1604. It may be mentioned here, that in subordinate sentences the historical perfect is sometimes loosely used from the writer’s point of view, instead of the more exact pluperfect demanded by the context: as, aliquantum spatiī ex eō locō, ubī̆ pugnātum est, aufūgerat, L. 1, 25, 8, he had run off some distance from the spot where the fighting had occurred. See 1925.
1605. The perfect definite expresses action which is already completed at the present time, and the effects of which are regarded as continuing: as,
scrīpsī, I have written. dīxērunt, Clu. 73, dīxēre, Quintil. 1, 5, 43, they have finished speaking. spectātōrēs, fābula haec est ācta, Pl. Most. 1181, ladies and gentlemen, this play is done.
1606. In old Latin, habeō with the perfect participle is sometimes equivalent to a periphrastic perfect: as, illa omnia missa habeō, Pl. Ps. 602, I’ve dropped all that, i.e. mīsī. But in classical Latin, the participle and a tense of habeō are more or less distinct in their force: as, Caesar aciem īnstrūctam habuit, 1, 48, 3, Caesar kept his line drawn up, not had drawn up. Compare 2297.
1607. With verbs of inceptive meaning the perfect definite is equivalent to the English present: as,
cōnsistō, take my stand, cōnstitī, stand, cōnsuēscō, get used, cōnsuēvī, am used, nōscō, learn, nōvī, know. Similarly meminī, remember, and ōdī, hate. The pluperfect of such verbs is represented by the English imperfect, and the future perfect by the English future.
1608. The perfect often denotes a present resulting state: as, vīcīne, periī, interiī, Pl. Most. 1031, my neighbour, I am dead and gone. Particularly in the passive voice: as, Gallia est omnis dīvīsa in partēs trēs, 1, 1, 1, Gaul, including everything under the name, is divided into three parts. Compare 1615.
1609. In the perfect passive, forms of fuī, &c., are sometimes used to represent a state no longer existing: as, monumentō statua superimposita fuit, quam dēiectam nūper vīdimus ipsī, L. 38, 56, 3, on the monument there once stood a statue which I saw not long ago with my own eyes, lying flat on the ground. Similarly, in the pluperfect, fueram, &c.: as, arma quae fīxa in parietibus fuerant, ea sunt humī inventa, Div. 1, 74, the arms which had once been fastened on the walls were found on the floor. Sometimes, however, forms of fuī, &c., fueram, &c., and fuerō, &c., are used by Plautus, Cicero, especially in his letters, Nepos, Sallust, and particularly Livy, in passives and deponents, quite in the sense of sum, &c.
1610. The perfect of some verbs may imply a negative idea emphatically by understatement, as:
fuit Īlium, V. 2, 325, Ilium has been, i.e. Ilium is no more. vīximus, flōruimus, Fam. 14, 4, 5, we have lived our life, we have had our day. fīlium ūnicum adulēscentulum habeō. āh, quid dīxī? habēre mē? immō habuī, T. Hau. 93, I have one only son, a growing boy. Ah me, what did I say, I have? Oh no, have had.
1611. The perfect may denote an action often done, or never done: as,
iam saepe hominēs patriam cārōsque parentēs prōdiderunt, Lucr. 3, 85, time and again have men their land betrayed and parents dear. nōn aeris acervus et aurī dēdūxit corpore febrīs, H. E. 1, 2, 47, no pile of brass and gold hath fevers from the body drawn. multī, cum obesse vellent, prōfuērunt et, cum prōdesse, obfuērunt, DN. 3, 70, many a man has done good, when he meant to do harm, and when he meant to do good, has done harm. Common from Cicero, Sallust, and Catullus on, especially in poetry.
1612. The perfect is sometimes used as a lively future perfect to express completed future action: as,
quam mox coctumst prandium? Pl. R. 342, how soon is lunch all cooked? cui sī esse in urbe licēbit, vīcimus, Att. 14, 20, 3, if he shall be allowed to stay in town, the day is ours. periī, sī mē aspexerit, Pl. Am. 320, I’m gone, if he lays eyes on me.
