Will

“Qua na stat nagin pront davant la porta, uschia che jau m'avischin e splunt in zic timida. Ina dunna cun schlappa e scussal alv m'avra. Probablamain la cuschiniera. Immediat cumenza ella a discurrer per tudestg. Jau na chapesch betg pled e na sai betg tge dir. Dus egls severs m'examineschan. Ella para da spetgar ina resposta. Qua cumpara tuttenina in'autra dunna davos ella. Quella porta in bellezza vestgì e surri en maniera simpatica. 'Haben wir Besuch, Roswitha?', dumonda ella la cuschiniera. 'Nun ja, dieses Mädchen is hier aufgetaucht. Ich weiss nicht, ob es stumm ist oder unsere Sprache nicht spricht.' La cuschiniera guarda sco sch'ella n'avess betg grond gust da sa fatschentar pli ditg cun mai. 'Ist schon gut, Roswitha, du kannst sie mir überlassen.' Jau hai empruvà da suandar lur discurs cun tutta fadia, ma n'hai tuttina chapì nagut. Ussa sa drizla la dunna cun il surrir amiaivel a mai: 'Buna saira, jau sun la patruna da quest hotel.' Ella ma tanscha il maun. 'Discurris Vus rumantsch?' Surstada dun jau dal chau. Cun quai n'aveva jau betg quintà. Ella è bain la patruna tudestga, pertge sa ella pia rumantsch? Sche mes parents discurrivan davart ils Tudestgs, eran els adina plain aversiun: 'Taidla, Catrina, quels pensan ch'il rumantsch saja la lingua da las muntognas, dals purs. Ils Tudestgs n'empruvassan mai da communitgar cun nus. Ma quai è bain en urden, nus stain gugent tranter nus.' L'experientscha d'ier m'ha confermà quai. Questa dunna qua è dentant tut autra.”
― Laura Schütz, Hotel Destin

“PREPOSITIONS
219. Prepositions were not originally distinguished from Adverbs in form or meaning, but have become specialized in use. They developed comparatively late in the history of language. In the early stages of language development the cases alone were sufficient to indicate the sense, but, as the force of the case-endings weakened, adverbs were used for greater precision (cf. § 338). These adverbs, from their habitual association with particular cases, become Prepositions; but many retained also their independent functions as adverbs.

Most prepositions are true case-forms: as, the comparative ablatives extrā, īnfrā, suprā (for †exterā, †īnferā, †superā), and the accusatives circum, cōram, cum (cf. § 215). Circiter is an adverbial formation from circum (cf. § 215. b N.); praeter is the comparative of prae, propter of prope.[1] Of the remainder, versus is a petrified nominative (participle of vertō; adversus is a compound of versus; trāns is probably an old present participle (cf. in-trā-re); while the origin of the brief forms ab, ad, dē, ex, ob, is obscure and doubtful.

[1] The case-form of these prepositions in -ter is doubtful.”
― J. B. Greenough Joseph Henry Allen, Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar

“Píšu román, abych se neproměnila – v ptáka, v loutku, v něčí fantasmagorii. Trýznivé město se stalo městem proměn. Sehrávám ve vaně loutkové přestavení, abych se neproměnila. Tisknu záda k jejímu dnu. Bojím se, aby se mi vana nestala smrtelným ložem jako Jarmile Schovánkové, jejíž život uplýval do vody dvěma rudými pramínky. Píšu román, abych zachránila živé, ale také abych vyvedla z napaměti minulost, své mrtvé, abych z ní vyvedla sama sebe. Jednou se v zápalu hry přes rampu vany příliš nakloním, jednou se příliš hluboko vykloním z okna našeho bytu, abych rukou dosáhla k věži chrámu. Místo chrámu však uvidím jen ztopořený pyj televizní věže. Píšu, ale možná se už stejně proměňuji. –Mé šaty zůstaly ležet v pokoji, zmocnil se jich jakýsi stařec, utíká s nimi pryč, už budu muset zůstat proměněna. Nezadržitelně sklouzávám po hladké stěně vany jako do lůna masožravé rostliny. Údy mi tuhnou, dřevěnějí, moje tvář se mění ve strnulou masku loutky. Někdo mne pověsí na prádelní šňůru, neboť se stanu loutkou v jeho hře, jednou z tuctu, stovek loutek, románových postav, které čekají na svůj výstup.

Pomalu se proměňuji. Dokud však píšu, zůstává jiskřička naděje na cestu zpátky, na návrat k životu a vědomí, k vůli, k lidské tváři. Dokud píšu...”
― Daniela Hodrová, Théta

“It is in sentence structure more than in any other aspect of style that T.'s distinctiveness is most visible. In all Latin prose authors many sentences consist of single clauses or two co-ordinated main clauses. But when authors write complex sentences, two main types are prominent: (1) a narrative sentence in which, after one or more subordinate clauses (or their equivalents, e.g. ablative absolutes or other participial phrases), the sentence is concluded by the main clause (or at least its predicate) and finishes, more often than not, with its main verb; (2) an oratorical period in which words, phrases, and clauses are balanced against one another, and where that balance (concinnitas) is often marked by rhetorical devices such as antithesis and assonance. As a former orator T. shows his skill in the second type when, as was expected of ancient historians, he puts invented speeches into the mouths of various characters: see, for example, the speech of Cremutius Cordus at 34.2 – 35.3. But it is in his handling of the narrative or descriptive type of sentence that T.'s individuality is most distinct. Attention will focus here on two major features only.

Ch. 29 begins with the following sentence: 'Tum accusatory Cn. Lentulum et Seium Tuberonem nominat, magno pudore Caesaris, cum primores ciuitatis, intimi ipsius amici, Lentulus senectutis extremae, Tubero defecto corpore, tumultus hostilis et turbandae rei publicae accerserentur.' Here the main clause consists of eight initial words and is followed by an 'appendix' which is almost three times as long, is introduced by an ablative clause, gives Tiberius' reaction to the event of the main clause, and is then extended further by an explanatory cum-clause. This type of sentence is one of the commonest in T. The appendix is repeatedly expressed by an ablative absolute, which may offer an explanation of, or comment on, the action of the main clause, or may simply add a further fact. The appendix may be very short (as 64.1 'duesto monte Caelio') or of considerable length: the example at 29.1 is of moderate length, but that at 59.3 consists of fifty-five words. The contrast between such sentences and the more conventional narrative type, in which subordinate elements precede and build up to the statement of the main clause, arguably reflects a different way of looking at events and their consequences. When the main clause is completed early in the sentence, emphasis is inevitably thrown on the appended element(s); and since the appendix regularly gives men's motives for acting, or their reactions to events, this type of sentence clearly appealed to T. as the ideal vehicle for the cynical psychology which he so often imputes to his characters.”
― A.J. Woodman, Annals IV