Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

de suis (plures would rarely be used in such a case); Cic., Brut., 18, pic tores antiqui non sunt usi plus quam quattuor coloribus, not pluribus; Liv., xxvii., 25, negabant unam cellam amplius quam uni deo rite dedicari. Quam is omitted very frequently, and with all cases; e. g., Liv., xxiv., 16, minus duo milia hominum ex tanto exercitu effugerunt; xxxvi., 40, plus pars dimidia ex quinquaginta milibus hominum caesa sunt; Cic., ad Att., v., 1. quo magis erit tibi videndum, ut hoc nostrum desiderium ne plus sit annuum; Tusc., 11., 16, milites Romani saepe plus dimidiati mensis cibaria ferebant; Terent., Adelph., ii., 1, 45, plus quingentos colaphos infregit mihi; Liv., iii., 64, si vos minus hodie decem tribunos plebis feceritis; xl., 2, quum plus annum aeger fuisset; XXX., 27, sedecim non amplius eo anno legionibus defensum imperium est; Cic., in Verr., ii., 57, minus triginta diebus Metellus totam trienni praeturam tuam rescidit. These examples prove the omission of quam in connexion with the other cases. Its omission with the dative is attested by Propertius, ii., 19, 18, (iii., 19, 32), et se plus uni si qua parare potest; i. e., for more than for one; and why should we not say mille amplius hominibus quotidie panem dedit? It must be observed that these comparatives are sometimes inserted between the words which they modify; e. g., Tacit. Hist., v., 52, decem haud amplius dierum frumentum in horreis fuit; Liv., i., 18, centum amplius post annos; and sometimes, when joined with a negative, they follow the words they modify as a sort of apposition; Liv., xl., 31, quinque milium armatorum, non amplius, relictum erat praesidium, a garrison of 5000 soldiers, not more. Sometimes, however, the ablative is used with these comparatives as with others, instead of quam with the nomin. or accus.; e. g., Liv., xxiv., 17, eo die caesi sunt Romanis minus quadringentis; Cic., in Verr., iii., 48, nemo minus tribus medimnis in jugerum dedit; p. Rosc. Com., 3, quamobrem hoc nomen triennio amplius in adversariis relinquebas, instead of the more common amplius triennium, as above. Comp., also, in Verr., iv., 43, hora amplius moliebantur. Longius is used in the same way; see Caes., Bell. Gall., v., 53, Gallorum copias non longius milia passuum octo ab hibernis suis afuisse; but, vii., 9, ne longius triduo ab castris absit; iv., 1, apud Suevos non longius anno remanere uno in loco incolendi causa licet.

[§ 486.] Note 3.-The English word "still," joined with comparatives, is expressed by adhuc only in the later prose writers; as, Senec., Epist., 49, Punctum est quod vivimus et adhuc puncto minus. In the classical language etiam, and sometimes vel, are equívalent to the English "still."

[§ 487.] 16. The ablative is used to express the measure or amount by which one thing surpasses another, or is surpassed by it. Paulo, multo, quo, eo, quanto, tanto, tantulo, aliquanto, hoc, are to be considered as ablatives of this kind. Altero tanto signifies "twice as much ;” multis partibus is the same as multo.

Hibernia dimidio minor est quam Britannia, Caes. Homines quo plura habent, eo cupiunt ampliora, Just. Diogenes disputare solebat, quanto regem Persarum vita fortunaque superaret, Cic., Tusc., v., 32.

[ 488.] Note 1.-We thus perceive that these ablatives are joined not only with comparatives, but with verbs which contain the idea of a com parison with other things; as, malle, praestare, superare, excellere, antecellere antecedere, and others compounded with ante. Also, with ante and post, their meaning being "earlier" and "later." Hence multo ante, much earlier; non multo post, not much later, or not long after. As to multo with a superlative, see ◊ 108. In the case of plus there may be some ambiguity. The words in Cicero (de Nat. Deor., 1., 35), uno digito plus habere, might mean "to have more than one finger," and, Liv., ii., 7, uno plus Etruscorum

cecidit, more than one man fell on the part of the Etruscans. But this is the reason why, in this sense (according to § 485), we usually say plus unum digitum habere, plus unus Etruscorum; and with the ablat. the mean. ing is, to have one finger more," viz., than we have, that is, six; and, "on the part of the Etruscans one man more," viz., than on the part of their enemies. But still it would be clearer to say uno plures digitos habere, uno plures Etrusc. ceciderunt, as in Liv., v., 30, una plures tribus antiquarunt. Respecting the difference between aliquanto and paulo, see § 108; aliquanto has an affirmative power, "considerably more," nearly the same as "much more;" paulo, like pauci, is of a negative nature, "a little more," where the "little" may imply a great deal, and the word paulo may have been chosen with a view to represent it as little. An excellent passage to prove this is Cic., p. Quint., 12, Si debuisset, Sexte, petisses statim; si non statim, paulo quidem post; si non paulo, at aliquanto; sex quidem illis mensibus profecto;

anno vero vertente sine controversia.