1613. It may be mentioned here, that the perfect is regularly used in a subordinate sentence denoting time anterior to a present of repeated action (1588). In such sentences the present is preferred in English: as,
reliquī, quī domī mānsērunt, sē atque illōs alunt, 4, 1, 5, the others, that stay at home, always support themselves and the above-mentioned also. sī quī aut prīvātus aut populus eōrum dēcrētō nōn stetit, sacrificiīs interdīcunt, 6, 13, 6, if any man or any community does not abide by their decree, they always debar them from sacrifices. So also with quom or cum, quotiēns, simul atque, ubī̆. Compare 1618.
1614. The pluperfect indicative expresses past action, completed before another past action expressed or understood: as,
scrīpseram, I had written. Pyrrhī temporibus iam Apollō versūs facere dēsierat, Div. 2, 116, in Pyrrhus’s day Apollo had quite given up making poetry. mortuus erat Āgis rēx. fīlium relīquerat Leōtychidem, N. 17, 1, 4, Agis the king had died; he had left a son Leotychides.
1615. The pluperfect often expresses a past resulting state: as,
castra oportūnīs locīs erant posita, 7, 69, 7, the camp was pitched on favourable ground. ita ūnō tempore et longās nāvēs aestus complēverat, et onerāriās tempestās adflīctābat, 4, 29, 2, thus at one and the same time the tide had filled the men-of-war, and the gale of wind kept knocking the transports about. This use is analogous to that of the perfect in 1608.
1616. In letters, the pluperfect is sometimes used to denote action occurring previous to the time of writing, the writer transferring himself to the time of the reader: as,
ūnam adhūc ā tē epistolam accēperam, Att. 7, 12, 1, I have only had one letter from you thus far. This use is analogous to that of the imperfect in 1601, and very often, where this pluperfect would be applicable, the perfect is used.
1617. The pluperfect is sometimes used where the perfect would be expected. Particularly so when it anticipates a past tense to follow in a new sentence: as, quod factum prīmō populārīs coniūrātiōnis concusserat. neque tamen Catilīnae furor minuēbātur, S. C. 24, 1, this terrified the conspirators at first; and yet Catiline’s frenzy was not getting abated. Verbs of saying are also often put in the pluperfect in subordinate sentences referring to a preceding statement: as, Epidamniēnsis ille, quem dūdum dīxeram, adoptat illum puerum surruptīcium, Pl. Men. prol. 57, said man of Epidamnus that I named erewhile adopts said kidnapped boy.
1618. It may be mentioned here, that the pluperfect is used in a subordinate sentence denoting time anterior to a past tense of repeated action. In such sentences the preterite is preferred in English: as,
hostēs ubī̆ aliquōs singulārēs cōnspexerant, incitātīs equīs adoriēbantur, 4, 26, 2, every time the enemy caught sight of detached parties, they would always charge full gallop. Compare the analogous perfect in 1613.
1619. The future indicative expresses future action, either momentary or continuous: as,
scrībam, I shall write, I shall be writing, or I will write, I will be writing. The future commonly expresses either prediction, or will, determination, promise, threat: as, (a.) tuās litterās exspectābō, Att. 5, 7, I shall be on the lookout for letters from you. (b.) vīvum tē nōn relinquam; moriēre virgīs, V. 4, 85, I will not leave you alive; you shall die under the rod. But separate forms to mark the sharp distinction which exists between shall and will in the English future and future perfect are utterly unknown in Latin: thus, in occīdar equidem, sed victus nōn perībō, Cornif. 4, 65, I shall be murdered, to be sure, but I will not die a vanquished man, the difference between the prediction contained in I shall, and the determination contained in I will, cannot be expressed in Latin by the future indicative.
1620. The future is often used in diffident assertion, to express an assumption, a belief, conviction, or concession, of the speaker himself, without implying its universal acceptance: as,
dīcēs, TD. 2, 60, you will say. dīcet aliquis, TD. 3, 46, somebody will say (1556). dabit hoc Zēnōnī Polemō, Fin. 4, 51, Polemo will concede this point to Zeno. excūdent aliī spīrantia mollius aera, crēdō equidem, V. 6, 847, with greater grace, I well believe, shall others shape the bronze that breathes. Particularly in conclusions: as, sequētur igitur vel ad supplicium beāta vīta virtūtem, TD. 5, 87, happiness then will walk with goodness even to the scaffold. Or in general truths: as, cantābit vacuus cōram latrōne viātor, J. 10, 22, the pourë man whan he goth by the weye, bifore the thevës he may synge and pleye.
