It appears that -que was treated much like a word.
Especially Ovidius does not treat it as an enclitic, but more as an independent word.
This becomes evident in quotes, where -que is outside the quote but the word it is attached to is inside.
Take a look at this question on a specific instance of this (for the version -c) and this list for a number of ...
The way I was taught was that, as a general rule, -que is used:
When this list of things contains two items
When the two are logically linked as being two of something (parent and child, master and apprentice, and so on).
So, consider the example of an opening line from Catullus:
Lugete, o Veneres Cupidinesque
Venus and Cupid have a parent-child ...
The similarity is a coincidence; these words are unrelated. Etymological dictionaries such as De Vaan's give the following account of the two words:
The earlier form of the conjunction cum is quom; this is attested in early Latin, and also in the word quoniam (< quom iam). It is descended from Proto-Indo-European *kʷom "when" and has cognates in other IE ...
Simply, vel is inclusive and aut is exclusive. As Lewis and Short put it:
In general aut puts in the place of a previous assertion another, objectively and absolutely antithetical to it, while vel indicates that the contrast rests upon subjective opinion or choice; i. e. aut is objective, vel subjective, or aut excludes one term, vel makes the two ...
The consensus seems to be that SPQR means Senatus Populusque Romanus, but there is also the theory that SPQR did not mean Senatus Populusque Romanus.
It could also may have been Senatus Populus Quirites Romani.
I've read this in the entry for Quirites in the dictionary Langenscheidt Großes Schulwörterbuch Lateinisch-Deutsch which I unfortunately don't ...
In Ecclesiastical Latin "-que" would be used in order to avoid to much repetition of the use of "et" and for drawing similarities to the original first noun in a statement, as is sometimes found various Litaniae Sanctorum.
Sancti Petri et Pauli, atque Andrea, ora pro nobis.
In this phrase we can see a similarity between Peter and Paul (Apostles of Rome) ...
This is a contracted perfect form, which is fairly common in poetry, particularly in the first conjugation.
Basically, whenever you have a second person perfect active ending in -āvisti (like amāvisti "you loved"), it can be contracted to -āsti without changing the meaning (e.g. amāsti "you loved").
It's somewhat like how English uses "don't" instead of "...
None, and here's why.
If you look at -que cognates (Hittite -kku 'now, even, and'; Sanskrit -ca 'and'; Greek Gr. -τε 'and' etc.), you will see that the meaning is virtually the same (and). There is no evidence to suggest that -que was an enclitic in five. What would it mean, "five.and", anyway??? And there are no other numerals of the type "X.and."...
An alternative way to phrase the question is to ask whether a preposition should be repeated after et.
I went through a book for all the examples of et used with prepositions in a way that would allow both options.
I excluded the preposition inter because it would make little sense to say inter Sequanos et inter Helvetios instead of inter Sequanos et ...
I searched through plausible forms (particularly adverbial forms of adjectives ending in -quus) and only found one example:
in rebus minoribus socium fallere turpissimum est aequeque turpe atque illud de quo ante dixi (Cic. S. Rosc. 40)
simili quae praedita constant
natura atque ipsae res sunt aequeque laborant
et pereunt (Lucr. 1.847)
Just to tack on to Mar Johnson's post and our subsequent discussion, the Oxford Classical Dictionary does not support the notion that verum or vero is in itself a stronger contrasting conjunctive than sed. However, the phrase verumvero or verum enim is:
uero, adv., particle.
2 In fact, really, truly.
3 (emphasizing the truth of an assertion) For a certainty,...
Yes, it's possible, but that's not the typical construction. 'Therefore' is the best translation in this spot, starting a whole new clause that isn't immediately dependent (in a meaningful sense, rather than in a grammatical sense) on the previous clause. In that respect, it's closer to igitur.
I checked Smith's English-Latin dictionary for the comparative ...
Both et and -que can often translate "and". The use of -que is more limited (see James's answer), so et is a safer choice.
The suffix -que only means "and", but et can also be used as an adverb ("also", "in addition"). Sometimes et and etiam are both equally valid. As a rule of thumb, you can use et whenever you want to add something. Sometimes etiam or ...
I posted this question here because it was something I struggled with for a long, long time, right up until I read Caroline Kroon's article "Latin Particles and the Grammar of Discourse" in A Companion to the Latin Language, ed. James Clackson.
The difference between the two isn't so much semantic as it is . . . dí immortálés, I'm terrible with terms . . . ...
Here's another approach:
Dīxistī mihi quidlibet in mundō licitum esse,
Ad saltātrīcēs prōtinus adspiciō!
In what I've read—mostly elementary materials—you can just skip the conjunction or adverb, and go straight to the follow-up sentence or clause. In the above, I've also switched from past tense to present tense, the present tense in Latin having ...
