imperative and jussive subjunctive in umbrian

8/13/2019 Imperative and Jussive Subjunctive in Umbrian

1/11

Imperative and jussive subjunctive in UmbrianAuthor(s): D. M. JonesSource: Glotta, 40. Bd., 3./4. H. (1962), pp. 210-219Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40265895.

Accessed: 11/04/2011 15:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vandrupr..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Glotta.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vandruprhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40265895?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vandruprhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vandruprhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40265895?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vandrupr


2/11

210 D.M.JonesLe vicende di griko mi hanno dunque spinto ben lontano dallaGrichfasalentina, ma la mia conclusione,lasciando da parte Latinie Dori, Messapi e Bizantini, mi ha condotto nel vivo della storiadella Terra d'Otranto in cui vivono fraternamente, da secoli, le

genti salentine di lingua romanza e di lingua romaica1).

che le precede (cio nd resta nd), ma le occlusive sorde si sonorizzanosepreceduteda nasale (ntdiventa nd): percikuandupuo esseresia da quantoche da quando.Per me si tratta dell'incontro ra una tendenza,napoletana'(nt > nd) con un fatto indigeno(ndconservatoo, se si preferisce, estituito)ma non dubito che anche in questocaso qualche linguista,armatodi buonavolont,potrscovareuna,leggina* d hoco unasapientereazione trutturale.

Imperativeand jussive subjunctive n UmbrianBy D. M. Jones, London

This discussion may take as its starting-point a passage2)of theIguvine Tables, III, 4-10:inuk uhturu urtes puntis \ frater ustentuta pure \ fratru mersusfust I humnakle iinuk uktur vapefe / kumnaklesistu sakre uvem

x) Una preziosissima nformazionesu come nel X sec. si dicesse ,greconel Salento ci forseofferta da ShabbethaiDonnolo (vedi M.Trves,I ter-mini italiani di Donnolo e di Asaf (sec. X), ,,Linguanostra 22, 1961, pp.64ss.). Donnolo, nato a Oria (Brindisi),,verso il 913 e morto dopo il 982[. . .], scrisse in ebraicoun trattato di farmacologia Trves,art. cit., pp.64s.), nel quale inserlanche alcuni termini che il Trves dice ,,in italiano :si tratta invece, secondo me, della piu antica testimonianza del dialettoromanzo salentino. Tra le altre forme, Donnolo ci conserva anche (e quiseguo la trascrizionedel Trves)un PYNW GRYQW,fieno greco* o ,trifo-glio', cfr. Rohlfs, Voc. gi cit., p. 232): purtropponon possiamoproporreuna prcisae sicura trascrizione onetica (comeawerte il Trves,p. 65 n. 2,,,Yodvale e ed i , ma talvolta a ed e sono omessinella scrittura)e pertantonon possiamodire se si debbaleggerefinu (o fenu) griku(o greku).Ma sullatestimonianza di Donnolo spero di ritornare n un'altra occasione: qui milimito a sottolineare il fatto che al tempo del medico ebreo salentino inTerra d'Otranto il nesso -kl- non si era ancora mutato in -kki-; cosf, adesempio, RDYQLA sar da leggererfajdikla o r(e)dikla: il Trves vi vede,,forseTelleboro,ancoroggi detto radicchia n Calabria cfr.RohlfsDiz. dial,delle tre Calabrie,Halle-Milano1936,vol. II, p. 182] ,ma potrebbetrattarsianche dell\ortica' che nel Salento chiamataardikvUa,-, (v)irdikula9v)u-.2) In quotations from the Iguvine Tables the Umbrianalphabet is hererepresented, contrary to the usual practice, by italics, the Latin alphabetby spacedromantype.


