Linguistic studies on Latin: selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23-27 March 1991) v28

LINGUISTIC STUDIES ON LATIN

STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS) The SLCS series has been established as a companion series to STUDIES IN LANGUAGE, International Journal, sponsored by the Foundation "Foundations of language". Series Editors Werner Abraham University of Groningen The Netherlands

Michael Noonan University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee USA Editorial Board

Joan Bybee (University of New Mexico) Ulrike Claudi (University of Cologne) Bernard Comrie (University of Southern California) William Croft (University of Manchester) Osten Dahl (University of Stockholm) Gerrit Dimmendaal (University of Leiden) Martin Haspelmath (Free University of Berlin) Ekkehard König (Free University of Berlin) Christian Lehmann (University of Bielefeld) Robert Longacre (University of Texas, Arlington) Brian MacWhinney (Carnegie-Mellon University) Marianne Mithun (University of California, Santa Barbara) Edith Moravcsik (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee) Masayoshi Shibatani (Kobe University) Russell Tomlin (University of Oregon) John Verhaar (The Hague)

Volume 28

József Herman Linguistic Studies on Latin

LINGUISTIC STUDIES ON LATIN SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE 6TH INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON LATIN LINGUISTICS (Budapest, 23-27 March 1991)

JÓZSEF HERMAN University of Venice The Hungarian Academy of Budapest

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (6th : 1991 : Budapest, Hungary) Linguistic studies on Latin : selected papers from the 6th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Budapest, 23-27 March 1991) / József Herman. p. cm. — (Studies in language companion series, ISSN 0165-7763 ; v. 28) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Latin language--Grammar--Congresses. I. Herman, József. IL Title. III Series. PA2080.I5 1991 475-dc20 94-26068 ISBN 90 272 3031 5 (Eur.) / 1-55619-380-7 (US) (alk. paper) CIP © Copyright 1994 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia, PA 19118 • USA

Table of contents

József Herman: Préface I. P h o n o l o g y a n d m o r p h o - s y n t a x Frédérique Biville (Lyon): Existait-il une diphtongue ui en latin? Gabriël C.L.M. Bakkum (Amsterdam): The second-declension nominative plural in -eis, -es, -is, and the first-declension nominative plural in -as Gerd Haverling (Göteborg): On the sco-suffix, on prefixes and on the development of the Latin verbal system Pedro Manuel Suárez (Oviedo): VIXIT ANNIS XXX MENSES III DIES XIX II. T h e s i m p l e s e n t e n c e and t h e order of its c o n s t i t u e n t s Charles Elerick (Texas - El Paso): Phenotypic Linearization in Latin, word order universals, and language change Huguette Fugier (Strasbourg): Le verbe latin "incorpore"-t-il ses compléments? J a n R. de Jong (Amsterdam): Word order in Cato's De AgricuHura Marius Lavency (Louvain-la-Neuve et Bruxelles): Sujet de verbe ou sujet de proposition? Elena Rizzi - Piera Molinelli (Bergamo): Latin and Greek com­ pared: word order in a bilingual papyrian text (P. Bon. 5) Hannah Rosen (Jerusalem): The definite article in the making, nominal constituent order, and related phenomena Maartje H. Somers (Amsterdam) Theme and topic. The relation between discourse and constituent fronting in Latin III. S u b o r d i n a t i o n Gualtiero Calboli (Bologna): Subordination and Coordination: con­ structions in between Paulo De Carvalho (Bordeaux): Mode verbal et syntaxe de subordi­ nation Pierluigi Cuzzolin (Pavia): On sentential complementation after verba affectuum Jacqueline Dangel (Paris): Syntaxe et stylistique du discours indirect chez Tacite: une parole rhétorique

VII 3

19 41 55

67 75 91 103 113 129 151

167 179 201 211

Sylvie Mellet (Nice): Le subjonctif dans les subordonnées en cum en latin classique J o h a n n a A.H. Mensink (München - Thes.L.L.): The semantic value of restrictive participle clauses in Latin Paolo Ramat (Pavia): On Latin absolute constructions Elseline Vester (Amsterdam): The internal structure of adverbial ut-clauses IV. Particles and text cohesion A. Machtelt Bolkestein - Michel van de Grift (Amsterdam): Parti­ cipant tracking in Latin discourse Caroline Kroon (Amsterdam): Discourse connectives and discourse type: the case of Latin at Rodie Risselada (Amsterdam): Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives María E. Torrego (Madrid): The syntax of adhuc with verbal predicates V . P r o b l e m s of t h e l e x i c o n Robert Coleman (Cambridge): The lexical relationships of Latin in Indo-European Benjamín García-Hernández (Madrid): Prom lexemics to syntax: the double accusative with doceo and the dative with svm Léon Nadjo (Tours): Problèmes de composition nominale, en latin Christian Touratier (Aix-en-Provence): Analyse sémique et actancielle du verbe dare Index

227 241 259 269

283 303 319 345

359 379 393 403 417

Préface József Herman

Le VI. Colloque International de Linguistique latine eut lieu à Buda­ pest, du 23 au 27 mars 1991. Il y eut 61 communications, sans compter les exposés aux Tables rondes, ces dernières prenant soin elles-mêmes de l'éventuelle publication de leurs débats. En tant qu'organisateur du Col­ loque, nous avons dû nous rendre compte dès les premières semaines qui suivirent le Colloque que la tâche de réunir et de publier les Actes se­ rait extrêmement ardue et, par certains de ses aspects, troublante. Après bien des tribulations, nous avons pu résoudre, pour une bonne part, le problème du financement: sur la recommandation de l'Académie Hongroise des Sciences, le Fonds National pour la Recherche Scientifique (OTKA) de Hongrie consentit à couvrir les frais de la saisie et de l'impression du manuscrit de base: qu'il en soit sincèrement remercié. La maison d'éditions J. Benjamins d'Amsterdam, qui a déjà publié une partie des actes des Col­ loques précédents (3 volumes sur 5), a gracieusement accepté de publier ce volume également. Tous ces préparatifs — se déroulant dans les conditions d'une transition économique et institutionnelle, en Hongrie comme ailleurs — nous firent perdre du temps: les conditions permettant d'entreprendre le travail effectif ne furent réunies que vers la fin de l'année 1992, un an et demi après le Colloque lui-même. Cela explique en grande partie le retard relatif de ce volume — en partie seulement, car en raison de nos faiblesses et de nos hésitations, nous y avons sans doute contribué nous-même. La préparation du volume exigeait, avant tout, un tri particulièrement sévère: il était évident d'emblée que l'espace dont nous disposions ne per­ mettrait la publication, compte tenu de la dimension moyenne des contri­ butions, que de 20-25 travaux sur les plus de 50 qui nous furent remis.

VIII

J. HERMAN

Le Comité international des Colloques, en émettant des avis sur chacun des exposés, nous soutenait dans ce travail particulièrement ingrat, mais il était impossible que le résultat d'une élimination aussi massive fût sa­ tisfaisant et juste. En dehors du critère "qualitatif' qui, pris en lui-même, n'aurait autorisé l'élimination que dans un nombre infime de cas, nous avons donc adopté (et je parle ici de moi-même, car la responsabilité définitive est celle de l'éditeur) un critère thématique — en essayant de couvrir chacune des grandes divisions de la grammaire, mais en laissant de côté, par exemple, certains travaux par ailleurs précieux consacrés aux conditions externes de l'évolution linguistique; nous avons également laissé hors de compte certains travaux que leurs auteurs souhaitaient insérer, fi­ nalement, dans d'autres ensembles. Quelques-uns de nos collègues, au cou­ rant de nos difficultés, ont proposé eux-mêmes de retirer leur contribution et de la publier ailleurs — c'était le cas entre autres de Jean Perrot et de Harm Pinkster; j'ai renoncé moi-même à publier le texte de mon exposé dont j'utiliserai les matériaux dans d'autres publications. D'autres — dont M. Bolkestein et Hannah Rosén — ont généreusement accepté d'abréger des textes pourtant déjà denses. Nous avons en outre adopté des mesures "draconiennes" pour économiser quelques pages: nous nous sommes écarté, après bien des hésitations, de la tradition qui consiste à publier des "sommaires" au début de chaque article: en général assez peu représentatifs de la pensée des auteurs, ces textes — constituant parfois des paragraphes assez cor­ pulents — sont plutôt des espèces d'actes de politesse qu'autre chose, puisque les auteurs anglophones sont pratiquement toujours capables de comprendre un texte français et les francophones, de nos jours, sont parfai­ tement en mesure de résumer pour eux-mêmes un travail écrit en anglais. Quant à ceux qui ne sont ni anglophones ni francophones de naissance, ils comprennent, pratiquement tous, les deux langues en présence. Nous nous sommes également abstenu d'une Introduction substantielle au volume, comme en ont écrit, avec raison et avec succès, certains de nos devanciers: que les articles parlent pour eux-mêmes. Ces artifices et quelques autres nous ont finalement permis de publier dans ce volume 27 articles; nous aurions voulu aller bien plus loin — pour pouvoir affirmer, la conscience tranquille, que nous n'avons commis aucune injustice, le nombre devrait être sensiblement supérieur. Même ainsi, le volume est bien plus épais que ce qui avait été prévu à l'origine: nous ne pouvons que remercier la Maison J.Benjamins de la compréhension dont elle fait preuve en la publiant. Voici encore quelques brèves remarques de caractère plutôt technique. La répartition des arcticles selon les groupements établis dans le vo­ lume est parfois discutable: nous ne le savons que trop. Tel article consacré

PRÉFACE

IX

à l'ordre des mots, pour ne citer qu'un seul exemple, pourrait trouver sa place dans le groupe consacré à la cohésion textuelle. Polyvalence qui tient à la nature même de la grammaire: qu'on veuille bien en tenir compte. Pour ce qui est de la présentation typographique, nous avons dû unifier les textes, mais nous l'avons fait, dans la mesure du possible, avec modération: dans le mode de présentation des exemples latins, dans l'établissement des subdivisions — entre autres — nous avons essayé de respecter les habitudes des auteurs. Tel quel, ce volume, dans son ensemble, prouve clairement l'intérêt que présente, pour la linguistique contemporaine, le latin, cet immense cor­ pus en principe fermé, bien connu, bien inventorié: laboratoire d'analyses qui permet d'aboutir à des résultats d'une portée dépassant ses murs; le recueil témoigne en même temps du fait que l'application des méthodes et des points de vue de la linguistique à l'analyse du latin révèle des aspects non seulement intéressants, mais souvent très neufs et inattendus de cette langue que nous croyons bien connaître. C'est ainsi qu'après les peines du travail de rédaction, dont j'ai cru devoir entretenir les lecteurs, je dois rendre compte également du plaisir que je trouve à relire les articles de ce volume. Les mérites du volume — et il en a certainement — reviennent aux auteurs des articles; la responsabilité des fautes — il en est certainement resté — doit retomber sur celui qui en a préparé la publication.

Janvier 1994, Venise — Budapest.

I. Phonology and morpho-syntax

Existait-il une diphtongue ui en latin? Frédérique Biville Université Jean Moulin — Lyon III

1. Les difficultés de la phonétique latine La phonétique latine comporte de nombreuses difficultés et obscurités qui sont dues en grande partie au fait que le latin est une langue morte, qui ne nous est accessible que par ses représentations écrites. Si nous souhaitons faire l'inventaire des unités phonologiques avec lesquelles fonctionne la langue latine, et des réalisations phonétiques qui leur sont attachées, nous ne pouvons faire autrement que de passer par le code de l'écriture. Or nous savons très bien que tout système alphabétique, quel que soit son degré d'élaboration, ne rend que très imparfaitement compte de la réalité orale. Il n'y a pas d'adéquation parfaite, de correspondance univoque, entre les unités phoniques et les unités graphiques: Aux quatre graphèmes que comporte le mot haec (h,a,e,c) ne corres­ pondent que deux phonèmes: la diphtongue (ou monophtongue) notée par ae, et l'occlusive / k / . Inversement, rex comporte trois graphèmes (r,e,x), mais quatre phonèmes, puisque x note la séquence consonantique / k s / . Certaines réalisations phoniques n'ont pas d'expression écrite spécifique: c'est le cas de la nasale palatale [η] rendue par n ou par g (ancora, agcora), alors qu'un même phonème, l'occlusive palatale sourde / k / , peut être rendu par des signes aussi variés que c,k,q, x: canis, kalendae, quam; nec, neque, nex. Enfin, plusieurs graphèmes sont polyvalents: le signe e, par exemple, recouvre en latin classique deux phonèmes: / e : / et / e / , sans parler du rôle qu'il peut jouer dans la constitution de diphtongues telles que ae

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE

4

Par ailleurs, comme dans toute langue de culture, forte d'une tradition grammaticale et d'une orthographe standard, le système graphique latin a pu traverser les siècles de son histoire sans que soit modifié en profondeur le code sur lequel il reposait. Le conservatisme du système graphique latin a masqué l'évolution de la langue. Le système de correspondances entre phonèmes et graphèmes est donc à redéfinir constamment. C'est ainsi qu'au cours des trois premiers siècles de notre ère, les deux 6 de bibere "boire", sont passés de l'occlusive bilabiale / b / à la fricative labio-dentale / v / , par l'étape de la fricative bilabiale //ß/, entraînant ainsi la confusion avec uïuere "vivre", dont les deux u consonnes, qui notaient à l'époque classique la spirante / w / , ont connu la même évolution.

Nous sommes donc bien mal armés pour mener à bien des études de phonétique latine.

2. La séquence ui: polyvalence de représentations phoniques Notre "désarroi" est à son comble lorsque nous nous trouvons en présence d'une séquence graphique telle que ui, dont chacun des deux constituants, pris isolément, peut connaître une triple réalisation (voyelle longue, voyelle brève, consonne) — ce qui fournit déjà un échantillonnage théorique de neuf combinaisons possibles, si l'on s'en tient au latin standard, classique; mais il faut aussi songer que, dans des états de langue plus avancés, / w / a évolué en spirante / ß / > / v / , et les deux voyelles brèves / u / et / i / se sont respectivement ouvertes en / o / et / e / (o et e fermés), ce qui augmente d'autant de possibilités le nombre des combinaisons:

voyelle brève voyelle longue consonne

A ces réalisations individuelles, propres à chacun des deux constituants, il faut encore adjoindre les réalisations qui résultent du contact des deux éléments, comme le dégagement d'un glide: u(u)ï — [u(w)i(:)], ou encore, les interactions entraînant la palatalisation du premier élément par z, ou la labialisation du second par u, ce qui peut donner lieu à toute une gamme

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

5

de réalisations phonétiques intermédiaires comprises entre u et i, pouvant aller jusqu'à la coalescence des deux éléments en un phonème unique, par diphtongaison ou monophtongaison. C'est sur cette possibilité de diphtongaison de la séquence ui, et des réalisations phonétiques qu'elle recouvre, que nous souhaiterions nous in­ terroger, après avoir, au préalable, rappelé quelques symboles de trans­ cription phonétique et surtout, après avoir fait l'inventaire des réalisations biphonématiques de la séquence ui qui sont effectivement attestées en la­ tin. Transcription

phonétique

i et u notent, dans le registre vocalique, toute une gamme de réalisations qui vont de [i] à [u], en passant par [y], et, pour les consonnes, de [j] à [w], en passant par [h]:1 antérieures palatales labialisation voyelles consonnes

-

+

centrales

-

+

postérieures vélaires

-

+

[i[ [i] [u] [m] [u] [w] [j] [h] [y]

[h] (ou [w]) représente le son du français u (non syllabique) dans nuit,

lui

3. Séquences ui biphonématiques La combinaison de u et i voyelles peut théoriquement aboutir à qua­ tre types de séquences: ui, ui, ui, ui, auxquelles il convient d'ajouter le dégagement possible d'un glide: u(u) ï. 3.1. Séquences hétérosyllabiques: hiatus 1 ui Si l'on en croit les dictionnaires et lexiques latins (Thesaurus Lin­ guae Latinae, Thesaurus Poeticus de L. Quicherat, etc.), cette suite de deux brèves serait particulièrement bien représentée en latin, et constitue­ rait la réalisation usuelle de la séquence ui. Elle apparaît toujours à une frontière de morphème, où elle résulte de l'adjonction d'un morphème en -ï (suffixe ou désinence) à un thème en u-, dans des séries morphologiques cohérentes:

6

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE - substantifs abstraits en dérivés d'adjectifs en -uus: strenuus → (Ov., M. 9,320); - participes en et et fréquentatifs en de verbes e n - u o : fruor → fruitus (CIL, 10,4728, inscr. funér.); fruiturus ( C i c , Tusc. 3,38); fluo → (Pétrone 123, v. 213); - flexion des présents en etc., et des parfaits en -uï: uoluisti, uoluit etc.

Elle peut aussi résulter d'un traitement exceptionnel, et manifestement artificiel, de séquences ou , lié à des contraintes métriques: : Stace, Silv. 1,6,16 : Sén., TV. 852 : Paul.-Nol., Carm. 6,30.

Cette apparente représentativité de la séquence ne doit cependant pas masquer différentes manifestations d'ordre lexical ou métrique. Nous constatons en effet que les dérivés en appartiennent de préférence à la latinité impériale, voire tardive. C'est très net, par exemple, pour les sub­ stantifs abstraits en ­expuitio, fluitio, fruitio, lnitio, (in)tuitio, etc.) et les participes futurs en (abnuiturus, construiturus, luiturus, obruiturus, etc.), qui paraissent pour la plupart tardifs, et de caractère savant. Le latin archaïque et classique paraît éviter les participes en et et les fréquentatifs en au profit de formes en - l'hapax *mutuitare donné pour Plaute, Merc. 52, est une forme , qui s'intègre très bien dans fantôme: les manuscrits ont la structure du vers (un sénaire iambique); - si nuo offre, tardivement, un participe futur adnuiturus, le fréquentatif, déjà attesté chez Plaute, a la forme nütare; "flotter" présente chez Lucrèce une variante (3,189; 4,77); - le parfait usuel de fruor est fructus sum et non fruitus sum, etc.

Il vaut aussi la peine d'examiner d'assez près les traitements et positions métriques de cette séquence -ui-. Dans la métrique dactylique, le demipied comportant la séquence ui se trouve toujours au temps faible (arsis), où il pourrait très bien compter pour une longue: , Ov., M e t . 9,320 ; , Tib. 2,5,59 ; , Verg. Aen. 3,413

,

Lucan. 6,89 , Petr. 123 v.213

Chez Lucrèce, nous observons des distributions complémentaires telles que:

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

7

(2,466) (3,189, fin de vers) au temps fort)

Bref, tout se passe comme si cette séquence vocalique dissyllabique ui n'avait pas de réelle existence phonique, et qu'elle pouvait se réaliser phonétiquement comme: u(u)i ui ü ui

= [u(w)i] , (arsis) = = = [wi] =

avec développement d'un glide : diphtongue ? : (Verg. Aen. 3,413) monophtongue : consonantisation du premier element : (Lucr. 4, 63) / (Lucr. 4,66).

Dans la métrique non dactylique, la scansion résulte d'artifices rendus nécessaires par la structure du vers; on la rencontre en particulier dans des hendécasyllabes (phaléciens): Mart. 11,15,8 : Stat. Silv. 1,6,16 :

L'examen de la seconde séquence bi-vocalique réserve, lui aussi, quelques surprises. Cette séquence, comme la précédente, apparaît à des frontières de morphèmes, dans des formes flexionnelles telles que: ablatif pluriel de uidua, - les formes thématiques - les datifs singuliers de 3e et 4e déclinaisons: datif de l'adjectif tenuis; supins en (dont il existe une variante graphique archaïque chez Stace, en -uei); datifs pronominaux - parfaits du type etc.

et dans quelques dérivés en - les adjectifs fortuitus et gratuitus, au thème de base (fortu- / fors, gratu- / grates) mal élucidé: Hor. O. 2,15,17 (hendéc), Phaedr. 2,4,4 (sénaire) Plaut. Cist. 740 (sept. iamb.) - le substantif "rhume", ainsi scandé chez Catulle 23,17 (hendéc. phalécien), d'étymologie inconnue, mais qui pourrait bien être un em­ prunt à une forme grecque (résine) de pin" (écoulement), cf. pituinus (pityinus), - les substantifs (dérivé de ruo) ainsi scandés respecti­ vement depuis Lucrèce et Plaute.

Là encore, la valeur rythmique est bien attestée, mais il convient d'émettre quelques réserves, dictées par quelques faits de morphologie ou

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE

8

de traitement métrique: les datifs de 4e déclinaison en connaissent une variante en -tu (garantie par César), 2 qu'attestent certains tours for­ mulaires au supin et la poésie dactylique classique: - facile factu, mirabile - Lucr. 5,101 : ... - Verg. Åen. 6,465 :

dictu

Curieusement, ... sont toujours utilisés en fin de vers (hexamètre, sénaire), ou en fin de premier membre (pentamètre), là où le schéma rythmique est particulièrement contraignant et impose la séquence U - . 3 peuvent effectivement être scandés avec une séquence dissyllabique U -, mais cette scansion n'est pas la plus fréquente ; dans la poésie dactylique, la séquence tautosyllabique, compte pour une longue, au temps faible et, plus rarement, au temps fort: Petr. 135,8 (vers 9)

:

Iuu. 13, 225

:

Iuuenc. 2,440

:

Hor. S. 2,2,76; Ep. 1,1,108 :

La syllabe précédente étant, dans chacun des cas évoqués, longue, et le i du suffixe étant également long (-itus, -ita), nous ne pouvons savoir s'il faut interpréter cette syllabe longue comme = =

: groupe consonantique + voyelle longue, ou : consonne simple + diphtongue.

Une telle séquence, avec voyelle longue en hiatus, est en principe exclue du système phonologique latin. Les traités de phonétique et de morphologie latines citent traditionnellement des formes telles que: , Plaut. Capt. 555 (sept. troch.; , Enn. Ann. 133 , Plaut. Amph. 702, CIL 14,4488,12

dans le même vers)

qu'ils interprètent comme des formes archaïques, témoignant d'un état de langue dépassé, dans lequel il était encore possible qu'une voyelle longue précède une autre voyelle. Ces formes sont ainsi interprétées parce qu'elles se trouvent chez des auteurs archaïques (le corpus se limite à Plaute et Ennius); mais on peut très bien concevoir que ce type de scansion révèle

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

9

la longueur de la syllabe, et non celle de la voyelle: peut être l'indice d'une prononciation [fu(w)it], avec glide. Une telle réalisation est d'ailleurs confirmée, pour l'époque archaïque, par: fuueii,

CIL 1 2 ,1297 = 6,16614 (Rome, époque républicaine).

Nous nous trouvons donc ramenés aux cas précédents et, comme dans les cas précédents, nous constatons qu'une même séquence graphique est = susceptible de connaître différentes réalisations rythmiques: [u(w)i], / Cette dernière réalisation n'est peut-être pas fréquente, mais elle est suggérée par: Plaut. Rud. 1079 (sept troch.) : (seconde tétrapodie) CIL 6,7470 : fustis, qui fournit le prototype de la forme romane française (vous) fûtes (inscr. funér.).

Il est probable que, dans ces deux derniers cas, la réduction de ui est due à la proximité de la sifflante dentale s, qui a entraîné la dissimilation de l'élément vocalique dental i : -u(i)s-. 3.2. Réalisations tautosyllabiques: consonne et voyelle Chacun des deux éléments constitutifs de la séquence ui peut, selon le contexte syllabique, fonctionner comme consonne, ce qui peut ainsi donner lieu à une séquence phonétique descendante (d'aperture décroissante): ui — [UJ(j)] o u ascendante (d'aperture croissante): = [wi], avec toute une gamme de possibilités intermédiaires de timbres et d'aperture. La seconde réalisation est nettement plus fréquente que la première. Une telle réalisation se produit lorsque la séquence ui se trouve en position antévocalique, que ce soit à l'intérieur du mot (les exemples ne sont guère nombreux) ou de la chaîne parlée: cuiius, arch. quoius, et (huiius, hulus) sont normalement scandés avec une première syllabe longue: (cf. fr. houille). Cette séquence [uj] pouvaitelle s'ouvrir en [ój] (cf. quoius)?

Chez Stace, le thème de l'adjectif tenui- se voit, en position antévocalique, réduit à [ten(w)j-]: (Silu. 1,4,36; Theb. 12,2), Theb. 5,597. 6,196 Lucr. 4,66). Par consonantisation de son second élément, la séquence ui peut donc se trouver réalisée phonétiquement en:

10

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE - [uj(j)], qui peut être interprete comme une séquence [voyelle + con­ sonne(s)], - ou comme une diphtongue, avec valeurs [uj], [oj], ou [yj], - et en = [(w)j].

Une étude systématique des réalisations de ui devant voyelle reste à faire. Nous avons déjà, à propos de formes telles que (Lucr. 4,66), (Iuu. 1 3 , 2 2 5 ) , ( H o r . , S. 2,2,76) rencontré cette réalisation. Elle est extrêmement fréquente, et apparaît en différents contextes: - à l'initiale: uïs, - à l'intérieur, après une consonne, ou après une voyelle longue: inuïdia, - en finale:

(de

(de uolo).

Les groupes consonantiques qui résultent de cette valeur consonantique de u sont nombreux et variés:

Particulièrement intéressants sont les renseignements que nous ont laissés les grammairiens latins sur la prononciation de la séquence ui en position initiale. A partir du 2e s. p . C , différents grammairiens, réunis dans le Corpus de Keil (GL): 2e s. p.C. : 4e s. p.C, :

Velius Longus Marius Victorinus Donat et ses commentateurs 6e s. p.C. : Priscien

(7,54,12-15 ; 7,75,15-76,5) (6,19,22-20,5) (4,367,14-18) (Suppl. 223, 7-15) (2,7,17-21)

affirment en effet clairement que, dans la séquence ui de mots tels que uir, uim, uirgo, uitium, les deux lettres u et i ne présentent pas leur valeur phonique propre: Don., GL 4,367,15 : expressum sonum non habent Comm. Don., GL Suppl. 223,7-15: expressum, idest purum uel liqui­ d u m sonum non habent ... purum sonum non habet, uel etiam "intimus" sonus dicitur ... nec ita pure sonat, ut solum "u" aut solum "i"

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

11

Il n'y a plus l'opposition entre l'exilitas de i (son caractère palatal) et la pinguitas de u (son caractère vélaire): Vel. Long. GL 7,75,15-76,5: uoces quae neque secundum exilitatem "i" litterae, neque secundum pinguitatem "u" litterae sonarent, ut in "uiro" et "uirtute". Mar. Vict., GL 6,19, 22-20, 5: pinguius quam "i", exilius quam "u".

Les deux lettres paraissent confondre leurs sons propres en un son unique: Comm. Don. GL Suppl. 223,7-15: mixtum sonant, in < u n o > sono sese confundunt ... commixtus uidetur ex "i" et "u", quasi sit "u" ex u n a parte, et "i" in altera, ut ex illis unus sonus formetur ...sonus "u" confundii sonum "i". P r i s e , GL 2,7,17-21: "i" et "u" uocales ... alternos inter se sonos uidentur confundere, teste Donato, ut "uir".

I et u sont alors appelées uocales mediae (Don. 4,367,14; Suppl. 223,7-15; Prisc. 2,7,17), parce qu'elles rendent un son mixtus "mélangé, complexe" (et non "intermédiaire" comme on le traduit souvent improprement), un son qui n'est pas purus, intimus (qui n'est pas celui que chacune des deux voyelles a isolément): u se palatalise au contact de i, et i recul e son point d'articulation et se labialise au contact de u. L'alphabet latin ne possède pas de signe spécifique pour rendre ce son: Vel. Long. 7,54,12-15: quibusdam litteris deficimus quas tarnen sonus enuntiationis arcessit, ut cum dicimus "uiutem" et "uirum". Mar. Vict. 6,19,22-20,5: Sunt qui inter V quoque et "i" litteras sup­ putant deesse nobis uocem, sed pinguius quam "i", exilius quam "u".

qui est proche de l'y grec, sans lui être semblable (c'est à la prononciation attique classique de l'upsilon, [y], qu'il est fait référence) — ce que confir­ ment les graphies en y: uniuyriae (CIL 11,1800) ; uirgo, non uyrgo (App. Prob., GL 4,198,20): Vel. Long., 7,54,12-15: peruenisse fere ad aures peregrinam inuenies

litteram

Mar. Vict., 6,19,22-20,5: "y" litteram desiderari P r i s e , 2,7,17-21: "i" quidem, quando post "u" consonantem loco digamma functam Aeolici ponitur breuis ... sonum "y" Graecae uidetur habere, ut "uideo", "uim", "uirtus", "uitium", "uix".

C'est la raison pour laquelle l'empereur Claude avait, en 47 p . C , proposé la création d'un signe nouveau (dont la forme reproduit celle de l'esprit rude grec) pour rendre ce son qui n'avait pas d'expression écrite spécifique, et qui pouvait, selon Velius Longus, donner lieu à deux prononciations fautives: [y] et, plus grave encore, [oi]:

12

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE Vel. Long., 7,75,15-76,5: Unde fit ut saepe aliud scribamus, aliud enuntiamus, sicut supra locutus sum de "uiro" et "uirtute", ubi "i" scribitur, et paene "u" enuntiatur Unde Ti. Claudius nouam quamdam litteram excogitauit, similem ei notae quam pro adspirationem Graeci ponunt, per quam scriberentur eae uoces quae neque secundum exilitatem "i" litterae, neque secundum pinguitatem "u" litterae sonarent ut in "uiro" et "uirtute" ... Itaque audimus quosdam plena "oi" syllaba dicere "quoi" et "hoic" pro "cui" et "huic", quod multo uitiosius est quam si tenuitatem "y"

litterae custodiret.ui associant une consonne à une voyelle brève, % semble donc s'étre réalisée phonétiquement comme [hi], ce qui nous donne une séquence initiale: [whi-] et nous amène à nous interroger sur l'existence, en latin, d'une diphtongue répondant à cette valeur phonétique

[hi]. 4. Une diphtongue ui? 4.1. Doit-on faire figurer une diphtongue ui dans l'inventaire des unités phoniques de la langue latine, au même titre que ae ou au, par exemple? La plupart des manuels contemporains de phonétique latine sembleraient prouver que non, puisqu'ils n'incluent pas ui dans la liste canonique des quatre diphtongues latines ae, oe, au, et la quasi-inexistante eu (Nie­ dermann, Maniet, Monteil, etc.). Elle est également exclue de la Kurze Phonologie des Lateinischen de W. Brandenstein, qui figure en appendice à la Geschichte der lateinischen Sprache de F. Altheim (1951). II est par contre des traités qui inclueáx la diphtongue ui dans la des­ cription du système vocalique latin, ou qui tout au moins, sans se montrer catégoriques sur le statut de cette séquence, posent le problème. Deux ouvrages sont, comme toujours, riches d'enseignements: le court traité de W.S. Allen, Vox Latina, pour la pertinence et l'originalité de ses observa­ tions, et la magistrale grammaire de M. Leumann, inégalée pour la densité et la rigueur de ses informations. 7 La question, de surcroît, a paru suffi­ samment intéressante pour avoir suscité des recherches spécifiques, assez succinctes il est vrai, et anciennes de surcroît: Husband 1910 et Birt 1927. 4.2. Les grammairiens latins eux-mêmes n'ont pas une attitude cohérente. Pour ce qui est des diphtongues, il existe, comme pour les autres catégories de la langue, une doctrine quasiment standard: il y a en latin quatre diph­ tongues, ae, oe, au, eu (c'est là l'origine de la doctrine standard des Mo­ dernes), auxquelles peuvent s'ajouter la "diphtongue" archaïque ei (qui,

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

13

dans bien des cas, n'est qu'un digraphe), et — ce qui nous intéresse plus directement, ni. Mais ils ne citent cette diphtongue que par référence à leurs modèles grecs, et comme attestation dans des mots grecs. La diph­ tongue est d'ailleurs généralement écrite yi, avec y, ou en caractères grecs: vi, et l'exemple retenu est Harpyia < (dont on peut constater par ailleurs qu'il est toujours scandé avec synizèse, ainsi chez Virg., Aen. 3,365). Il n'y a pas unanimité parmi les grammairiens latins: ils ne sont, à notre connaissance, que cinq à évoquer cette diphtongue: Marius Victorinus GL 6,26,25-27,1 Diomède 1,427,14-16 Donat et son commentateur Servius 4,423,32-33 Priscien 2,37,11-12

et nous pourrions nous en tenir à la thèse simpliste de la référence au grec comme faisant ressortir, par contraste, une catégorie qui n'existe pas en la­ tin. Or nous constatons que ceux qui ont choisi d'évoquer cette diphtongue, sont précisément ceux dont on peut constater, par ailleurs, les compétences en matière d'analyse phonique, leurs dons d'observation, leur capacité de réflexion. La pratique des grammairiens latins montre également que la référence au grec n'est jamais gratuite. Lorsqu'est mise en valeur une spécificité de la langue grecque par contraste avec la langue latine, c'est que cette catégorie grecque correspond à une catégorie latine — ainsi pour le nombre des voyelles dont on peut montrer que, dès le 2e s. p . C , il est de sept (comme en grec) — ce qui est le prototype du système roman, et non plus de cinq.8 L'embarras de Terentianus Maurus (GL 6,348,764-776 et 789-796) est particulièrement révélateur. II parle d'ailleurs, comme plus tard Audax, de "diphtongue ui" à propos du latin cui et huic: Ter. Maur. 6,3 48, 766 sq. ...diphtongon ... ex "u" et "i" ... tale quid "cui" ut sonet ... Audax, 7,329, 4-11: ... cum concurrentibus inter se uocalibus duae syllabae in unam quasi per diphtongon contrahuntur, ut "cui" ...

4.3. A quels c r i t è r e s pouvons-nous faire appel, pour tenter de répondre à la question que nous nous posons? Pour pouvoir parler de "diphtongue", il faut d'abord pouvoir prouver que la séquence ni est susceptible de fonctionner comme centre de syllabe, c'est-à-dire qu'elle est tautosyllabique, et qu'elle équivaut, fonctionnellement, à une voyelle longue. Pour ce faire, nous disposons de différents critères: des critères

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE

14

r y t h m i q u e s , tout d'abord, qui nous sont essentiellement fournis par la métrique. Il est de règle que les datifs pronominaux huic, cui, ainsi que l'interjection hui, soient scandés comme des monosyllabes longs. Le fait, amplement documenté par la métrique, est corroboré par le témoignage des grammairiens latins: Prisc. GL 3,10,2 sq.: "huic", "cui" ... monosyllaba sint accipienda in datiuo, quod regula exigit et plerique poetarum metris comprobant.

A propos des mots du type uir, ces derniers nous disent encore que les deux voyelle u et i sont comme fondues en un son unique: GL, Suppl. 223,7-15: ... quasi ... ex illis ("u" et "i") unus sonus formetur ...

Nous avons vu aussi que dans des formes telles que ui pouvait compter pour une syllabe longue. Mais, dans ce dernier cas, l'argument n'est pas suffisant, car ui peut tout aussi bien correspondre à une séquence [consonne + voyelle]: [wi], également tautosyllabique. Si des cas tels que ou fuis se peuvent sup­ porter une double interprétation, dont l'une en faveur de la diphtongue, une séquence rythmique telle que ne laisse aucun doute sur la réalisation, consonantique, du premier élement: [nwi]. Il n'est donc pas question de diphtongue dans ce cas. Il nous faut ensuite prouver que cette séquence ui, tautosyllabique, possède, à ses frontières, les propriétés s y n t a g m a t i q u e s d'une voyelle, c'est-à-dire qu'en syllabe intérieure, après une consonne, elle n'a pas d'incidence sur la quantité de la syllabe qui précède; en d'autres ter­ mes, qu'elle ne l'allonge pas par position — ce qui est loin d'être prouvé dans les mots du type et se trouve même infirmé par bon nombre d'exemples tels que Nous pouvons par contre nous attendre à ce que, à l'initiale, après un mot à finale vocalique, la séquence en question entraîne l'élision de la finale vocalique — ce qui, effectivement, se produit systématiquement pour hui: Plaut. Rud. 154: ...

(fin de sénaire iambique).

En revanche, si elle est diphtongue, elle-même ne doit pas pouvoir s'élider, en finale, devant une initiale vocalique, sans perdre son statut de di­ phtongue (elle peut, par contre, développer un glide: ui(i) = Pomponius 146 ap. Non. 118M (169L): hiatus (sénaire iambique). 9

avec

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

15

Nous pouvons surtout faire appel à des critères d'ordre f o n c ­ t i o n n e l , et nous demander dans quelles o p p o s i t i o n s cette "diphtongue" est susceptible d'entrer. Le domaine du lexique offre fort peu de matériel: nous pouvons penser à des paires telles que (tardif), et surtout mais dans quelle mesure peuventelles être exploitées? Plus intéressante est l'opposition entre parti­ cipe de tueor, et adjectif ("protégé"), ou encore, dans le paradigme de la 4e déclinaison, l'opposition entre le datif en - et l'ablatif en qui, précisément, se trouve parfois neutralisée, dans des formes de datif (Prop.). Les seuls faits vraiment dignes telles que facile dictu, ou d'intérêt dans ce domaine sont les oppositions que l'on constate, dans les pronoms, entre: - le datif

(var. hoic) et les autres formes flexionnelles telles que haec,

- le datif (var. quoi) et le nominatif qui (qui, lui-même, entre en oppo­ sition avec qua, quo), tous deux monosyllabiques et biphonématiques, mais dont on a de bonnes raisons de penser que le premier doit s'analyser en = [occlusive palatale -f- diphtongue], et le second en [kwi:] = occlusive labiovélaire (unité fonctionnelle, cf. qui, quam, se réalisant phonétiquement comme séquence consonantique: [kw]) + voyelle longue,

et que nous constatons dans l'interjection qui s'oppose à toute une série d'interjections: hui ~ (h)ei, (h)au, heu, (eheu), hoe / hoi: Les interjections sont des témoins privilégiés des possibilités qu'offre une langue en matière de réalisations phoniques: elles témoignent de structures phonologiques exclues ou disparues des autres éléments du lexique. Nous sommes, en particulier, frappés par l'abondance de di­ phtongues que présente, en latin, cette catégorie: ai, eia, oiei, etc.

Nous pouvons peut-être aussi tirer argument d'une r è g l e m o r p h o p h o n o l o g i q u e d e d é r i v a t i o n , pour pouvoir garan­ tir l'existence d'une diphtongue ui en latin. Il semble, en effet, que certains processus de dérivation entraînent des rédutions phonétiques de l'élément radical, en particulier des simplifications de groupes consonantiques, et des monophtongaisons de dipthongues: d o r s u m → Dossuennus fauces → focale

c a s t r a → castellum poena → punire

C'est par une règle de ce type que pourraient s'expliquer la variante flutare de fluitare, factitif de fluo, et, a fortiori, le dérivé nominal fluta (muraena),10 et l'adjectif tutus, parallèlement au participe tuitus. Nous pouvons enfin chercher un dernier type d'indices en nous si­ tuant, cette fois, à l'intérieur du s y s t è m e que constituent, en latin,

16

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE

les diphtongues. Si ui est une diphtongue, cette diphtongue doit avoir, comme les autres diphtongues latines, une histoire: elle doit présenter des allophones archaïques et vulgaires, et des réalisations différentes selon le contexte, variantes diphtonguées ou monophtonguées: [ae] présente ainsi une variante archaïque ou archaïsante en [ai], qui se réalise en [i:] en syllabe intérieure, par suite de l'apophonie, et une variante socio-linguistique [e(:)], monophtonguée, qui finit par la sup­ planter.

Qu'en est-il pour ui? ui présente effectivement des variantes: — une variante oi, dans cui = quoi, et dans huic = hoic, qui, selon les auteurs latins, sont donnés comme des réalisations archaïques: Quint. 1,7,27: nunc "cui", pueris nobis "quoi", pinguem sonum,

ou, au contraire, post-classiques, vulgaires: Vel. Long. GL 7,76,3-5: audimus quosdam plena "oi" syllaba dicere "quoi" et "hoic" pro "cui" et "huic", quod multo uitiosius est quam si tenuitatem "y" litterae custodiret.

Nous pouvons peut-être, dans ce dernier cas, penser à une réalisation décroissante [oi] de la diphtongue [úi], par dissimilation d'aperture du pre­ mier élément. — une variante monophtonguée [u:] qui témoigne, elle aussi, du caractère prépondérant du premier élément, si c'est bien ainsi qu'il faut interpréter des formes telles que flutare, tutus, et les datifs en -ü de 4e déclinaison. — Nous nous attendons aussi à voir cette diphtongue aboutir, par une étape [uí] et interaction entre les deux constituants à [i(:)], comme cela s'est produit en grec, dans Kαpvívn "(coquille) de noix", représenté en latin par carina ("carène" de bateau, depuis Plaute ~ adj. translittéré caryinus, Pline l'Ancien). Force nous est de reconnaître que nos sources ne nous fournissent rien de tel, mais il faut remarquer que la plupart des formes qui, en latin, comportaient la séquence ui, n'ont eu qu'une postérité savante. 11 Pour conclure, en dépit de la minceur du dossier en arguments irréfutables, il semble que l'on puisse plaider en faveur de l'existence d'une diphtongue, réalisée phonétiquement par [hí], diphtongue croissante (ce qui est une originalité dans le système latin), à premier élément palatal labialisé (= réalisation plus fermée, consonantique, de [y] = [ü] ). Cette diphtongue a pu se réaliser occasionellement, dans des mots tels que gratuitus, ruina, fluidus, pituita, mais il s'agit alors d'une simple variante

EXISTAIT-IL UNE DIPHTONGUE UI EN LATIN?

17

d'autres réalisations possibles, dissyllabiques (succession de deux voyel­ les), ou tautosyllabiques (consonne + voyelle). Fonctionnellement parlant, le statut de phonème ne peut être accordé à ui que dans les trois cas de cui, huic, hui (qui sont les seuls à entrer dans des oppositions pertinentes) — en quoi les grammairiens latins avaient déjà vu clair.

Notes 1- [y], [j], [h] Peuvent aussi se trouver respectivement symbolisés par [ü], [y], [w]. 2. Gell. NA 4,16,5-9: ... In libris quoque analogicis, omnia istius modi sine "i" littera dicenda censet. 3. Lucr. 2,515, 1145; Verg. G. 1,230 et Aen. 1,129; Hor. O. 1,4,4 et 3,3,8, etc. De même: ru/ino/sas (en fin de premier membre de pentamètre), Ov. Her. 1, 56. 4.

Fuuimus, parfois allégué pour Enn. ap. Cic. de Orat. 3,168, résulte d'une cor­ rection: les manuscrits ont fuimus.

5.

Pour les séquences qui et gui, cf. Touratier 1971: 229-266; Mariner Bigorra 1984: 129-135.

6.

Suet. Iul. 51 = Baehrens, Frag. poet Rom. p.330 (vers clamés par les soldats de César lors de son triomphe sur les Gaules; septénaires trochaïques):

Effutuisti

peut être scandé

mais non avec synizèse

comme le suggère M. Leumann 1977: 121. 7. 8.

Allen 1978 (1989 2 ): 42 et 62-63; M. Leumann 1977: 60, 121, 478. Biville 1990: 102-104 et 134, à propos des valeurs phoniques attachées au signe Z. F. Biville, "Tradition grecque et actualité latine chez les grammairiens latins: l'approche phonique de la langue", Actes du Colloque "Grammaire et rhétorique à Rome: Notion de Romanité (Strasbourg, 28-30 novembre 1990), dans Ktèma 13 (1988) [1992], 155-166 sur les sept voyelles qui composent le système vocalique latin à partir du 2e s. p.C.

9.

Le comportement des finales en -ui devant une initiale vocalique mériterait d'être étudié d'une manière systématique, en recourant à l'informatique. Dans le théâtre républicain, hui n'est usité que devant une consonne ou en fin de vers, et l'élision de cui (tout comme celle de qui, d'ailleurs), est évitée; on en relève cependant quelques exemples. De nombreux cas sont douteux. D'une manière générale, la poésie classique n'élide guère les diphtongues (Cf. Soubiran 1966: 349, 383-385, 404 et note 1, 426-429; Lindsay 1922 [1968]: 175-176; Leumann 1977: 478).

1 0 . L . Rippinger, étudiant l'origine de (muraena) comme le résultat d'une syncope: < (i) dens. 11.

(Rh 63,2, 1989), interprète analogue à celle de prudens

Latin fui > a.fr. [fuí], monosyllabique; a évolué en > fr. pépie, ce qui va dans le sens, non d'une prononciation diphtonguée, mais d'une séquence [wi], à consonne et voyelle: [pit(w)íta].

18

FRÉDÉRIQUE BIVILLE

Références Allen, W.S. 1978 (1989 2 ). Vox Latina. A Guide to the pronunciation Cambridge.

of Classical

Latin.

Birt, T h . 1927. "Domitio." Glotta 15, 121. Biville, F. 1990. Les emprunts du latin au grec. Approche phonétique. et consonantisme. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.

I.

Introduction

Biville, F. 1988 [1992]. "Tradition grecque et actualité latine chez les grammairi­ ens latins: l'approche phonique de la langue." Actes du Colloque Grammaire et rhétorique à Rome: Notion de Romanité (Strasbourg 28-30 novembre 1990), Ktéma 13, 155-166. Husband, R.W. 1910. "The diphtong ui in Latin." Transactions of the American lological Association 41, 19-23. Cf. Glotta 5 (1914), 318-319. Leumann, M. 1977. Lateinische

Laut- und Formenlehre.

Phi­

München: Beck.

Lindsay, W.M. 1922. Early Latin Verse. New-York (reprint 1968). Mariner Bigorra, S. 1984. "Las equivalencias KY = QUI y viceversa, fonéticas o fonológicas?" Estudios Clásicos 26-2 núm. 88, 129-135. Soubiran, J. 1966. L'élision dans la poesie latine. Paris. Touratier, Chr. 1971. "Statut phonologique de qu et de gu en latin classique." de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 66, 229-266.

Bulletin

The second-declension nominative plural in -eis, -es, -is, and the first-declension nominative plural in -as Gabriël C.L.M. Bakkum University of Amsterdam

1. Introduction During the Republican period, the ending of the nominative plural of the non-neuter second-declension forms, as well as of the masculine forms of the demonstrative pronouns, regularly appears as -ei, -e, or -i. Side by side with these forms, however, sometimes even within one text, nominatives are found that have an ending -eis, -es, or -is. It is these forms and more specifically their distribution that constitutes the subject of this paper. In the epigraphical material, the nominatives in -eis, -es, and -is (henceforth: s -nominatives) are attested from the late third century B.C. onwards until the first half of the first century B.C. They are found throughout the area where Latin was written, including Spain and the Latin-speaking traders' communities in Greece. There are no indications that they belonged to any dialect in particular. Literary attestations of these forms occur in the comedies of Plautus and Terence, with one stray example in a speech in Livy. The distribution of the s -nominatives between the nominal and the pronominal forms in both types of sources is anything if not surprising. The literary attestations consist exclusively of demonstrative pronouns;

20

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

nominal s -nominatives occur only in the epigraphical texts, but are vir­ tually restricted to gentilicia, magister, and several professional or social designations. Most of the literature on the subject (e.g. Blümel 1972: 58, Leumann 1977: 427, Wachter 1987: 253-254) 1 is primarily concerned with how these forms originated. Usually, they are regarded as analogical formations after the third declension.2 In that case, they were formed through the addition of -s to the regular ending rather than through the addition of the thirddeclension ending /-es/ to a second-declension or pronominal stem: that ending is virtually never spelled as -eis, whereas this is the predominant spelling in the second-declension and pronominal s -nominatives. 3 The distribution of the s -nominative, however, has remained largely undiscussed. The only step towards an explanation of the distribution of these endings in the nominal forms was taken by Mayer (1957),4 who ascribed the frequency of these nominatives in the case of magister to the fact that this word had a nominative singular in -er that occurs also in third declension. Unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the large number of pronominal s -nominatives. The other authors stress the fact that the literary attestations con­ sist solely of pronominal forms. They assume that the emergence of the s -nominatives was triggered or precipitated by the co-existence, in the indefinite-interrogative pronouns, of the regular nominative and the old i-stem nominative plural /-es/ (attested in ques in CIL 12.581 (§ 4,a)). This, however, does not explain the fact that the s -nominative is never found in other than demonstrative pronouns, nor its strange distribution in the nominal forms. It is clear, then, that these explanations of the s -nominatives are far from satisfactory, especially on the point of their distribution. An attempt to improve on them will therefore be made in this article, starting from the nominal forms, as these constitute the most clearly defined as well the as the most unexpected categories.

2. Nouns: gentilicia, magistracies, and 'guilds' The nominal s -nominatives (all from epigraphical texts) can be divided into three clearly defined groups, namely gentilicia, the word magister, and professional or social designations.

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

21

In the first group, the gentilicia, the s -nominative is found in the names of men sharing the same gentilicium, which are 'compressed' into the initials of the praenomina followed by the plural of the gentilicium. This is most frequent in the case of brothers, as in: Q. M. Minucieis Q. f. Rufeis de controuorsieis inter | Genuateis compoet Veiturios ... cognouerunt et coram inter eos controuosias seiuerunt CIL l 2 .584,1-2 M. M. | Caelieis | Caeliae \ Pilumenae

CIL 1 2 .1265

M. P. Vertuleieis C. f.

CIL 1 2 .1531

M. Staidi M. f. M. n. Ter(entina) M. C. Staidieis M. feilieis A. Freio A. f. Gal(eria) uxori | P. L. Freis

\ Capitonus

| Mencurial(i) filiei

\ Graicia C. f. uxsor \ CIL 1 2 .1536

| Amatiae fecerunt

P. T. Sex Herennieis Sex. f. Ser(gia) epointe

Q. f. Maxim(ae) \ CIL 1 2 .1612

\ Supínates

ex ingenio suo \ CIL 1 2 .1814

C. L. Tossieis C. f. | C. Tossius C. l.

CIL l 2 .2323

M. P. Roscieis M. f. Maic(ia)

CIL 1 2 .2397

Cn. M. Vinucieis Cn. f. \ ... d(onum)

d(ederunt)

me(rito)

lu(bentes) CIL l 2 .2541a

K. Pa. Aiedies

5

L. P. Modies C. f. \ H(erculi)

CIL l 2 .476,1 d(onum)

d(ederunt)

l(ibentes)

m(erito)

CIL 1 2 .1850 CIL l 2 , app. num. 269

L. C. Memies L. f.

CIL 1 2 .3425

L. P. Spdies Sal. f. saluetis

and probably, although only one initial is given,in: Q. Tettieidieis Sp. [f.] \ Tetídiae

matri

CIL 1 2 .1887

The same construction can also be used in the case of other relatives: Sex. Q. Vesuies Q. Sex. f. d(onum) Atilies | Saranes C. M. f. C. Saufeius c(onsulto)

d(ederunt)

CIL 1 2 .993 CIL l 2 . 2 3

C. f. \ M. Saufeius L. f. \ Pontanes | aid(iles) ex s(enatus) CIL 1 2 .1469

The last two instances are slightly exceptional in that in the former the initials of the persons involved are not given, and in the latter only the cognomen has an s -nominative. Other texts in which persons sharing the same gentilicium are grouped together in this way involve freedmen of the same or related patrons:

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

22

L. Alfio C. L. I. Prothum(o) \ patrono nostro \ L. L. Alfieis L. l. | Hilarus et Proihumus \ libertis de suo | faciundurn coera(uerunt) CIL 1 .1236 Cn. Cn. Cn. Septumieis Cn. Cn. C. L. L. Orbieis L. l. mag(istr-)

CIL l 2 .1382

l.

