List of noteworthy Conjunctions
I give first an alphabetical list of such Conjunctions as call for notice. A detailed account of certain functions, Temporal, Causal, etc., will follow.adeo
(Langen Beiträge, pp. 139 sqq.; Sydow: zum Gebrauch von ‘adeo’ bei Plautus. Stettin, (Schulprogr.) 1896). The addition of Prepositions for the sake of giving precision was not confined to Nouns, e.g. salio de monte, and Verbs, e.g. desilio (de) monte (see II. 1): it is found also with Adverbs. Adeo is an example. The Pronominal Adverb eo meant ‘to that spot or quarter’ (see IV. 14) and was often used as a Case of the Demonstrative is instead of ad eum, ad eam, ad eos, etc. (see IV. 20). Precision was given to these two uses of the word by the addition of the appropriate Preposition ad, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 55 “adeo res redit”. Adeo has two meanings in Old Latin. It means either ‘up to that point,’ often with usque, e.g. Asin. 328 “mansero tuo arbitratu, vel adeo usque dum peris”, or else ‘in addition to that,’ ‘furthermore,’ e.g. Men. 827 “tibi aut adeo isti”. Nunc adeo, with edico, etc., peremptorily breaks off a discussion, etc., e.g.- Mil. 159 “nunc adeo edico omnibus”,
- Pseud. 855 “nunc adeo tu, qui meus es, iam edico tibi”,
- Rud. 728.
an
(P. Hinze: de ‘an’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos vi et usu. Halle, 1887). A recent theory, the truth of which is doubtful, makes at-nĕ the original form of this Conjunction (i.e. at with the Interrogative Particle ne). This would become anne by the law of Latin Phonetics. Before an initial consonant this would be sounded in rapid discourse without the final ĕ as ann or an, so that anne (used by Plautus only when an initial vowel follows) and an are doublets (anne est?, etc., an sum?, etc.) and the use of an before an initial vowel (e.g. ăn est?), a use found as early as Plautus, is really the misuse of the preconsonantal for the prevocalic form of the word. The common formula of a Disjunctive Interrogation ne . . . an, e.g. Men. 198 “egone an tu?” would, according to this theory, be originally ne . . . anne, e.g. Rud. 1069 “iurene anne iniuria?”, with the same repetition of ne as is seen in ne . . . necne (see below). (On the employment of an in Interrogations, see below, 7) Annon has not in Plautus' time become a Conjunction (or Conjunctional word-group); for he more frequently repeats the Verb after non, e.g. Capt. 846 “iuben an non iubes?”, Pers. 533 “tacen an non taces?” (but Rud. 1399 “tacen an non?”, Curc. 566, etc.), whereas in Terence annon is normally the mere correspondent of an, e.g. Phorm. 852 “sed isne est, quem quaero, annon?” (but Eun. 546 “is est an non est?”).ast
‘furthermore;’ usually in Conditional Sentences, e.g. but not always, e.g. Merc. 246 “atque oppido hercle bene velle illi visus sum, ast non habere cui commendarem capram”, Accius 260.at
Has the force of ‘at least,’ when preceded by si, in lines like- Men. 670 “si tibi displiceo, patiundum: at placuero huic Erotio”,
- Men. 746 “si me derides, at pol illum non potes”
- cf. Pers. 170 “quamquam ego vinum bibo, at mandata non consuevi simul bibere una”;
at enim
‘but indeed’ (on the use of enim in Plautus, see below) in dialogue is used to oppose a preceding statement of the other speaker, e.g. Most. 922 “A. vel mihi denumerato … B. at enim ne quid captioni mihi sit, si dederim tibi”. (For other examples of at enim see Seyffert in Studemund's Studien 2, p. 426 n.)atque (ac)
(see E. Ballas: Grammatica Plautina I. de particulis copulativis. Griefswald, 1868) i.e. ad-que ‘and in addition,’ ‘and thereto,’ (cf. Pseud. 769), has not yet wholly become a mere Copula (e.g. Aul. 97 “fures venisse atque abstulisse dicito”), but often means ‘and even,’ ‘and nevertheless,’ e.g.- Trin. 941 “A. e caelo? B. atque medio quidem”,
- Bacch. 569 “A. quid duas? B. atque ambas sorores”,
- Capt. 354 “solvite istum nunciam, atque (‘and in fact’) utrumque”,
- Rud. 121 “dabitur opera atque in negotio”,
- Trin. 746 “atque ea condicio huic vel primaria est”,
- Pers. 829 “ac tu Persa es?” ‘and so you are the Persian.’
- Most. 1050 “quoniam convocavi, atque illi me ex senatu segregant”,
- Poen. 651 “dudum mane ut ad portum processimus, atque istunc e navi exeuntem oneraria videmus.”
- Mil. 764 “haud centensumam partem dixi atque, otium rei si sit, possum exponere”,
- Merc. 897 “amicior mihi nullus vivit atque is est”,
- Ter. Andr. 698 “non Apollinis magis verum atque hoc responsumst”,
- Bacch. 549 “quem esse amicum ratus sum atque (= aeque atque) ipsus sum mihi”,
- Amph. 274 “neque se luna quoquam mutat atque (= alio atque) uti exorta est semel”.
atqui
Rather at quî, a combination of at with the Particle quî (see below), e.g.- Asin. 823 “at pol qui dixti rectius”,
- Rud. 946 “at pol qui audies post”,
- Merc. 727 “A. dic igitur. B. dicam. A. atqui dicundumst tamen”,
- Aul. 287 “atque ego istuc, Anthrax, aliovorsum dixeram”;
- Ter. Eun. 451 “bene dixti, ac mihi istuc non in mentem venerat”,
- Andr. 524, etc.
aut
(W. Kohlmann: de ‘vel’ imperativo, quatenus ab ‘aut’ particula differat. Marburg, 1898) is commoner than vel (see below) in Plautus and Terence. Just as -ve (see below) appears as the equivalent of que in some phrases, so aut and et appear in such phrases as “sobrie et frugaliter” Epid. 565, “sobrie aut frugaliter” Pers. 449.autem
(see Langen Beiträge, p. 316); sometimes joined immediately to et or sed, e.g.- Merc. 119 “et currendum et pugnandum et autem iurigandum est in via”,
- Poen. 841 “et adire lubet hominem et autem nimis eum ausculto lubens”,
- Rud. 472 “sed autem, quid si hanc hinc abstulerit quispiam?”;
- Mil. 1149 “si et illa volt et ille autem cupit”,
- Truc. 838 “agite, abite tu domum et tu autem domum.”
