previous next

Negative.

(A. Habich: observationes de negationum aliquot usu Plautino. Halle, 1893; read with it Seyffert's review in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 319.)

The prefix - of nequeo, nescio, nefas, nisi (older nesi), numquam (= -umquam), neutiquam (scanned n'ŭtiquam, and by some editors1 printed ne utiquam), nullus (= -ullus), is the first element of nolo (= -volo), with 2, 3 Singular nĕvis, nĕvolt still surviving beside the more usual nonvis, nonvolt in Plautine Latin. The same Particle is the second element of quin (2), e.g. quin sciret for qui sciret.’ But its independent use in the time of Plautus is not proved by the variant reading ne multa (P: non multa A) in Trin. 364eo non multa quae nevolt eveniunt, nisi fictor malust”, which some refer to a marginal correction of nisi to the older spelling nesi. (In Truc. 877 read refacere, Most. 124 reparcunt. , not , is the word used in Pseud. 437, 633). (On the affirmative Particle , see 2

The Old Latin nec (e.g. “res nec mancipi”; cf. Festus 162 M.), replaced by non in Classical Latin, still survives in Plautine Latin (see 2), especially in the phrase nec recte dicere, e.g. Most. 240nec recte si illi dixeris”. Like necuter (later) may be necullus of Trin. 282neque in via neque in foro necullum sermonem exsequi” (neque u. A, ullum P), but other examples, such as nec quoquam (v.l. nēquoquam) Most. 562, are still less free from suspicion. Cf.

Editors change necquidem in Most. 595 to nequidem. (On Copulative nec, neque, see 2

Of the Old Latin form noenum (-oenum ‘not one’) there is only one certain example in Plautus, Aul. 67noenum mecastor quid ego ero dicam meo”, just as of the form oenus for unus (viz. Truc. 102). Editors have sometimes wrongly substituted it for non enim ‘indeed not’ (cf. 2 ‘enim’), e.g. in Mil. 648, Aul. 594, Trin. 705.

>Haud (hau, a form found only before a word beginning with a consonant) is not used in questions, commands, conditional, consecutive and final clauses. Non is not subject to these restrictions. Haud is especially used with Adjectives or Adverbs, and generally stands immediately before the negated word.

A double Negative usually merely strengthens the Negation (but cf. nonnullus, haud nolo), e.g.

Cf. Epid. 532, Curc. 579, Mil. 1411. The classical Latin use of neque . . . neque after a Negative is found in Capt. 76quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque invocat”, Epid. 110, Trin. 281, etc.

On the Pronominal equivalents of non, such as nihil, nullum, nullus, see IV. 28 To these may be added numquam e.g. Pers. 628, Ter. Andr. 384numquam faciam” (Donatus' note is: “numquamplus habet negationis, quamnon”), often strengthened by the addition of hodie2 (like Virgil's “numquam hodie effugies,Ecl. 3.49) e.g. Trin. 971, Ter. Phorm. 805nunquamne hodie concedes mihi?”, Naev. trag. 15. Cf. Men. 217neque hodie . . meream”. On numquam quisquam, see IV. 28 On minus (cf. quominus), see p. 111.

1 Donatus' remark “una pars est orationis” may imply that ne and utiquam were written separately.

2 Donatus remarks on Ter. Adelph. 215: “hodienon tempus significat, sed iracundam eloquentiam ac stomachum”. (Cf. Hor. Sat. 2, 7, 21non dices hodie?”)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: