Re: 'and' clitic in Latin (-que) and Kalaallisut (-lu)

Henrik:
> I recently found it very interesting how Kalaallisut added clitics to
> phrases: the clitic '-lu' expressing 'and' is suffixed to the first
> word, however long that is (and it can be very long in Kalaallisut),
> of the next, connected phrase.
>
> Without knowing this, I intuitively added the corresponding suffix in
> S7 to the end of the *head* of the next phrase, because I thought it
> was most natural to
>
>    a) prefix the clitic to the first word of the next phrase
>
>       [A1 A_HEAD A2] [and-B1 B_HEAD B2]
>
>    b) suffix the clitic to the last word of the preceding phrase
>
>       [A1 A_HEAD A2-and] [B1 B_HEAD B2]
>
>    c) suffix it to the head of one of the two phrases
>
>       [A1 A_HEAD A2] [B1 B_HEAD-and B2]
>
> I found it very unusual to
>    d) suffix it to the first word of the next phrase
>
>       [A1 A_HEAD A2] [B1-and B_HEAD B2]
(c) does not look like normal clitic behaviour, while (d) does not
seem particularly odd. This is because the natural syntactic
position of "and" would be between the two phrases, which means
that, if it is a clitic, it should surface phonologically in the
same phonological word that expresses the preceding or following
syntactic word.

> I did not want to have prefixes, so b), c) and d) were possible.  I
> did not want it in the previous sentence, so c) and d) were possible.
> I judged d) to be very, very constructed and unnatural, so I did c).
As I say, (d) looks natural to me, and (c) looks unusual in that
the property of being a noninitial conjunct is expressed
inflectionally.

> So I found the Kalaallisut way very, very constructed.  I wasn't sure
> about Latin, however, but suspected it attaches the word to the head.
> It is not easy to judge for me,  since I think
> noun + adjective/genitive/participle is always head-first, so it
> meets c) and d) at the same time.  What about clauses?  Can they be
> combined with -que?  Or only 'et'.  Which of the following sentences
> are correct in Latin:
>
>   Brutus venit Caesarque vincit.
>   Brutus venit Caesar vincitque.
>
> Or is it only possibly if the head is first:
>   Brutus venit vincitque Caesar.
>
> Or maybe only:
>   Brutus venit et Caesar vincit.
I don't know the particular answers here, but long ago I researched
the question (merely by means of asking people who knew more about
Latin) & concluded that Latin follows pattern (d), as I would have
predicted.

--And.