- Pseud. 305 “A. metuo credere. B. credere autem!” ‘give credit indeed!,’
- Ter. Adelph. 940 “A. fac; promisi ego illis. B. promisti autem! de te largitor, puer.”
ceterum
The Neuter Singular (e.g. Pers. 692 “numquid ceterum me voltis?”, Cas. 94 “dehinc conicito ceterum”), is often used Adverbially ‘for the rest,’ e.g. The Neuter Plural is similar, cetera, e.g. The genesis of the Adversative Conjunction is seen in a line like Trin. 994 “ceterum (for the rest, but in short) qui sis, qui non sis, floccum non interduim.”cur
(Langen: Analecta Plautina II. Münster (progr.), 1882, p. 3) is appropriate to direct Questions, although not quite unknown in indirect (e.g. Capt. 1007 “attat scio cur te patrem esse adsimules”, Ter. Heaut. 1).donec
Neither the origin of this word nor the relationship of the three forms donec, donicum and donique (Lucr.) is at all clear. On the use of the Conjunction in temporal sentences, see below, 10dum
(G. M. Richardson: de ‘dum’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu. Leipzig, 1886), a word of uncertain etymology, is often a mere Particle, appended to Imperatives, e.g. iubĕdum, dic(e)dum agedum, and other words, e.g. quîdum? ‘how so?’ (always forming a sentence by itself, e.g. Mil. 325), ehodum (used by Terence). In primumdum it probably retains its temporal sense, as in nondum ‘not yet,’ vixdum (not used by Plautus and only once by Terence, Phorm. 594), etiamdum (see below), interdum. (On nedum ‘much less,’ see below; the relation of dudum to dum is uncertain.) It retains its independence in a line like Rud. 778 “abi modo; ego dum hoc curabo recte”, and in the expression dum … dum ‘at one time … at another,’ Merc. 348 “dum servi mei perplacet mi consilium, dum rursum haud placet” (cf.- Accius 395 “ita dum interruptum credas nimbum volvier, dum quod sublime ventis expulsum rapi saxum”,
- Afranius 372 “dum me morigeram, dum morosam praebeo”;
enim
(Langen Beiträge, pp. 263 sqq.) is in the Comedians' Latin normally (cf. W. Clement in Amer. Journ. Phil. 18,402 sqq.) an Asseverative particle, corresponding to enimvero, e.g. Most. 551 “A. quid tute tecum? B. nihil enim” ‘nothing at all.’Etenim
In the prologue of the Amphitruo (v. 26) “etenim ille, quoius huc iussu venio, Iuppiter non minus quam vostrum quivis formidat malum”, etenim is said to be post-Plautine. At enim is common in Plautus, but sed enim seems not to occur (in Bacch. 1080 the MSS. offer et enim, which some editors change to at enim, some to sed enim), although we have “verum enim” Cist. 80. Quid enim appears in Amph. 694 “quid enim censes?” (On non enim, wrongly changed by editors to noenum, see below.)equidem
Mistaken ideas of Plautine Metre formerly induced editors to change quidem to equidem in a great number of lines (see Skutsch in Hermes 32, p. 95). This created not a few occurrences of equidem with other persons than the first. If we are to follow the MSS., one or two still remain, e.g.- Pers. 639 “ita me di bene ament sapienter! atque equidem miseret tamen” (equidem P, eo A),
- Mil. 650 “o lepidum semisenem, si quas memorat virtutes habet, atque equidem plane educatum in nutricatu Venerio!”,
- Epid. 603 “adulescentem equidem dicebant emisse”,
- Poen. 1240 “quia annos multos filias meas celavistis clam me, atque equidem ingenuas liberas summoque genere gnatas”,
- Trin. 611 “atque equidem ipsus ultro venit Philto oratum filio.”
egoquidem huius servos sum.
” These two examples show that egoquidem emphasizes the 1 Pronoun far more than equidem.
ergo
(Langen Beiträge, p. 235). The common etymology ē*rĕgo is supported by the Assonance in Most. 1119 “A. aliud te rogo. B. aliud ergo nunc tibi respondeo”. This use of ergo in impatient correction occurs again in Aul. 323 “A. cocum ego, non furem rogo. B. cocum ergo dico”, Cist. 608. As other examples of its Plautine use may be taken these lines:- Men. 758 “ut aetas mala est! mers mala ergost”,
- Pers. 24 “A. satin tu usque valuisti? B. haud probe. A. ergo edepol palles”,
- Most. 972 “A. Philolaches … tibicinam liberavit. B. Philolachesne ergo?” (‘really’),
- Pseud. 1084 “A. pol haud mentitust. B. ergo (therefore) haud iratus fui”,
- Most. 812 “A. non tu vides hunc voltu uti tristi est senex? B. video. A. ergo inridere ne videare”,
- Bacch. 866 “A. pacisci cum illo paullula pecunia potes. B. pacisce ergo, opsecro, quid tibi lubet”
- (cf. Asin. 688, etc.).
et
(see E. Ballas: Grammatica Plautina. I de particulis copulativis. Greifswald, 1868) (cognate with Greek ἔτι ‘further,’ ‘in addition’) has sometimes, like atque1, (see above) the sense of ‘and nevertheless,’ ‘and further,’ e.g.- Bacch. 1196 “lubet et metuo”,
- Epid. 141 “huic homini opust quadraginta minis celeriter calidis, danistae quas resolvat, et cito”.
etiam
That is, et iam; usually accompanies a Verb in Old Latin, while quoque usually accompanies a Noun. (For details see Kirk in Amer. Journ. Phil. 18, 36; 21, 303.) The following examples of Plautus' use of the Conjunction may suffice:- Trin. 572 “quid nunc? etiam (still) consulis?”;
- Rud. 959 “is mihi nihil etiam (as yet) respondit”;
- Most. 1000 “A. numquid processit ad forum hodie novi? B. etiam” (‘yes’).
etsi
That is, et si ‘even if.’ The origin of the word is shown in lines like- Trin. 474 “A. edim nisi si ille votet. B. at pol ego et si votet”,
“A. illaec advorsum si quid peccasso, Venus,
veneror te ut omnes miseri lenones sient.