1621. The future sometimes predicts that a thing not yet known to be true will prove to be true: as, haec erit bonō genere nāta, Pl. Per. 645, this maid, you’ll find, is come of honest stock, i.e. esse reperiētur. Compare the imperfect in 1598.
1622. In Plautus and Terence, the future is sometimes used in protestations, wishes, or thanks: as, ita mē dī amābunt, T. Hau. 749, so help me heaven. dī tē amābunt, Pl. Men. 278, the gods shall bless thee. Usually, however, the subjunctive: see 1542 and 1541.
1623. The future is sometimes used in questions of deliberation or appeal: as, dēdēmus ergō Hannibalem? L. 21, 10, 11, are we then to surrender Hannibal? hancine ego ad rem nātam memorābō? Pl. R. 188, am I to say that I was born for such a fate? Oftener the present subjunctive (1563), or sometimes the present indicative (1531).
1624. The future is sometimes used, particularly in the second person, to express an exhortation, a direction, a request, a command, or with nōn a prohibition: as,
crās ferrāmenta Teānum tollētis, H. E. 1, 1, 86, tomorrow to Teanum you will take your tools. bonā veniā mē audiēs, DN. 1, 59, you will listen to me with kind indulgence. tū intereā nōn cessābis, Fam. 5, 12, 10, meantime you will not be inactive. haec igitur tibī̆ erunt cūrae, Fam. 3, 9, 4, you will attend to this then, i.e. haec cūrābis.
1625. It may be mentioned here, that the future is used in sentences subordinate to a future, an imperative, or a subjunctive implying a future: as,
profectō nihil accipiam iniūriae, sī tū aderis, Att. 5, 18, 3, I am sure I shall suffer no harm, if you are with me. ut mēd esse volēs, ita erō, Pl. Ps. 239, as you will have me be, so will I be. ut is quī audiet, cōgitet plūra, quam videat, DO. 2, 242, so that the hearer may imagine more than he sees. But sometimes a present is used (1593).
1626. The future perfect indicative expresses completed future action: as,
scrīpserō, I shall have written, or I will have written. The future perfect is very common in Latin, particularly in protasis with a relative, with cum, ubī̆, &c., with antequam or priusquam, with ut (... ita), as (... so), or with sī, to express action anterior in time to a future; in English, this future perfect is usually represented by a loose present or perfect: as, quicquid fēceris, adprobābō, Fam. 3, 3, 2, whatever you do, I shall think right. Examples will be given further on, in speaking of the complex sentence.
1627. It may be mentioned here that the future perfect in protasis and apodosis both denotes two actions occurring at one and the same time; these actions are usually identical: as,
quī Antōnium oppresserit, is hoc bellum taeterrimum cōnfēcerit, Fam. 10, 19, 2, the man that puts down Antony will put an end to this cruel war, i.e. putting down Antony will be ending the war. respīrārō, sī tē vīderō, Att. 2, 24, 5, I shall take breath again, if I set eyes on you.
1628. The future perfect sometimes denotes a future resulting state: as,
molestus certē e͡i fuerō, T. Andr. 641, at all events I shall have proved a bane to him. meum rē̆ī pūblicae atque imperātōrī officium praestiterō, 4, 25, 3, I will have my duty all done to country and commander too.
1629. The future perfect is sometimes used to express rapidity of future action, often with the implication of assurance, promise, or threat: as,
abierō, Pl. Most. 590, I’ll instantly be gone. iam hūc revēnerō, Pl. MG. 863, B. 1066, I’ll be back here again forthwith. prīmus impetus castra cēperit, L. 25, 38, 17, the first rush will see the camp carried.
