Sun 23 Dec 2007
SPQR
Posted by jangari under Languages, Latin, Linguistics, Semantics, Syntax
[16] Comments
There’s far too little linguistics on this blog, so in an attempt to rectify this:
Late last week on the bus I was having a conversation with a friend that, after a while, broke off on a tangent about the Roman Empire’s acronym SPQR.
It’s the sort of thing that young Roman men have tattooed on their arms, as if they were imperial Roman Gladiators, or Russell Crowe or something. Mussolini was similarly patriotic about it, as is my understanding, and put it on government buildings and manhole covers across the city.
My friend and I ended up discussing exactly what it meant, and as my friend is of that generation of people who were taught Latin all through high school, I was quite happy to accept that I was utterly wrong.
I had always heard the English gloss as The Senate and the People of Rome, and I thought the original Latin was Senatus Populusque Roma. Apart from that, I knew in the back of my mind that there was something funky going on with that clitic -que.
From these facts I more or less subconsciously concluded that it would parse as:
- [Senatus Populus]-que Roma
[The Senate and the People] of Rome
which would very easily lend itself to the analysis (from someone who never did any Latin, if I might defend myself here) that the clitic -que was a genitive/possessive morpheme and was bound on the possessed entity, which in this case would have been the entire conjunctive noun phrase the Senate and the People.
However, I was wrong in my basic knowledge of the phrase. I learned that it was actually Senatus Populusque Romanus, and not merely Roma. So clearly then, the three noun roots, senat-, popul- and Roman- all take the same declension -us, meaning that they would be in the same noun phrase, or at least have the same semantic role, in which case a genitive construction would be unlikely.
My friend also told me that the clitic -que was not a possessive morpheme, but a conjunction ‘and’. It could then easily parse as a flat structure, a list of entities, The Senate, the People, and Rome, but this wouldn’t be congruous with the common translation into English, The Senate and the People of Rome.
Defeated, I looked up Wikipedia in the hope that it would have a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss and, while there was no such gloss to be found, there was another piece of the puzzle, an alternative translation. This time it was glossed as The Senate and the Roman People.
If this gloss is more accurate, then Roman People is one half of a conjunction, and The Senate is the other half. If that‘s the case, then why on Earth would the conjunctive -que (which I don’t even know whether to call a clitic anymore) be embedded inside the phrase Populus Romanus, since presumably it conjoins it with Senatus, rather than conjoining Populus with Romanus.
So at the end of the day, I’m not yet entirely sure how SPQR should be analysed, or even how it is best translated, but I’m sure some of my erudite and knowledgeable readers have studied Latin in their time and could shed some light on this…

December 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
OK, I’m not a linguist, and my Latin’s almost as old as the Romans….but you’ve got it right when you translate Senatus Populusque as “The Senate and the People.” Two nouns, grammatically and functionally equivalent (now I’m wishing I could do this in linguistic). Romanus is the adjective, applied to both of them equally, I think because of the -que. So, correctly but not euphoniously: The Roman Senate and the Roman People. Idiomatic English, The Senate and People of Rome, understood as “The Senate and People [both] of Rome. Does that help?
December 24th, 2007 at 5:55 am
This is why everyone should have a classics degree
-que is a Wackernagel clitic (that is, it occurs in second position: in this case, it attaches to the end of the first word in the phrase). So, if you want to say ‘dogs and birds’ in Latin it’s canes avesque (or canes et aves if you want to use the other conjunction).
Back to SPQR: Romanus strictly modifies populus. The two phrases being conjoined are [Senatus] and [Populus Romanus]. The -que goes on the end of the first word in the second conjoined phrase.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Thanks Claire. Bill Poser emailed me straight after I posted this and said basically the same. But I like his example sentence better:
But it seems to me that this could still parse as Will said above, with Romanus modifying both Senatus and Populus as in ‘Rome’s senate and people’, unless Latin doesn’t allow conjoined NPs within the scope of a modifier, or unless word order plays a part here.
Looking at the fondiferous bit of the above example, I’m guessing that if you wanted to say ‘Rome’s senate and people’ then perhaps it should be Romanus Senatus Populusque?
December 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am
It was over 50 years ago that I had 3 years of high school Latin. For some reason SPQR comes back to me as Senate, Populace, and Quaestori of Rome. 30 minutes on Google do not back me up. Maybe I am remembering some snide remark by Cicero?
December 24th, 2007 at 11:40 am
On snide remarks, Jim, the expansion given in the Italian version of Asterix and Obelix was Sono Pazzi Questi Romani, ‘these Romans are crazy’.
December 24th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
um, did I mention that I eventually flunked Latin? do I really need to now?
December 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
The reason that “romanus” cannot modify “the senate and people” is the failure of agreement. In Latin adjectives agree in number, gender, and case with the NP that they modify. The conjoined NP “senate and people” is plural, so the nominative plural masculine form of “roman” is required, which is “romani”. So, one way of saying “Rome’s senate and people” would be “Senatus Populusque Romani”. Another way more literally like the English, would be to use the genitive case of the noun “Rome” rather than an adjective, which would yield: “Senatus Populusque Romae”.
December 25th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Jangari, Bill’s example is from Lucretius (De Rerum Natura), whereas mine is, shall we say, not. It’s a pity science textbooks aren’t written in hexameters these days. The link goes to an absolutely terrible wikipedia article.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Agreed Claire, although I do occasionally prefer my science, like mammalian anatomy, dished out in Seussian rhyme rather than Lucretian hexameter:
I was trying to find a copy online of the Latin De Rerum Natura, to no avail, although Project Gutenberg has a freely available English translation.
¹Sorry, that was awful.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The German WP entry points to the Latin; why the English one doesn’t, I’ve no idea.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Here’s one, complete with links to most words for parsing.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Claire, you forgot to include the link. Sounds like an excellent resource though.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Was this it? It’s great, just about every word links to a pop-up showing some relevant grammatical information about it.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Oops. Yes, that’s it.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
i know that there are 3 other ways the SPQR stand for and i know 2 witch is the one your talking about and serve and protect the roman republic
January 12th, 2010 at 4:28 am
I don’t think Latin is that strict in agreeing number.
“Romanus” sounds appropriately applied to Senatus and Populus in a phrase where they are considered jointly and not severally.
I am strongly tempted to suggest that “Senatus Populusque” in this acronym could be interpreted as the definition of polity, or authority, which would neatly fit the singular “Romanus”.
Take it from a guy who was stuck getting A’s in Latin on condition of thinking fuzzily and not trying to apply grammatical rules!
In modern Spanish, French and Portuguese the phrase (e.g.) “people and government” can be considered singular or plural for the purpose of agreement with an adjective, but singular seems predominant.