Suffixed et

Serenus

legātus armisonus
I've sometimes come across uses of et in poetry as a suffix, i.e. just like -que, used thus for metrical reasons. Something like ...vulnera vīdit / clāmat et... '...he sees his wounds, and he shouts...' (=clāmatque). Today I was trying to find some example of that again, but I couldn't. It's naturally not something that's easy to find with a simple text search. Could anyone provide me with an example?

Also, is vel ever used like that? The sound structure of vel for metrical purposes is different from -ve (and aut), so maybe?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I don't think et is really used as a suffix in such sentences; it's just that the usual word order is changed for metrical reasons, one or more words of a clause being placed before the word that grammatically "starts" the clause (here et). This happens in poetry with all conjunctions and relative pronouns. It sometimes happens in prose for the purpose of emphasizing a certain word, but there I think it happens only with relative pronouns and subordinating conjunctions; I don't recall seeing it with coordinating ones (I can't swear there isn't an example to be found somewhere, but it would be a rarity). Also, I don't think it would be common for a verb to be the word placed before the "conjunctive" word in prose.

Here are a couple of poetic examples that I can think of:

Arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris = qui primus ab oris Troiae (I'm sure you recognize this without my needing to give a reference.)

Spectatum veniunt, veniunt spectentur ut ipsae = ut ipsae spectentur (Ovid, Ars Amatoria I)

I don't have any specific example with et in mind right now, but if you read some poetry I'm sure you'll come across an example quickly enough.

Note that this kind of poetic postponing also occurs with -que and -ve, i.e. the word to which -que or -ve is suffixed can be preceded by one or more words belonging to the -que or -ve clause
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I don't have any specific example with et in mind right now, but if you read some poetry I'm sure you'll come across an example quickly enough.
Here are two from Horace, Carmina II.19:


fas pervicacis est mihi Thyiadas
vinique fontem lactis et uberes
cantare rivos


fas et beatae coniugis additum
stellis honorem tectaque Penthei
disiecta non leni ruina
Thracis et exitium Lycurgi.
 

rothbard

Civis Illustris
Staff member
Godmy's Forcellini can be very useful for this kind of thing; see here under "Et":
Postponitur nonnunquam ut que. Virg. 2. Ecl. 10. Thestylis et rapido etc. Id. 4. AEn. 418. Puppibus et laeti nautae etc. Sueton. Gramm. 21. Quare cito manumissus, Augusto et insinuatus est. Dörgens rectius legit etiam.
You can also try searching the TLL.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Postponitur nonnunquam ut que.
Does that imply that et is used as an enclitic? That seems very doubtful to me since, as I said, this sort of postposition occurs in poetry with all conjuctions and relative pronouns. I don't see why you'd have to take et as an enclitic anymore than, say, aut or sed when they're used in the same kind of word order.
 

rothbard

Civis Illustris
Staff member
Does that imply that et is used as an enclitic? That seems very doubtful to me since, as I said, this sort of postposition occurs in poetry with all conjuctions and relative pronouns. I don't see why you'd have to take et as an enclitic anymore than, say, aut or sed when they're used in the same kind of word order.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but how would you define enclitic here?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Something that gets attached to the end of a word.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
We can't tell for sure. It just doesn't seem very likely that et was.
 

Serenus

legātus armisonus
Does that imply that et is used as an enclitic? That seems very doubtful to me since, as I said, this sort of postposition occurs in poetry with all conjuctions and relative pronouns. I don't see why you'd have to take et as an enclitic anymore than, say, aut or sed when they're used in the same kind of word order.
I was talking about et that way because the various times I've seen "enclitic" et in poetry it has always been after the first word of the item being joined, as if imitating -que. This seems different from the ways hyperbaton is applied on relative pronouns and subordinating conjunctions like ut and cum, where you see the likes of (prōgeniem...) Tyriās ōlim quae verteret arcēs (Aeneid I.20), where two or more words are fronted.

