advcl:cmp: comparative clause
The cmp subtype is of semantic nature and is used to point out the standards of comparison in comparative constructions unitarily: advcl:cmp for comparative adverbial clauses, obl:cmp for comparative oblique arguments.
Adverbial clauses with the function of standards of comparisons are by far the most common strategy for comparative constructions in Latin. They are treated as dependents of the predicate in the main clause, which may or may not be modified by adverbial elements expressing some form of degree (including equivalence and similarity) or contrast (like e.g. negation). Comparative clauses are finite and can be expressed in the indicative or subjunctive mood, according to the type and plausibility of the comparison. They are introduced by (subordinating) conjunctions, which can be specialized (like quam) or polysemous (like ut, which also has, among others, final uses).
In a way similar to co-ordinations, comparative clauses are often seen to exhibit predicate ellipsis to quite a notable extent. This comes from the fact that the comparison often works by varying some arguments with respect to the main clause, while simultaneously being based on the same predicate: this repetition is tendentially avoided, and so elliptical clauses arise. This has as a consequence that many comparative clauses appear just as bare nominals introduced by a conjunctional element (like quam or ut), but they are still marked by means of advcl: on the one hand to keep the parallelism with (not rare) “full-predicate” comparative clauses, and on the other hand, more importantly, to recognize that there always subsists the potential for a non-elliptical construction. The last point is supported by the fact that the remaining nominal element always follows the same case as the corresponding elements in the main clause. This kind of ellipsis can also equivalently appear in the main clause for the same reasons. We observe that proper nominal comparative constructions use a different strategy, and are rarer.
Comparative conjunctions are often derived from relative stems, which, for comparative clauses of equivalence or similarity, are often matched in the main clause by correlated (usually demonstrative) terms: a typical example is the conjunction quam (originally ‘how much’) matched to the adverb tam ‘so much’. These elements can become univerbated to form new conjunctions (e.g. tamquam). Such cases are still preferably treated as subordinations (rather than co-ordinations). In general, a comparative adverbial clause can appear without the need of such a correlated term, or any term of degree at all.
In the following examples, the passages in the translations corresponding to comparative clauses are boldfaced.
‘For, all these things are suitable to the Son inasmuch as He is subject to the Father.’ (Summa contra Gentiles, ITTB; rather free translation)
‘The Father, then, gives orders to His Son as to one who is subject to Himself according to the human nature.’ (more literal translation)
- Ellipsis of praecipit ‘gives orders’ in the comparative clause.
‘Moreover, just as the church has its foundation, so too the empire [has] its own.’ (De Monarchia, UDante)
- Ellipsis of habet ‘has’ in the main clause.
‘[According to] how many such things you are seen to own, you will have to yield the twelfth part thereof to the church of St. Simeon.’ (LLCT)
- Correlation of the fixed expressions in quantum ‘inasmuch’ (acting as the comparative conjunction formed on the basis of the relative element quantum) with in tantum ‘(in) that much’.
‘They shall bring woodland roes to thee and spotted hides of lynxes, as was thy Melibœus’ wont.’ (Eclogues II, UDante)
‘And although for my own enjoyment (or rather for the satisfaction of my own desire), there is no more agreeable place on earth than Florence…’ (De vulgari eloquentia, UDante)
- The extended comparative clause is to be intended as quam Florentia [amena] est ‘than Florence is [agreeable]’, reprising the graded amenior, from amenus (< amoenus) ‘pleasant’. The connection is made to the lexical head of the phrase showing degree, and not to its modified head or to a possible functiona lelement carrying degree.
- The fact that existo cannot be intended to correspond to the elided predicate in the comparative clause (the comparison is made on terms of agreeableness, not existence, which would not make sense semantically either) determines this as a subordinate clause of the graded adjectival phrase (thus
advcland notobl), and not as an adverbial of the matrix clause.
‘… forthwith filled our minds with joy so exceeding great that by none could it be measured either in word or in thought.’ (Letters, UDante)
- Here the demonstrative determiner tantus ‘that much/many’ sets up the scene for its relative correlate quantus ‘as much/many’, which stands alone implying an (elided) letitiam and acts as an object in (the completive clause of) the comparitive clause: therefore, this is a relative clause linked to the head of the noun phrase modified by tanta, i.e. letitia (< laetitia). We label it as
acl:relcland not as a possibleacl:cmp(previously used). - The determination of the clause as adnominal rather than adverbial (and tied to the matrix clause predicate perfuderunt) follows from letitia ‘joy’, and not perfundo ‘to drench’, being the common link explicitated by the relative element (here a determiner).
advcl:cmp in other languages: [cu] [got] [grc] [it] [la] [myv] [orv]