I'll just add that there's another word for "or," sive (or seu). It's used to mean "also known as" or to indicate that the speaker is indifferent as to which option is chosen.
Si media nox est sive est prima vespera . . .
Tamen est eundum quo imperant.
Whether it's the middle of the night or early evening . . .
Still, you have to go ...
Here is the stub of an answer. Many conjunctions can be used in two or more different ways. And I've only given an example for each category, not an exhaustive list. But this should be enough for you to be able to categorise other conjunctions.
Copulative/Additive: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: et.
The source referenced in a Wikipedia-entry:
SPQR är en förkortning för Senatus Populusque Romanus, [se'na:tus popu'luskwe ro'ma:nus], vilket betyder "senaten och det romerska folket". Eller Senatus Populus Quiritium Romanus Romerska riket, senaten och det kviritisk-romerska folket.
Where the reference  refers to a blog post by "...
Both uero and uerum can often be translated as 'in truth' rather than 'but' in some cases, yielding something stronger than sed. When we have sed, it just means that what we're about to say is different from what we were just talking about in some way. But when we use uero or uerum as in truth, we tie the second sentence more closely to the first. The two ...
James Kingsbery's answer is exactly correct. If two things "belong" together, then -que is appropriate. If you were going shopping, you might be asked to pick up ova butyrumque ("eggs and butter"), but if you were talking about what you saw on your walk through the countryside you'd be more likely to talk about boves et rusticos ("cows and peasants").
The interpretation of the origin of vel from a second person indicative of volo is proved by the comparison with the Umbrian "heris - heris", 2. pers. from *herio = volo (Hofmann – Szantyr p. 501). You can compare even the modern Greek "θέλεις - θέλεις" or the Italian "vuoi - vuoi", which have the same meaning of the second person indicative of volo and in ...
Your idea is correct.
Lewis-Short is not terribly clear:
added in a direct question, as an interrogation mark, to the first or principal word of the clause
but, if you know German, Georges is much clearer: ‑n(e) is attached to the focus of the question, therefore mostly at the beginning of the sentence.
To answer your question completely, a ...
.A. If there is a contrast of 'activity,' use hīc, illic; for example ‘to go or to stay,’
hīc abire, illic manere.
If there is a contrast of ‘groups’ then hic, haec, hoc, and ille, illa, illud, as in this example from Cicero:
ergo ut hi miseri, sic illi contra beati.
accordingly, as on the one hand these are wretched, so on the other these are happy.
Well, I think the thing to do is to remember that, while ut has three different English meanings, it has only one Latin meaning and three uses.
A Latin speaker might just as easily ask, "Why does English to have such different meanings when it's used with the verb in a purpose clause and when it's used with a noun?" (I realize that the analogy isn't exact; ...
Atque, according to L&S, means
a copulative particle, and also, and besides, and even, and
According to Bennett's New Latin Grammar ch. 6 §"Coordinate Conjunctions", "atque is used before vowels and consonants; ac never before vowels, and seldom before c, g, qu."
L&S continue, saying that atque
indicat[es] a close internal connection between ...
I've never seen fieri potest, quod.
I find however several examples of fieri potest, ut subjunctive in the corpora; the first two are:
Si hoc fieri potest ut in hac civitate quae longe iure libertatis ceteris civitatibus antecellit quisquam nullis comitiis imperium aut potestatem adsequi possit, quid attinet tertio capite legem curiatam ferre iubere, cum ...
I wrote a longish post attempting a negative answer, and as a last precaution consulted a list of all Latin words ending in -c. One word stuck out to me like a sore thumb, and further research indicates that it may, in fact, be a contraction of -que to -c:
dōnĕc: conj. [shortened from ante- and post-class. form dōnĭcum , from old dative doni (dioni; for ...
Option 1: sequitur, ut
Browsing L&S I came to the entry on the verb sequor, meaning II.B.4, that reads:
In logical conclusions, to follow, ensue; with subject-clause,
especially with ut. And it cites a pretty clean example from Cicero:
Si hoc enuntiatum: "Veniet in Tusculanum Hortensius" verum non est, sequitur, ut falsum sit.” (Cic. Fat. 28)
It is a matter of counting, but I would consider it more natural to say that there are 3 instead of 6 persons.
The point of the three-person view is that there is the additional property of "number".
There are two numbers in Latin: singular and plural.
(The dual number between the two has almost entirely vanished from Latin and it should be ...
I think the phrase neque aliter would fit. as in si, neque aliter fieri potest. . . .
Neque aliter has plenty of precedents, easily found by googling, including some classical (e.g. in Cic. pro Sest. 97), though not in the exact sense you are looking for. I'm fairly sure that I came across it some years ago while translating KF Gauss's disquisition on ...