3/11

Imperative and jussive subjunctivein Umbrian 211uhtur I teitu puntes terkantur inumek sakre \ uvem urtas puntesfratrumupetutawhich Poultney1) translates as follows:

Then the Brothers,rising in groups of five, shall elect an auctorwho shall be in accordwith the customsof the Brothersin assembly.Then the auctor shall sit on the stone seat in the meeting-place.The auctor shall designate a young pig and a sheep, the groupsof five shall inspect them, then the groupsof five rising shall acceptthe young pig and the sheep.Attention is at once drawn to the subjunctive terkanturn line 9,which, standing between teituand upetuta,conspicuouslyinterruptsthe sequenceof imperativesand has been almost universallyacceptedas a jussive subjunctive. The customary Latin translations of theIguvine Tables often present the corresponding Latin formswithout revealing the opinion of their authors about the syntax;thus, for example, F. Buecheler2) . . . dicito . . . suffragentur . . .optanto , C. D. Buck3) . . . dicito . . . suffragentur . . deligunto ,G. Bottiglioni4) . . . dicito . . . videant . . . deligunto , G. Devoto6). . . dicito . . . videant . . . capiunto . Translations into modernlanguages, on the other hand, suggest that their authors regardthe differenceof mood as of no consequence for the meaning; soDevoto6) . . . dichiari . . . constatino . . . prendano and Poultney,quoted above7). The passage has none the less interested commen-tators not only for its meaning8) but also for its syntax. P. G.Scardigli9)is concernedwith the anomaly of the subjunctive. He

x) The translations of passages cited are given from J. W. Poultney,The Bronze Tables of Iguvium (1959), with no implication that they areacceptedin every detail. In citingUmbriantexts word-dividersare omitted.2) Umbrica(1883),p. 153.3) A Grammarof Oscanand Umbrian (1928), p. 297.4) Manuale dei dialetti italici (1954), p. 282.5) TabulaeIguvinae2 (1940), p. 110.6) Le Tavole di Gubbio (1948), p. 65.7) O. Szemernyi,who quotes this passage in his Studies in the Indo-European System of Numerals (I960), p. 106, and A. Ernout, Le dialecteombrien (1961), p. 25, are similarly indifferent to the mood, and followV. Pisani, Manualestorico della lingua latina IV: le lingue dell'Italia anticaoltre il latino (1953), p. 201, in translating terkanturby inspiciunto .8) The questionof the meaningof the terms used calls for no more thanpassing comment in this discussion.9) In Studi Etruschi XXV (Srie II), 1957, p. 294sq.U*


4/11

212 33.M.Jonescompares I b 35 and IV 33 (see below) and seems to find in thesubjunctive a form appropriate to the compliance of the punteswith the order given by the uhtur1): sembradare una sfumaturadi volontarismo a questo ubbidire, sentito soggettivamente, comeimpulso interno . Poultney2) notes the exceptional syntax of teitu:normally deitu teitu is either used with oratio recta or else itsobject is accompanied by a predication 3).There is nothing in Scardigli or Poultney to suggest that thesyntactical problems of this passage had been solved before eitherof them wrote; solved, moreover, in a work to which both referrepeatedly. E. Vetter had already written in his commentary onthis passage4) terkantur von teitu abhngiger Konjunktiv imGegensatzzu teitu und upetutawie I b 35 Jcupifiatu . . tefa . Thatthis convincing explanation has been overlookedis perhapsunder-standable, since it is a small item in a richly detailed commentary,offered without argument and supported by only one parallel, andthat not the most apt. Forthese reasons,and becausethe eliminationof the independentsubjunctive in this passage clarifiesthe usage ofjussive constructions in Umbrian, it is not otiose to look in a littledetail at Vetter's solution. For the use of deitu teitu with de-pendent subjunctive there may be cited more apposite parallelsthan that given by Vetter: VI b 63 {54ape termnome / couor-tuso sururont pesnimumo sururont deitu etaians deitu5)When the boundary has been reached again, they shall pray inthe same manner. He shall speak in the same manner; he shalldirect them to go ; ibid. 64 65 ape termnome benuso /sururont pesnimumo sururont deitu etaias6) When theboundary has been reached, in the same manner they shall pray,in the same manner he shall direct them to go . These passagesrepeat in oratio obliqua the command given first in recta:VI b 62 3 ape este dersicurent eno / deitu etato iiouinurporse perca arsmatia habiest When they have said this,

1) Yet he ignores this subtlety in his translation: ... dica . . . eseguano. . . vadano a prendere .2) o.c, p. 203.3) It also takes as object the neuter pronoun este referring to a precedingprayer (VI b 62, VII a 51) or command (VI b 63).4) Handbuch der italischen Dialekte I (1953), p. 212.5) In view of the wording in 62 63 and 64 65, the repetition of deituhere is redundant (though disguised in Poultney 's translation ... speak. . . direct ) and perhaps an error.6) The last five words are repeated in Vila 1.


