12

For positive commands, Latin uses the imperative: Da mihi librum "Give me the book."

For negative commands, it uses a number of constructions of which noli + inf. is most common: Noli mihi gladium dare "Don't give me the sword."

What if I want to coordinate the two and say "Don't give me the sword, but the book"?

I can think of several possible ways to say this:

  1. Noli mihi gladium dare, sed da mihi librum. (Grammatically impeccable, but clunky.)
  2. Da mihi non gladium, sed librum. (?)
  3. Noli mihi gladium dare, sed librum. (??)

Are 2 and/or 3 correct classical Latin? And are there other constructions attested for this kind of coordination?

Improve this question
9
  • 3
    The closest I could find: Doce me non an fortitudo animal sit, sed nullum animal felix esse sine fortitudine ... (SenPhil.Ep.113.27.2)
    – d_e
    Commented Jul 23, 2021 at 13:42
  • 3
    For comparison, this line from Publilius Syrus: Ignoscito saepe alteri, numquam tibi. We see a positive imperative with two arguments, one of which is modified by a negative adverb.
    – Kingshorsey
    Commented Jul 25, 2021 at 15:55
  • 2
    I agree with the two comments above: your option 2) would seem most natural to me (or simply the reverse: da mihi librum, non gladium). I have my doubts about option 3): I think there is a problem of scopes.
    – Cerberus ♦
    Commented Jul 26, 2021 at 22:15
  • 2
    also consider: Si non ingenium, certe brevitatem approba (Phaedrus). though it not quite the same because of the si and certe but I think it shed more light on the issue at hand.
    – d_e
    Commented Aug 23, 2021 at 8:00
  • 1
    @VincentKrebs You may be right, but I'd like to see actual examples; logic and usage don't always match up. And I'm not sure the logic of separating out the negation to apply only to the first clause is valid at all; e.g. I don't think you can say Nemo venit qui sapiens esset, sed qui stultus for "no one came who was wise, but someone came who was stupid", or Nescio quis sit sed unde sit for "I don't know who he is but I know where he's from". I think the scope of the negation in such structures extends to the entire coordination.
    – TKR
    Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 19:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

I think you are pretty close with #2, but in this situation I would not use sed, because that is more of a conjunction between two separate ideas, rather than a way of coordinating a parallel idea. It would be better to use at. So, the easy out is to just avoid the negative imperative altogether:

Da mihi librum at ne ensem.

If, for some reason, the negative imperative is required, then probably the best option would be to use ne with the subjunctive, just be aware that it would sound very colloquial, even vulgar, to a Roman:

Ne des ensem sed librum.

In this kind of expression sed is called for because you need something strong. You could potentially use quamquam or maybe even quin here instead of sed, but sed would seem to be the simplest approach.

Note that in many cases the perfect (rather than the present) subjunctive is used for negative imperatives and this is in fact somewhat more standard. All the same, the force is somewhat vulgar. For example, take the following extract epigram from Martial. This epigram which starts Pedicatur Eros, fellat Linus... is written in a deliberately vulgar style:

Assem ne dederis crediderisve Lupo (Don't give or lend even a penny to Lupus).

You can also use #1, but as you say, it seems crude. Nevertheless, it is found, especially in late Latin. For example, in the Vulgate we have things like this:

Nolite dare sanctum canibus (Do not give what is holy to dogs.)

So, adapting that to your sentence:

Noli dare mihi ensem at librum.

I see no reason to repeat the verb, since by using at (or ast or sed) you are reversing the intent and it is clear you want the book.

Improve this answer
4
  • 2
    I've never seen ne used like in your first example: wouldn't it need to be coordinated with quidem or with a subjunctive verb? Also: duas is an archaic form. des is much more standard.
    – brianpck
    Commented Oct 20, 2022 at 12:55
  • @brianpck Well, I have only found "ne des" only in Plautus and he uses all three expressions "ne des", "ne duis" and "ne duas" equally, and all in very colloquial situations. So, my presumption is that all three are colloquial language, which is why the expression is not found in literary works. As I said in my answer, it is vulgar.
    – Tyler Durden
    Commented Oct 20, 2022 at 15:27
  • I upvoted your excellent answer. Just one remark though, I don't endorse your particular insistance on using at instead of sed, while this seems to represent the exact canonical case to use sed: some restoring of the right thing after a negation. That is, if it means "give me the book instead of the sword"; for "give me the book, but do not give me the sword as well", then I agree, at is better: da mihi not ensem, sed librum; da mihi librum, at non ensem. NB : non is perfectly grammatical here, since it negates a NP, not a subjunctive; takes narrow scope (constituent negation).
    – Vincent Krebs
    Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 11:56
  • Examples of constituent negation after at: ut ad hostes transire turpe videatur esse, at non illo animo quo Ulixes transiit (Cicero, De Inventione, II) Illi vero nimis etiam obscurus Euphorion; at non Homerus. (Cicero, De divinatione, II)
    – Vincent Krebs
    Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 12:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.