The article examines the use of nam in close association with a question word (e.g. quisnam, nam quis) in early Latin. As Kroon (1995, 165-5) observes, the use mirrors explicative nam, in that it is found when a speaker seeks supplementary information, while explicative nam is used to provide it. If interrogative nam arose from a sarcastic use of explicative nam to comment on a dialogue partner’s failure to supply information, this could account for several nuances that commentators have found in nam questions.
See e.g. Hoffmann and Szantyr1965504: “nam . . . ist ursprünglich bloße Versicherungspartikel ‘wahrlich doch ja’”. They cite questions with interrogative nam as examples for affirmative nam. Only Schiwy (1932) thinks that many instances of an affirmative use can be found in surviving texts.
Hand184518: “Interrogatio quae ex animo magis commoto proficiscitur significantior fit per particulam nam” 20: “exprimitur admirationis vel expectationis vel cupiditatis motus”.
Kühner and Stegmann19142.2.116 “lebhafte leidenschaftliche Fragen”; OLD s.v. nam 7 “lively or impatient questions”; Lorenz on Pl. Mos. 160 “in Fragen des Erstaunens oder der Entrüstung”.
Ernout and Meillet1979428: “-nam enclitique s’ajoute à des pronoms ou à des particules de caractère interrogatif ou indefini pour renforcer l’indétermination”.
Kühner and Stegmann19142.2.116. German denn has some similarity to nam in questions and is already cited in comparison by Hand (1845 18-9). Note that denn originally had the same meanings as dann; up to the eighteenth century a question ‘Warum denn?’ could also be posed with dann and denn could also be used as a temporal adverb. The fact that nam and denn share an explicative use need not be significant.
Kroon1995165. A reactive move is one utterance or series of utterances made by a speaker in response to the utterances of another speaker: A. Give us a crisp! (initiating move) B. Buy your own! (reactive move).
Shackleton Bailey (1953) discusses apparent exceptions to the rule that num expects no. The pattern discussed here corresponds more or less to Shackleton Bailey’s group b “Surprise” (idem p. 122): “In English ‘not I suppose . . .’ ‘not by any chance . . .?’ ‘surely not?’ will often represent the force of num”.
Group a in Shackleton Bailey1953121-2: “The speaker knows that the answer to the question is likely to be ‘Yes’ but is reluctant to believe it”.
Bodelot199014-27. If using the same tables we compare only those questions that have nam equivalents (e.g. quis ubi quo) the proportion of indirect to direct questions without nam is 1: 1.8 a proportion only slightly higher than the 1: 2.2 for nam questions.