5/11

Imperativeand jussive subjunctive in Umbrian 213then he that holdsthe ritualwand shallsay 'Go,men of Iguvium' *).The main argument in favour of Vetter's explanation is, of course,as alreadyindicated, that it removesthe two syntactical abnormali-ties of the passage. Further, it offers the prospect of a simplerinterpretation. Those who take terkanturas coordinate with teituand upetutahave to account for three successive and presumablydifferent actions, denoted by three terms the meanings of whichhave been the object of much doubt and divergenceof opinion. OnVetter's explanation we have simply an order and its execution;the two terms terkantur nd upetuta,whatever the semantic relationbetween them, must refer to the same action2).It may possibly be objected that Vetter's explanation requiresa word-ordermore involved than is usual in the Iguvine Tables.There are, however, a few examples of word-orderwhich approachit in this respect. The apparent hyperbaton in IV 22 arlatafvasusufestnesevalcnefpurtuvitu Then offerceremonialcirclet-cakesfromsealed vessels is hardly less remarkable. More relevant is thefollowing: V b 3 7 panta muta fratru / atiiefiu mestru karu pureulu I benurent ffertureerupepurkurent erifi etantumutuafferturesi Whateverine a majorityof the AtiedianBrotherswho havecome theredemandshallbe (imposed) n the ad ertor, o greatafine shallbe (imposed) n the ad ertor .Theflexibilityof Umbrianword-order aybefurtherllustratedromV b, e. g. 8ff.clauerniurdirsas herti fratrus atiersir posti acnu / farer opeterp IIII . . . clauerni/dirsanshertifrateratiersiur sehmenierdequrier / pelmner sorser posti acnu uef X . . . The(decuviaof the) Claverniiare required o give to the AtiedianBrotherseach year fourpoundsof choicespelt . . . The AtiedianBrothersare required o give to the Claverniiat the decurial estival ofSemoeachyearten portionsof pork ...The demonstrationhat terkanturs not an independentbut adependent ubjunctive lears he wayforan approacho the wholequestion of the jussive subjunctivein Umbrian. Buck statescorrectly3) hat the imperative s used almostexclusively toexpresscommands, xceptin V a 1 V b 7, in whichsubjunctivesare frequent;he gives as furtherexamplesIb35 kupifiaiaand

1) For dependent subjunctivewith other verbs of saying (stiplo, com-bifiatu kupifiatu)see Poultney, o.c. p. 152.2) This seems implicit in Vetter's translation of the two words as res-pectively provideant , procuranto cf. his note on the passage,o.c. p.212.3) o.c. p. 214.


6/11

214 D.M.Jonesthe now discreditedIII 9 terkantur.Potdtney lists in more detail1)the passages in which subjunctives are used with a value scarcelydifferent from that of the imperative . The Umbrian usage iscompared by Buck2) to that of some Latin inscriptions, such asthe Sententia Minuciorum, n which, while the imperativeis regular,a Subjunctive of Commandmay now and then appear .Buck3)distinguishesfrom the jussive subjunctivethe subjunctiveof wish, adding that it is not always easy to distinguish betweenthem. He quotes as examples the prayerformulae VI a 23 et al. fossei pacer sei be thou favourable, be thou propitious , ib. 29et al. pihafei may purification be made . As subjunctives ofwish these arerelevant hereonly, or mainly, becauseof the presenceof imperatives in the same prayers, thus VI a 29 et al. pihatupurify , ib. 30 et al. futu fos pacer be favourable and propi-tious ; and because the attempt has been made4) to account forthe variation on syntactical grounds: it is pointed out that thesubjunctives follow the invocatory formula VI a 22 et al. teiosubocau suboco I invoke thee as the one invoked , whereasthe imperatives, it is claimed, occur where subocau is absentfrom the context 6). It may be that the subjunctive of fos seipacer sei can be ascribedto the syntactical influenceof subocauin the preceding line; the same explanation could be maintainedwith greater difficulty for pihafei, which is separated from thenearest precedingsubocau (VI a 24 et al.) by a long and elaboratepassage, and which is followed in the same line by the first impera-tive pihatu, from which only the two wordsdi grabouie separateit. On the other hand, pihafei is clearly the end of a preparatorysection of the prayer, the main purpose of which is immediatelyannounced by di grabouie pihatu Jupiter Graboviuspurify .The abrupt change from subjunctive to imperative may thereforenot so much betray a sudden evanescence of the syntactical in-fluence of subocau (which is in any case reaffirmedin the finalwords of the whole prayer, VI a 34 di grabouie tio subocauJupiter Grabovius,thee I invoke ) as mark a change to a moredirect and insistent mode of prayer. In other words, the choice ofsubjunctive or imperative in this and the similarly constructed

