This excellent guide to the use of conjunctions in Latin is taken from a rather badly scanned in digital copy of the book A Grammar of the Latin Language By Karl Gottlob Zumpt (Published 1856, Harper & Brothers, Original from Harvard University). The Google Books version is here. I have edited it as carefully as I can. Please let me of any corrections at my address here.

Edward Ockham Buckner, November 2007


[§331.] 1. CONJUNCTIONS are those indeclinable parts of speech which express the relations in which sentences stand to one another. They therefore are, as it were, the links of propositions, whence their name conjunctions.

Note 1.—Some conjunctions, and more particularly all those which form the first class in our division, connect not only sentences, but single words. This, however, is in reality the case only when two propositions are contracted into one, or when one is omitted, as in Mars sive Mavors bellis praesidet; here sive Mavors is to be explained by the omission of sive is Mavors appellandus est, which phrase is, in fact, not unfrequently used. Tho propositions vive diu ac feliciter and ratio et oratio homines conjungit, again, may be divided each into two propositions, joined by the conjunctions vive diu et vive feliciter and ratio conjungit homines et oratio conjungit homines. The practice of language, however, did not stop short in this contraction, but as we may say ratio et oratio conjungunt homines, and as we must say pater et filius dormiunt, the language, by the plural of the predicate, clearly indicates that the two nouns are united. Hence we may say that the (copulative) conjunctions et, que, ac, and atque join single words also. With regard to the other, especially the disjunctive conjunctions (for there can be no doubt about the conjunction 'also'), we must have recourse to the above explanation, that two propositions are contracted into one, for in ego aut tu vincamus necesse est, the nos, which comprehends the two persons, is the subject of vincamus, and not ego aut tu.

Note 2.—Many of the conjunctions to be mentioned presently originally belonged to other parts of speech; but they have lost their real signification, and as they serve to join propositions, they may at once be looked upon as conjunctions; e.g., ceterum, verum, vero, licet, quamvis, and such compounds as quare, idcirco, quamobrem. But there are also many adverbs denoting time and place, respecting which it is doubtful whether, in consequence of the mode of their application in language, they should not be classed among conjunctions. Those denoting time (e.g., deinde, denique, postremum) retain, indeed, their original signification, but when they are doubled; as, tum—turn, nunc—nunc, modo—modo, they evidently serve only to connect propositions; the adverbs of place, on the other hand, are justly classed among the conjunctions when they drop their meaning of place and express a connexion of propositions in respect of time, or the relation of cause and effect, as is the case with ubi, ibi, and inde, and with eo and quando.

2. In regard to their form (figura), they are either simple or compound. Of the former kind are, e.g., et, ac, at, sed, nam; and of the latter atque, itaque, attamen, siquidem, enimvero, verum-enimvero.

3. In reference to their signification, they may be divided into the following classes. They denote :

[§ 332.] 1. A union (conjunctions copulativae); as, et, ac, atque, and the enclitic que, combined with the negation belonging to the verb, neque or nec, or doubled so as to become an affirmative, nec (neque) non, equivalent to et. Etiam and quoque also belong to this class, together with the adverbial item and itidem. As these particles unite things which are of a kind, so the disjunctive conjunctions, signifying 'or', connect things which are distinct from each other. They are aut, vel, the suffix ve, and sive or seu.

Note.—Ac [N2] is never used before vowels (which, however, do not include j) or before an h; atque occurs most frequently before vowels, but before consonants also. Hence the two forms in the same sentence of Cicero, p. Balb., 3, non contra ac liceret, sed contra atque oporteret, and it is probable that in prose as well as in poetry the hiatus was avoided by elision. The rule here given is not invalidated by the fact of ac being found here and there before vowels in editions of Latin authors, as is the case, for example, in two passages of Ernesti's edition of Cicero, ad Quint. Frat., ii., 6, and ad Alt., xiii., 48. For as this difference in the use of ac and atque was [252] not noticed till recently [N3] (in the schools of the Dutch philologers, Burmunn and Drakenborch), and as the MSS. have not yet been collated in all cases of this kind, such isolated remnants of former carelessness cannot be taken into account. Drakenborch (on Liv., x., 36, in fin.) observes that wherever, before his time, ac was found in Livy before vowels, the MSS. give either atque, aut, at, or something else, and that even those passages in which he retained it, such as iii., 16, ac emergentibus malis, should be corrected. We cannot, however, enter into the question why ac was not used before a vowel, while nec and neque are used indiscriminately both before vowels and consonants. One language avoids a sound as displeasing which in another produces no such effect; suffice it to say, that the fact itself is beyond all doubt. Another remark, however, which is made by many grammarians, that ac is not used by good writers before c and q, is unfounded, at least ac before con is frequent in Cicero, and other authors do not even scruple to use ac before ca, which is otherwise, and with justice, considered not euphonious.

[§ 333.] The difference between et and que is correctly described by Hermann in Elmsley's ed. of the Medea, p. 331, ed. Lips., in these words: 'et (kai) is a copulative particle, and que (te) is an adjunctive one. 'In other words, et connects things which are conceived as different, and que adds what belongs to or naturally flows from things. In an enumeration of words, therefore, que frequently forms the conclusion of the series; e.g., Cicero says: hi, qui solis et lunae reliquorumque siderum ortus, obitus motusque cognorunt; and by means of que he extends the preceding idea, without connecting with it anything which is generally different; as in de illa civitate totaque provincia optime meritus; Dolabella quique ejus facinoris ministri fuerunt; jus potestatemque habere; Pompeius pro patris majorumque suorum animo studioque in rempublicam suaque pristina virtute fecit. In connecting propositions with one another, it denotes a consequence or result, and is equivalent to 'and therefore,' which explains its peculiarly frequent application in senatusconsulta (which are undoubtedly the most valid documents in determining the genuine usage of the Latin language), framed as they were to prevent different points being mixed up in one enactment; e.g., in Cic., Philip., ix.. 7, Quum Ser. Sulpicius salutem reip. vitai; suae praeposuerit, contraque vim gravitatemque morbi contenderit, ut—perveniret, isque vitam amiserit, ejusque mors consentanea vitae fuerit; quum talis vir mortem obierit, senatui placere, Ser. Sulpicio statuam aeneam—statui, circumque eam locum liberos posterosque ejus - habere, eamque causam in basi inscribi, utique Coss.—loccent, quantique locaverint, tantam pecuniam—attribuendam solvendamque curent.

Atque is formed from ad and que, and therefore properly signifies 'and in addition,' 'and also,' thus putting things on an equality, but at the same time laying stress upon the connexion. We express this by pronouncing 'and' more emphatically than usual. For example, socii et exterat nationes simply indicates the combination of two things independent of each other; but in socii atque exterae nationes the latter part is more emphatic, 'and also the foreign,' &c. In the beginning of a proposition which farther explains that which precedes, and where the simple connexion is insufficient, the particles atque and ac introduce a thing with great weight, and may be rendered in English by 'now;' e.g., atque haec quidem mea sententia est; atque - de ipsis Syracusanis cognoscite; also in [253] answers, cognostine hot versus? Ac memoriter. Num hi duae Bacchides habitant? Atque ambae sorores, i. e., yes, and that, &c. Ac is the same as atque, but being an abridged form, it loses somewhat of its power in connecting single words; but it retains that power which puts the things connected by it on an equality, and its use alternates with that of et; it is preferred in subdivisions, whereas the main propositions are connected by et; e.g., Cic., in Verr., v., 15, Cur tibi fasces ac secures, et tantam vim imperii tantsque ornamenta data censes? Divin., 12, Difficile est tantam causam et diligentia consequi, et memoria complecti, et oratione expromere, et voce ac viribus sustinere.

