Imperative and jussive subjunctive in Umbrian Author(s): D. M. Jones Source: Glotta, 40. Bd., 3./4. H. (1962), pp.

210-219 Published by: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40265895 . Accessed: 11/04/2011 15:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=vandrupr. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (GmbH & Co. KG) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Glotta.

http://www.jstor.org

210

D.M.Jones

Le vicende di griko mi hanno dunque spinto ben lontano dalla Grichfasalentina, ma la mia conclusione, lasciando da parte Latini e Dori, Messapi e Bizantini, mi ha condotto nel vivo della storia della Terra d'Otranto in cui vivono fraternamente, da secoli, le genti salentine di lingua romanza e di lingua romaica1).

Imperativeand jussive subjunctivein Umbrian

By D. M. Jones, London This discussion may take as its starting-point a passage2) of the Iguvine Tables, III, 4-10: inuk uhturu urtes puntis \ frater ustentuta pure \ fratru mersus fust I humnakle iinuk uktur vapefe / kumnakle sistu sakre uvem
che le precede (cio nd resta nd), ma le occlusive sorde si sonorizzanose preceduteda nasale (nt diventa nd): perci kuandupuo essere sia da quanto che da quando. Per me si tratta dell'incontrotra una tendenza ,napoletana' (nt > nd) con un fatto indigeno (nd conservatoo, se si preferisce,restituito); ma non dubito che anche in questo caso qualche linguista, armato di buona ad hoco una sapientereazionestrutturale. volont, potr scovareuna ,leggina* x) Una preziosissimainformazionesu come nel X sec. si dicesse ,greco nel Salento ci forse offerta da Shabbethai Donnolo (vedi M. Trves, I termini italiani di Donnolo e di Asaf (sec. X), ,,Lingua nostra" 22, 1961, pp. 64ss.). Donnolo, nato a Oria (Brindisi) ,,verso il 913 e morto dopo il 982 [. . .], scrisse in ebraico un trattato di farmacologia"(Trves, art. cit., pp. 64s.), nel quale inserl anche alcuni termini che il Trves dice ,,in italiano": si tratta invece, secondo me, della piu antica testimonianza del dialetto romanzo salentino. Tra le altre forme, Donnolo ci conserva anche (e qui seguo la trascrizionedel Trves) un PYNW GRYQW, fieno greco*(o ,trifoglio', cfr. Rohlfs, Voc. gi cit., p. 232): purtroppo non possiamo proporre una prcisae sicura trascrizionefonetica (come awerte il Trves, p. 65 n. 2, ,,Yod vale e ed i", ma talvolta a ed e sono omessi nella scrittura)e pertanto non possiamodire se si debba leggere finu (o fenu) griku (o greku).Ma sulla testimonianza di Donnolo spero di ritornarein un'altra occasione: qui mi limito a sottolineare il fatto che al tempo del medico ebreo salentino in Terra d'Otranto il nesso -kl- non si era ancora mutato in -kki-; cosf, ad esempio, RDYQLA sar da leggere rfajdikla o r(e)dikla: il Trves vi vede ,,forse Telleboro,ancor oggi detto radicchiain Calabria[cfr. Rohlfs Diz. dial, delle tre Calabrie,Halle-Milano1936,vol. II, p. 182]", ma potrebbetrattarsi anche dell\ortica' che nel Salento chiamata ardikvUa, e-, (v)irdikula9 (v)u-. 2) In quotations from the Iguvine Tables the Umbrian alphabet is here represented, contrary to the usual practice, by italics, the Latin alphabet by spaced roman type.