CIL l 2 .2252

\ laconicum Italiceis

Nominatives in -es are further found in the fragmentary —] Valeries M S 6

CIL l 2 .666 CIL 1 2 .3061

—] Popilies [—

It is of course possible to use the regular nominative in phrases of this type. Thus, we find Sex. M. Claudie (CIL 12.512), C. L. Lucci C. ƒ. (CIL l 2 .664), ] X. Rudiei L. ƒ. (CIL l 2 .689), Se]x. Q. Poppaedi[e] i Sex. f. (CIL 12.770), P. M. Saloniei Ti. ƒ. (CIL l 2 1.1527), C. M. Steiiei(CIL l 2 .1689), Q. C. Poppaeei Q. f. (CIL l 2 .1903), Sex. L. M. Iuliei C. f. (CIL 12.2278), and M. C. Betilienei M. [f. (CIL l 2 .3105). Note that these instances of the regular nominative are less frequent (9 instances) than those of the s -nominative (22 instances). This implies that the use of the s -nominative in these phrases was not random, but governed by a specific parameter, whether still significant or fossilized into formulaic usage. The second group is similar to the first in that here, too, several specific persons are grouped together under a larger heading that takes the s -nominative. The heading, however, is not a gentilicium, but another common denominator, usually a magistracy: (several names) | magistreis | conlegi \ mercatorum (twelve names) \ magistreis de sua pequnia Iouei

\ coerauerunt CIL 1 2 2.672 Sequndanfo CIL 1 2 .2236 CIL 1 2 .2240

(six names) | magis[t]reis Mirqurio et Maiae (twelve names) auerunt

| magistreis Mirquri Apollini \ Neptuni

(two names) magistreis sunhodi emendo aedificando cuurauerunt (two names) courauerunt

D(ec)umaniorum

magist[r]|es de ueci s[ent(entia)]

Hercolei coer­ CIL 1 2 .2504

locu \ sepulchri CIL 1 2 .2519

\ opus faciundfum] \ CIL 1 .1806

(two names) \ magistres familia [cu]rau(erunt)

CIL 1 2 .1854

(two names) sent(entia)

alec[tor(um) CIL 1 2 .1898

| aras crepidine

colu[mnas] \ magistris de

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

23

(six names) | magistres Mircurio et Maia donu d(e?) \ s(uo?) CIL 1 2 .2239 (three or four names) macis[t]res faciedo coraue[r]\ut (two names) duom uires de senatus \ sente[n]tia erauerunt

CIL 1 2 .2661

aedem faciendam coCIL 1 2 .1511

Or, with the names following the magistracy: magistreis | (two names) \ coirauerunt

CIL 1 2 .364

magistreis | coirauerunt

CIL 1 2 .978

\ (two names)

CIL 1 2 .1447

magistres (four names) m]agistres curauerunt

\ (four names)

CIL 1 2 .3065

magistres coirauerunt

\ (four names)

CIL 1 .3068

The same construction may also be used when the common denominator is a professional or social designation: CIL 1 2 .1399

(2 names) tura|reis C. P. P. Treb[oni]orum names)

P. P. C. (f.) | thurarieps] et liberteis | (seven CIL V .1398

L. Alfio C. L. l. Prothum(o) \ patrono nostro \ L. L. Alfeis L.l. \ Hilarus et Prothumus | libertis CIL 1 2 .1236 topiaries (several names)

CIL 1 2 .1457

In this category can also be placed mustae | pieis | epoptae: (two names)

CIL 1 .665

In a relatively large group of texts in this category, the names are extra­ polated from the main text, and taken up by a demonstrative pronoun and the common denominator, both in the s -nominative. (twelve names): heisce magistreis Venerus Iouiae muru\m \ aedifcanCIL 1 2 .675 dum coirauerunt ... et | loidos fecerunt (twelve names): heisce magistre[i]s Venerus Iouiae \ murum aedificanCIL 1 2 .676 dum coirauerunt \ ... e]t loidos fecerunt (thirteen names): heisce magistreis Cererus murum faciund(um) coirauere

\ et pluteum ... \ CIL 1 2 .677

(at least five, probably twelve names): heisce magistreis horto[—] \ iudicioque uicere eidem lufdos fecere] \ sucrundam porticus rec[—] \ iidemque de sua pecunia Herculei CIL l 2 .687 heisce m|agistris coira[r]unt: \ (nine names)

CIL 1 .2270

24

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM hisce ministris Laribus faciendum

coe[rarunt:] \ (thirteen

names) CIL l 2 .681

CIL l 2 .2131 a-b

liberteis hisce fecere \ patrono: (three names)

In some of these instances, the noun is abbreviated, and the s-nominative appears only in the pronoun: (ten names): | he]isc(e) mag(istr-) undu coirauere

Spei Fidei Fortunae murfum] \ faciCIL 1 2 .674

(probably twelve names, erased): | heisce mag(istr-) murum ab grad\u ad calcidic(um) et calcidicum \ et portic(um) ante culin(am) et signa marmor(ea) Cast(oris) et Pol(lucis) \ et loca priuata de stipe Dian(ae) CIL 1 2 .680 | emendum [et f]aciendum coerauer[e] (twelve names): [co]ntule(runt)

| heisc(e) magistr(-)

(ten names): | heisce mag(istr-) demque probauer(e) heisc(e) mag(istr-) heis mag(istr-)

Spei d(onum)

... in seruom

Iunonis Gaurae CIL 1 2 .686

hoc opus \ faciundum

courauere \ eisCIL 1. 2.2949

d(ant): \ (twelve names) CIL 1 2 .2689

Cer(eri) \ d(onum) d(ant): \ (twelve names)CIL

heisce mag(istr-) heisce mag(istr-) names)

Spei \ donum dant: \ (twelve names) \ Merc(urio)

Fel(icei)

d(onum)

1 2 .2699

CIL 1 2 .2700 d(ant): \ (nine CIL l 2 .2702 CIL l 2 .2706

hisc(e) mag(istr-) : \ (twelve names )

In several other examples, the ending of the noun is damaged: (at least four ]bec[—

names):

| heisc(e)

m(agistr—

| —]ndu[— J — CIL r . 6 9 0

(twelve names): \ [h]eisce mag[istr-] ... |... m[u]ru[m] coniun[g]endu[m | et peilam faciendum] et teatrum \ [... exaggerand]um locauere CIL 1 2 .2945 (twelve names): \ h[e]isce magis[tr— pauimentum faciun]dum aidemque reficiundum \ col[u]mnas... \ faciunda coerauerunt CIL 1 2 .2948

Although the pronouns in this group seem to be on a par with the nouns, the two are not strictly comparable where the distributional pattern of the s -nominative is concerned. In two instances, the pronoun has the ending in -eis, but the noun the regular ending: (twelve names): \ heisce magistrei Castori et \ Polluci murum et pluteum faciundu \ coerauere CIL 1 2 .678 (twelve names): \ heisce magistrei ... | ... murum coniungendum \ et peilam faciendam et teatrum \ ... exaggerandum locauere CIL 1 2 .2944

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

25

These forms imply that it was apparently 'easier' for the pronouns to have the s -nominative than it was for the nouns. This is further discussed in §§ 3 and 4. In this type of texts, too, there is of course a number of counterex­ amples where the common denominator of a group of specific persons takes the regular nominative: legatei (CIL 12.727), legati (CIL 12.730), macistrei (CIL 12.2260), magistrei (CIL 12.2549, 2191), [ma]gistrei (CIL l 2 .22486), magistere (CIL l 2 .59), magist]rei (CIL l 2 .2232b), magistri(CIL 2 .684, 2108, 3064, 3265, 3417), magistri (CIL l 2 .1793), ministrei (CIL l 2 .1446, 1792), praif]ectei (CIL l 2 .1710), duo uirei (CIL l 2 .1502,1682), IIII uirei (CIL l 2 .1542), uir]ei (CIL 121895); / / / uire (CIL 1 2.643, 644); duo uiri (CIL l 2 .1607,1693), duom uiri (CIL l 2 .1474), duomuiri (CIL l 2 .3338b), or, with a professional designation, unguentariei (CIL 12.1594) and unguentari (CIL l 2 .1334b). The only counterexample where a pro­ noun is involved is h]ei mag[— (CIL 12.689). As has been said, these two groups of nominal s -nominatives are very similar. In both types of text, a number of specific and specified per­ sons are grouped together under a common denominator such as a gentilicium, a magistracy, or a professional or social designation that has the s -nominative. This form acts to resume an enumeration of individuals. It can therefore be said that, in the nouns, the s -nominative is distributed according to a 'resumptiveness'-parameter: the 3-nominative is used where an enumeration is resumed by a common denominator in the nominative plural. Within the morphological system of (Republican) Latin, such a category is of course redundant: the regular nominative could serve this function equally well, and there is no apparent reason why these resump­ tive plurals should be marked by a separate morpheme. The fact that there are counterexamples of 'resumers' where the regular nominative is used (listed above) is therefore not surprising; it is rather surprising that in spite of the redundancy and the narrow scope of the category, its use is still attested so frequently and so consistently. Although their number is too small to be significant, it is interesting to note that there are examples of both gentilicia and magister with the regular nominative where the reference is explicitly not to specific persons that can be designated by the common denominator, but to the common denominator itself: Vediouei Patrei | genteiles Iuliei gentiles | Magiei | sancto Deiueti \ fecere

CIL 1 2 .1439 CIL 1 2 .3190

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

26

Rufi | Venerei \ d(onum) d(ederunt) CIL l 2 .3203 conlegium, seine magistrei Iouei Compagei [sunt], \ utei in porticum paganam reficiendam \ pequniam consumerent ex lege pagana \ arbitratu Cn. Laetori Cn. ƒ. magistrei | pageiei. uteique ei conlegio, seiue magistři | sunt Iouei Compagei, locus in theatro \ esset tarn qua sei <sei> luos fecissent CIL l 2 .682

A limited number of nominal s -nominatives are not in accordance with the resumptiveness-parameter described above. Several of these constitute a separate group, where, as in the magistri-inscriptions, the s -nominative is used to mark a professional designation as the common denominator of a group of people. The enumeration of the specific members of the group is absent, however, and the reference is to the 'guild' as a whole: coques atriensis [F(ortunae)

P(rimigeniae)

d(onum)

d(ederunt) CIL 1 2 .1447 fabres F(ortunae) P(rimigeniae) d(onum) [d(ederunt) CIL 1 2 .1448 Forti For[tunae] | lanies CIL 1 2 .979 lanies For(tunae) Prim(igeniae) d(onum) d(ederunt) CIL 1 2 .3064 marm]oraris F(ortunae) P(rimigeniae) d(onum) [d(ederunt) CIL 1 2 .1452 Forte Fo[rtunae] | uiolaries | rosaries | coronaries CIL 1 2 .980 cosc]riptes cose(nsu) T. Fa[— | et p]raifectura tot[a —] \ fecere quom Ti. [—8 CIL l 2 .611

Social designations are rare in this group. The only instances are serueis contul(erunt)

HS \ [—

CIL 1 2 .1510,

where the slaves as a group are set off against the other contributors, and leibereis lube\tes donu danunt \ Hercolei \ maxsume

mereto CIL 1 2 .1531

where the children (M. P. Vertuleieis C. ƒ.) have been named a few lines earlier. Although at first sight the resumptiveness-parameter as defined above does not seem to play any role in these instances, the group is clearly defined, and can be regarded as representing those cases of the magistrigroup where specific enumeration of all individuals members was cum­ bersome or irrelevant. There are in fact two indications that these texts do not reflect the normal use of the s -nominative. First, the number of counter-examples is comparatively large: au]xsiliariei (CIL 12.1860), cisiariei Praenestinei (CIL 12.1446), co]ronari (CIL 12.3061), lam (CIL 12.1449), lanii (CIL 12.978), olearei (CIL 12.705), ququei ( = coqui) (CIL

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

27

1 2 .364), and stipendiariei (CIL 12.2513), and, although not strictly guilds, but still groups that can be thought of as having a 'corporate identity': fugitiui (CIL 1 2.865), socie (CIL 12 .5), leiberiini (CIL 12.722), leibe\rtei (CIL 12.1591), coloni et incolae (CIL 12.2094), and c]oloni et incolae (CIL 12.790). Perhaps more important than the number of counterexamples is the fact that some of these occur together with an s -nominative from the gentilicia- or the magistri-groups:9 — co]ronari c[— \ —] Popilies [— CIL 1 2 .3061 F]orte For[tunai] \ donum dant \ conlegiu lanii | Piscinenses', \ magistreis | coirauerunt \ A. Cassi(us) C. l. \ T. Corneli(us) Cor l. CIL 1 2 .978) Iouei Iunonei Mineruai | Falesce quei in Sardinia sunt \ donum dederunt; magistreis | L. Latrius K. f. C. Salu[e]na Voltai ƒ. | coiraueront, with on the other side quei soueis aastutieis opidque Volgani | gondecorant saip[i]sume comuiuia loidosque | ququei [=coCIL 1 .364 qui] huc dederu[nt i]nperatoribus summeis

These instances imply that the use of the ^-nominative in the gentiliciaand magistři-groups was more regular than its use for 'guilds' (which pro­ vides an additional argument in favour of resumptiveness being the dom­ inant factor in the distribution of the s -nominative). There is, however, one counterexample to this, too: lanieis For(tunae) Prim(igeniae) [ueruni | (five (?) names)

d(onum)

d(ederunt);

magistři cura-

The remaining nominal examples (all from CIL 12.583 (cf. § 4,c), 585, and 1486) seem to be distributed at random: CIL l 2 .583,1.14 iustei sunt CIL 12.583,1.77 censoribus queiquomque post hac facteis erunt, ei faciu[nto id publicum CIL l 2 .585,1.28 in agreis qu[ei in Ita]lia sunt, quei P. Mucio L. Calpumio co(n)s(ulibus) CIL 1.585,1.29 publiceis populi Ro[mani fuerunt lapides profaneis, intus sacrum CIL l 2 .1486 quei ex] h(ac) l(ege) CDL uireis ... leciei erunt nepotesque [t]um eiei filio gnateis ceiueis Romanei

3. Pronouns In § 2, a number of epigraphical attestations of the s -nominative were quoted that involved pronominal forms. In those instances, the pronouns were used attributively, and were apparently distributed according to the

28

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

same resumptiveness-parameter that governs the distribution of this nom­ inative in the nouns. There are also several instances of pronouns used absolutely with an s -nominative in accordance with the resumptivenessparameter: 12 (nine names): hisce | signum

Volcani merito statuerunt

\ (name) CIL 1 2 .2247 heisce contulerunt: (ten or more names) CIL 1 2 .1555 Iouei Victorei decern \ paagorum restituendum \ coirauer{auer}unt heisce: (two names) CIL 1 .3269 (two names): | heis sunt duo \ concordes \ famaque bona \ exsituq(ue) hones(to) CIL l 2 .1347 (at least three names) \ quaistores \ senatu d(e ea re?) \ consuluere; \ CIL 1 2 .402 iei[s] censuere \ aut sacrom \ aut poublicom \ ese

However, in two instances of the attributively used pronouns, the pronoun has the s -nominative, whereas the noun has the regular nominative: (twelve names): heisce magistrei Castori et \ Polluci murum et pluteum faciundu \ coerauere CIL 1 2 .678 (twelve names): | heisce magistrei ... \ ... murum coniungendum \ et peilam faciendam et teatrum \ ... exaggerandum locauere CIL 1 2 .2944

This implies that pronouns attracted the s -nominative easier than nouns. Further evidence for this is provided by the fact that many pronominal s -nominatives, whether epigraphical or literary, do not occur as 'resumers' of an enumeration. One epigraphical example of this is haec est domus aeterna, hic est \ fundus, heis sunt horti, hoc \ est mo­ CIL 1 2 .1319 numentum nostrum

Others, occurring in the longer epigraphical texts (CIL 1 2 .581, 582, 584, 698, and 2951a), are discussed in § 4. Of the literary examples, only one can be regarded as resumptive, and then only with a very free interpretation of the term: iam hisce ambo, et seruos phitruonem rentur esse

et era, frustra

sunt duo \ qui me AmPl. Am. 974-5

In all other instances the pronoun is directly referential: 13 hisce autem inter sese hunc confinxerunt dolum PL Capt. 35 hisce ergo abeant Pl. Cas. 744 quid illuc est quod med hisce homines insanire praedicant? Pl. Men. 958 non possunt mihi minaciis tuis hisce oculi ecfodiri Pl. Mil. 373

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

29

non hercle hisce homines me marem, sed feminam \ uicini reniur esse serui militis PL Mil. 486-7 capita inter se nimis nexa hisce habent PL Mil. 1334 an me hic parum exercitum hisce | habent PL Per. 856-7 quid si hisce inter se consenserunt, Callipho? PL Ps. 539 hisce hami atque haec harundines sunt nobis quaestu et cultu PL Rud. 294 hisce hoc munere arbitrantur \ suam Thaidem esse Ter. Eu. 268-9 quid illisce homines ad me currunt, opsecro? PL Men. 997 perii: illisce hodie hanc conturbabunt fabulam PL Mos. 510 quid illisce homines quaerunt apud aedis meas? Pl. Mos. 935 quandoque hisce homines iniussu populi Romani Quiritium foedus ictum iri spoponderunt atque ... noxam nocuerunt, ob earn rem ... hosce Liv. 9.10.9 homines uobis dedo

Pronouns, therefore, can have an s -nominative without this necessarily having to depend on their function in the text. Pronominal s-nominatives can therefore be ascribed to the resumptiveness-parameter only if all the instances of non-resumptive use of the demonstrative pronouns in the same text have the regular nominative. In the case of idem, the distribution of the s-nominative may be due to yet another factor. When around 150 B.C. the nominative plural /e-dem/ (< /ei-dem/) became homophonous with the nominative singular /T-dem/ (< /ïs-dem/), and both could be written as eidem or idem, the use of eisdem or isdem for the plural provided a way of distinguishing both forms at least in writing. According to Charisius, Caesar advocated the use of isdem, probably for this very reason: "Caesar libro II [of the De Analogia] singulariter idem, pluraliter isdem dicendum confirmat, sed consuetudo hoc non seruat." (Keil 110.23ff. = Funaioli 10). There are no indications in the material that this factor played any significant role. Eisdem or isdem is not more frequent than eidem or idem, as can be seen from the attestations listed below; furthermore, eisdem is sometimes used for the singular as well (CIL 12.698 c.II, 11.12, 13 (but eidem c.III, 1.3), 2288, 2290, 3449). 14 Idem may provide an additional argument for the fact that in the s -nominatives of the pronouns resumptiveness did not play any significant part. It is normally used as the identifyer of a group that has been de­ scribed previously, not as a resumer. The occurrence of the s -nominative eisdem therefore indicates that this is distributed in another way than according to the resumptiveness-parameter: — Idem takes up a second-declension nominative plural in -ei, -ei, -i: idem (CIL l 2 .3338b).

30

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

— Idem takes up a second-declension nominative plural in -eis, -es, -is: eidem (CIL 12.677, 687), and iidem (CIL 12.687), beside (two names) duom uires de senatus \ sente[n]tia aedem faciendam coerauerunt eisdemgue probauere CIL 1 2 .1511 (twelve names) | magistreis Mirquri Apollini \ Neptuni Hercolei coeCIL 1 2 .2504 rauerunt | eisde dedicauerunt (ten names) heisce mag(istr-) hoc opus \ faciundum courauere | eisCIL 1 2 .2949 demque probauer(e)

In these instances, eisdem could also be regarded as congruent with the other s -nominatives. — Idem takes up an abbreviated or damaged second-declension nomina­ tive plural: eidem (CIL I 2 .1001, 1464, 1576, 1629, 1633, 1635, 2947, 3188, 3255), eid(em) (CIL 12.1609), ídem (CIL 12.1917), i(dem) (CIL 12.1804), and iidem (CIL 12.3105), beside (three names) mag(istr-) fac(iendum) ping(endum)

aed(em) \ Herc(uli) d(e) u(ici) s(ententia) pr(obauere) c(urauere) eisdemq(ue) CIL l 2 .765

— Idem takes up a third-declension nominative plural: eidem (CIL 12.800, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1537, 1557 a, 1557 6, 1576, 3188, 3194), eid(em) (CIL 12.1558), idem (CIL l 2 .3338b), and ídem (CIL 12.2537), beside (two names) q(uaestores) \ culinam f(aciundam) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) c(urauerunt) eisdem \q(ue) locum emerunt de \ L. TonCIL l 2 .1471 deio L.f. (three names) aid(iles) murum \ et aream claudendam ex \ sen(atus) sen(tentia) faciundum curauere \ eisdemque probauere CIL 1 2 .1565 (three names) | aed(iles) portas turreis murum \ ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) faciund(a) coerarunt \ eisdemq(ue) probarunt CIL 1 2 .1559 (two names) aid(iles) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) | portas faciundas CIL 1 2 .1563 dederunt \ eisdem que probauerunt

— Idem takes up several subjects that had not been resumed previously by a plural: eidem (CIL 12.1905, 1906, 2648), beside CIL l 2 .2238 proba[u(erunt) CIL 1 2 .2294 scaen[icos CIL 1 2 .2687

(four names) \ Maiam statuerunt \ eisdem aram (two names): | ... murum locauerunt... | ... eisde (twelve names) \ isdemque lu[dos] \ fecer(unt)

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

31

4. The distribution of the s -nominative in longer epigraphicat texts To illustrate the two different types of distribution of the s -nominative, the longer epigraphical texts in which both the regular nominative and the s -nominative occur are discussed here. 15 Except in the case of CIL 12.583 (no.3), all second-declension and masculine pronominal nominative plurals occurring in each text are quoted. a. The senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus (CIL 1 2.581, 186 B.C.). In the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, the second-declension nomina­ tive plural consistently has the ending -ei, with the exception of two in­ stances of ques and one of eeis:16 de Bacanalibus quei foideratei | esent, ita exdeicendum censuere 11.2-3 sei ques | esent quei sibei deicerent necesus ese Bacanal habere, eeis utei ad pr(aitorem) urbanum Romam \ uenirent 11.3-5 homines pious V oinuorsei uirei atque mulieres sacra ne quisquam \ fecise uelet, neue inter ibei uirei pious duobus, mulieribus pious tribus | arfuise uelent 11.19-21 sei ques esent quei aruorsum ead fecisent quam suprad \ scriptum est, eeis rem caputalem faciendum censuere 11.24-5

The instances of ques are the only attestations of the i-stem nominative plural of the indefinite-interrogative pronoun (/k w ěs/ < */k w eies/). Note that here the ending is written -es, whereas all the other nominatives are written as -ei or -eis (cf. § 1). The occurrence of eeis as a pronom­ inal s -nominative in a non-resumptive context shows that in this text the demonstrative pronouns had a nominative in -eis irrespective of the resumptiveness-parameter. b. The lex Bantina (CIL 12.582, last quarter of the second century B.C.). In the lex Bantina, the first two nominative plurals are s -nominatives of pronouns used as resumers: co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), aid(ilis), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), III uir cap(italis), III uir a(gris) d(andis) a(ssignandis) qu]ei nunc est, is in diebus V proxsumeis, ... |... iouranto utei i(nfra) s(criptum) e(st) 11.14-5 item] dic(tator), co(n)s(ul), pr(aetor), mag(ister) eq(uitum), cens(or), aid(ilis), tr(ibunus) pl(ebis), q(uaestor), III uir cap(italis), III uir a(gris) d(andis) a(ssignandis), ioudex ex h(ac) l(ege) plebeiue scito | [factus, — quei quomque eorum p]ost hacfactus erit, eis ... iouranto | [utei i(nfra) s (crip turn) e(st) 11.15-7

32

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

That in these forms the s -nominative was used for reasons of resumptiveness is shown by the occurrence of eidem in the following instance: ei17 consistunio pro ae]de Castorus palam luci in forum uorsus et eidem in diebus V apud q(uaestorem) iouranto per Iouem deosque \ [Penateis 11.17-8 quaestorque ea nomina accipUo et eos quei ex h(ac) l(ege) apud sed iourarint facito in taboleis \ [[popliceis perscribantur 11.21-2

A short enumeration, however, is followed again by the s -nominative eis: qui senator est eritue inue senatu sententi]am deixerit legem rogatam, eis ... | ... i]\ouranto apud quaestorem

post

hance 11.23-4

The occurrence of eidem in a non-resumptive context vs. is and eis shows that in this inscription the (pronominal) s -nominative was distributed according to the resumptiveness-parameter. c. The lex Acilia de rep etundis (CIL 12.583, 122 B.C.). In the lex Acilia, the distribution of the forms in -ei and -eis is fairly straightforward. The only forms that take the plural in -eis are the pronouns is and idem, whether these are used as resumers, as in quaestor, quoi aerarium prouincia obuenerit, quoi quaestori ex h(ac) l(ege) praedes datei erunt, queiue quaestor deinceps] | eandem prouin11.66.-7 ciam habebit, eis faciunto utei ... pequnia exigatur

or not, as in eisdem ioudices unius rei in perpetuom sient I.27 quei ita lectei erunt, eis in earn rem ioudices sunto I.25 quei ioudices e[x h(ac) l(ege) lectei erunt,] quam in rem eis iudices lectei er[unt, eius rei iudices in perpetuom sunto I.27 q(uaestori) praedes facito det de consili maioris partis sententia, quantei eis censuer[int 1.57

All other nominatives, whether nominal or pronominal, have the regular nominative, with the exception of two unexplained nouns in -eis (in both cases with an attribute in -ei): quei ex] h(ac) l(ege) CDL uireis... lectei erunt nepotesque [t]um eiei ilio gnateis ceiueis Romanei

iustei sunto

I.14 I.77

If these forms are left out of the account, the inscription shows regular use of the s -nominative only in the demonstrative pronouns, irrespective of resumptiveness.

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

33

d. The sentencia Minuciorum (CIL 12.584, 117 B.C.). The sententia Minuciorum shows a consistent, albeit peculiar use of both forms of the nom­ inatives. The first nominatives in this text are both instances of resumers with the s -nominative: Q. M. Minucieis Q. f. Rufeis de controuorsieis inter | Genuateis et Veiturios inre praesente cognouerunt et coram inter eos controuosias composeiuerunt 11.1—2 agri poplici quod Langenses posident hisce finis uidentur esse: (descrip­ tion of 16 boundaries and landmarks) 11.14-23

The other instances are not resumptive, and have the nominative plural in -ei or -i, with the exceptions of an occurrence of es (emended from eus), and of the ethnica of the second declension, which are consistently given an s -nominative: pro eo agro uectigal Langenses Veituris inpoplicum Genuam dent in anos singulos uic(toriatos) n(ummos) CCCC 11.24-5 e < i > s quei posidebunt uectigal Langensibus pro portione dent ita uti ceteri Langenses qui eorum in eo agro posidebunt fruenturque 11.29-30 uectigal anni primi k(alendis) Ianuaris secundis Veturis Langenses inpoplicum Genuam dare debento. quod ante k(alendas) Ianuar(ias) primas Langenses fructi sunt eruntque uectigal inuitei dare nei debento 11.35-6 in agro poplico quern Vituries Langenses posident et quern Odiates et quern Dectunines et quem Cauaturineis et quern Mentouines posi­ dent 11.37-8 sei Langenses aut Odiates aut Dectunines aut Cauaturines aut Men­ touines malent in eo agro alia prata inmittere defendere sicare, id uti facere liceat 11.40-1 Vituries quei controuorsias Genuensium ob iniourias iudicati aut damnati sunt, sei quis inuinculeis ob eas res est, eos ornneis soluei mittei leiber<ar>ique Genuenses uidetur oportere 11.42-4

The occurrence of es implies that 'resumption' was not the only factor governing the distribution of s -nominatives, and that demonstrative pro­ nouns in general were given an s-nominative. The ethnica in -eis, -es, and -is are more surprising, as these 'general groups' always have the regular plural in other inscriptions: 18 the use of the s -nominative in these forms is, however, comparable to its use in the 'guilds' (§ 2) and can therefore be said to go back ultimately to the resumptiveness-parameter. The text therefore shows resumptive use of the s -nominative in the nouns beside general use of this forms in the pronouns. e. The lex parieti faciundo (CIL 12.698, 115 B.C.). The only relevant nominative plurals found in the lex parieti faciundo are

34

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM quod | eorum uiginti iurati probauerint, barint, inprobum esto

probum \ esto; quod ieis improc.III, 11.10-2

From the use of ieis in a non-resumptive context it would that here, too, the demonstrative pronouns were given the s -nominative irrespective of their functions. f. The aes Contrebiense (CIL 12.2951a, c. 84 B.C.). In the aes Contrebiense, all non-resumptive nominative plurals end in -ei, even for is and idem: senatus Contrebie[n]sis quei turn aderunt iudices sunto I.1 sei ita parret, eei iudices iudicent | eum agrum... Sosinestanos Salluiensibus iure suo uendidisse 11.3-4 eidem quei supra scriptei sunt iudices sunto I.6 sei ita [p]arret, eei iudices iudicen[t] \ Salluiensibus riuom iure suo facere licere 11.10—1

The only form of the nominative plural in -eis introduces an enumeration: quom ea res \ iud[ic]ata[st mag]is[tr]atus (six names)

Contrebienses

heisce

fuerunt: 11.15-6

The use of heisce in a resumptive context beside the regular nominative in the other pronominal forms shows that in this text the s -nominative was distributed according to the resumptiveness-parameter also in the pronominal forms. In the inscriptions discussed here, both types of distribution of the snominative are found. In CIL 12.581 (a), 583 (c), and 698 (e), only demon­ strative pronouns have an s -nominative; in CIL 12.582 (b) and 2951a (f) the s -nominative, whether nominal or pronominal, is distributed according to the resumptiveness-parameter. That both factors could be operative at the same time is shown by CIL 12.584 (d).

5. The first-declension nominative plural in -as If the s -nominative of the second declension and the masculine pronouns was indeed used as consistently it appears to be, it may well be asked whether there were no corresponding forms in the first declension. The answer is that there probably are, and that they are to be found in the small number of forms in -as. Again, the literature on these forms has been occupied mainly with how they originated. They are regarded as continuations of the Italic nom-

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

35

inative plural in -as, as due to influence from Oscan -as, or as accusatives used as nominatives (cf. Blümel 1972: 46-47). In view of the very small number of forms (epigraphical attestations of first-declension plurals of any kind are less frequent than those of the second declension), any kind of categorization of the distribution of these forms by themselves would be ridiculous. However, when they are looked upon in the light of the categories that have been established for the s -nominatives of the seconddeclension and the masculine pronouns, it appears that they behave in a very similar way. The epigraphical instances are: hasc(e) mag(istr-) V(eneri) d(onum) d(ederunt): (names of twelve women) CIL 1 2 .2685 —] L. l. Naepori | Nicephor(o?) fullo(ni?) \ [liber]ti et libertas | CIL 1 2 .1342 [D]iomedei \ [libert]i et libe[r]tas tradas illunc [or illanc] febri quartanae tertianae cottidianae, quas cum illo [or illa] l n d e n t deluctent, illunc [or illanc] euincant uincant, usque dum animam eius eripiant 19 CIL 1 2 .2520

The first two instances are comparable to the magistri-group (with a magistracy and a social designation respectively) established for the splural of the second declension, 20 although the co-occurrence of -i and -as in the second text is surprising. The third instance shows a pronoun used as a resumer although the instance is 'irregular' in that it occurs in a rela­ tive pronoun, the only instance of an s -nominative in a non-demonstrative pronoun. (The text has no other examples of plural nominatives.) The literary examples of the forms in -as that are normally quoted are again from comedies: quot laetitias insperatas modo mi irrepsere in

sinum! Pompon. Atell. 141 ego quaero quod edim, has quaerunt quod cacent: contrariumst Pompon. Atell. 151

The first of these instances would provide the only literary example of a nominal s -nominative, which, although the context of the quotation is missing, does not seem to be in accordance with the resumptivenessparameter. Perhaps the form is rather a garbled exclamatory accusative (Kajanto 1967) 21 . The second instance is a pronominal form in a nonresumptive context. A third literary instance seems to have been overlooked until now: 22

36

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM Cereri porca praecidanea porco femina, priusquam hasce fruges condantur: far, triticum, hordeum, fabam, semen rapidum Cato Agr. 134.1

As could be expected, hasce fruges condantur has been emended in various ways (e.g. to haece fruges condantur, cf. Mazzarino 1982: XLII) b u t in view of w h a t has been said above, t h e reading hasce makes perfectly good sense, providing another example of a pronominal s -nominative in a resumptive context. This may lead to a reconsideration of the readings t h a t have until now been proposed for Iunone Reg(ina) Matre | Matula deda

| matrona | Pisaurese | dono dedrot CIL 1 .378 \ dono dedro | matrona | M ' Curia \ Pola Liuia \ CIL l 2 .379

In t h e former, a n d possibly also in the latter text, matrona is a nomi­ native plural. 2 3 It has been read variously as matrona(s), matrona(i), or matrona (with a development similar to the one assumed for t h e dative in -a). If the nominative plural in -as is indeed distributed according to t h e same p a r a m e t e r s as the second-declension s -nominative plural, this would provide an additional argument in favour of matrona(s): t h e first instance would be comparable to the 'guilds-inscriptions', in the second, matrona(s) would be a social designation. T h e fact t h a t t h e forms in -as can be placed in t h e same categories as those established for the distribution of t h e s -nominative of t h e second declension a n d t h e masculine pronouns constitutes an additional argument in favour of t h e likelihood t h a t these categories were indeed significant.

6. Conclusion To resume t h e findings of the preceding p a r a g r a p h s , it can be said t h a t in all literary instances and in a n u m b e r of t h e epigraphical instances, t h e nominative plural of t h e masculine demonstrative pronouns (hic, ille, is, idem) can have an s-nominative, regardless of the context or t h e function of t h e pronoun, whereas in t h e nominal forms (all from epigraphical texts), a n d in a number of t h e epigraphical attestations of pronominal forms, t h e s -nominative is used only if the form in question constitutes a larger heading or common denominator of a group of specifically n a m e d persons. This latter usage has been t e r m e d the resumptiveness-parameter. As far as can be ascertained from the admittedly limited and uncertain material,

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

37

the nominative plural in -as of the first declension seems to follow the same distributional pattern. With regard to the origins of the s -nominative, the wider use of these forms in the demonstrative pronouns implies that in all probability they originated in this category, perhaps through analogy after the -s of the nominative plural of the third declension. As the use of these forms in the pronouns is restricted to demonstratives, it is unlikely that the indefiniteinterrogative i-stem nominative (type ques) played a part in this; perhaps the emergence of these forms was influenced by phrases like hi omnes. The s -nominative then spread to the nominal forms, probably through phrases where a specific group of persons was resumed by a common de­ nominator with an attributively used pronoun. From this, the nominative could also be used for nouns designating this common denominator with­ out a pronoun. This use seems to have been restricted to written, often (semi-)official documents. Whether there was any relation between the emergence of the first-declension forms in -as and that of the seconddeclension and masculine demonstrative pronominal nominative plural in -eis, -es, -is cannot be established.

Notes 1. 2.

The most recent literature on the subject, an article by Jimenez Zamudio in the 1991 issue of Emérita, was unfortunately unavailable. Blümel and Leumann mention only to reject the idea that these forms could be explained by assuming influence from the Oscan second-declension nominative plural -ús / - o s / .

3.

This contradicts Wachter's idea that the weakening of word-final / - s / had made the second-declension nominative / - ë / and the third-declension nomina­ tive / - ë ( s ) / less distinguishable. For the writers of Latin, there was apparently a clear difference between / ë / and / ë / .

4.

This article was available only through its discussion by Leumann (1964: 96).

5.

Aiedies has also been interpreted as an Umbrian-type nominative singular in -ies (cf. Bormann CIL 11.6706,1, Wachter 1987: 440 n.999).

6.

Lommatzsch (CIL l 2 ad loc.) interprets M 5 as m(yste)s, but after the plu­ ral Valeries, one would of course expect mystae. Perhaps one should interpret M (arci) s(erui).

7.

Text after Wachter (1987: 244).

8.

Text after Wachter (1987: 395).

9.

Compare A. Freio A. f. Gal(eria) \ Mercurial(i) uxori | P. L. Freis filiei feceruni (CIL 1 2 .1612).

10.

\ Amatiae

Q. ƒ. Maxim(ae)

\

Whether both sides belonged to one and the same text is debated (cf. Peruzzi 1966, Wachter 1987: 441-448).

38

G.C.L.M. BAKKUM

11.

According to Lommatsch (CIL l 2 ad l o c ) , Fabretti read

12.

An example of the regular pronominal nominative in a resumptive context is quod decurion]es et municipes cunctei postulauerunt de C. Falerio C. f. et C. [— honorandis?] \ d(e) [e(a)] r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt): quom iei de sua pecunia forum statuerunt canalesq[ue — | — ]o lapide faciendas polliciti sint idemque macellum [— | — Je et [— et ar]mamentari[um ... (CIL 1 2 .3173).

13.

Apart from the attestations given here, there are variae lectiones hisce in PL Trin. 878 and Ter. Eu. 267, and illisce in PL Capt. 653. In hos consector, hisce ego non paro ut me rideant (Ter. Eu. 249), hisce is probably a dative rather than a nominative.

14.

Vs. eidem (CIL 1 2 .1623, 1896, 2198), e[i]dem (CIL 1 2 .1762), eide (CIL 1 2 .1739), eid(em) (CIL 1 2 .1625), and ídem (CIL 1 2 .1564, 1619, 1623, 1686).

15.

Except CIL 1 2 .585, which contains a few nominal examples of the nominative in -eis (§ l.d, instances (48-87)), that seem to show no specific pattern.

16.

Wachter suggests (1987: 297-298) to take eeis as a dative plural (eeis [exdeicendum censuere] utei ad pr(aitorem) urbanum Romam uenirent), but this is unnecessary and strains the sense.

17.

Lommatzsch (CIL l 2 ) integrated eis, but in view of what is said here, ei is more appropriate.

18.

The instances are: Falesce (CIL 1 2 .364, beside magistres), Itali (CIL 1 2 .848, 849), Italicei (CIL 1 2 .612, 747, 845, 2710, 2955, 3443), Italici (CIL l 2 746), Italicei et Graecei (CIL 1 2 .738, 831), Italicei et \ Graece[i (CIL 1 2 .714), Italicei \ et Graecei (CIL 1 2 .830), Me[li]ei (CIL 1 2 .718), L]ucei (CIL 1 2 .725), Mysei (CIL 1 2 .743), Praenestinei (CIL 1 2 .1446), and Ptolemaiei (CIL 1 2 .112). This is the reconstructed text of five virtually identical defixiones. For the com­ plete texts, see Fox 1912. The first three have quas, the fourth qua]s; in the fifth, quas is integrated.

19.

20.

21.

profanei.

Counterexamples with the regular nominative are MYETAE (CIL 1 2 .671), mystae (CIL 1 2 .2505), mustae and epoptae (CIL 1 2 .665, with pieis), mistae (CIL 1 2 .667), and muste (CIL 1 2 .663, 664). This article was available only through its discussion by Blümel (1972: 47).

22.

I wish to thank drs J. de Jong of the University of Amsterdam for drawing my attention to this form.

23.

In the former, matrona has unconvincingly been taken as a dative in -a (Kajanto 197); the latter is often read as a dedication by a matrona M'. Curia and a deda Pola Livia, but this hinges completely on the doubtful interpretation of the obscure deda as 'nurse'.

References Blümel, W. 1972. Untersuchungen zu Lautsystem Lateins. München: Kitzinger.

und Morphologie

Fox, W. 1912. The John Hopkins tabellae defixionum.

des

vorklassischen

Supplement to AJPh 129 (1912).

Kajanto, I. 1967. "Contributions to Latin morphology." Arctos 5, 67-77.

SECOND-DECLENSION NOMINATIVE PLURAL IN -EIS, -ES, -IS

39

Leumann, M. 1964. "Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre 1955-1962." Glotia 42, 69-120. Leumann, M. 1977. Lateinische München: Beck.

Grammatik

I: Lateinische

Laut- und

Formenlehre.

Mayer, A. 1957. "Zur Chronologie der lateinischen Nomina auf *-er." In: H. Kronasser (ed.) Gedenkschrift Paul Kretschmer, vol.2, pp. 29-35. Wien: Hollinck. Mazzarino, A. 1982. M. Catonis de agricultural Leipzig: Teubner. Peruzzi, E. 1966. "La lamina dei cuochi falischi." Atti e Memorie Toscana di Scienze e Lettere 'La Colombaria' 31, pp. 113-162.

dell'Accademia

Wachter, R. 1987. Altlateinische Inschriften: Sprachliche und epigraphische Unter­ suchungen zu den Dokumenten bis etwa 150 v. Chr. [Europäische Hochschul­ schriften 15.38]. Bern, Frankfurt a. M., New York &; Paris: Peter Lang.

On the sco-suffix, on prefixes and on the development of the Latin verbal system Gerd Haverling Göteborg University

1. Introduction Since t h e days of the R o m a n g r a m m a r i a n s , the sense of t h e s co -suffix in Latin has often been characterised as "inchoative", an expression t h a t gen­ erally has been interpreted as indicating t h a t they describe the beginning of an action; for instance calesco is said to have the sense calere incipio.1 This description has been generally accepted a n d is often met with in h a n d b o o k s and dictionaries. 2 It is, however, clear t h a t t h e sense of some of t h e oldest verbs — a n d sometimes also of t h e most frequently encountered ones — with this suffix in Latin, e.g. posco or proficiscor, do not have an "inchoative" sense, i.e. they do not describe the beginning of an action. It has sometimes been suggested t h a t this "inchoative" function of t h e sco-suffix in a great number of Latin verbs derives from an analogy with e.g. cresco.3 However, several scholars have protested against the traditional de­ scription of t h e function of this suffix and they have observed t h a t these verbs often seem to describe a progressive development r a t h e r t h a n a sud­ den change. T h e sense of calesco is t h e n said to correspond to calefio a n d not to calere incipio; and the sense of puellasco is said to correspond t o puella fio.4 As regards t h e perfect tense forms which correspond to these verbs, two views have been p u t forward. Some scholars have thought t h a t a

42

G. HAVERLING

verb like senesco has t h e same perfect tense form as seneo, i.e. senui.5 Most scholars, however, share the view expressed by several Late Latin g r a m m a r i a n s according to which calesco has no perfect tense form of its own, since calui is the perfect tense form of caleo;6 t h e d y n a m i c sense is t h e n supposed to be expressed by a prefixed perfect tense form, i.e. concalui.7 T h e circumstance t h a t a relatively high number of t h e so-called in­ choative verbs in Latin occur with prefixes has usually been ascribed to t h e fact t h a t t h e prefixes were needed to distinguish t h e d y n a m i c sense from t h e non-dynamic one in the perfectum tenses. It is t h e n assumed t h a t t h e system is calesco-concalui a n d caleo-calui.8 But it has also been suggested t h a t the prefixed inchoative verbs were the original ones a n d t h a t t h e unprefixed forms are a secondary phenomenon, i.e. t h a t t h e line of development was timeo-timui-extimui-extimesco.9 O t h e r scholars have, however, thought t h a t there might be a differ­ ence between as well prefixed and unprefixed s co-verbs (like calesco a n d concalesco) as prefixed and unprefixed perfect tense forms (like calui a n d concalui). This view was p u t forward at the beginning of this century a n d t h e semantic difference between prefixed and unprefixed verbs was some­ times compared to t h a t between imperfective and perfective verbs in t h e Slavonic languages. 1 0 Some people who believed in the perfective charac­ ter of prefixed verbs even tended to regard unsuffixed forms like conticeo a n d exardeo as somehow prior to conticesco and exardesco.11 T h e trouble is, however, t h a t m a n y such verbs are often considerably younger t h a n those with t h e sco-suffix. 12 It is in my view likely t h a t there is a reason for t h e existence of all these different formations in Latin and t h a t there is a difference in sense between b o t h prefixed and unprefixed sco -verbs and prefixed a n d unprefixed perfect tense forms.

2. The s co -verbs in Latin T h e r e are in all some 700 sco-verbs in Latin. About half of t h e m are already found in Early and Classical Latin, b u t the suffix is very productive a n d m a n y new ones are met in t h e texts from t h e later centuries. A slight majority of these verbs are prefixed; it is, however, striking t h a t t h e relative number of prefixed verbs is higher in t h e earlier periods a n d t h a t t h e number of new unprefixed verbs grows considerably in t h e Late Latin period, i.e. after A.D. 200. 1 3

ON THE SCO-SUFFIX

43

A considerable number of unprefixed s co -verbs, about 150, are never met in t h e perfectum tenses. 1 4 And the infectum tense forms to some 40 prefixed perfect tense forms do not occur in t h e t e x t s . 1 5 A n o t h e r fact of interest is t h a t several s co- verbs are always prefixed in t h e earlier forms of Latin; if there is an unprefixed sco-verb, it is not met until Late Latin and in several cases only in t h e g r a m m a r i a n s a n d in t h e glossaries. Some of these verbs are quite common, like for instance concupisco, condolesco, condormisco & obdormisco, conticesco a n d extimesco. T h e prefixed verbs are, however, not equally common in all t h e types of formation in which we find the sco-suffix. T h e use of prefixes is partic­ ularly frequent in t h e sco-verbs formed from non-dynamic, mostly intran­ sitive, verbs; it is more rare in the s co -verbs formed from transitive a n d causative verbs a n d in t h e ones t h a t have been formed from nouns a n d adjectives. 2.1. The verbs in the infectum 2.1.1. With expressions

tenses

that mean Ho begin', Ho stop'

etc.

T h e non-ingressive sense of t h e so-called "inchoative" verbs is, as several scholars have observed, stressed by the fact t h a t we often encounter an infinitive of such a verb accompanied by a finite form of a verb t h a t m e a n s 'to begin', e.g. coepi or incipio as e.g. in (1) a n d (2): 1 6 (1) (2)

Cato Agr. 17.2 eae, ubi primum incipiunt hiascere, t u m legi oportet. Cic. Rep. 1.63 ut ille qui navigat, cum subito mare coepit horrescere, et ille aeger ingravescente morbo, unius opem implorat.

We also find t h e sco-verbs with expressions t h a t m e a n e.g. 'to stop doing something', as in (3) a n d (4): (3) (4)

Cato Agr. 88.1 id aliquotiens in die cotidie facito, usque adeo donec sal desiverit tabescere biduum. Catull. 68.55-56 (cum...) maesta neque assiduo tabescere lumina fletu / cessarent tristique imbre madere genae ...

T h e s co- verbs used in these 4 examples are all unprefixed a n d this, as a m a t t e r of fact, is usually the case in the earlier periods of Latin. However, in t h e later periods we find more prefixed verbs used in such constructions, as e.g. with concupisco in (5) a n d (6): 1 7

G. HAVERLING

44 (5) (6)

Sen. Episi. 90.19 primo supervacua coepit concupiscere, inde con­ traria. Aug. Civ. 22.23 aliquando enim concitatius, aliquando remissius, non tarnen desinit caro concupiscere adversus spiritum et spiritus adversus carnem.

2.1.2. Some verbs formed from nouns and adjectives Some of the verbs formed from nouns mean 'to become something' or 'to grow gradually into something' or 'to become like something'. In the earlier forms of Latin unprefixed such verbs have, in my view, the sense 'to grow gradually into something, to become like something' rather than 'to become something'. Verbs like noctesco and vesperasco, for instance, do not mean 'to become night' and 'to become evening', but 'to become dark like the night' and 'to grow towards evening', as is shown by (7, 7 a) and (8 a, 8 b): (7) (7 a) (8 a) (8 b)

Fur. Ant. Poet. 2 omnia noctescunt tenebris caliginis atrae ... Gell. 18.11.3 et tenebras in noctis modum factas noctescere ... Ter. Haut. 248 ... et vesperascit et non noverunt viam. Nep. Pelop. 2.5 ut vesperascente caelo Thebas possent pervenire.

And the verb matresco in Pacuvius (9) does not mean 'to become a mother', but 'to become like my mother' as Nonius (9 a) observed: (9) (9 a)

Pac. Trag. 139 utinam nunc matrescam ingenio, ut meum patrem ulcisci queam! Non. p.137.7 matrescam: matris similis fiam.

The Latin expression for 'to become a mother' is, of course, mater fio.18 And the verbs repuerasco and puellasco in Varro (10) mean 'to become like a boy again' and 'to become like a girl': (10)

Varro Men. 44 quod non solum innubae fiunt communis, sed etiam veteres repuerascunt et multi pueri puellascunt.

The sense of puellasco is in other words not equivalent to puella fio. These verbs have a non-terminative sense; they describe the development of something in a certain direction, but they do not necessarily imply that the action is brought to its final conclusion. In the verbs matresco, puel­ lasco and repuerasco in the quoted passages this is obviously not the case. The development described by vesperasco will, of course, in due time fi­ nally be completed, but the verb describes the process of development and not its result.

ON THE SCO-SUFFIX

45

The verb puerasco found in Suetonius (11) describes also a develop­ ment which in due time will reach its stage of "completion", namely the process of leaving the age of infancy and becoming a little boy: (11)

Suet. Calig. 7 (Germanicus) habuit in matrimonio Agrippinam ... ex ea novem liberos tulit; quorum duo infantes adhuc rapti, unus iam puerascens insigni festivitate ... ceteri superstites patri fuerunt, třes sexus feminini ... totidem mares.

This is analogous to the sense found in for instance senesco, i.e. 'to grow older' in (12) and (13): (12) Cic. Sen. 11 (38) ... ita sensim sine sensu aetas senescit, nec subito frangitur, sed diuturnitate extinguitur. (13) Ov. Fast. 6.771-772 Tempora labuntur, tacitisque senescimus annis, / et fugiunt freno non remorante dies.

Ageing is a phenomenon inherent with any living creature and a process that starts with life itself and therefore is often of considerable duration; in the use of senesco in the passages above it is in my view the process of ageing (i.e. of 'growing older') that is taken into account, not its result nor its beginning. 19 The prefixed form consenesco is used in the sense 'to grow old, to reach old age' (14): (14)

Liv. 42.50.8-9 d u m integrae apud animum suum Persa debere u t r u m singula concedendo nudatus ad ex­ tremum opibus extorrisque regno Samothraciam aliamve quam insulam petere ab Romanis, ubi privatus, superstes suo regno, in contemptu atque inopia consenescat, malit, an armatus ... patiatur quodcumque casus belli tulerit.

However, the subtle distinction between the non-terminative devel­ opment of something in a certain direction and the terminative change of something into something can easily be blurred. In the 1st century A.D. the verb gemmesco in Pliny seems in fact to have the sense 'to become a gem' (15): (15)

Plin. Nat. 37.158 Draconitis sive dracontias e cerebro fit draconum, sed nisi viventibus absciso capite non gemmescit invidia animalis moři se sentientis; igitur dormientibus amputant.

And the verb carbonesco in Caelius Aurelianus seems to have the sense 'to turn into coal' (16): (16)

Cael. Aur. Chron. 2.13.168 spongia expressa aceto atque pice liq­ uida madefacta vasculo novo includitur testeo; tunc circumtegitur luto et usque eo inuritur, donec carbonescat; dehinc trita in pulverem ...

46

G. HAVERLING

Several of the verbs formed from adjectives describe the change of colour and most of them are unprefixed. These verbs recur particularly often in descriptions of various processes in nature, e.g. the changing colour of fields and leaves which are described by the verbs flavesco (17a, 17 b) and russesco (18): (17 a)

(17 b) (18)

Cato Agr. 151.2 semen cupressi tarentinae per ver legi oportet; materiem, ubi hordeum flavescit. id ubi legeris, in sole ponito, semen purgato. Verg. E clog. 4.28-29 molli paulatim flavescet campus arista / incultisque rubens pendebit sentibus uva. Enn. Ann. 261 russescunt frondes.

The verbs albesco and rubesco are used of the changing colour of the sea and of the waves due to the effects of the wind (19) and the rising sun (20), as well as of the changing colour of somebody's hair (21): (19)

(20)

(21)

Verg. Aen. 7.526-530 horrescit strictis seges ensibus, aeraque ful­ gent / sole lacessita et lucem sub nubila iactant: / fluctus uti primo coepit cum albescere vento, / paulatim sese tollit mare et altius undas / erigit ... Verg. Aen. 7.25-28 iamque rubescebat radiis mare et aethere ab alto / Aurora in roseis fulgebat lutea bigis, / cum venti posuere omnisque repente resedit / flatus ... Hor. Carm. 3.14.25-26 lenit albescens animos capillus / litium et rixae cupidos protervae ...

The prefixed forms exalbesco and erubesco are used to describe more sud­ den changes of colour and we find them in descriptions of somebody's state of mind, where they mean e.g. 'to turn white (from fear)' (22 a, 22 b) and 'to turn red (because of shame)' (23 a, 23 b): (22 a) (22 b)

(23 a) (23 b)

Enn. Trag. 23-24 quae nemo est t a m firmo ingenio et t a n t a confidentia, quin refugiat timido sanguen atque exalbescat metu. Cic. De orat. 1.121 in me ipso saepissime experior, ut et exalbescam in principiis dicendi et tota mente atque artubus om­ nibus contremiscam. Cic. Q. Rosc. 8 erubescit, quid respondeat nescit; quid fingat extemplo non habet. Cic. Cael. 8 ne dicas, quae, cum tibi falso responsa sint, erubescas.