[§ 334.] Neque is formed from the ancient negative particle and que, and is used for et non. Et non itself is used when the whole proposition is affirmative, and only one idea or one word in it is to be negatived; e.g., Cic., Brut., 91, Athenis apud Demetrium Syrum, veterem et non ignobilem dicendi magistrum, exerceri solebam; in Verr., 1, patior et non moleste fero; de Orat., iii., 36, videris mihi aliud quiddam et non id quod suscepisti disputasse, and when our 'and not' is used for 'and not rather,' to correct an improper supposition; e.g., Cic., in Verr., i., 31, si quam Rubrius injuriam suo nomine ac non impulsu tuo fecisset. See § 781. Et non is, besides, found in the second part of a proposition when et precedes, but neque may be and frequently is used for et non in this case; e.g., Cic., ad Fam., xiii., 23. Manlius et semper me coluit, et a studiis nostris non abhorret; ad Att., ii., 4, id et nobis erit perjucundum, et tibi non sane devium. Nec (neque) non is not used in classical prose in quite the same way as et to connect nouns, but only to join propositions together (see Ruhnken on Veil. Pat., ii., 95), and the two words are separated; e.g., Nepos. Att., 13, Nemo Attico minus fuit aedificator, neque tamen non imprimis bene habitavit. Cicero several times uses nec vero non, and the like; but in Varro and later writers, such as Quintilian, nec non are not separated, and are in all essential points equivalent to et.

[§ 335.] Etiam and quoque are in so far different in their meaning, that etiam, in the first place, has a wider extent than quoque, for it contains also the idea of our 'even;' and, secondly, etiam adds a new circumstance, whereas quoque denotes the addition of a thing of a similar kind. Hence etiam is properly used to connect propositions. This difference seems to be correctly expressed in stating that etiam is 'and farther,' and quoque 'and so, also.' As in this manner quoque refers to a single word, it always follows that word etiam, in similar cases, is usually placed before it, but when it connects propositions its place is arbitrary. Et, too, is sometimes used in the sense of 'also,' in classical prose; e.g., Curt., iii., 31, non errasti, mater, nam et hic Alexander est; Cic., de Legg-, ii., 16, quod et nunc multis in fanis fit, for nunc quoque; in Verr., iv., 61, simul et verebar; and v., 1, simul et de illo vulnere - multa dixit; and often non modo - sed et; e.g., Cic., in Verr., i., 1, non modo Romae, sed et apud exteras nationes; Nepos, Thrasyb., 1, non solum princeps, sed et solus bellum indixit. (See Bremi's remark on this passage, who states that sed et is not merely ' but also,' but always 'but even.') But passages of this kind are not very numerous, and not always certain, for the MSS. usually have etiam, so that this use of et in prose (for poets cannot be taken into account) must at least be very much limited, and it should not be used to that extent in which modem Latinists apply it.

[§ 336.] The disjunctive conjunctions differ thus far, that aut indicates a difference of the object, and vel a difference of expression. Vel [N4] is connected with the verb velle (vel—vel, will you thus.or will you thus?), and the single vel is used by Cicero only to correct a preceding expression, commonly combined with dicam, or potius, or etiam; e.g., peteres vel potius rogares; stuporem hominis vel dicam pecudis videte (Philip , li., 12); laudenda est vel etiam amanda (p. Plane., 9); it very rarely occurs without sxx an [254] addition, but even then its meaning is corrective; e.g., Tusc., ii., 20, summum bonum a virtute profectum, vel (or rather) in ipsa virtute positum; de Nat. Deor., ii., 15, in ardore coelesti, qui aether vel coelum nominatur, where it likewise denotes not so much the equivalence of the terms, as the preference which is to be given to the Latin word. (Concerning the use of vel to denote an increase, see § 108 and § 734, where, also, its signification of ' for example,' velut, is explained. Both these significations are derivable from what has here been said.) From this in later, though still good prose, arose the use of vel in the sense of ' or,' that is, that in point of fact one thing is equal to another, a meaning which ve, in connecting single words, has even in Cicero; e.g., Philip., v. 19, Consules alter ambove faciant, that is, in point of fact, it is the same whether both consuls or only one of them do a thing; Top., 5, Esse ea dico, quae cerni tangive possunt, that is, either of the two is sufficient. Sive either retains the meaning of the conjunction si (which is commonly the case), and is then the same as vel si, or it loses it by an ellipsis (perhaps of dicere mavis), and is then the same as vel, denoting a difference of name, as in Quintilian, vocabulum sive appellatio; Cic., regie seu potius tyrannice. The form seu is used by Cicero very rarely, and almost exclusively in the combination seu potius; but in poetry and later prose it occurs frequently.

[§ 337.] The disjunctive conjunctions aut and ve serve to continue the negation in negative sentences, where we use 'nor;' e.g., Verres non Honori aut Virtuti vota debebat, sed Veneri et Cupidini; and we may say, also, non Honori neque Virtuti, and in other cases we might use ve, analogous to the affirmative que. See Ruhnken on Vell. Pat., ii., 45, and the commentators on Tacit., Ann., i., 32, in fin. Examples: Cic., p. Flacc.. 5, Itaque non optimus quisque nec gravissimus, sed impudentissimus loquacissimusque detigitur; Horat., Serm.t i., 9, 31, Hunc nec hosticus auferet ensis, nec laterum dolor aut tarda podagra; ibid., i., 4, 73, Nec recito cuiquam nisi amicis non ubivis coramve quibuslibet; Cic., ad Fam., v., 13, Nullum membum reip reperies, quod non fractum debilitatumve sit; and in negative questions, Cic. Philip., v., 5, Num leges nostras moresve novit? in Verr., v., 13, Quid me attinet dicere aut conjungere cum istius flagitio cujusquam praeterea dedecus? or after comparatives, Cic.,p. Mur., 29, Accessit istuc doctrina non moderata nec mitis, sed paulo asperior et durior, quam veritas aut natura patiatur. It is only in those cases in which both words are to be united into one idea that a copulative conjunction is used; e.g., Cic., in Verr., iii, 86, nummos non exarat arator, non aratro ac manu quaerit. Comp. the longer passage in Cic. De Nat. Dear., ii., 62, in fin.

[§ 338.] The Latin language is fond of doubling the conjunctions of this kind, whereby words and propositions are more emphatically brought under one general idea. The English ' as well as' is expressed by

et—et, which is of very common occurrence;

et—que occurs not unfrequently in late writers, in Cicero by way of exception only;

que—et connects single words, but not in Cicero;

que—que is found only in poetry.