Imperative and jussive subjunctive in Umbrian

211

uhtur I teitu puntes terkanturinumek sakre \ uvem urtas puntes fratrumupetuta which Poultney1) translates as follows: "Then the Brothers, rising in groups of five, shall elect an auctor who shall be in accord with the customs of the Brothers in assembly. Then the auctor shall sit on the stone seat in the meeting-place. The auctor shall designate a young pig and a sheep, the groups of five shall inspect them, then the groups of five rising shall accept the young pig and the sheep." in line 9, Attention is at once drawn to the subjunctive terkantur which, standing between teitu and upetuta,conspicuously interrupts the sequenceof imperatives and has been almost universallyaccepted as a jussive subjunctive. The customary Latin translations of the Iguvine Tables often present the corresponding Latin forms without revealing the opinion of their authors about the syntax; thus, for example, F. Buecheler2) ". . . dicito . . . suffragentur . . . optanto", C. D. Buck3) ". . . dicito . . . suffragentur. . . deligunto", G. Bottiglioni4) ". . . dicito . . . videant . . . deligunto", G. Devoto6) ". . . dicito . . . videant . . . capiunto". Translations into modern languages, on the other hand, suggest that their authors regard the difference of mood as of no consequence for the meaning; so Devoto6) ". . . dichiari . . . constatino . . . prendano" and Poultney, quoted above7). The passage has none the less interested commentators not only for its meaning8) but also for its syntax. P. G. Scardigli9) is concerned with the anomaly of the subjunctive. He
x) The translations of passages cited are given from J. W. Poultney, The Bronze Tables of Iguvium (1959), with no implication that they are accepted in every detail. In citing Umbriantexts word-dividersare omitted. 2) Umbrica (1883), p. 153. 3) A Grammarof Oscan and Umbrian (1928), p. 297. 4) Manuale dei dialetti italici (1954), p. 282. 5) Tabulae Iguvinae2 (1940), p. 110. 6) Le Tavole di Gubbio (1948), p. 65. 7) O. Szemernyi, who quotes this passage in his Studies in the IndoEuropean System of Numerals (I960), p. 106, and A. Ernout, Le dialecte ombrien (1961), p. 25, are similarly indifferent to the mood, and follow V. Pisani, Manualestorico della lingua latina IV: le lingue dell'Italia antica oltre il latino (1953), p. 201, in translating terkanturby "inspiciunto". 8) The question of the meaning of the terms used calls for no more than passing comment in this discussion. 9) In Studi Etruschi XXV (Srie II), 1957, p. 294sq.
U*

212

33.M. Jones

compares I b 35 and IV 33 (see below) and seems to find in the subjunctive a form appropriate to the compliance of the puntes with the order given by the uhtur1): "sembra dare una sfumatura di volontarismo a questo ubbidire, sentito soggettivamente, come impulso interno". Poultney2) notes the exceptional syntax of teitu: "normally deitu teitu is either used with oratio recta or else its object is accompanied by a predication"3). There is nothing in Scardigli or Poultney to suggest that the syntactical problems of this passage had been solved before either of them wrote; solved, moreover, in a work to which both refer repeatedly. E. Vetter had already written in his commentary on this passage4) "terkantur von teitu abhngiger Konjunktiv im . . . tefa". That Gegensatz zu teitu und upetuta wie I b 35 Jcupifiatu this convincing explanation has been overlooked is perhaps understandable, since it is a small item in a richly detailed commentary, offered without argument and supported by only one parallel, and that not the most apt. For these reasons,and because the elimination of the independent subjunctive in this passage clarifiesthe usage of jussive constructions in Umbrian, it is not otiose to look in a little detail at Vetter's solution. For the use of deitu teitu with dependent subjunctive there may be cited more apposite parallels than that given by Vetter: VI b 63- {54ape termnome / couortuso sururont pesnimumo sururont deitu etaians deitu5) "When the boundary has been reached again, they shall pray in the same manner. He shall speak in the same manner; he shall direct them to go"; ibid. 64- 65 ape termnome benuso / sururont pesnimumo sururont deitu etaias6) "When the boundary has been reached, in the same manner they shall pray, in the same manner he shall direct them to go". These passages repeat in oratio obliqua the command given first in recta: VI b 62- 3 ape este dersicurent eno / deitu etato iiouinur porse perca arsmatia habiest "When they have said this,
1) Yet he ignores this subtlety in his translation: "... dica . . . eseguano . . . vadano a prendere". 2) o.c, p. 203. 3) It also takes as object the neuter pronoun este referring to a preceding prayer (VI b 62, VII a 51) or command (VI b 63). 4) Handbuch der italischen Dialekte I (1953), p. 212. 5) In view of the wording in 62- 63 and 64- 65, the repetition of deitu here is redundant (though disguised in Poultney 's translation "... speak . . . direct") and perhaps an error. 6) The last five words are repeated in Vila 1.