B. tamen fiet, et si tu fidem servaveris.
”
haud
(Sigismund: de ‘haud’ negationis apud priscos scriptores usu (in Commentationes philologicae Jenenses, Leipzig, 1883). On its use, see below, 8idcirco
(Pradel de praeposit. p. 498).igitur
‘then’ is (like quoniam) temporal or logical, e.g.- Mil. 772 “quando habebo, igitur rationem mearum fabricarum dabo”
- (like 810 “ego enim dicam tum quando usus poscet”),
- Most. 637 “A. quid eo est argento factum? B. salvum est. A. solvite vosmet igitur, si salvumst”.
- tum, e.g. Most. 132 “unum ubi emeritumst stipendium, igitur tum specimen cernitur”,
- demum, e.g. Most. 380 “miserum est opus igitur demum fodere puteum, ubi sitis fauces tenet”;
immo
(P. Specht: de ‘immo’ particulae apud priscos scriptores usu. Jena, 1904) is confirmative, not corrective, in a line like Pers. 721 “A. nam te sensi sedulo mihi dare bonam operam. B. tibin ego? immo sedulo” (A: serio, ut vid. P.). On immo si scias, see below, s.v. si (cf. “immo si audias” Bacch. 698, Epid. 451).ita
(Th. Braune: Observationes … ad usum ‘ita’ ‘sic’ ‘tam’ (‘tamen’) ‘adeo’ particularum Plautinum ac Terentianum. Berlin, 1882) is cognate with the Pronoun is and stands in the same relation to sic as is to hic2. Thus with Verbs of saying, ita precedes an Oratio Obliqua, sic an Oratio Recta, e.g.- Pseud. 596 “mi ita dixit erus meus miles, septumas esse aedis a porta” (with ita),
- Asin. 352 “sic hoc respondit mihi: ‘ego pol Sauream non novi’” (with sic).
Itane?
‘actually?’ is common in indignant remonstrance and the like, e.g.- Poen. 557 “itane? temptas an sciamus?”
- Rud. 747 “itane, impudens? tune hic, feles virginalis, liberos parentibus sublectos habebis?”
nam
Like enim, has an asseverative sense, but is not so far removed from the classical use, (see Spengel's note on Ter. Ad. 15), e.g.- Mil. 1325 “nam (indeed) nil miror si lubenter, Philocomasium, hic eras” (confirming P.'s previous remark),
- Men. 537 “A. ubi illae armillae sunt, quas una dedi? B. numquam dedisti. A. nam (true) pol hoc unum dedi.”
nam
An Interrogative Particle which often appears in Tmesis, e.g. The Interrogative and Asseverative uses can hardly be discriminated in lines like- Most. 368 “A. quid ego ago? B. nam quid tu, malum, me rogitas quid agas? accubas”,
- Aul. 42 sqq. “nam cur me miseram verberas? … nam qua me nunc causa extrusisti ex aedibus?”
namque
Used only before an initial vowel in the Dramatists (except Ennius Trag. 370 R. “namque regnum suppetebat mi”), is strengthened by enim in Trin. 61 “namque enim tu, credo, me imprudentem obrepseris”. Like nam it confirms a previous remark in lines like Capt. 604 “A. istinc loquere, siquid vis, procul. tamen audiam. B. namque edepol, si adbites propius, os denasabit tibi.”-nĕ
(On Affirmative -ne see M. Warren: On the Enclitic ‘ne’ in Early Latin, in American Journal of Philology, vol. II) like nam is used asseveratively and interrogatively. (On Interrogative -nĕ, see below, 7) Its asseverative use is most frequent in an answer like tune ‘yes you’ to a question like egone?, e.g. If it were confined to such cases, it might be explained as a mere comic repetition, like that of autem in Stich. 733 (quoted above, s.v.), or like Pers. 212 “A. heia! B. beia!”, Pseud. 235 “A. at—B. bat!” But it is found in other collocations, e.g.- Epid. 541 “plane hicinest”,
- Mil. 309 “hoccine si miles sciat, credo hercle has sustollat aedes totas atque hunc in crucem”,
- Ter. Heaut. 950 “sed Syrum quidem egone, si vivo, adeo exornatum dabo.”
nē
In Old Latin also nei (nī), e.g. Most. 924 “niquid committam tibi”. Noticeable is the use of ne etiam ‘not even,’ e.g. Most. 423 “ut ne etiam aspicere aedes audeat”, ne (not ‘neve3’) … neve (nive, e.g. Poen. 38), e.g. Trin. 314 sqq., ne non, e.g. Cas. 575 “metuo ne non sit surda atque haec audiverit.” Neque … neque (see below) can play the part of ne … neu, e.g. Ter. Heaut. 975 “nec tu aram tibi nec precatorem pararis”. Beside ut ne, we find quî ne, e.g. incert. com. 47 “haud facilest defensu qui ne comburantur proximae”, (more likely quî nē than quî nĕ, i.e. quin).nedum
‘much less’ is unknown to Plautus (cf. Amph. 330 “vix incedo inanis, ne ire posse cum onere existumes”), who however appends the Particle dum to ne in lines like Mil. 431 “ne dum quispiam nos vicinorum imprudentis aliquis immutaverit”. Terence's Comedies offer one instance, Heaut. 454 “satrapa si siet amator, numquam sufferre eius sumptus queat; nedum tu possis.”neque, nec
On the Old Latin use of nec for non, e.g. nec recte dicere, see 8 The Copula sometimes unites clauses which are not strictly connected in sense, so that it is hardly distinguishable from this Old Latin use, e.g. Rud. 359 “O Neptune lepide, salve! nec te aleator nullus est sapientior”, Aul. 206 (see Leo's note for more examples). We find neque for neu, especially when preceded by another neque, e.g. The classical use of neque . . et is also Plautine, e.g. Rud. 1083 “hoc neque isti usust et illi miserae suppetias feret”, Cist. 691. On the Double Negative neque … haud, etc., see below, 8 In necne, the Indirect Disjunctive Interrogative, the Old Latin use of nec for non survives (cf. annon). The first member of the sentence has either no Interrogative Particle or else -nĕ, e.g. Capt. 713 “emitteresne necne eum servum manu?” (like the more frequent annon, e.g. Capt. 846 “iuben an non iubes?”)nempe