The only prose writer who uses it is Sallust, Cat., 9, seque remque publicam curabant; Jug.., 10, meque regnumque meum gloria honoravisti; but it is not uncommon in the case of the conjunction being appended to the relative pronoun; e.g., quique exissent, quique ibi mansissent; captivi, quique Campanorum, quique Hannibalis militum erant, in Livy; or junctis exercitibus, quique sub Caesare fuerant, quique ad eum venerant, in Velleius. The latest critics have removed similar passages from the works of Cicero; see the comment, on de Orat., i., 26, and de Fin., v., 21; noctesque diesque, in de Fin., i., 16, is an allusion to a passage in a poem. Negative propositions are connected in English by ' neither—nor,' and in Latin by

neque—neque, or nec—nec;

neque—nec, which is not unfrequent, and by

nec—neque, which seldom occurs. [255] Propositions, one of which is negative and the other affirmative, ' on the one hand, but not on the other,' or ' not on the one hand, but on the other,' are connected by

et—neque (nec) [and]

neque (nec)—et both of very frequent occurrence.

nec (neque)—que occurs occasionally.

[§ 339.] Our 'either—or,' is expressed by aut—aut, denoting an opposition between two things, one of which excludes the other, or by vel—vel denoting that the opposition between two things is immaterial in respect of the result, so that the one need not exclude the other. E.g., Catiline, in Sallust, says to his comrades, vel imperatore vel milite me utimini, that is, it is indifferent to me in which capacity you may make use of me, only do make use of me. A similar idea is described more in detail by Terence, Eun., ii., 3, 28, Hanc tu mihi vel vi, vel clam, vel precario fac tradas, mea nihil refert, dum potiar modo; i. e., you may effect it even in a fourth way, if you like. Sive—sive is the same as vel si—vel si, and therefore transfers the meaning of vel—vel to the cases in which it is applied; e.g.. Cic., Illo loco libentissime soleo uti, sive quid mecum cogito, sive aliquid scribe aut lego. If there is no verb, and nouns only are mentioned in opposition to each other, an uncertainty is expressed as to how a thing is to be called; e.g., Cic., Tusc., ii., 14, Cretum leges, quas sive Juppiter sive Mina sanxit, laboribus erudiunt juventutem, i. e., I do not know whether 1 am to say Juppiter or Minos; ad Quint. Frat., i., 2, His in rebus si apud te plus auctoritas mea, quam tua sive natura paulo acrior, sive quaedam dulcedo iracundiae, sive dicendi sal facetiaeqve valuissent, nihil sane esset, quod nos poeniteret.

[§ 340.] 2. The following express a comparison, 'as,' 'like,' 'than as if' (conjunctions comparativae); ut or uti, sicut, velut, prout, praeut, the poetical ceu, quam, tamquam (with and without si), quasi, ut si, ac si, together with ac and atque, when they signify 'as.'

Note.—Ac and atque are used in the sense of 'as,' or 'than,' after the adverbs and adjectives which denote similarity or dissimilarity: aeque. juxta, par and pariter, perinde and proinde, pro eo, similis, dissimilis and similiter, talis, totidem, alius and aliter, contra, secus, contrarius; e.g., non aliter scribo ac sentio; aliud mihi ac libi videtur; saepe aliud fit atque existimamus; simile fecit atque alii; cum totidem navibus rediit atque erat profectus. Quam after these words (as in Tacit., Ann., vi., 30, perinde se quam Tiberium falli potuisse) is not often used, except in the case of a negative particle being joined with alius; e.g., Cicero, virtus nihil aliud est, quam in se perfecta et ad summum perducta natura, where nisi might be used instead of quam. Respecting proinde ac, instead of the more frequent perinde ac, see above, § 282. Et and que do not occur in this connexion like ac and atque; and wherever this might appear to be the case, from the position of the words, as in Sallust, juxta bonos et malos interficere; suae hostiumque vitae juxta pepercerant; and in Cicero, nisi aeque amicos et nosmetipsos diligimus, the et and que retain their original signification ' and;' but where the words compared are separated, as in reip. juxta ac sibi consuluerunt; or where propositions are compared, as in Cic., de Fin., iv., 12, similem habeat vultum ac si ampullam perdidisset, the ac or ut has justly been restored in the passages in which formerly et was read. Ac is used for quam, after comparatives in poetry, in Horace generally, and in a few passages, also, of late prose writers; but never in Cicero; e.g., Horat., Epod., xv., 5, artius atque hedera; Serm. i., 2,22, ut non se pejus cruciaverit atque hic; i., 10, 34., In silvam non ligna feras insamus ac si, &c.

[§ 341.] 3. The following express a concession with the general signification ' although'’ (conjunctions conces[256]sivae); etsi, etiamsi, tametsi (or tamenetsi), quamquam, quamvis, quantumvis, quamlibet, licet, together with ut in the sense of 'even if' or 'although,' and quum, when it signifies 'although,' which is not unfrequently the case.

Note.—Those particles which signify 'yet,' especially tamen, form the correlatives of the concessive conjunctions; e.g., ut desini vires, lamen est laudanda voluntas. Tametsi is a combination of the two correlatives; and in its application we not unfrequently meet with a repetition of the same particle; e.g., Cic., tametsi vicisse debeo, tamen de meo jure decedam; tametsi enim verissimum esse intelligebam, tamen credibile fore non arbitrabar. The adverb quidem also belongs to this class of conjunctions when it is used to connect propositions, and is followed by sed. See § 278.

A difference in the use of these conjunctions might be observed: some might be used to denote real concessions, and others to denote such as are merely conceived or imagined; and this would, at the same time, determine their construction, either the indicative or the subjunctive. But such a difference is clearly perceptible only between quanquam and quamvis. (See § 574.) We shall here add only the remark, that quamquam has a peculiar place in absolute sentences, referring to something preceding, but limiting and partly nullifying it; e.g., Cic., in Cat., i., 9, Quamquam quid loquor? Yet why do 1 speak/ p. Murea, 38, in fin., quamquam hujusce rei potestas omnis in vobis sita est, judices; that is, and yet, judges, why should I say more? for surely you have the decision entirely in your own hands.

[§ 342.] 4. The following express a condition, the fundamental signification being ' if' (conjunctiones condicionales); si, sin, nisi or ni, simodo, dummodo, if only, if but (for which dum and modo are also used alone), dummodo ne, or simply modo ne or dumne.

Note.—In order to indicate the connexion with a preceding proposition, the relative pronoun quod (which, however, loses its signification as a pronoun) is frequently put before si, and sometimes, also, before nisi and etsi, so that quodsi may be regarded as one word. Comp. § 806.

Sin signifies 'if however,' and therefore stands for si autem or si vero; not unfrequently, however, autem is added, and sometimes vero (sin vero in Columella, vii., 3, and Justin).

