This study of the latin word quin is a diachronic study. The development of the functions of quin is considered from the third century B.C. to the fourth century A.D., using a corpus containing most of the works of the Latin writers...
moreThis study of the latin word quin is a diachronic study. The development of the functions of quin is considered from the third century B.C. to the fourth century A.D., using a corpus containing most of the works of the Latin writers (given by the CD-Rom CLCLT-5).
The meaning of quin and the way it is used are analysed from several complementary viewpoints. First of all, the different functions of quin – interrogative adverb, enunciative particle, coordinating conjunction and subordinating conjunction introducing completive, circumstancial or even relative clauses – had to be identified from a syntactic point of view. The meaning of the word was also to be defined more accurately, as well as the way it evolved: an interro-negative adverb of cause derived from a former adverb of manner; a particle indicating impatience on the part of the speaker; an additive connector; a subordinating conjunction showing sometimes a negative, sometimes a positive meaning. Lastly, the role of quin in communication had to be described using the theory of pragmatics, especially when it appears in interrogations having the illocutionary force of an order or of an assertion, and when it is employed as an argumentative connector introducing a reinforcement.
The uses of quin are the main subject of this work, but not the only one, for they have always been regarded as part of a wider linguistic system. The interrogative use of quin has been compared to the use of the other interrogative adverbs of cause (quidni, also negative, and employed in a very similar way, cur (non), quare (non) and quomodo (non)) for its meaning, its frequency and its evolution. The adversative coordinating conjunctions at, sed, uerum and immo have been studied at the same time as the coordinating conjunction quin which, though having additive meaning, is employed in similar contexts, and, of course, the additive coordinating conjunctions et, atque and -que have been considered as well. Finally, the use of quin as a subordinating conjunction has been refered to that of qui, of quominus, of ne and ut (non) and of infinitive clauses.
The organisation of the book is based on the syntactic analysis of the uses of quin. The first part covers the non-subordinating uses of the word (as an interrogative adverb, an enunciative particle and a coordinating conjunction) and the second part covers its subordinating uses. Links between the different uses – mainly diachronic links – are also underlined in the conclusions.
The first part is divided into three chapters devoted to the three different non-subordinating uses of quin. The interrogative use is studied first because it appeared to be the most fundamental and most ancient use of the word. After examining the origin and formation of the lexem and the development which lead to the interrogative use of quin exemplified in the Latin texts, we describe, mostly from a pragmatical point of view, the kind of interrogations it introduces. These are interro-negative questions containing an external negation; they are rhetorical and induce a negative confirmation (“There is no reason why…”). They always have the derived illocutionary force of an assertion, from which is derived in turn, most of the time, an illocutionary force of ordering. We compare the use of quin to that of quidni, which is very similar, except that an interrogation introduced by quidni is employed to back up what was said before, while an interrogation introduced by quin expresses a discordance and disagreement. The other interrogative adverbs of cause accompanied by a negation are not specialised in the way quin and quidni are; they can introduce any kind of question. They tend to supersede the specialised interrogative adverbs, whose formation is also more opaque (the negation -n or -ni is not so easily recognisable). Cur non is the most used of these adverbs in classical latin, but it is in turn replaced, in the language of the Christian writers, by quare non and quomodo non, whose formation is more conspicuous.
The second chapter deals with the enunciative particle. In this use, quin accompanies a verb in the imperative or in the subjunctive of ordering and whishing, and it expresses the impatience of the speaker. The pragmatic value of the interrogations introduced by quin and the process of illocutionary derivation described in the preceding chapter enable us to connect the interrogative use and the use as an enunciative particle. The latter could be the result of a reanalysis of some of the interrogations expressing an order introduced by quin.
In the third chapter, we first define the semantic and pragmatic meaning of quin as a coordinating conjunction. Quin is an additive connector expressing reinforcement. The adversative meaning it is sometimes assigned is due to the context only: the ambiguity (often caused by the presence of a negation) of the sentences in which quin can apparently commute with the adversative connectors at, sed, uerum or immo is shown. Particular attention is paid to the differences between quin and immo, which both express a reinforcement: the additive connector quin introduces a new argument which is added to the preceding one, while the adversative connector immo corrects the preceding assertion by a more accurate one. We then show that quin undergoes an evolution from coordination between sentences to coordination inside the sentence. But the use of quin as a coordinating conjunction inside the sentence is limited in comparison with the use of et, atque ot -que. We also point out that the coordinating particle quin is often associated to other lexems which give it more strength (quin etiam, quin et, quin immo, quin potius); in the third and fourth centuries A.D., it no longer appears alone. Finally we suggest that this use of quin could have come from interrogations introduced by quin having the illocutionary force of an assertion, which would have been reanalysed.
In the second part of the book, the various subordinating uses of quin are studied together, since they are generally quite similar. Chapter four shows the functions of quin, which can introduce completive clauses functioning as subject, object, complement of a modal verb expressing possibility, apposition to a noun, extraposition, complement of a noun or of an adjective. It can also introduce circumstancial clauses, mostly with consecutive meaning, but also with causal (non quin …) and even sometimes comparative meaning (non aliter … quin …). Lastly, quin introduces a particular kind of relative clause, in phrases like nemo est quin…; in these clauses, the subordinating conjunction functions as a relative pronoun but does not show any variation of case and gender.
Chapter five is a review of the verbs introducing quin-clauses. They belong to a restricted number of semantic fields. The main ones are those of uncertainty and opposition, but those of removal, possibility, activity and declaration are also well represented. We study the development of the two main semantic fields over seven centuries (from the third century B.C. to the fourth century A.D.) and show how new verbs come to be used inside a given field. We also examine the way other phrases including quin-clauses appear and decline or disappear.
In the sixth chapter, we discuss the question of negation in sentences including quin-clauses. We first describe the nature of the syntactic constraint according to which a clause introduced by quin can only appear in the government of a negative clause. There are various kinds of exceptions, but they do not invalidate the basic principle, and real exceptions are very few. We show that the necessity of a negation or negative meaning in the main clause can only be explained by an interrogative origin of the subordinating quin. A rhetorical question introduced by quin could have been reinterpreted as a subordinate clause, and, due to its meaning (“there is no reason why…”), it could only follow a sentence expressing lack of opposition, lack of doubt, etc. We then consider the variations in the meaning of quin, which is sometimes negative, sometimes positive, and suggest an explanation based on the meaning of the sentence considered as a whole (depending on the presence of a negation in the main clause and on the meaning of the main verb). These variations can also be related to the hypothesis of an interrogative origin of subordinating quin. We finally show that the negation of quin as a subordinating conjunction is external, as it is when quin is an interrogative adverb.
In the last chapter, we compare quin-clauses with other subordinate clauses. The lack of similarities between the uses of quin and those of qui tends to confirm that quin is not derived from the association of this subordinating qui with an enclitic negation. Quominus is often used like quin, and the two conjunctions sometimes influenced each other because of their proximity. But quominus, unlike quin, can appear after a positive main clause; this difference and some others can be accounted for by the origins of the two conjunctions, which are not similar. Ne-clauses also show a number of similarities with quin-clauses. Lastly, the clauses introduced by quin can be equated with clauses introduced by ut non, but appear to be closer to infinitive clauses, generally sharing their assertive value.
The conclusion recapitulates the evolution of quin, from its interrogative to its coordinating and to its subordinating use. It underlines a few evolutive processes and reviews again some facts pertaining to negation.