Becomes before an initial consonant nemp. For instances of nempe ergo, e.g. Ter. Andr. 195, see Skutsch Plautinische Forschungen I, p. 38.nimirum
The genesis of this Conjunction is revealed in the pages of Plautus. He uses various phrases with mirum est (usually without est) or mira sunt (see below, under si), especially (1) with si in Negative and Interrogative Sentences (but also Cas. 191), e.g. Truc. 305 “nil mirum—vetus est maceria—lateres si veteres ruunt”, (2) with nisi or ni, in Affirmative Sentences, e.g. Amph. 319 “mirum ni hic me quasi murenam exdorsuare cogitat”. Of these Terence recognises only mirum (1) with si (but also Andr. 651), (2) with ni, e.g. Andr. 598 “A. ubi nunc est ipsus? B. mirum ni domist.” A variation of the expression appears occasionally in Plautus, once nisi mirumst ( Pseud. 1213 “tu, nisi mirumst, leno, plane perdidisti mulierem”), once ni mirum ( Aul. 393 “ni mirum, occidor nisi ego intro huc propere propero currere”. Terence recognizes only ni mirum or, as we may believe him to have written, nimirum, a single word, Eun. 508 “nimirum dabit haec Thais mihi magnum malum”, 268, 784. The omission of est is affected also by mirum when joined with quin. Mirum quin (with Subjunctive) is ironical, e.g. Trin. 495 “mirum quin tu illo tecum divitias feras” ‘you could hardly take your wealth with you to the grave,’ Rud. 1393 (see Sonnenschein's note).nisi
(older nĕ-si, like nĕ-queo, nĕ-fas, etc.) and ni (older nei; see O. Brugmann: über den Gebrauch des condicionalem ‘ni’ in der älteren Latinität. Leipzig, 1887) are usually interchangeable. But in wagers (see below, 5) only ni is found; on the other hand, only nisi in that curious Old Latin use of the word in the sense of sed. This use seems to have originated in the phrase nihil scio nisi hoc (scio), e.g. Rud. 750 “quae patria sit profecto nescio, nisi scio probiorem hanc esse”, for the Apodosis normally consists of nescio or some similar Negative Verb in 1 Singular Present Indicative, Cist. 676 “ubi ea sit nescio, nisi, ut opinor, loca haec circiter mi excidit.” Extensions of this normal use are, e.g.- Aul. 364 “quos pol ut ego hodie servem cura maxumast: nisi unum hoc faciam, ut in puteo cenam coquant”,
- Epid. 265 “mihi istic nec seritur nec metitur: nisi ea quae tu vis volo”,
- Mil. 24 “me sibi habeto, ego me mancupio dabo: nisi unum (but there's one consideration): epityra estur insanum bene”
- (cf. Most. 278 “quid olant nescias, nisi id unum, ut male olere intellegas.”)
non
(older noenum; see 8 below). nonne (cf. anne, above) is appropriate before an initial vowel, while non (cf. an) is used interrogatively before consonant or vowel, e.g. Amph. 407 “non loquor, non vigilo, nonne hic homo modo me pugnis contudit?” (See below, 7).num
(see 7).postquam and priusquam
(On their use in Temporal Sentences, see 10 below.) postquam (often in Tmesis, e.g. Truc. 647 “post illuc quam veni”) is more or less of a Causal Conjunction in lines like- Capt. 487 “abeo ab illis postquam video me sic ludificarier”,
- Ter. Phorm. prol. 1 “postquam poeta vetus poetam non potest retrahere a studio … maledictis deterrere … parat.”
praequam
Formed like prae quod, Stich. 362 “immo res omnes relictas habeo, prae quod tu velis”. Cf. also advorsum quam, Trin. 176 “utrum indicare me ei thensaurum aequom fuit, advorsum quam eius me obsecravisset pater?” ‘contrary to his father's entreaties.’ Its use may be illustrated from- Most. 982 “nihil hoc quidem est, triginta minae, praequam alios dapsiles sumptus facit”,
- Most. 1146 “iam minoris omnia alia facio, prae quam quibus modis me ludificatust.”
praequam res patitur studuit elegantiae.
” Similar is praeut, e.g.
- Mil. 20 “nihil hercle hoc quidemst praeut alia dicam—quae tu numquam feceris”,
- Amph. 374 “A. perii! B. parum etiam, praeut futurum est, praedicas”,
- Men. 376.
praeterquam
(Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894) had not yet become crystallized into a single word at the time of the Dramatists, as we see from, e.g.- Ter. Heaut. 59 “quod mihi videre praeter aetatem tuam facere et praeter quam res te adhortatur tua”,
- Plautus Pers. 366 “quae praeter sapiet quam placet parentibus.”
proin, proinde
The theory is wrong, that these two words had different functions, proin being used in commands, e.g. proin tu hoc audi, and proinde in comparisons, e.g. proinde atque hoc. The two words are really the same; proin is the preconsonantal, proinde the prevocalic doublet (like our ‘a’ and ‘an’). An example of proinde in a command, when prevocalic, is Asin. 27 “proinde actutum … eloquere.” (See Skutsch Forschungen I. 82)propterea
(see Reissinger: die Präpositionem ‘ob’ und ‘propter.’ Participle I, Landau, 1897, p. 75).qua — qua
(see below, 6).quam
Sometimes enclitically appended in Adverbial sense, e.g. nimis quam (Most. 511 etc.), admodum quam (Amph. 541 etc.), perquam. Comparative quam often lacks the leading word, e.g.- Men. 726 “non, inquam, patiar praeterhac, quin vidua vivam quam (i.e. potius quam) tuos mores perferam” (cf. Cas. 256, Poen. 747),
- Rud. 1114 “eo tacent, quia tacita bonast mulier semper quam loquens”,
- Rud. 943 “non edepol pisces expeto quam (i.e. tam quam) tui sermonis sum indigens.”
- Pers. 21 “plusculum annum” ‘for rather more than a year,’
- Trin. 402 “minus quindecim dies sunt” ‘it is less than a fortnight,’
- Stich. 160 “plus annos decem” ‘for over ten years.’