[§ 343.] Ni and nisi have the same meaning, except that ni is especially applied in judicial sponsiones; e.g., centum dare spondeo, ni dixisti, &c. Instead of nisi, we sometimes find the form nisi si. Both particles limit a statement by introducing an exception, and thus differ from si non, which introduces a negative case, for si alone has the character of a conjunction, and non, the negative particle, belongs to the verb or some other word of the proposition. It is often immaterial whether nisi or sinon is used; e.g., Nep. Con., 2, fuit apertum, si Conon non fuisset, Agesilaum Asiam Tauro tenus regi fuisse erepturum; and the same author, Ages., 6, says, talem se imperatorem praebuit, ut omnibus apparuerit nisi ille fuisset, Spartam futuram non fuisse, And thus Cicero, Cat., Maj., 6, might have said, memoria minuitur, si eam non excrceas, instead of nisi eam exerceas; and nisi, on the other hand, might have been used instead of si non, in Cic., in Verr., iii., 18, glebam commosset in agro decumano Siciliae nemo, si Metellus hanc epistolam non misisset. But the difference is nevertheless essential; e.g., il I say impune erit, si pecuniam promissam non dederitis, I mean to express that, in this case, the ordinary punishment will not be inflicted; but if I say, impune erit, nisi pecuniam dederitis, the meaning is, 'it shall remain unpunished, except in the case of your having paid the money;' which implies, 'but you shall be punished if you have paid the money.' Si non, therefore, can be used [only?] when one of the sentences is not complete; as in Horace, Quo mihi [257] fortunam, si non conceditur uti? What is the good of having property, if I am not allowed to make use of it? If we express the former sentence by nullius pretii fortunae sunt, we may continue in the form of an exception, nisi concedatur iis uti, or in the form of a negative case, si non concedatur uti. Hi non is farther used only when single words are opposed to one another, as is particularly frequent in such expressions as dolorem, si non potero frangere, occultabo; desiderium amicorum, si non aequo animo, at forti feras; cum spe, si non optima, at aliqua tamen vivere. In this case si minus may be used instead of si non; e.g., Tu si minus ad nos, nos occurremus ad te. If after an affirmative proposition its negative opposite is added without a verb, our 'but if not' is commonly expressed (in prose) by si (or sin) minus, sin aliter; e.g., Cic., in Cat., i., 5, educ tecum etiam omnes tuos : si minus, quam plurimos; de Orat., ii., 75, omnis cura mea solet in hoc versari semper, si possim, ut boni atiquid efficiam; sin id minus, ut certe nequid mali; but rarely by si non, which occurs in Cicero only once (ad Fam., vii., 3, in fin.).

[§ 344.] 5. The following express a conclusion or inference with the general signification of 'therefore;' consequently (conjunctiones conclusivae); ergo, igitur, itaque, eo, idea, iccirco, proinde, propterea, and the relative conjunctions, signifying 'wherefore;' quapropter, quare, quamobrem, quocirca, unde.

Note. — Ergo and igitur denote a logical inference, like ' therefore.' Itaque expresses the relation of cause in facts; it properly signifies 'and thus,' in which sense it not unfrequently occurs; e.g., itaque fecit. Respecting its accent, see § 32. Ideo, idcirco, and propterea express the agreement between intention and action, and may be rendered by 'on this account.' Eo is more frequently an adverb of place, 'thither;' but it is found in several passages of Cicero in the sense of 'on this account, 'or 'for this purpose;' e.g., in Verr., i. 14, ut hoc pacto rationem referre liceret, eo Sullanus repente factus est; Liv., ii., 48, muris se tenebant, eo nulla pugna memorabilis fuit. Proinde, in the sense of 'consequently,' is not to be confounded with perinde; both words, however, are used in the sense of 'like,' so that we cannot venture to adopt the one to the exclusion of the other. (See § 282.) But as we are speaking here of conclusive conjunctions, we have to consider only proinde, which implies an exhortation; e.g., Cicero, Proinde, si sapis, vide quod tibi faciendum sit; and so, also, in other writers; as, proinde fac magno animo sis; ‘consequently, be of good courage!’. Unde is properly an adverb, ‘whence’, but is used also as a conjunction in a similar sense, alluding to a starting point. Hinc and inde cannot properly be considered as conjunctions, as they retain their real signification of 'hence.' But adeo may be classed among the conjunctions, since the authors of the silver age use it as denoting a general inference from what precedes, like our 'so that,' or simply 'so;' e.g., Quintil., i., 12, 7, Adeo facilius est multafacere quam diu.

[§ 345.] 6. The following express a cause, or reason, with the demonstrative meaning of 'for,' and the relative of ' because ' (conjunctiones causales) : nam, namque, enim, etenim, quia, quod, quoniam, quippe, quum, quando, quandoquidem, siquidem. The adverbs nimirum, nempe, scilicet, and videlicet are likewise used to connect propositions.

Note. — Between nam and enim there is this practical difference, that nam is used at the beginning of a proposition, and enim after the first or second word of a proposition. The difference in meaning seems to con[258]sist in this, that nam introduces a conclusive reason, and enim merely a confirming circumstance, the consideration of which depends upon the inclination of the speaker. Nam, therefore, denotes an objective reason, and enim merely a subjective one. Namque and etenim, in respect of their signification, do not essentially differ from nam and enim, for the copulative conjunction, at least as far as we can judge, is as superfluous as in neque enim, respecting which, see §808. But, at the same time, they indicate a closer connexion with the sentence preceding; and the proper place for etenim, therefore, is in an explanatory parenthesis. Namque, in Cicero and Nepos, occurs only at the beginning of a proposition, and usually (in Nepos almost exclusively) before vowels; but even as early as the time of Livy, we find it after the beginning of a proposition just as frequently as at the beginning itself. We may add the remark, that enim is sometimes put at the beginning by comic writers in the sense of at enim or sed enim. Drakenborch on Livy, xxxiv., 32, § 13, denies that Livy ever used it in this way.

Nam, enim, and etenim are often used in Latin in the sense of our 'namely,' to introduce an explanation which was announced; e.g., Cic., Partit., 11, Rerum bonarum et malarum tria sunt genera: nam aut in animis, aut in corporibus, aut extra esse possunt. Nimirum, videlicet, and scilicet likewise answer to our ' namely,' or ' viz.' Nimirum is originally an adverb signifying 'undoubtedly,' or ' surely;' e.g., Cic., p. Mur., 15, Si diligenter quid Mithridates potuerit—consideraris, omnibus regibus—hunc regem nimirum antepones. As a conjunction it introduces the reason of an assertion, suggesting that it was looked for with some impatience; e.g., Cic., in Verr., ii., 63, is est nimirum soter, qui salutem dedit. Videlicet and scilicet introduce an explanation, and generally in such a manner that videlicet indicates the true, and scilicet a wrong explanation, the latter being introduced only for the purpose of deriving a refutation from it; e.g., Cic., p. Mil., 21, Cur igitur eos manumisit? Metuebat scilicet, ne indicarent, but he was not afraid of it, as is shown afterward. However, the words nam, enim, etenim, nimirum, videlicet are sometimes used in an ironical sense, and scilicet (though rarely in classical prose) sometimes introduces a true reason without any irony. Nempe signifies ' namely' only when another person's concession is taken for granted and emphatically dwelt upon; it may then be rendered by 'surely.' Comp. above, § 278.

