Re: THEORY: Conjunctio verborum clausarumque

Dirk:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, BP Jonsson wrote:
>
> > At 19:00 19.3.2000 -0800, DOUGLAS KOLLER wrote:
> >
> > > > For whoever knows: what did Latin do with _et_ and <-que>?
> > > > Could you use <-que> with whole clauses?
> > >
> > >Yep, you could.
> > >
> > >Dominus ex equo descendit, villamque intravit.
> > >The master got off his horse and went into the house.
> >
> > I never thought of this before, but it is interesting that the -que comes
> > after the first word of the second clause, not after the whole
> second clause!
>
> Wackernagel strikes again. Shemspreg (my PIE conlang) does this
> as well.
Is Wackernagel necessarily after the first *word* rather than the first
constituent? I had thought the latter. Somewhere in my PhD I analyse
_villamque_ as lexicosyntactically "ET VILLA", but the analysis only works
when the clitic attaches to the first phonological word, so it won't work
for things like _however_-placement in English.

--And.