Imperative and jussive subjunctive in Umbrian

213

fine a majorityof the AtiedianBrotherswho have si "Whatever on the adfertor,so great a come there demandshall be (imposed) on the adfertor". Theflexibilityof Umbrian fine shall be (imposed) fromV b, e. g. 8ff. clauerniur word-order illustrated maybefurther dirsas herti fratrus atiersir posti acnu / farer opeter sehmenier p IIII . . . clauerni/dirsanshertifrateratiersiur X acnu uef . . . "The sorser (decuvia posti dequrier / pelmner of the) Claverniiare requiredto give to the Atiedian Brothers each year four poundsof choice spelt . . . The AtiedianBrothers are requiredto give to the Claverniiat the decurialfestival of Semo each year ten portionsof pork ..." that terkantur is not an independentbut a The demonstration clearsthe way for an approach to the whole subjunctive dependent question of the jussive subjunctive in Umbrian. Buck states correctly3)that the imperativeis used "almost exclusively"to except in V a 1- V b 7, in which subjunctives expresscommands, are frequent;he gives as furtherexamplesIb35 kupifiaia and
1) For dependent subjunctive with other verbs of saying (stiplo, combifiatu kupifiatu) see Poultney, o.c. p. 152. 2) This seems implicit in Vetter's translation of the two words as res; cf. his note on the passage,o.c. p. 212. pectively "provideant","procuranto" 3) o.c. p. 214.

then he that holds the ritual wand shall say 'Go,men of Iguvium' " *). The main argument in favour of Vetter's explanation is, of course, as already indicated, that it removes the two syntactical abnormalities of the passage. Further, it offers the prospect of a simpler interpretation. Those who take terkanturas coordinate with teitu and upetuta have to account for three successive and presumably different actions, denoted by three terms the meanings of which have been the object of much doubt and divergence of opinion. On Vetter's explanation we have simply an order and its execution; and upetuta,whatever the semantic relation the two terms terkantur between them, must refer to the same action2). It may possibly be objected that Vetter's explanation requires a word-order more involved than is usual in the Iguvine Tables. There are, however, a few examples of word-orderwhich approach it in this respect. The apparent hyperbaton in IV 22 arlataf vasus purtuvitu "Then offer ceremonialcirclet-cakesfrom ufestnesevalcnef sealed vessels" is hardly less remarkable. More relevant is the following: V b 3- 7 panta muta fratru / atiiefiu mestru karu pure ulu I benurent affertureeru pepurkurent herifi etantumutu afferture/

214

D. M. Jones

the now discredited III 9 terkantur.Potdtney lists in more detail1) the passages in which subjunctives are used "with a value scarcely different from that of the imperative". The Umbrian usage is compared by Buck2) to that of some Latin inscriptions, such as the Sententia Minuciorum,in which, while the imperative is regular, "a Subjunctive of Command may now and then appear". Buck3) distinguishesfrom the jussive subjunctive the subjunctive of wish, adding that it is not always easy to distinguish between them. He quotes as examples the prayer formulae VI a 23 et al. fos sei pacer sei "be thou favourable, be thou propitious", ib. 29 et al. pihafei "may purification be made". As subjunctives of wish these are relevant here only, or mainly, because of the presence of imperatives in the same prayers, thus VI a 29 et al. pihatu "purify", ib. 30 et al. futu fos pacer "be favourable and propitious"; and because the attempt has been made4) to account for the variation on syntactical grounds: it is pointed out that the subjunctives follow the invocatory formula VI a 22 et al. teio subocau suboco "I invoke thee as the one invoked", whereas the imperatives, it is claimed, occur where "subocau is absent from the context"6). It may be that the subjunctive of fos sei pacer sei can be ascribed to the syntactical influence of subocau in the preceding line; the same explanation could be maintained with greater difficulty for pihafei, which is separated from the nearest preceding subocau (VI a 24 et al.) by a long and elaborate passage, and which is followed in the same line by the first imperative pihatu, from which only the two words di grabouie separate it. On the other hand, pihafei is clearly the end of a preparatory section of the prayer, the main purpose of which is immediately announced by di grabouie pihatu "Jupiter Grabovius purify". The abrupt change from subjunctive to imperative may therefore not so much betray a sudden evanescence of the syntactical influence of subocau (which is in any case reaffirmed in the final words of the whole prayer, VI a 34 di grabouie tio subocau "Jupiter Grabovius, thee I invoke") as mark a change to a more direct and insistent mode of prayer. In other words, the choice of subjunctive or imperative in this and the similarly constructed
*) o.c. p. 152; what is meant by "scarcely"here? 2) o.c. p. 215. 8) o.c. p. 215-216. 4) e.g. by Buck I.e.; by Poultney, more positively, p. 152. 5) Poultney, I.e.