In Late Latin the semantic shades expressed by prefixed and unprefixed verbs in the earlier periods do not seem to exist any more and in several cases the dynamic sense of the s co- suffix has been lost altogether, as e.g. in the use of obatresco (24) and lippesco (25, 25 a):

ON THE SCO-SUFFIX (24)

(25) (25 a)

47

Firm. Math. 1 praef. 4 qualis sit lacus, qui prope alveum Symaethini amnis ostenditur, cui Palicus nomen est, qui sem­ per crassitudine lurida sordidus liventibus spumis obatrescit et strepente coniugio stridulus argutum murmur exibilat ... Hier. In Soph. 3.19 et cum Lia lippescit, et non amatur a Iacob et Rachel succedente, neglegitur ... Vulg. Gen. 29.17 sed Lia lippis erat oculis, Rachel decora facie et venusto aspectu.

2.1.3. Some verbs formed from other verbs The use of prefixed s co- verbs is particularly often encountered in the verbs which have been formed from verbal stems. Some of these verbs are very common and are often used by the same author and sometimes even in the same texts. We find for instance the verbs aresco, exaresco and peraresco in a few passages in Plautus (26) and Varro (27, 28): (26)

(27)

(28)

Plaut. Rud. 573-578 CH. at vides me ornatus ut sim vestimentis uvidis: / recipe me in tectum, da mihi vestimenti aliquid aridi / d u m arescunt mea; in aliquo tibi gratiam referam loco. / SC. tegillum eccillud, mihi unum id aret; id si vis dabo: / eodem amictus, eodem tectus esse soleo, si pluit. / tu istaec mihi dato: exarescent faxo. Varro Rust. 1.49.1 dicam, inquit, de fructibus maturis capiendis. primum de pratis summissis herba, cum crescere desiit et aestu arescit, subsecari falcibus debet et, quoad perarescat, furcillis versari; cum peraruit, de his manipulos fieri ac vehi ad villam ... Varro Rust. 1.32.1 quarto intervallo inter solstitium et caniculam plerique messem faciunt, quod frumentum dicunt quindecim diebus esse in vaginis, quindecim florere, quindecim exarescere, cum sit m a t u r u m ...

The unprefixed verb aresco describes the process of something growing dry; dum arescunt mea in Plautus means 'while mine are drying' and et aestu arescit in Varro means 'it ... is growing dry because of the heat'. The prefixed verbs exaresco and peraresco describe also the result of the process of growing dry; exarescent faxo in Plautus means 'I'll see to it that they become dry' and diebus ... quindecim exarescere in Varro means 'to grow dry in 15 days'; and quoad perarescat in Varro means 'until it becomes really dry'. The use of consilesco and silesco in two otherwise very similar pas­ sages in Plautus (29) and Terence (30) should probably be seen against this background:

48

G. HAVERLING (29) (30)

Plaut. Mil. 582-583 nam iam aliquo aufugiam et me occultabo dies, / dum haec consilescunt turbae atque irae leniunt. Ter. Adelph. 784-786 ... quid ego nunc agam? / nisi, d u m haec silescunt turbae, interea in angulum / aliquo abeam atque edormiscam hoc villi: sic agam!

In the passage in Terence the key-word is interea; and the sense is '... unless I, while these troubles are calming down, go away somewhere...'. The example from Plautus means 'I shall run away and hide somewhere, until these troubles calm down and the animosities decrease'. As we have already mentioned, several s co -verbs are always prefixed in the earlier forms of Latin. In my view, this can be interpreted as being due to the fact that the changes expressed by many of those verbs can hardly be imagined as gradual or non-terminative processes: we find, for instance, both consilesco and silesco but only conticesco, while the latter verb generally refers to human speech, i.e. means 'to stop talking', which could not normally be described as a non-terminative process, whereas consilesco and silesco generally refer to the cessation or decrease of other sounds, some of which may very well be thought of as non-terminative processes. The circumstance that several verbs like cupisco and dolesco occur in Late Latin seems to reflect the fact that the semantic difference between prefixed and unprefixed sco-verbs was no longer felt by the speakers (31, 32): 21 (31) (32)

Aug. Mus. 4.4.5 Deum videre qui cupiscit ... Bonum videre qui cupit diem ... Cael. Aur. Chron. 5.1.6 si itaque exteriores musculi fuerint in passione constituti, etiam tactu tentati dolescunt.

In Late Latin we find many examples of the loss of the semantic function of the prefixes; an example is the use of the verb comedo, which in the earlier periods meant 'to eat up, to consume', in the sense 'to eat' as in (33): (33)

Vulg. Gen. 2.16-17 (Deus) praecepitque ei dicens: ex omni ligno paradisi comede. de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas. in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris.

2.2. The perfectum tenses Unprefixed perfect tense forms often express a non-dynamic sense in Early and Classical Latin. In (34), for instance, the sense of calui is 'was warm, rife, hot':

ON THE SCO-SUFFIX (34)

49

Cael. Cic. Epist. 8.1.2 nam et illi rumores de comitiis Transpadanorum Cumarum tenus caluerunt; Romam cum venissem, ne tenuissam quidem auditionem de ea re accepi.

And the sense of tacui in (35) is 'I have kept secret, I have not mentioned to anybody': (35)

Cic. De orat. 1.119 quod adhuc semper tacui et tacendum putavi ...

The corresponding dynamic perfect tense forms are normally prefixed in Early and Classical Latin, as e.g. concalui (36), conticui (37) and expallui (38): (36) (37) (38)

Plaut. Amph. 513 prius abis quam lectus ubi cubuisti concaluit locus ... Plaut. Asin. 447-448 ... tandem opinor,/ conticuit. nunc adeam optumum est, priu'quam incipit tinnire. Plaut. Curc. 311 viden ut expalluit? datin isti sellam, ubi adsidat, cito.

However, in the Augustan poetry, in the poetry of the 1st century A.D. and in some Silver Latin prose we find also unprefixed forms, like e.g. senui, durui, rubui or tabui, used in a dynamic sense. Several of these forms are not met with in the earliest texts. Several such forms occur for the first time in a dynamic sense in Ovid: (39)

(40) (41)

(42)

(43)

Ov. Met. 2.829-831 nec conata loqui est nec, si conata fuisset, / vocis habebat iter; saxum iam colla tenebat,/ oraque duruerant, signumque exsangue sedebat ... Ov. Met. 11.18-19 ... turn denique saxa / non exauditi rubuerunt sanguine vatis ... Ov. Ars. 2.85-90 vincla labant et cera deo propriore liquescit / nec tenues ventos bracchia mota tenent. / territus a summo despexit in aequora caelo; / nox oculis pavido venit oborta metu. / tabuerant cerae; nudos quatit ille lacertos, / et trepidat nec, quod sustineatur, habet. Ov. Met. 2.178-181 ut vero summo despexit ab aethere terras / infelix Phaeton penitus penitusque iacentes,/ palluit et subito genua intremuere timore, / suntque oculis tenebrae per t a n t u m lumen obortae ... Tac. Ann. 1.9.4 Multa Antonio, d u m interfectores patris ulcisceretur, multa Lepido concessisse. Postquam hic socordia senuerit, ille per libidines pessum datus sit, non aliud discordantis patriae remedium fuisse quam < u t > ab uno regeretur.

In Late Latin we find many examples of forms like tacui and dormivi being used in a dynamic sense:

G. HAVERLING

50 (44)

(45)

Amm. 16.6.3 cumque res in inquisitionem veniret / ... et vinculis sunt exutae personae, quae stringebantur ut consciae, et Dorus evanuit et Verissimus ilico tacuit velut aulaeo deposito scenae ... Vulg. Gen. 41.5 expergefactus Pharao rursum dormivit et vidit alterum somnium ...

T h e r e are also examples of prefixed forms being used in a non-dynamic sense as in (46): (46)

Symm. Epist. 5.89 Itaque quod hucusque conticui, voluntati meae non debet adscribi.

3. Conclusions It is t i m e to s u m u p . It seems clear t h a t , in t h e earlier forms of Latin, the prefixed a n d unprefixed s co -verbs do not have the same sense and t h a t t h e prefixed forms indicate t h a t the action in question is brought to its final conclusion, whereas the unprefixed forms do not tell us t h a t . This fact is stressed a m o n g other things by t h e circumstance t h a t a relatively high n u m b e r of the sco-verbs which occur with e.g. coepi or incipio are unprefixed — especially in t h e earlier forms of Latin. In the earlier periods of Latin, a verb like puellasco is not equivalent to puella fio; nor do verbs like vesperasco or noctesco m e a n 'to become evening' or 'to become night' b u t 'to grow towards evening' a n d ' t o become dark like t h e night'. In t h e earlier periods of Latin, unprefixed verbs like albesco a n d rubesco m e a n 'to grow white gradually, to get more a n d more white' a n d 'to grow red gradually, to get more and more red', whereas prefixed verbs like exalbesco a n d erubesco m e a n 'to t u r n white (from fear)' a n d ' t o t u r n red (because of shame)'. However, in the later periods the difference between 'to grow towards something' a n d 'to become something' seems to be blurred. T h e difference between prefixed and unprefixed perfect tense forms disappears too a n d in Late Latin forms like tacui and conticui seem to become synonymous. In t h e R o m a n c e languages we often meet a system, in which t h e Latin order with two verbs (e.g. taceo-conticesco-tacui-coniicui) has been re­ duced to one with one verb only (Fr. je me tais-je me suis iu-je me tus or It. taccio-ho taciuto-tacqui). We can — not unexpectedly — follow these changes within t h e Latin system itself.

ON THE SCO-SUFFIX

51

Notes

1.

Cf. Gramm. suppl. 152.12 calesco non est caleo sed calere incipio; cf. also e.g. Char. Gramm. I, p. 252.10.

2.

E.g. Bourciez (1947, par. 85); Ernout & Thomas (1953, par. 137); Szantyr (1965, par. 166.b); OLD (amasco, floresco), TLL (inaresco, obaresco, indolesco, obdormisco, febresco). — The sco-suffix in other Indoeuropean languages is found to serve a number of different functions; especially the iterative, intensive or durative uses seem to be common: see e.g. Shields (1984) and Szemerenyi (1989, pp. 293-295).

3.

E.g. Szantyr (1965, par. 166.b); and Szemerenyi (1989, p. 293).

4.

Nicolaie (1965), Mignot (1969: 215-216), Berrettoni (1971: 118-119), Leumann (1977: par. 407.I.B.2), Allen (1980), Pinkster (1988: 329; 1990: 217); OLD (duresco, flavesco), TLL (obduresco).

5.

Thus Meillet & Vendryes (1968, par. 392).

6.

E.g. Explan. in Don. Gramm. 4.550.19; and Prisc. Gramm. 2 p. 512.

7.

E.g. Canedo (1936; 1938); Ernout & Thomas (1953, par. 238); Leumann (1977, par. 407.II.B.1).

8.

See Wackernagel (1928: 190); Canedo (1936; 1938); Ernout & Thomas (1953, par. 238); Berettoni (1971: 156-157); Garcia-Hernandez (1985: 528).

9.

Leumann (1977: par. 407.II.B.1-2).

10. 11.

E.g. Barone (1908), Barbelenet (1913). E.g. Brugmann (1904: 564), Barone (1908: 18 ff.) and Meyer (1917: 3).

12.

We meet coniiceo in Calp. Eclog. 4.98, where, as e.g. Leumann (1977: par. 407.II.B.2) observed, metric difficulties may have induced the poet to use it, and then in e.g. Hier. In Psalm. 20, and we find exardeo in e.g. Eccl. 16.7. There are 199 prefixed and 146 unprefixed ones in Early and Classical Latin; in the texts from the centuries A.D. we find ca. 165 new prefixed verbs and ca. 200 new unprefixed ones.

13.

14.

There are 52 in Early Latin and Classical Latin and 95 in the texts from the centuries A.D. ( = 147).

15.

There are 21 in Early Latin and Classical Latin and 18 in the texts from the centuries A.D. — In several cases the examples in the infectum tenses are met with only in Late Latin.

16.

Nicolaie (1965), Mignot (1969: 214) and Berrettoni (1971: 114-115). Contrary to some opinion (e.g. Bourciez 1947: par. 85; TLL horresco) this phenomenon is not to be confused with the later 'loss of sense' which hits the sco-suffix.

17.

Counting the examples in the TLL in Munich, I have found the following number of sco-verbs with the verbs 1) coepi, incipio and occipio, 2) desino, desisto and cesso and 3) pergo and intermitto in the different periods: in the Early Latin period there are 1 prefixed and 5 unprefixed verbs in group 1) and 1 unprefixed verb in group 2) and 1 unprefixed verb in group 3); in the Classical Latin period there are 35 unprefixed and 8 prefixed verbs in group 1); there are 4 unprefixed verbs in group 2); and 1 unprefixed verb in group 3); in the Silver Latin period there are 26 unprefixed and 15 prefixed verbs in group 1), there are 3 prefixed and 8 unprefixed verbs in group 2); and in the Late Latin period there are 9

G. HAVERLING

52

unprefixed and 23 prefixed verbs in group 1) and 2 unprefixed and 1 prefixed verbs in group 2). 18.

Cf. e.g. Ov. Fast. 3.45 Silvia fit mater; Met. 3.269-270 mater ... de love

vult

fieri. 19.

20. 21.

A close parallel to this use of senesco is Solon's use of the Greck equivalent to that verb, in Solon Frgm. 22 (Diehl) see Porzig (1927, p.163): ist nicht "alt werden" sondern "immer älter werden"'. Cf. also Verg. Aen. 3.521-523 iamque rubescebat stellis Aurora fugatis / cum procul obscuros collis humilemque videmus / Italiam ... Cf. also Prisc. Gramm. II 427.22 cupio cupisco, ibid. II p. 428.3 dormio Virg. Epist. 3.9 ut tacesco tacui.

dormisco,

References Allen, A. S. 1980. The Development of the Inchoative Suffix in Latin and Romance. Diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley (349 p., microfilm, summary in Dissertation Abstracts 41,1981, 3083 A). Barbelenet, D. 1913. De l'aspect verbal en Latin ancien et particulièrement Térence. Paris. Barone, M. 1908. Sui verbi perfettivi in Plauto e Terenzio, Rome. Berrettoni, P. 1971."Considerazioni sui verbi latini in -sco" 11, 89-169. Bourciez, E. 1947. Eléments

de linguistique

Brugmann, K. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Strassbourg.

Studi e saggi

dans

linguistici

romane. 4th ed., Paris.

Grammatik

der Indogermanischen

Sprachen.

Canedo, J. 1936. "Die lateinischen Inchoativa und ihr Verhältnis zur Komposition. 1." Glotta 24, 257-266. Canedo, J. 1938. "Die lateinischen Inchoativa und ihr Verhältnis zur Komposition. 2." Glotta 26, 14-38. Ernout A. & F. Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe Latine. 2nd ed., Paris. García-Hernandez, B. 1985. "Le système de l'aspect verbal en latin." In: Ch. Touratier (ed.) Syntaxe et latin, 515-534. Aix-en-Provence. Leumann, M. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre — Lateinische Grammatik. Erster Band. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II.2.1), Munich. Meillet, A. & J. Vendlryes.. 1968. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. 4th ed., Paris. Meyer, K. H. 1917. Perfektive, Sächs. Ber. 69.

imperfektive

Mignot, X. 1969. Les verbes dénominatifs Paris.

und perfektische

Aktionsart

im

Latein.

latins. (Études et Commentaires LXXI).

Nicolaie, V. 1965. "Observatii asupra sufixului latin -sco." Studii Clasice 7, 137-141. Pinkster, H. 1988. Lateinische

Syntax und Semantik.

Tübingen.

ON THE SCO-SUFFIX Pinkster, H. 1990. Latin Syntax York.

and Semantics

53

(transi. H. Mulder). London &; New

Porzig, W. 1927. "Zur Aktionsart indogermanischer Pr äsensbildungen." Indogerma­ nische Forschungen 45, 152-167. Shields, K. 1984. "The Indoeuropean Verbal Suffix *-sk-" Emerita, tica y filologia ciasica 52, 117-123.

Revista de linguis-

Szantyr, A. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik — Lateinische Grammatik. Band. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft II.2.2). Munich. Szemerényi, O. 1989. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt. Wackernagel, J. 1928. Vorlesungen über Syntax — mit besonderer von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. Vol. 2, 2nd ed., Basel.

Zweiter 3st ed.,

Berücksichtigung

VIXIT ANNIS XXX MENSES III DIES XIX Pedro Manuel Suárez Martinez Universidad de Oviedo

Dans les inscriptions funéraires latines de l'époque impériale on trouve assez fréquemment et, d'une façon surprenante, à travers tout l'Empire, une curieuse et quasi mystérieuse forme pour exprimer les années, les mois, les jours et, même parfois, les heures vécues par le défunt auquel elles sont consacrées: les années sont exprimées à l'ablatif, tandis que les mois et les jours le sont, généralement, à l'accusatif. Il existe naturellement des variantes de cette formule, où souvent les mois aussi sont exprimés à l'ablatif, réservant la place de l'accusatif pour les jours. On trouve très rarement d'autres variantes. C'est ce qui se produit dans les inscriptions de la Gaule analysées par J. Pirson (Pirson 1901: 183 sq.) pour lesquelles à côté d'une grande majorité de textes qui présentent une typologie annis... menses... dies ou annis... mensibus... dies, on ne compte qu'une seule typologie différente parmi celles étudiées par l'auteur, concrètement annis... menses... diebus. De la même manière dans les inscriptions du Sud-Est de l'Europe, examinées par H. Mihäescu (Mihaescu 1978: 260 sq.), une seule des in­ scriptions rapportées semble contredire la régularité de la formule citée, bien qu'il ne s'agisse pas exactement d'une expression identique: nonaginia annos uixerunt atque duobus. Dans les inscriptions africaines, étudiées par M. Hoffmann, d'après l'information de E. Löfstedt (Löfstedt 1933: 249 sqq.), cette forme d'exprimer la durée de vie du défunt est également courante. Par contre, A. Carnoy ne mentionne pas dans son étude des inscriptions hispaniques (Carnoy 1906: 267 sqq.) cette particularité, mais une autre très sembla­ ble que l'on trouve dans l'expression in annibus uiginti duos, où derrière

56

P.M. SUÁREZ MARTÍNEZ

u n ablatif aberrant apparaît la forme du numéral à l'accusatif. De n o t r e côté, nous avons examiné la collection d'inscriptions hispaniques éditée p a r J. Vives et nous avons constaté la présence de certaines inscriptions qui utilisent sans l'ombre d ' u n doute n o t r e formule. 1 Mais les variations de l'usage des cas dans ce type de formules se reflètent le mieux dans l'article de G. Konjetzny à propos des inscrip­ tions de R o m e (Konjetzny 1908: 330-332). Dans cet ouvrage l'auteur sou­ ligne, après avoir examiné u n corpus de 31.000 inscriptions, que la forme préférée pour exprimer la durée n'est plus l'accusatif, mais l'ablatif, puis­ que, face aux 539 inscriptions dans lesquelles apparaît la formule annos... mens es... dies, il r a p p o r t e 2.483 inscriptions qui utilisent l'ablatif: annis... mensibus... diebus. C o m m e conclut très justement Löfstedt à propos de ces données, l'ablatif est pratiquement de règle (Löfstedt 1933: 447). Mais, de plus, Konjetzny offre u n total d'inscriptions pour lesquelles la durée est exprimée, comme il l'indique lui-même, au moyen d ' u n e contaminatio casuelle, c'est-à-dire, p a r l'alternance de divers cas dans la m ê m e fonction. D ' a p r è s ce calcul on trouve 226 inscriptions de ce type: parmi celles-ci, d a n s 192, selon nos propres chiffres calculés sur la base des données de Konjetzny, l'ablatif et l'accusatif sont les cas impliqués. Mais le plus sur­ men­ p r e n a n t est le fait que dans ces 192 inscriptions la formule annis... ses... dies (sic) est, de loin, la plus fréquente, puisque l'on compte 100 exemples auxquels on doit ajouter 38 dans lesquels la tendance vise à pla­ dies, ce cer l'ablatif au début et l'accusatif à la fin: annis... mensibus... qui fait u n total de 138 inscriptions sur 192. Face à ce chiffre, 54 inscriptions seulement ne suivent pas la t e n d a n c e énoncée et se répartissent de façon très irrégulière, m ê m e si l'on p e u t souligner que l'expression annis... menses... diebus se répète 17 fois. D'après ce que nous venons de voir, le pourcentage de ces 138 ins­ criptions qui représentent la tendance à m e t t r e aux premières places les m e m b r e s à l'ablatif et aux dernières l'accusatif s'élève à 71,9% d u t o t a l des 192 inscriptions, tandis que celui des 54 inscriptions qui ne suivent pas la t e n d a n c e s'élève à 2 8 , 1 % . Ces résultats signifient à m o n avis qu'il existe une c e r t a i n e r é g u l a r i t é à l'intérieur m ê m e de l'anomalie que suppose le mélange de cas dans l'expression de la durée. Telle est l'interprétation des auteurs qui se sont penchés sur la ques­ tion. Pour la plupart d'entre eux ceci constitue u n indice qui ne fait que confirmer la décadence progressive de la déclinaison, ce qui, à cette époque, semble logique; mais, d'après moi, la cause qui favorise cette mystérieuse t e n d a n c e n ' a pas été identifiée. E n effet, p o u r Pirson la présence simultanée

VIXIT ANNIS XXX MENSES III DIES XIX

57

de l'accusatif et de l'ablatif suppose que "l'ablatif a été complètement as­ similé à l'accusatif pour exprimer la durée" (Pirson 1901: 183). Konjetzny dit simplement "idem significare poterat" (Konjetzny 1908: 331). Ce fut cependant Löfstedt qui essaya le premier de trouver une cause qui éclaircirait (l.c.) la relative régularité avec laquelle apparaît notre ano­ malie. D'après lui, faute d'une explication d'ordre syntaxique ou logicopsychologique il est nécessaire d'invoquer des raisons formelles. Ainsi, il soutient que les terminaisons -is, -es, (-is), -es prêtaient à la phrase une harmonie plus grande que les terminaisons -is, -ibus, -ebus, en per­ mettant un bisyllabisme dans les trois formes et une certaine uniformité phonétique. D'autre part, Löfstedt rappelle l'aversion prédominante, dans la basse latinité, envers les formes en -bus, comme semble le démontrer leur disparition dans les langues romanes. Ceci dit, on pourrait opposer une pe­ tite réserve à cette interprétation formelle: pourquoi ce type d'inscriptions n'apparaît pas majoritairement à l'accusatif, puisque les trois termes off­ rent ici une forme bisyllabique et parfaitement harmonieuse? Toutes les opinions postérieures ont tendu généralement à soutenir le point de vue de Löfstedt, dans le cadre bien sûr de la singularité de chacune d'entre elles. C'est le cas de J.B. Hofmann et A. Szantyr (Hofmann-Szantyr 1972: 148), celui de M. Bassols (Bassols 1945: 169) et de V. Väänänen (Väänänen 1981: 112) ou celui de A. Ernout et F. Tho­ mas, pour qui l'alternance en question est "purement artificielle" (ErnoutThomas 1972: 112), ou encore celui de G. Serbat (Serbat 1980: 71) qui affirme que la distinction des cas est très peu importante du fait que la notion de durée est déjà exprimée par le lexème de chaque terme. Finale­ ment, dans le contexte d'une étude plus ample, J. Herman considère que ces "fautes", qui ne constituent pas per se un système, peuvent être in­ terprétées comme "les indices des habitudes parlées des rédacteurs... des inscriptions" (Herman 1990: 40). De notre côté, nous avons pensé que les raisons qui favorisent ce fait n'ont pas encore été suffisamment expliquées, et qu'elles méritaient d'être analysées en partant des nouvelles interprétations des cas latins. Notre point de départ est le système décrit par J.L. Moralejo, qui formule l'idée que les cas, a l'encontre d'autres systèmes morphologiques de fonction essentiellement sémantique, comme celui du genre ou des temps, compor­ tent des significations qui n'atteignent leur véritable dimension que par leur utilisation dans la phrase (Moralejo 1986: 300 sq.). D'aprés cet auteur les traits ou valeurs qui marquent les cas et qui les investissent des valeurs syntaxiques qu'ils assument peuvent être résumés ainsi: comme piliers de base sur lesquels s'organise le systéme,

P.M. SUÁREZ MARTÍNEZ

58

l ' a d n o m i n a l i t é (= +l) et l ' a d v e r b a l i t é ( = +2), dans le sens le plus ample, seraient les traits qui caractérisent respective­ ment le génitif et l'accusatif (Moralejo 1986: 312 sqq.), l'intérêt ou i n d é p e n d a n c e (= +3) superposée à l'adverbalité serait le trait spécifique du datif face à l'accusatif (Moralejo 1986: 314 sqq.); et la c i r c o n s t a n c i a l i t é (= +4), un trait également ajouté à l'adverbalité serait celui de l'ablatif opposé pareillement à l'accusatif (Mo­ ralejo 1986: 316 sq.); avec un trait d'appellation ou de 2 e . p e r s o n n e (= +5) on pourrait caractériser le vocatif (Moralejo 1986: 305 sqq.), tandis que le nominatif resterait comme le " c a s z é r o " ou cas dépourvu de marques spécifiques (Moralejo 1986: 307 sqq.).

nom. 0 gén. + 1 dat.+ 2 ,+ 3

abl.+ 2 ,+ 4

Pour comprendre de façon adéquate le fonctionnement de ce système, il est nécessaire de remarquer que s'établissent, d'après ce que nous venons de voir, plusieurs oppositions privatives, c'est-à-dire, des oppositions entre deux termes qui possèdent un trait commun, mais qui sont différents dans la mesure où chacun est marqué d'un trait faisant défaut à l'autre. Ce sont les termes marqué et non marqué respectivement: ainsi, par exem­ ple, nominatif/vocatif+ 5 , accusatif + 2 /datif + 2 . + 3 , accusatif+2 /ablatif 4 " 2 ' +4 , etc.; et il serait opportun d'expliquer également que le terme le moins marqué dans ces oppositions peut apparaître dans le discours avec un usage double: d'abord, celui dans lequel le terme se manifeste avec la va­ leur qu'il a per se, c'est ce que 1' on appelle 1 ' u s a g e n é g a t i f , et, ensuite, celui pour lequel il acquiert la valeur du terme marqué, c'est-àdire, ce que 1' on appelle l ' u s a g e n e u t r e . Naturellement, le terme marqué ne peut apparaître qu'avec la valeur qu'il possède: ni plus, ni moins. Voilà comment M.S. Ruipérez a décrit et appliqué magistralement au verbe grec ancien le mécanisme qui règle le fonctionnement de ces opposi­ tions privatives, (Ruipérez 1954. Sur les oppositions privatives. v.ibid. 16 sqq.).

VIXIT ANNIS XXX MENSES III DIES XIX

59

Une fois établi ceci, nous pouvons, en suivant ces idées, a b o r d e r u n e explication linguistique de la p r e s s i o n que l'ablatif exerce sur l'accusatif dans l'expression de la durée. Bien sûr, les g r a m m a i ­ riens ont déjà formulé comme explication raisonnable de ce p h é n o m è n e l'existence d'une expression temporelle à l'ablatif, avec u n contenu sem­ blable, qui finirait, dès le latin classique, p a r se confondre avec la durée à l'accusatif (par exemple E r n o u t - T h o m a s 1972: 111 sq.). Mais, à m o n avis, la r i v a 1 i té fonctionnelle que l'apparition d ' u n c o m p l é m e n t c i r c o n s t a n c i e l à l'accusatif représentait face au complément ap­ pelé "direct" a dû jouer u n rôle tout aussi i m p o r t a n t que le facteur cité auparavant. La durée à l'accusatif n'était pas u n complément compara­ ble à celui de l'objet interne associé à u n verbe intransitif comme uixit d a n s uixit aetatem, d'où, pour défendre le caractère "circonstanciel" d u complément la langue profite du fait que le complément de t e m p s annos p e u t s'exprimer, n o n seulement avec l'élément adverbal qui lui correspon­ dait, mais aussi avec la m a r q u e syntaxiquement circonstancielle: celle de l'ablatif. Ceci signifie qu'avec le passage de l'accusatif à l'ablatif la circonstancialité du complément de durée en est sortie r e n f o r c é e . Ce que nous venons de signaler semble être confirmé p a r la fréquence bien plus grande de l'expression de durée à l'ablatif p a r r a p p o r t à celle qui utilise l'accusatif, dans le latin d'époque impériale. Passons m a i n t e n a n t à la formule qui nous occupe et que l'on t r o u v e dans toutes les zones de l'Empire: uixit annis... menses...dies. Si nous p a r t o n s du fait, comme semblent le prouver les données déjà exposées, que l'expression de la durée à l'ablatif constitue la règle en usage à cette époque, il ne faut pas s'étonner o u t r e mesure de ce que la mention des années soit réalisée à l'ablatif, car elle est correcte; p a r contre, ce qui nous frappe c'est que celle des mois et des jours ait recours à l'accusatif; et c'est cette dernière circonstance qui doit être expliquée. E n effet, lors­ que l'accusatif suit l'ablatif nous nous trouvons tout d ' a b o r d face à u n e promiscuité quasi scandaleuse dans l'usage des cas, mais, de plus, cela paraît constituer u n e tendance contraire à celle du renforcement de la circonstancialité du complément que nous venons d'évoquer. Ceci n'est cependant q u ' u n e apparence trompeuse, car, s'agissant d ' u n complément complexe de trois membres, il suffit que l'ablatif se trouve à la p l a c e p r é é m i n e n t e d e l a f o r m u l e , c'est-à-dire, qu'il soit le pre­ mier des trois compléments possibles, p o u r que la circonstancialité déjà mentionnée du complément, dans son ensemble, soit, pour ainsi dire, as­ surée. La langue possède, en effet, u n degré de r e d o n d a n c e tel que dans l'expression de nombreux contenus on peut se passer de certaines

60

P.M. SUÁREZ MARTÍNEZ

m a r q u e s formelles sans que la compréhension correcte du message en soit menacée: c'est le contexte, dans la m ê m e mesure que le degré de redon­ dance qu'il comporte, qui permet de compenser ces économies formelles r e n d a n t l'énoncé, tel que le dit Serbat à propos du présent historique, "moins lourd et plus économique" (Serbat 1975: 389). Dans n o t r e cas, ce degré de redondance est évident, d ' u n côté, dans la terminaison de l'ablatif du complément et, d ' u n a u t r e côté, comme dit Serbat, dans le lexeme du complément, qui explique l'idée de t e m p s (Serbat 1980: loc. cit.). Et s'agissant d'économiser des m a r q u e s formelles, on ne p e u t se priver que de celle de l'ablatif dans le deuxième et troisième m e m b r e de l'expression, puisque, logiquement, les lexemes sont essentiels, ne pouvant pas être omis. Puisque nous savons maintenant pourquoi l'ablatif apparaît dans le premier t e r m e de l'expression, il nous suffit de comprendre pourquoi c'est l'accusatif et non pas u n a u t r e cas qui occupe, effectivement, les places restantes. J e crois qu'il faut en chercher la raison dans le système des cas qui est notre point de départ et concrètement, dans le caractère n o n m a r q u é de l'accusatif face à l'ablatif. E n effet, il semble que nous nous trouvons face à u n élémentaire u s a g e n e u t r e de l'accusatif mis à la place de l'ablatif, dans lequel, une fois que la fonction circonstancielle du complément est établie comme nous le signalions, l'accusatif se limite à exprimer la simple dépendance adverbale des compléments dans leur forme la plus simple et la plus générique; l'accusatif représente ici le degré m i n i m u m de tension syntaxique à l'intérieur des cas adverbaux, vers le­ quel s'orientent les compléments lorsque la syntaxe se relâche et l'on se prive d'une portion de la redondance inhérente à la p r a t i q u e linguistique habituelle. 2 Or, il ne s'agit pas là d ' u n argument ad hoc qui ne servirait q u ' à expliquer l'usage de l'accusatif dans ces inscriptions; nous con­ naissons également des emplois de l'accusatif comme cas adverbal sans spécifications, avec des verbes camme utor, fruor (par exemple V ä ä n ä n e n 1981: 112) qui exigent l'ablatif, avec lesquels ce cas n ' a plus a u c u n sens, mais aussi avec des verbes pour lesquels l'ablatif serait justifié puisque son lexeme exprime une idée de séparation, comme dans Tac. An. XII 63,3 uis piscium inmensa Pontum erumpens..., face à l'usage a t t e n d u de l'ablatif que l'on trouve dans le modèle qui inspire Tacite: Sall. Hist. 3,66 qua tempestate uis piscium Ponto erupit.3 Nous disposons en o u t r e des constructions à double accusatif de personne et de chose avec des ver­ bes comme doceo où l'on trouve le n o m désignant la personne à l'accusatif d a n s son usage n e u t r e remplaçant le datif, car son lexème est suffisamment

VIXIT ANNIS XXX MENSES III DIES XIX

61

indépendant; on peut également citer les emplois tardifs de l'accusatif avec des prépositions qui exigeraient l'ablatif dans une syntaxe correcte, comme de id, où, une fois la circonstancialité du complément assurée grâce à la préposition, l'accusatif apparaît, au lieu de l'ablatif, comme complément adverbal moins marqué (Luraghi 1989: 260 sqq.), dans un usage neutre; on compte aussi les emplois de l'accusatif absolu, expression adverbale minimale de la circonstancialité d'un complément défini par le contexte, grâce à l'idée phrastique que porte son participe et aux pauses qui le précèdent et lui succédent; on dispose encore des emplois du nominatif absolu, expression "zéro" ou de manque total de tension syntaxique de la même circonstancialité que celle de l'accusatif absolu et définie de façon identique (Serbat 1980: 187 sqq.); et encore les emplois des nominatifs appelés appositif et énumératif, fréquents dans les inscriptions, dans des phrases où la tension syntaxique opportune étant marquée par l'usage du cas correspondant, le nominatif apparaît ensuite comme expression "zéro" du manque de tension syntaxique (Löfstedt 1956: 75-90, surtout 79-82). Évoquons aussi les emplois neutres du nominatif mis à la place du vocatif, où l'intonation est capable de combler la carence d'une marque spécifique de 2 e personne (Moralejo 1986: 320 et Serbat 1987: 10-11); on trouve en­ fin, pour sortir de la catégorie des cas, les emplois génériques du masculin à la place du féminin, du singulier à la place du pluriel, du présent à la place du passé, du présent à la place du futur, de l'indicatif à la place du subjonctif, etc.; autant d'exemples qui indiquent comment le terme non marqué d'une opposition peut remplacer le terme marqué correspondant sans que cela entraîne une faute syntaxique grave ou un inconvénient pour la compréhension du message. Sans nul doute, l'explication que je viens d'avancer est favorisée par des circonstances propices qui ont déjà été énumérées par d'autres auteurs et auxquelles il faudrait ajouter la tendance orientée vers une progressive réduction du nombre de cas dans la latinité tardive et vers l'usage de l'accusatif en tant que "cas régime" général (v. par exemple Väänänen, 1981: 110 sqq. et surtout 115 sqq.). Que dire, finalement, des inscriptions qui montrent dans leur casuum coniaminatio une tendance contraire à celle que nous avons analysée ici? Je pense que l'on peut les considérer comme des exemples véritables de confusion ou de manque de portée des cas. Cependant, comme nous avons déjà observé, ils ne représentent qu'un pourcentage très exigu et, de plus, ils ne suivent aucune règle commune. Parmi le nombre des causes qui sembleraient avoir favorisé cette confusion, on pourrait citer soit l'erreur ou le manque d'attention, soit l ' h y p e r c o r r e c t i o n , soit la volonté d'"embellir" le texte.

P.M. SUÁREZ MARTÍNEZ

62

En somme, je crois que le petit "mystère" que supposait cette "irrégularité regulière" que nous venons d'analyser représente, avant tout, un p r o b l è m e d e s y n t a x e pour lequel la linguistique struc­ turale, dans la mesure où nous l'avons proposé, peut apporter une so­ lution. Je ne saurais ignorer que certains autres facteurs d'ordre formel ou diachronique aient pu exercer une influence dans la généralisation du phénomène; je considère cependant qu'ils peuvent être englobés à l'intérieur d'un mécanisme syntaxique particulier propre aux opposi­ tions privatives. D'après cette perspective la casuum contaminatio dans l'expression de la durée que présentent les inscriptions funéraires latines d'époque impériale devient un phénoméne relativement normal et, pour ainsi dire, un "mystére peu mystérieux". 4

Notes 1.

Vives 1971. Ceci se produit avec les inscriptions qui portent les numéros 3582 ( = CIL II 5144); 4108 ( = CIL II 3794); 5245 ( = CIL II 5443 ); v.également le numéro 5640 ( = CIL II 6085) qui présente deux datations: la première à l'ablatif et la deuxième à l'accusatif.

2.

Évidemment, en parlant de cette tension syntaxique minimum, je pense à la "syntaktische Ruhelage" que cite Löfstedt, 1956: 76, selon l'expression de O. Behaghel à propos du nominatif.

3.

V. Köstermann 1968: 217; il cite, de plus, le passage de Virgile Aen. 1,580 erumpere nubem et d'autres.

4.

Mme. Dalia Alvarez Molina (Université de Oviedo) s'est chargée de la version française de ce texte. Nous voulons lui exprimer ici notre gratitude.

Références Bassols de Climent, M. 1945. Sintaxis histórica de la lengua latina. Barcelona. Carnoy, A. 1906. Le latin d'Espagne

d'après les inscriptions.

Ernout, F. & A. Thomas. 1972. Syntaxe

Bruxelles.

latine. Paris.

Herman, J. 1990. "Du latin épigraphique au latin provincial. Essai de sociologie lingui­ stique sur la langue des inscriptions." In: Du latin aux langues romanes. Etudes de linguistique historique (réunies par S. Kiss). 35-49. Tübingen ( = 1978 In: Etrennes de septantaine. Travaux de linguistique et de grammaire comparée of­ ferts à Michel Lejenne, 99-114. Paris.) Hofmann, J . B . & A. Szantyr. 1972. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München. Konjetzny, G. 1908. "De idiotismis syntacticis in titulis latinis urbanis (CIL vol. VI) conspicuis." Archiv für lat. Lex. und Gram. 15, 297-351. Kösterman, E. 1968. Cornelius

Tacitus. Annalen,

III. Heidelberg.

VIXIT ANNIS XXX MENSES III DIES XIX Löfstedt, E. 1933. Syntactica

II. Lund.

Löfstedt, E. 1956. Syntactica

I. Lund.

63

Luraghi, S. 1989. "The relationship between prepositions and cases within latin prepo­ sitional phrases." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Subordination and others topics in Latin. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Mihaescu, H. 1978. La langue latine dans le sud-est de VEurope. Bucuresti & Paris. Moralejo, J.L. 1986. "Sobre los casos latinos." Revista de la Sociedad Española Lingüística 16, 293-323. Pirson, J. 1901. La langue des inscriptions latines de la Gaule. Paris.

de

Ruipérez, M.S. 1954. Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiernpos del verbo griego antiguo. Análisis funcional sincrónico. Salamanca. Serbat, G. 1975. "Les temps du verbe en latin." Revue des Études Latines 53, 367-405. Serbat, G. 1980. Les structures

du latin. Paris.

Serbat, G. 1987. "Sur le vocatif. Le vocatif: un acte de parole." Vita Latina 106, 7-13. Väänänen, V. 1981. Introduction Vives, J. 1971. Inscripciones

au latin vulgaire. Paris.

latinas de la Espana romana.

Barcelona.

I I .The simple sentence and the order of its constituents

Phenotypic linearization in Latin, word order universals, and language change Charles Elerick The University of Texas at El Paso

Virtually all of the languages of the world evidence word order dou­ bling, i. e., the co-existence of alternate orders for the constituents of a syntactic string (Hawkins 1983: 12-16 and passim). For some languages the available alternate orders are relatively few but for others doubling is seen in virtually every aspect of the syntax. Latin is an example of the latter, even to the extent that it has been traditionally characterized as having free word order. Some assumptions regarding word order universals are crucial to the thesis of this paper. I hold constrained notions regarding putative language universals, understanding most word order universals to be more eventualistic than absolute. While it is clear that the Natural Serialization Principle (NSP) of Vennemann (1974), following W.P. Lehmann (1972, 1973), captures a significant principle of human language, we should also recognize that the predictive and explanatory value of NSP is ultimately limited. The chief utility of the NSP, which I employ in this study, is its principled and universally-referenced approach to the determination of relatively harmonic vs. nonharmonic word order. For example, accord­ ing to NSP, of two prepositional languages, the one that shows [prep + NAdj] is more harmonic than one that shows [prep + AdjN]. Conversely, a postpositional language that shows [AdjN+post] is more harmonic than one that shows [NAdj + post], a rare order as it turns out. Similarly, any left-ordered head or adposition in an OV language would be non-harmonic

68

CH. ELERICK

while right-ordering of the same material would be harmonic. The opposite would be the case for a VO language. In this paper I will discuss phenotypic word order, borrowing a term from genetics. By phenotypic I simply mean "manifested", and obviously "alternately manifested". It is important to recognize that phenotypic or­ ders represent actualized variability as opposed to the non-stochastic optionality that may be proper to an internalized grammar. I will also introduce and motivate the principle of Harmonic Pheno­ typic Linearization (HPL). I will show how HPL explains aspects of word order variability in Latin that are related to criteria of structural har­ mony as expressed by the NSP. Most importantly, I will show that HPL is a mechanism for language change and as such has substantial explanatory value. Four exemplary expositions of HPL in Latin follow. These will serve to illustrate the concept and to demonstrate the operational status of this principle in Latin. In Latin, Gerundive constructions that incorporate Di­ rect Objects can have either OV or VO order. The former is seen in inopiae vitandae 'of avoiding want', the latter in conficiendi negotii 'of finishing the matter'. Such Gerundive constructions can occur with nominal heads. An example is [spes[potiundi oppidi]] 'hope of capturing the city'. Four or­ ders for headed Gerundive constructions are possible. In the Caesar corpus the distribution for such structures is significantly skewed. (1) (2) (3) (4)

[OV]N (19 examples) ...proeli committendi signum ... Gall. 2.21 '...a signal to begin the battle...' N[OV] (19 examples) ...causam exercendorum remigium... civ. 3.25 '...the purpose of exercizing the rowers...' N[VO] (14 examples) ...spe conficiendi negotii civ. 3.51 '...hope of completing the business...' [VO]N (1 example) ...interficiendi Tasgeti consilium... Gall. 5.29 '...the plan to kill Tasgetius...'

The dominant OV structure of Latin is seen with both following and pre­ ceding NP heads in (1) and (2). N[OV] shows the dominant OV order but, by the criteria of NSP, a non-harmonic preposed head. Apparently the dominance of OV overrides the non-harmonic linearization. The alternate and non-dominant VO order is attested in fewer instances with both pre­ ceding and following heads. N[VO] shows the non-dominant VO order with a preceding head, which is harmonic; the harmonic linearization seems to occasion tolerance for the non-dominant VO order. But the exceedingly low frequency [VO]N shows both the non-dominant order and in addition the non-harmonic VO clause + head order. 1 The skewed distribution that

PHENOTYPIC LINEARIZATION IN LATIN

69

is evidenced is clearly principled with the low frequency of [VO]N as a function of HPL. Gerundive constructions also occur with prepositions and postposi­ tions in the Caesar corpus and in the prose of other classical authors. Just two innovated postpositions occur, causa 'for the purpose of' and gratia 'for the sake of'. The distribution of the four orders in Caesar is as follows. (5) (6) (7) (8)

p + [OV] (44 examples) ...ad consilia capienda... Gall. 4.13 '...to make plans...' p + [VO] (36 examples) ...de expugnando oppido... Gall. 2.10 '...of storming the city...' [OV] + p (21 examples) ...huius nuntii perferendi gratia... civ. 2.7 '...for the sake of bringing this news...' [VO] + p (5 examples) ...inficiendi timoris causa... Gall. 7.54 '...for the purpose of striking terror...'

The distribution of OV and VO gerundive orders in (5-8) follows the same principles that motivate the distribution seen in (1-4). The order at (8), which shows both the non-dominant VO and the non-harmonic oc­ curence of this order with a postposition, is of much diminished frequency. A second instance of HPL can be seen in the following data from Livy. Using Packard (1968, s.v. suas and suos) the pre-nominal vs. post-nominal distribution of these possesive adjectives was established. The distribution for the two orders, with and without prepositions, is as follows. (9)

NAdj = 70

AdjN = 40

p + NAdj = 38

p + AdjN = 10

The difference in the frequency of the more harmonic p + NAdj and that of the less harmonic p + AdjN (38/10) is significantly greater than is difference between NAdj and AdjN (70/40), when there is no preposition to trigger HPL. A third aspect of word order in Latin that illustrates HPL concerns the ordering of Genitives relative to a head noun. In late Republican Latin Genitive nouns either precede or follow their head. The two orders are co-dominant, with the NG order somewhat more frequent. But the head noun in a Noun/Genitive construction can itself be part of a prepositional phrase and when this occurs, a significantly skewed distribution results. Consider the distribution of the four resulting linearizations as at­ tested in Caesar Gall. 6. (10)

NG = 66

GN = 57

p + NG = 42

p + GN = 14

Compare this distribution with that seen in Livy 36. 1-19. (11)

NG = 74

GN = 33

p + NG = 48

p + GN = 12

70

CH. ELERICK

While the skewed distribution resulting from HPL in the Caesar data is quite clear, somewhat less skewing is seen in the Livy data. Specifically, the NG order, whether or not associated with a preposition, is becoming dominant. This diminution of the phenotypic skew will be shown to be significant in the discussion below of HPL and language change. A fourth example of Harmonic Phenotypic Linearization can be seen in the case of skewed Adjective/Noun orders that appear when the Noun is a Genitive and is itself part of a GN or NG order. For such Adjec­ tive/Genitive/Noun triads four possible orders exist, discounting orders which show the extraction of the Adjective to phrase periphery resulting in a discontinuous Noun/Adjective constituent and problematic evidence. 2 The distribution of instances for the four orders that do not involve a dis­ continuous constituent is as follows, the data reflecting the prose of Cicero and from Elerick (1991): (12) a) c)

[[Adj.Gen.] N] = 44 [[Gen.Adj.] N] = 14

b) d)

[N [Gen. Adj.]] = 33 [N [Adj. Gen.]] = 31

This data shows the slight preference for NG (64) over GN (58), reflecting the essentially co-dominant GN/NG status for classical Latin alredy seen in connection with the data at (10-11). It also shows the more distinct preference of AN (75) over NA (47). An informative phenotypic skew is attested by this data. The non-dominant NA order is more than twice as frequent in the harmonic linearization seen at (12b) as it is in the non-harmonic linearization seen at (12c). A not-insignificant skew is seen in harmonic (12a) vs. non-harmonic (12d), both of wich show the dominant AN order. The phenotypic skew seen in (12a-d) is implicit in the Prepositional Noun Phrase Hierarchy of Hawkins (1983: 75 ff.) and the data set as a whole exemplifies HPL. This structurally based phenotypic skewing of Adjective/Noun lin­ earization and that evident in the Livy data at (9) may explain some of the frustration of precision seen in semantic and pragmatic accounts of Adjective/Noun order in Latin. See especially Marouzeau (1953) and such valuable extensions as De Jong (1983). The four examples of HPL that I have discussed here establish the operational status of this principle for Latin. Clearly, more questions can be asked regarding the extent to which various aspects of doubling in Latin and in other languages evidence phenotypic corollaries to word order universals. Also instructive would be instances of domains where HPL might be expected but is not in evidence. I now turn to the question of the relationship between HPL and lan­ guage change. I will claim that the phenotypic skew is the mechanism for

PHENOTYPIC LINEARIZATION IN LATIN

71

language change t h a t has been missing in a t t e m p t s to explain word order changes. In this way I will suggest a new answer to the question t h a t Sapir (1921: 154 ff.) advanced with his discussion of "drift". For a good review of intervening discussion of the causes and mechanisms of word order change see Malinson and Lake (1981: 394 ff.). I will address the issue as it is posed by Hawkins (1983: 241). "We can no longer use implicational universals t o explain t h e continued m o m e n t u m for word order changes following some initial inconsistancy. Instead, we must seek motivations for change within t h e p a r a m e t e r s of synchronically attested variation." I will also approach the issue of language change as one calling for a linguistic explanation in the sense of King (1968). T h a t is to say, a serious account of word order change must assume t h e replacement of one inter­ nalized g r a m m a r ( G n ) by G n + 1 , which replacement takes place as a result of language acquisition. A linguistic explanation is fundamentally different from a "logical" explanation such as advanced by Friedrich (1975), or less sanguinely, by Hawkins (1983). An explanation of a well attested word order change can be formu­ lated. We know t h a t from early Latin to early R o m a n c e a change in t h e order of Genitive + Noun to Noun + Genitive took place. It is clear t h a t t h e change took place as GN > G N / n g > G N / N G > g n / N G > NG. I claim t h a t t h e change can be explained in t h e following way, recalling Hawkins' observations cited above. I. The initial inconsistency. T h e inherited GN order was doubled t o allow w h a t was a statistically regressive NG alternate order. T h e initial i m p e t u s to the alternate order may have been t h e tendency to move p h o n o logically heavier material to t h e right. This would suggest t h a t t h e first NG linearizations tended to have polysyllabic Genitives or c o m p o u n d Genitive N P ' s . It is also possible t h a t the initial innovation of NG linearization was based on some selective semantic factor. II. Momentum. T h e appearance of NG as an alternate order es­ tablished t h e basis for the selection of t h e harmonic phenotypic order [prep] + NG. Since prehistoric Latin was probably a mixed Preposi­ tional/Postpositional language, t h e change to N G , even t h o u g h pheno­ typic NG could have been relatively common, would have been r e t a r d e d until Latin h a d become a definitively prepositional language. III. Continued momentum. As the frequency of NG in t h e p + NG leader environment increased, new speakers of Latin did w h a t t h e s t u d y of historical phonology has established to be key to g r a m m a r change. Specif­ ically, an innovation originally conditioned by some factor spreads when,

72

CH. ELERICK

in the language acquisition process, the environment that admits the in­ novation is generalized. In the case at hand, the conditioning factor was the presence of a preposition and the effect of the preposition as a stimu­ lus for harmonic linearization. This condition was statistically generalized over time and finally erased. As a concrete result, NG gained rapidly on GN and replaced it. The data from Caesar and Livy presented at (10) and (11), reviewed here, illustrates a step in the diachronic process that changed Latin from a GN to an NG language. 10 a) 11 a)

NG = 66 NG = 74

GN = 57 GN = 33

p + NG = 42 p + NG = 48

p + GN = 14 p + GN = 12

The two statistical changes predicted by the theory of word order change that I have presented at I—III. are realized in this data. First, the relative proportion of NG over GN increases over the scant two generations that separate Caesar and Livy. The Caesar sample shows 60% NG com­ pared with the 73% for the Livy sample. Secondly, as GN retreats and NG starts to approach dominant status, as would be expected, there occurs a gain in the frequency of NG when this order is not in construction with a preposition with this gain important to the overall higher frequency for increasingly dominant NG. Compare Caesar's 66/57 vs. 42/14 and Livy's 74/33 vs. 48/12. This change was not occurring independent of other changes. A con­ comitant change with the same mechanism was effecting Noun/Adj lin­ earization with the AN > NA change trailing as a slight distance. A glimpse of that process is seen in the data at (9). We should entertain the notion that the change of Latin to an NG/NA language did provide at least part of the stimulus for the increase of the VO order for clause con­ stituents at the expense of OV, resulting eventually in the establishment of VO as the Romance order. There is also the possibility that it was an ongoing movement of Latin from an OV/vo language to a VO language that provided some of the stimulus for the emergence of the NG/NA or­ ders. See Adams (1976) and Panhuis (1984) for interesting if inconclusive treatments of this specific matter. 3 The concept of Harmonic Phenotypic Linearization is of immense po­ tential utility in the investigation of word order issues in human language. It has potential as a means for understanding the basis for some aspects of alternating synchronic word order and for word order change. In a con­ ceptually allied study (Lujan, Minaya, and Sankof, 1984) certain aspects of language acquisition have been treated and explained. It is likely that

PHENOTYPIC LINEARIZATION IN LATIN

73

continued exploration of HPL will shed more light on these issues and in addition will lead to a greater understanding of the implicational re­ lationships that may obtain between various aspects of alternating word order.