1630. The future perfect often denotes action postponed to a more convenient season, or thrown upon another person.
Often thus with post, aliās, and particularly mox: as, vōbīs post nārrāverō, Pl. Ps. 721, I’ll tell you by and by, i.e. I won’t tell you now. ad frātrem mox īerō, Pl. Cap. 194, I’ll to my brother’s by and by, i.e. not yet. fuerit ista eius dēlīberātiō, L. 1, 23, 8, that is a question for him to settle, i.e. not me. Especially vīderō: as, quae fuerit causa, mox vīderō, Fin. 1, 35, what the reason was, I won’t consider now. rēctē secusne aliās vīderimus, Ac. 2, 135, whether right or not, we will consider some other time, i.e. never. vōs vīderitis, L. 1, 58, 10, that is a question for you, i.e. not me.
1631. The future perfect sometimes denotes action which will have occurred while something else takes place: as,
nōn erō vōbīs morae: tībīcen vōs intereā hīc dēlectāverit, Pl. Ps. 573a, I will not keep you long; meantime the piper will have entertained you here. tū invītā mulierēs, ego accīverō puerōs, Att. 5, 1, 3, do you, sir, invite the ladies, and I will meantime have fetched the children.
1632. The future perfect is often not perceptibly different from the future, especially in the first person singular in old Latin: as,
ego mihī prōvīderō, Pl. Most. 526, I’ll look out for myself. erōs in obsidiōne linquet, inimīcūm animōs auxerit, Pl. As. 280, he’ll leave his owners in a state of siege, he’ll swell the courage of the enemy. Similarly Cicero, in the protases sī potuerō, sī voluerō, sī licuerit, sī placuerit.
The Future Active Participle with sum.
1633. The future active participle combined with the tenses of sum expresses action impending, resolved on, or destined, at the time indicated by the tense of the verb: as,
cum hōc equite pugnātūrī estis, L. 21, 40, 10, with this kind of cavalry are you going to fight. bellum scrīptūrus sum, quod populus Rōmānus cum Iugurthā gessit, Sall. I. 5, 1, I purpose to write the history of the war that the people of Rome carried on with Jugurtha. fīet illud, quod futūrum est, Div. 2, 21, whatever is destined to be, will be. Delphōs petiīt, ubī̆ columnās, quibus impositūrī statuās rēgis Perseī fuerant, suīs statuīs dēstināvit, L. 45, 27, 6, he went to Delphi, where he appropriated for his own statues the pillars on which they had intended to put statues of king Perses.
1634. In simple sentences, the tenses of the subjunctive correspond in general to the same tenses of the indicative. But the present has a future meaning; the imperfect sometimes expresses past, sometimes present action; and the perfect sometimes expresses past action, and sometimes future action.
1635. The present subjunctive is sometimes used in reference to past action, like the indicative present of vivid narration (1590): as, migrantīs cernās, V. 4, 401, you can descry them swarming out (1556). comprehendī iussit; quis nōn pertimēscat? V. 5, 14, he ordered them to be arrested; who would not be thoroughly scared? (1565). See also 2075.
1636. Two or more independent simple sentences may be coordinated to form a compound sentence in one of two ways: either without a connective, or with a connective.
What applies to the coordination of sentences, also applies to the coordination of the parts of sentences in abridged sentences (1057).
1637. When simple sentences or parts of sentences are coordinated without any connective, this mode of arrangement is called Asyndetic Coordination or Asyndeton.
Asyndeton, whether in unabridged or in abridged sentences, is more usual with three or more members than with two. It occurs particularly often in Plautus, Terence, Ennius, and Cato, also in Cicero, especially in his early works and letters.
1638. The sentences in which asyndeton occurs are commonly such as might be connected by words meaning and or but; less often by words meaning as, for, &c. Asyndeton is especially common:
1639. (a.) In animated narration of events happening at the same moment, in description, and in climaxes. Also in mention of colleagues in office, and in many set phrases and formulas: as,
vēnī, vīdī, vīcī, Caesar in Suet. Iul. 37, came, saw, overcame. nostrī celeriter ad arma concurrunt, vāllum cōnscendunt, 5, 39, 3, our men rush speedily to arms, clamber up the palisade. huic s. c. intercessit C. Caelius, C. Pānsa, tribūnī pl., Fam. 8, 8, 7, this decree of the senate was objected to by Caelius and Pansa, tribunes of the commons. hī ferre agere plēbem, L. 3, 37, 7, there were these people worrying and harrying the commons (1535).