quamobrem
Rather quam ob rem, with the same arrangement as qua de re, e.g. Poen. 317, etc., is hardly yet crystallized into a Conjunction (see Reissinger: die Präpositionem ‘ob’ und ‘propter.’ Part I. Landau, 1897, p. 22). To the redundancy of colloquial speech (cf. I. 11) we may ascribe the abnormal expression in Ter. Andr. 382 “invenerit aliquam causam quam ob rem eiciat.” Or we may recognize in it a symptom that the phrase was becoming a mere equivalent of cur. Cf. quare (below).quamquam and quamvis
(see 4).quando
(P. Scherer: de particulae ‘quando’ apud vetustissimos scriptores Latinos vi et usu, in vol. II. of Studemund's Studien auf dem Gebiete des archäischen Lateins. Berlin, 1891.) The Temporal (see 10) and Causal (see 3) senses may be illustrated from a passage of the Persa, 638 sq. “tanquam hominem, quando animam efflavit, quid eum quaeras qui fuit? … dico equidem: quando hic servio, haec patriast mea”. As an Interrogative, or with expecto, etc., the word is seldom used by Plautus and Terence, e.g. Curc. 212 “quando ego te videbo?”, Ter. Eun. 697. They prefer quam mox, e.g.- Truc. 208 “quam mox te huc recipis?”,
- Mil. 1406 “quam mox seco?”,
- Mil. 304 “insidias dabo quam mox … recipiat se”,
- Ter. Phorm. 161 “dum expecto quam mox veniat”,
- Ennius Ann. 86 V. “omnes avidi exspectant ad carceris oras, quam mox emittat pictis e faucibus currus.”
quapropter
Sometimes in Tmesis, e.g. Amph. 815 “quid ego feci qua istaec propter dicta dicantur mihi?”, is like our ‘where-for(e)’ an example of the addition of a Preposition to a Particle, in order to give it definiteness and precision (see above, s.v. adeo).quare
Rather qua re, is, like quoi rei (Poen. 479), found in Plautus only once, Epid. 597 “A. quibus de signis agnoscebas? B. nullis. A. qua re filiam credidisti nostram?”quasi
(Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894) is apparently a similar shortening of quam si4 as sĭquidem of sī quidem. Plautus uses quăsi and quam si indiscriminately, e.g.- Amph. 1078 “nec secus est quasi si ab Accherunte veniam”,
- Capt. 273 “nec mihi secus erat quam si essem familiaris filius”.
- Capt. 80 “quasi, quom caletur, cocleae in occulto latent”,
- Asin. 178 “quasi piscis, itidemst amator lenae: nequam est, nisi recens”,
- Pseud. 199 “quasi Dircam olim”,
- Rud. 1008 “itidem quasi peniculus novus exurgeri solet.”
- Capt. 20 “quasi una aetas erat” ‘they were of about the same age,’
- 286 “videlicet propter divitias inditum id nomen quasi est”,
- Most. 623 “quasi quadraginta minas.”
-que
(see below, 6) may be appended to a word ending in -ĕ, e.g. Trin. 76 “ut te videre audireque aegroti sient.”quemadmodum
Rather quem ad modum (cf. “quemnam ad modum?” Bacch. 190), illustrates the common arrangement of Relative, Preposition, Noun (cf. “quod ad exemplum est?” Trin. 921, quamobrem, etc.). It is an equivalent of quomodo, e.g. Mil. 884 “tibi dixi miles quem ad modum potesset deasciari”, Pers. 35, and exhibits that use of ad to denote comparisons or similitude (see VII. 2) seen in phrases like Merc. 428 “ad illam faciem” ‘of that appearance;’ cf.- “ad eundem modum” Ter. Adelph. 424,
- “ad istunc modum” Bacch. 749,
- “ad exemplum” Ter. Hec. 163,
- and the like.
quî
(O. Kienitz: de ‘quî’ localis, modalis apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu, Leipzig, 1879), if really the old Instrumental Case, retains its original force in a line like Bacch. 84 “mihi dicito ‘dato qui bene sit:’ ego ubi bene sit tibi locum lepidum dabo” (qui ‘the means,’ ubi ‘the place’). On its use as a Relative Pronoun, see IV. 6 As a Conjunction it plays the part of quomodo, quare, e.g. Poen. 169 “qui id facturu's?” (cf. classical Latin qui fit ut . . ?), often answered by quia (see below); of utinam, e.g. qui illum di perdant! (passim); of ut, e.g. Trin. 688 “nolo ego mihi te tam prospicere qui meam egestatem leves, sed ut inops infamis ne sim”, Amph. 339. It sinks to a mere Particle, like quidem, in such phrases as hercle qui, pol qui, etc. On at qui, quippe qui, see s.v. at, s.v. quippe. Quîdum ‘how so?’ always forms a sentence by itself (see p. 96). Alioqui and ceteroqui are not found in Old Latin writers.quia
The 3 Declension Neuter Plural, as quid is the 3 Declension Neuter Singular and quod is the 2 Declension Neuter Singular; has the sense of quod in a line like Pseud. 107 “atque id futurum unde unde dicam nescio, nisi quia futurum est”. It shows the Interrogative sense of quid? in the Compound quianam? (cf. quidnam?) ‘why?’ used by Ennius and the Tragedians (cf. Virg. Aen. 10. 6), but not by the Comedians (see Langen Beiträge, p. 325). Although quia is normal after verbs of emotion, e.g. Capt. 203 “at nos pudet quia cum catenis sumus”, it is doubtful whether it is used after ‘Verba Sentiendi et Declarandi,’ for nisi quia in Pseud. 568 admits of another explanation (see below, s.v. quod). On the use of quia as a Causal Conjunction, see below, 3quidem
May be joined to et without an intervening word, e.g. Mil. 259 “A. abeo. B. et quidem ego ibo domum”. As illustrations of its ironical use take- Bacch. 221 “A. nam iam huc adveniet miles. B. et miles quidem!”,
- Ter. Heaut. 606 “A. mille nummum poscit. B. et poscit quidem!”
quidni
In this phrase (as in quippini; see below) ni 5 has the Old Latin sense of nē or rather non, stands normally in Tmesis, e.g.- Mil. 1120 “A. itan tu censes? B. quid ego ni ita censeam?”,
- Ter. Heaut. 529 “A. scis esse factum ut dico? B. quid ego ni sciam?”;
- Mil. 923 “populi odium quidni noverim, magnidicum, cincinnatum?”,
- Ter. Phorm. 64 “A. nostin? B. quidni?”,
- 813 etc.
- Most. 209 “A. … quae istuc cures … B. cur, obsecro, non curem?”,
- Most. 454 “A. eho! an tu tetigisti has aedis? B. cur non tangerem?”