[§ 346.] Quia and quod differ from quoniam (properly quum jam) in this; the former indicate a definite and conclusive reason, and the latter a motive: the same difference is observed in the French parceque and puisque. Ideo, iccirco, propterea quod, and quia are used without any essential difference, except that quia introduces a more strict and logical reason, whereas quoniam introduces circumstances which are of importance, and properly signifies 'now as.' Quando, quandoquidem, and siquidem approach nearer to quoniam than to quia, inasmuch as they introduce only subjective reasons. Quandoquidem denotes a reason implied in a circumstance previously mentioned, and siquidem a reason implied in a concession which has been made. Siquidem is composed of si and quidem, but must be regarded as one word, as it has lost its original meaning, and as si has become short. Cic., p. Mur., 11, Summa etiam utilitas est in iis, qui militari laude antecellunt, siquidem eorum consilio et periculo quum re publica tum etiam nostris rebus perfrui possumus; Tusc., i., 1, antiquissimum e doctis genus est poetarum, siquidem (since it is admitted, for no doubt is to be expressed here) Homerus fuit et Hesiodus ante Romam conditam. Sometimes, however, it is still used in the sense of 'if indeed;' e.g., Cic., de Fin., ii., 34, Nos vero, si quidem in voluptate sunt omnia (if, indeed, all happiness consists in enjoyment), longe multumque superamur a bestiis; in Cat., ii., 4, o fortunatam remp., si quidem hanc sentinam ejecerit. In these cases si and quidem should be written as two separate words. Quippe, when combined with the relative pronoun or quum, is used to introduce a subjective reason. When it occurs in an elliptical way, with[259]out a verb, it is equivalent to 'forsooth,' or ' indeed;' e.g., Cic., de Fin., i., 6, sol Democrito magnus videtur, quippe homini erudito; sometimes it is followed by a sentence with enim, as in Cic., de Fin., iv., 3, a te quidem apte et rotunde (dicta sunt); quippe; habes enim a rhetoribus. And in this way quippe gradually acquires the signification of nam.

[§ 347.] 7. The following express a purpose or object, with the signification of 'in order that,' or, 'in order that not' (conjunctiones finales); ut or uti, quo, ne or ut ne, neve or neu, qul/i, quominus.

Note.— Ut, as a conjunction, indicates both a result and a purpose, 'so that,' and 'in order that;' when a negative is added to it, in the former sense, it becomes ut non; in the latter ne or ut ne. Ut non is very rarely used for ne; e.g., Cic., in Verr., iv., 20, ut non conferam vitam neque existimationem tuam cum illiushoc ipsum conferam, quo tu te superiorem fingis; p. Leg., Manil., 15, Itaque ut plura non dicam neque aliorum exemplis confirmem, &c, in stead of ne plura dicam, neve confirmem. For neve, which is formed from vel ne, ir ‘or in order that not.' See § 535. Ut ne is a pleonasm, not differing perceptibly from ne, except that it chiefly occurs in solemn discourse, and hence especially in laws. The two particles occur together as well as separately, e.g., operam dant, ut judicia ne fiant; and still more separated in Cic., de Nat. Deor., i., 17, Sed ut hic, qui intervenit, me intuens, ne ignoret quae res agatur; de natura agebamus deorum; Div. in Q. Caec., 4, qui praesentes vos orant, ut in actore causae suae diligendo vestrum judicium ab suo judicio ne discrepet. It must, howevpr. be observed that ut ne is very frequently used by Cicero, but rarely by other and later writers; in Livy it occurs only in two passages, and in Valerius Maximus and Tacitus never. See Drakenborch on Liv., x., 27. The pleonasm quo ne, for ne, occurs in a single passage of Horace, Serm., ii., 1, 37.

[§ 348.] 8. The following express an opposition, with the signification of ' but' (conjunctiones adversativae); sed, autem, verum, vero, at (poetical ast), at enim, atqui, tamen, attamen, sedtamen, veruntumen, at vero (enimvero), verumenim, vero, ceterum.

Note.—Sed denotes a direct opposition; autem marks a transition in a narrative or argument, and denotes at once a connexion and an opposition, whereas sed interrupts the narrative or argument. The adverb porro, farther, is likewise used to express such a progression and transition, but does not denote opposition, except in later authors, such as Quintilian. See Spalding on Quintilian, ii., 3, 5. Verum and vero stand in a similar relation to each other. Verum, with its primary meaning 'in truth,' denotes an opposition, which at the same time contains an explanation, and thus brings a thing nearer its decision, as our 'but rather.' Non ego, sed tu, is a strong, but simple opposition; but non ego, verum tu, contains an assurance and explanation. Cic., in Verr., iv., 10, says that the inhabitants of Messana had formerly acted as enemies to every kind of injustice, but that they favoured Verres; and he then continues : Verum haec civitas isti praedoni ac piratae Siciliae Phasetis (receptaculum furtorum) fuit, i.e., but I will explain the matter to you, for the fact is, that this town was the repository of his plunder, and shared in it. Vero bears to verum the same relation as autem to sed: it connects things which are different, but denotes the point in favour of which the decision should be; e. g, Cic., p. Arch., 8, Homerum Colophonii civem esse dicunt suum, Chii suum vindicant, Salaminii repetunt, Smyrnaei vero suum esse confirmant; in Verr., iii., 4, Odistis hominum novorum industriam, despicitis eorum frugalitatem, pudorem contemnitis, ingeni 260]um vero et virtutem depressam exstinctamque cupitis. It thus forms the transition to something more important and significant in the phrase, Illud vero, plane non est ferendum, i.e., that which I am now going to mention. Respecting the use of vero in answers, in the sense of ‘yes’, see § 716. Enimvero is only confirming, ‘yes, truly’, ‘in truth’, and does not denote opposition. See the whole passage in Cic., in Verr., i., 26, enimvero hoc ferendum non est; and Terent., Andr., i., 3, init., Enimvero, Dave, nil loci est segnitiae neque socordiae, i.e., now truly, Davus, there is no time for delay here. Comp. Gronovius on Livy, xxvii., 30. Enimvero, further, forms the transition to that which is most important, like vero; as in Tac., Ann., xii., 64, Enimvero certamen acerrimum, amita potius an mater apud Neronem praevaleret, which is the same as acerrimum vero certamen. The compound verum enimvero denotes an emphatic opposition which, as it were, surpasses everything else in importance, as in Cic., in Verr., iii., 84, Si ullo in loco ejus proviuciae frumentum tanti fuit, quanti iste aestimavit, hoc crimen in istum reum valere oportere non arbitror. Verum enimvero cum esset HS. binis aut etiam ternis quibusvis in locis provinciae, duodenos sestertios exegisti.

