (1895) p. 267, §413: "Dissyllabic prepositions are postponed more often, but Cicero restricts this to pronouns, with the following prepositions: ante, circa, contra, inter, penes, propter, sine, ultra." "Quite commonly" is not really true. For example, out of 47 instances of sub in Horace, only two are postponed. – But I was wrong to say the grammars don't mention the noun-preposition-adjective word-order; I have now found a footnote in Gildersleeve & Lodge, so I have added this to the article. Still, a separate article on prepositions would be useful, to avoid cluttering up this article with too much detail. It was not really written with verse-composers in mind, but to give a general outline of the subject, and for brevity quite a number of things are omitted (e.g. quominus clauses, and correlatives). Kanjuzi (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To me it still gives the impression that postponement is something rare, like hiatus in verse. It seems to be commoner in some poets than others. It occurs quite often in Lucretius. Kenney has a note to Lucretius 3.141 "The preposition, here placed after its noun, as not infrequently in poetry." There are four examples before line 141. At line 375 he has the note "L. not infrequently postpones prepositions (anastrophe) for metrical convenience." "Not infrequently" is better than "ocasionally". Also, I notice that Ovid has "vada tendis ad Hebri" (Heroides 2.15" -- a genitive, not an adjective. If necessary, I would write, say, "gramina per campi" in a composition, and be beyond all criticism for having done so.

Another point altogether is that prepositions, whether or not postponed, in verse at least, not infrequently occur at some distance from their nouns. E.g.

miles ab Etruscis saucius aggeribus

In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas

corpora

laetitia solvar ab ipsa mea.

This trope should also be mentioned, I think.

Also, in to help with shortening the article, I suggest that the remark about the scarcity of female students of Latin syntax should be omitted. It tells us nothing about syntax. Seadowns (regret can't sign with tildes because my computer intermittently refuses to type them).

To write "in prose the preposition nearly always precedes its noun" as you left it seems to me unsatisfactory, since it implies that in prose it sometimes doesn't precede it. I think it would be truer to say that in prose it "always" precedes its noun, although it is difficult to put that in the article, since I don't have a reference the back it up (there are exceptions with pronouns or the relative pronoun, e.g. quoad). For the time therefore being I have changed it to "generally precedes". Let me think a bit more about your other suggestions before I make any further changes. I still think that if we are going to go into great detail about prepositional phrases it would be better to start a new article about them, otherwise this article is going to become unbalanced. As I said, the idea was to write as much about Latin syntax as might be of value to students studying in high school without going further than that. I put in quite a bit about word order not only because it has been of a particular area of interest to scholars in recent years but also because it might be hepful for students studying Cicero and Virgil for A level or similar exams. – The point you made that Latin syntax up until recently having been the preserve of male scholars has nothing to do with Latin syntax per se is valid, but this fact is still perhaps worth stating. I wonder what other readers think? – By the way, there's a button at the bottom of the edit page that will automatically type the four tlldes if you click on it. – Kanjuzi (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the sentence about women should definitely go. Why such a remark about Latin syntax alone? Also, all the preceding sentences except the very first. They are not going to interest the people you say the article is aimed for. Also, the "theories" section should go. These so-called theories, in my view, are a form of pseudo-science, in that there is no way in which they can be either verified or falsified. They would certainly be of no interest to the target audience, who are at about where I was when thirteen (reading Aeneid II and the Anabasis). Indeed, I would be very surprised if my close friend of 65 years, Robin Nisbet, would have had any time for them. He used to say that that sort of thing was "a sure sign of the second-rate". Further suggestions to come.

Well, I don't think that it is irrelevant to say what sort of people have been most active in studying Latin syntax in the past; just as an article on the South Pole would mention not only its geography, but also the people who had explored it and their nationalities. And the fact that there has been a strong German tradition in exploring and describing Latin syntax seems very salient and worth mentioning. Moreover, over 40 people a day view this article and none of them so far has seen fit to query that part! As for the section on "Theories" it should certainly be kept, I believe. I think it is one of the most interesting parts of the article, and I would certainly have found it so when I was studying A level at school. After all, it seems to me legitimate that an article on syntax should mention not only the dry facts of grammar but also the latest trends in its study. (This discussion reminds me of the one in Seneca the Elder's Controversiae 2.2.12: Naso…(est) rogatus aliquando ab amicis suis, ut tolleret tres versus, invicem petit, ut ipse tres exciperet, in quos nihil illis liceret. Aequa lex visa est: Scripserunt illi quos tolli vellent secreto, hic quos tutos esse vellet. In utrisque codicillis idem versus erant.) However, your promised suggestions will be most welcome. As I said, by the way, you can sign your contributions simply by clicking on the tilde button at the bottom of the edit page. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC) – PS. That line of yours "In somnis quondam visa est mihi barbara virgo, quae resonante lyra de monte canebat Abora" is very fine – though I notice you keep to the regular order of preposition-noun. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

Something has happened to take all my attention elsewhere, and I cannot give time to this for the foreseeable future. My only real concern is that the differences between verse and prose, especially in word order, should be brought out. This is basically because I think many people will find Latin poetry more rewarding than Latin prose -- not all, of course, but many. 11:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall try to bear that in mind. Kanjuzi (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Casca's arm

@Espoo: I owe you an apology, since I stated that Cascae in Caesar brāchium Cascae graphiō trāiēcit 'he stabbed Casca's arm with his stylus' was definitely a dative, on the basis of such parallels as huic geminum oblīquā trāiēcit harundine tempus 'he pierced both his temples with an arrow from the side' or puer gladiō tibi colla recīdit, Magne, tuō 'the boy cut your throat with your own sword, Magnus', or frangam tōnsōrī crūra 'I'll break the barber's legs' in which the person disadvantaged (huic, tibi, tōnsōrī) is in the dative. However, we also find sentences such as gladiō vomicam eius aperuit 'he opened his boil with a sword' and servus noster lanceā collum eius trāiēcit 'our slave pierced his neck with a lance' in which the pronoun eius ('his') is in the genitive. This leaves the case of Cascae ambiguous, so perhaps a better example is needed since it isn't vital for the point made. Kanjuzi (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Another example with the genitive: haec dīcentis latus hastā trānsfīxit (Curtius) lit. 'he pierced the side of the man saying this with a spear'. Kanjuzi (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)