Two Factors in Latin Word-Order

1909 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
E. H. Sturtevant
Keyword(s):  

Kratylos ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-132
Author(s):  
R. Hoffmann


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (37) ◽  
pp. 17-29
Author(s):  
Katharine Russell

For countless students of Latin (myself included), prevailing memories of Latin instruction involve being taught to unpick Latin sentences by racing towards the verb and securing the meaning of the main clause before piecing together the rest. However, this ‘hunt the verb’ approach, where one's eyes are jumping back and forth in search of the resolution of ambiguity, is not necessarily conducive to fluent reading of Latin (Hoyos, 1993). If, as so many textbooks and teachers vouch, we are aiming to unlock Roman authors for all students to read, then we need to furnish them with the skills to be able to read Latin fluently, automatically and with enjoyment, not engender in them a process more akin to puzzle-breaking. I chose to experiment with teaching students to read Latin in order, firstly because, as Markus and Ross (2004) point out, the Romans themselves must necessarily have been able to understand Latin in the order in which it was composed as so much of their sharing of literature happened orally. Indeed, as Kuhner (2016) and others who promote the continuation of spoken Latin have argued, this is still a very real possibility today. And secondly, because it is a skill which I, and others, believe to be teachable (Hansen, 1999; Markus & Ross, 2004; Hoyos, 2006; McCaffrey, 2009). Not only that, but whatever our starting point, Wegenhart (2015) believes that by encouraging these reading skills early, we can encourage our students to be ‘expert’ readers who will be able to enjoy reading Latin long after they have been through their exams.



Language ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Hopper ◽  
Dirk G. J. Panhuis
Keyword(s):  


1909 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
pp. 130
Author(s):  
Henry Preble
Keyword(s):  


1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Elerick
Keyword(s):  


1912 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 177-179
Author(s):  
W. Rhys Roberts
Keyword(s):  


Author(s):  
Lieven Danckaert

The focus of this book is Latin word order, and in particular the relative ordering of direct objects and lexical verbs (OV vs. VO), and auxiliaries and non-finite verbs (VAux vs. AuxV). One aim of the book is to offer a first detailed, corpus-based description of these two word order alternations, with special emphasis on their diachronic development in the period from ca. 200 BC until 600 AD. The corpus data reveal that some received wisdom needs to be reconsidered. For one thing, there is no evidence for any major increase in productivity of the order VO during the eight centuries under investigation. In addition, the order AuxV only becomes more frequent in clauses with a modal verb and an infinitive, not in clauses with a BE-auxiliary and a past participle. A second goal is to answer a more fundamental question about Latin syntax, namely whether or not the language is ‘configurational’, in the sense that a phrase structure grammar (with ‘higher-order constituents’ such as verb phrases) is needed to describe and analyse facts of Latin word order. Four pieces of evidence are presented which suggest that Latin is indeed a fully configurational language, despite its high degree of word order flexibility. Specifically, it is shown that there is ample evidence for the existence of a verb phrase constituent. The book thus contributes to the ongoing debate whether configurationality (phrase structure) is a language universal or not.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document