[§ 349.] At denotes an opposition as equivalent to that which precedes; e.g., non ego, at tu vidisti, I have not seen it, but you have, and that is just as good; homo etsi non sapientissimus, at amicissimus; and so we frequently find it after si in the sense of ' yet,' or ' at least,' and denoting a limitation with which, for the time, we are satisfied; e.g., Cic., p. Quint., 31, Quintius Naevium obsecravit, ut aliquam, si non propinquitatis, at aetatis suae si non hominis, at humanitatis rationem haberet. Hence it is especially used to denote objections, even such as the speaker makes himself for the purpose of upsetting or weakening that which was said before; Cic., p. Flac., 14, At enim negas, &c.; p. Mur., 17, At enim in praeturae petitione prior renuntiatus est Servius. By atqui we admit that which precedes, but oppose something else to it, as by the English ' but still,' ' but yet,' or ' nevertheless;' e.g., in Terent., Phorm., i., 4, 26, Non sum apud me. Atqui opus est nunc cum maxime ut sis; Horat., Serm., i., 9, 52, Magnum narras, vix credibile. Atqui sic habet; Cic., ad Att., viii., 3, O rem difficilem, inquis, et inexplicabilem. Atqui explicanda est. And so, also, in the connexion of sentences when that which is admitted is made use of to prove the contrary, as ii Cic., Cat. Maj., 22, Videtis nihil esse morti tam simile quam somnum. Atque dormientium animi maxime declarant divinitatem suam, and yet the souls of sleeping persons show their divine nature. Atqui is used, lastly, in syllogisms, when a thing is assumed which had before been left undecided, as in Cic., Parad., iii., 1, Quodsi virtutes sunt pares inter se, paria etiam vitia esse necesse est. Atqui pares esse virtutes facile potest perspici. Atqui thus frequently occurs as a syllogistic particle in replies in disputations, but it does not denote a direct opposition of facts. Ceterum properly signifies 'as for the rest,' but is often used, especially by Curtius, in the same sense as sed. Contra ea, in the sense of 'on the other hand,' may be classed among the conjunctions, as in Livy, Superbe a Samnitibus legati prohibiti commercio sunt, contra ea benigne ab Siculorum tyrannis adjuti. So, also, adeo, in as much as this adverb is used in a peculiar way to form a transition to something essential, on which particular attention is to be bestowed; e.g., when Cicero, in Verr., iv., 64. has told us that he prefers introducing the witnesses and documents themselves, he forms the transition, Id adeo ex ipso Senatusconsulto cognoscite; and so, frequently, ibid. iv. 63, id adeo ut mihi ex illis demonstratum est, sic vos ex me cognoscite; p. Caec. 3, id adeo, si placet, considerate. The pronoun always accompanies it. Autem may be used in its place; in English it may be rendered by 'and,' but the pronoun must be pronounced with emphasis.

[§ 350.] 9. Time is expressed by the conjunctions temporales: quum, quum primum, ut, ut primum, ubi, postquam, antequam and priusquam, quando, simulac or simul atque, or simul alone, dum, usque dum, donec, quoad. [261]

Note. — Ut, as a particle of time, signifies ' when.' Ubi, properly an adverb of place, is used in the same sense. Simulitque answers to our 'as soon as,' in which sense simul alone is also Lscd. Quando instead of quum is rare, as in Cic., in Rull , ii.. 16, auctoritatem Senatus extare hereditatis aditae sentio, tum, quando, rege Aegyptio mortuo, legatos Tyrum misimus. The words dum, donec (donicum is obsolete), and quoad have the double meaning of 'as long as,' and 'until;' e.g., donec eris felix, multos numerabis amicos. 'as long as you are in good circumstances;' and foris expectavit, donec or dum exiit, 'until he came out.' Donec never occurs in Caesar, and in Cicero only once, in Verr. i., 6, usque eo timui, ne quis de mea fide dubitaret, donec ad rejiciendos judices venimus, but it is frequently used in poetry and in Livy. The conjunction dum often precedes the adverb interea (or interim), and the two conjunctions dum and donec are often preceded by the adverbs usque, usque eo, usque adeo, the conjunction either following immediately after the adverb, or being separated from it by some words, as in Cicero, mihi usque curae erit, quid agas, dum quid egeris sciero.

[§ 351.] 10. The following interrogative particles [N5] likewise belong to the conjunctions; num, utrum, an, and the suffix ne, which is attached also to the three preceding particles, without altering their meaning, numne, utrumne, anne, and which forms with non a special interrogative particle nonne; also ec and en, as they appear in ecquis, ecquando and enumquam, and numquid, ecquid, when used as pure interrogative particles.

Note. — The interrogative particles here mentioned must not be confounded with the interrogative adjectives and adverbs, such as quis? uter? ubi? The latter, by reason of their signification, may likewise connect sentences, in what are called indirect questions. (See § 552.) The interrogative particles have no distinct meaning by themselves, but serve only to give to a proposition the form of a question. This interrogative meaning may, in direct speech, be given to a proposition by the mere mode of accentuating it, viz., when a question at the same time conveys the idea of surprise or astonishment; but in indirect questions those interrogative particles are absolutely necessary (the only exception occurs in the case of a double question, see § 554). Numquid and ecquid can be reckoned among them only in so far as they are sometimes mere signs of a question, like num, quid in this case having no meaning at all; e.g., Cic., dr. Leg., ii., 2, Numquid vos duos habetis patrias, an est illa una patria communis? have you, perhaps, two native countries, or, &c.; ecquid (whether) in Italiam venturi sitis hac hieme, fac plane sciam. This is very different from another passage in the same writer: ecquid in tuam statuam contulit? has he contributed anything? rogavit me, numquid vellem, he asked me whether I wanted anything: in these latter sentences the pronoun quid retains its signification. For en or (when followed by a q) ec is (like num, ne and an) a purely interrogative particle, probably formed in imitation of the natural interrogative sound, and must be distinguished from en, 'behold !' See § 132. It never appears alone, but is always prefixed to some other interrogative word. Enumquam is the only word in which the en is used differently, e.g., enumquam audisti? didst thou ever hear? enumqitam futurum est? will it ever happen?

But there are differences in the use of these particles themselves. Num (together with numne, numnam, numquid, numquidnam) and ec (en) in its compounds, give a negative meaning to direct questions, that is, they are used in the supposition that the answer will be 'no;' e.g., num putas me [262] tam dementem fuisse? you surely do not believe that, &c. Ecquid alone is sometimes used also in an affirmative sense, that is, in the expectation of an affirmative answer; e.g., Cic., ad Att., ii., 2, sed heus tu, ecquid vides calendas venire? in Catil., i., 8, ecquid attendis, ecquid animadvertis horum silentium? do you not observe their silence? It must, however, be borne in mind, that in general the negative sense of these particles appears only in direct, and not in indirect questions, for in the latter num and ec are simply interrogative particles without implying negation; e.g., quaesivi ex eo, num in senatum esset venturus, whether he would come to the senate, or ecquis esset venturus, whether any body would come.

