| Abstrakt: |
The former is realised by a combination of I ne i with one of two moods, i.e. the subjunctive mood or the imperative mood, and the latter is realised only by a combination of I ne i and the subjunctive. Woodcock does not explicitly acknowledge the existence of (stipulative) result clauses construed with I ne i , but his proposal implies that result clauses featuring I ut ne i are to be situated in a grey area between purpose and result clauses, especially since they are so close in meaning. In light of sentences like (11), I would rather argue that, similar to I non i ([13]: 54), the focus of this I ne i is twofold: it focuses over the event (as sentential I ne i would) and over the constituent I quis. i If this is true, then sentential scope is not excluded, but neither is local. [32]: 653) again suggests that there is a default negator, in this case I non i , and he is not the only one; [8]: 60) states that "in result clauses, negation is expressed by I non i " (as opposed to purpose clauses, where I ne i would be the suitable negator), [16]: 117-118) too puts forth that I non i is the expected negator and [11]: 393), relying on [14], also make the "purpose I ne, i result I non i "-distinction. Keywords: complementary distribution; Latin; modality; mood; negation; subjectivity EN complementary distribution Latin modality mood negation subjectivity 135 162 28 01/27/22 20211001 NES 211001 1 Introduction In this paper, I propose a semantic account for two constructions in Classical Latin (henceforth CL), i.e. negative wish clauses ([1]) and negative result clauses ([2]), which seem to allow for an unexpected alternation between the main negators: while (1a) and (2a) feature I ne i , (1b) and (2b) feature I non i . [Extracted from the article] |
