On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:13:49 +0200, Philippe Caquant
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I liked this '-que' form and always found it very
> elegant.


One question for the Latinists:

Was it always considered an enclitic, or was it at some point analysed as
a standalone word?

I've always wondered about the initials of SPQR - Senatus PopulusQue
Romanus. That seems an abberration of sorts, to the untrained eye.

> I think it's really a pity it disappeared
> nowadays, because clearly it indicated a nuance which
> was lost when the 'et' generalized. It seems to belong
> to a different way of thinking and analyzing (since it
> was attached at the end of the secund term, which
> looks very weird to us): perhaps it came from some
> ancient language of a different type ?

The suffixing "and" is from Proto-Indo-European, being therein simply
*-kwe, and it's retained in Latin and Sanskrit, and quite possibly others
about which I have no immediate memory, but a clear and present vague