- Curc. 458 “quid quod iuratus sum?”,
- Ter. Phorm. 754 “quid? duasne uxores habet?”,
- Rud. 736 “A. esse oportet liberas. B. quid, ‘liberas’!”
quin
(O. Kienitz: de ‘quin’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu. Carlsruhe, 1878). The literal sense, quî-ne ‘how not?’ ‘why not?,’ appears clearly in lines like Trin. 291 “quin prius me ad plures penetravi?” ‘why did I not make my way to the majority (i.e. the dead) before?’ With 2 Singular, Plural Present Indicative it has the force of a command, e.g. quin taces? And in this sense the Imperative was, by a laxity of usage, substituted for the Indicative in colloquial Latin, e.g. quin tace. Sometimes the two Moods stand side by side, e.g.- Asin. 254 “quin tu abs te socordiam omnem reice et segnitiem amove atque ad ingenium vetus vorsutum te recipis tuum?”,
- Pseud. 891 “quin tu is accubitum et convivas cedo”,
- Most. 815 “quin tu is intro atque otiose perspecta ut lubet”.
numquam ullo modo me potes deterrere.
” Of Plautus' use of this Conjunction of hindrance the following examples are noteworthy:
- Curc. 164 “adsum; nam si absim, haud recusem quin mihi male sit.”
- Men. 725 “non, inquam, patiar praeterhac, quin vidua vivam quam (i.e. potius quam) tuos mores perferam” (cf. Ter. Heaut. 763).
- Amph. 1106 “non metuo quin meae uxori latae suppetiae sient.”
- Most. 329 “si cades, non cades quin cadam tecum.”
- Mil. 1194 “triduom servire numquam te quin liber sis sinam.”
- Bacch. 1012 “nihil est illorum quin (= quod non) ego illi dixerim.”
quippe
From Cicero's quippe qui6 (Nominative Singular), used normally with Subjunctive, we must distinguish Plautus' quippe quî (cf. above, s.v. quî), e.g.- Amph. 745 “quippe quî audivi” (said by Alcmena),
- Aul. 348 “horum tibi istic nihil eveniet, quippe quî ubi quid subripias nihil est.”
quippini
(like quidni; see above) ‘why not?,’ e.g. Men. 948 “A. itane censes? B. quippini?”, is as rare with a Verb (e.g. Pseud. 917 “A. nimis tandem ego abs te contemnor. B. quippe ego te ni contemnam?”) as quidni is rare without a Verb (e.g. Truc. 726 “A. nostin tu hunc Strabacem? B. quidni?”).quo and quominus
quo for ut is normal in classical Latin when there is a Comparative in the sentence (cf. quominus with minus for non, as in Mil. 876 “minus si tenetis”, 603 “si minus cum cura aut cautela locus loquendi lectus est”). In Plautus both quo and quî, the Ablative and Instrumental Cases, are unrestricted in this function, e.g. Epid. 289 “quo illum ab illa prohibeas”. And ut is freely used with a Comparative, e.g.- Cist. 636 “quae mihi dedit, parentes te ut cognoscant facilius”
- v. 714 “quî suos Selenium parentes facilius posset noscere”,
- Aul. 33 “quo … facilius”,
- Capt. 33,
- Accius 598 “ut curentur diligentius”,
- Aul. 595 “quasi pueri qui nare discunt scirpea induitur ratis, quî laborent minus, facilius ut nent et moveant manus.”
quoad
That is, quo-ad (with the same postposition of the Preposition as in quapropter, etc.; see VII. 1) appears in Afranius as adquo 278 “ut scire possis adquo te expediat loqui”, 248 “ni tantum amarem talem tam merito patrem, iratus essem adquo liceret”. It is the Relative equivalent of adeo ‘to that point,’ ‘to that extent,’ and has hardly yet become a Temporal Conjunction in Plautus' time,- Asin. 296 “quoad vires valent” (‘to the full extent of my power’),
- Men. 769 “verum est modus tamen quoad pati uxorem oportet”,
- Pseud. 623 “nam olim, quom abiit, argento haec dies praestitutast, quoad referret nobis, neque dum rettulit.”
quod
The passage of the Neuter Singular Pronoun into a Conjunction may be illustrated by these lines:- Epid. 131 “empta ancillast, quod (as) tutĕ ad me litteras missiculabas.”
- Pseud. 639 “ut id agam quod missus huc sum” (see II. 35).
- Rud. 1258 “illuc est quod (why) nos nequam servis utimur”
- (cf. Cas. 460; “quid istuc est quod,” Capt. 541; and often hoc est (erat) quod ‘this is the reason (the meaning) of,’ e.g. Merc. 711 “pol hoc est ire quod rus meus vir noluit”, Cas. 531, Men. 1135, Asin. 863).
- Merc. 502 “quin tibi quidem quod rideas magis est quam ut lamentere” (cf. Aul. 203).
- Capt. 586 “filium tuum quod (‘whereas,’ ‘that’) redimere se ait, id ne utiquam mihi placet.”
- Capt. 996 “quod male feci crucior.”
- Aul. 91 “quod (‘if’) quispiam ignem quaerat, extingui volo” (cf. Mil. 162).
- Capt. 670 “quod (= quantum, quoad) in te uno fuit” (cf. Mil. 1160 “quod ego potero”).
- Most. 303 “certe ego, quod te amo (‘in loving you’), operam nusquam melius potui ponere.”
- Capt. 621 “neque mi esse ullum morbum, nisi quod servio.” (On nisi quod, see above, s.v.)
- Ter. Eun. 926 “nam ut mittam quod (‘the fact that’) . . eam confeci sine molestia.”
- Ter. Phorm. 168 “ut ne addam quod sine sumptu ingenuam, liberalem nactus es.”
- Mil. 893 “dum nescientes quod bonum faciamus, ne formida” (quod = aliquod?),
- Asin. 52 “equidem scio iam filius quod amet meus” (v.l. quid, v.l. amat. Plautus uses quod amat = amica),
- Rud. 1150 “si hercle tantillum peccassis, quod posterius postules te ad verum convorti, nugas, mulier, magnas egeris”,
- Ter. Eun. 1063 “miles, edico tibi, si te in platea offendero hac post unquam, quod dicas mihi ‘alium quaerebam, iter hac habui,’ periisti”,
- Andr. 395 “nam quod tu speres (v.l. speras) ‘propulsabo facile uxorem his moribus, dabit nemo,’ inveniet inopem potius quam te corrumpi sinat.”
