The Early Latin Verb System: Archaic Forms in Plautus, Terence, and Beyond. Appendices Wolfgang David Cirilo de Melo, All Souls College September 2007 Oxford Classical Monographs Contents Introduction to Appendices 1–3 1 Appendix 1: Regular Future Tenses 3 A: The Future Tenses in Plaut. Aul. and Curc. .......... 3 B: The Future Tenses in Ter. Ad. .................. 5 C: Simple Futures and Future Perfects of ¯ıre and the Relevant Compounds in Main Clauses . 6 Appendix 2: Main Clause Subjunctives 9 A: Plaut. Aul. and Curc. ...................... 9 B: Ter. Ad. .............................. 10 Appendix 3: Subjunctives in Subordinate Clauses 11 A: Subordinate Clauses Expected to Follow the Sequence of Tenses in Aul., Curc., and Ad. .................... 12 B: Subordinate Clauses Not Expected to Follow the Sequence in Aul., Curc., and Ad. ..................... 18 Appendix 4: Prohibitive Clauses and Selected Constructions of facere 22 A: Clauses Introduced by n¯e or n¯eue ................... 23 B: Prohibitions with Negatives Other than n¯e or n¯eue . 29 C: The Constructions of cau¯ere and Related Words . 30 D: Object Clauses Dependent on Selected Forms of facere . 32 i Appendix 5: Infinitivals — Regular Forms 36 A: The Present and Future Infinitives after c¯onf¯ıd¯o, cr¯ed¯o, d¯ıc¯o and sp¯er¯o .................................. 37 B: The Present and Future Infinitives after Sixteen Verbs . 47 C: Dare and dar¯ı .............................. 59 Appendix 6: Sigmatic Indicatives and Their Regular Counter- parts 65 A: The Sigmatic Indicatives in Plautus — Verbs . 68 B: The Sigmatic Indicatives in Plautus — Clause Types . 70 C: The Sigmatic Indicatives in Terence — Verbs . 71 D: The Sigmatic Indicatives in Terence — Clause Types . 71 E: The Remaining Sigmatic Indicatives in Archaic Latin . 71 F: The Causative Constructions of the Form faciam . 75 G: The Future Perfects in Plautus — Verbs with Sigmatic Futures 76 H: The Remaining Future Perfects in Plautus . 78 I: The Future Perfects in Terence — Verbs with Sigmatic Futures 85 J: The Remaining Future Perfects in Terence . 87 K: The Form fax¯o after 100BC . 89 L: Faxis, faxit etc after 100BC (+ Compounds) . 93 M: The Remaining Sigmatic Indicatives after 100BC . 99 N: Sigmatic Indicatives after 100BC — Citations . 101 O: Sigmatic Indicatives after 100BC — Explanations . 105 Appendix 7: The Sigmatic Subjunctives and Their Regular Coun- terparts 110 A: The s-Subjunctives in Plautus — Verbs . 112 B: The s-Subjunctives in Plautus — Clause Types . 114 C: The s-Subjunctives in Terence — Verbs . 115 D: The s-Subjunctives in Terence — Clause Types . 115 E: The Remaining s-Subjunctives in Archaic Latin . 115 F: The Regular Subjunctives in Plautus — Verbs with s-Subjunctives118 ii G: The Regular Subjunctives in Terence — Verbs with s-Subjunctives131 H: The Form ausim after 100BC . 137 I: Aus¯ıs, ausit etc after 100BC . 147 J: Sigmatic Subjunctives of facere and Compounds after 100BC . 150 K: The Remaining Sigmatic Subjunctives after 100BC . 153 L: Citations of Sigmatic Subjunctives after 100BC . 155 M: Explanations of Sigmatic Subjunctives after 100BC . 160 N: Verbs with Regular Subjunctives in Aul. and the Curc. 163 Appendix 8: The Sigmatic Forms of Unclear Mood 165 A: Archaic Latin . 165 B: Citations in Grammarians . 165 C: Explanations in Grammarians and Glosses . 166 Appendix 9: The Rhotacized Forms 168 A: The Relevant Indicatives of (ad-)iuu¯are . 168 B: The Relevant Subjunctives of (ad-)iuu¯are . 173 C: The Relevant Indicatives of mon¯ere . 180 D: The Relevant Subjunctives of mon¯ere . 180 E: The Relevant Indicatives of sinere . 181 F: The Relevant Subjunctives of sinere . 182 G: The Remaining Rhotacized Form . 184 Appendix 10: The Sigmatic Infinitives 185 Archaic Latin . 185 Grammarians and Glosses . 186 Appendix 11: The ¯ı-Subjunctives and Their Regular Counter- parts 188 A: The ¯ı-Subjunctives in Plautus — Verbs . 189 B: The ¯ı-Subjunctives in Plautus — Clause Types . 189 C: The indicatives of ¯ı-forms in Plautus . 190 iii D: The ¯ı-Subjunctives in Terence — Verbs . 190 E: The ¯ı-Subjunctives in Terence — Clause Types . 190 F: The Remaining ¯ı-Subjunctives and Their Indicatives in Ar- chaic Latin . 191 G: The Regular Subjunctives in Plautus — Verbs with ¯ı-Forms . 192 H: The Remaining Regular Subjunctives in Plautus . 196 I: The Regular Subjunctives in Terence — Verbs with ¯ı-Forms . 198 J: The Remaining Regular Subjunctives in Terence . 200 K: The ¯ı-Subjunctives after 100BC . 200 L: Citations of ¯ı-Subjunctives after 100BC . 202 M: Explanations of ¯ı-Subjunctives after 100BC . 203 Appendix 12: The Extra-Paradigmatic ¯a-Subjunctives and Their Regular Counterparts 207 A: The ¯a-Subjunctives in Plautus — Verbs . 