Imperative and jussive subjunctive in Umbrian

215

following prayers may be a matter of style rather than - or at least as much as - of syntax. Somewhat similar is the case of the subjunctives in the two decrees of the Brethren, V a 1- V b 7, which are commonly explained1)as due to the influenceof eitipes "resolved"in the preamble of each decree (Va 2, 14). These subjunctives are not held to be dependent on eitipes (any more than those of the prayers are on subocau); Buck speaks of them as "closely attached in feeling" to eitipes, Poultney as "partly induced by eitipes" and "quasisubordinate". With the subjunctives of V a- b Poultney contrasts those of VII b 1- 4, which are not preceded by a verb capable of determiningthe choice of subjunctive. Moreimportant, however, than the presence or absence of a possible governing verb may be the fact that both VII b and V a- b 7 contain instructions for the action of an official of the Brotherhood (fratrexs and affertur respectively). VII b resembles the first decree of V a in its opening: pisi panupei fratrexs fratrus atiersier fust "whoever at any time shall be brother-superioramong the Atiedian Brothers" (cf. V a 3- 4 afferturpisi pumpe / fust eikvaseseatiiefier "Whoever shall be adfertor among the members of the Atiedian college"); it resemblesthe second decree in imposing a fine for failure to carry out the prescribed duties. VII b in fact differs from the decrees of V a- b only in the absence of a preamble; it may well be a decree, or an extract from a decree, added on the reverse side of VII because of its relevance to the passage concerning the chase of the heifers near the end of VII a. The conclusion begins to emerge that the choice of imperative or jussive subjunctive may depend on the type of document; the former is usual in ritual instructions, the latter in decrees and similar documents prescribing duties and penalties for officials. There remains a number of cases the examination of which may show how rigorously this principle of selection is applied in the Iguvine Tables. First, a jussive subjunctive is found in I b 34- 36 ape erus tefust pustru \ kupifiatu rupinameerus tefa ene tra sahta kupifiaia / erus tefa "when the erus has been distributed, the instruction shall be passed back to Rubinia to distribute the erus. Then the instruction shall be passed to Trans Sanctam to distribute the erus" Here the subjunctive kupifiaia is surprisingin view of the parallel kupifiatu in the preceding clause, and still more because the corx) cf. Buck o.c. p. 214; Poultney o.c. p. 152.

216

D.M.Jones

select the sacred articles and those brought from elsewhere. Whatever are offered, he shall examine whether any of them shouldbe accepted,and whenthereis to be a triad of propitiatory offerings,he shall make an inspectionin the field, whetherthey The imperativesupetu,revestu shouldbe accepted". (bis) contrast that convey the other duties of the affertur with the subjunctives occursonly here, but upetu(2 sg.) is found (bis), si (bis), revestu at II b 1, upetuta(3 pl.) at III 10, in the passagediscussedat the outset; both passagesappearto referto the openingphase of the andparticularly in ritualinstructions, rite1).If the verbwascommon if the actionshere enjoinedon the affertur had a ritual character, and the the occurrence of the imperativeupetuis understandable, same explanationcould be tentatively offeredfor the associated A further question concernsIV 26- 27 inumeksvepis heri / ezariafantentu"Then if anyone wishes, he may place the foodbaskets upon (the litter)"; so Poultney, who accepts Vetter's explanationof this passage, "especiallyin view of svepis heri, whichshowsthat the actionis optional,orat leastthat no obligation and that thereforeit may not individual restsupon any particular seems the imperative be a part of the ritualat all"2).Nevertheless, to be in place. First, the action,whateverit is, occupiesa definite place in the ritual, since the sentence,like those precedingand following,beginswith inumekand the ceremonyis not completed
x) Poultney, o.c. p. 191, argues that upetu of lib 8, 11; III 22, 26 are participles; cf. opeter, Vb9, 14. They cannot, therefore, be taken as certain examples of the use of the imperativeof this verb in ritual contexts. 2) o.c. p. 216.

