Re: Conjunctives, etc...

<Blink>

You just condescendingly dismised a helpful post from Ray Brown, while
attempting to correct his Latin.  I hope you're young, 'cause there
could be no other justifiable excuse for the arrogance.

Methinks, once I get my jaw back off the floor, I have a new entry for
the killfile.

On 5/13/07, Chris Weimer <christopher.m.weimer@...> wrote:
> Thanks Mr. Brown for the Latin, but they're not quite right. For example,
> you've left off one use of -que where it can join two clauses together. What
> you've written is certainly fairly normal usage, but not quite what I was
> looking for. Sorry.
>
> Chris Weimer
>
> R A Brown scripsit:
>
> Ok - I can do the latter. Firstly, _ac_ is a shortened form of _atque_
> (i.e. at + -que), so:
>
> -QVE
> (inherited from PIE; there are related words in ancient Greek & Sanskrit)
> i. It coordinates two words of similar meaning, e.g. fames sitisque -
> hunger & famine.
> ii. It coordinates two words of contrasting meaning, e.g. ius nefasque -
> law & wickedness
> iii. It may add a detail or explanation (this use is not found in
> Cicero), e.g. largitiones temeritatisque inuitamenta - bribes and
> inducements to rashness (Livy)
>
> -que ....... -que could be repeated to mean "both ...... and ..." but
> this is rare & not found in the best Classical authors. If -que is
> joining phrases rather than single words, then it is attached to the
> first word of the phrase, unless that word is a monosyllabic
> preposition, when -que must be added to the second word.
>
> ATQVE, AC
> This is derived from AT = "but yet", i.e. _at_ shows a qualified
> restriction - "It's Ok but ...."
> So ATQVE/ AC "and but yet......" , i.e. it connects with emphasis "and
> also ...", "and, I may add, ....."
> The form AC is used only before consonants (except _h_), whereas ATQVE
> is found before both consonants and vowels. The _t_ was almost certainly
> assimilated in pronunciation, thus /ak_wk_wE/ (i.e. a geminated
> labio-velar), and AC was probably /ak_w/.
>
> ET
> Is the a general word (and, therefore, the most commonly used word) for
> "and" in all contexts. It was often repeated to mean "both...and.." With
> lists of words where we put commas between each except the last two
> items, which we join with 'and', the Latin practice was to have either
> (a) the list _without_ any conjunction, or (b) to put 'et' before each
> item, _including the first_.
>
> So basically, ET was always possible, whereas -QVE was much more
> restrictive in its use, and ATQVE/ AC threw emphasis upon the extra
> information you were giving.
>
> One problem, however, is that medieval copyists tended to make a
> hopeless mess by confusing AC, AT and ET   :)
>
> As for "Johnson and Johnson" - -QVE is the most likely, but ET could be
> used. However AC is not appropriate.
>
> "Jack and Jill are two cool people."
> Obviously ET is possible, as it can always be used, and would be used if
> they were two people with otherwise no obvious connexion to one another.
> If, however, Jack & Jill were, as they say, an 'item', or were brother &
> sister, the -QVE would be more appropriate.
> If AC were used it would imply that both speaker and hearer were agreed
> that Jack was a cool person, but the speaker wants to make the point
> that in his opinion Jill is also cool, i.e. "Jack is cool and, what's
> more, Jill is cool too."
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> --
> Ray
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Replies