Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:42:10.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Num in Direct Questions: A Rule Restated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. R. Shackleton Bailey
D. R. Shackleton Bailey
Affiliation:
Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What seems to be the prevailing doctrine of the particle num is thus set forth in the most recent of major Latin grammars:

‘num ist wahrscheinlich die unerweiterte Form von nunc … num diente also zunächst dazu, dieFragein der lebendigen Rede lebhaft an die Situation anzuknüpfen; es steht oft in erregten Erkundigungsfragen mit unentschiedener Erwartung (z. B. Pit. Merc. 173 obsecro, num nauis periit ?:: saluast nauis); auch bejahende Antwort wird vielfach erwartet … Der in der klassischen Sprache alleinherrschende Gebrauch in Fragen mit erwarteter Antwort ‘nein’ setzte sich zunächst in lebhaften Fragen der Entrüstung oder des Erstaunens fest wie Pit. Asin. 619 sed num fumus est haec mulier quam amplexare?’

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 3 , Issue 3-4 , December 1953 , pp. 120 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 120 note 1 Leumann-Hofmann, p. 649.

page 120 note 2 s.v. num.

page 120 note 3 Glöckner, F., Archiv. f. Lot. Lex., 1899, p. 495.Google Scholar

page 120 note 4 Lindsay, , Lat. Language, p. 605.Google Scholar

page 120 note 5 Delbrück, , Vergl. Synt., p. 264.Google Scholar

page 120 note 6 Kuhner-Stegmann, , 11. ii, p. 512.Google Scholar

page 120 note 7 Dict, , étymologique de la langue latine (1939).Google Scholar

page 120 note 8 See Ribbeck, , Lat. Partik., p. 12;Google ScholarPersson, Per, Indo-Germ. Forsch., 1893, pp. 206 and 250;Google ScholarPrellwitz, W., Glotta, 1931, p. 114.Google Scholar

page 120 note 9 Cf. Liddell-Scott, 8th ed., ‘ is the Latin num.’. The remark is absent from the ninth edition.

page 121 note 1 Amer. Journ. Phil., xi, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar See also Bennett, , Synt. of Early Lat. 1, p. 473.Google Scholar

page 121 note 2 Included by Morris among questions ‘clearly asked for information’!

page 121 note 3 The speaker's son is at sea.

page 122 note 1 Overlooked by Morris.

page 123 note 1 For further instances see Morris, , op. cit., pp. 23–25. His comment ‘it is hardly possible that num has here’ (i.e. in this challenging use) ‘any original negative effect, since a negative force would require an affirmative answer’ might as well or as ill be made of the num of ordinary usage or of .Google Scholar

page 123 note 2 In common with Morris (p. 27) I pass over a few passages as doubtful or conjectural. The negative sense can be understood without difficulty in all of those where he thinks it allowable but not necessary (p. 23) or where he hesitates (p. 25).

page 123 note 3 Grundr. Vergl. Gram. 11. iii 2, p. 994.Google Scholar

page 123 note 4 See above, p. 120.

page 123 note 5 See above.

page 124 note 1 Gnomon, 1926, p. 254.Google Scholar

page 124 note 2 So, rightly, most editions. The MSS. preponderate for nunc and Ellis follows them.