This thread reminded me of Luke 1:30, where the present subjunctive is used with ne as a prohibition. et ait angelus ei ne timeas Maria
Plautus certainly does use the perf subj in negative prohibitions, but not invariably. From the Miles Gloriosus
1215 ne sis cupidus
1378 Ne me moneatis
I had a brief scan through Terence's Andria, who seems to do the same thing.
So if both pre and post classical Vulgar Latin uses ne + pres subj for prohibitions, then presumably classical Vulgar Latin did likewise.
I had a quick scan through some Classical Latin
Horace Odes IV: VII Inmortalia ne speres, monet annus et
almum quae rapit hora diem
Ars Am 1 515 Lingula ne rigeat, careant rubigine dentes
Metamorphoses VII 433 'pone age nec titulos intercipe, femina, nostros,'
Thestiadae clamant, 'nec te fiducia formae decipiat
Of course these are poetry, but what about Bellum Catilinae 52
ne illi sanguinem nostrum largiantur
I would hesitate to say that Woodcock is wrong, but how much faith can we place in the rule that a subjunctive prohibition must be perfect in tense?
Plautus certainly does use the perf subj in negative prohibitions, but not invariably. From the Miles Gloriosus
1215 ne sis cupidus
1378 Ne me moneatis
I had a brief scan through Terence's Andria, who seems to do the same thing.
So if both pre and post classical Vulgar Latin uses ne + pres subj for prohibitions, then presumably classical Vulgar Latin did likewise.
I had a quick scan through some Classical Latin
Horace Odes IV: VII Inmortalia ne speres, monet annus et
almum quae rapit hora diem
Ars Am 1 515 Lingula ne rigeat, careant rubigine dentes
Metamorphoses VII 433 'pone age nec titulos intercipe, femina, nostros,'
Thestiadae clamant, 'nec te fiducia formae decipiat
Of course these are poetry, but what about Bellum Catilinae 52
ne illi sanguinem nostrum largiantur
I would hesitate to say that Woodcock is wrong, but how much faith can we place in the rule that a subjunctive prohibition must be perfect in tense?