Negative.
(A. Habich:
observationes de negationum
aliquot usu Plautino. Halle, 1893; read with it Seyffert's review
in Bursian's
Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 319.)
The prefix
nĕ- of
nequeo, nescio, nefas, nisi
(older
nesi),
numquam
(=
nĕ-umquam),
neutiquam (scanned
n'ŭtiquam, and by some
editors
1 printed
ne utiquam),
nullus (=
nĕ-ullus),
is the first element of
nolo (=
nĕ-volo), with 2, 3 Singular
nĕvis, nĕvolt still surviving
beside the more usual
nonvis, nonvolt in Plautine Latin. The same
Particle is the second element of
quin (2), e.g.
quin sciret for
‘qui
nĕ sciret.’ But its independent use in the time of Plautus is not
proved by the variant reading
ne multa (
P:
non multa A）
in
Trin. 364 “
eo non multa quae nevolt eveniunt, nisi fictor malust”, which
some refer to a marginal correction of
nisi to the older spelling
nesi.
(In
Truc. 877 read
refacere,
Most. 124 reparcunt.
Nē, not
nĕ, is the
word used in
Pseud. 437, 633). (On the affirmative Particle
nĕ,
see
2）
The Old Latin
nec (e.g. “
res nec mancipi”; cf. Festus 162 M.),
replaced by
non in Classical Latin, still survives in Plautine Latin (see
2), especially in the phrase
nec recte dicere,
e.g.
Most. 240 “
nec recte si illi dixeris”.
Like
necuter (later) may be
necullus of
Trin. 282
“
neque in via neque in foro necullum sermonem exsequi” (
neque u.
A, ullum P), but other examples, such as
nec quoquam (v.l. nēquoquam)
Most. 562, are still less free from suspicion. Cf.
Editors change
nec—quidem in
Most. 595 to
ne—quidem. (On Copulative
nec, neque, see
2）
Of the Old Latin form
noenum (
nĕ-oenum ‘not one’) there is only
one certain example in Plautus,
Aul. 67 “
noenum mecastor quid ego
ero dicam meo”, just as of the form
oenus for
unus (viz.
Truc. 102).
Editors have sometimes wrongly substituted it for
non enim ‘indeed
not’ (cf.
2 ‘enim’), e.g. in
Mil. 648,
Aul. 594,
Trin. 705.
>Haud (
hau, a form found only before a word beginning with a
consonant) is not used in questions, commands, conditional, consecutive
and final clauses.
Non is not subject to these restrictions.
Haud is especially used with Adjectives or Adverbs, and generally stands
immediately before the negated word.
A double Negative usually merely strengthens the Negation (but
cf.
nonnullus, haud nolo), e.g.
Cf.
Epid. 532,
Curc. 579,
Mil. 1411. The classical Latin
use of
neque . . . neque after a Negative is found in
Capt. 76 “
quos
numquam quisquam neque vocat neque invocat”,
Epid. 110,
Trin. 281, etc.
On the Pronominal equivalents of
non, such as
nihil, nullum,
nullus, see
IV. 28 To these may be added
numquam e.g.
Pers.
628, Ter.
Andr. 384 “
numquam faciam” (Donatus' note is: “
‘numquam’
plus habet negationis, quam ‘non’”), often strengthened by the
addition of
hodie2 (like Virgil's “
numquam hodie effugies,”
Ecl. 3.49）
e.g.
Trin. 971, Ter.
Phorm. 805 “
nunquamne hodie concedes mihi?”, Naev.
trag. 15. Cf.
Men. 217 “
neque hodie . . meream”. On
numquam
quisquam, see
IV. 28 On
minus (cf.
quominus), see p. 111.