*) o.c. p. 152; what is meant by scarcely here?2) o.c. p. 215.8) o.c. p. 215-216.4) e.g. by Buck I.e.; by Poultney, more positively, p. 152.5) Poultney, I.e.


7/11

Imperativeand jussive subjunctivein Umbrian 215following prayers may be a matter of style rather than - or atleast as much as - of syntax.Somewhat similar is the case of the subjunctives in the twodecrees of the Brethren, V a 1 V b 7, which are commonly ex-plained1)as due to the influenceof eitipes resolved n the preambleof each decree (Va 2, 14). These subjunctives are not held to bedependent on eitipes (any more than those of the prayers are onsubocau); Buck speaks of them as closely attached in feelingto eitipes, Poultney as partly induced by eitipes and quasi-subordinate .With the subjunctives of V a- b Poultney contraststhose of VII b 1 4, which are not preceded by a verb capableof determiningthe choice of subjunctive. More mportant, however,than the presence or absence of a possible governing verb may bethe fact that both VII b and V a- b 7 contain instructions forthe action of an official of the Brotherhood(fratrexs and afferturrespectively). VII b resemblesthe first decreeof V a in its opening:pisi panupei fratrexs fratrus atiersier fust whoever atany time shall be brother-superioramong the Atiedian Brothers(cf. V a 3 4 afferturpisi pumpe/ fust eikvaseseatiiefier Whoevershall be adfertoramong the members of the Atiedian college )it resemblesthe second decreein imposinga fine for failure to carryout the prescribed duties. VII b in fact differs from the decreesof V a- b only in the absence of a preamble it may well be adecree,or an extract froma decree,added on the reverseside of VIIbecause of its relevance to the passage concerningthe chase of theheifers near the end of VII a.The conclusionbegins to emergethat the choice of imperative orjussive subjunctive may depend on the type of document; theformer is usual in ritual instructions, the latter in decrees andsimilar documents prescribing duties and penalties for officials.There remains a number of cases the examination of which mayshow how rigorously this principle of selection is applied in theIguvine Tables.First, a jussive subjunctive is found in I b 34 36 ape erustefustpustru \ kupifiaturupinameerus tefa ene tra sahta kupifiaia /erus tefa when the erus has been distributed, the instruction shallbe passed back to Rubinia to distribute the erus. Then the in-struction shall be passed to Trans Sanctam to distribute the erusHere the subjunctive kupifiaia is surprising n view of the parallelkupifiatu in the preceding clause, and still more because the cor-

x) cf. Buck o.c. p. 214; Poultney o.c. p. 152.


