Critique of Some Recent Subjunctive Theories

Critique of Some Recent Subjunctive Theories

BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER
CHARLES EDWIN BENNETT
GEORGE PRENTICE BRISTOL
Volume: 9
Copyright Date: 1898
Published by: Cornell University Press
Pages: 76
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.cttq45b7
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Critique of Some Recent Subjunctive Theories
    Book Description:

    Charles Edward Bennet critiques theories of the subjunctive in Latin proposed by Elmer and Morris.

    eISBN: 978-0-8014-6651-9
    Subjects: Language & Literature

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-v)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vi-vi)
  3. CHAPTER I. ELMER’S THEORY OF A ‘SUBJUNCTIVE OF OBLIGATION OR PROPRIETY.’
    (pp. 1-30)

    In Vol. XV of the American Journal of Philology, Elmer advanced the view that certain subjunctives hitherto regarded as prohibitive in character and referred for their origin to the Indo-European subjunctive in its ‘ will ’ phase, were improperly so explained and ought rather to be referred to the Indo-European optative in its ‘ Contingent-future ’ (‘ should ’, ‘ would ’) phase. To the same category were assigned, also, many expressions previously regarded as deliberatives, (both affirmative and negative), and also some ordinarily taken as hortatory. In a later work (Studies in Latin Moods and Tenses, Cornell Studies, Vol....

  4. CHAPTER II. ARE WE TO RECOGNIZE A ‘ MAY ’ POTENTIAL IN LATIN ?
    (pp. 31-40)

    In his Studies in Latin Moods and Tenses (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, vi), pp. 176-197, Elmer discusses the question which stands at the head of this chapter. His examination of the question, however, is incomplete. Subjunctives hitherto regarded as ‘ may ’ potentials have been fuat in the phrases fors fuat an, fors fuat ut, ‘ it may be a chance whether ’ , ‘ there may be a chance that ’ ; sit in forsitan, ‘ perhaps ’ (originally fors sit an, ‘ it may be a chance whether ’) ; expressions like Plautus, Asin. 465, sit, non...

  5. CHAPTER III. SHOULD WE RECOGNIZE A ‘ CAN ’-‘ COULD ’ POTENTIAL ?
    (pp. 41-47)

    In his Studies in Latin Moods and Tenses (Cornell Studies in Classical, Philology, vi.), pp. 198 ff., 2O7 ff., 209 ff., Elmer has protested against the indiscriminate rendering of the Latin subjunctive by the modal auxiliaries ‘ can ’, ‘ could ’, ‘ might ’ (in the sense of ‘ could ’). In the main I am confident that all scholars will view his attitude with approval ; but with regard to one category of uses, I am equally confident that we should recognize the existence in Latin of the ‘ can ’ and ·‘ could ’ potential. I refer...

  6. CHAPTER IV. ON THE FORCE OF TENSES IN THE PROHIBITIVE
    (pp. 48-65)

    In the American Journal of Philology, Vol. xv, No. 2, Elmer has discussed the force of tenses in the prohibitive. His conclusions were that the perfect subjunctive occurs in this idiom wherever special energy or emotion on the speaker’s part is present, the present subjunctive in other cases. These conclusions seemed to me so plausible that I accepted them and incorporated them in my Latin Grammar (§ 276) ; cf. Appendix, § 358, 1, d. Three subsequent readings of Plautus, however, tended to shake my confidence in the validity of the theory, and prompted me to institute a fresh examination...

  7. CHAPTER V. MORRIS’S TREATMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT SUBJUNCTIVES IN PLAUTUS
    (pp. 66-76)

    In the American Journal of Philology, vol. xviii. (1897), Nos. 71, 72, 73, Morris subjects to careful scrutiny all the independent subjunctives occurring in Plautus, classifying them by tenses, person, and number. One or two features in his treatment seem to me quite unsound. I refer first to those subjunctives which he classifies as paratactic. The material included under this head is extensive. Nearly every person and number of every tense furnishes instances of the alleged use, —often numerous instances. In my judgment a considerable number of the subjunctives regarded by Morris as paratactic cannot be so taken, and to...

  8. Back Matter
    (pp. 77-78)