sakreu \ perakneu upetu revestu pure tefte \ eru emantur herte et pihaklu pune I tribfiu fuiest akrutu revestuj emantuherte"He shall

respondingpassage of the second version has the imperative: VII a 43- 44 ape erus dirsust postro combifiatu rubiname erus / dersa enem traha sahatam combifiatu erus dersa. It is to be noted that the two clauses are verbally identical in the two versions,apartfromthe variantkupifiaia\ combifiatu. The possibilitycannot be excludedthat kupifiaiais an errorin tefa whichoccurs of the subjunctice someway due to the presence and before after it. shortly If the jussivesubjunctive is normalin decreesand similardocuments, the imperativesoccurringin Va 6- 10 are anomalous:

and other officers: kuraia, prehabia, prehubia, habia (ter), feia

revestu.

Imperative and jussive subjunctive in Umbrian

217

until 31- 32 ap itekfakustpurtitu\ futu "Whenhe has done thus, it cannot shall have been completed"1). Secondly, (the ceremony) the not have been heri that action be inferredfrom svepis may part of the ritual. We may compareVI b 41 42 anderuomu sersitu arnipo comatir pesnis fust serse pisher comoltu serse comatir persnimu / purdito fust "He shall sit during the intervaluntil he has prayedwith the ground(cakes).Anyone shall at all, sitting, shall grind (the cakes). Sitting, (the adfertor) '. willhavebeencompleted' . Thesacrifice (cakes) praywiththeground of the sacrifice The wordspurdito fust heremarkthe completion to Tefer Jovius behind the Veian Gate; and that the grinding formedpart of the ritual may be inferredfrom two facts. First, in othercasesit is performed by the adfertor himself,e.g. apparof the same sacrificein I a 33- 34 in the version shorter ently, pray sitting, with the ground(grain)";cf. VII a 45 enom traha sahatam couertu comoltu comatir persnihimu enom purditom fust "Thenhe shall returnto Trans Sanctam,grind (the cakes),and pray with the ground(cakes).Then the sacrifice will have been completed". Secondly,it is difficultto see why a - should be prescribed that of for the attitude sitting particular the action has as well as the prayer,unless former equally grinding with the latter a ritual character.Thereis, therefore,in view of this parallel,no reasonto considerthat IV 26- 27 does not refer to a part of the ceremony,and no questionof the use of the imperativearises. It appearsthat in the Iguvine Tablesthe imperativeis used in the jussive subjunctive(leavingaside the subritual instructions, in regulations in for the actionof officials wish of ; prayers) junctive and that apparentexceptionsare very few and revealedby inspecor explicableon specialgrounds.It remains tion as eitherillusory* to considerwhetherthe same principleof distributionapplies to prohibitions.Examplesare so few as hardly to justify Buck's statement: "In prohibitions,Umbrianuses the ImperativereguIV 33 larly"; he goes on to cite the only examplewith subjunctive, with the attest Two imperative. neifhabas2). prohibitions passages a certainactionfor a certain In VI b 51- 52 the auguris forbidden periodof the ceremony:neip / amboltu prepa desua combi*) cf. Poultney o.c. p. 290 on VII a 45 "enom purditom fust: here used of the completion of the whole ceremony, as in VI b 42". 2) o.c. p. 215.

