Both of these difficulties be no actual possibility in the condition. These are the main or general rules of Latin Syntax. For convenience sake, the details of their application will be exhibited afterwards in the order suggested by the accidence. But we may from the first presume a knowledge of the constructions here explained. § 7. Order of Words in a Latin Sentence, and their English Construction. 129 Among the peculiarities of the Latin language, the arrangement or order of the words demands the earliest attention of the student, because it is the necessary converse of the process of construing Latin into English, which is one of the first duties of a learner. There are no two languages which differ more in this respect than the English and the Latin. For while the merely syntactical condition, to which modern English has been reduced, by the loss of nearly all its inflexions, obliges us to maintain the logical and grammatical construction of every sentence, the Latin language, which has not even a definite article, and depends entirely upon its inflected forms, not only admits, but requires a considerable variety in the relative position of the words, in order to make the inflexions as serviceable as may be in giving perspicuity, emphasis, and harmony to the style. We must here consider separately (I.) the order to be adopted, when we translate English into Latin; (II.) the process of construing Latin into English. I. The Latin Order. The two general rules by which the Latin order is governed are the following: (a) That the most emphatic words take precedence in the sentence. (b) That, if emphasis does not interfere, the explanatory or additional word follows the subject but precedes the predicative word or phrase to which it belongs. From this it will follow that the subject will generally stand first and the predicative verb last, while the intervening particles, dependent cases, &c., will stand between them in an order regulated by their weight in the sentence. That the verb is most properly and naturally placed last, is expressly stated by Quintilian (I. 0. IX. 4, § 26): Verbo sensum cludere, multo, si compositio patiatur, optimum est. In verbis enim sermonis vis. How regularly this is the case in Latin prose may be seen in such a passage as the following (Cic. Leges, 1. 9): Hominem natura non solum celeritate mentis ornavit, sed etiam sensus tanquam satellites attribuit ac nuntios; figuramque corporis habilem et aptam ingenio humano dedit. Nam quum ceteras animantes abjecisset ad pastum, solum hominem erexit, ad cælique quasi cognationis domiciliique pristini conspectum excitavit; tum speciem ita formavit oris, ut in ea penitus reconditos mores effingeret. The words intervening between the subject and predicate in this natural order may change their relative places and form new permutations according to the emphasis intended. Thus we may say, Romani Jovi templum in Capitolio condiderunt, 'the Romans to Jove a temple in the Capitol erected,' if we mean to direct attention to the fact that the god to be honoured was the distinctive circumstance; but we might say also: Romani templum in Capitolio Jovi Junoni Minervae condiderunt, if we wished to lay a stress on the foundation of the temple without such a special reference to the worship to be carried on in it. The same law of emphasis will even qualify the position of the subject and predicative verb themselves, and we not unfrequently find that the subject concludes the sentence, if we wish to make it bear a particular stress; as sensit in se iri Brutus (Liv. 11. 5); cujus in oratione plerumque efficit numerum ipsa concinnitas (Cic. Orat. 50); in Academia recentiore exstitit divina quadam celeritate ingenii dicen dique copia Carneades (Cic. de Orat. III. 18); semper oratorum moderatrix fuit oratorum prudentia (Cic. Orat. 8). Obs. In Latin poetry the natural order of the words is disturbed not only by a greater variety of intended emphasis, but also by the occasional exigencies of the metre. Ausonius apologizes for a deviation from the usual order of the epistolary address by saying (Ep. 20, 1): Paulino Ausonius. Metrum sic suasit ut esses Tu prior, et nomen prægrederere meum. 130 As the Latin language has no article, the definite epithet cannot very well precede its noun, unless it has some distinctive emphasis of its own. The same rule applies to the genitive case in regimen, and to the apposition of a title or definition. Hence, in all ordinary cases, the adjective follows the noun, the genitive its governing substantive, and the apposition the word which it qualifies; as (a) res familiaris, 'property;' res publica, 'the state;' bellum sociale, the social war;' jus civile, 'the civil law;' civis Romanus, ' a Roman citizen;' senatus populusque Romanus, 'the senate and people of Rome;' aes alienum, 'debt;' via Appia, 'the Appian road,' &c. (b) filius Anchisae, the son of Anchises;' magister equitum, 'master of the knights;' tribunus militum, 'tribune of the soldiers;' jus gentium, 'the right of nations;' lex naturae, 'the law of nature;' &c. (c) Q. Mucius augur, M. Tullius Cicero consul, Cyprus insula, Tiberis fluvius. But although this arrangement is the most natural, it is abandoned, whenever the emphasis or perspicuity requires a different order. Thus, although we should say, ager Tuscus, ager Romanus, if