In the accusative and infinitive construction in Archaic Latin, both present and future tense infinitives can be found if there is future meaning; semantic differences cannot be detected.Various scholars have tried to show that the present infinitive is colloquial here or that the alternation between the two tenses has to do with semantic differences in the governing verbs.However, on closer examination of the data such theories cannot be upheld. In this paper, Ishall demonstrate that the present infinitive is restricted to telic events. Moreover, it is particularly frequent if the subjects of the superordinate and subordinate verbs are identical.The present infinitive of the verb 'to give' occurs more often than present infinitives of other verbs. Finally, we can observe how such present infinitives become less frequent if we compare Plautus and Terence.

The sigmatic subjunctive (type faxim ‘I may do’) always has non-past meaning. However, its distribution patterns differ from those of the present subjunctive. While the present subjunctive is not subject to any restrictions, the sigmatic subjunctive is virtually absent in commands and ut-clauses, but unusually frequent in prohibitions and subordinate nē-clauses. The sigmatic subjunctive belongs to an elevated register.

No abstract

Latin has a so‐called sigmatic future faxō‘I shall make’. Scholars are divided as to the origins and antiquity of faxō; some believe it to go back to desideratives, others to aorists, and some argue that the formation arose within Latin, others that it can be traced back to Proto‐Italic. Closely connected with these problems are the questions whether Venetic is an Italic language and whether its past (‘aorist’) tense vha.g.s.to‘he made’ is related to faxō. I intend to show that faxō is based on inherited s‐aorists, not on desideratives, that the formation arose late, within Latin itself rather than within Proto‐Italic, and that there was never a past indicative beside it. Because of the last two reasons, vha.g.s.to must be independent of faxō. Venetic may still be an Italic language, but the form vha.g.s.to cannot be used as an argument in favour of such a connection.

No abstract