Notes There is only one instance of Gerundive [VO]N in the Caesar corpus, that at Gall. 5.19. At Gall. 6.37 recipiendi sui facultatem 'opportunity of (their) retreating' does show [VO]. There are three Gerund instances, at civ. 2.34, Gall. 5.38 and Gall. 3.6. This latter case cognoscendi quid fieret...facultatem 'a chance to learn what was happening' is also problematic in that the [O] is a clause. A possible instance at civ. 3.102, deposito adeundae Syriae consilio 'the plan for visiting Syria having been put aside' is ambiguous since the discontinuous constituent deposito...consilio may represent a pre-extraction (see following note) N[VO] or [VO]N order. Such problematic instances have been excluded from the counts for other orders as well. In my 1987 study I included linearizations of the sort NgA in which the Noun and Adjective formed a discontinuous constituent. I assumed that Latin NP's should be treated as "flat", nonconfigurational structures. A much better assumption follows Baltin (1982) and assumes extraction of either the Adjective to the right periphery of the phrase or the Noun to the left periphery. This assumes an underlying order of NAg or gNA. In any event, an extraction account renders such surface strings with the order NgA unusable for the present purposes. According to Hawkins' (1983:75 ff.) Prepositional Noun Modifier Hierarchy, a prepositional language can have or, by implication, develop a dominant Noun + Genetive order only if it also has Noun + Rel. Clause. Latin retained the P I E co-relativization pattern, seen in ...ut, quos in conspectu Galliae interficere vereretur, hos omnes in Britanniam traductos necaret (claimed)...'that, once transported to Britain, Caesar would slay all those that he feared to kill in the sight of Gaul' Gall. 5.6. Compare the quos...hos...with the pattern in Sanskrit and Hittite (W.P. Lehmann, 1974: 61-62). It is interesting that in Livy, in whose prose Noun + Genitive is emergently dominant, the co-relativization pattern which is fairly common in Caesar and Cicero abruptly disappears, replaced by NRel and leaving only sporadic vestiges such as quas...condiciones...easdem... 'the same conditions that...' (37. 45.13). This may be an instance in which the actual operation of the implicational universals can be seen. It is impossible to say whether the disappearance of co-relativization promoted NG or if emergent NG occasioned the disappearance of co-relativization if, in fact, there is any relationship at all.

74

CH. ELERICK

References Adams, J.N. 1976. "A Typological Approach to Latin Word Order." Forschungen 81, 70-89.

Indogermanische

Baltin, M.R. 1982. "A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules." Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1-38. De Jong, J.R. 1983. "Word Order within Latin Noun Phrases." In: H. Pinkster (ed.) Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Elerick, Ch. 1991. "Latin Noun/Gen/Adjective/Serialization and Language Univer­ sals." In: R.G.G. Coleman (ed.) Selected Papers from the 4th Latin Colloquium, 311-321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Friedrich, P. 1975. "Proto-Indo-European Syntax." lournal Monograph no. 1.

of Indo-European

Studies,

Hawkins, A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press. King, R.D. 1968. Generative Hall.

Grammar

and Historical Linguistics.

New York: Prentice

Lehmann, W.P. 1972. "Converging Theories in Linguistics." Language 48.2, 266-275. Lehmann, W.P. 1973. "A Structural Principle of Language and its Implications." Lan­ guage 49.1, 47-66. Lehmann, W.P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European

Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Lujan, M., L. Minaya &; D. Sankoff. 1984. "The Universal Consistency Hypothesis and the prediction of word order acquisition stages in the speech of bilingual children." Language 60.2, 343-371. Malinson, G., Lake, B.J. 1981. Language lishing Company. Marouzeau, J. 1953. L'ordre Lettres".

Typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland P u b ­

des mots en latin. Paris: Sociéte d'édition "Les Belles

Packard, D.W. 1968. A Concordance Press.

to Livy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Panhuis, D. 1976. "Is Latin an SOV Language?" Indogermanische 140-159.

Forschungen

89,

Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Vennemann, Th. 1974. "Theoretical Word Order Studies: Results and Problems." Pa­ piere zur Linguistik 7, 5-25.

Le verbe latin "incorpore"-t-il ses compléments? Huguette Fugier Université des Sciences Humaines, Strasbourg

1. Depuis que l'idée en a été sinon inventée, du moins exploitée et théorisée par E. Sapir (1911), l'incorporation a fait son chemin dans la littérature linguistique. Le phénomène a été discerné dans des langues aussi diverses par leur origine et leurs caractères typologiques que le chinois (Cartier 1985) et divers dialectes couchitiques (Sasse 1984), sans compter l'inuit et les langues indiennes abondamment décrites par les auteurs anglophones. Ce matériel aboutit à plusieurs synthèses récapitulatives, dont celle deve­ nue classique de M. Mithun (1984). L'ampleur de vues qui s'y manifeste ne va pas pourtant sans brasser ensemble des faits qui relèvent respectivement de la phonétique et lexicologie (intégration formelle dans le verbe d'un de ses actants nominaux), de la sémantique (caractère indéfini du nom incor­ poré?) et de la syntaxe (relation de l'actant incorporé avec son verbe in­ corporant, conséquences sur la structure de la phrase entière). Le point de vue syntaxique — le seul retenu ici — est heureusement celui qu'adoptent pour l'essentiel les rares auteurs qui s'intéressent à l'incorporation dans les langues classiques, soit grec (Jacquinod 1989: 109 sq., avec une enquête étendue à d'autres langues indo-européennes, mais traitant les faits col­ lectés en tant que "locutions"), soit latin (déjà Szantyr 1965: 46; Lazard 1984: 275-276 pour la notion, 288 pour animum aduertere). En ce qui concerne le latin, nous allons devoir vérifier à titre de question préalable si l'étroite adposition matérielle d'un circonstant à son verbe mérite le nom d'incorporation (§ 2). Puis passant au véritable cas d'incorporation qu'est celui du complément d'objet dans le verbe, nous distinguerons deux

76

H. FUGIER

cas selon que l'incorporation a pour effet syntaxique soit de retransitiver l'ensemble (verbe + complément d'objet) en autorisant l'adjonction d'un nouveau complément d'objet (§ 3 et 4), soit de le détransitiver en inter­ disant une telle adjonction (§5). Une analyse plus poussée montrera le moment venu pourquoi, là où la retransitivation est théoriquement possi­ ble, elle se réalise néanmoins avec une inégale facilité (§ 3 vs. § 4). Tout au long du chemin ainsi balisé nous nous abstiendrons de considérer à quelle époque apparaît ou disparaît, de quel genre littéraire ou style relève la construction (verbe + complément incorporé). Il suffit que cette construc­ tion existe pour qu'on doive en rendre compte dans le système général de la syntaxe latine — l'état du système ainsi décrit étant celui du latin archaïque et classique, de Plaute à Tacite. N.B. Abrégeons désormais: N = nom; c.o. = complément d'objet; V = verbe; c.c. = complément circonstanciel.

2. MANUMITTERE. Les auteurs signalent en diverses langues l'intégra­ tion du c.c dans le V. Dans une langue indo-européenne de type nomi­ natif-accusatif comme est le latin, le c.c reste à l'extérieur du noyau phrastique constitué par V + c.o. De cette position externe, peut-il donc s'incorporer à V? Quant à la forme, on trouve certes des juxtaposés comme manu mit­ tere, dont les deux termes difficilement séparables donnent un sens glo­ bal unique "affranchir (un esclave)"; et même quelques cas d'intégration phonétique achevée comme uendere de uenum dare "donner pour la vente, mettre en vente". A soi seul, un tel blocage littéral ne prouverait rien en matière de syntaxe, s'il ne faisait rien d'autre que satisfaire à une exigence automatique de la phonétique de contact: après tout, certaines langues li­ ent par un enchaînement continu, comme c'est le cas en sanskrit par l'effet du samdhi, tous les constituants de la phrase sans considération de lien syntaxique. La phonétique de contact, dira-t-on, est très faible en latin, et l'existence de verbes complexes obtenus par juxtaposition ou intégration complète, d'autant plus significative. Il est vrai aussi que manumittere fonctionne comme un verbe unifié, qui gouverne globalement son c.o. seruum: c'est en effet ce que présuppose la nominalisation manumissio serui, de même que mancipium et manceps présupposent manucapere (Manceps dictus quod manu capiatur, selon l'heureux commentaire de Festus, p. 115 Lindsay), que usucapio suppose usucapere, et pedetentim, pedepressim, pedetentare, pedepressare (Bader 1962: 296-297, 63, 279). Cette solidarité du c.c avec le V mérite si l'on veut le nom d'incorporation. Elle entraîne

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS?

77

sûrement des conséquences pragmatiques, en ce sens que manumittere sert globalement de rhème dans une phrase où l'information est organisée sui­ vant le schéma courant, le sujet tenant le rôle de thème (exemple d'une telle étude pragmatique dans Sasse 1984: 251). Mais à part le fait qu'elle donne à réfléchir sur l'ordre d'implication des constituants dans la phrase, c'est-à-dire sur la question de savoir si (c.c. + V) gouverne un c.o., ou si (V + c.o.) s'adjoint un c.c., une incorporation telle que réalisée par manu­ mittere s'arrête aux portes de la syntaxe: puisque l'étroit accolement de manu contre mittere n'entraîne aucune particularité dans la construction de la phrase dans l'attribution des fonctions aux différents actants — qui ne s'observerait pas sans lui. Il en va autrement de l'incorporation du c.o. dans le V. Celle-ci ne reçoit de réalisation phonétique qu'exceptionnellement: elle n'en est pas moins, sans conteste, un fait de syntaxe. Trois cas sont à distinguer.

3. POSTQUAM

ID ANIMUM ADVERTIT

CAESAR....

3.1. De par sa définition générale, l'incorporation du c.o. est réalisée quand ce c.o. s'intègre au V au point de former avec celui-ci un seul V com­ plexe, assez unifié pour fonctionner à son tour comme un transitif admet­ tant un nouveau c.o.: (V + c.o.) + c.o. Le cas reste très rare en latin. De uim inferre aliquem et curam impendere aliquid signalés par Szantyr (1965: 46) aucune occurrence n'appartient, sauf erreur, à la période ici considérée. La forme phonétiquement integrée curagere donne lieu à une formule récurrente dans les inscriptions, par exemple cur egit P. Valerius (CLL. III, 6.602) ou curagente Calpurnio (CLL. XI, 671: autres dans le T.L.L., s.v. Curago): mais là, s'il est vrai que pour le sens les travaux accomplis par Valerius ou Calpurnius, et mentionnés par le contexte, con­ stituent bien les résultats produits par l'activité dite curagere, ces résultats ne se réalisent pas grammaticalement par un accusatif complément de ce verbe. Reste manum iniicere (inicere) aliquem, terme juridique usuel at­ testé littérairement: (1)

Plaute, Truc. 762 Postid ego te manum iniciam quadrupuli, uenefica,

et surtout le classique animum aduertere aliquid, ou, dans un degré plus poussé d'intégration phonétique, animaduertere aliquid, par exemple:

H. FUGIER

78 (2) (3)

César, Gall. I, 24,1 Postquam id animum aduertit (Caesar)... Plaute, Pseud. 143 Nunc adeo hanc edictionem nisi animum aduortetis omnes...

Parmi les nombreux verbes admettant animum comme premier c.o. (adhibere, adpulere, adiungere, adplicare, aduersare, auertere, admouere ...: liste dans le T.L.L.), adiicere se prête aussi à incorporation syntaxique, c'est-à-dire avec adjonction d'un deuxième c.o.: (4)

Plaute, Mere. 333—334 ... Sed praecauto opus < t > , Ne hic illam me animum adiecisse aliqua sentiat.

Ainsi le fait existe. Même s'il demeure, ou est devenu, rare dans les tex­ tes disponibles; même si avec chacun des lexèmes verbaux admettant un deuxième c.o. à l'accusatif, celui-ci connaît aussi simultanément une autre construction (datif, ad + accusatif, in + accusatif): de toutes façons ce fait exige description et explication. La description sémantique des contraintes sélectionnelles qui s'exer­ cent respectivement sur chacun des deux c.o. du V incorporant n'offre aucune difficulté. Si nous abrégeons désormais par c.o.1 le c.o. incorporé et par c.o.2 celui qui s'ajoute par l'extérieur au syntagme (V + c.o.l): — Le c.o.2 ne subit aucune contrainte particulière autre que celle normalement imposée par le lexème verbal — ni référentielle puisqu'il désigne indifféremment personne ou chose, ni grammaticale puisqu'il se réalise soit par un N soit par une phrase (animum aduertere aliquem /aliquid/proposition infinitive). — Le c.o.l connaît en revanche des contraintes précises. Non pas qu'il doive être nécessairement indéfini générique non-référentiel, comme l'enseignent plusieurs auteurs à propos du N incorporé: en quoi on con­ fond, me semble-t-il, construction incorporante avec locution, c'est-à-dire expression formulaire (V + c.o.) pré-construite, disponible telle quelle dans le lexique (notion bien vue par Jacquinod 1989: 83 sq.). Il est vrai que pareilles expressions comportent souvent un c.o. indéfini, et que l'indéfinitude entraîne certaines limitations de fonctionnement, par ex­ emple le c.o. indéfini, particulièrement serré contre son V, ne peut être topicalisé (voir la description du c.o. serré dans Cartier 1979: 181-189); il est vrai aussi que le c.o. incorporé lui non plus ne se topicalisé pas (cf. Car­ tier 1985: 54-55); cependant ce qui caractérise ce c.o. incorporé est plutôt le fait d'être non-marqué, avec l'inaptitude consécutive à occuper la posi­ tion topicalisée, que la qualité indéfinie (sur ce point, Mithun 1984: 859, et Baker 1985: 101, semblent plus convaincants que Sasse 1984: 247-250).

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS?

79

En latin de toutes façons, le c.o.l réalisé dans les rares expressions in­ corporantes énumérées ci-dessus ne saurait être considéré comme indéfini non-référentiel puisqu'il s'agit toujours d'une partie de la personne (animum), fût-elle parfois revêtue d'une forte valeur symbolique (manum), d'une activité ou d'une force exercée par la personne (uim, curam): c'està-dire dans tous les cas, d'une chose définie a priori par son appartenance à la personne que désigne le sujet du V incorporant. Cette disposition sémantique entraînera quelques conséquences syntaxiques. 3.2. Plus intéressantes, les propriétés syntaxiques de la construction (V + c.o.l) + c.o.2 seront révélées de façon significative par les conditions dans lesquelles s'opère la passivation. La question de savoir si la passivation concerne le seul V ou l'ensemble du syntagme verbal fait l'objet d'une discussion, bien résumée par Hoekstra (1984: 148 sq.). En fait, plusieurs sortes de passif peuvent coïncider dans la même langue, suivant le nombre d'actants concernés par le processus de passivation. Le V transitif simple donne lieu au passif usuellement décrit par les grammaires, où le c.o. re­ monte en position de sujet; mais les V dont la valence comporte deux c.o. directs admettent deux passifs, suivant que l'un ou l'autre c.o. s'impose en place de sujet. C'est le cas en latin pour rogare, docere, accusare, induere et autres de même valence (liste dans Bortolussi 1987: 219 sq.), compor­ tant chacun deux c.o. pour désigner respectivement la chose demandée (enseignée...) et la personne visée par la demande (l'enseignement...): (5.a) (5.b) (5.c)

Consul senatorem rogat sententiam Senator sententiam rogatur (a consule) Sententia rogatur a senatore/senatori (a consule)

(5.b) réalise le schéma observable en maintes langues du monde, parfois nommé deuxième passif, où l'ancien c.o. de la "personne visée" devenu sujet reçoit pour prédicat le V (en forme passive) conservant néanmoins comme c.o. à l'accusatif le complément de la "chose demandée": littéralement, "Le sénateur est demandé-son-avis". (5.c) montre au con­ traire l'inaptitude du c.o. de la "personne visée" à conserver la fonction de c.o. à l'accusatif lorsque le c.o. de la "chose demandée" se trouve promu sujet: le nom du sénateur "duquel" ou "auquel" le consul demande un avis, réalisé morphologiquement par un cas oblique, a rétrogradé dans la hiérarchie des fonctions. La dissymétrie ainsi constatée révèle l'inégalité hiérarchique entre les deux c.o., au profit du complément de la "chose demandée", lequel s'avère, des deux, le plus proche de V. N.B. L'épreuve de passivation semble ainsi parler contre l'avis inverse de Ernout-Thomas (1972: 37-38) qualifiant pueros vs (doceo) grammaticam d'objet interne vs. objet externe.

H. FUGIER

80

Ce résultat ne doit pas étonner: deux compléments gouvernés par le même V, fussent-ils tous deux directs, sont toujours hiérarchiquement or­ donnés (Bortolussi 1987: 81), et c'est une idée féconde que de lier les divers schémas de passivation à la relation plus ou moins étroite qu'entretiennent avec le V les divers compléments (Bach, cependant discuté par Hoekstra 1984: 148 sq.). Aussi bien l'hypothèse diachronique suivant laquelle, de deux accusatifs co-présents auprès d'un V, l'un remplacerait un instru­ mental indo-européen (Haudry 1977: 168 sq.) est-elle loin d'y contredire. Mais revenons de là à notre schéma d'incorporation (V + c.o.l) + c.o.2, un instant abandonné pour poser dans sa généralité le principe des deux passifs reflétant la dissymétrie de deux compléments directs. Ce schéma se prête aussi au double passif, non sans cette particularité toutefois que le deuxième passif y fait difficulté: (6.a) (6.b) (7.a) (7.b) (8.a) (8.b)

Ego te manum iniciam Caesar earn rem animum aduertit Tu manum inicieris (a me) Ea res animum aduertitur (a Caesare) Manus (mea) tibi/in te inicietur Animus (Caesaris) ad earn rem aduertitur

(8.a) et (8.b) sans être agrammaticaux souffrent d'une anomalie séman­ tique, en ceci que le c.o.l devenu sujet devrait de ce fait jouer normalement le rôle de thème, or un c.o. incorporé se prête mal à thématisation. (7.a) et (7.b) semblent en revanche presque inacceptables, et sauf erreur man­ quent en effet dans les textes: manque aussi bien le deuxième passif qui correspondrait à la formule active de toutes façons rare manum inicere, que celui de l'usuel animum aduertere. En place de celui-ci, sont employés par substitution: — soit (9)

Ea res animaduertitur (a Caesare)

avec la forme phonétiquement intégrée animaduertere, verbe unifié suppri­ mant, avec l'existence d'un c.o. autonome animum, la possibilité matérielle d'un deuxième passif; — soit (10)

Ea res aduertitur (a Caesare)

avec la forme aduertere qui ayant absorbé le sens de animum (comme en français parlé pas vaut à lui seul pour ne...pas), fait ainsi l'économie du c.o.l, et par là même, également, du deuxième passif;

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS?

81

— soit (11)

Tacite, Hist. III, 48 Aduertit ea res Vespasiani animum

= "Cet incident a t t i r a l'attention de Vespasien", t o u r n u r e qui fournit au problème de la passivation une solution lexicale: Tacite associe là en effet, à u n actif de t y p e (6.b) qui s'énoncerait Vespasianus earn rem animum aduertit, u n a u t r e actif de valeur sémantique converse où l'ancien c.o.2 devient sujet tandis que le c.o.l reste tel — a d a p t a t i o n originale au cas d ' u n V à double c.o. de paires telles que mouere castra vs castra mouent (Feltenius 1977: 14-15; Touratier 1987: 414-416; G a r c i a - H e r n a n d e z 1990: 134, 137). Tant d'obstination à éviter le deuxième passif q u a n d il s'agit du t y p e manum inicere aliquem, animum aduertere aliquam rem signifie-telle que les V à c.o. incorporé n ' a d m e t t e n t pas u n tel passif — avec cette conséquence prévisible mais contrariante que le c.o.l jouerait d ' a u t a n t moins son rôle de complément le plus proche de V qu'il y est incorporé? Non pas! Car le blocage du deuxième passif nous semble résulter ici d ' u n e cause particulière, de n a t u r e sémantique et sans signification pour la syn­ taxe. L'absence du passif animum aduerti pourrait révéler que le processus consistant à réanalyser animum aduertere comme u n V unique n'est pas poussé j u s q u ' à son terme. Mais ne serait-ce pas plutôt que la formation du deuxième passif est ici bloquée par une difficulté d ' a t t r i b u t i o n référentielle? N'oublions pas que le c.o. incorporé désigne toujours une partie de la per­ sonne. Or s'il est vrai q u ' à l'actif animum, en position de complément, s'interprète aisément comme étant l'"esprit" de la personne dont le n o m occupe la position — hiérarchiquement supérieure — de sujet, en revanche dans u n passif de type (7.b) le destinataire ne pourrait interpréter animum qu'en le r a p p o r t a n t — à contre-pente — à u n N rétrogradé dans u n cas oblique (a Caesare). Ainsi se trouvent ramenées à leur j u s t e p r o p o r t i o n les raisons, uniquement sémantiques, de penser q u ' u n V à c.o.l incorporé puisse se soustraire aux deux passifs normalement associés à toutes les sortes de V c o m p o r t a n t dans leur valence u n double c.o. 3.3. Cependant tout n'est pas dit q u a n d on s'est bien assuré que ani­ mum aduertere aliquam rem et manum inicere aliquem, comme tous les V à double c.o. dont ils forment une sous-classe, comportent u n c.o.l hiérarchiquement supérieur, et plus serré contre V, que leur c.o.2. En­ core faut-il vérifier que leur c.o.l s'incorpore vraiment dans V, c'est-àdire, que la formule syntaxique de animum aduertere aliquam rem n'est pas celle de rogare avec deux c.o. certes ordonnés mais chacun r a p p o r t é i n d é p e n d a m m e n t à V:

H. FUGIER

82 sententiam rogare

\

senatorem

ou bien pour la commodité typographique: sententiam → rogare <— senatorem; mais une formule d'inclusions successives, où earn rem vient compléter le syntagme (V + c.o.l) déjà constitué animum aduertere. Trois arguments parlent en ce sens: a) La lexicalisation. La relation syntaxique serrée de animum contre ad­ uertere se manifeste déjà par l'ordre linéaire puisque seul un adverbe — catégorie connue pour ne pas rompre la contiguïté de deux termes formant séquence (Charpin, travail en cours) — est admis à les séparer. Mais elle est structurale aussi. Quiconque décrit la construction (V + c.o.l) + c.o.2 s'étonne que contre toute normalité, une seule et même place de c.o. se voie pourvue de deux occupants simultanés. Ceux qui s'appuient sur les principes théoriques de Government and binding soutiennent que le c.o. incorporé n'a, du fait même de son incorporation, plus besoin de cas, ce qui laisse disponible le cas accusatif et lui permet d'être attribué au c.o.2 (Baker 1985: 146). Sans s'inscrire nécessairement pour autant dans le cadre théorique chomskyen — d'autant qu'on semble plutôt frôler ici un raisonnement en termes d'opérateurs, où auertere s'appliquant sur ani­ mum forme avec ce dernier un nouvel opérateur qui s'applique à son tour sur l'argument earn rem — ne peut-on retenir l'idée que la désinence portée par animum a perdu toute valeur fonctionnelle, ne se maintenant plus qu'en vertu de la contrainte par laquelle un mot latin ne peut se réduire à la seule forme de son radical dépourvu de toute marque casuelle? Auquel cas la forme soudée animaduertere (de même que curagere) ne fait qu'inscrire dans le lexique cette perte de désinence, elle-même signe et preuve de l'incorporation. h) L'ordre d'implication des deux c.o. Nous avons reconnu à rogare la formule constructionnelle sententiam → rogare ← senatorem: les deux c.o. sententiam et senatorem y apparaissent simultanés sans être inter­ dépendants, c'est-à-dire que chacun peut se manifester sans l'autre, soit le c.o.l sans le c.o.2, soit le c.o.2 sans le c.o.l, donc respectivement: (12) (13)

Rogare sententiam Rogare senatorem

S'il s'agit au contraire de la formule (aduertere + animum) + aliquam rem, on trouvera c.o.l sans c.o.2, mais non pas l'inverse:

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS? (14.a)

Plaute, Rud. 1062 Gripe, animum aduorte ac tace

(14.b)

Postid ego manum iniciam quadrupuli, uenefica

83

ou

(repris de 1. = Plaute, Truc. 762, avec ablation de te sans dommage pour la grammaticalité); mais: (15)

*Postid ego te iniciam quadrupuli, uenefica

(avec ablation de manum, et agrammaticalité résultante). N.B. Aduertere aliquam rem ne doit pas compter pour une objection si l'on se souvient qu'aduertere en son sens de "remarquer" contient en lui après l'avoir absorbée la valeur sémantique de animum (cf. supra, phrase (10)) — sinon comment, à partir de "tourner", pourrait-il aboutir au sens "re­ marquer"? Aduertere aliquam rem comporte donc une ellipse permanente de animum, et réalise la formule (V + c.o.l) + c.o.2. Que signifie donc cette dissymétrie, sinon que dans la structure manum inicere aliquem / animum aduertere aliquam rem, le c.o.2 aliquem/aliquam rem implique l'existence préalable du c.o.l manum/animum: ce qui revient à dire que aliquem/aliquam rem complémente le syntagme déjà constitué manum inicere/animum aduertere, or qu'est le caractère préconstitué de (V + c.o.l) sinon un autre nom de l'incorporation? c) La nominalisation. Attesté épigraphiquement (Szantyr 1965: 34), le nom verbal incluant pour premier terme une forme accusative manuminiectio (alicuius) présuppose le groupe manum inicere (Bader 1962: 14, 297); et prouve du même coup le caractère préconstitué de ce groupe, conduisant à la même conclusion que l'argument précédent. Une fois décrit à propos de (aduertere + animum) + aliquam rem, le fait de l'incorporation se retrouve en deux autres types de phrase, où se reconnaît, sous des contraintes sélectionnelles différentes imposées aux lexèmes, le même fonctionnement syntaxique du c.o.l. Il nous reste donc, passant vite désormais sur le c.o.l, à examiner plus particulièrement pour­ quoi le syntagme (V + c.o.l) s'accommode inégalement d'un c.o.2 coprésent suivant qu'il s'agit du type metas facere (§ 4) ou messem metere (§5).

4. RADICES METAS FACITO. Bien étudiée par H. Rosén (1981 et 1983) et S. Lopez-Moreda (1987), la construction (Facere + c.o.l) complémentée par un c.o.2 se réalise par exemple en:

84

H. FUGIER (16) Cato, De agr. 55 Codicillos oleagineos, radices in aceruo sub dio metas facito

= "Entasse des branchettes d'olivier et des racines en plein air"; (17) Piaute, Aul. 252-253 Video hercle ego te me arbitrari, Euclio, hominem idoneum Quem senecta aetate ludos facias

= "Je vois bien, Euclio, que t u m e considères, malgré m o n âge, c o m m e u n h o m m e dont on peut se moquer"; sans compter les occurrences, tardives au point d'excéder n o t r e cadre chronologique, de facere mentionem aliquid, gratias agere aliquid (Szantyr 1965: 46), et l'épigraphique meniem habere aliquid en C.L.L. IX, 3473. Le c.o.2 y est quelconque, n o m de personne ou chose, voire phrase complétive. Le c.o.l, plus contraint, désigne l'objet effectué ("faire u n t a s " ) ; ou l'effectuation même du procès, de telle sorte q u ' a u groupe (facere + N verbal) corresponde u n V composé en -ficare/-fi"plaisanter", cf. cari (ludos facere "faire plaisanterie" vs ludificare/ficari Lopez-Moreda 1987: 67-68). La question de savoir si le c.o.2 complémente l'ensemble (V + c.o.l) ou seulement le c.o.l q u a n d celui-ci se trouve être u n N verbal, aurait certes des implications théoriques et méthodologiques i m p o r t a n t e s (voir Giry-Schneider 1978: 13-15). Elle est cependant sans intérêt pour nous aujourd'hui, non seulement parce que l ' a p t i t u d e d ' u n N verbal à gouverner u n complément reste m ê m e à date ancienne étroitement limitée (comme le m o n t r e sur u n ensemble de langues indo-européennes Jacquinod 1989: 110), mais surtout parce q u ' u n e explication de ce genre n'embrasserait pas tous les cas, et manqueraient en particulier, avec (16) et (17), les deux occurrences les mieux établies: en (16) et (17) en effet, radices ne peut être en a u c u n cas interprété comme complément du seul metas, ni (hominem) quem comme complément du seul ludos. Il faut donc prendre radices me­ tas facere ou aliquem ludos facere pour des réalisations de la s t r u c t u r e (V + c.o.l) + c.o.2, et leur appliquer tout ce qui en a été dit au p a r a g r a p h e précédent. C e p e n d a n t on croit alors percevoir une contradiction. Suivant la doctrine courante — telle que représentée p a r M. Mithun, M. Baker — l'incorporation, comme elle produit à partir de V et de c.o.l u n seul V complexe (V + c.o.l), libère de ce fait la place structurale du complément d'objet, et autorise ainsi l'apparition d ' u n c.o.2: c'est-à-dire que l'incorporation du c.o.l a pour effet de retransitiver le V. Or le syn­ t a g m e ("faire" + N verbal) semble bien plutôt détransitiver le V impliqué dans son N verbal. Ainsi dans les langues modernes: le locuteur d u français

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS?

85

"opérer des arrestations" évite par cette périphrase d'expliciter le c.o. qu'imposerait au contraire le transitif simple "arrêter (quelqu'un)" (Blin­ kenberg 1960: 294). De même en latin, selon H. Rosén le N verbal sertil bien souvent à v i d e r le syntagme verbal de son c.o. (Rosén 1983: 196-197). Et c'est un fait: s'il est vrai que rebellionem facere ne pourrait d'aucune façon, non plus que son V correspondant intransitif rebellare, s'adjoindre de c.o., du moins populationem facere devrait-il bien parta­ ger l'aptitude du transitif populare à gouverner un c.o. — et pourtant n'en fait rien, non plus que les autres syntagmes analogues correspondant à autant de V transitifs, énumérés par S. Lopez-Moreda (1987: 66-67). Mais d'où provient pareille situation? Si la cause en est syntaxique, on n'échappe pas à la contradiction; si elle tient uniquement au sens, alors la détransitivation n'est pas structurale, mais seulement bloquée par des conditions sémantiques défavorables. Tel est, croyons-nous, le cas. Dans l'expression (facere + N), l'élément verbal pose l'existence d'un procès factif et en décrit les modalités, distinctivement suivant la valeur respective de facere vs agere (Lopez-Moreda 1987: 146), et le N qui le complémente dé­ limite le champ d'application du dit procès. La formule ainsi centrée sur la désignation du procès ne requiert nulle mention d'un objet extérieur dans lequel celui-ci devrait se réaliser, et c'est pourquoi sa complétude sémantique se satisfait du schéma (V + c.o.1) sans besoin d'aucun c.o.2. De toutes façons, s'il est vrai que les phrases de formule (facere + N verbal) se dispensent en général de c.o.2, cette carence ne saurait résulter d'une impossibilité syntaxique, sinon comment expliquer l'existence constatée de radices metas facere, aliquem ludos facere, et leur grammaticalité, as­ surée du seul fait de leur existence régulière dans la langue? Le schéma (facere/-agere + N verbal) comporte donc bel et bien, et l'incorporation du c.o.l et la présence d'un c.o.2 admis à compléter (V + c.o.l): identi­ que structuralement à celui du § 3 ci-dessus, ce schéma subit simplement une contrainte supplémentaire due aux particularités sémantiques de ses termes composants, et suffisante pour rendre inopportune la réalisation complète d'une structure syntaxique, pourtant dûment autorisée par la langue. Il n'en est pas de même lorsqu'intervient, pour premier complément de V, un accusatif d'objet interne.

H. FUGIER

86

5. METERE MESSEM MAXUMAM. Avec l'objet interne — "moissonner une moisson" — apparaît une problématique nouvelle: (18)

Plaute, Trin. 33 Eorum (se. morum malorum) licet iam metére messem maxumam.

Décrit par des auteurs attentifs (Rosén 1983: 198 sq.; Bortolussi 1987: 156 sq.), le complément dit d'objet interne concerne le problème de l'incorporation dans les limites suivantes. Il sera d'abord, bien entendu, distingué de la figure étymologique: il existe des figures étymologiques qui ne mettent en jeu, syntaxiquement, aucun objet direct (tali ludo ludere)] et d'autres qui mettent en jeu deux objets directs, de la chose effectuée et de la personne visée, dont aucun n'est interne — c'est-à-dire relèvent de la construction senatorem rogare sententiam (Caton, De agr., 139 Te hoc porco piaculo inmolando bonas preces precor, uti sies uolens propitius mihi...). En fait, ni parenté étymologique ni ressemblance formelle n'entrent ici en compte. Sera dit interne, exclusivement, l'objet qui ne désigne rien d'autre que 1'effectuation du procès, ainsi messem (metere) dans les contextes où il est bien assuré qu'on parle de l'opération du "mois­ sonnage" — à l'exclusion de fossam (fodire) parce que fossa possède une référence propre et désigne une réalité indépendante de l'acte de "creuser" qui l'a produite. Deux tests serviront à établir la distinction: — L'objet interne ne possède pas de déterminants propres, c'est-à-dire tels qu'ils ne puissent être également rapportés à l'ensemble (V + objet): (19.a)

Messern felicem metere

→

feliciter (messem metere)

(19.b)

Seruitutem perpetuam seruire seruire)

→

perpetue (seruitutem

alors qu'on peut creuser un fossé qui soit "étayé de planches, dissimulé par des branchages, indispensable à la défense..." sans que le "creusement" admette lui-même ces qualificatifs. — L'objet interne ne donne pas matière à interrogation, ni ne fournit réponse à aucune question. A la question Quid fodis? —Fossam passera pour une réponse normale. Mais à Quid metis? la simple réplique Messem sera prise pour un refus de répondre. Des objets internes ainsi définis accompagnent des V tant intransitifs que transitifs: cf., par contraste avec messem metere, Tertia uiuitur aetas (Ov., Met., XII, 187), Hoc bellum a consulibus bellatum (Tite-Live, VIII, 39, 16), Militiam militare (Plaute, Pers., 232), Seruitutem seruire (Plaute, Capt., 391), Vitam uixi (Ter., Ad., 859). C'est même auprès des intransitifs qu'ils remplissent le plus strictement les deux conditions énoncées à l'instant, et

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS?

87

qu'ils doivent passer sans doute pour des représentants typiques de la catégorie. Le caractère tout à fait particulier du rapport entre l'objet interne et son V aide à comprendre cette situation à première vue paradoxale. Il aide à concevoir aussi qu'un tel syntagme (V intransitif + c.o.) puisse subir une réversion passive. On trouve de fait: (20)

Hor. Epod. I, 23-24 Libenter hoc et omne militabitur Bellum in tuae spem gratiae

Cependant, en quoi consiste ici la passivation? Elle ne s'opère pas comme autour d'un V transitif, par une inversion d'agentivité telle que l'objet (externe) promu en place de sujet assume de ce fait le rôle d'agent. Car même si l'objet interne remonte en position de sujet, aucun changement ne se produit pour autant dans ce qui est et reste une désignation pure et simple du procès. Par ce passif-là le V, expansé à l'extérieur de lui par un N donnant une expression substantive à son propre contenu, se retourne seulement sur soi-même. C'est dire qu'un tel passif ne déborde pas les limites du V. Pour revenir de là à notre propos, ferons-nous donc de l'objet interne ainsi décrit un objet incorporé? Certes non au sens donné jusqu'à présent à ce terme puisque l'incorporation décrite aux § 3 et 4 se manifestait, et se prouvait, par le fait que le c.o.l serré contre son V laissait ainsi vacante pour un nouveau c.o. la place accusatif. Ici au contraire, la relation serrée de l'objet interne avec son V a pour effet d'interdire l'apparition de tout c.o. supplémentaire. Même un V transitif, dès que muni d'un objet interne, semble exclure tout autre c.o.. Assurément la chose à laquelle s'applique, ou que produit le procès peut s'expliciter, par exemple en 18 sous la réalisation syntaxique du génitif adjoint à messem (morum, malorum metere messem). Mais son nom n'apparaît jamais, et sans nul doute ne peut apparaître, en position d'un c.o.2 à l'accusatif: (21) *Metere messem mores malos

semble bien exclu de la langue. Ce qui joue là est apparemment une ques­ tion de cohérence sémantique, ou plus précisément cognitive. Le locuteur qui emboîtera sans peine deux compléments d'objet externe en appliquant le second sur l'ensemble (V + c.o.l), trouvera moins aisé d'appliquer, sur un complément d'objet centripète puisque désignant le procès lui-même, un autre complément centrifuge puisque désignant une chose extérieure au procès. C'est ainsi que l'objet interne barre à tout c.o. ultérieur l'accès du syntagme verbal où lui-même figure en position de c.o.l, "bouche"

88

H. FUGIER

en quelque sorte ce syntagme (V + c.o.1); et au moins en ceci, il exerce cet effet intransitivant dont plusieurs auteurs font une propriété du c.o. incorporé (Mithun 1984: 849; Baker 1985: 168 sq.). Que le c.o. de l'actif militiam militare devienne ainsi, au passif, le sujet du V intransitivé ne constitue pas vraiment un trait d'ergativité, car il y faudrait d'autres conditions (cf. Comrie 1978: 364); le fait donne néanmoins à réfléchir sur la non-transitivité et ses causes possibles.

6. En résumé, la question de savoir si le latin connaît un phénomène d'incorporation requiert une réponse diversifiée: — La relation étroite de certains c.c. avec le V ne mérite pas le nom d'incorporation car c'est un fait de lexique et non de syntaxe: manumittere (+C.O.). — Le complément direct d'objet externe peut s'incorporer au V, avec cette conséquence — et cette preuve — qu'un second c.o. vient alors s'appliquer au syntagme verbal (V + c.o.l) pour le complementer à son tour: aduertere animum + c.o.2. L'absence constatée d'un tel c.o.2, fût-ce après un V transitif, tient seulement à des conditions sémantiques non remplies, comme il arrive de par la constitution lexicale du syntagme verbal: facere metas + radices, mais facere populationem + ø. Le complément direct d'objet interne, bien qu'il entretienne avec le V une relation tout aussi étroite que celle de animum avec aduertere, n'en exclut pas moins la présence d'un c.o.2 supplémentaire — apparem­ ment, à cause de la difficulté qu'éprouverait le locuteur à appliquer sur V puis sur (V + c.o.l), l'un après l'autre, deux compléments respective­ ment interne et externe: metere messem + 0. C'est là, si l'on veut, un cas d'incorporation intransitivante, ou du moins, de non-transitivité liée aux propriétés particulières de l'objet interne. Tout se passe en définitive comme si le V — ne pouvait entretenir de relation étroite qu'avec un des N co-présents dans la phrase: une relation privilégiée avec le c.c. ne semble pas compatible avec l'incorporation, par le même V dans la même phrase, d'un c.o. — et n'admettait à la fois qu'une sorte de c.o.: deux c.o. externes (c'est-à-dire autres qu'objets internes) sont cu­ mulables, ce qui permet l'incorporation du plus serré d'entre eux: (animum aduertere) + aliquam rem; mais un c.o. externe n'est pas cumulable avec un c.o. interne: (mes­ sem meiere) + 0.

LE VERBE LATIN "INCORPORE"-T-IL SES COMPLEMENTS?

89

Il reste que chacune des constructions s t r u c tu r a l e m e n t possibles ne se réalise que sous condition. E t la condition réside d a n s la sous-classe s é m a n t i q u e des N que leur position syntaxique r e n d incorporables. M ê m e n ' e s t p a s sélectionnellement le c e , d a n s le blocage lexical manumittere, quelconque. Le c.o. d u t y p e animum aduertere relève de la sous-classe "parties d u corps, manifestations d u pouvoir de la p e r s o n n e . . . " , celui d u t y p e metas facere, de "activités susceptibles de se réaliser en u n objet ex­ t e r n e " , celui d u t y p e messem metere, de la sous-classe "activités p o u v a n t être considérées i n d é p e n d a m m e n t de t o u t e réalisation e x t e r n e " . Une des­ cription plus fine de telles classes sélectionnelles, d o n n a n t à voir c o m m e n t chacune facilite ou bloque u n e construction syntaxique, c o n t r i b u e r a i t à m o n t r e r d a n s quel jeu de contraintes réciproques fonctionnent ensemble s y n t a x e et sémantique.

Bibliographie Bader, F . 1962. La formation

des composés nominaux

Baker, M.C. 1985. Incorporation. bridge (Mass.): M.I.T.

du Latin. Paris: Belles-Lettres.

A theory of grammatical

Blinkenberg, A. 1960. Le problème de la transitivité København: Munksgaard. syntacto-sémantique.

function

changing.

Cam­

en français

moderne.

Essai

Bortolussi, B. 1987. Considérations sur l'emploi de l'accusatif latin (étude Paris: Université de Paris VII.

syntaxique).

Cartier, A. 1979. "Du rôle de l'objet dans le figement des composés verbe-objet en chinois." In: M. Mahmoudian, (éd.) Linguistique fonctionnelle, débats et perspec­ tives, 181-189. Paris: P.U.F. Cartier, A. 1985. "Noms incorporés en chinois: usages intensionnels de l'objet." In: G. Lazard, (éd.) Actances 1, 51-61. Paris: C.N.R.S. Charpin, F. 1991. (à paraître) Comrie, B. 1978. "Ergativity" In: W.P. Lehmann (éd.) Syntactic typology. Studies the phenomenology of language, 329-394. Hassocks: The Harvester press. Ernout, A. & F. Thomas. 1972. Syntaxe Feltenius, L. 1977. Intransitivizations Studia Latina Upsaliensia, 9.

in

latine. Paris: Klincksieck.

in Latin. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

García-Hernández, B. 1991. "L'intransitivation en latin tardif et la primauté actancielle du sujet." In: Gu. Calboli (éd.) Latin vulgaire — Latin tardif II, 129-144. TüHngen: Niemeyer. Giry-Schneider, J. 1978. Les nominalisations lexique. Genève: Droz.

en français.

L'opérateur

"faire" dans le

Haudry, J. 1977. L'emploi des cas en védique. Introduction à l'étude des cas en indoeu­ ropéen. Lyon: L'Hermes. Hoekstra, T.A. 1984. Transitivity. Grammatical relation in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.

90

H. FUGIER

Jacquinod, B. 1989. Le double accusatif en grec, d'Homère J-C. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.

à la fin du Ve siècle

avant

Lazard, G. 1984. "Actance variations and categories of the object." In: F. Plank (éd.) Objects, Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 269-292. London: Academic Press. Lopez-Moreda, S. 1987. Los grwpos lexematicos de "facio" y "ago" en el latin arcaico y clasico. Estudio estructural. Salamanca: Publicaciones Universitad de Leon. Mithun, M. 1984. "The evolution of noun incorporation." Language. 60.4, 847-894. Rosén, H. 1981. Studies in the syntax of the verbal noun in early Latin. München: Beck. Rosén, H. 1983. "The mechanisms of Latin nominalization and conceptualization in historical view." In: W. Haase (éd.) Prinzipat. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 29.1, 178-211. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sapir, E. 1911. "The problem of noun incorporation in American languages." anthropologist N.S. 13, 250-282.

American

Sasse, H.J. 1984. "The pragmatics of noun incorporation in eastern Cushitic languages." In: F. Plank (éd.) Objects. Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 243-268. London: Academic Press. Szantyr, A. 1965. Lateinische Grammatik. Band II, Syntax und Semantik. München: Beck. Touratier, C. 1987. "Valence verbale et intransitivation." In: S. Mellet (éd.) Etudes de Linguistique génerale et de Linguistique latine offertes en hommage à Guy SERBAT, 405-416. Paris: Société pour l'information grammaticale.

Word order in Cato's De Agricultura Jan R. de Jong University of Amsterdam

The question of Latin word order, while having received much at­ tention recently, is still far from being resolved. The reason for this is obvious. Researchers from as early on as Weil (1844) have recognized that explaining word order in a language such as Latin requires some sort of pragmatic analysis. This is inherently a difficult task for which, moreover, complex literary texts that make up the larger part of the Latin corpus are not well suited. It is for this reason that I have turned to Cato. Cato's De Agricultura provides an interesting opportunity for testing hypothe­ ses concerning Latin word order. Leaving aside the prooemium, literary adornment is virtually absent, which lowers the chance of paralinguistic motives such as prose rhythm influencing word order. The text is divided into a large number of more or less self-contained units. This, and the sub­ ject matter itself, are the reason that the 'universe of discourse' is small and the information structure is generally clear, so that there is a bet­ ter chance than with literary or other, more complex, technical texts to establish the relationship between information structure and word order. The question to be addressed here is: is it true, for Cato, that con­ stituents are ordered according to the degre of 'focality' they have (I use the Functional grammar term here, for what in a Prague School terms would be called 'rhematicity' or 'communicative dynamism'). I will refer to this notion as the Topic-Focus hypothesis. Note that I take 'Topic' and 'Focus' to be relative terms: Topic means 'having less focality', Focus means 'having more focality'. Note also that it is already clear from pre­ vious research (e.g. Panhuis 1982; De Jong 1989) that allowance has to

J.R. DE JONG

92

be made for emphasis or contrast, factors that may cause a disruption of what could otherwise be analyzed as Topic-Focus ordering. The research material included all clauses in Cato's De Agricultura with at least two arguments expressed. In this paper presentation is restricted to two sets of data (one consisting of two subsets): the first, selected by a syntactic criterion consists of clauses with nominal or prono­ minal Subjects, the second, selected by a semantic criterion, of clauses with three-place predicates of certain types with explicit 2nd and 3rd nominal or pronominal arguments.

1. The position of Subject constituents Sentences with overt Subjects deserve separate attention in order to see whether syntactic function as such is one of the determining factors in constituent ordering, and also because of the formal distinction that can be observed in numerous languages between clauses having Topic Subjects (the most common case), and those having Focus Subjects, including pre­ sentative clauses. 1.1. Presentative clauses It is well known that clauses of the presentative type which are concerned with the existence of something, or bring something onto the scene, may give rise to Predicate-Subject word orders, in Latin as well as in other languages (see e.g. Hetzron 1975, Wehr 1984), sometimes with the addi­ tion of elements like 'there' in English. Although Predicate-Subject order in Latin is nowhere anything like a rule, it is still remarkable that it is completely absent in Cato, since the text does contain dozens of clauses of the presentative type, such as (1) and (2): (1) (2)

si herbae natae erunt, facito uti ab herbis purges Cato Agr. 151,4 et si fistula erit, turundam intro trudito Cato Agr. 157,14

The absence of Predicate-Subject orders cannot stem from a preference for verb-final orderings, since this preference in Cato is in fact not very strong. There is however one other thing that might be relevant: main clauses in Cato are usually of the imperative type, i.e.: they do not have an overt Subject. Clauses that do contain overt Subject mostly are subordinate clauses with are often claimed to be more strictly verb-final.

WORD ORDER IN CATO'S DE

AGRICULTURA

93

T h e material can be devided into four categories. In t h e first two of these t h e ordering of constituents is in accordance with the Topic-Focus hypothesis. T h e m a i n tool for establishing t h e distribution of p r a g m a t i c functions in a given sentence is the question test, for which see Sgall, Hajicová, P a n e n o v á (1986). 1.2. Subject

Topic - Non-Subject

Focus

T h e first category consists of instances in which Subject a n d Topic function coincide. This is the default p a t t e r n and does not need further clarification; more interesting are t h e ones t h a t do not fit into this p a t t e r n : t h e other three categories. 1.3. Non-Subject

Topic - Subject

Focus

T h e first one of these is still compatible with the Topic-Focus Hypothesis: a non-Subject Topic is followed by a Subject Focus: (3)

(4) (5)

si bouem aut aliam quamuis quadrupedem serpens momorderit, melanthi acetabulum, quod medici uocant zmurnaeum, conterito in uini ueteris hemina Cato Agr. 102,1 si uoles scire in uinum aqua addita sit necne, uasculum facito de materia hederacia Cato Agr. 111,1 frumento ne noceat curculio neu mures tangant Cato Agr. 92,1

In (3) bouem aut ... quadrupedem is analysed as Topic since t h e message is more ' a b o u t ' cattle etc. t h a n it is about snakes a n d something similar goes for (4) and (5). Examples like these are far less frequent t h a n t h e previous category; still they constitute a corroboration of t h e Topic-Focus hypothesis. 1.4. Subject Focus - Non-Subject

Topic

T h e following cases seem to contradict t h e Topic-Focus hypothesis. T h e first one, example (6), is a case of contrast, for which a proviso was m a d e earlier on: (6)

earn rem diuinam uel seruus uel liber licebit faciat. ubi res diuina facta erit, statim ibidem consumito. mulier ad earn rem diuinam ne adsit neue uideat quo modo flat Cato Agr. 83,1

T h e passage in (6) starts out with a sentence t h a t fits the previous cate­ gory (non-Subject Topic followed by Subject Focus). T h e passage is a b o u t

J.R. DE JONG

94

sacrifices and answers the underlying question about who should make them. The third, underlined, sentence has a different order. In my analy­ sis, the position of mulier is due to the contrast between mulier and uel seruus uel liber.1 Latin uses placement in front position as a means for marking contrasted elements. The following examples are a real challenge for the Topic-Focus hy­ pothesis. They show up a Focus-Topic ordering, but there is no reason for supposing that there is contrast or emphasis at work. (7) (8)

conuoluolus in uinia siet, amurcam condito, puram bene facito, in uas aheneum indito congios II Cato Agr. 95,1 cum ignem subdideris, si qua flamma exibit nisi per orbem sumcaueto ne accedat mum, luto oblinito. uentus ad praefurnium Cato Agr. 38,4

It seems to me that (7) is more about vineyards, addressing the question what it should be guarded against, than it is about caterpillars: where or where not they should be allowed to go. It is strikingly similar to (5), except for the word order. Again in (8) the oven and its parts are much more likely Topic can­ didates than the wind which so far has not been mentioned. So these two examples (7) and (8), and there are more like them, constitute real counterexamples to the Topic-Focus hypothesis. 1.5. Non-Subject Focus - Subject Topic The next example is equally disturbing, although it is the only example in this category: (9)

feriae seruentur. alieno manum abstineat, sua seruet diligenter. Cato Agr. 5,1 litibus familia supersedeat

The chapter is about the personnel on the villa, mainly about the vilicus, which makes familia a more likely Topic than litibus. The conclusion of this section is that there is a significant number of counterexamples against the Topic-Focus hypothesis. One way to rescue the Topis-Focus hypothesis at this point would be to hypothesise that apart from a preferred Topis-Focus ordering there is also an unmarked order in terms of syntactic functions, with Subjects preceding Objects (if present) which in turn precede other Complements (if present). In the case of Focus Subjects the Speaker has a choice: either he maintains the unmarked syntactic ordering, or he chooses the pragmatically motivated order. 2 This added hypothesis would explain examples such as (7) and

WORD ORDER IN CATO'S DE AGRICULTURA

95

(8), though not (9). As we shall see in the next section, however, it is of little avail in the case of second and third arguments (Objects and Complements).

2. Second and third arguments with three-place predicates: type OBLINERE and type INDERE I will now turn to a different set of data, or in fact two sets of data that have been analysed separately, but that I have combined here since they yield more or less the same result. They are two types of threeplace predicates that happen to be rather frequent in Cato: one which I have called the OBLINERE-type (predicates like 'to smear something with someting', 'to cover something with something') representing a rather wide range of verbs in Latin. The other group which I call the INDEREtype consists of predicates meaning 'to put something inside something else', in many cases the verb indere itself. Semantically there is considerable overlap between the two classes. In fact in several contexts a predicate taken from one class could easily be substituted by one in the other (e.g. oleum in aenum indere vs. aenum oleo unguere).3 The data is presented her in more or less the same fashion as with the Subjects. If one of the constituents (either the 2nd or 3rd argument) is anaphoric it is in the large majority of cases placed in first position. A typical example is (10), an exception would be (11), although one might doubt whether it still retains true anaphoric value: (10) (11)

marmor si indes, in culleum libram indito: id indiio in urnam. Cato Agr. 23,3 misceto cum musto: id indito in doleum modiolos in orbis oleagineos ex orcite olea facito; eos circumplumbato; caueto ne laxi sient; in cupam eos indito Cato Agr. 20,2

Since these cases overall behave so uniformly, they are of little interest to the question at hand and therefore were excluded from the material presented below.