Note 2.-Multum, tantum, quantum, and aliquantum are sometimes used adverbially with a comparative, instead of the ablat. multo, tanto, quanto, and aliquanto; e. g., Terent., Eunuch., i., 2, 51, ejus frater aliquantum ad rem est avidior; Val. Maxim., iv., 1, 1, quantum domo inferior, tantum gloria superior evasit. Sometimes they are used only to avoid ambiguity; Liv., iii., 15, quantum juniores patrum plebi se magis insinuabant, eo acrius contra tribuni tendebant; Juven., ., 197, multum hic robustior illo. Cicero uses tantum and quantum in this way only in connexion with antecedere, excellere, and praestare; e. g., de Off., i., 30; Orat., 2, § 6; p. Leg. Man., 13; de Re Publ., ii., 2, but both multum and multo praestare. The adverb tam-quam with a comparative, instead of tanto-quanto, is rare and poetical. Longe (far) alone is frequently used for multo, in prose as well as in poetry.

[§ 489.] 17. The ablative is governed by the prepositions ab (a, abs), absque, clam, coram, cum, de, ex (e), prae, pro, sine, tenus (is placed after its case); by in and sub when they answer to the question where? and by super in the sense of de, "concerning," or "with regard to.” Subter is joined indifferently either with the ablative or the accusative, though more frequently with the latter.

The preposition in is generally joined with the ablative, even after the verbs of placing (pono, loco, colloco, statuo, constituo, and consido), although, strictly speaking, they express motion: on the other hand, in is commonly used with the accusative after the verbs advenire, adventare, convenire, commeare, although we say, "to arrive at," or "in a place," and not "into." When the place at which a person arrives is expressed by the name of a town, the accusative alone is used, and when by an adverb, we must use huc, quo, and not hic, ubi, &c.; e. g., advenit in Italiam, in provinciam, advenit Romam, Delphos, adventus

huc tuus.

In is used with either case after the verbs of assembling (congregare, cogere, constipare, and others), concealing (abdere, condere, abscondere, abstrudere), and including (includere, concludere). It must, however, be observed, that

the accusative is preferred when an action is indicated, and the ablative when a state or condition (in the participle perfect passive). Sometimes these verbs take an ablativus instrumenti, e. g., abdere se litteris, includere carcere, verba concludere versu, which is the case most frequently with implicare.

Aegyptii ac Babylonii omnem curam in siderum cognitione posuerunt, Cic., de Divin., i., 42.

Herculem hominum fama, beneficiorum memor, in concilio coelestium collocavit, Cic., de Off., iii., 5.

[$ 490.] Note.-The compounds of pono sometimes have in with the ablative and sometimes with the accusative, but more frequently the former; e. g., aliquem in numero deorum, spem in felicitate reponere. Imponere takes in with the accusative (unless it is joined with the dative, according to 415); e. g., milites in naves, corpus in plaustrum; sometimes, however, it has, like pono, in with the ablative; e. g., Cic., de Nat. Deor., i., 20, imposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum. In like manner, defigere, insculpere, inscribere, and inserere (unless they are joined with the dative) are usually construed with in with the ablative; e. g., natura insculpsit in mentibus nostris; nomen suum inscribunt in basi; legati in vultu regis defixerunt oculos. This and similar things arise from a mixture of two ideas, that of the action implied in the verb, and that of the result; and hence in with the ablative is preferable after the preterites of doubtful verbs. In with the accusative, after esse and habere, occurs only in obsolete formulae; as, esse (habere) in potestatem, and others. See § 316. In custodiam haberi and in carcerem asservari in Livy, viii., 20, and xxii., 25, are irregularities.

[ 491.] "To do anything with a person," is expressed in Latin by facere with de, and more frequently with the simple ablative or dative; quid facias hoc homine, or huic homini? and in the passive voice quid de me fiet? what will become of me? quid pecuniae fiet? what will become of the money? Cicero, quid illo myoparone factum sit. It is never expressed by cum, for facere cum aliquo signifies "to be of a person's party."

CHAPTER LXXV.

VOCATIVE CASE.

[§ 492.] THE Vocative is not in immediate connexion with either nouns or verbs, but is inserted to express the object to which our words are addressed.

Note.-It only remains to observe that the vocative is usually placed after one or two words of a sentence; at least, it is not placed at the beginning without some special reason, and the interjection O is used only when we are speaking with great animation or emotion. The poets not uncommonly adopt the Attic practice of using the nominative instead of the vocative; e. g., Terence, o vir fortis atque amicus! Horat., de Art. Poet., 292, Vos o Pompilius sanguis! In some instances the same practice occurs in prose; as, Liv., i., 24, audi tu, populus Romanus! viii., 9, agedum pontifex publicus populi Romani, praei verba, quibus me pro legionibus devoveam. The nominative, in apposition to the vocative, occurs in Juvenal, iv., 24, 4. succinctus patria quondam, Crispine, papyro; other poets, on the con

FF

trary, by a mixture of two constructions, use the vocative of words which, belonging to the verb, ought to be in the nominative; e. g., Virg., Aen., ii., 283, quibus, Hector, ab oris expectate venis? ix., 485, heu! canibus datejaces; Pers., i., 123, Quicunque afflate Cratino-aspice. Compare iii., 28. The passage of Pliny (Hist. Nat., vii., 31), in which Cicero is addressed, salve primus omnium parens patriae appellate, primus in toga triumphum linguaeque lauream merite! is of a different kind, primus signifying "being the

first.

