<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>matjjin-nehen &#187; Latin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/category/languages/latin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com</link>
	<description>a linguist without a language</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 09:45:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>SPQR</title>
		<link>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/12/23/spqr/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/12/23/spqr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 04:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jangari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Languages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linguistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Semantics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syntax]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/12/23/spqr/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s far too little linguistics on this blog, so in an attempt to rectify this: Late last week&#160;on the bus I was having a conversation with a friend that, after a while, broke off&#160;on a tangent about the Roman Empire&#8217;s acronym SPQR. It&#8217;s the sort of thing that young Roman men have tattooed on their [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="justify"><small><em>There&#8217;s far too little linguistics on this blog, so in an attempt to rectify this:</em></small></p>
<p align="justify">Late last week&nbsp;on the bus I was having a conversation with a friend that, after a while, broke off&nbsp;on a tangent about the Roman Empire&#8217;s acronym <em>SPQR</em>. </p>
<p align="justify">It&#8217;s the sort of thing that young Roman men have tattooed on their arms, as if they were imperial Roman&nbsp;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.</p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Rome-SPQR.JPG" target="_blank" atomicselection="true"><img style="margin: 0px" height="206" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Rome-SPQR.JPG" width="311"></a></p>
<p align="justify">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.</p>
<p align="justify">I had always heard the English gloss as <em>The Senate and the People of Rome</em>, and I thought the original Latin was <em>Senatus Populusque Roma</em>. Apart from that, I knew in the back of my mind that there was something funky going on with that clitic <em>-que</em>. </p>
<p align="justify">From these facts I more or less subconsciously concluded that it would parse as:
<ul>[<em>Senatus Populus</em>]<em>-que Roma<br /></em>[The Senate and the People] of Rome</ul>
</p>
<p align="justify">which would very easily lend itself to the analysis (from someone who never did <em>any</em> Latin, if I might defend myself here) that the clitic <em>-que</em> was a genitive/possessive morpheme and was bound on the possessed entity, which in this case would have been the entire conjunctive noun phrase <em>the Senate and the People</em>.
</p>
<p align="justify">However, I was wrong in my basic knowledge of the phrase. I learned that it was actually <em>Senatus Populusque Roma<strong>nus</strong></em>, and not merely <em>Roma</em>. So clearly then, the three noun roots, <em>senat-</em>, <em>popul- </em>and<em> Roman-</em> all take the same declension <em>-us</em>, 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.</p>
<p align="justify">My friend also told me that the clitic <em>-que</em> was not a possessive morpheme, but a conjunction &#8216;and&#8217;. It could then easily parse as a flat structure, a list of entities, <em>The Senate, the People, and Rome</em>, but this wouldn&#8217;t be congruous with the common translation into English, <em>The Senate and the People of Rome</em>.</p>
<p align="justify">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 <em>The Senate and the Roman People</em>.</p>
<p align="justify">If this gloss is more accurate, then <em>Roman People</em> is one half of a conjunction, and <em>The Senate</em> is the other half. If <em>that</em>&#8216;s the case, then why on Earth would the conjunctive <em>-que</em> (which I don&#8217;t even know whether to call a clitic anymore) be embedded inside the phrase <em>Populus Romanus</em>, since presumably it conjoins it with <em>Senatus</em>, rather than conjoining <em>Populus</em> with <em>Romanus</em>.</p>
<p align="justify">So at the end of the day, I&#8217;m not yet entirely sure how <em>SPQR</em> should be analysed, or even how it is best translated, but&nbsp;I&#8217;m sure some of my erudite and knowledgeable readers have studied Latin in their time and could shed some light on this&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matjjin-nehen.com/2007/12/23/spqr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