8/11

216 D.M.Jonesrespondingpassage of the second version has the imperative:VII a 43 44 ape erus dirsust postro combifiatu rubinameerus / dersa enem traha sahatam combifiatu erus dersa.It is to be noted that the two clausesare verballyidenticalinthe two versions,apartfromthe variantkupifiaia combifiatu.The possibilitycannotbe excludedthat kupifiaia s an error nsomeway dueto the presence f the subjuncticeefa whichoccursshortlybeforeand after it.If the jussivesubjunctives normal n decreesandsimilardocu-ments, the imperativesoccurring n Va 6 10 are anomalous:sakreu \ perakneu upetu revestupure tefte \ eru emanturherte etpihaklu puneI tribfiufuiest akrutu revestu emantuherte He shallselect the sacred articles and those brought from elsewhere.Whateverare offered,he shall examine whetherany of themshouldbeaccepted,andwhenthereis to be a triadof propitiatoryofferings,he shall make an inspection n the field,whether heyshouldbe accepted .The imperativesupetu,revestubis) contrastwith the subjunctiveshat conveythe otherdutiesof the afferturand other officers: kuraia, prehabia, prehubia, habia (ter), feia(bis), si (bis), revestu ccursonly here,but upetu(2 sg.) is foundat II b 1, upetuta 3pl.) at III 10, in the passagediscussedat theoutset;both passagesappear o referto the openingphaseof therite1). f theverbwas commonnritual nstructions,ndparticularlyif the actionshereenjoinedon the afferturhad a ritualcharacter,the occurrence f the imperativeupetu s understandable,nd thesame explanationcould be tentativelyoffered or the associatedrevestu.A further questionconcernsIV 26 27 inumeksvepis heri /ezariafantentu Thenif anyonewishes,he may place the food-baskets upon (the litter) ; so Poultney, who accepts Vetter'sexplanationof this passage, especially n view of svepis heri,whichshows hattheaction s optional,orat leastthat noobligationrestsuponany particularndividual ndthat thereforet may notbe a partof the ritualat all 2).Nevertheless,he imperative eemsto be in place.First,the action,whatever t is, occupiesa definiteplace in the ritual, since the sentence, ike those precedingandfollowing,beginswith inumekand the ceremonys not completedx) Poultney, o.c. p. 191, argues that upetuof lib 8, 11; III 22, 26 areparticiples; cf. opeter, Vb9, 14. They cannot, therefore, be taken ascertainexamplesof the use of the imperativeof this verb in ritual contexts.2) o.c. p. 216.


9/11

Imperativeand jussive subjunctive in Umbrian 217until 31 32 ap itekfakustpurtitu futu Whenhe has donethus,(the ceremony) hallhave been completed 1). econdly,t cannotbe inferred rom svepisheri that the action may not have beenpart of the ritual. We may compareVI b 41 42 anderuomusersitu arnipo comatir pesnis fust serse pisher comoltuserse comatir persnimu / purdito fust He shall sit duringthe intervaluntil he has prayedwith the ground cakes).Anyoneat all, sitting, shall grind (the cakes).Sitting, (the adfertor)hallpraywiththeground cakes)Thesacrifice illhavebeencompleted'.Thewordspurdito fust heremark he completion f the sacrificeto Tefer Jovius behindthe Veian Gate; and that the grindingformedpart of the ritual may be inferred romtwo facts. First,in othercases t is performed y the adfertor himself,e.g. appar-ently, in the shorterversionof the same sacrifice n I a 33 34zefef kumulhb efef kumatspesnimu Grind (the grain) sitting andpray sitting,with the ground(grain) ;cf. VII a 45 enom trahasahatam couertu comoltu comatir persnihimu enompurditom fust Thenhe shall returnto TransSanctam,grind(the cakes),andpraywith the ground(cakes).Then the sacrificewill have been completed .Secondly, t is difficult o see why aparticularattitude that of sitting shouldbe prescribedor thegrinding s wellas the prayer,unless he formeractionhasequallywith the latter a ritualcharacter.Thereis, therefore, n view ofthis parallel,no reasonto consider hat IV 26 27 does not referto a part of the ceremony,and no questionof the use of the im-perativearises.It appears hat in the IguvineTablesthe imperatives used inritualinstructions,he jussivesubjunctive leavingaside the sub-junctiveof wish n prayers)n regulationsorthe actionof officialsand that apparent xceptionsareveryfewandrevealedby inspec-tion as either llusory*r explicableon specialgrounds. t remainsto considerwhetherthe sameprincipleof distributionappliestoprohibitions.Examplesare so few as hardly to justify Buck'sstatement: In prohibitions,Umbrianuses the Imperativeregu-larly he goesonto citethe onlyexamplewithsubjunctive, V 33neifhabas2). wopassagesattest prohibitionswith the imperative.In VI b 51 52the augur s forbidden certainaction or a certainperiodof the ceremony:neip / amboltu prepa desua combi-

*) cf. Poultney o.c. p. 290 on VII a 45 enom purditom fust: hereused of the completionof the whole ceremony,as in VI b 42 .2) o.c. p. 215.


