potest, 'the wisest man may be deceived.' Hypothetical propositions consist of two sentences, and they are either conditional or disjunctive. If the hypothetical proposition is conditional, it consists of a categorical proposition and an adverbial sentence dependent on it; as si quid habet, dat, 'if he has any thing, he gives.' If the hypothetical proposition is disjunctive, both its members are categorical, but they are rendered hypothetical by the conjunction which connects them, as vel habet vel non habet, 'he either has or has not;' and if the conditional particle is then applied, the inference may also be disjunctive, as aut dat aut non dat, 'he either gives or does not give.' Now the adverbial sentence in the conditional hypothetical is dependent on the main or categorical sentence; its construction is regulated by the construction of the main sentence; it is therefore called subordinate; and the discussion of conditional propositions belongs to the doctrine of subordinate sentences. On the other hand, the two constituent sentences in the disjunctive hypothetical stand on an equal footing; the construction of the one does not depend on the construction of the other; they are therefore called co-ordinates, and their discussion belongs to the doctrine of co-ordinate sentences.

193 This distinction will give us the following classification.

(A) Co-ordinate sentences are

(a) Copulative, in which two or more sentences stand on the same footing, and the one is regarded as merely added or appended to the other.

(b) Disjunctive, in which there are two or more distinct alternatives, without any clause to indicate the consequence.

(c) Adversative, in which the predication of the subsequent clause is opposed to that of the first, but not dependent on it in

construction.

(d) Distributive, which are generally in some sense adversative also, and in which a main sentence is divided or repeated in two or more co-ordinate and distributed parts.

(e) Distinctive, in which different subjects or objects are indicated by a parallel use of nouns or pronouns.

(f) Comparative, in which the subject or predicate of one sentence is compared with the subject or predicate of another.

(B) Subordinate sentences are

(a) Conditional, which consist of a sentence containing 'if,' 'provided that, &c.,' and called a protasis; and a sentence giving the result of the condition, and called an apodosis.

(b) Definitive, in which a relative sentence defines or describes some antecedent in the main sentence, and thus performs the part of an epithet.

(c) Subjunctive, in which a relative sentence conveys a secondary predication with regard to something already predicated in the main sentence, and thus performs the part of an adverb.

(d) Temporal, which are supplementary to the tenses of the verb.

(e) Objective, which are supplementary to the cases of the

noun.

(f) Illative or consecutive, when they follow a former predication as a consequence.

(g) Final, when they declare the end of what is predicated.
(h) Causal, when they declare the cause of what is asserted.
(i) Concessive, when they strengthen or limit by an admission.

(A) Co-ordinate Sentences.

§ 2. (a) Copulative Sentences.

194 The usage of the conjunctions, by means of which copulative sentences are constructed, has been fully discussed above (pp. 191 sqq.). Here we have to examine and analyse the logical structure of the sentences themselves; and with this view the following circumstances must be considered.

(a) Copulative sentences are expressed in three ways: (1) by a mere juxtaposition of words or sentences, as veni, vidi, vici, 'I came (and) I saw, (and) I conquered;' and quae res sensibus percipiuntur, eas cernimus, audimus, gustamus, olfacimus, tangimus, 'we see, (and) hear, (and) taste, (and) smell, (and) touch the objects of the senses:' (2) by inserting a copulative conjunction before the appended words and sentences, or the last of them; as quamvis reus sum et panem candidum edo, 'I am as guilty as you please, and still I eat white bread;' and auctoritate tua nobis opus est, et

consilio et etiam gratia, 'we need your authority, and your advice, and, in addition, your popularity:' (3) by inserting some word or words in the first clause, which presume and require correlative expressions in the following copulative sentence or sentences; such are et―et, -que—-que, tum—tum, quum—quum, tum—quum, tam— quam, non solum-sed etiam, partim—partim, primum—deinde— tum-postremo, &c.; thus: tu multis de causis vellem me convenire potuisses; primum, ut te viderem; deinde, ut tibi possem praesens gratulari; tum, ut quibus de rebus vellemus, te tuis ego meis, inter nos communicaremus; postremo, ut amicitia nostra confirmaretur vehementius, 'for many reasons I wish you could have had an interview with me, first, to have the pleasure of seeing you; then, that I might personally express my congratulations; again, that we might confer together on such of our mutual affairs as we wished; lastly, that our friendship might be the more strongly confirmed.'

Obs. 1 The most common cases of the omission of the copulative particle, or asyndeton, as it is called, are those in which we wish to give animation and energy to our words, as in the celebrated announcement of Cæsar's victory quoted above; the enumeration of colleagues in office, as Cn. Pompeio, M. Crasso, consulibus; in examples, as inferis inesse fortitudinem saepe dicimus, ut in equis, in leonibus, Cic. de Off. 1. 16; in enumerations of classes of persons and things opposed to one another, as Democritus alba et alia discernere non poterat, at vero bona, mala; aequa, iniqua; honesta, turpia; utilia, inutilia; magna, parva poterat, Cic. Tusc. v. 39; similarly we have side by side prima, postrema; fanda, nefanda; publica, privata; ultro, citro; such phrases as Patres, Conscripti (above, p. 192); and formal statements, such as quidquid dare, facere oportet; aequum, bonum; sarta, tecta, &c.