To answer Rothbard's question, if this observation of mine (which I'm not confident about) is true, then it could be brought forth as evidence that et was attached in poetry in a similar way to -que. In fact, in linguistics, the writing system is ideally (but not always) ignored, so even if the Romans consistently separated words and et was always separated (as we do), this could be an argument that et was treated as an enclitic.

Cf. the use of spaces to separate the pieces of compound words in English when they have two syllables or more (Latin forum, cellphone charger, not *Latinforum or *cellphonecharger), and occasionally even monosyllabic ones (hot dog, stir-fry, snail mail, sin bin, chick-flick, Tex-Mex; but normally: textbook, mouthpiece, grassroots, redhead, housewife, wheelchair, earphones...). There is phonetic merit for the spelling patterns used (when components have 2+ syllables they tend to each carry a lot of stress almost as if they were adjectives piled before a noun, most of the separated monosyllabic compounds involve rhyming as sin bin or a repeated vowel as in hot dog which seems to distribute stress more equally, and stir-fry is probably affected by being mostly a verb), but grammatically they're all compounds.

Thanks for the examples from Horace!
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
I'm still not convinced. Would you say that aut and sed are enclitics as well when used in that kind of word order, or do you happen to have examples of these preceded by several words, which you don't with et? I think they can all (including et) be preceded by several words, even though it happens more frequently with just one word, as it does with subordinating conjunctions too, but I can't give any example off the top of my head, so...

To be honest, even if there are examples of them preceded by several words, it wouldn't prove they aren't enclitics, since
this kind of poetic postponing also occurs with -que and -ve, i.e. the word to which -que or -ve is suffixed can be preceded by one or more words belonging to the -que or -ve clause
but well, maybe you're just thinking along the lines of tendencies.
 

Serenus

legātus armisonus
I'm still not convinced. Would you say that aut and sed are enclitics as well when used in that kind of word order, or do you happen to have examples of these preceded by several words, which you don't with et? I think they can all (including et) be preceded by several words, even though it happens more frequently with just one word, as it does with subordinating conjunctions too, but I can't give any example off the top of my head, so...
Well, I'm not confident about this because I haven't had an exhaustive look (or even a semi-decent look) at the question. If various examples of et, vel, sed, aut could be found preceded by several words, than I'm obviously wrong. But I don't recall seeing any... I happened to just find magnum rēgīnae sed enim miserātus amōrem / Daedalus ipse dolōs tectī ambāgēsque resolvit (Aeneid VI.28-29), but I think this is actually sedenim, like etenim.

To be honest, even if there are examples of them preceded by several words, it wouldn't prove they aren't enclitics, since

"that this kind of poetic postponing also occurs with -que and -ve, i.e. the word to which -que or -ve is suffixed can be preceded by one or more words belonging to the -que or -ve clause"

but well, maybe you're just thinking along the lines of tendencies.
Yeah, that's also right, it wouldn't prove anything. The tendency would be interesting to note if true though.
 
Last edited:

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
Pacifica dixit:
Something that gets attached to the end of a word.
Don't we call Greek particles like τε and τινες clitics even though they aren't graphically attached to the words they follow?

Somehow et is 'insubstantial' enough (by which I guess I mean it has a short vowel & an open onset, much like -que) that I'd be willing to admit it enclitic status, particularly in light of graphical examples like etenim, whereas I wouldn't do so for vel or aut. I don't really know.

What I do know is how easy it is to draw false conclusions when all of this IE crap runs together.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Somehow et is 'insubstantial' enough (by which I guess I mean it has a short vowel & an open onset, much like -que) that I'd be willing to admit it enclitic status, particularly in light of graphical examples like etenim, whereas I wouldn't do so for vel or aut. I don't really know.
I would find it less improbable that it was a proclitic than that it was an enclitic. I'm not saying it was the former, but it just seems less unlikely.
 

Hemo Rusticus

Lounge Lizard
etenim as an example of two particles being lumped together just because they don't have enough 'substance' to necessarily be written separately, like puerum uideo. (granted, you have things like animaduerto, but that's another matter).
 
Top