verbs and participles it merely strengthens the meaning; as, corrumpo, concerpo, confringo, consceleratus. [$ 330.] Note.-We must not leave unnoticed here what are called the inseparable prepositions (among which con is reckoned, although it is only a different pronunciation for cum); that is, some little words, which are never used by themselves, but occur only in compound verbs and adjectives, where they modify the meaning in the same way as the above-mentioned separable prepositions. The following is a list of them: Amb (from the Greek audí), “around," "about," as in ambio, ambūro (ambustus), ambigo, ambiguus. In amplector, amputo, the b is dropped on account of the p; before palatals amb is changed into an; e. g., anceps, anquiro, and also before f, in the word anfractus. Dis or di, denoting separation, as in digero, dirimo, dijudico, dispono, dissero, distinguo, dimitto (to be distinguished from demitto). It strengthens the meaning in discupio. Before c, p, q, t, dis is retained entire; before j, we sometimes have dis, as in disjicio, disjungo; and sometimes di, as in dijudico. Before s, with a consonant after it, di is used, and dis when the s after it is followed by a vowel: di-spergo, di-sto, dis-socio, dis-suadeo; disertus, however, is formed from dissero. Before f, dis is changed into dif, as in differo. Di is used before all other consonants. Re signifies "back,” remitto, rejicio, revertor. Before a vowel or an ha d is inserted, redeo, redigo, redhibeo; this is neglected only in compounds formed by late and unclassical writers; e. g., reaedifico, reagens. The d in reddo, I give back, is of a different kind. Re denotes separation in resolvo, revello, retego, recingo, recludo, refringo, reseco; and in relego, rebibo, and others, it denotes repetition. Se, "aside," "on one side," seduco, sevoco, secubo, sepono, sejungo. In adjectives it signifies "without," securus, sobrius for sebrius (non ebrius), socors for secors. Seorsum is contracted from sevorsum, aside. A d is inserted in seditio, separation, sedition, from se and itio. The prefixes ne and ve are of somewhat different nature; ne has negative power, as in nefas, nemo (ne hemo, obsolete for homo), nescio. Ve is likewise negative, but occurs in a much smaller number of words, viz., in vesanus and vecors (vecordia), senseless. In vegrandis and vepallidus it seems to denote ugliness. CHAPTER LXVII. CONJUNCTIONS.* [§ 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. The 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 [Compare Crombie's Gymnasium. vol. i., p. xlv., seq.]—Am. Ed. 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--tum, 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 co 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, enimvēro, verum-enimvēro. 3. In reference to their signification, they may be divided into the following classes. They denote: [§ 332.] 1. A union (conjunctiones 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. 66 Note.-Ac* 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 Att., xiii., 48. For as this difference in the use of ac and atque was * [Compare Reisig's Vorlesungen, ed. Haase, p. 414.]—Am. Ed. 1ot noticed till recently* (in the schools of the Dutch philologers, Bur-mann 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 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. is [ 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. vitae 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.-locent, 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 exterae 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., atqe haec quidem mea sententia est; atque-de ipsis Syracusanis cognoscite; also in * 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. answers, cognostine hos versus? Ac memoriter. Num hic 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 tantaque 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., i., 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 Vell. 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. [9 335.] 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 modosed 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 modern Latinists apply it. [9336.] The disjunctive conjunctions differ thus far, that aut indicates a difference of the object, and vel a difference of expression. Vel 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., ii., 12); laudanda est vel etiam amanda (p. Planc., 9); it very rarely occurs without such an * [Compare Crombie's Gymnasium, vol. i., p. 211.]—Am. Ed. Y addition, but even then its meaning is corrective; e. g., Tusc., ii., 20, sum mum 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 'oses 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 loquacissi musque deligitur; Horat., Serm., 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 membrum 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. Deor., 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 |