clause is fully indicated in the meaning of the connecting preposition. (b) Both the main clause and the dependent clause have in themselves relatively complete definite signification, each having substantially the same meaning when separated from the other as when the two are placed together. (c) The preposition, since it indicates in itself the exact nature of the subordinate relation, is possessed of definite and independent content1 and together with the contentless que of the noun clause forms a so-called adverbial conjunction of definite and independent meaning, i.e. porque, para que, según que etc. (d) The mood of the dependent clause is in general determined by the meaning of the preposition (or conjunction, if you prefer)3 not by any factor contained in the main clause. (e) Prepositional supplementary clauses are grammatically dependent upon the main clause as a whole rather than upon any specific word or group of words therein. (f) The dependent clause then, has no inevitable connection with the main clause and merely serves to express an additional, accessory, or supplementary circumstance. On the other hand, prepositional complementary clauses show the following points of differentiation from prepositional supplementary clauses: (a) The nature of the subordinate relation is manifested in the meaning both of the governing element and of the introductory preposition, but the exact nature of that relation is not fully indicated in either alone. 1 Cf. p. 11, note 1. 2 Litten, Über das que anunciativo und die Adverbien si, cuando, como (in Verhandlung des deutschen Wiss.-Vereins zu Santiago de Chile, III, 1896, p. 124) would have us use the term « conjunctive adverb » instead of « adverbial conjunction ». 3 The difference between adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions is, as Jespersen points out (Modern English Grammar, I, §§ 1.33, 1.68, 1.86) based on purely formal criteria, but these words are so generally accepted and so obviously convenient that they will be retained in this study. (b) The prepositional complementary clause possesses no specific meaning when separated from its governing element. (c) The preposition therefore does not possess definite and independent content and thus does not form with the que of the noun clause an adverbial conjunction of definite independent meaning, such as porque, para que etc. 1 (d) The mood of the subordinate clause is in general determined, as in all noun clauses, not by the meaning of the link-word, if there be one, but by the meaning of the governing element itself — a circumstance which affords additional proof of the fact that the meaning of the governing element throws some light upon that of its complement. (e) Furthermore, prepositional complementary clauses always have a definite governing element, i.e. some specific element in the main clause upon which the prepositional clause grammatically depends. (f) Finally, the governing element and the prepositional complementary clause are mutually complementary, each serving to supply the other's lack of full and definite signification. Consequently, they form together a homogeneous idea of which the prepositional element is an essential part, not a supplementary or accessory circumstance. It is necessary to call attention to the fact that prepositional clauses are not always que clauses. In fact, como, cuando, and si clauses may be treated as noun clauses and introduced by prepositions. Such clauses may be complementary or supplementary in value 2. Cf. the following illustrative examples: no se dió 1 The preposition introducing complements may be regarded as expressing the exact nature of the complementary relation only when the complement has been joined to its governing element and when the content of the connecting preposition is strengthened and made specific by the complementary implication contained in the meaning of the governing element. Consequently the preposition in itself lacks definite and independent content, whereas in the case of supplements the preposition, not being dependent upon another element for its specific content, possesses definite and independent content. * Since prepositional complementary como, cuando and si clauses show no essential difference from prepositional complementary que clauses, they will cuenta de cómo salió 1; me acuerdo de cuando era niño; guardemos este vino para cuando llegue mi hermano; quería enterarme de si lo había hecho; iré a verlo por si puede darme alguna aclaración 2. Another phase of the prepositional clause construction is illustrated by the following examples: se informó de quién lo hizo; no estoy seguro de qué traje vestía; no pudo acordarse de cuál de aquellos caminos había de tomar. These prepositional relative clauses will not be studied in the present work. Cfr p. 254, note 2. 4. PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS OF THE MODERN SPANISH CONSTRUCTION. Mätzner was the first grammarian to call attention to the prepositional complementary clause in Spanish and Portuguese and to differentiate it from the usage in other Romance tongues 3. He gives one or two examples of what he calls « der Kasussatz » in a genitive and dative relationship i.e., complementary de que and a que clauses; of << der präpositionale Nebensatz » - in which category not be separated from the latter in the treatment in Part I. For de como clauses cf. pp. 61, (bis) etc.; for de cuando clauses, cf. p. 58 (bis), etc.; for de si clauses cf. pp. 61, 63, 64, etc.; for a si clauses, cf. p. 162. For discussion of the supplementary para cuando type for the entire Romance field, cf. Tobler, V. B., V, p. 12 ff. Gessner, Z. R. P., XIV, p. 57, mentions por si and para si clauses as evidence of the tendency in Spanish to have subordinate clauses governed by prepositions. 1 I have no examples in modern Spanish of a prepositional supplementary como clause (así como and luego como clauses cannot logically be considered as such). For their occurrence in Old Spanish, however, cf. p. 123, 124. 2 It is curious to note for modern English that, while genuine prepositional complementary clauses do not occur with noun clauses introduced by that (in that clauses may be regarded as always being supplementary in value). they do occur with how, when, why, and whether clauses used as noun clauses, Cf. «< he talked of how people had injuredhim ». — Jespersen (Growth and Structure of the English Language, p. 83) says that this construction is probably Scandinavian in origin. Cf. in this connection the abundant use of en commo and de commo in Old Spanish ( p. 123) 3 Synt., §§ 322, 390, 391, 395, 481. he places complementary en que clauses; and of « der attributive Substantivsatz >> i.e. complementary de que clauses after nouns. He makes no mention of prepositional complementary como, cuando, or si clauses. Although complements possess, in very general way, the same function as do the cases in the inflected languages - the direct complement corresponding roughly to the accusative case and the prepositional complement to the other oblique cases it is certainly carrying the analogy too far to treat the prepositional complementary clause as the « Kasussatz ». Such treatment would tend to perpetuate an artificial point of view of certain phases of Romance syntax. In addition, the fact that case endings often express adverbial (or supplementary) relations, such as cause and manner, places further difficulty in the way of such treatment. The greatest obstacle, however, is offered by the impossibility of classifying under the head of << Kasussatz >> all prepositional complementary clauses. If de que and a que clauses are to be treated as «< genitive » and «< dative » clauses respectively, how are en que, con que and por que complementary clauses to be classed? All as «< ablative » clauses? Or shall we go back to the ten cases of the Sanscrit to find suitable nomenclature? Diez and Foerster, as we shall see, avoid this difficulty by treating only de que and a que clauses, while Mätzner, in an effort to solve it, creates for en que clauses the category of « prepositional clause » which, as we have seen, would include not only those he meant it to embrace, but all clauses introduced by prepositions, whether complementary or adverbial in function. Diez's treatment is, except in the matter of more numerous and more representative examples, in no wise superior to that of Mätzner. He adheres to the « Kasussatz » method of presentation, limiting his treatment to those clauses that stand in a genitive or dative relationship, i.e., de que and a que clauses. His examples of prepositional complementary and prepositional supplementary como, cuando, and si clauses are, on the other hand, quite representative 1. Foerster closely follows Diez. His treatment of prepositional complementary and prepositional supplementary como, cuando, and si clauses is even more detailed and more satisfactory than that of Diez 2. Wiggers' treatment, while very summary, shows wider scope; he cites an example of a con que clause in addition to those with de que and a que and mentions the possibility of other prepositions being used in this manner. He gives one example each of a de si and a por si clause but does not mention the occurence of como and cuando clauses introduced by prepositions 3. Although in one case he refers to complementary de que clauses after nouns as standing in a genitive relation to their governing element, he does not adhere strictly to the « Kasussatz » method of treatment, and on the whole, seems to view the construction simply as the << präpositionale Nebensatz ». This latter position is the one definititely taken by Bello, who, as we have seen, groups under this one head all subordinate clauses introduced by prepositions - a method of treatment which, while correct from the structural and generic standpoint, fails to take into account those functional distinctions which his German predecessors felt but did not make entirely clear. He also mentions and gives examples of para cuando and sobre si clauses. Ramsey, whose description of the construction agrees in most respects with that set forth in the opening sentence of this study, gives abundant examples of de que, a que, en que, and con que clauses, but unfortunately seems to imply by his examples and method of 1 Gr., pp. 1009, 1010, 1016, 1023, 1030 (note), 1048. Tobler, Mél., I, p. 209, cites two de que clauses, contenting himself, by way of explanation, by referring to the treatment of Diez. 2 Sp. Spr., §§ 505, 2; 506; 507, 5; 510, 3. 3 Gr., pp. 181, 198. • Gr., §§ 317, 403, 986, 1152. |