1640. (b.) In contrasts or antitheses: as,
opīniōnis commenta dēlet diēs, nātūrae iūdicia cōnfirmat, DN. 2, 5, the fictions of speculation are swept away by time, but the judgements of nature are confirmed. Particularly when either member is positive, the other negative: vincere scīs, Hannibal, victōriā ūtī nescīs, L. 22, 51, 4, you know how to conquer, Hannibal, but not how to use victory, says Maharbal after Cannae, 216 B.C.
1641. Asyndeton is very common with two or more imperatives: as, ēgredere ex urbe, Catilīna, līberā rem pūblicam metū, in exsilium proficīscere, C. 1, 20, go forth from Rome, Catiline, relieve the commonwealth from its fear, depart into exile. Particularly when the first is age, come on, mark me, or ī, go (1572). But from Horace on, ī nunc, go to now, is followed by et with a second imperative in derisive orders. In old Latin, the imperatives may be joined by et or even atque.
1642. Asyndeton is also common with parentheses. These often take the place of a modern foot-note: as, lēgātus capite vēlātō fīlō (lānae vēlāmen est) ‘audī, Iuppiter,’ inquit, L. 1, 32, 6, the envoy with his head covered with a ‘filum’ (that is to say a wrap of wool) says ‘bow down thine ear, Jupiter.’ Parentheses however are often introduced, from Terence on by nam, and from Sallust and Cicero on, by et, neque, autem, enim, &c.
1643. Simple sentences or parts of sentences may be connected by copulative, disjunctive, or adversative conjunctions.
1644. Copulative conjunctions denote union, and connect both the sentences and their meaning. They are et, -que, atque or ac, and, and neque or nec, neither.
1645. (1.) et, and, is the commonest copulative, and connects either likes or unlikes; with two members only, it is either used between them, or is prefixed for emphasis to both: as,
Dumnorīx apud Sēquanōs plūrimum poterat et Helvētiīs erat amīcus, 1, 9, 3, Dumnorix was very influential among the Sequani and a friend to the Helvetians. Dēmocritus alba discernere et ātra nōn poterat, TD. 5, 114, Democritus could not tell white and black apart. et discipulus et magister perhibēbantur inprobī, Pl. B. 425, both pupil and master were rated as knaves.
1646. With three or more members, et is either used between the members or, frequently, prefixed for emphasis to all. Often, however, it is omitted throughout (1637), or a third member is appended by -que (1651): as,
persuādent Rauricīs et Tulingīs et Latovicīs utī ūnā cum hīs proficīscantur, 1, 5, 4, they induce the Rauricans, Tulingans, and Latovicans to join them in their march. is et in custōdiam cīvēs Rōmānōs dedit et supplicātiōnem mihī̆ dēcrēvit et indicēs maximīs praemiīs adfēcit, C. 4, 10, this person voted in the first place to put Roman citizens in ward, then to decree a thanksgiving in my honour, and lastly to reward the informers with liberal gifts.
1647. Two members belonging closely together as a pair, and connected by et, atque, or -que, are sometimes put asyndetically with another member or members: as,
Aeduī ferunt sē dēiectōs prīncipātū; queruntur fortūnae commūtātiōnem et Caesaris indulgentiam in sē requīrunt, 7, 63, 8, the Aeduans set forth that they were cast down from the chief place; they complain of the change of fortune, and say they miss Caesar’s former kindness to them. nūntiātum est equitēs Ariovistī propius tumulum accēdere et ad nostrōs adequitāre; lapidēs in nostrōs conicere, 1, 46, 1, it was reported that Ariovistus’s cavalry were moving nearer the hillock and galloping up to the Romans; that they were throwing stones at our men.
1648. et has sometimes the meaning of also or of and also, particularly when there is a change of speakers, or before a pronoun: as, et hoc sciō, Plin. Ep. 1, 12, 11, I know that too. Sometimes also after vērum, nam, and simul, especially when a pronoun follows. Not in Caesar.