quodsi
Found in Terence (e.g. Andr. 258 “quod si ego rescivissem id prius”, Eun. 924 “quod si astu rem tractavit”), but probably not in Plautus (for quod may be the Relative in Cist. 152 “quod si tacuisset, tamen ego eram dicturus”).quom
Generally regarded as an old Neuter Singular of the Relative. It plays the same part as quod in sentences like the formula for congratulating a slave after manumission, quom tu es liber gaudeo (Epid. 711, Men. 1031, 1149), Bacch. 338 “(with istuc as antecedent) istuc sapienter saltem fecit filius, quom (quod alii) diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit”. On Causal quom, see below, 3 on Temporal quom, 10 on Concessive quom, 4quomodo
Rather quo modo, like quo pacto, qua arte, etc., has hardly yet crystallized into a mere Conjunction. (For details, see Ladyzynski: de quibusdam priscorum poetarum scaenicorum locutionibus, Leopoli, 1895; and see above on quemadmodum.)quoniam
(i.e. quom iam; like etiam, nunciam, etc.). On its Causal and Temporal uses, see below (3, 10).quŏque
This word, of uncertain etymology, is the equivalent of etiam (see above). The combination of these two Conjunctions produces- (1) quoque etiam, emphasizing the preceding word, e.g. Amph. 717 “et te quoque etiam, Sosia”, Men. 1160 “venibit uxor quoque etiam”,
- (2) etiam—quoque, e.g. Most. 1110 “immo etiam cerebrum quoque omne e capite emunxisti meo.”
scilicet
A Compound of scio, in some form or other, with licet, retains the old construction of Accusative and Infinitive (cf. videlicet, below) in lines like- Asin. 787 “ita scilicet facturam”,
- Ter. Heaut. 856 “scilicet daturum”,
- 892 “continuo iniecisse verba tibi Dromonem scilicet”;
- Rud. 1098 “continuo hunc novisse dicent scilicet”,
- Asin. 490 “A. tam ego homo sum quam tu. B. scilicet (of course): ita res est”,
- Capt. 283 “id Orcum scire oportet scilicet” (‘I suppose’),
- Ter. Eun. 346 “comites secuti scilicet sunt virginem.”
sed
Noteworthy is the use of this Particle to indicate a surprising discovery, e.g. sed estne hic . . .? (for examples, see Kaempf Pronomina Personalia, p. 44), sed eccum (see Bach in Studemund's Studien, 2, 389), and similar phrases.si
The use of this Conjunction as a Conditional ‘if’ is fully treated below, 5 Si plays the part of quod or quom after verbs like gaudeo, miror, etc., and naturally takes the Indicative Mood. (By the time of Terence, miror si can be used like miror an, e.g. Ter. Andr. 175 “mirabar hoc si sic abiret.”) But there is always a different nuance with si, e.g. Poen. 1326 sqq. “gaudeo et volup est mihi, si quid (v.l. quidem) lenoni obtigit magni mali, quomque e virtute vobis fortuna obtigit”, where the si-clause is stated from information, the quom-clause from personal knowledge. The Protasis of mira sunt (not used by Terence, though in Eun. 288 he uses mira for mirum, “mira vero militi quae placeant”) or mirum (rarely mirum est) is in the Indicative, e.g.- Pseud. 1216 “mira sunt ni Pseudolust”,
- Cas. 191 “mira sunt vera si praedicas”,
- Cas. 554 “atque edepol mirum ni subolet iam hoc huic vicinae meae”,
- Mil. 1041 “ecastor haud mirum si te habes carum”,
- Ter. Andr. 755 “mirum vero, impudenter mulier si facit meretrix?”,
- 598 “mirum ni domist”;
- Amph. 29 “mirari non est aequom, sibi si praetimet”,
- Merc. 784 “non miror, si quid damni facis aut flagiti”,
- Pseud. 442 “idne tu mirare, si patrissat filius?”
- Bacch. 911 “satin est, si plura ex me audiet hodie mala?”,
- Capt. 446 “satin habes, mandata quae sunt facta si refero?”
- Most. 772 “A. (aedes) inspicere volt. B. inspiciat, si lubet”,
- Most. 636 “A. salvomst. B. solvite vosmet igitur, si salvomst”,
- Merc. 606 “si neque hic neque Accherunti sum, ubi sum?”,
- Truc. 748 “si volebas participare, auferres dimidium domum”.
- Mil. 1207 “nam si possem ullo modo impetrare ut abiret nec te abduceret operam dedi”,
- Men. 417 “adsentabor, quidquid dicet, mulieri, si possum hospitium nancisci”,
- Trin. 531 “em istic oportet obseri mores malos, si in obserendo possint interfieri”,
- Most. 837 “at tu isto ad vos obtuere, quoniam cornicem nequis conspicari, si volturios forte possis contui”.
- Capt. 850 “scis bene esse, si sit unde”,
- Curc. 299 “recte hic monstrat, si imperare possit”,
- Poen. 550 “omnia istaec scimus iam nos, si hi spectatores sciant.”
- Cist. 308 “adhinnire equolam possum ego hanc, si detur sola soli”,
- Poen. 351 “si sapias, curam hanc facere compendi potes.”
- Asin. 537 “quid si hic animus occupatust, mater, quid faciam? mone”,
- Poen. 330 “A. quid si adeamus? B. adeas.”
Si—sive (seu)
This is the usual formula in Plautus and Terence, e.g. Ter. Andr. 216 “si ista uxor, sive amicast”, not, as in classical Latin, sive (seu) — sive (seu). Sometimes we find si—si, e.g. Rud. 1257 “at ego deos quaeso ut, quidquid in illo vidulost, si aurum, si argentum est, omne id ut fiat cinis”, Capt. 114. Of the other associates of this Particle, quodsi and ast have been treated above; sin may be illustrated by Ter. Andr. 210 “si illum relinquo, eius vitae timeo, sin opitulor, huius minas.”sic
(Th. Braune: Observationes … ad usum ‘ita,’ ‘sic,’ ‘tam’ (‘tamen’), ‘adeo’ particularum Plautinum ac Terentianum. Berlin, 1882.) The Old Latin alliterative (and etymological?) phrase sic sinere ‘to let be’ is frequent in Plautus, e.g. Pseud. 477, 1301, Aul. 524. But the use of sic in oaths, followed by ut, occurs only once, Poen. 869 “Diespiter me sic amabit … ut ego hanc familiam interire cupio” (cf. Ter. Heaut. 463), the usual phrase being ita me di ament, ut. On the distinction between sic and ita see above, s.v. ita. Sic is associated with hic, ita with is, e.g.- Merc. 268 “nunc hoc profecto sic est” (then follows the explanation),
- Cist. 147 “haec sic res gesta est”,
- Asin. 127 “sicine hoc fit? foras aedibus me eici?”