[§ 352.] Ne, which is always appended to some other word, properly denotes simply a question; e.g., putasne me istud facere potuisse? Do you believe that, &c. But the Latin writers use such questions indicated by ne also in a more definite sense, so that they are sometimes affirmative and sometimes negative interrogations. (Respecting the former, see Heusinger on Cic., de Off., iii., 17.) The negative sense is produced by the accent when ne is attached to another word, and not to the principal verb; e.g., mene istud potuisse facere putas? Do you believe that I would have done that? or, hocine credibile est? Is that credible? The answer expected in these cases is 'no.' So, also, in a question referring to the past; e.g., Cic., in Verr., i., 18, Apollinemne tu Delium spoliare ausus es? where the answer is, 'that is impossible.' But when attached to the principal verb, ne very often gives the affirmative meaning to the question, so that we expect the answer 'yes,' e.g., Cic., Acad., ii., 18, videsne, ut in proverbio fit ovorum inter se similitudo? Do you not see that the resemblance among eggs has become proverbial? Cat. Maj. 10, videtisne, ut apud Homerum saepissime Nestor de virtutibus suis praedicet? Do you not see, &c. In the same sense we might also say, nonne videtis? for nonne is the sign of an affirmative interrogation; e.g., Nonne poetae post mortem nobilitari volunt? Canis nonne lupo similis est? Utrum, in accordance with its derivation (from uter, which of two), is used only in double questions, and it is immaterial whether there are two or three; e.g., Cic., Cat. Maj., 10, Utrum has (Milonis) corporis, an Pythagorae tibi malts vires ingenii dari? ad Att., ix., 2, Utrum hoc tu parum commeministi, an ego non satis intellexi, an mutasti sententiam? Senec., Ep., 56, Si sitis (if you are thirsty), nihil interest, utrum aqua sit, an vinum: nec refert, utrum sit aureum pocldum, an vitreum, an manus concava. Utrum is sometimes accompanied by the interrogative particle ne, which, however, is usually separated from it by one or more other words; e.g.,Terent.,Eun.,iv., 4, 54, Utrum taceamne an praedicem? Cic., de Nat, Deor., ii., 34, Videamus utrum ea fortuitane sint, an eo statu, &c.; Nep., Iph., 3, quum interrogaretur utrum pluris patrem matremne faceret. In later writers, however, we find utrumne united as one word. Ne is rarely appended to adjective interrogatives, though instances are found in poetry, as in Horat., Sat., ii., 2, 107, uterne; ii.. 3, 295, quone malo; and 317, quantane. It is still more surprising to find it attached to the relative pronoun, merely to form an interrogation. Ibid., i., 10,2; Terent. Adelph., ii., 3, 9.

[§ 353.] An, as a sign of an indirect interrogation, occurs only in the writers of the silver age (beginning with Curtius). It then answers to 'whether;' e.g., consulit deinde (Alexander),an totius orbis imperium fatis sibi destinaret pater. In its proper sense it is used only, and by Cicero exclusively [N6], in a second or opposite question, where we use 'or,' as in the passage of Seneca quoted above. A sentence like quaere an argentum ei dederis cannot, therefore, be unconditionally recommended as good Latin (though it is frequently done), and, according to Cicero, who must be regarded as our model in all matters of grammar, we ought to say num pecuniam ei dederis, or dederisne ei pecuniam. In direct interrogations, when no interrogative sentence precedes, an, anne, an vero can likewise be used only in the sense of our 'or,' that is, in such a manner that a preceding interrogation is supplied by the mind. E.g., when we say, ' I did not intentionally offend you, or do you believe that I take pleasure in hurting a person?' we supply before 'or' the sentence, ' Do you believe this;' and connect with it another question which contains that which ought to be the case if the assertion were not true. The Latin is, invitus te offendi, in putas me delectari laedendis hominibus? Examples are numerous. Cic., Philip., i. 6, Quodsi scisset, quam sententiam dicturus essem, remisisset aliquid profecto de severitate cogendi (in senatum). An me censetis decreturum fuisse, &c., that is, he would certainly not have obliged me to go to the senate, or do you believe that I should have voted for him? p. Mil., 23, Causa Milonis semper a senatu probata est; videbant enim sapientissimi homines facti rationem, praesentiam animi, defensionis constantiam. An vero obliti estis, &c.; de Fin., 1., 8, Sed ad haec, nisi molestum est, habeo quae velim. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? In this sentence we have to supply before an, dicesne? An, after a preceding question, is rendered by 'not?' and it then indicates that the answer cannot be doubtful; e.g., Cic., in Verr.,v.,2, Quid dicis? An bello fugitivorum Siciliam virtute tua liberatam? Do you not say that Sicily, &c. (In Latin we must evidently supply utrum aliud?) So, also, Cat. Maj., 6, A rebus gerendis senectus abstrahit. Quibus? An his quae gerentur juventute ac viribus? Supply Aliisne? de Off., i., 15, Quidnam beneficio provocati facere debemus? An imitari agros fertiles, qui multo plus efferunt quam acceperunt? Must we not imitate? Hence such questions may also be introduced by nonne, but without allusion to an opposite question which is implied in an.

[§ 354.] There is, however, one great exception to the rule that an is used only to indicate a second or opposite question, for an is employed after the expressions dubito, dubium est, incertum est, and several similar ones; such as delibero, haesito, and more especially after nescio or haud scio, all of which denote uncertainty, but with an inclination in favour of the affirmative. Examples are numerous. Nep., Thrasyb., I, Si per se virtus sine fortuna ponderanda sit, dubito an hunc primum omnium ponam, if virtue is to be estimated without any regard as to its success, I am not certain whether I should not prefer this man to all others. Compare Heusinger's note on that passage. Curt., iv., 59, Dicitur acinace stricto Dareus dubitasse, in fugae dedecus honesta morte vitaret, that is, he was considering as to whether he should not make away with himself. It is not Latin to say Dubito annon for dubito an, for the passage of Cicero, de Off., iii., 12, dubitat an turpe non sit, signifies, he is inclined to believe that it is not bad, putat non turpe esse, sed honestum. Respecting incertum est, see Cic., Cat. Maj., 20, Moriendum enim certe est, et id incertum, an eo ipso die, and this is uncertain, as to whether we are not to die on this very day. Nescio an, or haud scio an, are therefore used quite in the sense of 'perhaps,' so that they are followed by the negatives nullus, nemo, nunquam, instead of which we might be inclined to use ullus, quisquam, unquam, if we translate nescio an by ' I do not know whether.' See § 721. The inclination towards the affirmative in these expressions is so universal, that such exceptions as in Curtius, ix., 7, et interdum dubitabat, an Macedones—per tot naturae obstantes difficultates secuturi essent, even in later writers, although in other connexions they use on in the sense of 'whether,' must be looked upon as rare peculiarities. We must farther observe, that when the principal verb is omitted, an is often used in precisely the same sense as aut; this is very frequently the case in Tacitus, but occurs also in Cicero, de Fin.,ii., 32, Themistocles, quum ei Simonides, an quis alius, artem memoriae polliceretur [264] &c.; ad Att., 1., 2, nos hic te ad mensem Januarium expectamus, ex quodam rumore, an ex litteris tuis ad alios missis. There can be no doubt tb&C the expression incertum est is understood in such cases; in Tacitus it is often added. Compare Cic., ad Fam., vii., 9; ad Att., ii. 7, 3; Brut., 23, 89. Cicero, however, could not go as far as Tacitus, who connects an with a verb in the indicative; Ann., xiv., 7, Igitur longum utriusque silentium, ne irriti dissuaderent, an eo descensum credebant, instead of incertum est factumne sit eam ob causam, ne irriti dissuaderent, an quia credebant.

The conjunction si is sometimes used in indirect interrogations instead of num, like the Greek el; e.g., Liv., xxxix., 50, nihil aliud (Philopoemenem) locutum ferunt, quam quaesisse, si incolumis Lycortas evasisset. After the verb experior, I try, it is used also by Cicero, Philip., ix., 1, non recusavit, quominus vel extreme spiritu, si quam opem reip. ferre posset, experiretur. Respecting expectare si, see Schneider on Caes., Bell. Gall., ii., 9.