Obs. 2 Instead of omitting the copulative particle, we may produce a similar effect of emphasis and animation, by repeating some word common to all the copulative sentences; this is called anaphora, and is found in words of various kinds; as adverbs: si recte Cato judicavit, non recte frumentarius ille, non recte aedium pestilentium venditor tacuit (Cic. de Off. III. 16); personal pronouns: nos deorum immortalium templa, nos muros, &c., nos leges, &c., defendimus (Cic. Phil. vi. 3); conditional particles: si loca, si fana, si campum, si canes, si equos consuetudine adamare solemus, quantum id in hominum consuetudine facilius fieri potest? (Cic. Fin. 1. 20); adversative particles: promisit, sed difficulter, sed subductis superciliis, sed malignis verbis (Sen. Benef. 1. 1).

Obs. 3 When the copulative sentence assumes the correlative form, non modo (solum)—sed, and the second member includes a negative, the negative is presumed but not expressed in the first clause; thus: Philo sophi quidam sublata assensione omnem et motum animorum et actionem rerum sustulerunt, quod non modo (not only not) recte fieri, sed omnino

fieri non potest. Cic. Acad. IV. 19. Dolere non modo summum (not only not the chief evil), sed ne malum quidem esse maxima auctoritate philosophi affirmant. Cic. de Off. III. 29. Epicurus cupiditates quasdam, quod essent plane inanes, neque necessitatem modo (and not only did not belong to necessity), sed ne naturam quidem attingerent, funditus ejiciendas putavit. Cic. Tusc. v. 33. Praedonum a Chalcide naves non modo Sunium superare (not only did not dare to double Cape Sunium), sed nec extra fretum Euripi committere aperto mari se audebant. Liv. xxxi. 22. Camillorum, &c., virtutes non solum in moribus nostris (are not only not found in our habits of life), sed vix jam in libris reperiuntur. Cic. Cael. 17.

(8) In whatever way copulative sentences are expressed, their original basis is the same as that of the relative construed with its antecedent. For it is an established fact in philology that the relative was primarily a demonstrative pronoun denoting relative proximity, and there are languages which express the strongest form of the relative sentence either by the correlative of two pronouns expressing nearness, or by placing one of these in the relative clause (New Cratylus, § 148). While therefore the omission of the copulative conjunction stands on precisely the same footing as all other cases of asyndeton, we have the oldest form of the relative sentence, when the enumeration is expressed by a repetition of the same demonstrative or relative pronoun; as in et homines et viri, or hominesque virique; and we have the ordinary form of the relative sentence, when a relative is opposed to a demonstrative particle; as hominesque et equi, which means where (there are) men, there (opposite to them, for et avra, avrí, New Cratylus, § 194) horses.'

=

Obs. This analysis of the copulative sentence has its special value in Latin, for it is well known that the relative is often really equivalent to the copulative conjunction with a demonstrative pronoun; thus in Infima conditio est servorum, quibus non male praecipiunt, qui ita jubent uti ut mercenaris (Cic. de Off. 1. 13), the relative sentence is equivalent to Et non male praecipiunt, qui jubent iis uti, ut mercenariis. Similarly in Grave ipsius conscientiae pondus est, qua sublata jacent omnia (Cic. Nat. Deor. II. 35), the relative sentence is equivalent to Et hac sublata, jacent omnia. And so in a number of examples.

§ 3. (b) Disjunctive Sentences.

195 Although copulative and disjunctive sentences seem to be constructed in a perfectly similar manner, there is an essential difference in their logical value. For while, as we have seen, the copulative sentence may be reduced ultimately to that form of the

relative sentence which constitutes the conditional proposition, with both the assumption and consequence stated, the disjunctive sentences oppose two assumptions as alternatives, without stating the consequence of either (above, 192). Accordingly, while hominesque et equi means, 'where there are men, there are also horses,' the disjunctive sentence vel homines, vel equi implies, 'you may choose horses, you may choose men,' and the disjunctive sentence, aut homines aut equi presumes, where there are men, there are not horses,' for, as we have seen, aut and haud are the same word.

Obs. The examples given above (p. 194) of the disjunctive conjunctions vel, aut, and ve render it unnecessary to illustrate their use here. It must be remarked, however, that the concessive force of vel, which is seen in the disjunctive sentence, is really preserved by this particle, when it is said to mean 'even' or when it introduces an example. In both cases it may be rendered by 'take, if you please.' In the former usage, it is especially combined with superlatives, as vel optime, fructus vel optimus, which may be rendered 'if you like, in the best manner,' 'produce, if you please, of the best kind.' That it is not properly rendered 'even' is shown by its occasional combination in this use with etiam; as De rebus nostris satis, vel etiam nimium multa, enough, if you please, even too much of our affairs.' Cic. ad div. Iv. 14. That it has a concessive value is clear from such passages as Per me vel stertas licet, 'as far as depends on me, you may snore, if you please.' Cic. Acad. II. 19. Quam sis morosus vel ex hoc intelligi potest, quod, &c., 'how morose you are, may, if you please, be understood from this, because, &c.' Precisely the same is its real force when it means 'for example,' for there it denotes, take this instance, if you like it; thus, Amant te omnes mulieres vel illae quae here pallio me reprehenderunt, take for instance those who pulled me by my cloak yesterday.' Plaut. Mil. Gl. 1. 1. 59.

§4. (c) Adversative Sentences.

196 Adversative sentences are constructed by means of the adversative conjunctions (sed, autem, verum, &c., which have been discussed above (p. 196)). The logical value of these co-ordinate propositions is to a certain extent dependent on the particle which is used. Generally, however, the second clause is supposed to contain some predication essentially different from that which is conveyed by the former sentence. The difference may amount to a statement of something inconsistent with what has gone before, or it may be merely that distinction which is marked in the introduction of the second proposition of a syllogism. Thus, if we describe any one, as ingeniosus homo, sed (at, verum) in omni vita inconstans, we concede his ability, while we oppose to it the very