- Trin. 107 “id ita esse ut credas” (referring to a preceding statement),
- Ter. Eun. prol. 29 “peccatum imprudentiast … id ita esse vos iam iudicare poteritis”.
sicut
That is, sic ut (cf. ita ut, s.v. ita, above); often gives a particular instance or proof of a statement, e.g. Poen. 503 sqq. “tardo amico nihil est quicquam nequius … sicut ego hos duco advocatos, homines spissigradissumos”, and acquires the sense of ‘seeing that,’ ‘since,’ e.g. Mil. 974 “quin tu illam iube abs te abire quo lubet; sicut soror eius huc gemina vēnit Ephesum et mater, accersuntque eam.” (For other examples, see Langen Beiträge, p. 249.)simulac
Just as the Adjective similis is followed by atque or ac (e.g. Ter. Phorm. 31 “ne simili utamur fortuna atque usi sumus”), so the Adverb simul is followed by atque or ac, a combination found as early as Liv. Andr. (see below, 10). The rare use of simul alone, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 823 “hic simul argentum repperit, cura sese expedivit”, is due to Parataxis. For simul ut may be cited Titinius 50 “simul ut pueras hac (v.l. has) nocte suspirare crevi.”tam
(Th. Braune: Observationes . . . ad usum ‘ita,’ ‘sic,’ ‘tam’ (‘tamen’), ‘adeo’ particularum Plautinum ac Terentianum. Berlin, 1882) The following examples are noteworthy:- Mil. 457 “tam east quam potis nostra erilis concubina.”
- Stich. 295 “tam gaudium grande adfero.”
- Pers. 533 “numquam ego te tam esse matulam credidi.”
- Mil. 741 “nam hospes nullus tam in amici hospitium devorti potest quin, ubi triduum continuum fuerit, iam odiosus siet.”
- Mil. 901 “quis hic, amabo, est qui tam pro nota nominat me?”
- Mil. 1246 “tam mulier se ut amaret.”
(cf. Festus 360 M. “antiqui ‘tam’ pro ‘tamen’ usi sunt”, with examples from Naevius, Ennius and Titinius, e.g. Titin. 157 “quamquam estis nihili, tam ecastor simul vobis consului”, where it is put in antithesis to quamquam ‘although’.) Similarly tamendem is used by Plautus, as well as tandem, in lines like“quae nihil attingunt ad rem nec sunt usui,
tam amator profert saepe advorso tempore.
”
- Mil. 585 “verum tamendem, quidquid est, ibo hinc domum”,
- Merc. 595 “sed tamendem, si podagrosis pedibus esset Eutychus, iam a portu rediisse potuit”.
tamen
(H. Karsten: de particulae ‘tamen’ significatione antiquissima ad Ciceronis fere tempora in latinitate conservata, in Mnemosyne 18, pp. 307 sqq.; read with it Seyffert's review in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p, 318). Plautus' use of tamen does not differ from Cicero's. Noteworthy is his predilection for putting the word at the end of the line, e.g. Mil. 306 “si indicium facio, interii; interii, si taceo, tamen”, Epid. 516 “abiero: flagitio cum maiore post reddes tamen.”tamquam
(Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894), i.e. tam quam, e.g.- Trin. 913 “A. vide modo ut hominem noveris! B. tamquam me”,
- Epid. 504 “A. sed tu novisti fidicinam Acropolistidem? B. tam facile quam me”.
ubi
On its use in Temporal Clauses, see below, 10ut
(fuller form uti) (H. Schnoor: zum Gebrauch von ‘ut’ bei Plautus. Neumünster, (progr.) 1885). To express wishes the Conjunction is strengthened by nam in classical Latin, utinam (cf. quisnam beside quis), but we find in Old Latin the simple Conjunction also, e.g. Aul. 785 “ut illum di immortales omnes deaeque quantumst perduint”, beside Capt. 537 “utinam te di prius perderent”. Another Particle used in this function is qui, e.g. Men. 451 “qui illum di omnes perduint” (see above, s.v.). Along with Optative ut, we have Jussive ut (often, for the sake of impressiveness, in the full form uti), e.g. Capt. 114 “sed uti adserventur magna diligentia”, a line in which the longer form is not due to the requirements of the metre. Indignant questions are expressed either by Accusative and Infinitive (see V. 38) or by ut and Subjunctive, e.g.- Curc. 616 “meane ancilla libera ut sit, quam ego numquam emisi manu?”,
- Ter. Phorm. 304 “egone illam cum illo ut patiar nuptam unum diem?”
- iubeo ut facias is equally used with iubeo te facere, e.g. Poen. 4 “audire iubet vos imperator histricus, bonoque ut animo sedeant”,
- volo ut facias with volo te facere, e.g. Mil. 1274 “A. quid <est quod> volt me facere? B. ad se ut eas”),
- Pseud. 665 “A. numquid vis? B. dormitum ut abeas (= abitionem)”,
- Cas. 701 “cur non ego id perpetrem quod coëpi, ut nubat mihi?”,
- Pseud. 940 (etc.) “potin ut taceas?”
- Ter. Andr. 409 “modo ut possim” ‘if I only could,’
- Pers. 575 “modo uti sciam” ‘if I only knew,’
- with Negative modo ne, e.g. Ter. Adelph. 835 “ne nimium modo . . nos . . subvortat”.
- Mil. 401, “ut ad id exemplum somnium quam simile somniavit!”,
- Asin. 581 “ut adsimulabat Sauream med esse quam facete!”,
- Stich. 570.
- Ter. Phorm. 774 “haud scio hercle, ut homost, an mutet animum”,
- Phorm. 638 “ut est ille bonus vir, tria non commutabitis verba hodie apud vos.”
- Mil. 530 “pro di immortales! similiorem mulierem, magisque eandem, ut pote quae non sit eadem, non reor deos facere posse”,
- Rud. 462,
- Bacch. 511.
utrum
The use of a Neuter Pronoun in anticipatory apposition to a whole sentence has already been mentioned (IV. 18) as a feature of early Latin, e.g.- Men. 536 “istuc, ubi illae armillae sunt quas una dedi?”,
- Poen. 840 “nam id quidem, illi, ut meditatur, verba facit emortuo.”
-ve
See 6 below.vel
(W. Kohlmann: de ‘vel’ imperativo quatenus ab ‘aut’ particula differat. Marburg, 1898), originally 2 Singular Imperative of volo, preserves a trace of its origin in such uses as:- Mil. 59 “amant ted omnes mulieres . . . vel (for example) illae quae heri pallio me reprehenderunt.”
- Trin. 655 “scio, vel (if you like) exsignavero” (cf. Most. 300, Amph. 917).