those phrases stood alone, we must put the epithet first when we wish to give prominence to the distinction which it involves, for example, in such a sentence as Tuscus ager Romano adjacet. Similarly, mors fratris tui, and fratris tui mors, are equally allowable, but the former lays the stress on the death as contrasted with the previous life, and the latter makes an emphatic reference to the particular person, whose death is mentioned. Again, in some cases the adjective or qualifying word is so essential to the idea, which we wish to convey, that it necessarily precedes. Thus Pliny's great work is styled Libri Naturalis Historiae, because it is the adjective which gives its distinctive subject, so that the noun and its epithet might be regarded as one compound word; so also we have Theodosianus codex, Julium sidus, Mariani consulatus, because the emphasis necessarily falls on the adjective. For the same reason the genitive precedes its noun in such combinations as animi motus, terrae motus, corporis partes, &c., because the specific meaning is given by the genitive. And this is particularly the case with certain adjectives which get their special meaning from the genitive of a noun, as juris prudens, juris consultus, &c.; hence we have even in the same sentence: reipublicae peritus et juris consultus (Nep. XXIV. 3). On the other hand, when the genitive denotes the object, it properly follows; thus we write expugnatio urbis, indagatio veri, scientia linguae, amor patriae, cura rerum alienarum, fiducia virium suarum, &c. If the same noun has both a genitive of the subject and a genitive of the object dependent on it, the former generally precedes and the latter may either precede or follow; thus we have cognoscite hominis principium rerum gerendarum; hominis amplissimi causam tanti periculi repudiare; Atheniensium populi potestatem omnium rerum, &c. In appositions too the general rule that the defining word follows, is neglected in certain cases. Thus rex as an hereditary title, and Imperator, when it became a regular designation of the chief of the Roman empire, are prefixed to the name, and we have rex Deiotarus, Imperator Titus. So also we have urbs Roma, not Roma urbs. 131 If a substantive is explained by a genitive case or other adjunct, as well as by an adjective, the combined epithet is sufficiently definite to precede the noun, and the adjective generally stands first; thus, summum eloquentiae studium, nocturnus in urbem adventus, &c. Between the preposition and its case we may have not only an epithet or genitive case, but a relative sentence or any other merely explanatory insertion; as propter Hispanorum, apud quos consul fuerat, injurias; in summa bonorum ac fortium, qui tunc aderant, virorum copia; ex illo caelesti Epicuri de regula et judicio volumine. 132 (a) A demonstrative pronoun will of course regularly precede the noun to which it calls attention; as haec mulier, ille vir, hujus fratris mei. But if there is also an adjective, the pro noun and adjective may follow as in Greek; thus, ảvýp ó péyas = vir ille magnus, or magnus ille vir; and if the emphasis falls upon the noun, the pronoun is placed after it; as disputationem hanc de oratore malo tibi et Bruto placere; caedem hanc ipsam contra rempublicam senatus factam esse decrevit; virginem ego hanc sum ducturus; ab intimo sinu excurrit tumulus is ipse in quo condita urbs est. (b) The relative pronoun regularly stands first in the sentence, and so completely appropriates this position, that it takes the place of a demonstrative with et; hence we have qui for et is, qualis for et talis, quo for et eo, &c. It is even substituted for the demonstrative when there is not only an et, but some particle such as quum, si, quamvis, utinam, or another inflected relative: thus we find quod quum audivissem, quod si audivissem, quod quamvis non ignorassem, quam palmam utinam dii immortales vobis reservent, quod qui facit, &c. for et quam hoc, et si hoc, et quamvis hoc, et utinam hanc, et qui hoc facit, &c. From this usage arose the practice of using quod before certain particles, especially si and nisi, without any force as a pronoun, and merely as equivalent to our 'but' or 'and.' Thus we find quod si illinc profugisses, but if you had fled from thence;' quod nisi Metellus hoc tam graviter egisset, unless however Metellus had done this with such energy;' quod etsi quidam dicendi copiam sine ratione consequuntur, 'and although some attain to fluency without theoretical study.' We have also quod quum, quod ubi, quod quia, quod quoniam, quod ne, quod utinam. But even a relative may lose its place at the beginning of a sentence, if emphasis requires it, and if its antecedent follows; as Romam quae asportata sunt ad aedem Honoris et Virtutis videmus. (c) If quisque follows a reflexive pronoun, the distribution is expressly signified; but the distribution is already given by some other word, if quisque precedes; thus we say on the one hand, minime sibi quisque notus est, et difficillime de se quisque sentit; and on the other hand, Gallos Hannibal in civitates quemque suas dimisit. 133 (a) Adverbs (according to 129, rule (b)) regularly precede the predicative word to which they are attached. This is always the case with the categorical negative non, and almost always with the adverbs expressing a degree, though the latter |