This study deals with a number of aspects of the words which are usually called adverbs in Latin. It contains on the one hand a critical discussion of their treatment in Latin grammatical studies - the characteristics attributed to them, their relationship to other words - and on the other hand a discussion of the conditions that have to be met in order to achieve a better (sub)classification - general problems of classification as well as criteria for effecting such classification - and a better description of the functions of adverbs in larger constructions. The study contains, therefore, both language-specific...

In this chapter I will discuss a number of problems that are inherent in the study of a dead language. Next, I will expound what consequences these general problems have for the choice of the material. Finally, I will justify the use of linguistic universals in studying Latin adverbs after a brief exposition of the nature of this concept.

Some of the most important problems one has to face when undertaking a syntactic study of some aspect of the Latin language result from the fact that Latin is a dead language. The lack of native speakers as well as the...

In this chapter I will discuss some general problems of classification, viz. the purposes 'of classification, the types of criteria on which a classification can be based, the relation between these types and, finally, the relative importance of the criteria and the number of criteria required.

Linguistic items can be grouped into classes on account of certain characteristics they have in common. Word classification, such as the classification of adverbs, is a specific instance of this general problem. The purposes of such a classification are to obtain a higher degree of generalization in the description of the specific language the...

This chapter will be devoted to what Roman grammarians have said about the adverb. It is not my intention to present an exhaustive discussion of the different opinions held by each grammarian, of their sources or mutual relations. Those who are interested may consult Jeep (1893: 268-82). I will give only what seems to be relevant to the modern view on adverbs and confine myself almost entirely to Priscian'sInstitutiones grammaticaeand to Charisius'Ars grammatical..

The definition of the adverb given in most modem handbooks is based to a large extent on what Priscian, Charisius and others have said...

If one comRares the definition of the adverb given by Priscian and other Roman grammarians (viz.: the adverb is an invariable word, the meaning of which is added to that of the verb just as the meaning of the adjective is added to that of the noun) with the usual definition in modern Latin grammars - as well as with grammars of modern languages - the main difference turns out to be that nowadays adverbs are said to modify adjectives and other adverbs as well¹·

Most words which are now called adverbs were considered adverbs by Roman grammarians. The overall...

In this chapter I will discuss the question of how we can best account for the fact that the majority of adverbs are related formally and semantically to words belonging to the classes of adjectives, nouns, pronouns and verbs. In principle two solutions are possible:

(1) adverbs are 'forms of adjectives, nouns, etc. The implication of this solution is that adverbs do not constitute a word-class of their own (are a pseudo-category, as Bergsland (1940: 53) puts it). On 'form or see 2.2.2.

(2) adverbs are related to adjectives, nouns, etc., but cannot be regarded as forms of them.

In...

In this chapter I will deal with the closeness of relationship ('affinity') between constituents. One aspect of this concept is the optionality of some constituents with respect to others. Optionality vs. obligatoriness of constituents bears on the concept of modification. Since the definition of adverbs is formulated in terms of modification, clarification of this notion is required. It will appear that 'modification' is not clearly defined. In this chapter I will suggest that adverbs occur with at least three different degrees of affinity towards the verb, in other words that adverbs occur at three different levels in the structure of...

In the preceding chapter I endeavoured to show that generally speaking the relationship of adverbs towards other constituents (both in the phrase and, also, .particularly, in the clause or sentence) is much more complicated than the notion 'modify' in the traditional definition would suggest. In this chapter I will discuss three criteria by which adverbs can be classified in a dead language even in. those cases where there are no differences with respect to the constituents the adverbs are combined with. For example, in 4.2. a semantic distinction was observed between e.g.vehementer dicere('to speak impetuously') andvehementer displicere...

Morphologically, adverbs resemble words that are usually assigned to other categories such as interjections, prepositions,subordinating and coordinating conjunctions. Their common characteristic is that they are all indeclinable, invariable, or whatever one wants to call it, that is, they do not belong to the inflectional nominal and verbal categories¹. A common denominator for words belonging to the classes mentioned, that is often found, is' 'particle'. In fact, 'particle' is as good as any other term as long as it is used consistently in a morphological sense, as it is by Matthews (1965; cf. 2.2.2.). Since in Latin linguistics (but also elsewhere;...

This chapter will mainly deal with diachronic observations, since the relationship between adverbs and prepositions is seen in most grammars in a historical perspective. Since, however, conclusions are often drawn from this as to their synchronic relationship a discussion seems in place here. First, however, I will make a few remarks about the synchronic relationship itself in so-called classical Latin.

Synchronically the main difference between prepositions and adverbs is that the former do not occur independently without case forms (Kurytowicz 1949: 131; Q'Brien 1965: 101). We could leave the topic with this observation, if no intermediate type of words existed...

This chapter will deal with the relationship between certain adverbs and a subclass of so-called coor(Unating conjunctions, which I call connectors!. These connectors are different from both coordinators (ch. 7) and subordinators, which will be dealt with in the next chapter.

Traditionally the category of conjunctions is divided into 'coordinating' and 'subordinating' conjunctions. German terminology as it appears in Kiihner-Stegmann and Szantyr is rather confusing. The following scheme will perhaps help.

The category of coordinating conjunctions is usually subdivided in Latin grammars into four or five subcategories. They are

(i) copulative, e.g.et('and'),etiam('also'),adhuc('yet')2;

(ii) adversative,...

This chapter has to be viewed on the one hand as a supplement to what has been said about connectors (ch. 10), intended to bring this class of words out in full relief. On the other hand, I will contend at the end of this chapter that at least some so-called subordinating conjunctions resemble adverbs, and could be described as relative adverbs, having a function within the clause that is comparable with the function of other adverbs elsewhere. I will use the term 'subordinator' instead of 'subordinating conjunction' throughout.

As far as connectors are concerned, I have tried to show...