It's a different logic from English. If you fear that something will happen, you want it not to happen, hence ne and μη. We have a literally somewhat closer equivalent in the nowadays not so frequently used "I fear lest this or that should happen".
Fearing Clauses with Ut
- Thread starter Pacifica
- Start date
I normally don't have much to add to discussions involving the "heavyweights" of the site, but because of my recent survey of Latin interjections, I might have something of value here, particularly as applies to Notascooby's instant comments.When I I was referring to Greeks use of μη I meant to point out that this is the opposite of what one would think. μη is normally negative but introduces what seems to be a positive statement 'that' as opposed to 'that not'. Latina Ut in a fearing clause is also the opposite of what one would expect 'that not' instead of 'that'...This is all above my pay grade though.
Both the negating adverb and the conjunction ne ("no"/"not" and "so as not"/"in order not", respectively) derive from the old IE *ne ("not"). The interjection ne ("indeed!"), however, is believed to derive from an entirely different IE root: *henos ("that one"). I think it is the interjection that Notascooby is thinking of, as it is that which is cognate to Greek ne and nai (sorry, no Greek keyboard at present...on my phone). I remember thinking that ne as an interjection certainly seems like an odd duck, from the semantic perspective, an oddity apparently arising from an unfortunate interpretation of the IE root.
Last edited:
Based in part on basic intuition and in part on reading Woodcock '59 three years ago or whatever, I think almost all of Latin subordination is quite transparently derivable from parataxis. So if one takes the lexical meaning of ut(i) "like, how" and especially if they add some crosslinguistic insight, the development starts to become rather transparent.
For example, Russian has this ehem, particle? ка́бы "I wish" that's synchronically derivable from как бы "how + particle forming the irrealis mood" and is a folksier alternative to the usual чтоб "that + same" (both are especially characteristic of curses). Further, it's obvious to the natives that this "how" is the same "how" as used in those wondering questions: как бы не упа́сть! "I/we/etc should be careful not to fall!" in the sense "I fear we could fall and I wonder how this can be avoided" - with the implied answer "by being careful". That phrase corresponds word-by-word to Latin ut nē cadāmus! You can also add vidē/смотри́ in both languages to almost the exact same effect. All you have to do now is add an explicit timeō and then complete the grammaticalisation of nē as a negative subordinator (originally a simple negator) by removing the ut.
Now the use of ut is even more straightforward, being basically the same type of parataxis (if there are types) in both dēmīror! ut fūgerit? "quō pactō fugere potuerit?" and timeō! ut fugiat? "quō pactō fugere possit?", that is "I'm worried! How can he escape? > I'm worried if he can escape".
It seems to me Michael Zwingli might have mixed up the Greek letters μ and ν: μη "mē" is not strictly connected with either of the Latin etymons.
For example, Russian has this ehem, particle? ка́бы "I wish" that's synchronically derivable from как бы "how + particle forming the irrealis mood" and is a folksier alternative to the usual чтоб "that + same" (both are especially characteristic of curses). Further, it's obvious to the natives that this "how" is the same "how" as used in those wondering questions: как бы не упа́сть! "I/we/etc should be careful not to fall!" in the sense "I fear we could fall and I wonder how this can be avoided" - with the implied answer "by being careful". That phrase corresponds word-by-word to Latin ut nē cadāmus! You can also add vidē/смотри́ in both languages to almost the exact same effect. All you have to do now is add an explicit timeō and then complete the grammaticalisation of nē as a negative subordinator (originally a simple negator) by removing the ut.
Now the use of ut is even more straightforward, being basically the same type of parataxis (if there are types) in both dēmīror! ut fūgerit? "quō pactō fugere potuerit?" and timeō! ut fugiat? "quō pactō fugere possit?", that is "I'm worried! How can he escape? > I'm worried if he can escape".
It seems to me Michael Zwingli might have mixed up the Greek letters μ and ν: μη "mē" is not strictly connected with either of the Latin etymons.
Last edited:
that is ne non though rather than ut.
It must've dawned on me at some point...
However thanks for noticing.
This is exactly the explanation my old Harkness gives. Apparently, it also has something to do with the Latin subjunctive forms (and many uses) being derived from an earlier optative, when the two moods were different. Clauses of fearing apparently used the optative?
Actually, even in informal French, the ne is sometimes there, although it's optional. In my speech, at least, that is so.
My copy of Grevisse dedicates five full pages to this topic.
To ne in general or only in fearing clauses? The former wouldn't surprise me, given its plethora of uses.
Not just clauses of fearing, but all subordinate clauses where ne appears alone, and without a full negative meaning.
Ah. Not surprising, then. I'm sometimes unsure whether ne should be used.
E
Etaoin Shrdlu
Guest
?
Yeah, these even remained different in a sense because the original subjunctive became the Latin future. Come to think of it, the moment the original optative was reinterpreted as the subjunctive is precisely the same moment when the original parataxis became reinterpreted as subordination. This would explain the intimate relation between subordination and the subjunctive~optative in Latin.
Any way, re-reading the original post it seems like my answer to it is "it's misleading to try to draw a distinction bewteen an indirect question and a wish", just as with its Russian equivalent: the fact that it's a wish follows directly from it being a question in the optative.
Harkness would have it that, in replacing the old subjunctive, the optative kept its original functions, which he calls the potential and optative subjunctives, and absorbed the function of the old subjunctive, which he calls the volitive subjunctive. It seems the subjunctive became the future, and the optative was then required to take on the volitive function.
I'm no grammar expert, but I've always understood it this way, since that is how Wheelock explains it: "the conjunctions used in these fear clauses are the opposite of what might be expected, because in origin the clauses they introduced were essentially independent jussive clauses." Wheelock's Latin, 7. ed., p. 342.
In fact, I have trouble understanding how the second theory is different from the first. But it's probably not worthwhile trying to explain it to me.
On the other hand, if the book you are writing has an intended audience including illiterates like me, then it might be worthwhile to try to explain it to me.