J.R. DE JONG

96

2.1. 2nd argument Topic - 3rd argument Focus This is the largest group due to the combined tendencies for 2nd arguments (Objects) to have Topic function, and, probably, for Topics to precede Focus constituents. (12) (13)

catinum fictile oleo unguito. ubi omnia bene commiscueris, in catinum indito catinum testo operito Cato Agr. 84,1 ubi factores uectibus prement, continuo capulator concha oleum, quam diligentissime poterit, tollat, ne cesset: amurcam caueat ne tollat, oleum in labrum primům indito, inde in alterum dolium indito: de iis labris fraces amurcamque semper subtrahito Cato Agr. 66,2

2.2. 3rd argument Topic - 2nd argument Focus This type of function distribution is less common, but the order is in agreement with the Topic-Focus hypothesis. (14) is part of a series of chapters dealing with the uses to which amurca can be put. Therefore its most likely interpretation is 'Cooked amurca (Top) can be used to smear an axis (Foc)' rather than 'An axis (Top) should be smeared with cooked amurca (Foc)'. (15) is more straightforward: in the context of repairing wine-casks it answers the question 'What should one do with cracks?'. (14) (15)

amurca decocta axem unguito et lora et calciamenta et coria omnia: meliora facies Cato Agr. 97,1 dolia plumbo uincito uel materie quernea uirisicca alligato. si bene sarseris aut bene alligaueris et in rimas medicamentum indideris beneque picaueris, quoduis dolium uinarium facere poteris Cato Agr. 39,1

2.3. 2nd argument Focus - 3rd argument Topic This category is even smaller. In fact there is no convincing case in the OBLINERE-group (16) from the INDERE-group (along with a few oth­ ers) is a genuine example, and a counterexample against the Topic-Focus hypothesis: (16)

focum purum circumuersum cotidie, prius quam cubitum eat, habeat (sc. uilica). Kal, Idibus, Nonis, festus dies cum erit, coronam in focum indat, ... Cato Agr. 143,2

WORD ORDER IN CATO'S DE AGRICULTURA 2.4. 3rd argument

Focus - 2nd argument

97

Topic

W i t h this category t h e Topic-Focus hypothesis runs into real problems. It is by no m e a n s rare. Especially with 'given' Topics (mentioned in t h e preceding context) this ordering is just as common as t h e opposite one. (17)

(18)

partem quartam (sc. stercoris) circum oleas ablaqueatas, quom maxime opus erit, addito terraque stercus operito Cato Agr. 29,1 mustum si uoles totum annum habere, in amphoram musium indito- et corticem oppicato, demittito in piscinam: post diem XXX eximito Cato Agr. 120,1

Assuming an u n m a r k e d syntactic ordering O b j e c t - C o m p l e m e n t in this case does little to save the Topic-Focus hypothesis. It would explain t h e few instances in category 2.3, b u t not t h e larger group in 2.4. So far, I have only dealt with t h e order or arguments vis-à-vis one another. Much of what has been said also goes for satellites. In m a n y cases t h e placement is in accordance with t h e Topic-Focus hypothesis, b u t there are also clear counterexamples. To cite just one of t h e m (from a sample contract on selling the usufruct of sheep): (19)

Kal. lun. emptor fructu decedat; si interkalatum erit, K. Mais Cato Agr. 150,1

Here Kal lunis must be Focus (answering t h e question when t h e contract will end): t h e added clause si interkalatum erit, K. Mais bears this out.

3. Discussion In t h e preceding section it was shown t h a t t h e Topic-Focus hypothesis as it is a n d as far as t h e material in Cato is concerned, is untenable. Does this m e a n t h a t word order is in fact free, a n d therefore meaningless? T w o observations indicate t h a t it is not. First, deviations from t h e expected Topic-Focus ordering do not appear to be r a n d o m . Second, when they occur, t h e r e m a y well be functional explanation for t h e m . In this section I will elaborate on these two points. In a number of cases Topic continuity (as opposed t o Topic shift) m a y be a relevant notion. Fronting of a constituent in order to signify its Topicality is called for especially when there is a change from one Topic to another, or, to p u t it t h e other way around, in cases in which t h e H e a r e r / R e a d e r is able to identify a Topic by himself, there is less need to have a Topic marked as such. T h e latter case could be called 'interpreted'

J.R. DE JONG

98

Topics, parts of linguistic structure not marked as Topics, but interpreted as such by the Hearer/Reader. In this way one could at least salvage part of the Topic/Focus hypothesis, by saying that it is only valid for 'encoded' Topics: Topics expressly marked as such by the Speaker/Writer. Note how­ ever that putting this modified hypothesis to the test would require in­ dependent (not having to do with word order) means for distinguishing between 'interpreted' and 'encoded' Topic: not an easy matter. The relevance of the notion of Topic continuity for word order has been shown by Givón and his collaborators (Givón 1983): discontinuous Topics turn out to be placed in front position more often than continuous ones. This explanation would work well for cases like examples (16)—(19), and also for the anaphoric instance (11). In all these instances the Topic constituent is highly continuous. Note however that being continuous does not actually prevent a Topic from taking initial position, see e.g. example (12). There are instances where yet another factor seems to be at work, a factor which, I think, is independent from the previous one, even though it applies to partly the same data. I call this Topic/Focus ambivalence and use this term for cases where a certain constituent can be analysed as having Topic on one level and Focus function on another. I illustrate this with passages (20)-(22). (20)

(21)

quae mala in segete sint. si cariosam terram tractes, cicer, quod uellitur et quod salsum est, eo malum est; hordeum, fenum graecum, eruum, haec omnia segetem exsugunt et omnia quae uelluntur. nucleos in segetem ne indideris Cato Agr. 37,1 et si quis ulcus taetrum uel recens habebit, hanc brassicam erraticam aqua spargito, opponito: sanum facies ; depetigini spurcae brassicam opponito: san am faciet et ulcus non faciet Cato Agr. 157,16

Example (20) deals with the question what things may be detrimental to one's crops. The last sentence is part of my material and at first sight is a case of Focus-Topic ordering. Note that the question at stake here: "What is bad for your crops" is answered not just by an enumeration of things supposed to be bad, but by a series of statements about these things, and each of them introduces the thing in question in initial position. So the question about what is bad for the crops is answered by in fact answering the question (among others) what one should or should not do with nuts. So nucleos at one level may be considered as Focus, while on an another level it serves as Topic.

WORD ORDER IN CATO'S DE AGRICULTURA

99

The same pattern can be observed in (21). It comes from Cato's fa­ mous praise of the cabbage. All the statements (the last one of which is part of our material) could be taken to be 'about' the cabbage, and there­ fore have brassica as its Topic. However, many of these statements take the form of statements on the treament of certain illnesses, of course by applying cabbage in all sorts of ways. On this lower level the illness men­ tioned (sometimes in the form of a conditional, 4 sometimes in the form of an NP) functions as Topic and the term referring to the cabbage as Focus or part of the Focus, and it is this lower level that seems to determine the word order. Note that examples such as (7) and perhaps (8) could be explained along the same lines. Examples such as the following could be interpreted in a different way: (22)

boues, ne pedes subterant, prius quam in uiam quoquam ages, Cato Agr. 72,1 pice liquida cornua infima unguito

The entity which is the starting point of a series of instructions may in Cato's Latin be introduced by a verb such as sumito: (23)

triginta mala Punica acerba sumito, contundito, indito in urceum Cato Agr. 126,1

English cookery books use the verb 'to take' in exactly the same way. Alternatively, in English, in text-types such as cookery books one can use a different construction to much the same effect,5 as in the following attested example: (24)

(prepare an aïoli ...) In a double boiler put half of the aïoli and stir into it 2 or 3 yolks of eggs

It can be paraphrased as 'Get a double boiler and ...'. The fronting of a Focus constituent to a position normally reserved for 'Topicalized' phrases is explained by the act that they are meant to represent a separate step in the procedure described. Along the same lines the Latin construction in (22) could be analysed as (22a) or even (22b) (22a) (22b)

picem liquidam sumito et unguito ... picem liquefacito et unguito ...

What the arguments in this section amount to is: there may be a functional explanation for at first sight disfunctional Focus-Topic word orders.

100

J.R. DE JONG

Conclusion The Topic-Focus hypothesis does not predict correctly the full range of attested word order patterns in Cato. I have offered explanations along functional lines for seemingly deviating patterns. However, there is a dan­ ger involved in this. The charm of the original Topic-Focus hypothesis was its simplicity. The modifications proposed here, while adding to the range of possible orders, also brings us closer to the point where, for any given sentence in any context, it would in fact predict all possible permutations of that sentence. Exactly how close we have come to that point remains to be seen.

Notes 1.

When translated into English and read aloud one would be inclined to assign a contrastive accent to the Subject NP: "a WOMAN should not be present at this ceremony".

2.

One piece of evidence for such an hypothesis would be due to instances of quasireciprocal expressions such as (i)-(ii): (i) si uitis uitem continget Cato Agr. 41,2 (ii) quos inseres, medullam cum medulla componito Cato Agr. 41,2 In absence of any pragmatic motivation, the ordering is in accordance with the syntactically preferred pattern.

3.

This means that in such cases the author has a choice as to which argument will have Object function. Bolkestein (1985) analyzes the factors that determine the actual choice of construction in such cases and its indirect relationship with pragmatic function assignment.

4.

This is a nice illustration of the parallelism between conditionals and Topics, as noted earlier by Haiman (1978). In fact depetigini spurcae could be paraphrased as: 'If someone has d.p. ...'

5.

This type of construction was analyzed in Enkvist (1981).

References Bolkestein, A.M. 1985. "Discourse and case-marking." In: C. Touratier (ed.) Syntaxe et Latin, Actes du IIème Congrès International de Linguistique Latine, 191-226. Aix-en-Provence. Enkvist, N.E. 1981. "Experiential iconicism in text strategy." Text 1, 97-111. Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity

in discourse.

Amsterdam.

Haiman, J. 1978. "Conditionals are Topics." Language 54, 564-589. Hetzron, R. 1975. "The presentative movement or why the ideal word order is V.S.O.P." In: C. Li (ed.) Word order and word order change. Austin.

WORD ORDER IN CATO'S DE AGRICULTURA

101

De Jong, J.R. 1989. "The position of the Latin Subject." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Subordi­ nation and other topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Panhuis, D.G.J. 1982. The communicative perspective in the sentence: a study of Latin word order. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sgall, P., E. Hajicová Sz J. Panenová. 1986. The meaning of the sentence in its and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: Foris. Wehr, B. 1984. Diskurs-Strategien

im Romanischen.

Tübingen: Narr.

semantic

Sujet de verbe ou sujet de proposition? Marius Lavency Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, et Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Bruxelles I

Je voudrais reprendre ici l'examen d'un problème difficile et contro­ versé qui ne me paraît pas avoir toujours été considéré dans toutes ses implications et dont la solution, ou plutôt, dont les solutions ne parvien­ nent guère à intégrer toutes les données dans une synthèse adéquate. La question à poser est cependant assez simple: dans un ensemble tel que (a) (a)

Puer dormit

doit-on considérer que puer dépend syntaxiquement de dormit ou qu'au contraire, c'est dormit qui dépend de puer ou faut-il plutôt situer les deux termes puer et dormit sur un plan d'égalité fonctionnelle (Garde 1977: 10 et 1981: 174; Veyrenc 1979: 31) et selon la réponse qu'on aura choisie, comment décrire le paradigme des unités syntaxiques que l'on a reconnues? Il s'agit bien là d'interrogations fondamentales concernant les valeurs fondatrices de l'énoncé. On comprend que de nombreuses recherches aient été consacrées à cette matière: on songe, bien entendu, aux travaux d'E. Benveniste (1946;1950), qui ont pesé fort lourd sur la littérature savante; on songe aussi aux publications de Garde (1977; 1981), Veyrenc (1979), Touratier (1977; 1989), Feuillet (1988), Hagège (1982) et de beaucoup d'autres. En intervenant ici, je me propose donc de verser quelques pièces à un dossier important qui est loin d'être clôturé. Pour situer clairement la perspective théorique selon laquelle je vais décrire les faits de langue en question, je dirai qu'avec Creissels (1979: 103 et 113), je considère que les fonctions sont définies par l'ensemble des unités qui peuvent constituer les syntagmes et par le type de relation

M. LAVENCY

104

que ces unités entretiennent entre elles; avec lui aussi je considère que les fonctions syntaxiques sont des contrastes formellement identifiables entre constituants participant à u n énoncé. P o u r avouer tout de suite la conclusion à laquelle j ' a b o u t i s , je dirai q u ' à m o n sens, les termes puer et dormit sont unis p a r une relation de solidarité et non p a r une relation de déterminé à déterminant: puer et dormit verront donc leur fonction respective définie p a r r a p p o r t à l'unité supérieure qu'ils constituent. Convenons d'appeler "proposition" l'ensemble syntaxique constitué p a r puer dormit. Un tel ensemble peut entrer dans deux types de con­ structions. Il peut comme en (a) (a)

Puer dormit

fonctionner comme phrase, c'est-à-dire comme u n e unité syntaxique a u t o n o m e , "synthétisante" (Serbat 1988: 31) formant u n ensemble sémantiquement cohérent, délimité p a r deux pauses. Il peut aussi fonction­ ner comme syntagme, c'est-à-dire comme unité syntaxique subordonnée dans le cadre de la phrase. C'est le cas en (b) (b)

Cum puer dormiret,

comme en (c) et en (d) (c) (d)

Credo puerum dormire puero dormiente

où les r a p p o r t s que nouent entre eux en (a) les termes puer et dormit sont identiques à ceux qui lient les termes puer et dormiret en (b), puerum et dormire en (c) et puero et dormiente en (d), les variations modales (subjonctif en (b), infinitif en (c), participe en (d)) et casuelles (accusatif en (c), ablatif en (d)) répondant à u n changement de s t a t u t syntaxique de l'ensemble (propositions subordonnées en (b),(c) et (d)). Convenons d'appeler "sujet" le terme puer de (a), de (b) et aussi ses variantes puerum de (c) et puero de (d). Appelons "prédicat" le t e r m e dormit de (a), et ses variantes dormiret (b), dormire (c), dormiente (d). P o u r l'instant, il ne s'agit là que d'étiquettes commodes: il y a u r a lieu de définir soigneusement le produit qu'elles recouvrent et, il faut le dire (Pfister 1988: 135), qu'on omet t r o p souvent de définir. Il faut signaler tout de suite les dangers de la terminologie et singulièrement la séduction que p e u t opérer le langage traditionnel de l'école. Nous avons appris à dire que "dormit est le verbe-base de la proposition puer dormit" et que "le verbe dormit a pour sujet puer".

SUJET DE VERBE OU SUJET DE PROPOSITION?

105

Pédagogiquement, ces façons de parler sont incontestablement rentables et efficaces: l'apprenti latiniste doit repérer soigneusement l'élément ver­ bal de la proposition, qui doit lui fournir des éléments essentiels pour la découverte du sens. Interprété sans réserve et accepté sans contrôle, ce langage peut masquer la réalité linguistique. Il attribue subrepticement au terme puer une fonction par rapport à l'élément dormit, lequel est désigné uniquement comme membre d'une unité morphosyntaxique: d'une part, on parle de fonction, d'autre part, on parle de catégorie (Hagège (1982: 56). Le verbe dormit "a" un sujet: le nom puer n'a guère de prédicat. On aime demander quel est le sujet du verbe dormit] on ne demande guère quelle fonction dormit peut avoir par rapport à puer. Ainsi s'accrédite l'idée que le sujet dépend du "verbe" et l'expression "verbe-base" qui fait penser à la pierre fondatrice d'un édifice conforte cette idée. On se dira qu'une image ne vaut pas démonstration et qu'une étiquette ne garantit pas une analyse: on attendra donc une démonstration en règle, quitte à continuer à l'école à employer les expressions consacrées mais en faisant alors comme le font dans leur domaine les astronomes qui disent comme tout le monde que "le soleil se lève" tout en sachant très bien que le soleil ne se lève pas. Pour définir les rapports qui lient sujet et prédicat, nous pouvons tirer parti, en les retournant à notre profit, des observations que des latinistes et des linguistes ont faites à propos du comportement de la proposition en subordination. Les latinistes aiment répéter que subordonnée, la pro­ position subit diverses contraintes formelles et ils citent volontiers à ce propos l'exemple de l'interrogation indirecte: en face de l'interrogation directe quid agis ?, avec prédicat à l'indicatif, on trouve l'interrogation in­ directe quaero quid agas, avec prédicat obligatoirement au subjonctif et schéma intonationnel différent. Plusieurs linguistes ont voulu utiliser ce genre d'observations pour définir le prédicat ou pour caractériser les rap­ ports qui unissent sujet et prédicat. Hagège (1982: 35) affirme ainsi que "le prédicat est le seul des deux termes de l'énoncé minimal affirmatif qui soit susceptible d'être affecté en cas de changement de statut: subordina­ tion, interrogation, négation". Pour Veyrenc (1979: 31), le terme prédicat serait le seul susceptible de réagir par une variation de forme grammati­ cale à "une modification de l'environnement" et de son côté, Garde (1977: 11) avait pour soutenir la thèse de la subordination du sujet au prédicat invoqué le fait que "dans certains cas, la subordination amène des chan­ gements formels qui affectent toujours le verbe, jamais le sujet". La docu­ mentation latine contredit ces affirmations. L'exemple (b) (b)

cum puer dormiret

106

M. LAVENCY

montre sans doute que dans ce type de proposition subordonnée, le "verbe" est seul affecté par la contrainte de subordination, mais les exemples (c) et (d) (c) (d)

credo puerum dormire puero dormiente

attestent que dans des constructions très usuelles du latin classique, la sub­ ordination entraîne non seulement une modification dans le terme prédicat mais aussi un changement dans le terme sujet. Loin de témoigner de la dépendance du sujet par rapport au prédicat, des faits usuels latins tendent à montrer que sujet et prédicat se trouvent régulièrement dans une rela­ tion d'implication mutuelle, c'est-à-dire dans une relation de solidarité au sein de la proposition, cette solidarité étant manifestée formellement par des accords réciproques: à prédicat à un mode fini, sujet au nominatif; à prédicat à l'infinitif dans une proposition subordonnée, sujet à l'accusatif; à prédicat au participe dans une proposition subordonnée adjointe, sujet à l'ablatif. L'analyse des expressions (e) et (f ) (e)

dormis

(f)

dormit

conforte l'idée d'une solidarité du sujet et du prédicat. Ici encore, le langage scolaire peut induire en erreur. On dit volontiers à l'écolier que "le sujet de dormis est compris dans le verbe" et que "le verbe dormis est comme son sujet à la seconde personne du singulier". Encore une fois, cette façon de parler est pédagogiquement utile: l'élève sait ainsi qu'il ne doit pas chercher bien loin le sujet de dormis. Mais ici encore, l'usage scolaire présente un danger pour le chercheur qui le reprendrait à son compte sans en éprouver la valeur. Il laisse une fois de plus croire que le sujet dépend du verbe et en plus, il suggère que la personne est un sème verbal aussi bien qu'un sème nominal. Sur ce point, les linguistes sont sans doute plus à l'aise pour résister aux suggestions du langage courant. Les recherches de Hagège (1982) et surtout celles de Vairel (1979) ont apporté des précisions fort utiles. On voit mieux aujourd'hui que la désinence verbale dite "personnelle" est un affixe dont la fonction essentielle et constante est de marquer la fonction prédicative du verbe, l'absence de cette marque dans les propositions in­ finitives et participiales constituant un des indices de la subordination de ces propositions. Il importe de bien voir que le choix que le sujet parlant doit opérer entre les différentes formes de désinences personnelles est en latin commandé par un sème du terme sujet, donc par une donnée qui n'a

SUJET DE VERBE OU SUJET DE PROPOSITION?

107

rien à voir avec le signifié d'un verbe. Feuillet (1988: 83) a, me semble-til, bien raison d'écrire que "la catégorie de personne est indépendante du verbe: elle renvoie à un élément qui lui est extérieur, à savoir le sujet". Marque de la fonction prédicative, la désinence verbale ne mérite le quali­ ficatif de "personnelle" que parce qu'elle rappelle par sa forme la personne du sujet, c'est-à-dire le statut du référent de ce dernier dans rénonciation. La marque désinencielle -s de dormi-s n'a pu être choisie que parce que le référent du sujet est l'interlocuteur: elle fait écho à la place que ce référent occupe dans rénonciation. Pour dormi-t, on observera que la signification de l'expression n'est pas "quelqu'un dort". Le sujet en relation avec dormit désigne un être singulier (par opposition à: dormiunt ), qui étranger au locuteur et à l'interlocuteur doit être identifié soit par un nom au nominatif présent dans la proposition, soit par le contexte antérieur où il est cité, soit par la situation qui le donne à connaître: dormit signifie "X dort". Dans le cas de dormis, le sujet, désignant l'interlocuteur, est parfaitement identifiable dans la situation de discours: il pourrait être désigné par le pronom tu: celui-ci peut ainsi par économie être régulièrement omis et sa présence peut servir à signifier l'emphase. On peut mieux percevoir la valeur de la désinence verbale latine et le sens des rapports qui unissent sujet et prédicat quand on considère en face du latin une langue comme l'avar, dont Tchechoff (1972) a naguère révélé quelques secrets. Une fois de plus, le dépaysement que s'impose le linguiste peut être fort utile. En avar, nous dit-on, une racine ač' signifiant "venir, arriver" peut être munie d'un suffixe temporel -ula signifiant le présent. Pour fonctionner comme prédicat, la forme ac'-ula doit être munie d'un préfixe, qui apparaît ainsi comme le correspondant fonctionnel de la désinence latine. Cet indice préverbal, marque de la fonction prédicative, doit être choisi dans une liste fermée de formes, comme en latin, mais différemment du latin, le choix se fait selon les critères suivants: Si le nom sujet désigne: un être raisonnable un être non raisonnable plusieurs êtres homme femme l'indice préverbal est: vyb-r On dira ainsi: avec comme sujet "père" avec comme sujet "mère" avec comme sujet "je", soit soit avec sujet non lexicalisé:

emén v-ac'-ula ebél y-ac'-ula dun v-ač'-ula dun y-ac'-ula v-ac'-ula y-ac'-ula

("père ("mère ("moi ("moi ( (

homme-venue-présent") femme-venue-présent") homme-venue-présent" ) femme-venue-présent" ) homme-venue-présent") femme- venue-présent" )

M. LAVENCY

108

Le verbe prédicat en avar ne fait ainsi aucune référence à la personne du sujet et le mot correspondant à notre "je" est u n n o m "comme u n autre". Malgré les apparences, avar et latin ont des systèmes fort proches. Le principe de la référence obligée à u n terme sujet lors du choix de la m a r q u e prédicative est identique. Sont différents les sèmes pertinents du sujet: en avar, sont en cause le nombre, le caractère raisonnable ou non et le sexe du référent du sujet; en latin, il faut pour choisir la m a r q u e flexionnelle s'interroger sur le s t a t u t du référent du sujet dans l'énonciation et sur son nombre. On voit mieux ainsi que les pronoms latins ego, tu, nos, uos équivalent bien fonctionnellement à des noms. Certes, les conditions de leur référence leur sont spécifiques — Hagège (1982: 101) disait que ces pronoms sont liés à l'acte d'interlocution où ils sont proférés. Leur omission est aisée, mais on doit poser l'équivalence fonctionnelle suivante: puer dormit

ego (omissible sauf emphase) -dormio

Avec chaque forme de prédicat, on trouve ainsi, cité explicitement ou omis soit contextuellement (pour les formes verbales en -t), soit lexicalement (pour les autres formes personnelles) le terme sujet, dont le prédicat réitère certains sèmes. A chaque unité lexicale en fonction de sujet répond nécessairement une m a r q u e affixée au verbe prédicat. O n en arrive ainsi à dire que les constructions (a) (e) (f)

Puer dormit dormis .... dormit

(forme non emphatique de: tu dormis) (avec omission contextuelle du nom sujet)

sont structurellement identiques: toutes attestent la présence obligatoire d ' u n t e r m e sujet, lexicalisé en (a), lexicalisable en (e), non lexicalisé en (f). Marquée dans la morphologie du prédicat, la solidarité entre sujet et prédicat est attestée p a r les contraintes relatives à l'expression du sujet dans les propositions subordonnées à mode non fini. C'est ainsi q u ' à t o u t e proposition formant phrase et dépourvue de sujet lexicalisé comme en (e) et(f) (e)

dormis

(f) ... dormit

répondent des propositions subordonnées où la présence du lexème sujet est obligatoire, comme en (g) et (h)

SUJET DE VERBE OU SUJET DE PROPOSITION? (g) (h)

Credo te dormire Te dormiente

109

Credo eum dormire Eo dormiente

D a n s le même ordre d'idées, on peut citer encore le cas de la propo­ sition participiale non absolue comme en (i) (i)

Plato scribens mortuus est

où m a r q u é e p a r l'accord obligatoire, la référence à u n n o m faisant fonction de sujet est constante. De même encore, mais en proposition n o n subor­ donnée cette fois, la présence du sujet lexicalisé est nécessaire en phrase à infinitif historique. Q u a n d on en arrive à a d m e t t r e la thèse de la solidarité entre le sujet et le prédicat, on doit affronter le problème des constructions impersonnelles du t y p e (j) pluit, (k) me miseret et, moins souvent citées, (1) dormitur. La proposition (1) (1)

dormitur

ne doit pas être isolée des autres constructions auxquelles elle s'oppose régulièrement: dormio, dormis, dormit, etc. C'est par référence à elles et en opposition avec elles que dormitur p r e n d son sens. Le sujet de dormitur est bien l'ensemble indéterminé des êtres susceptibles de réaliser le procès indiqué p a r le prédicat. On applique ici u n principe fondamental de des­ cription linguistique, selon lequel une unité linguistique doit sa valeur à son insertion dans u n paradigme donné. Ce m ê m e principe vaut pour l'analyse des expressions du type (j) (j)

pluit

désignant des phénomènes atmosphériques. On dirait volontiers avec Veyrenc (1979: 36) que le constituant sujet de ces "verbes" ne peut normale­ ment avoir u n e valeur de désignation perceptible, mais que le contenu de ce constituant est cependant parfaitement définissable en raison de l'insertion d u signe -t dans le paradigme des désinences. O n n o t e r a d'ailleurs que ces verbes sont capables de fonctionner avec u n sujet lexicalisé. On a tonat, mais aussi Iuppiter tonat; on a lucescit, mais aussi dies illucescit. E t dès lors que l'on veut employer ces verbes dans u n ablatif absolu, force est de construire avec u n sujet lexicalisé: en face de tonat, on ne p e u t avoir que Ioue tonante. Dans les emplois métaphoriques, les sujets lexi­ calisés s'imposent aisément: on aime citer à ce propos la phrase de Stace (Théb.8.416) Fundae saxa pluunt, "les frondes font pleuvoir u n e grèle de pierres".

M. LAVENCY

110

Restent les verbes piget, pudet, miseret, taedet, paenitet: cinq ver­ bes auxquels la grammaire fait beaucoup d'honneur en raison sans doute de leur construction quelque peu surprenante. On doit remarquer que ces verbes constituent une liste fermée. De plus, ils ont, comme le disaient Ernout-Thomas (1951: 210), une "forte tendance" à se construire per­ sonnellement. A côté de tournures impersonnelles volontiers citées par les grammairiens, on trouve ainsi des constructions comme res me pudet ou misereo, pudeo. Les verbes de cette liste ont donc des constructions im­ personnelles à caractère récessif. Si l'on s'interdit de mettre sur un plan d'égalité les tournures vivantes productives, témoins du système qui assure le fonctionnement synchronique de la langue, et les expressions figées et récessives, traces ultimes de systèmes périmés, on peut dire que les verbes impersonnels sont en latin classique en marge du système de la langue, plus peut-être que dans d'autres langues indoeuropéennes. Si on veut bien admettre que la proposition est constituée de deux termes solidaires, le sujet de la proposition et le prédicat de la proposi­ tion, il reste à décrire le paradigme syntaxique des deux fonctions ainsi reconnues. En latin, ces paradigmes sont nettement différenciés. Si, comme nous l'avons fait, on considère d'une part que les construc­ tions avec premières ou deuxièmes personnes sont des variantes lexicalement conditionnées des constructions avec troisième personne, si on con­ sidère aussi que les constructions réalisées dans les propositions infiniti­ ves et participiales sont des variantes syntaxi quement conditionnées de la forme canonique avec prédicat à un mode fini, on peut caractériser le pa­ radigme du sujet par la commutabilité du sujet avec une forme du pronom is, ea, id. Le sujet réalise donc une fonction pronominale. En ce qui concerne le prédicat, on peut dire que le prédicat assure une fonction verbale: le paradigme de cette fonction est caractérisé par la commutabilité avec une forme verbale en -t. Il me semble en effet que même dans le cas de la phrase sans verbe esse, la commutabilité avec une forme verbale est structurellement garantie; l'omission de esse étant soit stylistiquement ou morphologiquement conditionnée comme le montre le tableau suivant: (m) (n) (o)

Iudices seueri sunt Iudices seueri Iudicibus seueris

( sunt s'oppose à: fiunt] erant) ( variante stylistique de (m)) ( pas de participe présent de esse)

La description que je viens de vous proposer et dont j'ai exposé les principes naguère (Lavency 1985: 13) se veut "syntaxique". La fonction syntaxique y est considérée, comme le proposait Touratier (1977: 32) en

SUJET DE VERBE OU SUJET DE PROPOSITION?

111

t e r m e s d'organisation, c'est-à-dire en t e r m e s de combinaison e n t r e des éléments. Elle repose essentiellement sur le caractère d i s t r i b u t i o n n e l des u n i t é s linguistiques. Telle est la pièce que je voulais verser à u n dossier volumineux, dont j ' a i bien dit qu'il était loin d ' ê t r e clos.

Références Benveniste, E. 1946. "Structures des relations de personne dans le verbe." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 42-43: 1-12 ( = Problèmes de linguistique générale, 1, 1966, p p . 225-236), Benveniste, E. 1950. "La phrase nominale." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique Paris 46.1 ( = Problèmes de Linguistique générale. 1966, p p . 151-167). Creissels, D. 1979. Unités et catégories grammaticales. Ernout, A. & F. Thomas. 1951. Syntaxe

de

Publ. Univ. Grenoble, 1982.

latine. Paris: Klincksieck.

Feuillet, J. 1988. Introduction à l'analyse morphosyntaxique. Paris: P.U.F. Garde, P. 1977. "Ordre linéaire et dépendance syntaxique: contribution à une typolo­ gie." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 72.1, 2—25. Garde, P. 1981. "Des parties du discours, notamment en russe." Bulletin de Linguistique de Paris 76.1, 155-189. Hagège, Cl. 1982. La structure

de la Société

des langues. Paris: P.U.F.

Lavency, M. 1985. Vsus. Paris & Gembloux: Duculot. Pfister, R. 1988. Lateinische Buchner. Serbat, G. 1988. Linguistique

Grammatik

in Geschichte

latine et linguistique

und Gegenwart.

Bamberg:

générale. Louvain: Peeters.

Tchekoff, Cl. 1972. "Une langue à construction ergative: l'avar." La Linguistique, 115. Touratier, Chr. 1977. "Comment définir les fonctions syntaxiques?" Bulletin Société de Linguistique de Paris 72.1, 27-54.

103de la

Touratier, Chr. 1989. "Les principales fonctions de la phrase dite simple du latin." Lalies, Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature d'Aussois 1985. P p . 253-261. Vairel, H. 1979. "Le problème de la personne." L'Information 39-46.

Grammaticale

1979. 2,

Latin and Greek compared: word order in a bilingual papyrian text (P. Bon. 5) Elena Rizzi - Piera Molinelli University of Bergamo

0. Introduction This work represents part of a wider ongoing research, which aims to analyse parallel syntactic phenomena emerging in the development of the Latin and Greek languages in Egypt. In detail, the aim of this study is to analyse some aspects of word order in Latin and Greek in one bilingual text: the different structures are first studied separately for both languages, and then compared. 1 Finally, we aim to observe a possible influence of one language on the other, in the light of the results of our research on other papyrian texts. Among the extant bilingual glossaries, Papyrus Bononiensis 52 is the only one that lends itself to a syntactic study because it confronts texts of a certain length. They are fragments of a repertory of model letters, grouped according to established categories in double versions: Latin on the left and Greek on the right. 3 The text is part of a series of rhetorical-scholastic works (Montevecchi 1953: 19) and seems to have a more practical than literary value. The first column is composed of the last four lines of a letter, after which follows a second complete letter; both can be classified as (ironic) letters, if not quite (sarcastic). Three examples of

114

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI

letters "suasoriae de minimis legatis" (consolations for an unexpectedly small inheritance) follow. The remaining six letters belong to the class of the "gratulatoriae hereditatum acceptarum" (congratulations for having received an inheritance). Only one letter cannot be clearly categorized, though it could possibly be defined as "gratulatoriae libertatis acceptae" (congratulations for freedom received). For most the editors the hypothesis that the papyrus comes from Oxyrhincus seems reliable. The proposed date is between the 4th and the 5th centuries A.D.. Only one scholar, Seider, anticipates the date to the 2nd century A.D., without, however, giving precise reasons (Seider 1978, quoted in Kramer 1983: 109 n.l). It is difficult to determine the original language of this text and the linguistic competence of the scribe. All the editors acknowledge that the use of both languages is lexically inaccurate and syntactically incorrect. However, Merkelbach 4 believes that the basic language is Latin, and this assertion is justified by a series of remarks on the lexis. A cursory exa­ mination shows that the Greek, even on the syntactic level, seems to be a specular, but often inaccurate, translation of the Latin: for example, the use of (relative pronoun) instead of quod (conjunction) (2,14)5 and quamquam (6,9), instead of declaratory quod (5,20). However, it must be said that the Latin is lacking in classical features and contains several clear mistakes. 6 Editors therefore assume that the scribe possessed a limited compe­ tence in Latin and Greek, and most probably prepared the text with the help of "lessici greco-latini e, forse, nel nostro caso, copto-greco-latini" (Montevecchi 1953: 20-21). Our syntactic structure analysis partly aims to make a contribution to the solution of these problems. Our analysis concerns the following constructions, with particular re­ ference to word order: — position of nominal determinants in relation to nouns; — position of nominal or pronominal objects in relation to the verb; — position of subordinate clauses in relation to the main clause and po­ sition of the verb. For every group of constructions, we shall give a comment for each language (P. Molinelli on the Latin, E. Rizzi on the Greek) and, when ne­ cessary, we shall make comparisons with other papyrian texts and suggest possible interlinguistic influences and diachronic processes.

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER

115

1. Position of nominal determinants 1.1. Personal

pronouns

(PPs)

with a possessive

meaning

F r o m t h e d a t a analysis two possible situations emerge: a) presence of P P s with possessive function in b o t h languages: (1) (2) (3)

3,21-22

usque ad suppremam

4,6 5,20

suimet memoriam ex iudicio eius voluntas eius

(b) presence of P P s in Greek and possessive adjectives in Latin: (4) (5)

1,18 7,11

ingenium tuum mentis tuis

LATIN: Altogether Latin shows only 6 cases of possessive P P s ; in fact, in t h e Latin text we find a much greater frequency of t h e possessive adjective. It seems, in any case, interesting to note t h a t t h e p r o n o u n is always placed after t h e noun, with t h e exception of (1). G R E E K : In Greek, P P appear mostly in a postnominal position, with t h e exceptions of (1) and (2), where t h e position is attributive, i.e. between t h e article a n d t h e noun. T h e postnominal position in (4) a n d (5) is regular for clitic P P s . , which are widely documented in papyrian Greek of t h e R o m a n age; in contrast, the parallel Latin texts have possessive adjectives. These remarks give a similar picture to the one obtained by a chronologically larger analysis (1st century B.C. — 6th century A.D.), carried out on papyri containing private letters in Latin a n d Greek (Molinelli & Rizzi 1991). In fact, for papyrian Latin, t h e r a t h e r scanty presence of possessive P P s a n d the generalization of P P postnominal position are even m o r e clearly evident; as for papyrian Greek, t h e use of enclitic P P s seems to be undoubtedly more frequent t h a n t h e quantity we can find in our analyzed glossary, where t h e occurrence of possessive adjectives is well d o c u m e n t e d in t h e same way (see below). 1.2. Possessive (6) (7)

adjectives 1,7 1,15

(PAs)

commendationi meae verecundiae tuae

LATIN: In Latin, for definitive adjectives (especially possessive ad­ jectives) t h e classical rule provides for adjective postposition to t h e n o u n ,

116

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI

t h o u g h it is possible to find the inverted order for emphasis. 8 This rule, however, is already often disregarded in literary Latin. Marouzeau, there­ fore, concludes t h a t an overall statistic of PA position would be "vaine. Elle ne conduirait q u ' à faire constater une égalité approximative des deux ordres, ce qui donnerait l'impression de l'indifférence" (1953: 16). In this text, in contrast, the preferred position for possessive adjectives is clearly postnominal: N + PA is found in 21 cases versus PA + N in only 3 cases (among which, at least in one case, having to do with a vocative, it seems to us to be associated with possible e m p h a t i c connotations). This conser­ vative feature is also attested by papyrian Latin as a whole (Molinelli & Rizzi 1991: 44), a n d therefore may be t a k e n as a characteristic of Egyp­ t i a n Latin. In addition, this use of only one variant word order seems to s t r e n g t h e n t h e opinion t h a t the a u t h o r of the glossary did not possess perfect competence in Latin, b u t used a scholastic knowledge, productive of simplification. G R E E K : In Greek, the use of PAs is documented in t h e canonical a t t r i b u t i v e position (see (6) a n d (7)). PAs occur in 11 cases versus 17 of P P s , a relative frequency t h a t is in contrast with those found in b o t h p a p y r i a n a n d classical Greek, where PAs are only documented with any frequency in tragedies. W h a t is t h e reason for the frequent occurrences of PAs in t h e text under study? Two credible reasons suggest themselves: a) t h e literary style of text; b) (and much more probably) an influence of Latin on Greek. 1.3. Descriptive

and definitive

(8)

4,12-15

(9)

4,15-16

(10)

1,23-5

Adjectives

(As)

et plenissima veneratione conservas memoriam Rutili amici aliquando communis spero ut brevi tibi huius debiti tui sim computator

LATIN: T h e classical rule for t h e adjective provides for its position before N, if it has a purely descriptive function (for ex. magnus, pulcher, bonus), after N if it has a discriminative function (for ex. terrestris, ligneus, legionarius, graecus.9 In t h e analysis of some papyrian t e x t s A d a m s (1977: 71) points out the predominance of NA over AN order (67 : 24); in our text, on t h e contrary, adjectives are placed, almost always, before

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER

117

t h e n o u n (15 cases, see (8)). T h e remaining 4 occurrences of adjectives show postposition (see (9)); they can be explained as descriptive adjectives emphasized in a discriminative position because they express a "valeur occasionelle" (Marouzeau 1953: 4). Definitive adjectives (hie, iste), as a rule, should occupy a p o s t n o ­ minal position (being assimilable to discriminative adjectives, including possessives). 1 0 In our text t h e 3 definitive adjective occurrences show AN order (see (10)), without any obvious e m p h a t i c connotations. G R E E K : T h e canonical position of descriptive a n d definitive adjec­ tives in b o t h classical and papyrian Greek is p r é n o m m a i ( A d a m s 1977: 71); this ordering is confirmed by our text, which, however, displays a most un­ usual, almost total absence of the definite article, which would normally precede t h e A + N group in a t t r i b u t i v e position. This fact is once again explicable by t h e modelling of the Greek syntactic s t r u c t u r e on t h e Latin, of which, moreover, we consider significant examples t h e 4 cases, against t h e 17 p r é n o m m a i ones, where A appears after N, accompanied usually by t h e apposition T h e scribe, surely, h a d a mediocre competence of t h e Greek language, as n u m e r o u s gross mistakes also testify (see (8)), where t h e Latin ablative plenissima veneraiione is transleted into Greek using t h e nominative). 1.4. Genitives

(Gs)

(11)

4,2-3

(12)

7,8-12

novi enim animi tui propositum gaudeo quod earn tam iudicio domini tui quam meritis t u consecutus es

i

s

"

<

Latin: In this text we find again t h e fixing of one order of elements, in contrast with classical variation. 1 1 In fact, out of the 15 occurences of Gs, n o fewer t h a n 12 show NG ordering (see (12)), in conformity with other p a p y r i a n texts ( A d a m s 1977: 71) and reflecting t h e same word order rules t h a t we have already seen at work in t h e nominal postposition of P P a n d PA. T h e 3 examples of GN (see (11)) do not seem to be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o any obvious reason. G R E E K : T h e Greek text also prefers, in line with other p a p y r i a n d o c u m e n t s ( A d a m s 1977: 71), t h e sequence NG (as in t h e Latin text, t h e occurrences of GN are only 3). It is noticeable t h a t , while in classical

118

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI

Greek Gs in t h e a t t r i b u t i v e position, between t h e article a n d n o u n , are well documented, in our text there is no trace of such an ordering.

2. Position of objects with relation to verbs objects12

2.1. Pronominal

— V + P P in b o t h languages: (13)

2,9-10

(14)

5,4

set hortor te ut fortiter feras gratulor tibi

— P P + V in b o t h languages: (15)

1,12-3

(16)

7,5-6

(17)

4,8-9

quo modo te decuit meritissimo autem tibi contigisse scimus Multum tibi frater proficere reverentiam

— P P + V in Latin versus V + P P in Greek: (18)

1,23-5

spero ut brevi tibi huius debiti tui sim computator

LATIN: This text shows t h e predominance of P P + V over V + P P (9:3). P P + V order follows t h e classical rule which provides for t h e verb at t h e end of t h e sentence. However, while in classical Latin t h e p r o n o u n is mostly p u t in t h e second place ("lex Wackernagel"), 1 3 in this text we find P P s either in t h e Wackernagel position (see(17)), or adjacent t o t h e verb (see (16), 3 cases in all); or in positions which, for shortness of t h e sentences, combine b o t h characteristics (see (15)). In 3 cases, P P is postverbal a n d adjacent to V (see (13), (14)) a n d in none of these cases is it possible to talk about a Wackernagel position. T h e clear tendency in this text to place t h e P P immediately adjacent to t h e verb is also found in t h e larger corpus of papyrian texts t h a t we have analysed. This larger corpus, however, reveals an equal distribution of pre- a n d post-verbal placement of t h e P P , in contrast with t h e text u n d e r s t u d y where we have observed a preference for P P + V ordering.

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER

119

GREEK: Papyrian Greek attests the tendency to shift the enclitic PP, the most frequent form, beyond the second (or "Wackernagel") position in the sentence, in particular to the immediate adjacency of the V. Marshall (1987: 20) believes that this tendency of the enclitic P P to shift to the right of the sentence and, therefore, to disregard Wackernagel's law, is already frequently attested in Attic prose. In our text, the enclitic PP is in immediate postverbal position in 5 occurrences out of the 11 documented (see (13), (14) and (18)), 14 but the only sure occurrence of PP which respects Wackernagel's law is found in (17). In the remaining 6 cases the PP is put immediately before the V (see (16)) or precedes it without being adjacent, but in no case is found in the "Wackernagel position". We conclude, therefore, by saying that the shift to the right of the enclitic P P and, at the same time, its frequent adjacency to the verb are features clearly shared by our glossary with other papyrian documents: in particular, the Greek text seems to attest a stronger tendency vis-à-vis the Latin to postnominal position for PPs (5 occurrences against 3 in Latin). 2.2. Nominal objects (direct and indirect) — Subordinate clause: (19)

5,20-22

quod voluntas eius praestantiam t u a m sic remuneravit

— Main clause: (20)

5,28-6,5

(21)

4,14-16

d i u t u r n u s enim languor et senecta... universam substantiam eius absumpserat conservas memoriam Rutili amici

LATIN: In the subordinate clauses we find two cases of nominal ob­ jects, both placed before the verb. In the main clauses we find 7 cases of nouns as objects: 5 placed before the verb and 2 placed after. This preser­ vation of OV order, always found in the subordinate clauses and clearly preferred in the main clauses, seems a marked conservative feature, since VO is much more frequently attested in other papyrian texts (Adams 1977: 68).

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI

120

GREEK: In the Greek text, only one example of a preverbal nominal object is documented in the subordinate clauses; in the main clauses, the word ordering here is the same as in Latin. This preference for the preverbal position of the object in main and subordinate clauses is in contrast with the general tendency to postverbal object position, well attested in both classical and papyrian Greek (Adams 1977: 69). This peculiarity of our text can be interpreted as further evi­ dence of the scribe's modelling of Greek syntactic structure on that of the Latin. We consider now, in a separate section, the position of accusatives as subjects of infinitive subordinates. The observed distribution of 'the subject in the accusative' (Sa) in va­ rious orderings and with respect to its grammatical category is as follows:15 Sa+Vi+Vm N

R

LATIN

3

1

GREEK

2

P 0 1 0

Vm+Sa+Vi N

R

P

1 1 0 1

1

0

Vi+Sa+Vm N

R

P

2

0

1

2

0

1

Sa + Vi + Vm: (22)

3,16-18

hereditatem cum summo honore accessisse gratulor

Vm + Sa + Vi: (23)

3,5-11

nisi putarem tarn prospera res quam adversas... non esse in tua potestate

— Vi + Sa + Vm (24)

4,9-18

proficere reverentiam.. sum expertus

LATIN: The infinitive clause subject precedes the Vi six times and follows it three times, observing, therefore, the dominant order OV. It is significant, however, that, even where the Sa follows the Vi, it in any case

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER

121

precedes the Vm (see (23)), hence in all infinitive clause occurrences, the period is concluded by a verb, in 2 cases by Vi, in 7 by Vm (see par. 3). GREEK: The examples in the Greek text imitate the Latin, with two exceptions: in one example 16 the Greek translates the Latin infinitive by a predicative participle construction; in another example (see (13)) a case of "raising" is attested only in Greek and not in Latin (see note 14). Nevertheless, the general situation seems to confirm the impression that the Greek syntactic structure is influenced by the Latin.

3. Subordination and verb position 3.1. Subordination The positioning of subordinate clauses relative to the main clauses from which they depend appears complicated and not easily explicable. Below we list the examples pertinent to the various types of subordinate clauses: (25)

5,29-6,5

(26)

6,9-12

(27)

5,8-14

(28)

5,22-27

(29)

3,4-5

(30)

6,13-15

et senecta quae saepe etiam languore deterior est universam substantiam eius absumpserat quamquam tu moleste feras ego tarnen dupliciter gaudeo quando enim obsequia tua remunerantur omnes... clientes tui augentur sic remuneravit ut intellegi possit... reliquisse mirarer quidem nisi putarem iudicia eius qualis in eum fueris ostendunt

The aspects of present interest in these examples may be summarized in the following table, distinguishing anteposition from postposition for the various types of subordinate clause:

122

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI POSITION O F SUBORDINATE CLAUSE RELATIVE T O MAIN CLAUSE EX. SUB. CLAUSES ANTEPOSITION POSTPOSITION 2 (16) 10 Infinitive 7 (25) 0 Relative 4 (13) 0 Complementary 3 0 Declarative (12) 0 (26) 2 Concessive 0 (27) Temporal 1 2 0 Consecutive (28) 1 0 (29) Conditional 0 (30) Indirect question 1

LATIN: The most interesting point about subordination concerns the almost total anteposition of infinitive clauses to the main clause. This point is in great contrast to papyrian Latin (Adams 1977: 72), where the infinitive clause usually follows the main verb. 17 Indeed, only in the Twelve Tables do we find a similar rigorousness of the infinitive clause position, consistent with the OV pattern. In contrast, relative clauses are all postponed to their head, the norm for papyrian Latin, as revealed the data of Adams (1977: 72). In the direct complementary clauses, one sentence doesn't attest the construction with ut + subjunctive 18 but we cannot explain it simply as a case of an omitted conjunction, because it could simulate direct speech with a subjunctive exhortation. In the declarative clauses with the indicative, introduced by quod and governed by verba sentiendi such as gaudeo, postposition is attested, one occurrence excluded, where, however, only the Latin text has a declarative clause. 19 As regards the remaining subordinate types, the small number of occurrences does not permit us to draw any meaningful conclusions. GREEK: The most unexpected result of the analysis is the constant placing of the infinitive clause before the main clause, exactly as in the Latin text. We need to ascribe almost certainly to Latin influence the absolute lack, in 12 examples, of the construction with + indicative, typical of classical and papyrian Greek;20 in a word, the use of the infinitive clause seems here to be used more frequently than usual, under the influence of the Latin text — the one exception is where the predicative participle appears instead of the Latin infinitive (see note 16). Relative clauses are placed after their head — again, as in Latin (see (25)). The correspondence af a Latin declarative quod, placed before the main clause, with a Greek relative clause, is perplexing and is perhaps due to a scribal mistake (see note 19).

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER

123

As regards the other types of subordinate clauses it is not the po­ sition (similar to the Latin) that is interesting, but rather the type of construction used. In the direct complementary clauses, of 4 occurences documented, 3 are constructed with the infinitive (see (13)) and only one with + subjunctive. The translation of the Latin declarative clauses with quod is quite varied: from the clearly acceptable + indicative 21 , to the questionable 22 and (see (12)), both with the indicative. Finally, we would like to point out the generalized use of in con­ secutive clauses (see (28)), a typical feature of papyrian and late Greek (Browning 1983). 3.2. Verb position In addition to what we have already said about verb position vis-à-vis the object and the subordinate clause, a comment on the final or non final position of the verb may be of interest. Although it is difficult to make precise calculations, due to the ques­ tionable interpretation of some parts of the text, the final position of the verb prevails over non-final position, in a ratio of nearly 3:1, both in su­ bordinate clauses and in main clauses. This datum confirms, on the one hand, the conservative nature 23 of this text, and on the other, its lack of variants, in contrast with papyrian Latin in general, which distinguishes in usage between verb position in main vs. subordinate clauses (non final position being less frequent in the latter). GREEK: Once again, we note how the Greek of this text complies with the Latin standard. Here too the occurrences of verb-final positions exceed non-final ones in a ratio of 3:1, a situatian in contrast with the prevalent non-final position in papyrian Greek (Adams 1977: 73-74).

4. Conclusions On the whole the elements determining the noun in the Latin text are rigidly placed: possessive pronouns and adjectives generally follow the noun, as does the genitive. In contrast, adjectives (descriptive and definitive) usually precede the noun.

124

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI

This combination of ordering rules, that mixes conservative features (postponed possessive adjectives) and innovative features (postponed ge­ nitives), is striking in its rigorous generalization, a quality that probably derives from the formular nature of the text. In Greek, we observe a double tendency: on the one hand, our text respects typical features of papyrian Greek, such as the use of the clitic personal pronoun in postnominal position, on the other hand, it shows an evident influence of Latin: frequent occurrences of the possessive adjective (in classical Greek only in the tragedies), and of the postnominal adjective and genitive. Concerning the position of the nominal and pronominal objects in relation to the verb, we find, both in Latin and in Greek, a clear prevalence of OV order in the main clauses; this becomes a rigid OV order in the subordinate clauses of both languages. This fact, if it can be considered "regular" and conservative for Latin, is surely unusual for Greek, at least as regards to nominal objects. Contrasting data are also obtained from our analysis of subordina­ tion: on the one hand, infinitive clauses tend to precede main clauses (an OV feature), on the other hand, in both languages, the relative clauses fol­ low the head-nouns and the direct complementary and declarative clauses follow the main verbs (a VO feature). Finally, the Latin reveals a fossilized order [determinant - determined), which is no longer prevalent in the general linguistic use of the same pe­ riod. The Greek, as we have said, attests a clear tendency to reproduce the Latin order exactly, not illustrating the usual free position of con­ stituents; another feature, in addition to those mentioned above, probably influenced by Latin, is the frequent omission of the article. However, the use of personal pronouns enclitic to the verb and the generalization of for consecutive and complementary clauses, show evolutive tendencies ty­ pical of papyrian Greek. Concerning the problematic point of the scribe's linguistic compe­ tence, our analysis convinces us that he did not possess good competence in either language. The language of the Latin text appears to be the more conservative and we may suppose that the scribe took as his basic text a traditional Latin formulary for schools. This he then seems to have trans­ lated into Greek as the numerous parallelisms would suggest, though the many mistakes and misunderstandings lead one to suppose that, like an­ other writer some centuries later, he had "little Latin and less Greek".

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER

125

Notes 1.

This work partly aims to verify some of Greenberg's "universals" (Greenberg 1963), which are usually interrelated. A more complete analysis should necessar­ ily take into account other recent formulations of such universals (Comrie 1981, Hawkins 1983). Here our main purpose is to describe the relationship between the two languages in this text; naturally, this text alone does not allow us to contribute to the discussion about "universals" in any exhaustive way.

2.

