W. M. Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus

---

Parataxis (see Lindskog: Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos. Lund, 1896) is characteristic (1) of the early stage of a language, (2) of colloquial, as opposed to literary language. Naturally it is strongly in evidence in the colloquial Latin of Plautus' time, e.g. Trin. 161 “alium fecisti me, alius ad te veneram”. Most of all in Indirect Questions, which in Plautus are as often Direct (with Indicative) as Indirect (with Subjunctive), e.g.

• Bacch. 557 “dic quis est”,
• Bacch. 555 “dic modo hominem qui sit”,

the two Moods often appearing side by side, e.g.

• Amph. 17 “nunc quoius iussu venio et quam ob rem venerim dicam”,
• Pers. 515 “nescis quid te instet boni neque quam tibi Fortuna faculam lucriferam adlucere volt”,
Most. 969,
Ter. And. 650,
Hec. 874;

cf. nescioquis with Indicative in Early, as in Classical Latin, and the similar phrase scin quid in lines like Pseud. 276 “sed scin quid nos volumus?” (For full statistics see E. Becker: de Syntaxi Interrogationum Obliquarum, in vol. I, Part i, of Studemund's Studien auf dem Gebiet des archäischen Lateins. Berlin, 1873.) Even where the Subjunctive appears, there may often be Parataxis, e.g. Stich. 333 “A. quid agis? B. quid agam rogitas?”, for a similar Subjunctive is found in independent sentences, e.g.

• Capt. 139 “A. ne fle. B. egone illum non fleam?”,
• Ter. Andr. 915 “A. bonus est hic vir. B. hic vir sit bonus?”

Similarly with other dependent Subjunctives; e.g. Men. 683 may be printed as two separate sentences or as one main sentence with a dependent clause: “mihi tu ut dederis pallam et spinter? numquam factum reperies”. Compare lines like

• Trin. 485 “semper tu hoc facito, Lesbonice, cogites”,
• Trin. 59 “vin commutemus?”,
• Poen. 909 “ita di faxint, ne apud lenonem hunc serviam”.

Of recent years a great deal has been done in the way of tracing back the use of a Subjunctive in Dependent Clauses to a similar use in Early Latin in Independent Sentences.