zefef kumulhbzefef kumats pesnimu "Grind (the grain) sitting and

218

D.M. Jones, Imperative and jusssive subjunctive in Umbrian

fiansi "He shallnot walkaboutuntil he has announced(a parr a) at in the west". This prohibitionmay be of ritual significance; least it occursin its properchronological positionin the sequence of ritual instructions. The same is true of the cases in VI a 5- 6, whereactions which could invalidatethe ceremonyif performed at a particularperiod are forbidden:sersi pirsi sesust poi angla / aseriato est erse neip mugatu nep arsir andersistu nersa courtust porsi angla anseriato / iust "Whilehe who sits in the seat, duringthat time goes to observethe messengers no one shallmakea noisenor shallany otherpersonsit in the way until he who has gone to observethe birdsreturns".The passage : IV 32- 3 huntakpifi prupehast with subjunctive is more difficult he has purified the jar,thereafter "When efekI urespunesneifhabas they shall not use any of that mead".Two things are clearabout : that it refersto the openingof the ceremonyas set this passage out in III 3 huntak vukeprumupehatu"Firstpurifythe jar in the and that it does not occupya place in the seriesof ritual grove", since it followsthe closingformulapurtitufutu (see instructions, above).Poultney'sview1)is that "this final sentenceis not a part of the instructions for the sacrifice properbut a specialprecaution of whichwas prescribed the the to (or vat?) purification jar relating in III 3 ... The injunction is therefore againstthe use of the mead, and 'that mead'means for secular or purposes, presumably private This interthe mead which is in the jar that has been purified". of pretationmight be thought consistentwith the specialisation maintained be cannot but it for non-ritual contexts; subjunctive since it overlookstwo furtherpoints. The first is that ures punes "that mead" can hardly refer to anything but the pune frehtu "boiled mead" mentioneda few lines earlier, IV 30- 31. The secondis that the use of the future (not futureperfect)with pifi clauseis the same shouldindicatethat the time of the subordinate as that of the main clause, not, as in Poultney'sversion quoted the preliminary is therefore"during above, earlier;the translation of the huntakthe aforesaidmead is not to be used", purification and Vetter's interpretation, ignored by Poultney and Scardigli, must be preferred2): the passagein questionis appendedto the
*) o.c. p. 218. 2) o.c. p. 220. Vetter takes pifi . . . efek as ace. of reference: "Was das ... Suhnopfer . . . betrifft, dazu ..." ; but the temporal use, attested in VI a 5- 6 (quoted above), gives a sense equally consistent with his general interpretation of the passage.

Rudolf Wolfgang Mller, Divinus homo in dicendo

219

instructionsfor the ceremonyas a precautionagainst any impression that the mead prescribed for the sacrifice might also be used at an earlier stage for the initial purification rite. So understood, the passage does indeed prohibit a certain action during a ritual; but, unlike the two with imperatives, it is not entered in the section of the text to which it applies, but added out of sequence as a kind of afterthought. The use of the subjunctive therefore marks, and was perhaps intended to mark, the distinction of this prohibition from the preceding ritual sequence. It appearsthat nothing in the Iguvine Tables is inconsistent with the view that the distribution of imperative and jussive subjunctive depends on the type of context. The Iguvine Tables permit only very tentative conclusions about the Umbrian language in general. If one asks neverthelesswhich of the two, imperative or subjunctive, represents current usage, and which the archaism, the answer can hardly be other than that the usage characteristicof ritual contexts is likely to be the more archaic and obsolescent. The great preponderance of the imperative is then no more than a consequence of the high proportion of ritual to other contexts. In this respect Umbrian seems nearerto Latin, with its development of the jussive present subjunctive at the expense of the third person of the imperative in both commands and prohibitions, in contrast to the Oscan, more tenacious of the imperative in commands and with its regular use of the perfect subjunctive in prohibitions.

Divinus homo in dieendo

Eine Untersuchung ber die Attributsperrung in lateinischer Prosa unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der rhetorischen Schrifben Ciceros

Von Rudolf Wolfgang Mlleb, Miinchen Einer der wesentlichen Unterschiede zwischen dem Griechischen und Lateinischen einerseits und den in der Gegenwart von Europa her sich ausbreitenden modernen Sprachen andererseits ist die Art der Wortstelhmg. Die auBerordentliche Freiheit, die darin die griechische und die lateinische Sprache gehabt haben, ist fiir einen Europaer schwer oder gar nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen, auch dann