More on prohibitions

 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
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?
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Ne + imperative

I split the post to prevent it from becoming too long...

Tthe last quote from Ovid shows ne used with the imperative, which is mentioned in fine print in A New Latin Syntax. In my brief scan, however, I found multiple instances, both poetic

Aeneid IV 338 ne finge
Ars Am 1 343 ne dubita cunctas sperare puellas

And Vulgar
Miles Gloriosus 215 ne somno stude
1011 ne formida
1220 ne parce vocem
1323 ne fle
1346 ne time
1361 ne morere

Which makes me wonder whether this might actually be quite a common construction, especially in everyday speech. What are peoples thoughts on this construction?
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

You shouldn't mix things up. The negated verbs in the 3rd person are merely negated jussives, not subjunctives of prohibition. This use of the subjunctive is also common in classical prose.

Classical prose always negates imperatives (2nd person!) with the prohibitive subjunctive, unless the phrase is supposed to be an optative or a negated subjunctive, which is kind of rare, though.
Poetry often has to resort to different means of negating an imperative as it has to obey a metre, so it sometimes has ne + 2nd person present subjunctive or ne + imperative. However, the perfect subjunctive isn't rare, either, when the metre allows (or requests) it.
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

I wouldn't try to infer everyday language from poems. It would lend more force to the argument if such expressions appeared in Cicero's letters (I don't know if they do, though.)
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Bitmap dixit:
You shouldn't mix things up. The negated verbs in the 3rd person are merely negated jussives, not subjunctives of prohibition.
I must admit you have lost me here Bitmap :oops: What is the difference between a negated iussive and a prohibition?

Do you think that the ne + imperative in Plautus is because of the metre, or does it just reflect vulgar or pre-classical usage? There are a couple of instances of noli in the MG noli minari and noli stare, so ne certainly isn't the only way he negates imperatives.

I had a quick scan through Pro Marcello and didn't find anything, but I haven't been through Cicero's letters!
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Bitmap dixit:
I wouldn't try to infer everyday language from poems. It would lend more force to the argument if such expressions appeared in Cicero's letters (I don't know if they do, though.)
Just having a quick scan through, and never having studied his letters I may be exposing my ignorance...


VI I am wondering if you would call this a negated iussive
Tu velim, si qua ornamenta gymnasiode reperire poteris, quae loci sint eius, quem tu non ignoras, ne praetermittas.

He does use ne with the perf subj
Ad Atticam Book 1
IX ne dubitaris mittere et arcae nostrae confidito
II.V qua re si quid Theophanes tecum forte contulerit ne omnino repudiaris.

Also present
II.XXIV ac ne sis perturbatus


This is as far as I got before having to help my son with his science experimnent... I didn't see any examples of ne + imperative, but I had to cut my search short...
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Cinefactus dixit:
I must admit you have lost me here Bitmap :oops: What is the difference between a negated iussive and a prohibition?
The jussive is directed to the third person, the prohibitive to the second person

Do you think that the ne + imperative in Plautus is because of the metre, or does it just reflect vulgar or pre-classical usage?
I don't know to be honest. Both could be true, but the metres Plautus used allow for a bit more freedom than the hexametre IMO. Plautus also includes some vulgar expressions, so it might be possible.

Cinefactus dixit:
VI I am wondering if you would call this a negated iussive
Tu velim, si qua ornamenta gymnasiode reperire poteris, quae loci sint eius, quem tu non ignoras, ne praetermittas.
No, it's an optative (velim = utinam)

Cinefactus dixit:
Also present
II.XXIV ac ne sis perturbatus
I would have considered this to be the perfect subjunctive of perturbari.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Bitmap dixit:
Cinefactus dixit:
Also present
II.XXIV ac ne sis perturbatus
I would have considered this to be the perfect subjunctive of perturbari.
Thanks, that makes sense.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Came across a paper on Prohibitions in Terence from 1901 in my background reading for Andria
Here are the numbers for each type
ne + perf subj 2
ne + pres subj 23
cave + perf subj 5
cave + pres subj 8
vide with pres subj 7
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Bitmap dixit:
I wouldn't try to infer everyday language from poems. It would lend more force to the argument if such expressions appeared in Cicero's letters (I don't know if they do, though.)
Found some Ciceronian examples in The Latin Prohibitive
In Verrem 2.4.52 ne quem putetis sine maximo dolore argentum caelatum domo, quod alter eriperet, protulisse.
De Re Publica 6.12.12 "St! Quaeso", inquit, "Ne me ex somno excitetis et parumper audite cetera!
Ad Fam 1.9.23 sunt orationes quaedam, quas Menocrito dabo, neque ita multae, ne pertimescas
Ad Fam 16.9.4 Reliquum est, ut te hoc rogem et a te petam, ne temere naviges
Ad Att 9.18.3 tu malim inquies actum ne agas
Ad Quintum 1.4.1 Amabo te, mi frater, ne …assignes
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Do you think that the ne + imperative in Plautus is because of the metre, or does it just reflect vulgar or pre-classical usage? There are a couple of instances of noli in the MG noli minari and noli stare, so ne certainly isn't the only way he negates imperatives.
I think Plautus must use it either because it was not yet an obsolete construction even in the standard language of his day, or else in imitation of a more vulgar dialect of the language. It's hardly unusual for a basilect to retain constructions which are considered archaic in more standardized forms of a language.

