# eccur / et cur



## reineblanc

Hello everyone. 

I am translating A.J.A Symons' _Quest for Corvo _into Korean, and in one of the episodes about Baron Corvo(pseudonym of the eccentric writer Frederick Rolfe) I found these two latin words/expressions, "eccur" and "et cur". 

Here's the original sentences: 
- Once he[Rolfe] came to me, Gury in hand, demanding to know the meaning of "eccur". I expounded. "Then why can't he say 'et cur'?" 
(A.J.A. Symons, _Quest for Corvo_, New York Review Classics, p73)

The narrator of these sentences is Rolfe's old acquaintance, and apparently he is speaking of his doubts about Rolfe's knowledge of Latin. For I myself have no knowledge of Latin, I searched Google, and found out that 'et cur' means 'and why'. But I couldn't find the word 'eccur' in any online latin dictionary entry. I have even no idea whether it is an existing word or not.. 
Can someone kindly explain why the above quoted sentences are evidence of Rolfe's lack of knowledge of Latin? 

Thanks in advance.

-reineblancHE


----------



## wandle

*Eccur* is not in Lewis & Short, which presumably means it belongs to medieval or church Latin.

However, in classical Latin, the prefix *ec-* makes relative pronouns and adverbs into interrogatives. Thus *ecquis* means 'Is there anyone who ...?'
_*Ecquid*_ not only means 'Is there anything which ...?' but also 'whether' and even occasionally stands for *cur* ('why?').

What appears to have happened is that in the medieval period the interrogative prefix *ec-* became superfluously attached to the already interrogative *cur*, perhaps to make it a more intensive question.

The C18 commentator Alessio Simmaco's book of Bible annotations in Latin uses *eccur* repeatedly to mean 'why' introducing an indirect question. For example, one entry in the index reads *Cretenses, eccur mendaces dicti*: 'Cretans, why called liars' (in reference to Titus, 1 12).

From Rolfe's question 'Why can't he say 'et cur'?' it would seem that his acquaintance had interpreted *eccur* as being simply a contracted form of *et cur*. If that derivation is, as I suspect, a mistake, then the expounder himself is in error.

Whatever the explanation, the word itself would not necessarily be familiar to someone with a standard classical education: however, someone with that background, on meeting it in context, ought to be able to see that it is used as an alternative form of *cur*.


----------



## CapnPrep

I haven't found any occurrences of _eccur_ and only one of _et cur_ in Gury's _Compendium_ and _Casus conscientiae_ (but there are many editions of both). Of course it is possible that this self-serving anecdote describes an "imagined reality".


wandle said:


> However, in classical Latin, the prefix *ec-* makes relative pronouns and adverbs into interrogatives. […]
> What appears to have happened is that in the medieval period the interrogative prefix *ec-* became superfluously attached to the already interrogative *cur*, perhaps to make it a more intensive question.


The prefix _ec-_ is not interrogative (it is most commonly found in _ecce_). The classical forms that you cited, _ecquis_ and _ecquid_, are also based on already interrogative forms, not relative pronouns.


----------



## reineblanc

Thank you very much, wandle and CapnPrep. Your answers helped me greatly. Now I can put a short translator's note to help readers' understanding of the passage in question! 

- ReineblancHE


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete!

It's perhaps late in the day, but I have another suggestion. _cur_ = _quare_, i.e. _qua re_, and, though I have never seen this suggested in print, there would even in classical Latin be nothing to prevent the formation of _ecqua re_, even if this doesn't make it into L&S as _eccur_ (unfortunately I cannot consult the _OLD_ at present). As I understand it, the _ec-_ prefix to the interrogative pronouns/adjectives adds the force of colloquial English "at all" (_ecquis hoc credit?_ = "Does _anyone _[really] believe this?", _ecqua ratione id fecit?_ = "Was there _any_ good reason for him to have done that?"), with an emphatic note of incredulity.

If this is right, then may not _eccur_  be an example of the inflationary tendency of late or mediaeval Latin,  or the Romance legacy, especially in rhetorical contexts, to resort to  more extreme forms - diminutives (_fratello_, _sorella_); the preponderation of the Fut. Perf. over Fut. Simple as in _vincero_; and innumerable Latin American dictators who used to flaunt themselves as _Generalissimo_?

If  this is even half right (and I make no claim to experthood in vulgar,  late or mediaeval Latin), it might go some way to explain...





> The  C18 commentator Alessio Simmaco's book of Bible annotations in Latin uses *eccur* repeatedly to mean 'why' introducing an indirect question. For example, one entry in the index reads *Cretenses, eccur mendaces dicti*: 'Cretans, why called liars' (in reference to Titus, 1 12).



Well done, wandle, for tracking this one down. Perhaps there are some mediaevalists out there who can help?

Σ


----------



## wandle

CapnPrep said:


> The prefix _ec-_ is not interrogative (it is most commonly found in _ecce_). The classical forms that you cited, _ecquis_ and _ecquid_, are also based on already interrogative forms, not relative pronouns.


Yes, it is true that *quis* (with its neuter form _*quid*_) is the interrogative, not the relative. Silly mistake by me. 

Still, if *ecquis* is equivalent to *num quis*, then there would appear to be interrogative force in the prefix *ec*-. 
In *num quis* two interrogatives are used to form the same question as *ecquis*: 'is there anyone who ...?' It seems that *ec*- is doing the same job as *num*.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Coudn't it have been a form of univerbation induced by regressive assimilation?

GS


----------