This papyrus has been edited and annotated by Vogliano 1948, Montevecchi 1953, Cavenaile 1958, Seider 1978 and Kramer 1983.

3.

This repertory represents a unique document, being the only one from the pos­ tulated period of composition (4-5 cent. A.D.) either in Latin or in Greek. T h e first repertories of Latin epistolography are documented in medieval Latin, in the final pages of Giulio Vittore's Ars rhetorica. This consideration supports the late dating of our glossary.

4.

Quoted in Montevecchi 1953: 20.

5.

In quoting from the text we adopt Cavenaile 1958.

6.

See Merkelbach, in Montevecchi 1953: 20.

7.

The nature of the pronoun is,ea,id wavers between the demonstrative and the possessive. In the genitive it has a possessive function.

8.

See Marouzeau (1953: 14). Anteponed adjectives can be found with strengthened forms: Sall. lug. 85,24 meamet facta mihi dicere liceat, or in vocatives: Plaut. Poen. 365 Mea voluptas...

9.

Terminology, examples and discussions in Marouzeau 1953: 1-3.

10.

See Marouzeau 1953: 17-19; however, already the examples in Marouzeau emphasize the impossibility of a clear classification, so that "l'ordre peut paraître parfois indifférent".

11.

See Marouzeau 1953: 28-31, who argues for a tendency to postposition of G as regards to N; but the explain, as he does, the numerous counterexamples sometimes seems an arduous task and not always convincing.

12.

In both languages, we consider as objects pronouns either in a direct case (me), or in an oblique case (mihi).

13.

Wider specifications and references in Molinelli & Rizzi 1991.

14.

Ex. (13) is problematic, because in Greek the enclitic P P is translated as the object of the main verb, but syntactically is the subject of the infinitive verb. In Latin the problem doesn't exist, because the dependent clause is not infinitive and te is the real object of hortor.

15.

Column headings: S a = subject in accusative; V i = infinitive verb; V m = main verb; N = noun; R = relative pronoun; P = personal pronoun. 1,11-13 hanc rem....explicatam esse didici

16. 17. 18.

Our observations about infinitive and declarative clauses are supported by Her­ man 1989, who refers to other late Latin texts. 6,21-22 suadeo ergo/ dolori desinas

E. RIZZI - P. MOLINELLI

126 19.

1,18-21 quod ingenium t u u m / ita me remuneratur/ habeo/ ingratum

20.

Concerning the construction of accusaiivus cum infinitivo 4- indicative in papyrian Greek see Calboli 1990: 27ff.

21.

6,12-24 dupliciier gaudeo/ quod et iudicia

22.

5,19-22 gaudeo/ quod voluntas eius/ praestantiam

23.

Since the studies about this subject are complex and numerous, we refer to Molinelli 1986 for further discussion.

versus the use of

eius/.../ostendunt tuam/

sic/

remuneravit

References Adams, J.N. 1977. The vulgar Latin of the letters of Claudius Terentianus. University Press.

Manchester:

Browning, R. 1982. "Greek diglossia yesterday and today." In: International of the Sociology of Language 35, 49-68.

Journal

Browning, R. 1983. Medieval and Modern Greek. Cambridge: U.P. Calboli, Gu. 1990. "Vulgärlatein und Griechisch in der Zeit Traians." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Latin vulgaire-latin tardif IL Actes du II Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, 23-44. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cavenaile, R. 1958. Corpus Papyrorum

Latinarum.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Coleman, R. 1975. "Greek Influence on Latin Syntax." In: Transactions of the Philo­ logical Society, 101-156. Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Syntax and Morpho­ logy. Oxford: Blackwell. Gignac, F.T. 1970. "The language in the non-literary greek papyri." In: D.H. Samuel (ed.) Proceedings of the Twelflh International Congress of Papyrology. American Studies in Papyrology, vol. VII, 139-52. Toronto: Hakkert. Gignac, F.T. 1981. A Grammar Period, vol. II, Morphology.

of the Greek Papyri of the Roman Milano: Cisalpino-Goliardica.

and

Byzantine

Greenberg, J.H. 1963. "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements." In: J.H. Greenberg (ed.) 1966. Universals of Language, 73-113. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hawkins, J.A. 1983. Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press. Herman, J. 1989. "Accusativus cum infinitivo et subordonnée à quod, quia en latin tardif — nouvelles remarques sur un vieux problème." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Su­ bordination and Other Topics in Latin, 133-150. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Herman, J. 1990. Du latin aux langues romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Humbert, J. 1960. Syntaxe Grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. Kaimio, J. 1979. The Romans and the Greek Language, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 74. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

LATIN AND GREEK COMPARED: WORD ORDER Kramer, J. 1983. Glossaria berg.

127

bilinguia in papyris et rnembranis reperta. Bonn: Heidel­

Marouzeau, J. 1953. L'ordre des mots en latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Marshall, M.H.B. 1987. Verbs, Nouns and Postpositives in Attic Prose. Scottish A.P.

Edinburgh:

Molinelli, P. 1986. "L'ordine delle parole in latino: studi recenti." In: Lingua e Stile 21.4, 485-497. Molinelli, P. e E. Rizzi. 1991. "Per uno studio morfosintattico di latino e greco, lingue a contatto in Egitto (pronomi personali e aggettivi possessivi)." In: Athenaeum 1991.1, 31-58. Montevecchi, O. 1953. Papyri Bononienses

I (1-50). Milano: Vita e Pensiero.

Montevecchi, O. 1973. La papirologia. Torino: S.E.I. Pighi G. e O. Montevecchi, 1947. "Prima ricognizione dei papiri dell'Universit à di Bologna." In: Aegyptus 27, 162-170. Seider, R. 1978. Paläographie

der lateinischen

Papyri. II,1. Stuttgart.

Vogliano, A. 1948. "Papiri bolognesi." In: Acme 1, 199-216.

The definite article in the making, nominal constituent order, and related phenomena Hannah Rosén The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Tereniia magnos articulorum dolores habet (Cic. AU. 1.5.8) ... Et ego. Of the various functions that correspond to the common core of the values of a definite article (whether a member of a binary or of a triple opposi­ tion), the grammatical-syntactic functions had their means of expression, albeit neither uniform and stable nor totally obligatory,1 in many stages and registers of Latin even in the pre-Classical period.

1. Articulation within the nominal syntagma Whether one accords the pronominal element preceding an epithet or a (restrictive or descriptive) apposition any semantic force of demonstra­ tion, of appeal to shared speaker-hearer knowledge etc. or not, whether one considers it restricted to, or preponderant in, discourse-positions of contrast, that is to say, occuring with certain lexemes or morphological classes (ordinalia, superlatives etc., E. Löfstedt 1942: 365-379) or not, thus having it as a mere 'Gelenkspartikel' (Gamillscheg 1936), there can be no doubt that syntagms of the type Velleius Blaesus ille locuples consularis (Plin. ep. 2.20.7), or porcus ille siluaticus (Petron. 40.7) illustrate a highly favoured placement of non-nucleus Me and sim. and that they were an im­ portant factor in the evolution of a definite article in Latin. Ille as intra-

HANNAH ROSÉN

130

syntagmatic articulator is found in this typical pre-adjunct position even in a pre-Classical passage translated from a Greek original without article: Ter. Ad. 866-867 Ego ille agrestis saeuos tristis parcus truculentus tenax Duxi uxorem reflects Menander's (frg. 11 Körte-Thierfelder II) admittedly fragmentary In Classical literary Latin one encounters the construction Hippocrates ille Cous (Cic. de or. 3.132) — in analogy to P. SeruMus uir clarissimus Cic. II Ver. 1.56 — but even more frequently the constructions bellus Me et urbanus Suffenus (Catull. 22.9-10), mollis Ma educatio (Quint. 1.2.6), as well as ille Hippocrates medicus (Varro RR 1.4.5) and ille dux Leonidas (Cic. Tusc. 1.101) and also, marginally, Xenophon Socraticus Me (Cic. de or. 2.58). Catullus has, out of a total of 24 adnominal ille, 24 adnominal hic and 17 adnominal iste: Type of construction illud purpureum hoc purpureum istud purpureum istud tuum os

os os os

Occurrences Type of construction in Catullus | 3 illud os purpureum illud os quod ... hoc os purpureum 5 hoc os quod ... istud os purpureum 1 3 istud os quod ...

illud

12

purpureum

purpureum

illud os

13

purpureum

hoc os

3

purpureum

istud os

14

os illud purpureum os illud quod ... os hoc purpureum os hoc nostrum os istud purpureum os istud tuum os istud quod ...

os purpureum

os illud

Occurrences in Catullus none 3 1 1 none 1 none none 1 none 1 none 2 2

On the other hand, a series of Einzelstudien provides a distinct picture for Late Latin. In Biblical Latin (Itala and Vulgata) ille in this position (e.g. ciuitas illa magna v.l. Gen. 10.12) regularly corresponds to the Greek article, which does not apply to ille in its other positions (Abel 1971: 179). The supremacy of this type in late Latin was demonstrated by Leena Löfstedt (1982: 271-272): The Res militaris of Vegetius (4th century) has the sequence 'substantive ille attribute' in five out of six occurrences of adnominal ille (this is not the case with other pronouns). In Petronius we find, out of a total of 40 adnominal ille, 177 adnominal hic, 13 adnominal iste, 55 adnominal ipse, and 6 adnominal is:

131

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING Type of construction ille siluaticus

porcus

ille qui ... porcus hic siluaticus poreus iste siluaticus

poreus

ipse siluaticus

poreus siluaticus

poreus

ille

Occurrences Type of construction in Petronius | 35 ille poreus siluaticus ille poreus meus 1 ille poreus qui ... hic poreus siluaticus 5 5 hic poreus qui ...

6 1

iste poreus qui ...

25

is poreus qui ...

1

none

siluaticus poreus ille poreus ille siluaticus poreus ille qui ...

siluaticus

idem ille poreus

1

siluaticus

hie poreus

1

siluaticus iste poreus tuus iste poreus

Occurrences in Petronius 15 1 12 35

16 1

poreus hic qui ... poreus iste siluaticus poreus ipse qui ... poreus is qui ...

4 none 3 7 1 1 2 1

All four occurrences of the pre-adjectival pronouns are in direct speech, in typically sermo popularis passages 7 . Not surprisingly, the collo­ cations poreus hic siluaticus and siluaticus hic poreus do not occur. Noth­ ing unexpected in the figures above: "indirect postposition" of demonstra­ tives is virtually non-existent in Classical Latin, whatever the pronoun in question (cf. Abel 1971: 171-178), and the preponderance of ille as relative-clause preparatory is well-known. The instances of this construc­ tion constitute the bulk of the inventory of ille also when it is a 'Ge­ lenkspartikel', viz. in the construction 'poreus ille attribute'. The genesis of this construction lends itself, also within the framework of other Indo-European languages, to various interpretations: Is the 'Ge­ lenkspartikel' merely another instance of substantivizing ille (see below)? Or does it create an attributive pattern vs. a predicating sentence pattern? Most unlikely; this construction becomes important in Latin at a time when the verbless sentence has already become a marginal phenomenon. Whatever its genesis, undoubtedly this pattern was highly conducive to the regularization of the definite article in Latin.

132

HANNAH ROSEN

2. Incorporation of elements into the sentence Almost t h e whole gamut of demonstrative pronouns can be found, op­ tionally, to function as substantivizing elements after the fashion of e.g. t h e Greek article and often in Classical literary sources, in conscious imitation of t h e latter: hoc non dolere (Cic. fin. 2.18) 8 , istuc nihil dolere (Cic. Tusc. 3.12), ipsum illud aemulari (Cic. Tusc. 4.46). 9 Of all this va­ riety of pronouns, ille certainly is t h e most common t o occur as a marker of hypostasis (in t h e Bloomfieldian sense): Suffice it to mention here such cases as Cicero's famous ille... Antecanem (Arat. 221 f. t r a n s l a t i n g A r a t o s ' Ovid's (Heroid. 13.14) Mud potui dicere triste Vale (as against supremumque Vale... dixit [Met 10.62-63] and saepe Vale dicto "having said goodbye again and again" [trist. 1.3.57]) or C a t u l l u s ' (86.1-3) Quintia formosa est multis... totum illud Formosa nego... As such Me figures also in Cicero's linguistic writings preceding items u n d e r discussion, whether l e m m a t a or quotations. W h e r e a s Cicero uses ille and later g r a m m a r i a n s present t h e discussed l e m m a either without introductory element (so Nonius) or borrow Greek TO ( D o n a t u s , 1 0 Priscian 1 1 ), earlier linguistic writings differ: in Varro's De lingua Latina we find hic as substantivizer to t h e exclusion of all other pronouns. Not only is hic employed to render nominal grammatical cate­ gories explicit, w h a t later became common practice in a long t r a d i t i o n of g r a m m a r a n d lexicography: 1 2 t h u s Varro explicitates nominal gender (e.g. dicitur enim hic lepus et hoc nemus 10.8, cf. 9.94, 10.44, frg. 14a); the cases (e.g. dicimus enim hic homo nihili et huius hominis nihili et hunc hominem nihili 9.54, cf. 10.50, 10.62, 10.80, also case of non-nominal el­ ements: ... quod dicimus hoc BA huius BA 9.51, cf. 9.52). T h a t Varro is fully conscious of this practice can be shown in passages like cum enim dicimus hic nequam et huius nequam, t u m hominis eius q u e < m > uolumus ostendere esse nequam, dicimus casus, et ei proponimus turn hic, non [non del. uel ci. nomen] cuius putamus nequitiam (10.80),

cf. similitudinum [-nem codd.] discernendarum causa... ut pronomen assumitur... (9.94). Hic is also t h e only p r o n o u n 1 3 to i m p a r t nominality whenever a nom­ inally characterized sentence constituent is required: 1 4 ut fit in his ("in t h e case of t h e words") nemus olus (10.50), cf. 10.79; a n d j u x t a p o s i t i o n of hic in b o t h its functions:

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

133

Nam ut ab his rectis ('from the nominatives') hi < B > a < e > b i e i ('B. in the masculine') hae B < a > e b i a e ('B. in the feminine') fit his Bebieis, sic est a b his ('from the words') hi Caelii, hae C < a > e l i a e — his Celiis (10.50)

(Rosén 1962: 102-103). Moreover, hic is Varro's stock-example from a m o n g t h e articuli (the Stoics' for a pronomen — pronomina being finita like t h e nomina (proper nouns) which they represent, a n d unlike t h e provocabula which represent appellatives (LL 8.45; cf. 10.20). T h u s , hic is for Varro a full-fledged substantivizing article, which was unable to hold its own against other pronouns playing t h e same role in later phases. T h e constant a n d already early use of hie as noun-modifier r u n s counter to t h e evolutional direction posited by Greenberg (1978: 6 2 69) a n d brought forward by M a r t i n Harris is support of his depiction of t h e R o m a n c e article (1980: 80-83), according to which alleged 'universal' t h e function "simply as a marker of nominality" (Harris 1980: 81) "which no longer has any synchronic connection with specificity" (Greenberg 1978: 69) is t h e last to emerge in an article. In Latin the marking of n o m i n a l categories is the initial phase of the definite article.

* * * As to Latin counterparts of t h e definite article in its m u c h more eva­ sive role of expressing semantic content, such as individuation or speci­ ficity, appeal to hearer-speaker shared knowledge (including generally known entities), possibly genericity, or of discourse functions, such as a n a p h o r a , one needs to proceed by examining partial systems. In order t o arrive at some useful conclusions, not only extreme adherence to synchronicity and unity of genre is required, b u t also confinement to t h e modest framework of g r a m m a t i c a l sub-systems, such as specific syntactic environments, single sentence p a t t e r n s or certain lexical categories. In Early Latin, as observed in Cato's De re rustica, t h e opposition in­ d i v i d u a l s ) : non-individual(s) is operative in one syntactic position alone, t h a t of adnominal modifiers, and is materialized by a morphological con­ t r a s t , t h a t of genitive vs. derived adjective. W i t h o u t going into t h e various solutions offered to the Genetiv und Adjektiv problem, 1 5 let us bear in m i n d t h a t the content of t h a t opposition varies considerably from period t o period. In Archaic Latin as represented by C a t o ' s De re rustica, t h e only difference between t h e genitival and the adjectival adjuncts consists in t h e degree of individuation or definiteness of t h e a t t r i b u t e . All this applies, needless to say, where an opposition between the two remains intact. For u n d e r certain conditions only one of the two t e r m s is a d m i t t e d — usually

134

HANNAH ROSÉN

the genitive: where the attribute is multipartite, where the head-noun is a common measuring or counting unit, 16 and others. With a regens that is a deverbative noun opposition is one of genitivus 'obiectivus' or 'adverbialis' (rare) vs. an adiectivum 'subiectivum' (Rosen 1981: 63-71).17 Otherwise it is one of definite individual(s) (the genitive singular or plural) vs. in­ definite ones (the adjective). Most often, the meaning of the genitive form as of a notum, hence definitum, by virtue of its resuming a preceding in­ stance of the same noun, is demonstrable through its substitutability by an anaphoric pronoun. E.g.: De uirga lauri ('the bark of some laurel', partitive object) deradito... et lauri folia ('leafs of the laurel') addito (121)

dato... folia laurea III ('three leaves of any laurel') (70.1)

cf. uites.... earum radices... purgato.... circumdato radices uitis 114.1. The noun may be present by implication: ubi uineam deputaueris, aceruom lignorum uirgarumque facito (50.2): Where there is pruning, wood and branches are necessarily present; likewise where there is a buyer (qui oleam emerit 146.1), there is also a seller (... ponderibus modiisque domini) (Rosen 1962: 105-108). That this opposition of definite vs. indefinite is upheld only in one syntactic position is not a unique phenomenon: constraints on morpholog­ ical contrasts are not uncommon, for instance the limitation to determi­ nated nouns of overt expression of the direct-object relation in Spanish and in Israeli Hebrew. Nor is the limitation to secondary sentence parts as bizarre as it may seem: the adnominal position is the very position in which later another nominal class, the categorialis, is kept distinct. The status of the derived denominal adjective changed quickly during the period from Early to Classical Latin: In Cato's rather slim volume of the De re rustica there are 278 different desubstantival adjectives functioning adnominally as against 190 in the entire corpus of Caesar and the other Bella and a total of 285 in the whole of Livy (Rosen 1991: 99). With this dwindling of the inventory of denominative adjectives the opposition definite : indef­ inite could no longer be maintained by means of the same technique. In the 'golden' and 'silver' Latinity the desubst antival adjective is no longer 'subiectivum' nor is it a marker of (an) individual(s) indefinite, but — aside from Grecisms, archaisms, poeticisms, literary reminiscences etc. — the derivational morpheme either marks relationship or possessivity in some more or less well-circumscribed classes of base-nouns, such as proper nouns or other auto-determined nouns upon which (in)definiteness has no

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

135

bearing; otherwise desubstantival adjectives denote generic attributes (vs. individuals, definite or not, which are denoted by the genitive); 18 e.g. P a t r i u m ('fatherly') deus habet aduersus bonos uiros animum (Sen. dial. 1.2.6) P i a c u l a r i s porta appellatur... < q u o d > ... ibi aliqua piandi... causa immolantur (Fest. 213M)

Regarding primary sentence-constituents, the communis opinio about the regular expression, or rather non-expression, of the semantic content of determination in Classical Latin stands firm, but only inasmuch as the paradigmatic-morphological level is concerned. Determinacy (individua­ tion, specification, shared or general knowledge etc.; see above) does get expressed in Classical Latin by syntagmatic means, that is to say, is re­ flected in word-order or, to be more exact, in the nominal constituent order. I do not propose here to add yet another contribution to the intri­ cacies of the still mostly unravelled problem of Classical Latin word-order. The following deliberations are intended to shed some light over the rela­ tionship of word-order and word-order change and the seeming fluctuation in occurrence of the incipient Latin definite article, irrespective of the 'syn­ tactic' articles discussed above. I submit that in Classical Latin, with no 'semantic' article available to mark definiteness, at least in certain sentence patterns, initial sentence position 19 (which often coincides with subject position, see below) signifies in itself the definiteness of the sentence constituent in question. Conse­ quently, definite constituents in other positions or indefinite constituents in initial position — both cases representing less common possibilities — require additional marking by other means; see below. Needless to say, this corresponds to a great extent to a Satzablauf from thema to rhema, as posited for Latin, among other languages (e.g. Panhuis 1982 passim). Apart from our growing misgivings about the accuracy of this account and our awareness of the existence of numerous factors on the stylistic, pragmatic and grammatical levels that interfere with this so-called commu­ nicative perspective, and at times even govern it (the clausulae!), I should point out that althought the thema is most often — but not always — a notum in one of its senses and thus determined or definite, an analogous equation is by no means true of the rheme, which may be definite as well as indefinite, and that deduction of (in)definitess of a nominal from its status as a certain constituent of the message ("theme, hence definite") is on the simple sentence level tantamount to, or at least a corollary of, drawing conclusions from word-order. While concerning other languages

136

HANNAH ROSÉN

(e.g. for Chinese Rygaloff 1958, Dragunoff 1960: 110, Li-Thompson 1975; for Israeli Hebrew Haiim Rosen 1967: 197ff.; for Attic Greek Haiim Rosen 1975: 23-36 [=1982: 389-402]) certain correlations could be established be­ tween word-order phenomena and the nominal category of defmiteness or specificity or else certain communicative perspective features, conclusions to be drawn from constituent order and its implications are naturally of a different order for Latin (or Chinese) than for languages that command the use of a full-fledged article. Pinkster (1988: 146) considers it might be profitable to look for article substitutes in Latin word-order; cf. Calboli's (1978: 224, 252f.) positing of a complementary distribution between the article and the mostly preposed non-finite AcI predication. Before putting our rule to the test it must be strictly qualified: only a small fraction of the nominals in a sentence — and it is my feeling that in Latin this is an exceedingly small one — is subject to the opposition definite : indefinite. First, there are certain lexical entities that are exempt from this opposition, being auto-determinated or of either absolute uniqueness of reference (e.g. caelum, fatum, celestial bodies) or of a situational one (trus "Master", pater "Father"). Such lexemes need not occupy initial position for their defmiteness to be expressed. Other classes or lexemes that are likewise indifferent to determination include substantives denot­ ing objects inalienably possessed, also otherwise noted for idiosyncratic syntactic behaviour, and functioning nominalizations, deverbal and deadjectival, which still need to be tested as to their preferred positions in the sentence before a stand can be taken about their sensitivity to determinacy. A genuine nominalization, being a transform of an underlying verbal form, has — apart from case — verbal properties, not nominal ones; thus its plural form expresses verbal, not nominal plurality (eius crebras mansiones ad amicam Turpil. 171-172. com.R. "the fact that he often stayed at his mistress' house"; Dressier 1968: 94-95, Rosen 1981: 29-33). It stands to reason that such nouns do not undergo determination of the kind non-derived ones do and that both in their function as resumptive nominalizations ('Wiederaufnahme') and as constituents of periphrases they are indifferent to determinacy: coniecturam facere "to surmise" is just as well decomposable into "to perform 'a' conjecture" as it is into "... 'the' conjecture". 20 In addition, certain constructions constitute determinate syntagmata or else are incapable of receiving determination by additional syntagmatic or morphological means:

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

137

1. Nominals accompanied by deictic or contextually referring pro­ n o u n s . 2 1 High u p among the pronominal modifiers t h a t lend determinacy figures t h e conjunctional relative, whose frequency was linked by Gualtiero Calboli (1985: 371) directly to the absence of an article in Latin. 2. Most plausibly, the presence of a genitival adjunct affects the deter­ minacy state of the head-noun. As parallels one may mention Old Irish a n d Middle Welsh in which a definite genitive, articled or not, always renders t h e whole s y n t a g m a determinated, and, marginally, Greek (e.g. » ßíov Soph. OR 1530, see, K ü h n e r - G e r t h I: 607 f., Schwyzer-Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik II: 24). T h e extent of this phenomenon in Latin has yet to be determined, 2 2 and see below. All these limitations leave b u t a small area for word-order determi­ n a t i o n to be at work. Word-order properties generally, and specifically those expressing definiteness, must be examined by single sentence p a t t e r n s . Suffice it to men­ tion t h a t thetic a n d presentative p a t t e r n s in various languages t e n d t o exclude d e t e r m i n a t e d subjects, e.g. Eng. There is ..., There came..., etc.; likewise comparable Latin utterances: 2 3 Flumen est Arar, quod ... influit24 (Caes. b.G. 1.12.1); Erant in quadam ciuitate rex et regina. (Apul. met. 4.28); Sedebant indices, decemuiri uenerant, obuersabantur aduocati, silentium longum. (Plin. ep. 5.9.2). Being thetic sentences, with discourse functions often demonstrable t h r o u g h specific tense usage and other p r o p ­ erties, such sentences contain as subjects either a u t o - d e t e r m i n a t e d or in­ definite sentence constituents, irrespective of t h e position the latter oc­ cupy in t h e sentence. Likewise, possessive sentence-patterns of t h e t y p e Huic filium scis esse? (Ter. Heaut. 181), Bello huic neque seruus est neque arca (Catull. 24.8) or of the type Aqua dentes habet (Petron. 42.2), Habet coronam (Enn. sc. 52), Ego ... uxorem numquam habui (Ter. Ad. 42-44) necessarily comprise an indefinite possessum by virtue of their very structure.25 In t h e following we shall limit ourselves to the very common sentence p a t t e r n , which contains an active two-place verb, with various lexical a n d grammatical 'fillings' of the two actant places. 2 6 One r a n d o m example: Non fecit sacrilegium mulier, non fecit anus, non fecit orbata, non fecit quae custoditur, non fecit quae confitetur. irata [praedicativum], inquit, dis sacrilegium potuit committere ' T h i s sacrilege was not the crime of a woman, a n old woman, a bereaved woman, o n e under custody, o n e who confesses. she might have committed sacrilege out of anger with the gods.' (Sen. Rhet. controv. [excerpta] 8.1, transi. M. Winterbottom) 2

138

HANNAH ROSEN

A suitable Textsorte for testing the hypothesis, that sentence-initial constituents (that do not belong to a 'non-sensitive' class) in a twoplace active verb pattern are definite (unless marked by quidam and similar as indefinite) and that perhaps second-place constituents are — conversely — indefinite, are proverbial utterances. These are normally context-independent and free from elements of contextual reference. Not all proverbial sentences comprise nominals of generic content; 28 often the proverb is worded as depicting a specific happening or state of affairs and includes nominals that denote individuals. We have investigated all such proverbs which have a bearing on the Gods, the fauna, flora, nature, agri­ culture, or money matters and others — avoiding subject matter with a large percentage of inaliénables — (Otto 1886; 1886a; 1887; 1887a; 1889; 1889a) with the result that the two-place active verb sentences conformed to the posited rule (within the mentioned lexematic and constructional limitations). A few examples: Subject — Object Sui cuique mores fingunt fortunam hominibus (Nep. AU. 11.6) Ego (rheme) semper apros occido, sed alter utitur pulpamento (Vopisc. Num. 15.3)

Object — Subject Ingenium mala saepe mouent (Ov. ars am. 2.43) Dolorem longa consumit dies (Sen. dial. 6.8.1) (Habent quas gallinae manus?) nam has quidem gallina scripsit (Plaut. Ps. 29-30)

Another source of article equivalents or substitutes were Classical Latin translations from the Greek. Poncelet, among others, had put to­ gether (1953: 139-157) a small inventory of means of determination ('pal­ liatifs') utilized by Cicero in his own translations, mechanisms that corre­ spond both to the 'syntactic' and the 'semantic' Greek article: I. relative and, to a lesser degree, conjunctional (ut-, quod-) clauses, that verbalize an originally nominal concept. II. demonstratives, mainly illud. III. and less conventional mechanisms 1. semantically empty (pronominal) substantives, such as res. 2. the use of an abstract substantive, e.g. uniuersitas for 3. adding of generalizing substantives such as natura, pars.

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

139

4. adjectives: omnis, totus, reliqui, ceteri, to which we may add the use of other adjectives and pronouns (deus ipse, Tim. 31 ~ PL Tim. 39b4) and the use of an infinitive (emori, Tusc. 1.97) for a Greek articulated substantive ( PI. Apol. 40d2). These mechanisms may be further illustrated from other translated sources, mainly Terence's adaptations of Menander (corresponding pas­ sages in Büchner 1974: 506-515): relative clause for a Greek substantiviz­ ing article (Andr. 286-287, Eun. 77); addition of locus in Andr. 406 ex solo loco frg. 34 Körte-Thierfelder II); omnis (+ relative clause) added for Greek article Ad. 605, for substantivizing article Ad. 804 amicorum... omnia Men. frg. 10 Körte-Thierfelder II). 29 Ule for an article in the Greek model is not uncommon, e.g. ilia... mulier (Andr. 229 — Perinthia frg. 5 [397 Körte-Thierfelder I]), 30 my impression is that it is somewhat more frequent in translations than in comparable original Latin texts and here too the preferred posi­ tion of Ule is pre-attributive, up to the point of producing this pattern by adding elements that do not figure in the original, e.g. praecepto Uli ueteri Cic. Tusc. 5.36 (PI. Menez. 248a6 Also, Ule occurs at times in the translation where the original has no article; see above on Ter. Ad. 866. Similarly Idem me Ule Conon caelesti in lumine uidii (Catull. 66.7), a literal translation of Kallimachos 34 Schneider 31 with non-articulated KÓVUJV.

Poncelet and others did not pay attention to word-order phenomena. In a dépouillement of Republican prose and prose-like texts translated from extant Greek originals (Cicero's Timaeus\ passages in Be senectute, div., fin., leg., off., rep., Tusc; Menander passages in Terence and Caecilius Statius) I did not detect any systematic word-order changes that could be ascribed to the presence of an article in the Greek original nor any deviation from the distribution of Ule prevalent in original Latin texts. Still, a few cases deserve mentioning: Ter. Andr. 368 puerum Perinthia frg. 6 [398 Körte-Thierfelder I])... conueni Chremi (sentence initial, determined; note however gen­ itive attribute). Cic. or. 41 inest enim natura p h i l o s o p h i a in huius uiri mente q u a e d a m Pl. Phaedr. 279a9) (initial indefinite needs pronominal marking). Cic. Tim. 9 ex inordinato in ordinem adduxit ( c o n s t i t u e n t order c h a n g e d in order to have the definite constituent in sentence initial Pl. Tim. 30a5).

140

HANNAH ROSEN

At some point of time — it probably never took place in Literary Latin — position in the sentence could no longer denote, or significantly p a r t i c i p a t e in denoting (in)definiteness of a sentence-constituent. W i t h t h e g r a d u a l dwindling of case endings and the tapering off of their functions, word-order, at the side of prepositions, took over the role of marking t h e p a r t s of t h e sentence and was no longer free to exercise other g r a m m a t i c a l functions. T h e relationship between t h e s t a t u s of a sentence-constituent a n d its determinacy h a d been taken u p in various contexts, much m o r e with regard to grammatical status t h a n regarding word-order — which a m o u n t s to the same in the framework of an approach t h a t assigns to Latin an absolute SO word-order. T h a t this is not the case in Classical Latin need not be mentioned here. 3 2 For early R o m a n c e Meyer-Lübke (1899: 173-223 [§§ 141-190]) states t h a t the article m a d e its first appear­ ance with grammatical subjects, then with direct objects and finally with prepositional phrases. T h e r e are however some significant holes in this a r g u m e n t a t i o n and its decumentation. 3 3 A n n a Orlandini (1981: 242-243) sought to lay t h e logical foundation for these claims, maintaining t h a t t h e link subject-definiteness was a near-universal. T h e logical aptness of t h e subject, if also topic, being a notum (and of the initial constituent, in a subject-initial language), to be a definite entity, is evident. But such a sub­ ject calls for an overt article only in t h a t stage of development in which a n article is already constant and compulsory. Indeed it is not before wordorder ostensibly and regularly takes over t h e marking of S u b j e c t - O b j e c t roles t h a t we find preponderance of sentence-initial subjects t h a t are mod­ ified by ille, ipse etc. or their successors. This preference for d e t e r m i n a t e d subjects tallies with the d a t a of some later, Vulgar and vulgarizing Latin sources (see Wolterstorff 1917: 203 on Apuleius); this would also follow from Selig (1990: 225-234) who illustrates from 6 - 8 t h century Vitae t h e article ille in its incipient phase as being frequent with major protagonists of t h e plot when first mentioned; b u t this preference is not demonstrable in Literary Classical Latin. Between the stage of Classical Latin, at which word-order coupled with the other tools discussed above suffices to express definiteness, and the stage, at which there is a regular pronominal article, one expects an intermediary phase in which ille a n d sim. are required pre­ cisely where word-order and syntactic position do not suffice to render a n o u n definite or where position per se marks indefiniteness. This, logically, would be the correct point of d e p a r t u r e of the definite article, at which ille functions as a device accessory to word-order, if not in complementary distribution with it.

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

141

To pinpoint this intermediary phase of ille in its inceptive use of a subsidiary article, deviation from prevalent word-order, i.e. t h e so-called subject inversion, 3 4 served us as an effective means. T h e r e is a small number of g r a m m a t i c a l factors which may induce inversion, mainly 1. t h e degree of configurationality (interwoven clauses) to which a non-inverted sentence may give rise; 2. some sentence types (interrogative and imperative-precative, cer­ tain subordinate clauses); 3. t h e presence of certain connectors, especially et or inceptive sed, as is t h e case in French; 4. pronominal sentence p a r t s tend to precede other p a r t s of the sen­ tence, e.g. dum sibi haec dicit humana cogitatio (Augustin. Confess. 12.5) Non se interponat nec ui nec insidiis leo et draco (Augustin. Confess. 9. 36) Nouerat eos iam illa mater (Augustin. Confess. 1.18);

5. scission (Sperrung)

of secondary sentence p a r t s may intervene:

Talis ad Oceanum pergentem Venerem comitatur exercitus (Apul. Met. 4.31) Sed in magna copia rerum aliud alii natura iter ostendit (Sall. Cat. 2.9.)

W h e r e t h e preferred constituent order S - 0 becomes disrupted owing to such grammatical factors or under t h e influence of p r a g m a t i c or commu­ nicative conditions (into an inverted or a more complicated s t r u c t u r e ) or changed for stylistic (rhythmical or other rhetorical) purposes, we ex­ pected ille to fill in, so to speak, in order to m a r k defmiteness of non-initial subjects (always within the small segment fit to receive this marking). A series of examinations of the interrelation between word-order a n d t h e use of adnominal pronouns, essentially ille, in narrative literary prose from Cicero onwards was concluded with Augustinus' fourth century La­ tinity. T h e r e Me fulfils exactly t h a t role, while earlier literary sources did not exhibit this use. In Cicero, there are on t h e one h a n d inversions, espe­ cially frequent in t h e speeches, 3 5 on the other h a n d there are, of course, adnominal demonstratives, in various sentence constituents, in various p a t t e r n s . However, inverted subjects do not necessarily have supporting p r o n o u n s , nor do we find pronominal usage distributed according to this principle nor even noticeably prevalent in such environment. C h a p t e r s 1 42 of Cicero's Orator and Book I of the Tusculanae disputationes (some

142

HANNAH ROSEN

160 chapters), show 26 cases of Subject-Object or Subject-Adverbial com­ plement inversion, 20 of inverted copula sentences, 10 inverted accusative with the infinitive constructions of which 5 are copula predications. No outstanding incidence of pronominal tools in the inverted sentences can be observed here; it is to some extent higher in the inverted copula sentences of the pattern Predicate-Subject. Ille and the other pronouns are still of full demonstrative force (contextually referring, in the sense of "notissimus", and rarely deictic) and distributed evenly over the sentence with no correlation to definiteness or determinacy, except for the well-known preference for syntagms with attribute, for certain lexematic classes and for the pre-relative clause position. The situation in Augustinus is radically different. A dépouillement of the 'Confessions', which belong to St. Augustine's later, post-Neoplatonic but certainly more literary endeavours, reveals a neat interplay between constituent order and the use of pronominal demonstratives (ille, iste, ipse, omnis, the conjunctional relative, marginally some others and, con­ versely, quidam etc.). In the thirteen books of the pronouncedly rhetorical Confessiones, of 662 occurrences of these pronominals only 227 can be unambiguously shown to be of demonstrative force (mostly anaphoric, some cataphoric); 82 pronouns figure in inverted sentences of various structures. Of a total of about 125 inverted copula sentences, 36 including 4 Acl constructions and 14 interrogative and optative sentences and 12 relative and other subor­ dinate clauses, 35 contain subjects modified by demonstrative pronouns; of about 180 non-copula sentences (with a few thetic and presentative ones), 37 including 5 Acl constructions, 15 relative clauses (conjunctional relatives included) 26 other subordinate clauses, 10 interrogative (direct and indirect) sentences, and 13 wishes and exclamations, 32 contain sub­ jects accompanied by demonstrative pronouns. Thus we have here about 200 non-subordinate declarative inverted sentences. As subjects in inversion we find: 1. Nominals insensitive to definiteness Foedas ... formas perturbatis ordinibus uoluebat animus [inalien­ able] 12.6, dum sibi haec dicit humana cogitatio 12.5

2. Generic nouns Habent enim memoriam et pecora et aues 10.26, Pulchras formas et uarias, nitidos et amoenos colores ament oculi 10.51

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

143

3. Indefinite elements a. marked as such: Facit enim hoc quaedam etiam stoliditas 1.15

b. not marked (rare, in specific sentence patterns): Nusquam erit mihi dolor et labor 10.39

4. Definite elements a. inherently definite: Fingebat haec Homerus 1.25

b. determinated elements: stabiliter tamen haerebat in corde meo ... fides Christi 7.7, ut inde in me ueniet deus meus, qui ... 1.2, et laudabunt dominum qui requirunt eum [Ps. 21.27] 10.70,

and also: Seruiunt enim rationi haec animalia ... 13.31, quamuis ubi facta sit omiserit enuntiare ista narratio 12.31, Neque peragitur in te hodiernus dies 1.10, Pulchra erant illa poma 2.12.

The nominal is thereby rendered definite. The demonstrative may be anaphoric, as in 13.31 above (bestiae bonae ... haec animalia), but mostly it is not, as, e.g., in nouerat iam illa mater 1.18.

That is to say, Augustinus' Confessiones still preserve on the whole the tendency of the sentence-initial to be occupied by definite constituents (which are also subjects). If inversion takes place, a definite subject, unless inherently determinated (as is often the case), is accompanied by demon­ strative pronouns, with a considerable number of occurrences of demon­ strably diminished demonstrative force. We find in this position of inverted subjects hic (3 cases in copula sentences, 3 in non-copula sentences), iste (4 cases in copula sentences, 4 in non-copula sentences), ipse (4 cases in copula sentences, 6 in non-copula sentences), and ille: 23 cases in copula sentences, 17 in non-copula sentences. Is is practically non-existent here too (1 non-copula sentence), see above and note 9. The incidence of such pronouns (including relative-clause preparatories) is pronouncedly higher in the inverted copula sentences, about a quarter of the inverted subjects. Significantly, ille is the pronoun found in this function of definitizing in­ verted subjects, what tallies of course with its ulterior function as article.

144

HANNAH ROSÉN

Here, in St. Augustine's variety of Literary Latin, is t h e point at which t h e pronouns, essentially ille — often with ostensibly weakened d e m o n s t r a t i v i t y 3 8 — fill in as determinators in the position, which orig­ inally was reserved for indefinite nominals or nominals indifferent to de­ t e r m i n a t i o n (unless marked otherwise). This must have been t h e startingpoint for further expansion. A similar examination conducted for the sake of comparison in Tertullian's De corona militis shows t h a t in t h e 2nd century this phase of p r o n o u n usage h a d not yet been attained. However, t h e p h e n o m e n o n of inversion itself is here quite limited, which reflects on t h e less rhetorical character of t h e text. In t h e 17 cases of inverted copula sentences only 2 subjects have a pronoun: Quam sacer sanctusque, quam honestus ac mundus sit habitus iste... (13.8, exclamation) et ideo non ad eos erit iste tractatus... sed ad illos... (2.3)

In b o t h cases it is iste t h a t figures as a determinator. In inverted sentences with other verbs (total 24) no inverted subject contains a demonstrative; in b o t h types, inverted subjects are either indefinite (milites laureati 1.1) or inherently definite (natura 7.2, primus medelas Aesculapius explorauerit 8.2). Note t h a t adjunct pronouns are not at all u n c o m m o n in this text (ille 9, iste 10, ipse 31 [!], hic 31), and t h a t in Trager's (1932: 194) selection of Tertullian adnominal ille instances constitute 30% of t h e total of ille, adnominal iste — 7 1 % , adnominal ipse — 47%, and adnominal hic — 30%. O n t h e other h a n d , Cicero, as we have said, has not m u c h less inver­ sions t h a n Augustinus in his Confessiones, b u t in his inverted sentences p r o n o u n s are not so heavily represented, a n d only a negligible fraction of these pronouns are demonstrably non anaphoric. We also studied constituent order a n d 'fillings' a n d t h e interrelation of adnominal pronouns a n d inversion in Apuleius, whose use of the demon­ stratives was thoroughly examined in one of Wolterstorff's three exemplary treatises on the incipient article (1917); he h a d concluded, on t h e grounds of erratically fluctuating ille a n d its unweakened demonstrative force, t h a t Apuleius did not yet have a genuine article. In the some 60 chapters of the novel Amor et Psyche (Metam. 4.28-6.24) we found 10 cases of equationsentence inversion, all with definite subjects (e.g. a personal p r o n o u n 6.9 Felix uero ego...) or accompanied ones (by relative clauses, e.g. 5.1 Mirus prorsum homo... qui..., by genitive adjuncts, e.g. 4.34 egregiae formonsitatis meae praeclara praemia a n d once by a demonstrative p r o n o u n 6.11 Non tuum... istud opus); in 52 inverted sentences with other verbs (including a few passives, 5 AcI constructions, 1 optative and 1 interrogative sentences

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

145

and 11 subordinate clauses) there are 2 subjects that are periphrasis con­ stituents (5.18 est txistimatio, 6.15 fuit copia), a few indefinite subjects that are marked as such (e.g. 5.23 amator aliquis) or occur in sentences with one-place verbs (5.23 rorauerint paruulae sanguinis rosti guttat, 6.18 monstratur ittr inuium). The others are either inherently definite (e.g. for­ tuna satuior 5.5) or else of anaphoric reference (4.30 puella moritura). Among the determinators demonstrative pronouns are the minority: 5 cases (5.1 illud... catltstt palatium; 5.12 ipsat nocturnat ttntbrat; 5.11 maritus ille qutm; 4.30 pastor ille cuius; 4.33 ipst Iouis quo), of which 3 are relative-clause preparatories. In the 62 chapters of Amor and Psycht we have counted 147 instances of adnominal demonstratives, 39 with some notable examples of 'articloid' intra-syntagmatic ille and istt: formicula illa paruula atque ruricola 6.10; Psychen illam fugitiuam uolaticam 5.31; sorores illae maiores 5.4; uitricum t u u m fortissimum il­ ium maximumque bellatorem 5.30; aquas istas Stygias 6.15; turris illa prospicua 6.20; suus pocillator ille rusticus puer 6.24.

Consequently, on the basis of Augustinus' Conftssiones as opposed to the data obtained in cursory examinations of Classical prose, of Tertullian, and of Apuleius, we venture to conclude that the date of the emergence of the definite article in Latin may be pushed backward, much earlier than the communis opinio has it, to the fourth century. Although imbued with the 'dignitas Ciceroniana', Augustinus' language differs, of course, gram­ matically. We were able to show that the grammar of the article or, to put it differently, of the demonstrative, is one of the traits constituting this difference. Ille is here merely a subsidiary tool, in complementary distri­ bution with constituent order, but it is a rigorously regulated grammatical tool. * * * When we contemplate this use of the pronouns and look back to those earlier expressions of definiteness that were discussed above, we may wonder if it was not to this diversification of signifiants that Quintilian alluded by spargi "to be scattered, distributed over" in the somewhat obscure dictum (Inst. or. 1.4.19) Noster sermo articulos non desiderat ideoque in alias partes orationis sparguntur

HANNAH ROSÉN

146 Notes 1.

Regardless of really sporadic uses — sporadicity and random occurrence ailing most statements about early articles. Some such articles or 'articloids' are purely imaginary: e.g., in view of the set expression illa manus "that gang" (Cic. Pis. 15, II Ver. 3.76, AU. 1.1.2) no article — allegedly called forth by totus (Gamillscheg 1936: 333; cf. Lerch 1940: 163) — can be posited in the much disputed in Pisonem, in Curionem, in t o t a m illam manum (Cic. Att. 1.16.1).

2.

3.11-12, where editions inappropriately adopt illuc (following the Oxoniensis in margine) for the consensus codicum (iter tenebricosum) Mud. Cf. Apul. Met. 8.15 ob iter illud, qua nobis erat commeandum.

3.

Bellus Me et urbanus Suffenus

4.

Tota ista trabe 28.10.

22.9-10.

5.

Including instances with genitival attributes.

6.

Ventosa istaec [istaec omm. excerpta) et enormis loquacitas 2.7.

7.

Trimalchio speaking: porcus Me siluaticus (40.7), baro ille longus (63.10); Lichas: uestem illam diuinam (114.5); Giton: comula ista besalis (58.5).

8. 9.

Vs. non-articulated non dolere ibid. 2.9. Is, the most pronouncedly anaphoric of all pronouns, is practically unrepre­ sented in this function. This stands to reason: its overall attributive use rapidly decreased (Wolterstorff 1917: 200 counted in Apuleius, Met. only 16 adjectival is out of a total of 427 occurrences; cf. Trager 1932: 184, ThLL s.v.) and it did not develop into an article in any Romance language. Its isolated attestations as a substantivizer (ThLL ibid. 480.36-44) are all heavy Grecisms: Late Latin e.g. Vulg. dum in eo fabulari eos (Itala [cod.d]) Luc. 24.15 = fabularentur)', unique Classical attestation Sen. ep. 65.8 quinque ergo causae sunt, ut P l a t o dicit, id ex quo, id a quo, id in quo, id ad quod, id propter quod...

10.

E.g. ad Ter. Hec. 86 (Corinthum hinc sum profecta): hinc magnum dolorem ostendit habere; likewise ad Hec. 85, 264. Cf. Leena Löfstedt 1982: 270 n. 5.

11.

Priscian uses TO only with Greek items.

12.

And is formulated in Probus GL IV 133 and Priscian 5.1 (GL II 141).

13.

Ille before cited forms is employed by Varro only with anaphoric force (LL 8.10 eodem Mo 'et') or in the sense of 'notissimus' (7.12, 7.13).

14.

Forms filling in for a nominative and most longer quotations are fitted into the sentence without article; either on their own or with adverbials (ut, adverbclauses etc.).

15.

Principal bibliographic references in Bliimel 1972: 113-120 and Rosén 1981: 69. Cf. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik 1965: 60 f. (§ 53).

16.

Some significant lexical distinctions come thus to light: modius 1 "a vessel" vs. 2 "a dry or liquid measure" (omnem oleam... metietur modio oleario RR 144.4 : addito... salis selibram in modium olearum ["per modius of olives"] 1.17); sextarius 1 "a receptacle" vs. 2 "a measure" (sextarium olearium I 13.3 : det in singulos factus olei sextarios ["a sextarius of oil for each pressing"] 67.1); iugum 1 "yoke" vs. 2 "team" (iugum asinarium I 11. 2 : quot iuga... asinorum 62) (Rosen 1956).

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

147

17.

E.g. fructus... harunc aedium "enjoying this house" P . Merc. 832, triennii tum Cato RR 5.6 as against fructus... fullonius PL Ps. 782.

fruc-

18.

Or in Löfstedt's (1942: 109 n. 2) famous formulation: "Der Gen. individualisie­ rend, das Adj. generalisierend."

19.

Which may be preceded by connectors and peripheral sentence complements (adverbs, ablative absolute, and other).

20.

In article-languages, nominalizations are treated variably; see for Greek Gildersleeve 1911: 257-259; conceptualization intervenes : Haiim Rosen 1988. See Leena Löfstedt (1982: 276 n. 33) on absence of article with abstracts in Old French and Lerch 1941, especially on the differences between French and German in this respect (: 234-241), and cf. the French anarthrous locutions verbales of the type avoir pitié, mettre fin, prendre soin (Meyer-Lübke 1899: 182-183 [§ 151], 209211 [§ 178]).

21.

As in Italian and early Romance there is no incompatibility in Latin between ille etc. and possessive pronominal adjectives, which consequently cannot be considered as lending definiteness to the noun they accompany.

22.

The degree of tightness of the genitival construction may be a decisive factor.

23.

T h a t were treated as to their word-order by Harm Pinkster (lectures in Borzée 1989, Saarbrücken and Jerusalem 1990). As opposed to 'hoc (or illud) flumen est Arar', a copula equation-sentence.

24. 25.

Definiteness and sentence structure in this pattern were treated by D.P. Ross in the 5th Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Borzée 1989.

26.

Which cannot, however, be illustrated by sources that preserve, to a certain degree, an appositive word-order in which, in an almost incorporating fashion, positions are temporarily filled with semantically empty, mostly pronominal, elements (e.g. is earn huc Cyrenas leno aduexit uirginern, PI. Rud. 41).

27.

Further research may reveal that certain lexical distinctions, connotations or even denotations may be controlled by word-order: his uerbis in sentence-initial — anaphoric (and definite), sentence-final — cataphoric; oratio in sentence-initial or otherwise determinated — "eloquence, style", "oration", in sentence-final or otherwise indefinitized — "utterance".

28.

Generic nouns are most readily identifiable by being indifferent to numerus: in Proba merx facile emptorem reperit (PL Poen. 342), Gutta cauat lapidem... (Ovid. Pont. 4.10.5), Canis caninam non est... (Varro LL 7.31) plural forms may be substituted for the singular ones, and vice versa in munera... capiunt hominesque deosque (Ov. ars am. 3.653).

29.

Consequently Terence's translation is not "verboser, interpretierend, steigernd ...gegeben" (Büchner 1974: 513): omnia is no more than a translational device.

30.

But see note 26 on the appositive word-order.

31.

The Coma Berenikes, an elegy. Kallimachos' longer elegies do not exhibit any instance of the article, contrary to his epigrams and iambic poetry.

32.

Only in the AcI construction, with transitive infinitive and two animate or two inanimate appellatives, is the order, a few notorious instances excepted, unques­ tionably determined by grammatical function, irrespective of message articula­ tion or definiteness, viz. S-O: putares canem leporem persequi (Petron. 63.4), largitionem fundum non habere (Cic. off. 2.55), diem adimere aegritudinem hominibus (Ter. Heaut. 422.).

HANNAH ROSÉN

148 33.

Although he discusses fixed collocations, prepositional and verbal, Meyer-Lübke seems to miss the crucial point. 'Locutions figées' cannot have been at the bottom of a late emergence of the definite article with direct objects (Meyer-Lübke 1899: 209-211 [§ 178]), as the oppsition between periphrastic and free construction was there all along.

34.

Which was studied most extensively by Herman in his investigation of Early French word-order (1954 [1990]: [264-277]). I should add that all of Elise Richter's examples of subject inversion in Vulgar and Classical Latin (1903: 1 5 1 154) exhibit subjects that are, unless inherently definite, all overtly determinated by adjunct genitives or demonstrative pronouns.

35.

Subject inversion in the colloquial language of Cicero's correspondence seems to be rare, to judge by the figures in Pinkster (1988: 272 f.): out uf 112 sentences with explicit subject in ad Atticum I, only in 3 the subject is preceded by the object, in 3 — by a satellite.

36.

Among which a considerable number of Biblical quotations.

37. 38.

Only few of which are Biblical quotations. A weakening of meaning which eventually gave rise to the naturalization of the more explicitly lexical anaphorics suprascriptus, praedictus and sim. (Norberg 1944: 70-73).

39.

Wolterstorff (1917: 201) counted in all of Apuleius' Metamorphoses 334 adjec­ tival ille (out of total of 527), 148 adjectival hic (total 328) and 193 adjectival iste (total 237).

References Abel, F. 1971. L'adjectif Niemeyer.

démonstratif

dans la langue de la Bible latine.