208 B: The ¯a-Subjunctives in Plautus — Clause Types . 209 C: The ¯a-Subjunctives in Terence — Verbs . 210 D: The ¯a-Subjunctives in Terence — Clause Types . 211 E: The Remaining ¯a-Subjunctives and their Indicatives in Ar- chaic Latin . 211 F: The Regular Subjunctives in Plautus — Verbs with ¯a-Forms . 213 G: The Remaining Regular Subjunctives in Plautus . 224 H: The Regular Subjunctives in Terence — Verbs with ¯a-Forms . 233 I: The Remaining Regular Subjunctives in Terence . 238 J: The ¯a-Subjunctives after 100BC . 242 K: Citations of ¯a-Subjunctives after 100BC . 247 L: Explanations of ¯a-Subjunctives after 100BC . 248 Appendix 13: Tests for Statistical Significance 251 General Explanations . 251 T-Test for Table 7. 1 — Plautus . 252 T-Test for Table 2. 4 . 253 iv T-Test for Table 2. 5 . 254 T-Test for Table 4. 2 . 254 T-Test for Table 5. 1 . 255 T-Test for Table 5. 2 . 256 T-Test for Table 5. 4 . 257 T-Test for Table 5. 5 . 258 T-Test for Table 5. 6 . 259 T-Test for Table 5. 8 . 259 T-Test for Table 5. 10 – Part 1 . 260 T-Test for Table 5. 10 – Part 2 . 261 T-Test for Table 5. 14 . 262 T-Test for Table 6. 3 . 263 T-Test for Table 7. 1 – Terence . 264 T-Test for Table 7. 2 . 264 T-Test for Table 7. 3 – Part 1 . 265 T-Test for Table 7. 3 – Part 2 . 266 T-Test for Table 7. 4 – Part 1 . 267 T-Test for Table 7. 4 – Part 2 . 268 T-Test for Table 7. 5 – Part 1 (Plautus) . 269 T-Test for Table 7. 5 – Part 2 (Plautus) . 270 T-Test for Table 9. 1 – Plautus . 270 T-Test for Table 9. 1 – Terence . 271 T-Test for Table 9. 3 – Part 1 . 272 T-Test for Table 9. 3 – Part 2 . 273 T-Test for Table 9. 5 – Part 1 . 274 T-Test for Table 9. 5 – Part 2 . 275 T-Test for Table 10. 1 – Plautus . 276 T-Test for Table 10. 5 – Part 1 . 276 T-Test for Table 10. 5 – Part 2 . 277 T-Test for Table 10. 7 – Part 1 (Plautus) . 278 v T-Test for Table 10. 7 – Part 2 (Plautus) . 279 T-Test for Table 12. 1 . 280 T-Test for Table 12. 2 . 281 vi Introduction to Appendices 1–3 Appendices 1–3 provide the data that are necessary for the discussions in Chs. 2 and 3. These two chapters are mainly based on the relevant verb forms in Plaut. Aul. and Curc. as well as Ter. Ad. For Ch. 2 every future tense in these comedies is important, while for Ch. 3 it is only those subjunctives that are in clauses which, at least in Classical Latin, follow the rules for the sequence of tenses. In other words, every future tense counts, but not every subjunctive does. Yet out of context, forms like audiam are ambiguous between future (‘I shall hear’) and subjunctive (‘I may hear’), and there may be disagreement whether certain subordinate clauses obey the sequence rules. For these two reasons it seemed sensible to provide the reader not only with all futures, but also with all subjunctives, and to explain my classification of doubtful cases in footnotes. A few words should be said about disambiguation. In the vast majority of cases, metre cannot tell us whether an ambiguous form should be classified as future or subjunctive. N¯or¯ımus in Ad. 271 is an exception: the line is an iambic octonar- ius, and the -¯ı- scans long, which proves that the form is a subjunctive. The future would be n¯or˘ımus. After a short vowel, final -s can be dropped if the fol- lowing word begins with a consonant. This might help us to distinguish between second person singular future perfects like f¯ecer˘ıs and perfect subjunctives such as f¯ecer¯ıs, but in most cases the spellings in the editions reflect the editors’ choice rather than ancient orthography or pronunciation. For the most part, we have to rely on syntactic and semantic criteria. In their context, however, most forms are unambiguous.1 Asterisks are used to mark textual problems as indicated in the appar¯at¯uscritic¯ı in the editions by Lindsay for Plautus and by Kauer and Lindsay for Terence. One asterisk indicates that I consider the form cited here as somewhat uncer- tain.2 Two asterisks mean that, if the verb is a dependent subjunctive, I regard 1Where forms are ambiguous, I explain my classification in footnotes. 2I have in general not marked instances like the following with asterisks: doubtful prefix, n¯ıt¯ar (others ¯en¯ıt¯ar)(Ad. 497); uncertain frequentative suffix, rogit¯abit (others rog¯abit)(Ad. 1 the superordinate verb or the subordinator as difficult. Three asterisks, finally, are used to show that the verb cited and its superordinate verb or subordinator pose textual problems. The forms are listed alphabetically, except that verb forms belonging to the same tense are ordered in such a way that the singular precedes the plural, the first person the second, and the second the third.