キケロー書翰における認定を意味する動詞の用法に関する一考察

抄録

The assertive sentence is by definition a form of proposition the content of which is presented as an assertion made by the speaker This assertiveness can also be expressed by way of vocabulary, using a certain group of verbs called verba adfirmandi (e g arbitror, puto, censeo, iudico, intellego, scio, etc) Now arises a question what is the relation between the assertiveness derived from the very form of the assertive sentence and the nature of assertion of the above verbs common to all the members of the group ? This is the first question Then comes the second what are the features characteristic to each member of the group apart from their common class-meanings, and, what is the correlation they may have with the form-meaning of assertive sentences Through the observation of verba adfirmandi used in Cicero's Letters (ca 500 in number), it is concluded 1) that the verba adfirmandi can be divided into two sub-groups one is that of verba ludicandi denoting judgement by the speaker of the things unknown and uncertain, and the other that of verba recognoscendi which denote recognition of the things as true or certain 2) that the assertive sentence describes things as they are, with no regards to the gap existing between expression and things expressed When the speaker feels it necessary to assert the content of his utterance more expressly, either as his judgement or as his recognition, he usually resorts to verba adfirmandi, and the result thus attained is that he stands also as the subject of the verb so as to express his responsibility for his assertion more distinctively 3) that both of these sub-groups may also be used for stylistic purposes i e verbs belonging to the former sub-group may denote contents of the sentences as something uncertain or at least as a judgement made by the subject of the verb only (i e not by the speaker), regardless whether it is true or not, whereas the verbs belonging to the latter sub-group express it as a fact 4) that the difference in distribution between these sub-groups can be explained, in the present writer's opinion, by the difference in stylistic nature of the sub-groups For example, the use of the 2nd person of verba iudicandi (putas etc), when used in assertive sentences, produces an impression more or less impolite, and, therefore, it is recommended to avoid it in politer expressions On the other hand, that of verba recognoscendi can be used in similar sentences quite freely, without such restrictions 5) that when a certain group of activities, such as absolutely mental activities or activities considered not honourable to their agents, are to be expressed, the expression always takes a form of oratio obliqua led by the verb of verba iudicandi (vereris-videris vereri etc) in contrast to the activities laudable to the speaker, which are expressed by means of verba cognoscendi (tibi curae est-scio tibi curae esse etc) Though the differences between these subdivisions of verba adfirmandi are essentially of logical nature, it is possible to say that the author of the Epistulae fully makes use of such differences in his own manner and for his own purposes, communicating subtle evaluations of a given activity or of its agent on the part of the speaker, and thus accomplishing a style of a true master of prose