Blümel, W. 1972. Untersuchungen zu Lautsystem und Morphologie Lateins (= MSS Beiheft 8). München: Kitzinger.

des

Tübingen:

vorklassischen

Büchner, K. 1974. Das Theater des Terenz. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Calboli, Gu. 1978. "Die Entwicklung der klassischen Sprachen und die Beziehung zwi­ schen Satzbau, Wortstellung und Artikel." IF 83, 197-261. Calboli, Gu. 1985. "Relatif de liaison et absence d'article en latin." In: Chr. Touratier (ed.) Syntaxe et latin. Actes du IIme Congrès International de Linguistique La­ tine, 361-377. Aix-en-Provence: Publications Univ. de Provence. Dragunoff, A.A. 1960. Untersuchungen zur Grammatik der modernen chinesischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (Transi, of Russian. Moscow 1952 edition). Dressler, W. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität.

Wien: Akademie Verlag.

Gamillscheg, E . 1936. "Zum romanischen Artikel und Possessivpronomen." Sitzb. der preußischen Akad. der Wiss., phil.-hist. Klasse 26, 327-357. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Gildersleeve, B. 1911. Syntax of Classical Greek II. New York, Cincinnati &: Chicago: American Book Company.

THE DEFINITE ARTICLE IN THE MAKING

149

Greenberg, J.H. 1978. "How does a language acquire gender markers?" In: J. Greenberg, Ch. Ferguson & E. Moravcsik (eds.) Universals of Human Language. Stanford University Press. Harris, M.B. 1980. "The marking of definiteness: A diachronic perspective." In: Conference on Histori­ E.C. Traugott (ed.) Papers from the 4th International cal Linguistics, 75-86. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Herman, J. 1954 [1990]. "Recherches sur l'ordre des mots dans les plus anciens textes français en prose." Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4: 69-94; 351-382. [repr. in: S. Kiss (ed.) Du latin aux langues romanes, 234-288. Tübingen: Niemeyer.] Lerch, E. 1940. "Gibt es im Vulgärlateinischen oder im Rumänischen eine 'Gelenkspar­ tikel'?" Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 60, 113-190. Lerch, E. 1941. "Zum Gebrauch des Artikels, namentlich beim Abstraktum." für Romanische Philologie 61, 225-256.

Zeitschrift

Li, Ch.N. & S.A. Thompson. 1975. "The semantic function of word order: A case study in Mandarin." In: Ch.N. Li (ed.) Word-Order and Word-Order Change, 165-195. Austin: U. of Texas Press. Löfstedt, E. 2 1942. Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. I. Lund: Gleerup. Löfstedt, L. 1982. "A propos des articles et des articloïdes." In: Logos Semantikos, Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu IV, 269-279. Madrid & Berlin: De Gruyter. Meader, C.L. 1901. The Latin Pronouns IS ; HIC ; ISTE : IPSE. New York: Macmillan. Meyer-Lübke, W. 1899. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen III: Romanische Syn­ tax. Leipzig: Reisland. Norberg, D. 1944. Beiträge zur spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells. Orlandini, A. 1981. "Wesen und Entwicklung des Artikels vom Lateinischen zu den romanischen Sprachen." IF 86, 223-247. Otto, A. 1886. "Die Götter und Halbgötter im Sprichworte." ALL 3, 207-229. Otto, A. 1886a. "Zu den Tiersprichwörtern." ALL 3, 388-397. Otto, A. 1887. "Die Natur im Sprichwort." ALL 4, 14-43. Otto, A. 1887a. "Das Pflanzenreich im Sprichwort." ALL 4, 189-196. Otto, A. 1889. "Landwirtschaft, Jagd und Seeleben im Sprichwort." ALL 6, 9-24. Otto, A. 1889a. "Geldverkehr und Besitz im Sprichwort." ALL 6, 47-58. Panhuis, D.G.J. 1982. The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence. Latin Word Order. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pinkster, H. 1988. Lateinische

Syntax und Semantik.

A Study of

Tübingen: Francke.

Poncelet, R. 1953. Cicéron traducteur de Platon. Thèse Paris: E. de Boccard. Richter, E. 1903. Zur Entwicklung der romanischen Wortstellung aus der lateinischen. Halle: Niemeyer. Rosen, Haiim, B. 2 1967. Ivrit Tova: Studies in Syntax. brew.]

Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer. [He­

Rosén, Haiim, B. 1973 [1982]. "Gedanken zur Geschichte des griechischen Satzbaus." Die Sprache 21, 23-26 [repr. in East and West. Selected Writings in Linguistics I. München: Wilhelm Fink. 389-402.]

150

HANNAH ROSEN

Rosen, Haiim, B. 1988. Early Greek Grammar and Thought in Heraclitus. Proceedings of the Israel Academy VII.2. Rosen, Hannah. 1956. Adnominal Constructions M.A.Thesis. Hebrew University. [Hebrew.]

in Cato's

Jerusalem:

De re rustica.

Rosen, Hannah. 1962. "On determination in Latin." In: Hebrew Gymnasia ume. CII-CVIII. [Hebrew.]

Unpubl.

Jubilee Vol­

Rosen, Hannah. 1981. Studies in the Syntax of the Verbal Noun in Early Latin. München: Wilhelm Fink. Rosén, Hannah. 1991. "Grammatical-converting and semantically mutating wordformation in the Latin lexicon." In: R. Coleman (ed.) New Studies in Latin Linguistics, 93-110. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rygaloff, A. 1958. "La classe nominale en chinois: déterminé/indéterminé." BSL 53, 306-315. Selig, M. 1990. "Die Entwicklung des Artikels in den romanischen Sprachen." In: Gu. Calboli. (ed.) Latin vulgaire - latin tardif II, 219-237. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Trager, G.L. 1932. The Use of the Latin Demonstratives (Especially ILLE and IPSE) up to 600 A.D. New York: Publications of the Institute of French Studies. Wolterstoff, G. 1917. "Artikelbedeutung von ille bei Apuleius." Glotta 8, 197-226.

Theme and topic. The relation between discourse and constituent fronting in Latin. Maartje H. Somers Amsterdam

1. Introduction So far, little research has been done on the subject of Theme in Latin. Dik (1987)1 came up with both a syntactic and a pragmatic definition. The syntactic definition describes 'Theme' as an extra-clausal constituent, additional to the predication. The pragmatic definition is as follows: "A Theme presents an entity (...) that the subsequent predication is going to bear upon." Hoffmann, in her 'Typology of Latin Themes' (1989) indicates to which Latin constructions this definition can be applied. Latin Theme constituents usually have the form of prepositional clauses with de, of quod-constructions or less frequent, nominativus or accusativus pendens. Such constructions precede the main clause. In clear cut examples the main clause contains an element referring to the theme constituent. A typical example is (1): (1)

Cancer ater, is olet et saniem spurcam mittit (Cato, Agr. 15.7.3.)

The main problem concerning Theme in Latin is how to distinguish it from Topic in initial position. Dik's definition of Topic is the following: "The Topic presents the entity 'about' which the predication predicates something in the given setting" (Dik 1978).

M.H. SOMERS

152

A huge number of examples of the constructions mentioned above belongs to the so-called 'borderline cases'. The status of the initial con­ stituent in these borderline cases is ambiguous. When a sentence lacks an anaphorical element and when the initial constituent falls within the verb's selection restrictions, 2 one cannot tell the difference, as was pointed out by Hoffmann (1989). So, though Topic and Theme differ theoretically in the matter of syntax (Topic: obligatory, intraclausal, falling necessarily under the verb's selection restrictions; Theme: optional, extraclausal, falling not necessarily under the verb's selection restrictions) it appears that in practice most examples do not fit into this binary model. In the field of pragmatics, Theme and Topic differ, according to Dik (1981) because of the difference in range of their domains, as the following example points out: (2)

[As for Paris, {the Eiffel Tower is really spectacular.}]

The domain of the Theme 'As for Paris' is the entire following main clause, whereas the Topic 'the Eiffel Tower' only covers the predication. Theme has a wider range than Topic. However, when a clause pos­ sesses only one of the two, the difference in range vanishes. Constituents of the same 'range' appear both as Theme and as Topic: (3) (4)

T O P I C : de geographica etiam atque etiam deliberabimus (Cic. AU. 2.7.I.) THEME: de litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor (Cic. Ait. I.5.3.)

Example (4) is a case of Theme, because the letter points out that Atticus' reproach is about the n o t writing of a letter. De litterarum missione has to be translated as an extra-clausal constituent. 3 Hoffmann gives several examples of borderline cases. Most examples fall into one of the following categories. In each of these categories the status of the fronted constituent is unclear: (5) (6)

De meis rebus, ne vobis multitudine litterarum molestior essem, ad Lollium perscripsi (Cic. Fam. 5.3.2.) Quod ad me de Hermathena scribis per mihi gratum est (Cic. Att. 1.4.3)

submitted to the verb's selection restrictions. (7)

Caesar, paucos dies in eorum finibus moratus, omnibus vicis aedificiisque incensis, frumentisque succisis se in fines Ubiorum recepit,... (Caes. Gal 4.19.1)

THEME AND TOPIC

153

In example (5), the status of the initial constituent is ambiguous because of the fact that de meis rebus might be either a constituent to perscripsi or a Theme, in example (6) Quod ad me de Hermathena scribis is either a Theme or a Direct Object to scribis and in example (7) the fronted Subject Caesar is dislocated over such a distance that one might as well call it a nominativus pendens. Because research concentrated on the difference between Theme and Fronted Topic, the use of fronting in a wider perspective has been neglected so far. In this paper the main issue, therefore, will be the relation between 'Fronting' and l.the main clause and the paragraph, 2.the discourse as a whole. The following paper is a description of fronted constituents in Latin. It is closely connected to Functional Grammar, but is more discourse-related than Functional Grammar (which at this moment is more concerned with the clause than the discourse) generally is. The description is based on about 600 examples of Theme and Fronting in Cicero's correspondence. The choice for Cicero's letters was made for two reasons. Firstly be­ cause Cicero uses fronting more than any other Latin author, and secondly because short coherent texts like letters are relatively easy to analyse. The results obtained from the examination of these letters were tested on a mixed corpus, consisting of examples from authors like Cato, Plautus, Livy, Tacitus, Propertius, Petronius, Caesar, etc.

2. Fronted constituents and the paragraph In this section, I will deal with two items. The first one is the 'domain'problem, which was stated in example (2) above, the second one is the type of information Fronted constituents usually carry, and the function they have in the paragraph. 2.1. Fronted constituents give the 'domain' that frames the validity of the main clause The notion 'domain', first used by Bolkestein in 1981, indicates the fronted constituent's pragmatic function with respect to the contents of the con­ text. As pointed out in the introduction, general limits to this domain cannot be indicated, except for the limitation that the domain always has to be relevant with respect to the main clause.

154

M.H. SOMERS

The examples derived from Cicero's letters suggest that the notion 'domain' is applicable to Theme as well as to fronted Topics. It is even applicable to Topics in general; each Topic, no matter what its place in the clause may be, limits the validity of the clause within which the Topic is placed to that Topic's domain. The following examples show that the notion 'domain' describes the pragmatic function not only of Theme, but of all Topics, whether they are fronted or not: (8) (9)

(10)

T H E M E : De tribus legatis, freguentes ierunt in alia omnia (ad Fam. 1.2.1.) F R O N T E D T O P I C : De ipso T. Annio t a n t u m tibi polliceor, te maioris animi gravitatis, constantiae benevolentiaegue erga te... (ad Fam. 2.6.4.) T O P I C : Ego autem quae dicenda fueruni de te non praeterii (ad AU. 1.5.5.)

2.2. Information

status

Fronted Topics generally contain information derived from the discourse's 'presupposition pool'. 4 In correspondence, the 'fronted Topic' contains in­ formation that belongs to the 'shared knowledge' of the correspondencepartners. In several articles Hoffmann has tried to specify the pragmatic defi­ nition of Theme, in order to elucidate the difference between Theme and Topic. Hoffmann, among other systems, used 'Grice's Maxim's' (see Levinson 1983), and the information-classification created by Ellen Prince (see Prince 1981).5 I myself tried to distinguish Theme from fronted Topics using both models, but these attempts remained without results, exept for the rather obvious conclusion that Cicero uses any kind of information both as Theme and as fronted Topic. In example (8), for instance, the Theme contains Displaced Textually Evoked Information, due to the fact that the legati have been referred to by Cicero in the preceding paragraph. Example (9) contains Inferrable Information, because of the fact that the identity of T. Annius can be inferred from information concerning a relative of his in the preceding paragraph. The third example (10), finally, is one of Current Textually Evoked Information, because de te (Atticus) has been referred to in the preceding sentence. Hoffmann states that Themes cannot contain Brand New information except in a fictional context (like for example in Plautus or Petronius,

THEME AND TOPIC

155

where the unexpected is to be expected by the hearer/reader). This ob­ servation proves to be incomplete. It turns out that Fronted constituents can contain Brand New information if: — The context is fictional, and/or — This information does not concern the text's contents, but the text's structure. Ellen Prince's definition of Brand New Information is as follows: "Brand New elements are in no way whatsoever known to the hearer/reader." Generally, Brand New elements are introduced by an indefinite expression, for example in a presentative construction like (11): (11)

A bus in Prince Street.

It is a fact indeed that constructions like the above do not appear in fronted position in Cicero's letters, but other authors seem to have a preference for Theme when introducing a Brand New element: (12) (13)

Domi servi qui sunt, castrabo viros (Plaut. Asin. 237) Cultrum, quem sub veste abditum habebat, eum in corde defigit (Liv. 1.58.9., on the death of Lucretia.) (See section 4.4)

Cicero uses Brand New elements as fronted constituents in his letters too, but in a different way than in the examples above. This difference is that the Brand New element in the presentative construction below does not refer to the discourse's contents, but to its structure, as in example (14): (14)

De reliquo, si, id quod confido, fore dignum eum tua amicitia hospitioque cognoveris, peto ut eum complectare diligas in tuis habeas (ad Fam. 13.78.2)

De reliquo does not refer specifically to anything in the preceding dis­ course, and the frame that de reliquo puts around the main clause has not got anything to do with the contents of the main clause, but is of a structuring nature. The initial constituent indicates that the next paragraph will deal with subjects that have not been dealt with so far. I refer to this use of Theme or Fronted Topic as 'discourse structuring function'.

3. Fronted constituents and the discourse The fronted constituent in a wider perspective combines two functions; on the one hand, it structures the discourse like a connector does and on the other it 'frames' the contents of the following text like a Topic.

M.H. SOMERS

156

This 'structuring function' of fronted constituents is not limited to examples like (14). It is also recognisable when at first sight only the 'framing function' seems present: (15)

Quod ad rempublicam pertinet, omnino multis diebus expecta­ t i o n eGallorum actum nihil est (ad Fam. 8.8.4)

Respublica does belong to the reader's presupposition pool, but it does not provide the reader with a useful relevant frame. In a political letter respublica is far to vague a limitation for the main clause. Consequently, the fronted constituent does not merely indicate 'Attention, from now on the republic is the main issue !' but also indicates: 'Attention, the last item has been dealt with and nov a new issue is going to be the main one.' I must admit that in some cases the two functions seem hardly dis­ tinguishable. However, a definition that acknowledges both functions, and describes them as complementary, (the 'structuring function' more promi­ nent whenever the 'domain' is too wide to put a relevant frame around the main clause), explains fronting in all cases. The following example shows both functions neatly separated: (16)

Quod rogas ut mea tibi scripta mittam, quae post discessum tuum scripserim, sunt orationes quaedam, quas Menocrito dabo, neque ita multae, ne pertimescas (ad Fam. 1.9. 23)

Quod rogas is the structuring element. It announces: 'attention, an answer to question X is now coming up' whereas Ut mea tibi scripta mittam puts the frame around the main clause's contents. Arguments in favour of this approach are the following: 1. Observations made by other scholars, such as Hoffmann's remark on quod-constructions that "it might well be that quod in sentenceinitial position is a general signal for 'Attention, here comes a new topic of discourse'." Further, Dik's most recent topic definition points out that a descrip­ tion in terms of degrees of 'topicality' and 'focality' of constituents is more in accordance with reality. Apparently descriptions in terms of 'shades' instead of rigid separations are less hard to apply to various texts and languages. 2. Most modern editors start paragraphs where Cicero uses Themes or Fronted Topics, since these constituents introduce new issues that dominate the following paragraph. Theme and Fronted topic serve as textmarkers to editors as they are supposed to do to readers. 3. Ad Fam. books 1, 2 and 3 contain 192 paragraphs. Of those para­ graphes 25% begin with some connecting device (mostly the connector

THEME AND TOPIC

157

sed or the subordinator cum), and 21% with a Fronted Constituent. The rest starts with not-fronted constituents, adverbia, greetings etc. This preference for paragraph initial position indicates that fronted constituents and connectors have something in common: their dis­ course structuring function. 4. If the Theme or Fronted Topic takes over some of the connec­ tor's function, connectors should not appear in clauses with theme or fronted constituent. This is true, except in a few cases (about 12 in my corpus of about 600 cases). In these cases, however, the use of the connector is 'thematic', as pointed out by Caroline Kroon in 1989. In her article on causal con­ nectors Kroon states that these connectors should not always be in­ terpretated causally. Kroon distinguishes, for example, two types of nam. The 'backward-linking' nam is the causal nam that provides background information to the preceding text span, while the the­ matic nam is 'forward-linking' and provides a frame for the following text span. An example of this use of nam is the following: (17)

(ad Fam. 1.9.19) Clause 1. Discourse Structuring Quod-cl&use, announcing main clause: 'Attention, I am going to tell what I've done with your requests concerning 1. Vatinius, 2. Crassus' Quod quoniam tibi exposui, facilia sunt ea, quae a me de Vatinio et de Crasso requins. Clause 2. Thematic nam: Nam de Appio (...) gaudeo consilium tibi probari meum. Clause 3. Thematic autem: De Vatinio autem, primum reditus intercesserat in gratiam per Pompeium, statim ut ille praetor est factus, cum....

At first sight autem seems to be a contrasting particle, but it contrasts two textually different text spans, not two text spans with contrasting contents. The two text spans differ textually because the section on Appius is very short (two lines), whereas the story on Vatinius goes on for the next three paragraphes. Not only nam, but sed too, can be used in such a thematic or forward linking way. Cicero often uses sed at the beginning of a paragraph. In each of these cases, sed is forwardlinking, because a new subject is brought about. When sed is used in combination with a fronted constituent, it usually serves a Structring purpose; for example when Cicero interrupts himself: (18)

Sed de illo plura coram (ad Fam. 10.32.3.)

M.H. SOMERS

158

5. The fifth argument that points to the discourse structuring func­ tion of Theme and Fronted Constituents is the absence of Themes in book 13 of ad Fam. The average amount of strict Themes per book is 12.3, on an average of 22.8 letters per book. Book 13 has 10 cases of Theme on 80 letters. This means that in book 13 the 'Theme-rate' is 12,5%, whereas the average Theme-rate is 55%. The explanation for this radical difference is that book 13 consists entirely of letters of recommandation. All letters are highly formal; identical construc­ tions and clauses appear regularly. The letters all deal with one issue and serve one purpose only. Their structure is fixed and uncompli­ cated. Apparently, when the structure of a discourse is unambiguous, structuring elements like Themes are not needed.

4. Theme and fronted topic The examples from Cicero's letters, and an analysis of the structure of these letters showed that Theme is the most extreme form of fronting, not only in the matter of syntax, but in the matter of pragmatics too. Everything I stated about Fronted Topic can be applied to Theme as well. The difference between Theme and Fronted Topic, therefore, is not a binary one, but is one of 'shades'. The use of Theme instead of Fronted Topic depends on the following, discourse-related parameters: — Syntax of the main clause, — The type of Focus in the main clause, — The topic chain of the discourse involved, — The text type involved. These parameters will be discussed briefly. 4.1. Syntax A Fronted Constituent is unambiguously outside the syntactic construc­ tion of a clause when that clause possesses an anaphorical element, corefer­ ential with the Fronted Constituent. Coreferential elements seem to occur more often when the syntax of the main clause is more complex. An ex­ ample: (19)

Quod te a Scaevola peiisse dicis, ut dum tu abesses, ante adven­ tum meum provinciae praeesset, eum ego Ephesi vidi fuitque mecum familiariter triduum illud, quod ego Ephesi commemoratus sum, nec ex eo quicquam audivi, quod sibi a te m a n d a t u m diceret (ad Fam. 3.5.6.)

THEME AND TOPIC

159

In a simple phrase like (20) an anaphorical element does not occur: (20)

De Philoiimo

faciam equidem ut mones {ad AU. 7.3.7)

An anaphorical element occurs when the fronted constituent cannot in any way be a constituent of the main clause, as in the following examples: (21) (22)

De Parthis quod quaeris, fuisse nullos puto {ad Farn. 3.8.10) De Tadiana re, mecum Tadius locutus est te ita scripsisse, nihil esse... {ad AU. 1.1.5).

Generally speaking, simple syntactic constructions only have an anaphori­ cal element/Theme when the fronted constituent can not be a complement in the main clause. Complex syntactical elements usually have an ana­ phorical element when confusion would rise without it, for example when a Speaker wants to pick up the thread after a long subordinate clause. 4.2. Focus Dik distinguishes 6 different types of focus, a distinction based on the difference between Speakers and Hearers information (Dik 1989). The folloxing types are distinguished: Figure A: Confirming Focus Additive Focus Expanding Focus Selective Focus Restrictive Focus Replacive Focus

INFO H. X

/

X X or Y XandY X

INFO S. X! X X+Y X X Y

EXPRESSION definitely X. X Y too X! only X not X but Y

In this figure the gap between Speaker's and Hearer's information is small in the first, and large in the last type of Focus. Therefore, the types of Focus above get gradually 'stronger'. The relation between types of Focus and use of Theme is as follows: The larger the gap between Speakers and Hearers information, the more frequent the use of Theme. I checked Focus types of four books of ad Att. (1,3,5 and 7). The results are in figure B: Figure B: Total amount of Theme: 22, total amount of Fronted Topic: 37 Theme: Fr.T.:

CONF. 4 9

ADD. 7 17

EXR 6 8

SEL. 0 0

RESTR. 1 0

REPL. 4 1

DOUBT. 0 2

M.H. SOMERS

160

In the 'weaker' types of focus (on the left-hand side of the figure), the use of fronting is more frequent than the use of Theme, whereas on the right-hand side, with 'strong' types like Restrictive or Replacive focus the use of Theme is more frequent. Some examples: (4) (23)

De litterarum missione, sine causa abs te accusor (ad Att. 1.5) REPLACIVE. Quod scribis te velle scire, qui sit reipublicae status; summa dissensio est, sed contentio dispar (ad Fam. 1.7.10) FRONTING, ADDITIVE.

4.3. Topic chain The construction of the topic chain influences the use of Theme in a more explicit way. Van de Grift (1987) distinguishes several types of topic, a system based on the structure of the discourse. New topics, for example, are constituents that carry information not referred to before. Resumed topics reintroduce elements into the discourse, and Subtopics carry infor­ mation inferrable from another topic. The topic chain consists of all places where the same topic is mentioned. The first position of a topic chain is the first time a topic is mentioned, the second position the second time, etc. New topics and Resumed topics (the 'stronger types', as the element introduced into the text is either completely new or almost forgotten) more often appear as Themes than as Fronted Topic. Fronted Topics usually are Subtopic, or Given topic (topics that have been mentioned recently are Given Topics), as the following figure, based on the construction of all letters of ad Fam. book 7 shows: Figure C: Topic functions of Theme and Fronted Topics. FrT. Theme

TOTAL 14 10

NewT. 5 9

SubT. 3 1

GivT. 5 0

ResT. 1 0

Not only the type of Topic in the clause, but the construction of the topic chain, too, is connected with the use of Theme. Both Fronted Topics and Theme show a preference for the first position of the topic chain, but the use of Theme is limited to that position (exept in one case, for which see below), while Fronted Topics can also be used in other positions, as can be seen in figure D:

THEME AND TOPIC

161

Figure D: Positions in the topic chain of Theme and Fronted Topics. TOTAL T-ch1. T-ch2. T-ch3. T-ch4 etc. Fr.T. 14 6 3 3 2 Theme 10 9 1 0 0

The only case of the use of Theme in another than the first position of the topic chain can easily be explained with the help of the other parameters: (24)

Quod Hirtio invideres, nisi eum amares non erat causa invidendi, nisi forte ipsius eloquentiae magis, quam quod me audiret invideres (ad Fam. 7.33.2)

In this clause, the use of Theme can be explained with the help of the parameter 'syntax' (the complex construction of the clause), and the pa­ rameter 'focus type' (the hearers information is Y [Hirtio invideo], and the speaker replaces this information by X: non est causa invidendi. The type of Focus, consequently, is Replacive.). 4.4. Text type Finally, the use of Fronting, and consequently the amount of Theme, are strongly connected to the text type. A few remarks: — Manuals generally are clearly structured texts. Often, each instruc­ tion is framed by a Theme that limits its range, and at the same time draws the reader's attention to the fact that a new issue is brought into the discourse. Nice examples of this use can be found in Cato, in Cicero's De Oratore, and in Vitruvius, who uses Theme for prac­ tical instructions that are related to the text's structure only, as in example (25) : (25)

De voluiarum descripiionibus (•..), in extremo libro forma et ratio earum erit subscripta (Vitr. de Arch. 3.5.8)

— The use of Theme and Fronting in historical prose is limited to very complex clauses or extremely dramatic situations, where the intended effect of surprise of the newly introduced element is important, as we saw in example (13). Hardly any examples of the use of Theme have been found in poetry. — Except for Cicero, no Latin author makes more varied use of Theme than Plautus. He uses Theme when a sudden development in the plot takes place, ergo contents-related, but also when one of his characters resumes a topic. An example of a passionate exclamation, that at the same time is an announcement, is the following:

162

M.H. SOMERS (26)

Patronus

qui vobis fuit futurus,

perdidistis (Plaut. Asin. 621)

More research has to be done on t h e use of T h e m e in P l a u t u s because of its frequency and variety.

5. Conclusion A strict binary division between T h e m e and Fronted Topic is not applica­ ble to Latin. In Latin the difference between T h e m e a n d Fronted Topic is one of gradations. T h e use of T h e m e a n d Fronted Topic can not be ade­ quately described on sentence-level only, because it is strongly connected to t h e discourse. O n t h e clause-level, when the use of T h e m e is preferable to t h a t of Fronted Topic it is because of reasons of Syntax and focus-type. We have seen t h a t t h e function of T h e m e and Fronted Topic on t h e discourse-level is Connective in n a t u r e ; here, T h e m e a n d Fronted Topic provide the discourse with structure. O n Discourse-level too, T h e m e is the most extreme form of fronting. Its use is connected with the type of topic, its position in the topic chain a n d t h e text type.

Notes 1.

Dik first defined 'Theme' in 1978. The second volume of the revised version of FG is to appear on short notice. The definition of Theme this article is based upon is in a preliminary version of this version of FG, that came out in 1987.

2.

Theme is not part of the syntactic construction of the clause, and therefore not limited to the verb's selection restrictions. For example: A prepositional group with de cannot be constructed with a verb like suscipere; a de construction is outside this verb's selection restrictions. Therefore, De me autem in the following example is a Theme: D e m e a u t e m suscipe pauliisper meas partes et eum te esse finge, qui sum ego. (Cic. ad Fam. 3.12.2.) A Topic, on the other hand, is part of the syntactic construction of the clause. Consequently it is submitted to the verb's selection restrictions.

3.

See Hoffmann 1989, and Somers 1990, chapter 3.

4.

The notion 'presupposition pool' was developed in 1919 by Givón and defined in the following way: "The presupposition pool consists of terms of assumptions the speaker makes about what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge."

5.

See for applications on both systems on Latin Hoffmann 1989 and Somers 1990.

THEME AND TOPIC

163

References Bolkestein, A.M. 1981. "Pseudo Argument Formation in Latin." In: Bolkestein, A.M. Predication and Expression in Functional Grammar. London & New York: Aca­ demic Press. Brown, G. & G. Yule, 1983. Discourse Analysis. Dik, S.C. 1978. Functional

Cambridge University Press.

Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.

Dik, S.C. 1987. Inleiding Functionele Grammatica. Syllabus 'Preliminary version' for: Dik, S.C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I, The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Grift, M. van de. 1987. Zero, IS, HIC, ILLE. Pragmatic constraints on the use of Latin Subject expressions. Unpubl. M.A.Thesis. University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Clas­ sics. Hoffmann, M. 1989. "A typology of Latin Theme Constituents." In: CILL ( = de Vinstitut de Linguistique de Louvain) 15.1-4, 185-196.

Cahiers

Kroon, C. 1989. "Clausal Connectors in Latin. The Discourse function of Nam, Enim, Igitur and Ergo." In: CILL 15.1-4, 231-243. Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Pinkster, H. 1988. Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Tubingen: Francke. Prince, E. 1981. "Towards a taxonomy of given-new information." In: P. Cole (ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York. Somers, M.H. 1990. Compenseren, Structureren, Varieren. Over het Gebruik van De­ en Quod constructies in de brieven van Cicero. (Unpublished Thesis, University of Amsterdam.)

III. Subordination

Subordination and Coordination: Constructions in between Gualtiero Calboli University of Bologna

In Latin certain conjunctions in the oratio obliqua sometimes intro­ duce coordinate sentence with an Acl, whereas either outside of the oratio obliqua or habitually even in the oratio obliqua they introduce subor­ dinate sentences. They are the temporal cum in the form cum interim, clauses of comparison introduced by quemadmodum (ut) ... sic (ita), the so-called "connecting relative (Anschlußrelativ, relatif de liaison)". With these syntactic types the AcI in the oratio obliqua is frequent enough, but we generally find the subjunctive and other forms. Only the connecting re­ lative is always used with AcI in a dependent structure and particularly in the oratio obliqua. There are also other constructions where the AcI in the oratio obliqua occurs, albeit seldom, as in the causal clauses introduced by quod, quia, quoniam, concessive clauses with etsi, quamquam, hypothe­ tical clauses introduced by nisi forte, si non and one temporal clause in the form ante ... quam. See now some examples from Kühner-Stegmann 1955: II 3 546 f., and Hofmann-Szantyr 1972: 361: (1) a.

Liv.4.51.4 nequiuere tarnen consequi ut non aegerrime id plebs ferret: iacere tarn diu inritas actiones quae de suis commodis ferrentur, cum interim de sanguine ac supplicio suo latam legem confestim exerceri et t a n t a m uim habere (cf. also 3.37.5 [Histo­ ric Infinitive]; 6.11.4 [Subj.]; 6.27.6 [AcI]; 26.50.3. [Subj.]; 29.15.3 [Subj.], TLL VII,1, 2184,70-79).

b.

Liv.1.13.8 [Porsinna] prae se ferre [Historic Infinitive] quemadmo­ dum, si non dedatur obses, pro rupto foedus se habiturum:, sic deditam [Cloeliam] inuiolatamque ad suos remissurum.

168

G. CALBOLI c.

Cic.fin.3.64 censent [...] unum quemque nostrum eius mundi esse partem; ex quo illud natura consequi, ut communem utilitatem nostrae anteponamus (about the connecting relative cf. Touratier 1980: 408-452; Calboli 1985).

d.

Bell.Hisp. 22.7 serui transfugae nuntiauerunt oppidanorum bona uendere <edictumque>, ne cui extra uallum liceret exire, idcirco quod ex quo die oppidum Ategua esset captum, metu conterritos complures profugere Baeturiam (cf. Pascucci 1965: 271) Colum.1.3.9 acutissimam gentem Poenos dixisse conuenit inbecilliorem agrum quam agricolam esse debere, quoniam, cum sit conluctandum cum eo, si fundus praeualeat, adlidi dominum.

e.

Cic.diu.2.68 censes ante coronam herbae extitisse quam concept u m esse semen?

I have already dealt with the "connecting relative" in my paper at Aixen-Provence wich may be found in the "Actes" of that congress. Today however I am interested in three aspects of this problem: (1) it is in the oratio obliqua that we find those constructions which have been rightly classed by Kühner-Stegmann as "Modus der Nebensätze in der obliquen Rede" and, while the use of the AcI construction has been greatly exten­ ded in the Latin language, the vulgar Latin ended up by abandoning the oratio obliqua. Moreover the use of the infinitive with these subordinate clauses is more extensively used in Greek than in Latin as has already been observed by Kühner-Stegmann (1955: II 3 547) referring to Kühner-Gerth (1955:II4 550-552). Therefore, we can say that these clauses, are in a spe­ cial condition regarding the Infinitive. (2) The spoken language and even more the vulgar language shows in many examples that it is inclined to use the parataxis more than the hypotaxis. (3) The originally correlative form of several of these constructions and in particular of the relative clauses also supports the hypothesis that they arise from an original parataxis which occurs again at the first occasion, or at least a parataxis inside a diptych of correlative clauses which we may recognize in the relative clau­ ses and in many constructions which come from relative constructions. On the other hand the concept of 'barrier' in the 'Government and Binding Theory' as originated in subordinated clauses by the blocking category of INFLECTION and inherited by the complementizer phrase, is, in fact, only a statement. For we must explain, at least as regards Latin, what the INFLECTION is, where we find a blocking category with the Indicative, but not with the Infinitive nor with the Subjunctive (cf. Calboli, in print). Therefore we recognize a relationship between Infinitive and Subjunctive in the Oratio Obliqua, which makes the shift from subjunctive to infinitive we are dealing with easier.

SUBORDINATION AND COORDINATION

169

From the point of view of general linguistics I wish to consider the recent work by Hesse and Küstner (1985) and particularly the latest article by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991). The general idea we draw from this book is that coordinate clauses may be described by a bundle of segments which are bound together by different knots ('Knoten') so as to generate different edges ('Kanten') and to have some segments or at least one point in common. In cases like our examples we have only one point in common (cum interim, quemadmodum ... sic, quod, et): (2)

Der Mann ißt und trinkt und die Frau arbeitet

(Hesse-Küstner)

The first clause always has in a coordinated construction something in common with the following clause, at least one element, et, while tending to link together more than one point or segment. From the model worked out by Groenendijk and Stokhof, which is called 'dynamic predicate logic', it seems to me that one principle can be used to explain our problem, i.e. the problem of how coordinated sentences are linked together. That prin­ ciple has been summarized by both Dutch scholars in the following way: "A distinctive feature of D(ynamic] Predicate] L[ogic] is that it allows for existential quantifiers to bind variables which are outside their syntactic scope" (Groenendijk-Stokhof 1991: 58). Let illustrate this with a simple example: (3)

A man walks in the park. He whistles

or, by adapting the example to our problem of coordination: (4)

A man walks in the park and he whistles

These structures can be translated as (5): (5)

3x [ man(x) A walk in dijk-Stokhof 1991: 41)

the

park(x)] ^ whistle(x) (Groenen­

G. CALBOLI

170

In other words the segment whistle(x) is outside the scope of the existential quantifier (3), but nevertheless this segment is bound to it. That explains why we find a change of article in the following sentences and this happens not only in Italian, French and Spanish, but also in English and German: (6) a. b.

Un uomo passeggia nel parco e l'uomo fischia A man walks in the park and the man whistles

In the first sentence, namely The man walks in the park, only one indi­ vidual of the set of men is taken into account by using the article A to be interpreted with an existential quantifier (3). It is said of him that he walks in the park and in this way the set of men who are walking in the park at this moment is identified. Then we consider all members of the set of men who are walking in the park at this moment by employing a universal quantifier (V) which is present in the article the, and we add with the second sentence (and the man whistles) that they whistle. In fact only one man is whistling in the park at the present time, because the set we considered consists of only one man. So in the first sentence the article a is employed and only an existential quantifier is used in its formula, whereas in the second sentence we use the article the which includes in its logical formula both an existential and an universal quantifier, as appears from the well-known formula Montague 1974 employed to explain the article the (see number (7)) and from the interpretation of the same the article by Cushing 1977 (number (8)): (7) (8)

P{y}] (Montague 1974: 261) Cushing translates the sentence: The theorem has been proven, in this way: (a) (E X )(B(x)A-(Ey)(B(y)^y≠x)) (b) (Vx)(B,A), where B = is a theorem, A = has been proven "(The x) (B,A) is true, if (a) and (b) both hold: false, if (a) holds but (b) does not" (Cushing 1977: 70)

Therefore we also find a referential connection in the very simple coordina­ tion with et and even in the case of asyndeton. The model elaborated by Groenendijk and Stokhof can be used to relate to a term of the first sentence a term of the second expressed by a pronoun like hic, iste, ille, is which in Latin, lacking the article, corresponds to the article the in example (6b). The connecting relative, however, which occurs so frequently in Latin, holds the idea of connection in its own lexical form. From here Touratier (1980: 444 f.) has considered the connecting relative as a kind of subordination. I think that clauses introduced by a connecting relative are to be put between subordination and coordination. However they are, in

SUBORDINATION AND COORDINATION

171

my opinion, nearer to coordination, because, first, they are always placed after t h e m a i n sentence, while t h e s t a n d a r d relative clauses are placed either before or after the m a i n sentence a n d t h e anticipation seems to be t h e oldest construction. It is in fact t h e largely prevailing position we find in Hittite (cf. Held 1957: 15; L e h m a n n 1984: 369; Luraghi 1990: 78) a n d especially because t h e sentences introduced by a connecting relative are always p u t in t h e Infinitive, whereas this construction with t h e other clauses we are dealing with is normally quite rare. To conclude this aspect I would like to mention t h a t also Pinkster (1988: 45) rightly pointed out t h a t coordination is necessary between constituents where t h e same semantic a n d syntactic functions hold. T h a t is — I interpret — coordination t e n d s towards linking or, p e r h a p s b e t t e r , needs some kind of linking. Now we come back to Latin. As regards t h e clauses quoted above ( l a - e ) we find in H o f m a n n Szantyr (1972: 361) t h e same explanation as in K ü h n e r - S t e g m a n n , i.e. t h a t AcI is employed if t h e clause is considered as independent: "Nebensätze t r e t e n regelmäßig in den Konj. [...] in den Inf. nur da, wo der unterge­ o r d n e t e C h a r a k t e r des P r o n . oder der Konjunktion verblaßt ist, wie in cum - tum, ut sic (Cic.Cluent. Tac.hist.1,17,2, vgl. Liv.2,13,8 al.), ante ... quam (Cic.div.2,68), si non - tarnen (z.B. Liv.4,3,3)". Neverthe­ less H o f m a n n - S z a n t y r add a very i m p o r t a n t element which is connected with vulgar a n d spoken Latin: "In wirklicher U n t e r o r d n u n g ist der Inf. grundsätzlich vulgär u n d selten zu finden: vgl. Cic.inu.2,27 (quia si dubitarit summae fuisse amentiae dubia spe impulsum certum in periculum se committere / t h e manuscripts Integri give the reading quod, therefore quodsi/); schwer zu erklären ist Cic.Att.2, 24,3". This last example of Cicero deserves a full quotation: (9) Cic.Att.2.24.3 Deinde quos in senatu ne tenuissima quidem suspicione attigerat, eos nominauit, L. Lucullum, a quo solitum esse ad se mitti C.Fannium, ilium qui in P. Clodium subscripserat, L. Domitium, cuius domum constitutam fuisse unde eruptio fieret.

It isn't easy to recognize t h e two connecting relatives here. It would seem t h a t one construction has been superimposed on another in this way: nom­ inauit L. Lucullum et dixit ab eo solitum esse ... nominauit L. Domitium et dixit eius domum eqs., as may be suggested by Cicero's text which fol­ lows: Me non nominauit, sed dixit consularem disertum uicinum consulis sibi dixisse Ahalam Seruilium aliquem aut Brutum opus esse reperiri (it is curious t h a t already in 59 B.C., Cicero was thinking of having Ceasar killed by a B r u t u s ) . At any r a t e it would still be an extension of t h e ora­ tio obliqua. I think t h a t t h e connection of such constructions with vulgar

G. CALBOLI

172

Latin proposed by Hofmann-Szantyr is essentially right. Löfstedt too in his well-known "Philologischer Kommentar" to Peregrinatio Aeiheriae (1911: 201-203) pointed out the tendency of vulgar Latin towards parataxis and confirmed this opinion with many examples from vulgar and late Latin texts ("Es ist die uralte Neigung zur Parataxe, die im volkstümlichen Sprachleben immer wieder zum Vorschein kommt"), e.g.: (10)

Anton.Plac.Itin.34 quae dum nupta fuisset, et in ipsa nocte nuptus sui mortuus est sponsus eius.

Evidence of this usage of at employed uolgariter pro hypotaxi can be found in the excellent article by Hofmann TLL V,2, 895,81-897,27, and in Svennung 1934:170-174, where it appears that this construction, namely the parataxis with er, is frequently employed under the influence of Hebrew. Furthermore we must not forget Väänänen 1981:158 f., and especially Väänänen 1987:122-124. In these pages Väänänen explains such construc­ tions as cases of 'parahypotaxe' and I think that it is correct. I would like to add on my part two examples from the letters of Cl.Terentianus, a funda­ mental and unique document of vulgar Latin, although in these letters the syntax is not completely elementary, as I pointed out in Calboli 1990: 33: (11)

Youtie and Winter 467,8-9 s[cias] autem [ra]pi me in Syriam exit u r u m cum uexillo, / [ et poposci eum] dare mihi [eos, is] aute[m] negauit / se habere aspros ... 468, 43 sq. ed [sci]as Carpum hic errasse, ed / inu[e]ntus est Dios in legione, / et a[cce]pisse me pro illo ...

Here the first example is somewhat obscured by the gaps in the pa­ pyrus, but the second is really impressive. The writings of Hofmann (Lat. Umgangssprache 1978: 105-119, Ital­ ian translation 249-268) are fundamental for this tendency of the spoken language, which naturally has to be distinguished from the vulgar lan­ guage but which is close to it in its immediacy and simplicity. This ten­ dency to parataxis in the vulgar and spoken language can be linked to the very birth of the Latin hypotaxis and generally speaking of the Indeuropean hypotaxis. Here obviously one must move with some caution. It would seem to me, even after Lehmann's book on the relative clauses (1984), that Haudry's hypothesis (1973; 1979) on the relative clause from a diptych of the quis hoc dicit, is errat type (one says this, one (he) is mistaken) still holds, and it is a hypothesis which leaves space for an orig­ inal parataxis, but not in the sense of entirely excluding an old hypotaxis. Therefore Latin data in general may be described as follows after an Indoeuropean phase in which parataxis seems to prevail (cf. Bader 1973), the

SUBORDINATION AND COORDINATION

173

subordination was largely expanded, even if this expansion began with the diptych systeme, qui(s) ... is, quam ... tam (Haudry 1973), which through the polifunctionality of the conjunctions (Ved. yad, Av. yat, which go back Lat. quod) involved a great part to the Indoeuropean *yod and Gr, of subordination. Lühr 1989 refers to an ordinary temporal meaning and a simple was (what). In my opinion, Latin, at least through the parallelisms of cola (about which cf. Lindholm 1931) and correlative constructions like (12)

Cat.agr. 141,2-3 Quoius rei ergo agrum terram fundumque meum suouitaurilia circumagi iussi, [...] harunce rerum ergo, fundi terrae agrique mei lustrandi lustrique faciendi ergo, sicuti dixi, macte hisce suouitaurilibus lactentibus immolandis esto,

or uti legassit super pecunia tutelaue suae rei, ita ius esto (Tab. V, p. 23 Bruns, Vip.frg.l1.14), exemplifies this ancient structure of a paratacticcorrelative type (cf. Calboli 1987), which is then replaced by a liter­ ary hypotaxis. Spoken and vulgar language shows a natural tendency to paratactic constructions. These are the constructions introduced by et. Whereas cases of cum interim + Inf., quod, quia, quoniam + Inf. etc. ((1) a-e) and the AcI with the connecting relative are constructions which can be attributed only in part to the same phenomenon, because in reality with them there is an extension of the Infinitive as a prevailing form of the oratio obliqua. In this last case hypotaxis is not abandoned, but shifted be­ cause of the rule seen above of "dynamic predicate logic", which allows an extension of reference in coordinate clauses and, consequently, a connec­ tion, even when the syntactic connection represented by the subjunctive disappears. From a morphological point of view we have a subjunctive — infinitive inversion, based on the close referential relationship of the two constructions. But the parallelism reappears in quemadmodum (ut) ... sic (ita), si non ... ita, cum interim, where the parallelism is in the lexical forms themselves. Particular cases are quia + Infinitive, which appears to behave like the German denn, the English for, the French car, and the Italian perché and the "connecting relative". Now how can these Latin data be adapted to a modern theory of coordination and what light can be thrown on them by such a theory? We have to distinguish very carefully between the extension of the parataxis to the detriment of the hypotaxis as a typical phenomenon of the vulgar and spoken language and the use of AcI with the types men­ tioned above. A certain connection exists between the two phenomena, but the use of AcI greatly facilitates the abandonment of the hypotaxis. In fact one returns to the tendency, pointed out by Hesse and Küstner (1985) according to which two coordinate clauses tend to have knots and

G. CALBOLI

174

edges in common. W h a t is more, t h e difference between p a r a t a x i s (AcI) a n d hypotaxis (subjunctive) in t h e oratio obliqua does not require very different t r e a t m e n t . For certain aspects like reference and t h e use of pro­ n o u n s a n d reflexives the condition of t h e two forms is t h e same (cf. my p a p e r in p r i n t ) . A n d again in t h e case of quod, quia, quoniam we have an assimilation to nam, enim, etenim, namque, and, applying t h e principle of t h e 'speech act' of Searle a n d Austin, it is simply t h a t t h e cause is pre­ sented as provided by t h e subject of t h e verb 'say' which introduces t h e entire oratio obliqua, not by t h e subject of the m a i n sentence (e.g., in (1d), t h e causal connection is conform to the thinking of t h e serui tranfugae a n d not of the a u t h o r s of the edictum). W h e n there is no difference between these subjects, t h e n the function of n a r r a t o r of the subject of t h e verbum dicendi prevails over t h a t of arguer, or b e t t e r , the speaker intervenes, pre­ senting t h e fact as a statement, not directly linked to t h e a r g u m e n t a t i o n of t h e subject of t h e m a i n sentence, as an interesting example of Sallust illustrates: (13)

Sall. lug.100.5 quod multi per ambitionem fieri aiebant: quod a pueritia consuetam duritiam et alia, quae ceteri miserias uocant [intervention of the speaker], uoluptati habuisse.

Here t h e codices give quod, b u t the editors delete it, or like E r n o u t , change habuisse into habuisset. K o e s t e r m a n n (1971: 354) alleges in favour of t h e deletion of quod t h e plausible reason of the awkwardness of t h e quod which immediately precedes it. But K o e s t e r m a n n ignores t h e fact Sallust in Bel­ lum Iugurthinum imitates Cato's Pro Rhodiensibus to a great extent (cf. Calboli 1986), where we read, fr.1 Quod mihi nunc magnae curae est, quod haec res tarn secunde processit. Regarding the "connecting relative" I shall repeat w h a t I already men­ tioned at Aix-en-Provence (1985): namely t h a t this "connecting relative" carries out t h e very function of the article. So in all these constructions, you can see a more or less direct intervention of t h e speaker which some­ times, as in t h e parataxis of the vulgar language, upsets a linear devel­ opment of t h e argumentation. And the consequences of this extension of p a r a t a x i s in the vulgar language are evident. While in t h e oratio obliqua t h e AcI or t h e subordinate subjunctive does not have a different effect on t h e reflexives a n d t h e pronouns, the parataxis with t h e indicative cer­ tainly contributes to extending t h e reference pronouns as ille which have a n anaphoric function. It is the same development of t h e language which takes place with t h e expansion of t h e indicative to t h e detriment of t h e AcI in s t a t e m e n t s , about which H e r m a n (1967: 91) has so rightly written: " E n ce qui concerne la subordination, il y a u n seul véritable changement

SUBORDINATION AND COORDINATION

175

de structure, mais celui-là est essentiel: il s'agit de l'extension de l'emploi des subordonnées complétives à des domaines qui étaient réservés [...] aux subordonnées infinitives", a question today well illustrated by Cuzzolin (in print). And this requires an increase in the use of deictic-demonstrative pronouns, because of the mechanism of the "dynamic predicate logic" mentioned above. In its turn in the oratio obliqua the expansion, although quite modest, of the infinitive, demonstrates the difficulty of speakers in handling the oratio obliqua correctly, above all speakers of vulgar Latin, and so the oratio obliqua effectively tends to disappear, cf. my papers in print; and the examples like: (14)

Petr.97.10 se uero nihil aliud quam fugitiuum suum dixit [sc. Ascyltos] quaerere, mortem nec hominis coneupisse, nec supplicis, utique eius quem < e t i a m > post fatalem rixam habuit carissimum (cf. Petersmann 1977: 292, and the study by Feix 1934: 69-73, about the oratio recia-oratio obliqua in Petronius).

Thus the structure of the language witnesses the extension of the interventions of the speaker and an incentive to coordination. Regarding the history of Latin and the fact that it tends towards Romance Languages, this process, above all but not exclusively, in vulgar Latin contributes to the reduction of the badly-handled oratio obliqua, to a simplification of the subordinating connectors and to a wider use of pronouns and pronounarticles which remain the last link in a spoken chain which is becoming increasingly looser. I conclude, therefore, that we have constructions which are half-way between subordination and coordination, but with an everwidening presence of coordination which, associated with an expansion of statement clauses with a finite mode, greatly modifies the entire structure of the Latin language.

References Bader, F. 1973. "Lat. N E M P E , P O R C E O et les fonctions des particules pronominales." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 68, 27-75. Calboli, Gu. 1985. "Relatif de liaison et absence d'article en latin." In: Chr. Touratier (ed.) Syntaxe et Latin, 361-381. Aix-en-Provence & Marseille: Université de Provence & J. Laffitte. Calboli, Gu. 1986. "I modelli dell'arcaismo: M. Porcio Catone." AIΩN

8, 37-69.

Calboli, Gu. 1987. "Die Syntax der ältesten lateinischen Prosa." In: A. Giacalone RaConfer­ mat, O. Carruba & G. Bernini (eds.) Payers from the 7th International ence on Historical Linguistics, 137-150. Amsterdam Sz Philadelphia: Benjamins. Calboli, Gu. 1990. "Vulgärlatein und Griechisch in der Zeit Trajans." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Latin vulgaire - latin tardif II, 23-44. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

176

G. CALBOLI

Calboli, Gu. (Forthcoming.) "Subjonctif et réfléchi dans la proposition déclarative: du latin au roman." To appear in: Vsus, Melanges en Honneur de M. Lavency. Louvain-la-Neuve. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Cushing, S. 1977. The formal semantics of quantificators. Bloomington, Indiana: Indi­ ana University Linguistic Club. Cuzzolin, P. (Forthcoming.) "Sulle prime attestazioni del tipo dicere quod." To appear in: Archivio Glottologico Italiano. Feix, J. 1934. Wortstellung und Satzbau in Petrons Breslau: R. Nischkowsky.

Roman.

Inaugural-Dissertation.

Groenendijk, J. &; M. Stokhof. 1991. "Dynamic Predicate Logic." Linguistics losophy 14, 39-100.

and Phi­

Haudry, J. 1973. "Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine." Bulletin la Société de Linguistique de Paris 68, 147-186.

de

Haudry, J. 1979. "L'antéposition de la relative en indo-européen." La Linguistique 101-110.

15,

Herman, J. 1967. Le latin vulgaire. «Que sais-je?». P U F , Paris. Hesse, H. & A. Künstner. 1985. Syntax Akademie Verlag.

der koordinativen

Verknüpfung.

Berlin:

Hofmann, J.B. 1978. Lateinische Umgangssprache. 4. Auflage, Heidelberg: C. Winter (Trad, ital. a cura di L. Ricottilli. 1980. Bologna: Patron). Hofmann, J.B. & A. Szantyr. 1972. Lateinische Beck.. Koestermann, E. 1971. C. Sallustius Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Syntax und Stilistik.

Crispus, Bellum Iugurthinum.

Kühner, R. & B. Gerth. 1955. Ausführliche Grammatik lehre. 4. Auflage, Leverkusen: Gottschalk.

zur Erweiterung

Löfstedt, E. 1911. Philologischer Kommentar suchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1962).

von

Sprache:

der lateinischen

Lehmann, Ch. 1984. Der Relativsatz, Typologie seiner Strukturen, tionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr. Studien

Erläutert

der griechischen

Kühner, R. & G. Stegmann. 1955. Ausfrührliche Grammatik Satzlehre. 3. Auflage, Leverkusen: Gottschalk.

Lindholm, E. 1931. Stilistische chen. Lund: Gleerup.

München: C.B.

im

Satz­

Sprache:

Theorie seiner

der Satzglieder

E.K.

