330 LAURA Α. MICHAELIS
Marcium Regem mittit cum mandatis.
M. Rex(A) sent with mandates (AB)
"Gaius Manilius sent legates from his army to Marcius Rex
with a message." Sail. Cat. 32,3
b. Coegerunt eum venire.
(they)forced him() come(iNF)
"They forced him to come."
Pompeius munitiones Caesaris prohiber e non
() reinforcements(A) Caesar(G) prohibit(iNF) not
poterai.
could
"Pompey could not prohibit the reinforcements of Caesar."
Caes. B.C. 3,44
d. Metellus... saucios cum cura reficit, méritos
Metellus(N) injured(A) with () restores, merits(A)
inproeliis more militiae donat, univorsos in
in battles(Aß) custom(Aß) military (G) gives, 11() in
condone laudai atque gradas agit.
group(Aß) praises and thanks(A) gives
"Metellus...healed the injured, gave military honors for the
battles, praised all together in a group and gave thanks."
Sail. J. 54,1
The reflexive possessive adjective suus, exemplified in sentence (25a),
agrees in case, number, and gender with the nominal it modifies, rather
than with its antecedent, whose number, gender, and case properties are
unmarked on the modifier. The ablative suo in (25a) might then prima facie
refer back to any of the three arguments of mittit — C. Manilius, the
legates, or Marcius Rex. Sentence (25a), however, is unambiguous; suo
refers back neither to the direct object legatos nor to the indirect (preposi
tional) object Marcium Regem, but only to the nominatively coded argu
ment Manilius. Hence, (25a) demonstrates that the nominative argu
ment alone "controls" the reflexive. Sentences (25b) and (25c) represent
two types of "equi" structures; the first in which the argument missing from
the infinitival complement is coinstantiated with the object of the matrix
verb, the second in which that missing argument is coinstantiated with the
matrix subject. In both situations, the missing argument must represent a
subject — i.e., that grammatical function which, in an unembedded con-