I think it appears in later poetry precisely because it is an archaism. It certainly wasn't invented merely for metrical convenience.

Bitmap dixit:
Cinefactus dixit:
VI I am wondering if you would call this a negated iussive
Tu velim, si qua ornamenta gymnasiode reperire poteris, quae loci sint eius, quem tu non ignoras, ne praetermittas.
No, it's an optative (velim = utinam)
I suppose in effect it's an optative, but really it's just a jussive noun clause after a verb of wishing. There's nothing at all unusual about ne + subj. after volo, malo, cupio, etc., and you're right that it definitely shouldn't count as a prohibition.

Cinefactus dixit:
Found some Ciceronian examples in The Latin Prohibitive
Some of these are not what I would consider prohibitions (nor, I imagine, would any serious Latin scholar). Are they categorized as such by you or by whatever it is your cited?

In Verrem 2.4.52 ne quem putetis sine maximo dolore argentum caelatum domo, quod alter eriperet, protulisse.
It's somewhat questionable, from the context, whether this isn't just an elliptical negative purpose clause of the ne plura type, rather than a true prohibition.

De Re Publica 6.12.12 "St! Quaeso", inquit, "Ne me ex somno excitetis et parumper audite cetera!
This is legitimate, though notice it is a quotation of something an old-timer would have said.

Ad Fam 1.9.23 sunt orationes quaedam, quas Menocrito dabo, neque ita multae, ne pertimescas
I would certainly categorize this as an elliptical negative purpose clause, not a prohibition.

Ad Fam 16.9.4 Reliquum est, ut te hoc rogem et a te petam, ne temere naviges
Definitely not a prohibition. It's a simple jussive noun clause after the verbs rogem and petam.

Ad Att 9.18.3 tu malim inquies actum ne agas
Another straightforward jussive noun clause.

Ad Quintum 1.4.1 Amabo te, mi frater, ne …assignes
This is the only unquestionably legitimate example I can see. I've noticed Cicero also has some non-prohibitive 2nd person jussive subjunctives in his letters, even when addressing his correspondent directly (the present subjunctive is regular for the generalized/indefinite 2nd person). I get the impression that these may be milder than normal commands.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Imber Ranae dixit:
Some of these are not what I would consider prohibitions (nor, I imagine, would any serious Latin scholar). Are they categorized as such by you or by whatever it is your cited?
No these were classified by Elmer. Likewise by Geddes in "Ne Prohibitive in Cicero".

I have gone systematically through Andria - Terence always uses the present. Will do so for the MG, but on my first look, Plautus almost always uses the present, which would suggest that this was the predominant form in early Latin.

Reading through Elmers booklet and another article on Silver Latin, however, I get the impression that the present is always more common than the perfect - except in Cicero. Elmer puts forward the view that the perfect is more emphatic, but I don't think that the evidence supports this view. I can find lots of emphatic present prohibitions in Terence.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
In fact, the paper by Geddes had 33 examples of the present, and 24 of the perfect. I am slogging my way through them now. He concluded that, "There remains a sufficient body of evidence to explode the canon of Madvig in its absolute rigidity, and therefore it must ceased to be imposed as a canon in the classical prose in the Latin tongue"

So to ask the question I asked earlier somewhat differently, "If this rule is not sustainable, is there any difference between a negated jussive and a prohibition?"
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Well, having plodded my way through all the examples in Geddes' paper, I confess that I don't agree with him. If you exclude the final clauses after peto, rogo, oro, obsecro etc, the perfect is more common than the present, and noli would be much more common than any of them.

The ones that seemed to stand alone are
Ad Att 1.11.1 ac ne illud mirere
Ad Quintum 3.1.19 cenam Tironi dictavi, ne mirere alia manu esse.
De Senectute 33 Denique isto bono utare, dum adsit, cum absit, ne requiras (Woodcock explains this as being used for an indefinite 2nd person, although the two above are obviously not)
Pro Plancio 27 vitia me hercule Cn. Planci res eae de quibus dixi tegere potuerunt, ne tu in ea vita de qua iam dicam tot et tanta adiumenta huic honori fuisse mirere

Concerning the example following amabo: Should we consider this a variant of a final clause?
Ad Quint 1.4.1 amabo te, mi frater, ne, si uno meo facto et tu et omnes mei corruistis, improbitati et sceleri meo potius quam imprudentiae miseraeque adsignes.

So now I have another question! Kirk in "Ne and Non" states that the Indo European ne had no specifically prohibitive force. This prohibitive force was a Latin adaption. So did this come from an implied final clause? Something like, (Impero) ne attingas?
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Cinefactus dixit:
So now I have another question! Kirk in "Ne and Non" states that the Indo European ne had no specifically prohibitive force. This prohibitive force was a Latin adaption. So did this come from an implied final clause? Something like, (Impero) ne attingas?
No. As far as I know, the development of subordinate clauses was the other way round.
First, they were 2 independent clauses (with ne being an adverb): ne attingas! impero! (don't touch it! I command you!)
Then, the frequent occurrence of such clauses in the vicinity of certain verbs (like impero) led to such a close connection that ne eventually turned into a conjunction.