[§ 355.] 11. Most conjunctions are placed at the beginning of the proposition which they introduce; only these few, enim, autem, vero, are placed after the first word of a proposition, or after the second, when the first two belong together, or when one of them is the auxiliary verb esse, as in Cicero (de Orat., i., 44), incredibile est enim, quam sit omne jus civile, praeter hoc nostrum, inconditum ac paene ridiculum; but rarely after several words, as in Cic., p. Cluent., 60, Per quem porro datum venenum? unde sumptum? quae deinde interceptio poculi? cur non de integro autem datum? Compare Ellendt on Cic., Brut., 49. Quidem and quoque, when belonging to single words, may take any place in a proposition, but they are always placed after the word which has the emphasis. Itaque and igitur are used by Cicero with this distinction, that itaque, according to its composition, stands first, while igitur is placed after the first, and sometimes even after several words of a proposition; e.g., in Verr., i., 32, Huic homini parcetis igitur, judices? de Nat. Deor., iii., 17, Ne Orcus quidem deus igitur? But other authors, especially later ones, place both indiscriminately either at the beginning of a proposition, or after it. In like manner, tamen is put either at the beginning of a proposition, or after the first word.

[§ 356.] Note.—All the other conjunctions stand at the beginning; with some this is the case exclusively; viz., with et, etenim, ac, at, atque, atqui, neque, nec, aut, vel, sive, sin, sed, nam, verum, and the relatives quare, quocirca, quamobrem; others are generally placed at the beginning, but when a particular word is to be pronounced with peculiar emphasis, this word (and all that belongs to it) stands first, and the conjunction follows it, as in Cicero, Tantum moneo, hoc tempus si amiseris, te esse nullum unquam magis idoneum reperturum; valere ut malis, quam dives esse; nullum injustitia partum praemium tantum est, semper ut timeas, semper ut adesse, semper ut impendere aliquam poenam putes. The same is not unfrequently the case in combinations of conjunctions with pronouns, especially with the relative pronoun; e.g., Hoc quum dicit, illud vult intelligi; qui quoniam quid diceret [265] intelligi noluit, omittamus, Cic. It must be observed, as a peculiarity, that ut, even without there being any particular emphasis, is commonly placed after the words vix, paene, and prope, and also alter the negatives nullus, nemo, nihil, and the word tantum; e.g., vix ut arma retinere posset; nihil ut de commodis suis cogitarent. The conjunctions que, ve, and ne are appended to other words, and stand with them at the beginning of a proposition; but when a monosyllabic preposition stands at the beginning they often attach themselves to the case governed by those prepositions; e.g., Romam Cato (Tusculo) demigravit, in foroque esse coepit; legatum miserunt, ut is apud eum causam aratorum ageret, ab eoque peteret; and so, also, ad populum ad plebemve ferre; in nostrane potestate est quid meminerimus? We never find adque obque, aque; whereas proque summa benevolentia, and the like, are used exclusively; and in other combinations either method may be adopted: cumque his copiis and cum firmisque praesidiis; exque his and ex iisque; eque republica, deque universa rep. and de provinciaque decessit. Apud quosque, in Cic., de Off., i., 35, is an excusable peculiarity, because apudque quos would be against all euphony.

[§ 357.] What was said above concerning the different positions of itaque and igitur in Cicero is well known, and generally correct; but it is not so well known that igitur is, nevertheless, placed by that author now and then at the beginning of a proposition, and that not only in philosophic reasonings, as Bremi states on Cic., de Fin., i., 18, and as we find it in de Fin., iv. r 19, si illud, hoc: non autem hoc, igitur ne illud quidem; but in the ordinary connexion of sentences; in Rull., ii., 27, igitur pecuniam omnem Decemviri tenebunt; de Prov. Cons., 4, igitur in Syria nihil aliud actum est: Lael, 11. igitur ne suspicari quidem possumus; Philip., ii., 1C, in fin., igitur fratrem exheredans te faciebat heredem; Philip., x., 8, igitur illi certissimi Caesaris actorum patroni pro D. Bruti salute helium gerunt; de Leg., i., 6 Igitur doctissimis viris proficisci placuit a lege; ad Att., vi., i., 22, Igitur tu quoque salutem utique adscribito. Sallust too frequently places igitur at the beginning. But itaque in the second place does not occur in Cicero, for in Philip., vii., 3, we must read, according to the best MS., igitur, instead of itaque, in the sentence, ego itaque pacis, ut ita dicam, alumnus, and in Partit. Oral., 7, quidem is more correct. In Curtius, itaque appears in the second place only once (vii., 39). In like manner, the rule cannot be upset by the few passages in which Cicero places vero, in answers, at the beginning (just as enim is used by the comic writers). See de Republ., i., 37, § 43; de Leg., i., 24; in Rull., ii., 25; p. Mur., 31, § 65.

[§ 358-3 -A-11 this applies only to the practice of prose writers. Poets, according to the necessity of the verse, place even the prepositive conjunctions after one or more words of a proposition; e.g., Horat, Epod., 17, 45, et tu, potes nam, solve me dementiae; Serm., i., 5, 86, quattuor hinc rapimur viginti et milia rhedis; ibid., i., 10, 71, vivas et roderet ungues. They separate et from the word belonging to it; as, Horat., Carm., iii., 4, 6, audire et videor pios errare per lucos; Serm., ii., 6, 3, Auctius atque dii melius fecere; and they append que and ve neither to the first word of a proposition, nor to their proper words in other connexions; e.g., Tibull., i., 3, 55,

Hic jacet immiti consumptus morte Tibullus,
Messallam terra dum sequiturque mari,
instead of the prose form terra marique; and in Horat., Serm., ii., 3, 139,
Non Pyladen ferro violare aususve sororem.
But it is to be observed that those conjunctions in such arbitrary positions are joined only to verbs. Isolated exceptions, such as in Horat., Conn., ii., 19,28, pacis eras mediusque belli; and iii, 1, 12, Moribus hic meliorque fama contendat; Ovid., Met., ii., 89, dum resque sinit; and Pedo Albin., « Morte Drusi, 20, cannot be taken into account.


[N1] Compare Crombie's Gymnasium, vol. i., p. xlv., seq. —Am. Ed.
[N2] Compare Reitig'i Vorlenmgm, ed. Haase, p. 414.]—Am. Ed.
[N3] Or, we should rather say, was not noticed again, for the observation was first made in a brief but unequivocal manner by Gabriel Faernus, in his note on Cic., pro Flacc, 3, in fin., ed. Rom., 1563; but it was disregarded. It is still more remarkable, that none of the ancient grammarians, though they carefully notice other phenomena of a similar kind, have thought it necessary to draw attention to this circumstance, which is by no means unimportant. The passages in Ernesti's edition of Cicero, above referred to, have been corrected in Orelli's edition.
[N4] Compare Cromiie's Gymnasium, vol. i., p. 211.—Am. Ed
[N5] Consult Philological Museum. No. v., p. 31 7, seq.—Am. Ed
[N6] The passages which formerly occurred here and there in Cicero, with an in the sense of ' whether' in simple indirect questions, are corrected in the latest editions. See p. Cluent., 19, §52; in Catil, ii., 6, §13; in Verr., iv., 12, §27. There remains only quaesivi an misisset in the last passage, of which no certain correction is found in MSS., although the fault itself is obvious, and Topic., 21,§ 81, where quum an sit, aut quid sit aut quale sit quaeritur, must be corrected according to MSS. into aut sitne aut quid sit, &c.

THE LOGIC MUSEUM Copyright © E.D.Buckner 2007