1649. (2.) -que, and, combines members which belong together and make a whole, though they may be different or opposed to each other; the second member is often a mere appendage: as,
rogat ōratque tē, RA. 144, he begs and entreats you, or he earnestly entreats you. lībertī servolīque nōbilium, RA. 141, the freedmen and slaves of the great, or retainers, bond and free. omnēs ea, quae bona videntur, sequuntur fugiuntque contrāria, TD. 4, 12, everybody runs after what seems good and avoids the opposite. -que is usually put after the first word of the new member. It is particularly common in old or legal style.
1650. The combination -que . . . -que, both . . . and, is very common in poetry: as, noctēsque diēsque, E. in CM. 1, both night and day. In prose, it is used by Sallust when the first word is a pronoun: as, mēque rēgnumque meum, I. 10, 2, both myself and my throne; and by Livy to connect two relative sentences: as, omnēs quīque Rōmae quīque in exercitū erant, 22, 26, 5, everybody, both people in Rome and people in the army.
1651. After two members without a connective, a third member is sometimes appended by -que: as,
satis habēbat hostem rapīnīs, pābulātiōnibus, populātiōnibusque prohibēre, 1, 15, 4, he was satisfied with keeping the enemy from plundering, foraging, and ravaging.
1652. (3.) atque, or before any consonant except h often ac, and, and besides, adds something belonging essentially to what goes before, but more important as a supplement or extension; as,
sē ex nāvī prōiēcit atque in hostēs aquilam ferre coepit, 4, 25, 4, he sprang overboard and furthermore proceeded to bear the eagle upon the enemy. magna dīs immortālibus habenda est atque huic Iovī Statōrī grātia, C. 1, 11, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the gods immortal in general, and to yon Jove the Stayer in particular. atque . . . atque occurs for et . . . et once in Vergil, and once in Silius Italicus.
1653. atque is used in comparisons, after words of likeness and unlikeness: as,
parī spatiō trānsmissus, atque ex Galliā est in Britanniam, 5, 13, 2, the journey across is just as long as it is from Gaul to Britain. īdemque iussērunt simulācrum Iovis facere maius et contrā, atque anteā fuerat, ad orientem convertere, C. 3, 20, and they furthermore gave orders to make a statue of Jupiter, a bigger one, and to turn it round to the east, the opposite of the way it originally faced. Sometimes et is thus used after alius, aliter, aequē, pariter, &c.: see the dictionary.
1654. With adjectives and adverbs in the comparative degree, atque sometimes takes the place of quam than, when the first member of comparison is negative (1895): as, amīcior mihi nūllus vīvit atque is est, Pl. Mer. 897, I have no greater friend alive than that man is. So in Plautus, Terence, Lucretius, Catullus, Vergil, rarely in Cicero, and in Horace even when the first member is positive.
1655. A sentence is often introduced by et, -que, or atque, where but would be used in English, particularly so when a positive sentence follows a negative one: as,
Sōcratēs nec patrōnum quaesīvit nec iūdicibus supplex fuit adhibuitque līberam contumāciam, TD. 1, 71, Socrates did not try to find an advocate nor bow the knee to his judges, but he was plain-spoken and defiant. nostrōrum mīlitum impetum hostēs ferre nōn potuērunt ac terga vertērunt, 4, 35, 2, the enemy could not stand the dash of our people, but turned their backs. hominis nē Graecī quidem ac Mȳsī potius, QFr. 1, 1, 19, a creature who is not even a Greek, but more of a Mysian.
1656. Two sentences, one of which would ordinarily be introduced by a subordinating temporal conjunction, are sometimes, mostly in poetry, coordinated by et or -que: as, dīxit et in silvam pennīs ablāta refūgit, V. 3, 258, she spake, and on her pinions sweeping, vanished to the wood, i.e. simul atque dīxit, refūgit.
1657. (4.) neque or nec, neither, nor, and . . . not, but . . . not, is used as a negative copulative, sometimes as a negative adversative: as,
opīniōnibus volgī rapimur in errōrem nec vēra cernimus, Leg. 2, 43, we are swept into error by the delusions of the world and cannot make out the truth. nōn enim temere nec fortuī̆tō creātī sumus, TD. 1, 118, for we were not created at adventure nor by accident. subsidiō suīs iērunt collemque cēpērunt, neque nostrōrum mīlitum impetum sustinēre potuērunt, 7, 62, 8, they went to aid their people and carried the hill, but they could not stand the fiery onset of our soldiers. neque or nec is often repeated: as, nec meliōrēs nec beātiōrēs esse possumus, RP. 1, 32, we can neither be better nor wiser.
