Prohibitions

I have been reading through some older threads, such as this one, where the correct form of a prohibition is discussed.

Woodcock in "A New Latin Syntax" states that 2nd person prohibitions are regularly expressed with ne + perfect subjunctive, or noli/nolite with the infinitive - so far so good.

He goes on, however to qualify this by saying that with the ne must be included negative words which are compounded with ne, eg nihil, nemo, nullus, nunquam, nusquam, nec. He goes on to give examples of each. There no example given for numquam, although the OLD states that numquam is ne umquam.

So why are there two apparently contradictory points of view?

I'm not seeing the contradiction.

(nunquam and numquam are the same word)

Specifically, I have read several posts on the forum stating that it is incorrect to use numquam with the subjunctive to express prohibition, which seems opposed to Woodcock's statement. I am sure that they must have some reason for saying this, which left me wondering why...

Ah, OK. I misread you.

I've just looked it up, and Woodcock seems to state that both were used (e.g. nihil feceris & ne quid feceris), and about equally. But this is said only in reference to the perfect subjunctive prohibitive, so I don't think it applies to the imperative mood itself. Case in point: the only examples he gives are perfect subjunctive. I would be interested if you could find any of these negative compound words used with the plain imperative, though.

Spanish does this with a present subjunctive negative imperative: "No lo hagas" and "No lo hagáis." I think Italian uses the infinitive "Non fare questo."

Imber Ranae dixit:

But this is said only in reference to the perfect subjunctive prohibitive, so I don't think it applies to the imperative mood itself

Click to expand...

All becomes clear. I assumed that the threads were stating that these compounds were not used at all in prohibitions, whereas they were probably just noting that they were not used with the imperative.

Thanks!