The prohibitive force must have been acquired in a different way.
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Thanks Bitmap. Can you remember where you read the info on the development of the subordinate clauses?
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Summary of my essay on Prohibitions. ne + subj has generated the most discussion, which accounts for the longer entry.

Noli + infinitive
Uncommon in Early Latin. Most common prohibition in Classical Latin. Variable in force.

Ne + Subjunctive
Common in all time periods. Present subjunctive is used in all circumstances and in 1st, 2nd & 3rd person. Less common in plural than singular. There is no difference between a generalised and specific 2nd person usage. 

Its force is variable when used alone. 

The 2nd person perfect subjunctive is used by some authors, including Cicero and appears in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria. There is no difference in force between the tenses. 

Ni is rarely used instead of ne in Early Latin. Other negatives such as nullus, numquam, nil, nec and neu may be used with similar meaning. Commonly used with intensifiers such as oro, obsecro, obtestor, peto, rogo, quaeso, amabo, which convey a more specific force.

Cave and Vide Ne
Used in all time periods, both with the present subjunctive. Vide tends to be used for admonitions, and cave for warnings.

Ne + imperative
Common in Early Latin and poetry. Rare in Classical prose. Tends to be used in short formulaic expressions. The force is variable.
Ne + future imperative used in legal Latin.

Negated future
Uncommon (but not rare) in all time periods. Used to advise on future course of action.
 

Nikolaos

schmikolaos

  • Censor

Location:
Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan
By negated future, do you mean e.g. non facies?

Would you ever consider publishing that essay?
 
 

cinefactus

Censor

  • Censor

  • Patronus

Location:
litore aureo
Nikolaos dixit:
By negated future, do you mean e.g. non facies
Exactly.

I did have a thought of doing it for my thesis and then publishing it, although I prefer the idea of the treatise on Mediaeval Latin Heraldry...
 
B

Bitmap

Guest

Cinefactus dixit:
Thanks Bitmap. Can you remember where you read the info on the development of the subordinate clauses?
No. Sorry for the late response. I think I did not actually read it anywhere (except maybe in some grammar book), but I heard it in various Latin/Ancient Greek classes. Some of this is kind of self-evident, like the development of indirect, dependent questions out direct, independent questions.

Cinefactus dixit:
Ne + SubjunctiveCommon in all time periods. Present subjunctive is used in all circumstances and in 1st, 2nd & 3rd person. Less common in plural than singular. There is no difference between a generalised and specific 2nd person usage. 

Its force is variable when used alone. 

The 2nd person perfect subjunctive is used by some authors, including Cicero and appears in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria. There is no difference in force between the tenses. 

Ni is rarely used instead of ne in Early Latin. Other negatives such as nullus, numquam, nil, nec and neu may be used with similar meaning. Commonly used with intensifiers such as oro, obsecro, obtestor, peto, rogo, quaeso, amabo, which convey a more specific force.
I still think you may have misunderstood the author you are trying to contradict. If a grammar prescribes the usage of ne + 2nd person perfect subjunctive, it is to be understood as a guide to translating into Latin based on the classical standard, i.e. Caesarian and Ciceronian prose, not including Cicero's letters. I don't think that in classical prose, you can find any example of ne + 2nd person present subjunctive that clearly has to be understood as a prohibition and cannot be accounted for otherwise.
The fact that this may be kind of artificial and abhorrent of the regular use (found in other "Latins") is a different story.

I would not write "used by some authors" but "preferred exclusively over 2nd p pres subj by classical authors".
Regarding force: The 2nd p perf subj is usually quite forceful as opposed to the more polite/softer noli + infinitive. I don't know about ne + 2nd p pres subj when it's understood as a prohibition, since that seems to be outside the scope of classical Latin - but I usually take it to be a bit less forceful than ne + perf (except in poetry, where it's like anything goes). For that reason, I would actually prefer ne + present tense over the classical prohibition in tattoo requests like "do not despair", i.e. I'd go for "ne desperes" rather than "ne desperaveris", because it sounds less forcing and more admonishing.

Cinefactus dixit:
Ne + imperative
Common in Early Latin and poetry. Rare in Classical prose.
rare? Is there any example?

Cinefactus dixit:
Negated future
Uncommon (but not rare) in all time periods. Used to advise on future course of action.
As far as I can remember, the evidence you have to support this stems from the Vulgate. The problem is that there, it is a loan translation from the Septuaginta, which in turn translated a Hebrew imperfect into a future tense. Because of all the irregularities in the Vulgate that are the result of loaning from Greek, I wouldn't take it as a reliable source, neither for the proper standard of written Latin, nor as a reflection of Latin as it was spoken at that time. It seems rather artificial at times.
 
Top