Prohibitive.
(H. Elmer:
a Discussion of the Latin Prohibitive,
based upon a complete collection of the instances from the
earliest times to the end of the Augustan period. Reprinted from
the American Journal of Philology, vol. XV., Parts ii and iii. Ithaca,
N.Y., 1894; read with it Seyffert's review in Bursian's Jahresbericht,
1895, p. 338). The use of the Subjunctive as an Imperative has
been already mentioned (
V. 25). In Old Latin a Prohibition is as
often expressed by
ne with Subjunctive (Pres more often than Perfect) as by
ne with Imper. e.g.
ne me moneas or
ne me mone. It is often difficult
to distinguish between
ne, the Prohibitive, and
ne, the Final Conjunction,
in lines like
Whether it is possible to detect a different
nuance of meaning in
ne- Prohibitions with Present Subjunctive and with
Perfect Subjunctive is matter of controversy. We find the latter Tense
often with other than Prohibitive
ne, e.g.
Bacch. 37 “
pol magis metuo
ne defuerit mihi in monendo oratio”, and the same interchange of
Tenses with
cave, e.g.
Epid. 437 “
cave praeterbitas ullas aedes …
incertus tuom cave ad me rettuleris pedem”, where a difference of
nuance is very unlikely.
As a circumlocution,
cave plays the same part in early Latin as
noli (e.g.
Capt. 840) in classical Latin It normally takes the Tense in
-sim (S.-Aorist Optative) or the Perfect Subjunctive, e.g.
cave faxis,
cave feceris, and is not often found with the Present Subjunctive, except when
cave ne is used or some other part of
caveo than the Imper. (For
details, see Studemund in Versammlung zu Karlsruhe, p. 54.) On
Old Latin
ne . . neve for classical Latin
neve . . neve and on
neque . .
neque in the same function, see above,
2 s.vv.