10/11

218 D.M. Jones, Imperativeand jusssive subjunctivein Umbrianfiansi He shall not walkaboutuntil he has announced a parr )in the west . This prohibitionmay be of ritual significance; tleast it occurs n its properchronologicalosition n the sequenceof ritual instructions.The same is true of the casesin VI a 5 6,whereactions whichcouldinvalidatethe ceremony f performedat a particularperiod are forbidden:sersi pirsi sesust poiangla / aseriato est erse neip mugatu nep arsir andersistunersa courtust porsi angla anseriato / iust Whilehe whogoes to observe he messengers its in the seat, during hat timeno oneshallmakea noisenorshallany otherperson it in the wayuntil he who has goneto observe he birdsreturns .The passagewith subjunctives moredifficult IV 32 3 huntakpifi prupehastefekIurespunesneifhabas Whenhe haspurifiedhe jar,thereafterthey shall not use any of that mead .Twothingsareclearaboutthis passage that it refers o the openingof the ceremonyas setout in III 3 huntak ukeprumupehatu Firstpurify he jarin thegrove ,and that it does not occupya placein the seriesof ritualinstructions, ince it followsthe closingformulapurtitu utu (seeabove).Poultney'sview1) s that thisfinal sentence s not a partof the instructions orthe sacrifice roperbut a specialprecautionrelating o the jar(orvat?)thepurificationf whichwasprescribedin III 3 ... Theinjunctions therefore gainst he useof the mead,presumablyorprivateorsecularpurposes, nd 'thatmead'meansthe mead whichis in the jar that has beenpurified .This inter-pretationmight be thought consistentwith the specialisation fsubjunctive or non-ritual ontexts;but it cannotbe maintainedsince it overlooks wo furtherpoints.The firstis that urespunesthat mead can hardlyrefer to anythingbut the pune frehtuboiled mead mentioneda few lines earlier, IV 30 31. Thesecond s that the use of the future(not futureperfect)with pifishould ndicate hat the time of the subordinatelause s the sameas that of the main clause, not, as in Poultney'sversionquotedabove,earlier; he translations therefore duringhe preliminarypurification f the huntak he aforesaidmeadis not to be used ,and Vetter's interpretation,gnoredby Poultney and Scardigli,must be preferred2):he passage n question s appended o the

*) o.c. p. 218.2) o.c. p. 220. Vetter takes pifi . . . efek as ace. of reference: Was das ...Suhnopfer . . . betrifft, dazu ... ; but the temporal use, attested in VI a 5 6(quoted above), gives a sense equally consistent with his general interpreta-tion of the passage.


11/11

Rudolf Wolfgang Mller, Divinus homo in dicendo 219

instructionsfor the ceremonyas a precautionagainst any impressionthat the mead prescribed for the sacrifice might also be used atan earlier stage for the initial purificationrite. So understood, thepassage does indeed prohibit a certain action during a ritual; but,unlike the two with imperatives, it is not entered in the sectionof the text to which it applies, but added out of sequence as akind of afterthought. The use of the subjunctive thereforemarks,and was perhapsintended to mark, the distinction of this prohibi-tion from the preceding ritual sequence.It appearsthat nothing in the Iguvine Tables is inconsistent withthe view that the distributionof imperativeand jussive subjunctivedepends on the type of context. The Iguvine Tables permit onlyvery tentative conclusions about the Umbrian language in general.If one asks neverthelesswhich of the two, imperativeorsubjunctive,representscurrent usage, and which the archaism, the answer canhardly be other than that the usage characteristicof ritual contextsis likely to be the more archaic and obsolescent. The great pre-ponderanceof the imperative is then no more than a consequence

of the high proportion of ritual to other contexts. In this respectUmbrian seems nearerto Latin, with its development of the jussivepresent subjunctive at the expense of the third person of the im-perative in both commands and prohibitions, in contrast to theOscan, more tenacious of the imperative in commands and withits regularuse of the perfect subjunctive in prohibitions.

Divinus homo in dieendoEine Untersuchung ber die Attributsperrung in lateinischer Prosa unterbesonderer Beriicksichtigung der rhetorischen Schrifben Ciceros

Von Rudolf Wolfgang Mlleb, MiinchenEiner der wesentlichen Unterschiede zwischen dem Griechischenund Lateinischen einerseitsund den in der Gegenwartvon Europaher sich ausbreitenden modernenSprachenandererseitsist die Artder Wortstelhmg. Die auBerordentlicheFreiheit, die darin die grie-chische und die lateinische Sprache gehabt haben, ist fiir einenEuropaerschwer oder gar nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen,auch dann

imperative and jussive subjunctive in umbrian

Documents