III. USE OF THE TENSES.

CHAPTER LXXVI.

[§ 493.] 1. THE tenses of the Latin verb are used, on the whole, in the same way as those of the English verb, with the exception of one great peculiarity, which is explained in § 498. (Compare § 150.) The only general rule that can be laid down is this: we must first determine whether the action or condition to be expressed falls in the present, the past, or the future, and in what relation it stands to other actions or conditions with which it is connected. For example, I was writing, and I had written, are both actions belonging to the past; but in regard to their relation they differ, for in the sentence, "I was writing when the shot was heard," the act of writing was not completed when the shot was heard; whereas, in the sentence," I had written, when my friend arrived," the act of writing was completed when the other (the arrival of my friend) occurred. The same difference exists between I shall write to-morrow and I shall have written to-morrow; between I am writing today, i. e., I am engaged in an act not yet terminated, and I have written to-day, which expresses an act already terminated. This last is the proper signification of the Latin perfect; as, advenit pater, the father has arrived, that is, he is here now. Horace, at the close of a work, says, exegi monumentum aere perennius; and Ovid, jamque opus exegi. An orator, at the conclusion of his speech, says, dixi, that is, "I have done," and Virgil (Aen., ii., 325), with great emphasis, fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium, i. e., we are no longer Trojans, Ilium is no more.

Note. Other grammarians distinguish three relations of an action: 1. an action is lasting, that is, incomplete; 2. it is completed; and, 3. not yet commenced. But the distinction between a completed and a not completed action excludes everything else, for an action either is taking place or has taken place; a third is impossible, and an action not yet commenced does not exist as an action, except in the imagination. The tenses, for the

sake of which other grammarians have recourse to a third relation (scrip turus sum, eram, ero, fui, fueram, fuero), form, in our opinion, a distinct con jugation, in which the action is described as intended (I am, was, have been, &c., intending to write). Compare § 169.

[§ 494.] 2. The Latin language, therefore, has two tenses for each of the three great divisions of time-past, present, and future; one expressing a complete and the other an incomplete action. And the six tenses of the Latin verb are thus the result of a combination of time and relation.

scribo, I write, or am writing-present time, and action going on. scripsi, I have written-present time, and action terminated. scribebam, I wrote, or was writing-past time, and action going on. scripseram, I had written-past time, and action terminated.

scribam, I shall write, or be writing-future time, and action not completed.

scripsero, I shall have written-future time, and action completed.

Note. It is not difficult to see why, in the conjugation of verbs, we preferred that order of the tenses which is based upon the relation which they bear to one another. (Compare 150.) But in syntax, the above ar rangement and division is necessary for the purpose of presenting a clear view of the kindred nature of the present and perfect (for both are presents, as far as time is concerned), and of the use of the two futures.

3. The passive has the same tenses with the same meaning; but with this difference, that they do not express an action, but a condition or suffering, as we may call it.

laudor, I am praised-present time, and condition still going on.

laudatus sum, I have been praised-present time, and condition terminated.

laudabar, I was praised-past time-and condition going on.

laudatus eram, I had been praised-past time, and condition terminated. laudabor, I shall be praised-future time, and condition not completed. laudatus ero, I shall have been praised-future time, and condition completed.

ero,

[ 495.] Note. The participle perfect passive, however, is also used in the sense of an adjective to express a lasting condition; e. g., scripta epistola, a written letter, and in this sense the participle may be joined with all the six tenses of esse; as, epistola scripta est, erat, erit, fuit, fuerat, fuerit. All this may be said in Latin; but the question here is only as to how the tenses of the passive voice are formed by the combination of the participle perfect passive with sum, eram, and ero. We here repeat (see $168) that laudatus fueram and laudatus fuero are sometimes used as passive tenses for laudatus eram and laudatus which arose from a desire to express by the auxiliary verb esse the terminated condition already implied in the participle perfect passive. Thus, Livy (xxiv., 30) says, ceterum Leontinorum nemo-violatus fuerat, nobody had been injured; Pompey, in Cic., ad Att., viii., 12 (C.), si copiae in unum locum fuerint coactae, when they shall have been collected. In like manner, the subjunctive, laudatus fuissem, is equivalent to laudatus essem; e. g., Ovid, Metam., vi., 156, si non sibi visa fuisset; Heroid., vii., 140, si Punica non Teucris pressa fuisset humus; and laudatus fuerim to laudatus sim. In the infinitive, laudatum fuisse, the participle is generally to be considered as an adjective.

[§ 496.] 4. The tenses of the present and past time,

« IndietroContinua »