1658. nec is rarely used in the sense of nē . . . quidem, not even, not . . . either: as, nec nunc, H. S. 2, 3, 262, not even now, a free quotation of nē nunc quidem, T. Eu. 46. nec . . . quidem, and not even, is used once or twice for the common ac nē . . . quidem or et nē . . . quidem.
1659. Instead of neque or nec, and not, the copulatives et, atque, rarely -que, followed by a negative, nōn, nēmō, nihil, &c., are sometimes used in Cicero and Livy, less often in old Latin, and rarely in Caesar and Sallust: as, quid tū fēcissēs, sī tē Tarentum et nōn Samarobrīvam mīsissem? Fam. 7, 12, 1, what would you have done, if I had sent you to Tarentum, and not to Samarobriva? Particularly thus et nōn, or oftener ac nōn, in corrections. But ordinarily neque or nec is preferred to et nōn, and nec quisquam, &c., to et nēmō, &c. (1445).
1660. When neque is followed by another negative, the assertion is positive (1452): as,
nec hoc ille nōn vīdit, Fin. 4, 60, and the man did not fail to see this. This positive use begins with Varro. In old Latin two negatives, and particularly neque . . . haud, are often used, as in old English, to strengthen the negation (1453).
1661. After a general negative, a word may be emphasized by nē ... quidem or nōn modo, or the parts of a compound sentence may be distributed by neque . . . neque, without destroying the negation: as,
nihil in locīs commūnibus, nē in fānīs quidem, nihil istum neque prīvātī neque pūblicī tōtā in Siciliā relīquisse, V. 4, 2, that the defendant has left nothing untouched in public places, no, not even in the temples, nothing either in the way of private or of public property, in all Sicily. Similarly when a coordinate member is appended with neque: as, nequeō satis mīrārī neque conicere, T. Eu. 547, I can’t quite puzzle out or guess.
Combination of Different Copulatives.
1662. Different copulatives are sometimes combined, as follows.
1663. (1.) The affirmative copulatives et and -que are sometimes combined, particularly in abridged sentences: as,
et Epamīnōndās praeclārē cecinisse dīcitur, Themistoclēsque est habitus indoctior, TD. 1, 4, Epaminondas in the first place is said to have played beautifully, and Themistocles was not considered exactly an educated man. This combination is used by Cicero rarely, by Horace in the satires, and rarely by late writers.
1664. The sequence -que . . . et is rare in old Latin, and not used by Caesar, Vergil, or Horace. -que . . . atque is first used by Lucretius, then by Vergil, Ovid, Livy, and Tacitus.
1665. (2.) Affirmative and negative copulatives are sometimes combined. Thus neque or nec combined with et, in the sequences neque . . . et and et . . . neque, which is rare in old Latin, is common in Cicero: as,
nec mīror et gaudeō, Fam. 10, 1, 4, in the first place I am not surprised, and in the second place I feel glad; neque . . . et nōn, however, is rare. patēbat via et certa neque longa, Ph. 11, 4, there lay a road open at once plain and not long. neque . . . -que begins with Cicero, but is rare (1655), neque . . . ac begins with Tacitus.
1666. Of all the Latin writers, Tacitus aims most at variety by combination of asyndeton and by the use of different copulatives: as, rēgem Rhamsēn Libyā Aethiopiā Mēdīsque et Persīs et Bactriānō ac Scythā potītum, 2, 60, that king Rhamses got control of Libya and Aethiopia and the Medes and Persians, and the Bactrian and Scythian.
1667. Disjunctive conjunctions connect the sentences, but disconnect the meaning. They are aut, vel, sīve or seu, -ve, and an, or. Of these conjunctions, aut, vel, and sīve are often placed before two or more members of a sentence in the sense of either . . . or. And in poetry, -ve . . . -ve sometimes occurs.
1668. (1.) aut, or, sometimes or even, or at least, is used between two members which are to be represented as essentially different in meaning, and of which one excludes the other: as,