Funk­

Lateinis­

zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae, Unter­ Sprache. Uppsala ( = Wisseschaftliche

Lühr, R. 1989. "Ist die Basiskategorie T E M P O R A L als Ausgangspunkt für konjunktionale Bedeutung ein Universale?" Historische Sprachforschung 101, 153-173. Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy, Selected Papers of R.M. Edited and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Pascucci, G. 1965. [C. Iulii Caesaris] Bellum Hispaniense, e Commento, a cura di G.P. Firenze: Le Monnier.

Introduzione,

Testo

Critico

Petersmann, H. 1977. Petrons Urbane Prosa, Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Text (Syntax). Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wiss., Philos.-Hist. KL, 323. Bd.

SUBORDINATION AND COORDINATION Pinkster, H. 1988. Lateinische

Syntax und Semantik.

177

Tübingen: Francke Verlag.

Svennung, J. 1934. "Lateinische Nebensätze ohne Subordinationswort." Glotta 22, 163-193. Touratier, Chr. 1980. La relative. Essai de théorie syntaxique (à partir de faits latins, français, allemands, anglais, grecs, hébreux, etc.). Paris: Klincksieck. Väänänen, V. 1981. Introduction

au latin vulgaire. 3 e m e édition. Paris: Klincksieck.

Väänänen, V. 1987. Le journal-épître d'Egerie (Itinerarium Egeriae). Etude linguis­ tique, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser.B, Tom. 230. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Youtie, H.Ch. &; J. Garret Winter (eds.). 1951. Papyri and Ostraca from Karanis, Second Series, Vol.VIII. Ann Arbor &; London: The University of Michigan Press Sz G. Cumberlege, Oxford University Press.

Mode verbal et syntaxe de subordination Paulo De Carvalho Université Michel de Montaigne - Bordeaux

A Huguette FUGIER, ut perspiciat se non surdo cecinisse

L'objet du présent exposé n'est pas, on s'en doute, la découverte d'un fait nouveau. Ce n'est pas même une étude mettant en évidence, dans un domaine particulier de la grammaire ou de l'histoire du latin, de faits jusqu'ici inaperçus, ou une lecture nouvelle d'une construction, d'un mot, d'une forme. Plus modestement, je bornerai mes ambitions ici à une pro­ position de réinterprétation théorique de faits archiconnus, encore que pas toujours bien compris. Cette proposition, qui précise et développe la démarche esquissée dans une étude déjà relativement ancienne (P. De Carvalho, 1985b), sur la représentation du "présent" latin, sous-tendait, déjà, ma communication de Bologna (1985c), sur la syntaxe des uerba dicendi et affectuum. Elle s'inscrit désormais dans une optique comparative des structures morpho­ syntaxiques du latin et des langues romanes, qui représente ma contri­ bution personnelle aux activités de l'Equipe de Recherche en Syntaxe et Sémantique de mon Université. Et son but ultime est de faire apparaître, à propos du fonctionnement des oppositions modo-temporelles du latin, la continuité profonde, essentielle, qui existe, d'après moi-même et quelques autres, entre les catégories morphologiques d'une langue, les principes de son organisation syntaxique et, en fin de compte, les significations produi­ tes par les énoncés qui résultent de cette activité morpho-syntaxique.

180

P. DE CARVALHO

Mode verbal et personne J e partirai, bien entendu, de la chronogenêse de G. Guillaume, telle qu'elle est exposée principalement dans Temps et Verbe et dans L 'architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques. Car c'est en psycho-mécanique du langage que l'on s'est le plus, et le plus systématiquement, a t t a c h é à faire a p p a r a î t r e u n r a p p o r t entre, d'une p a r t , les variations modo-temporelles du m o t verbal et, de l'autre, les variations de sens des énoncés les m e t t a n t en oeuvre. Ce n'est évidemment pas le moment de passer en revue p a r le m e n u les nombreuses théories proposées pour rendre compte du fonctionnement des modes verbaux en latin. Disons, pour résumer, que celles dont j ' a i au moins quelque connaissance — les moins nombreuses — ont en c o m m u n u n e démarche de type " i n t e r p r é t a t i f : étant donné tel emploi observable dans tel énoncé ou telle classe d'énoncés, il s'agit de déterminer, p a r l'analyse, de quoi, dans cette phrase achevée, il porte témoignage. E n d'autres termes: d a n s cette perspective, u n e forme verbale relevant des catégories modales — p a r exemple une forme de "subjonctif' ou d'"infinitif' — apparaît toujours comme u n exposant, ou comme l'expression, de quelque chose, qui se passe pour ainsi dire au-dessus, ou au-dessous, d'elle, en-dehors et i n d é p e n d a m m e n t d'elle. Ce quelque chose peut-être une valeur logico-sémantique: "potentiel", "irréel", "éventuel", "volitif, "jussif, "deliberatif", voilà, p a r exemple, p o u r le "subjonctif' latin, des concepts — certains diraient des "effets de sens" — reconnus et consacrés par une longue tradition, que Christian Touratier (1977 et 1982), d'une certaine manière, ne m a n q u a i t pas de va­ lider, en son t e m p s , fût-ce en s'employant à ramener cette diversité d'effets de sens, à deux unités minimales de signifié, ou morphèmes. O u bien ce quelque chose est-il une modalité phrastique, ou énonciative — 'logique" ou bien 'impressive", voire le résultat du croisement d'une valeur et d'une m o d a l i t é phrastique — et je pense, on l'aura compris, aux démarches, res­ pectivement, de A. Garcia Calvo (1960) et de L. Rubio (1976), qui avaient du moins, sur la précédente, le double mérite de viser u n e unité significa­ tive et, s u r t o u t , de chercher celle-ci dans les conditions m ê m e de genèse de la phrase. Reste que, p a r t o u t , l ' a t t i t u d e à l'égard de la morphologie est la m ê m e , qui consiste à postuler, implicitement — et "arbitraire du signe" aidant — qu'il n'existe entre ce qui est "exprimé", ou "exposé", et son "exposant" — je veux dire, l'existence même de celui-ci, et sa struc­ t u r e — aucune relation de nécessité ni dépendance. Et l'on remarquera, d ' a u t r e p a r t , qu'en tout état de cause le fonctionnement des catégories

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

181

modales est généralement tenu soigneusement à l'écart de la question de la s t r u c t u r e de la phrase, comme s'il y avait là deux choses i n d é p e n d a n t e s , en principe, l'une de l'autre, m ê m e lorsqu'on admet que l'une peut être au service de l'autre. C'est ainsi qu'aussi bien Rubio que Touratier ont estimé devoir étudier séparément les modes en proposition i n d é p e n d a n t e et dans les subordonnées, en postulant, p a r conséquent, que le m o d e et la s t r u c t u r a t i o n de la phrase se jouent sur deux plans distincts. Il n ' e n va pas différemment, sauf erreur, des descriptions de t y p e "transformationnel", que préfigurait déjà, en u n certain sens, u n Ch. Bally (1965=1932) décrivant, il y a une soixantaine d'années, le subjonctif français comme "un outil de transposition", dès lors, expliquait-il, qu'il "n'existe que dans les subordonnées." La tradition de la g r a m m a i r e la­ tine ne dit pas a u t r e chose, lorsqu'elle admet — comme à contre-coeur, faute d'y pouvoir reconnaître une de ses chères "valeurs" — que dans cer­ tains cas le subjonctif n'est rien d ' a u t r e q u ' u n "outil g r a m m a t i c a l " , dont l'emploi serait devenu "presque a u t o m a t i q u e " , après certaines conjonc­ tions (cum, etsi, priusquam, quamquam), à partir d ' u n certain m o m e n t coni(cf. E r n o u t - T h o m a s 1953: 293, renvoyant à Diomède: subiunctiuus, per se non exprimat sensum). unctiuus...quod De m ê m e , il paraît clair que l'on ne manifeste guère, pour le signi­ fiant verbal, et sa flexion modo-temporelle, davantage de considération, lorsque, analysant la s t r u c t u r e d ' u n énoncé complexe, on le t r a i t e comme u n reflet, dans la réalisation superficielle, de l'application de telle ou telle procédure aux composantes d'une s t r u c t u r e syntaxique ou d ' u n contenu propositionnel supposé profond (p. ex. "promotion" d ' u n objet à sujet, enchaînement "anaphorique", etc.).

Chronogénèse et personne C'est sur ce fond constant qu'il convient de poser et, sans doute, apprécier la chronogénèse de Guillaume, c'est-à-dire, selon ses propres termes, le pro­ cessus mental de construction de l'image-temps — plus précisément d ' u n e image spatialisée du t e m p s , à partir de l'espace censé lui être, notionnellement, préalable — qui, p a r étapes, les chronothèses (trois, en principe, mais sans doute pas nécessairement), livre u n t e m p s vu, successivement et respectivement, "in posse" (formes nominales, dont l'infinitif), in "fieri" (subjonctif latin) et "in esse" (indicatif): "la chronogénèse fait le verbe en partant du nom...elle est...le mouvement par lequel la pensée s'évade du plan du nom pour pénétrer chaque fois davantage dans le plan du verbe".

182

P. DE CARVALHO

Mais de la chronogénèse ne sera envisagé ici q u ' u n seul aspect, essen­ tiel, il est vrai, pour m o n propos. "Temps", "mode", "aspect", "personne", "voix": la tradition gram­ maticale est riche en catégories verbales, généralement considérées et traitées comme des entités distinctes. Or u n premier a p p o r t de l'hypothèse guillaumienne fut de réduire à une entité unique — "une seule et m ê m e chose envisagée à des m o m e n t s différents de sa p r o p r e caractérisation" (Guillaume 1965: 11) — la p l u p a r t de ces catégories. Pas toutes, cepen­ dant: la personne — dont p o u r t a n t le verbe français, et s u r t o u t latin, si­ gnifie nécessairement, p a r morphologie, la variabilité — reste, en effet, en m a r g e de cette réduction. Elle n'est pas, a priori, dans le verbe; celui-ci ne fait que "la rencontrer", au cours de la chronogénèse, et plus précisément lorsqu'intervient la chronothèse II, "in fieri", ce qui, observe Guillaume (1965, Architectonique: 29), se t r a d u i t , en latin, p a r l'incorporation de fecisset l'indication grammaticale de la personne: facere, fecisse → faceret, R e m a r q u e juste, et fort o p p o r t u n e , notons-le, mais qui obligeait à se de­ m a n d e r immédiatement pourquoi il n'en va pas de m ê m e en français, ou encore pourquoi, en portugais, cette incorporation peut se produire dès la première chronothèse, avec ce fameux "infinito pessoal" des grammaires de cette langue: fazer/fazeres, etc. Mais que devient, alors, l'idée guillau­ mienne de chronothèse comme "image plane du t e m p s " ? . De fait, cette exclusion de la personne illustre parfaitement u n e vision " a b s t r a i t e " du t e m p s , considéré — lui et son contraire, l'espace — comme u n e entité en soi, comme u n "primitif' de la pensée humaine, comme si la variabilité temporelle pouvait se concevoir i n d é p e n d a m m e n t d ' u n repère, hors relation, a priori, avec l'expérience qu'en a l'être h u m a i n . Mais il serait injuste de porter au débit de Guillaume ou de ses disciples l'invention d'une idée aussi sommaire du "temps"; elle est, plutôt, inscrite, depuis longtemps, au plus profond de la pensée occidentale. Mais j ' a d m e t s qu'il incombait aux guillaumiens, puisqu'ils en font si g r a n d usage, de s'interroger sur la pertinence de cette vision des choses, ce qui ne semble pas avoir été leur souci primordial. Un Moignet, p a r exemple, est, à cet égard, formel, qui déclare: dans le verbe, "la personne n'est pas...au coeur du système; elle est en situation périphérique". Et de poursuivre: "De fait, une forme verbale parle nécessairement de deux êtres, dont l'un, symbolisé par le radical, énonce une sémantèse prédicante, et dont l'autre, symbolisé par le morphème de la personne, mentionne un être prédiqué, concerné par la sémantèse radicale...La temporalité de la sémantèse résulte du rapport qui s'établit entre elle et son support personnel, du fait que la personne est ordinale, c'est-à-dire liée à un

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

183

ordre qui s'établit dans l'acte de langage, lequel se situe toujours, par définition, dans le présent du locuteur...La personne verbale est donc un être distinct de l'être que le verbe signifie par son radical. C'en est le point d'impact, le support d'incidence, au contraire de la personne substantivale qui n'est que la forme même de la matière substantivale." (1981: 18).

A la vérité, on peut se demander s'il n'y a pas, à l'origine de ce mode de raisonnement — concernant, dans le texte cité, la syntaxe française, mais traité, implicitement, je le crains, comme inhérent à toute morpho­ logie verbale en général — une sorte de "projection" inavouée, et même parfaitement inconsciente, de la donnée syntaxique fondamentale de la syntaxe indo-européenne moderne, portée à ses conséquences extrêmes en français et, surtout, en anglais, à savoir: la consécration de l'extériorité de la personne par rapport aux représentations aussi bien verbales que nominales que l'on peut s'en faire, d'où je fais (extériorisation de la per­ sonne variable du verbe) comme le/un chat (extériorisation de la personne invariable troisième du nom). 1 C'est sans doute cette dissociation, posée, plus ou moins ex­ pressément, comme essentielle à tout vocable verbal, qui rend compte de l'allure extraordinairement "abstraite" de la chronogénèse guillaumienne, laquelle se présente toujours chez lui, et ses disciples, comme un "édifice mental", une "architectonique" confinée dans la pensée - une pensée fonc­ tionnant en elle-même, opérant, comme dit Guillaume, sur sa propre acti­ vité, mais coupée de l'expérience, du monde et de l'histoire, ce qui, pour du temps, est quand même un comble...Et c'est là, je crois, ce qui, en partie, a fait manquer à la systématique guillaumienne le rendez-vous de la syn­ taxe — une syntaxe que, pourtant, elle portait en germe, dès le départ, une syntaxe extraordinairement puissante, parce que porteuse de signi­ fication, qui aurait pu nous épargner certains détours par d'insondables profondeurs... Je sais bien que tout le monde, parmi ceux qu'on appelle les "guillaumiens", n'est pas aussi peremptoire. Mon maître Maurice Molho, sans doute plus sensible, de par sa formation et son horizon d'hispaniste, à l'inhérence de la personne au verbe, ne manque pas de faire obser­ ver que pour que la pensée puisse construire l'image-temps, il lui faut nécessairement un référenciel, dont l'édification s'identifie à celle du tempslinguistique. Or ce référenciel n'est autre que la personne, c'est-à-dire: "un être spatial quelconque, comme le nom, auquel il peut se substituer". Mais ce référenciel — la personne — "ne s'introduit dans le verbe qu'une fois instituée, dès le premier moment du système, une image-temps satisfai­ sant à l'unique condition d'inclure l'événement dans le temps d'univers

184

P. DE CARVALHO

intégrant: il est nécessaire, en effet, pour que se déclare la personne, que se soit engagée, si peu que ce soit, la représentation du temps". Si bien, conclut-il, que, si la personne n'est pas un moment "déterminant" du système — "ce n'est pas elle qui fait le verbe, mais le temps" — elle en est quand même "un moment décisif..." (1975: I 67) Il faut cependant préciser, pour être juste, que déjà Guillaume s'était lui-même montré sensible au problème; il n'ignorait pas, bien évidemment, que la source de la notion de temps ne peut être que l'expérience qu'en a tout être humain. De fait, on perçoit, dans le cours même de l'exposé de Temps et Verbe, (= T.V., Guillaume 1965; mais cela paraît beaucoup moins accusé, sinon totalement absent, dans l'Architectonique...), comme un flottement, une tension, entre une chronogénèse "idéale", "architectonique", de pure construction abstraite du présent, et une autre, faisant du présent le modèle et la source de l'ensemble du système. Cf. en particulier T.V. (Guillaume 1965: 77-78): "Ce retour dans toutes les parties du système verbo-temporel français des mêmes prototypes tirés du seul présent indique qu'il s'agit là d'un phénomène résultant d'une nécessité primordiale et qu'il faut s'attendre, par suite, à retrouver dans toute langue, à toute époque, et dans toute l'étendue de chaque langue, en un mot universellement".

Et il n'est pas moins conscient du fait que cette espèce d'"intuition" originaire varie selon les états de langue, et que cette variation détermine la définition et le fonctionnement du système; d'où des observations fines, puissantes et opératoires, par exemple sur le caractère "efférent", et réel, du futur latin par opposition au futur "afférent", et virtuel, du grec, source d'une représentation "aoristique" qui distingue foncièrement le système grec du système latin. Si bien qu'un M. Molho, dont la thèse sur la systématique du verbe espagnol est toute fondée sur une description "géométrique", en quelque sorte, du présent espagnol, rassemblant en lui, sous la "verticalité" innovée, 1'"horizontalité" conservée du présent latin — n'est pas moins "guillaumien" que Moignet, en déclarant (1975: I 78): "La operación de cronogénesis...no es más que el proyecto de un presente por construir y cuya concepción se va construyendo de cronotesis en cronotesis...De donde se deduce que, en todos los idiomas en que existe, la cronogénesis es y no puede ser mas que lo que le impone ser la representación del presente que concibe y del que aporta las condiciones de conceptibilidad sucesivamente satisfechas: tal presente, tal cronogénesis."

L'ennui est que, chez Molho comme chez Guillaume, la définition de ce présent en reste toujours à un niveau purement logique, le lien n'étant

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

185

pas fait avec la personne grammaticale variable dont le lieu est l'instant discursif, ou, pourquoi pas, énonciatif. Ni l'un ni l'autre ne semble se r e n d r e c o m p t e que le t e m p s dont le verbe parle n'est jamais que le temps de l'être qui parle, parlant hic et nunc. P a r contre, la centralité de la "personne", elle-même "édifiée sur la base du M O I " , comme socle et foyer de l'entier du système verbal — qui a p p a r a î t alors être construit "par éloignement progressif du M O I " , selon u n "ordre génétique" — est clairement exprimée p a r J e a n - C l a u d e Cheva­ lier (1978: 41), qui fait de la relation "predicative" entre u n apport informatif et u n E t r e ordinalement variable "la première articulation interne d u vocable baptisé verbe" (1978: 17).

Pour une chronogénèse . . . "génétique" C'est, bien évidemment, cette direction qu'il faut prendre pour parve­ nir à u n e syntaxe verbale signifiante, fondée en morphologie — mais u n e morphologie traitée désormais, n o n plus comme architecture abstraite, et préalable, dont la syntaxe ne serait que la mise en oeuvre, mais plutôt comme syntaxe, ou énonciation, programmée. Mais quelques définitions s'imposent, au préalable. E t tout d ' a b o r d , naturellement, celle de la "personne". C'est la catégorie linguistique fon­ damentale, constituée par "moi" locuteur visant le "non-moi" délocuté. J'appelle "personne", autrement dit, t o u t e "unité objective" définie, "ob­ jectivée" , p a r la perception du locuteur in actu, projetant sur le continuum de l'expérience, telle u n e "ombre chinoise", l'image de sa p r o p r e disconti­ nuité. Tout acte de langage s'engage donc, et s'instaure — c'en est l'instant premier — p a r la mise en place d'un affrontement, le "face-à-face", d ' u n "moi" locuteur actif à u n "non-moi" passif, délocuté. Or ceci implique, ou autorise, u n e redéfinition, en termes " s y n t a c t i c o sémantiques", plutôt que "sémantiques", de l'opposition centrale, dans u n certain n o m b r e de langues — dont les indo-européennes — des parties de langue, ou "parties du discours", celle du n o m au verbe. O n dira donc qu'est nom t o u t signifiant produisant de la "personne" ainsi définie une représentation "atemporelle", c'est-à-dire extérieure au présent de l'expérience locutive — et, historiquement, de plus en plus extérieure, "transcendante" (ce que t r a d u i t , dans l'histoire des langues indo-européennes, l'abandon de la morphologie casuelle). E t est verbe t o u t signifiant produisant de la "personne" une représentation "tempo­ relle", " i m m a n e n t e " — et, historiquement, de moins en moins i m m a ­ nente (cf. l'extériorisation de la personne ordinale, devenue, en français,

P. DE CARVALHO

186

extérieure à la notion d'événement véhiculée p a r le vocable verbal). Le verbe est donc, en fait, u n " n o m " , mais le nom d'une personne plongée dans le devenir, et, pour commencer, variable avec le devenir.2 La variabilité de la personne verbale serait donc le moment premier, et le plus essentiel, la première phase de la caractérisation de la substance temporelle inhérente au verbe. E n d'autres termes: le verbe commence p a r l'affirmation, p a r "moi" qui parle, de l'existence contingente d ' u n e per­ sonne primaire et activement présente, ou présentement active — celle de celui qui, en français, se n o m m e "je" ou "moi" —, et à laquelle s'opposent, successivement, une "personne seconde, présente mais passive, présen­ tement passive — le "toi", allocutaire présent et locuteur virtuel —, et, enfin, une "personne tierce" absente et définitivemente passive, en t a n t que simplement "délocutée". Mais cette "personne temporelle", "variable" selon son r a n g relati­ vement au "présent déterminé p a r m a locution", l'est aussi — deuxième figure de la variabilité des êtres et des choses signifiée p a r le mot verbal — en t a n t q u ' à son t o u r elle institue son propre "présent", son propre "lieu d'existence", distinct p a r définition du mien, et plus ou moins éloigné de celui-ci. • Différents cas se profilent, alors, de cette relation variable entre le "présent de la personne délocutée" — quelle qu'elle soit, p a r son r a n g — et le "présent de « m o i » locuteur", selon le p r o g r a m m e suivant: I. Cas FONDATEUR, le plus immédiat: le lieu "variable, tem­ porel", de la "personne temporelle" est immédiatement, directement accessible au locuteur come tel → "présent grammatical", forme sans marque temporelle, non point parce qu'il serait "hors du temps", comme on se l'imagine trop souvent, mais, plutôt, parce qu'il produit l'image première, et la plus évidente, du temps de la personne dont on parle: vocat = voca-ø-t = "il existe présentement, à ma portée imédiate, directement accessible à sa perception, un événement «donner de la voix» imputable à une personne variable qui n'est ni «moi» ni «toi» vs. II. Cas FONDES, de moins en moins immédiats, de moins en moins évidents: II. 1. Vers l'amont du programme: II.1.1.: forme temporelle de la personne dont on parle en lui par­ lant → "personne allocutive", "réellement présente". Deux sont, en latin, les cas, ou sous-cas, de cette "présence réelle": (a) P T "plus que présente" en tant que "présente hic-et-nunc", et, par conséquent, nécessaireient seconde" → "impératif présent", forme marquée négativement, par omission totale ou partielle de la désinence personnelle "délocutée" :

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION act. voca-ø- > voca, voca-te-ø > vocate, pas. mina-ø-re-ø → minare, uenare, iocare, etc; (b) P T "réellemente présente", non point effectivement, "hic-etnunc", mais virtuellement, en un lieu indéterminé, de toute l'étendue du temps à venir, et dès lors plus ou moins indistinctement seconde ou tierce → l'"impératif futur": uoca-ø-to-ø → uocato, etc. II.2. vers l'aval du programme → "formes temporelles de la per­ sonne vue de moins en moins présente" : II.2.1. P T "délocutée" présente, non pas directement, sous mon regard, mais indirectement, par la trace qu'a laissée, dans ma mémoire présente, sa présence passée → "parfait" = "perfectum présent", "présent de mémoire" (Guillaume): 3 fec-ø-i "forme temporelle d'une personne présente par ce qui en subsiste de sa présence, autrement dit: par le fait institué par son faire" . II.2.2. P T "délocutée" absente "hic-et-nunc" — dans cet instant fictivement immobilisé qui me contient — mais "présente plus loin sur l'étendue du temps en devenir", et en tant que telle accessible, indirec­ tement, à mes facultés de remémoration ou de prévision → formes du "mode indicatif' : II.2.2.1: P T "délocutée" présente non pas hic-et-nunc, mais quel­ que part sur l'étendue du temps en devenir, et avant: voca-b-a-t, où -b-, est la marque du temps mobile, fluide, du "temps passant" (ef. étymologie généralement admise, rapport avec *bhwH), et -a-, la marque d'une extension temporelle, qui, dans ce con­ texte, achève de caractériser l'événement comme "passé": forme tem­ porelle d'une personne existant, comme "produisant le son de sa voix", "quelque part sur l'étendue du temps qui s'en va derrière moi". 4 II.2.2.2: P T délocutée présente non pas hic-et-nunc, et pas da­ vantage avant, donc, par élimination, après. Pour ce "cas" d'existence temporelle, trois procédures en latin: (a) *es-ø-t, par simple thématisation de la consonne et marque ø, donc: marque de présent, cp. erit / legit, et cf. esp. eres, présent qui est, étymologiquement, un futur; (b) uoca-b-ø-t → uocabit (thématisation de -b-, marque de non présent, avec marque temporelle ø); (c) faci-a/e-m/s, etc → faciam / faciet (avec alternance de mar­ ques, -a- et -e-, dont on ne peut pas dire qu'elles soient "de futur", puisqu'elles apparaissent aussi bien, l'une au passé, et les deux, alter­ nativement selon les verbes, au subjonctif). II.3 P T "délocutée" non présente en ce moment-ci, pas davantage sur l'étendue du temps vu, ou prévu, en devenir, mais "imaginairement présente", dans le "temps subjectif, interne" de "moi" qui parle, en vertu de l'aptitude de tout locuteur à concevoir, par abstraction généralisante, que le cours des choses peut, pourrait, ou aurait pu être différent de celui qu'il voit être:

187

188

P. DE CARVALHO II.3.1: P T "délocutée, imaginairement présente", en un temps in­ actuel "prospectif, c'est-à-dire dont la perspective s'ouvre devant le locuteur, en attente de vérification → "subjonctif prospectif, ascen­ dant" : voc-e-t, ag-a-t, s-i-t, fecer-i-t, etc. II.3.2: P T "délocutée, imaginairement présente", en un temps inactuel "rétrospectif', c'est-à-dire dont la perspective est désormais close, révolue, un temps virtuel dont la virtualité est déjà vérifiée → "subjonctif rétrospectif, descendant" : *voca-s-e-t > vocaret, es-se-t, fecis-s-e-t. 5 II.4: P T absente absolument, ni vue ni imaginée, mais purement "mentale", "imaginable", et dès lors indiscernable: 6 uoca-s-e-ø > uocare, fecis-s-e-ø > fecisse.

Une dernière série de propositions sous-tendant mon projet, et qui cette fois porte sur le latin en particulier, concerne la structure du mot verbal latin. Comme je l'ai maintes fois, et depuis des années, indiqué, ce que nomme un verbe latin n'est pas une "personne" identifiée, "abstraite­ ment", par "moi", dégagée, par "moi" et, par "moi", logée dans son présent mental indéfini, où "moi", toujours lui, lui impute une forme déterminée d'événement, de ce rapport résultant l'image d'un "épisode personnel", qui est la figure que prend nécessairement, mais à différents degrés, dans une langue indo-européenne moderne, toute représentation d'événement. Au contraire, en latin la "personne variable, temporelle", se présente comme contenue, comprise dans le vocable verbal, et cette configuration confère à celui-ci, du point de vue sémantique, l'allure nécessaire de nomi­ nation d'un 'phénomène — un phénomène dont on voit, d'abord, l'apport effectif, "infectum" ou "perfectum", avant d'en apercevoir, par remontée vers la source interne du phénomène, le "sujet". Celui-ci n'en est, par conséquent, qu'une dépendance interne, "primordiale" certes, mais nulle­ ment privilégiée comme support de l'événement. C'est donc, plutôt, d'un état de choses — l'état présent des choses — que nous parle un verbe latin: un état présent "pré-fabriqué" pour ainsi dire, tel qu' il se présente, "en bloc", au locuteur, émergeant du devenir qui l'a apporté et va, bientôt — un instant après, le temps d'un regard analytique — l'emporter. C'est l'entier de cette présence que "moi" rapporte à l'état du monde dans lequel il se voit lui-même contenu, et duquel il se voit n'être qu'une partie, et cet entier lui apparaîtra alors, soit "directement" accessible, c'est-à-dire "présent", soit de plus en plus distant, c'est-à-dire de moins en moins présent.

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

189

Je fais, autrement dit, et propose, l'hypothèse que la genèse du système verbal latin se joue sur une dimension, une échelle dont la base est la vision, non d'un instant fugitif, et évanescent sitôt qu'aperçu, mais d'un état (cf. De Carvalho 1985b: 375-376) et au long de laquelle se pro­ duisent des représentations de moins en moins présentes, mais, toujours, immanentes à un ordre du monde dont "moi" occupe, statiquement, et partiellement, le centre. Ainsi lorsqu'un Coseriu (1957: 15) puis un Benveniste (1974: 132) sou­ tiennent que la réfection morphologique du futur dans l'histoire ultérieure du latin et des langues romanes ne se réduit pas à un simple "renou­ vellement formel", mais, au contraire, correspond à l'invention d'une représentation nouvelle, inédite, du temps à venir — un "futur intérieur, envisagé comme une intention et une obligation morale", pour l'un, ou "futur de prédestination", pour l'autre —, je pense qu'ils sont dans le vrai. Restait seulement à dire que la motivation profonde, et proprement "linguistique", de cette innovation est la perception, de plus en plus nette, et le refus, devant des exigences culturelles nouvelles, du trait d'imma­ nence — immanence à un ordre immuable des choses — qui caractérisait le futur morphologique ancien, comme il caractérisait toutes les formes verbales du système hérité, ainsi que la recherche d'une représentation affirmative, positive, transcendante, d'un "temps" situé franchement "audelà" de l'état de choses présent (cf. De Carvalho 1987). Et l'invention, connexe, d'un "futur hypothétique" — ce traditionnel autant que mal nommé "conditionnel" des grammaires françaises - n'est rien d'autre que l'acquisition, par contrecoup, d'une manière également positive de parler de ce qui, n'ayant pas d'existence réelle ni vue ni pré-vue, devait rester, en latin, du domaine de la "présence imaginaire", ou "imaginable".

Applications: I. Le "mode impératif' latin Parmi les nombreux faits sur lesquels ce modèle descriptif permet de jeter un éclairage nouveau, je retiendrai d'abord l'impératif, ce "parent pauvre" de la théorie du verbe, comme le vocatif était, jusqu'à ces derniers temps, le "parent pauvre" de la théorie des cas. Parent pauvre, en effet, que l'impératif. Pour Guillaume, en tout cas, gêné qu'il est par le tripartisme postulé — pour des raisons, assure-t-il, plus "pragmatiques" que de principe — il n'existe tout simplement pas dans "la langue": ce n'est qu'un "mode de parole", simple utilisation discur­ sive du "présent" (d'indicatif) ou du "subjonctif'. Voilà qui conviendrait,

P. DE CARVALHO

190

sans doute, à une description du français. En effet, celui-ci ne reconnaît p r a t i q u e m e n t aucune spécificité, donc aucune existence morphologique à u n e représentation d ' " i m p é r a t i f , ou quelque n o m qu'on veuille lui donner. Mais voilà qui, appliqué au latin, s'avère immédiatement faux, et, donc, inacceptable dans une théorie générale du verbe. E n latin, chacun le sait évidemment, 1'"impératif' existe morpholo­ giquement, et plutôt deux fois qu'une, ce que nos grammaires appellent "présent" et "futur", p o r t a n t respectivement la représentation d ' u n état de choses dont la réalisation est imposée, immédiatement, dans le "hic et n u n c " de la parole, et, donc, à une personne nécessairement "deuxième", "seconde" ; et celle d ' u n état de choses dont la réalisation n'est que pro­ posée — et donc à une personne simplement "non-première". N'insistons pas sur la morphologie personnelle, t o u t e "négative", p a r défaut, de ces formes de l'impératif. Elle est t r a n s p a r e n t e : il s'agit, ju­ stement, de dire que l'on est en présence d'un effet qui n ' a pas encore t r o u v é son incidence à une personne. Arrêtons-nous, plutôt, à l'observation d ' u n petit fait d'usage généralement négligé (comme si cela allait de soi), merkbarer l'alternance, a p p a r e m m e n t arbitraire et insignifiante ("ohne Unterschied", assure K ü h n e r - S t e g m a n n ) , attestée p a r les exemples ( 1 ) (3), qui ont été pris, au hasard, p a r m i ceux donnés p a r ce manuel (I 186): (1)

—Quid me consultas quid agas? dixi equidem tibi quo facto id fieri possit clementissime. Aurum atque uestem muliebrem omnem habeat sibi quae illi instruxisti: s u m a t , h a b e a t , auferat, d i c a s q u e tempus maxume esse ut eat domum; sororem geminam adesse et matrem dicito quibus concomitata recte deueniat domum. —Qui tu scis eas adesse? —Quia oculis meis uidi hic sororem esse eius (Plaut. Mil. 1097-1101)

(2)

AMPH. — Age i tu secundum... SO. — Tuus sum: proinde ut commodumst et lubet, quidque facias (Plaut. Amph. 551 sqq.)

(3)

quaeso, inquit, Appi, primům ignosce patrio dolori, ...deinde sinas hic coram uirgine nutricem percontari (Liv. 3, 48, 4).

Au vrai le principe de l'alternance paraît évident: à l'image, "pré­ indicative", "imperative", d ' u n effet actuel que l'on veut immédiat — puisqu'il concerne directement l'action, ou la situation présente de la per­ sonne du locuteur: z, dans (2), cf. la référence à "moi" implicite dans se­ cundum] et ignosce, dans (3), cf. référence au locuteur dans patrio dolori —, s'opposent:

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

191

— d'une part, celle d'un effet actuel mais différé, dès lors qu'il ne relève qu'indirectement de "moi", de son savoir: dicito, dans (1), (cf. l'indication fournie par la réplique de l'allocutaire, dans les derniers vers); — d'autre part, celle d'un effet virtuel, renvoyé au plan existentiel de l'allocutaire, le locuteur déclarant, expressément, que cela ne l'intéresse pas: habeat, sumat, auferat, dicas, dans (1); ou bien qu'il s'en remet au bon vouloir du dit allocutaire: facias, dans (2), cf. indétermination de l'objet, et sinas, dans (3): Verginius s'adresse à un décemuir, Appius. La même explication s'applique sans difficulté aux deux odes d'Horace citées en (4) et (5): (4)

D i s s o l u e frigus ligna super foco large reponens atque benignius d e p r o m e quadrimum Sabina, o Thaliarche, merum diota... P e r m i t t e diuis cetera... Quid sit futurum cras, fuge quaerere et quem fors dierum cumque dabit lucro a d p o n e nec dulcis amores sperne, puer, neque tu choreas... (Hor.carm. 1, 9, 1-16)

et (5)

Tu ne quaesieris (scire nefas) q u e m mihi, q u e m tibi finem di dederint, Leuconoe, nec Babylonios t e m p t a r i s numeros.... Seu pluris hiernes seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam, quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare Tyrrhenum, sapias, uina liques, at spatio breui spem longam reseces. Dum loquimur, fugerit inuida aetas: carpe d i e m , quam minimum credula postero (Hor. carm. 1, 11).

Dans (4), tout le poème est dominé par l'image de la situation présente du locuteur: on devine une aimable conversation, avec quelqu'un que le poète nomme, plaisamment, peut-être avec une pointe d'ironie, "le roi du banquet", Thaliarchus, et qu'il qualifiera, à la fin, de puer, ce qui est évidemment en rapport avec la nature des conseils qu'il lui donne, mais qui, également, nous laisse entendre — c'est curieux, on ne semble pas l'avoir compris — qu'il s'agit d'un serviteur. Tout tourne donc autour du moment présent, et des priorités qu'il impose: il fait froid, fais-moi du feu, verse-moi un peu de vin, et puis il y a la douceur de l'amour et les grâces des filles, qu'il ne s'agit pas, toi qui est jeune, de dédaigner; surtout pas, en ce moment, d'angoisse métaphysique; au diable demain. L'autre ode, citée en (5), s'ouvre, elle, comme par hasard, sur tu, et est toute tournée vers l'avenir, qui semble intéresser démesurément

192

P. DE CARVALHO

l'allocutaire. Il ne s'agit donc pas d'un effet attendu dans l'immédiat, ni différé; simplement d'une attitude, qu'il faut combattre, d'où le subjonc­ tif: sapias, uina liques. Au demeurant, l'impératif réapparaît dès que se précise une référence à "moi" et qu'à nouveau le propos se trouve réduit à un affrontement "moi"/"toi": dum loquimur ...carpe diem. Quant à la tournure négative, usuelle, du début de (5), ce n'est jus­ tement pas un effet à produire présentement qu'elle vise, mais un objet qu'il faut généralement s'interdire de prendre en compte (quem finem, Babylonios numeros), d'où le subjonctif, et le perfectum: ne quaesieris, ne temptaris. De la tournure négative employant le subjonctif d'infectum, KühnerStegmann assurent (I 188) que, fréquente dans la période pré-classique (25 exs.), elle est très rare, "sehr selten', dans l'usage classique et très exceptionnelle dans la prose tardive (13 exs. en tout); en revanche, elle apparaît souvent, paraît-il, chez les poètes augustéens. L'argument sta­ tistique, même s'il ne m'est pas défavorable, ne signifie pas grand'chose par lui-même; la basse fréquence d'emploi d'une forme, d'une construc­ tion n'implique évidemment pas qu'elle ne fournit pas, bien au contraire, et par sa rareté même, une indication significative sur l'organisation et le fonctionnement du système. Sans pouvoir m'attarder ici à discuter chaque exemple, je note simplement une large prédominance, dans cet ensemble, d'expressions contenant le verbe d'existence (le verbe antieffectif par excel­ lence), de verbes "intransitifs" signifiant un déplacement du sujet, ou une attitude subjective, une réaction affective; quelques exemples présentent, certes, un verbe transitif, mais l'objet apparaît nié, virtualisé, déclaré in­ utile, etc., ou bien le contexte fait assez apparaître que le commandement négatif concerne moins l'objet dans sa présence immédiate, que le com­ portement du sujet, qu'il s'agit d'infléchir, cf. (6): (6)(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(h)

ignosce, irata ne sies (Plaut. Amph. 294) molestus ne sis (Plaut. Men. 250) proin tu ne quo a b e a s (Plaut. Men. 321) ne loquaris (Publil. 128) ne grauere (Ter. Ad. 942) —at nihil est dotis quod dem. —Ne duas (Plaut. Aul. 238) —Eo dico ne me thesauros repperisse censeas. Noui, ne d o c e a s (Plaut. Aul. 241 = "ce n'est pas la peine de me l'apprendre") prouocatur paedagogus: "eho senex minimi preti, ne a t t i g a s puerum istac causa, quando fecit strenue (Plaut. Bacch. 444-445).

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

193

Enfin, les expressions d'interdiction contenant un impératif, très fréquentes chez les Comiques, apparaissent généralement dans des contex­ tes où il est question d'un comportement déjà effectif et qu'il faut arrêter, etc., cf. (7), et Kühner-Stegmann, I 202: (7) (a) (b)

Ne l a c r u m a atque istuc quidquid est fac me ut sciam. Ne retice, ne uerere, crede, inquam, mihi (Ter. Ht. 84-85) —At tibi di bene faciant omnes! — Abi, ne iura, satis credo (Plaut. Pers. 488-490)

(c)

—Audin tu, Persa? Vbi ab hoc argentum acceperis, simulato quasi eas prorsum in nauem. — N e d o c e . (Plaut. Pers. 676-677: "arrête de me faire la leçon")

(d)

nimium ne crede colori (Verg. ecl. 2, 17)

Quelles conclusions tirer de cette rapide étude du fonctionnement du "mode" impératif latin? D'abord, on voit ce que signifie l'inexistence, d'un côté, l'existence, de l'autre, nettement marquée, d'une telle forme. Ainsi, en français, l'inexistence morphologique de l'impératif — donc, son inexistence tout court, dans la grammaire de la langue — est certainement la conséquence d'une image considérablement généralisée, non plus "statique" et "parti­ elle", mais "dynamique", "conquérante", voire "envahissante", de "moi", qui conduit à ne plus reconnaître l'autonomie existentielle d'un "non-moi" éventuellement présent, celui-ci n'existant plus désormais que subordonné à un "moi" devenu tout-puissant. Inversement, en latin, l'existence, prévue, et consacrée en morpho­ logie, de formes verbales d'impératif, signifie que, pour le locuteur, un événement qu'il ne peut qu'espérer de son allocutaire — un événement imposé ou proposé — est un événement qui, dans la situation où il se voit être, échappe à son emprise; cela équivaut, donc, à la reconnaissance de l'Autre et, plus généralement que, dans la sphère du "moi", une partie lui échappe. Et je ne peux pas m'interdire d'apercevoir, ici, l'exacte contre­ partie du système des mots démonstratifs, dont je crois avoir démontré (De Carvalho, 1990; 1991) qu'il est fondé sur la représentation d'un lieu fondamental "large", d'un "présent spatial" où "moi" coexiste avec cette première figure du "non-moi" qu'est "toi". Plus généralement, tout ceci renvoie donc à la contrepartie sémantique de l'autonomie syntaxique qui, selon moi, caractérise les constituants de la phrase latine, soit: l'autonomie sémantique des personnes face à un "moi" à courte vue et, pour ainsi dire, "à responsabilité limitée", rivé qu'il est à son expérience du moment et au "passé" qui la supporte et conditionne;

194

P. DE CARVALHO

le système casuel latin en est une expression, une a u t r e en est, on le voit, le fonctionnement du système modotemporel.

Applications: II. L'alternance modale après cum Le m o d e d'analyse qui vient d'être proposé paraît également capable d'éclairer mieux qu'on ne l'a fait jusqu'ici le fonctionnement syntacticosémantique des oppositions modotemporelles en latin. C e p e n d a n t je dois m e borner ici à deux ou trois brèves remarques concernant le m o d e sub­ jonctif, et surtout les conditions dans lesquelles il alterne avec l'indicatif auprès de certaines conjonctions, n o t a m m e n t cum. Que l'on pense, d'abord, à l'emploi — incomparablement plus b a n a l en latin que dans nos langues indo-européennes modernes — du subjonctif d a n s les prédications autonomes, ou "principales", c'est-à-dire constituées p a r la représentation d ' u n événement soumis directement à la visée d u locuteur, sans que s'intercale, entre l'un et l'autre, pouvant faire écran, u n "plan existentiel tiers", comme c'est le cas dans la p h r a s e complexe. D a n s ce cas particulier, le principe est le même, qui fait réserver, dans u n e situation donnée, une p a r t d'aléatoire. On peut dire, p a r conséquent, que dans u n e langue comme le latin il existe une sorte de subordination sémantique, interne, avant m ê m e que n'intervienne une forme quelconque de subordination syntaxique, externe. Mais celle-ci, u n e fois survenue, res­ te soumise à l'action discriminatrice de la subordination sémantique, qui peut: — soit imposer, a priori, hors discussion, la perspective "modale" (complétives d'interrogation indirecte, exprimant u n débat qui n'est p a s , directement, le fait du locuteur; subordonnées impliquant, peu ou prou, la représentation d ' u n événement qui, au locuteur, apparaît lié à l'instabilité peu rassurante du devenir: subordonnées d'éventualité: jit ut] de conséquence, etc.); — soit laisser ouverte la possibilité d'une décision a posteriori, à la charge du locuteur particulier. C'est, p a r m i plusieurs autres cas, celui des subordonnées introduites p a r ce fameux cum, dont la syntaxe ne paraît spécifique q u ' à ceux qui refu­ sent de considérer la globalité du système et de son fondement significatif; ce n'est, au contraire, q u ' u n cas, tout à fait ordinaire, de la perception du t e m p s qui informe le verbe latin. Ainsi, on p o u r r a voir, d'après les exemples (8) à (13), et par-delà t o u t raisonnement "par t r a d u c t i o n " , que le critère de l'alternance est exacte­ ment ce que faisait a t t e n d r e l'analyse proposée:

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

195

— ou bien, de l'événement à dire, ce qui est retenu est l'apport objectif, c'est-à-dire l'état de choses qu'il constitue — et celui-ci, rapporté à l'état de choses présent, dans la mesure même où il n'est qu'un "acces­ soire", ne peut qu'apparaître comme "non présent", "inactuel", et sera, par conséquent, refoulé dans la perspective modale, d'où cum + subjonc­ tif', — ou bien, de cet état de choses se dégage la vision d'un Etre, d'une singularité existentielle, bref d'un "sujet", primaire ou "second", et alors cette "personne" qui s'impose à la vision de "moi" lui apparaîtra appar­ tenir à son propre plan de réalité, quoique dans un "temps" différent: (8)

Sed quod ego nondum statuo mihi esse dicendum, uos tarnen id potestis cum animis uestris cogitare; unum hoc certe uerissime posse dicere: t u m c u m h a b e r e t haec res publica Luscinos, Calatinos, Acidinos, homines non solum honoribus populi rebusque gestis uerum etiam patientia paupertatis ornatos, et c u m erant Catones, Phili, Laelii, quarum sapientiam temperantiamque in publicis priuatisque, forensibus domesticisque rebus p e r s p e x e ratis, tarnen huiusce modi res commissa nemini est ... (Cic. leg. agr. 2,64: on remarquera la différence de dimension historique des personnages évoqués dans chaque cas, celle, aussi, des qua­ lités qui leur sont attribuées, et, enfin, que seuls les seconds se voient reconnaître le statut de "sujet" ou "protagoniste").

(9)

Quodsi tum, c u m res publica uim et seueritatem d e s i d e r a b a t , uici naturam et tam uehemens fui quam cogebar, non quam uolebam, nunc c u m omnes me causae ad misericordiam atque ad humanitatem u o c e n t , quanto tandem studio debeo naturae meae consuetudinique seruire? (Cic. Mur. 6: à noter entre la singularité "déterminée" et "concrète" du sujet de la première subordonnée, face à la généralité "indéterminée" et "abstraite" du sujet de la seconde).

(10)

num etiam P. Decius, c u m se d e u o u e r e t et equo admisso in mediam aciem Latinorum irruebat, aliquid de uoluptatibus suis cogitabat ? (Cic. Fin. 2, 61: succession de deux moments de l'existence d'un personnage, un moment "préparatoire", aussitôt "dépassé" dans la perspective du suivant, et celui-ci, où l'on voit le sujet en pleine action, cf. la détermination instrumentale ap­ portée par "equo admisso").

(11)

quae mihi res multo honorificentior uisa est, las Metelli Numidici, c u m eae, ut mos erat, nostri iudices adspicere u o l u e r u n t (Cic. AU. contraste entre le sujet réellement "inanimé" et le sujet humain de uoluerunt).

(12)

(a) c u m uarices secabantur C. Mario, dolebat; c u m aestu magno d u c e b a t agmen, laborabat (Cic. Tusc. 2, 35: deux mo­ ments successifs de l'existence d'un personnage, et le comporte­ ment de celui-ci dans chaque cas);

quam...cum tabu­ circumferrentur, 1, 16,4: à noter le de circumferrentur

196

P. DE CARVALHO (b) Marius c u m secaretur, ut supra dixi, principio uetuit se alligari (ib. 2, 53: rappel d'un événement déjà mentionné, et traité comme un tout, dont le contenu d'expérience personnelle n'apparaît plus d'actualité). (13)

hoc c u m populus Romanus m e m i n i t , me ipsum non meminisse turpissimum est (Cic. Fam. 11, 16, 2, cité, parmi d'autres, par Kühner-Stegmann, II 348, comme exemple de cum "causal" à l'indicatif, selon un usage décrit comne "prédominant dans la langue ancienne"; à noter le contraste des deux protagonistes, populus Romanus vs. me ipsum).

Conclusion L'on me permettra encore trois observations, d'ordre et d'importance di­ vers. La première se résume en une interrogation: à quoi peut bien servir, dans ces conditions, la notion traditionnelle de "mode verbal", sinon, sans doute, à faire perdurer de faux problèmes, comme celui, par exemple, de savoir si telle forme verbale de l'espagnol est un "indicatif' ou un "sub­ jonctif', ou, en latin, si dixerint, par exemple, est un "futur d'indicatif' ou un "parfait de subjonctif'. Plus significatif, sans doute, pour la théorie générale du langage est de faire ressortir que le modèle explicatif exposé porte en lui une sorte de con­ tinuité entre état synchronique de système et développement diachronique. Le verbe se construit, dit Jean-Claude Chevalier, par affranchissement re­ lativement à l'instance du "moi". Or cet affranchissement se fait, du latin aux romans modernes, et des uns aux autres parmi ceux-ci, de plus en plus franc, ce qui se manifeste par exemple dans la réduction de la morpholo­ gie subjonctive, et de la nominalisation plus ou moins définitive, selon les langues, de l'infinitif. De sorte qu'au cours du temps le système se fait, de plus en plus, et sans doute indéfiniment, ce qu'il est. On touche ici, appa­ remment, à une définition objective du "progrès" linguistique, dépouillée de tout jugement de valeur et de tout relent d'ethnocentrisme. Enfin — et ceci s'apparenterait davantage à une profession de foi — on aura compris que ce qui inspire cette communication, ainsi que mes interventions durant ce Colloque, et, plus généralement, ma démarche de linguiste, c'est la recherche obstinée du sens. Non, décidément, je ne puis me résoudre à réduire le langage à une sorte de machine sans motiva­ tion autre qu'intrinsèque, et faite pour tourner sur elle-même. Et je ferais volontiers miennes ces paroles de Michel Bréal, au début de VEssai de

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

197

sémantique: "On doit étonner étrangement le lecteur qui pense, quand on lui dit que l'homme n'est pour rien dans le développement du langage, et que les mots — forme et sens — mènent une existence qui leur est propre". En tout cas, aussi longtemps que la linguistique refusera de s'interroger sur les conditions même d'existence et sur l'apport significatif de toutes ces formes qu'elle est si habile à relever, classer, dénombrer, analyser — sans aller plus loin, alors que l'essentiel reste à faire —, elle n'aura pas grand'chose à dire, on peut le craindre, aux autres disciplines de l'homme. Ce serait dommage!

Addenda: Quant à l'objection qui m'a été faite par Christian Touratier, rap­ pelant que dans une langue comme le hongrois, justement, on observe une large identité entre marques personnelles du verbe et marques no­ minales d'appartenance personnelle — p. ex. keriem "mon jardin" et kérem "je le demande", avec -m renvoyant, dans les deux cas, à une personne l e r e —, elle est assurément pertinente, dans la mesure où elle pose un problème à la théorie proposée, mais ne suffit pas à invalider le rôle accordé ici à la "personne" comme critère déterminant l'opposition "nom" vs. "verbe". J'y répondrai par l'argument de la relativité histo­ rique des catégories morpho-syntaxiques, déjà mis en avant dans ma thèse sur le nom et la déclinaison en latin (De Carvalho, 1985a). Tout comme, en effet, l'opposition verbo-nominale est loin d'être inscrite, comme une donnée universelle, dans la morphologie de toutes les lan­ gues, de même il n'y a aucune raison de supposer que, partout où elle est retenue, elle doive fonctionner selon les mêmes critères. En latin, je pense l'avoir démontré, la personne "atemporelle" qui est le fondement du nom se trouve encore, non obstant, forte­ ment engagée dans une forme de variabilité temporelle, ce qui se tra­ duit par l'existence d'une "déclinaison", à savoir un paradigme de "cas existentiels", dont chacun livre la représentation d'une modalité d'inclusion de la personne en principe atemporelle dans un cas particu­ lier de temps. Au contraire, dans la plupart des romans modernes, une vision considérablement plus générale, "catégorique", de l'opposition verbo-nominale a abouti à dégager la personne "atemporelle" de toute référence à une forme quelconque de variabilité, ce dont la conséquence est, d'une part, l'abandon du principe de la déclinaison, de l'autre, l'invention et l'extension progressive d'une classe particulière de signi­ fiants, ayant spécifiquement vocation à signifier la personne atemporelle indépendamment de toute notion nominale: ce sont les articles. Dans d'autres langues — allemand, grec —, une déclinaison plus ou moins allégée coexiste avec des articles, ou avec un article, selon des interprétations spécifiques, que je n'ai pas à décrire ici, du rapport de la personne atemporelle, ou nominale, au temps de l'expérience phrastique. A titre d'exemple, je puis indiquer, sur la base d'un mémoire de maîtrise dû à une de mes étudiantes bordelaises, et portant sur l'emploi de l'article chez Hérodote, que l'utilisation de ce que les gram-

P. DE CARVALHO maires grecques nomment "article" paraît commandée par l'intention trans-événementielle, de conférer une sorte d'existence plus générale, stable tout au long du propos, à une entité qui, autrement, demeurerait intégrée, "noyée" dans la singularité temporelle d'un état de choses dont seule est retenue, en ce cas, la stricte présence, ou survenance. Pour ce qui est maintenant du hongrois, le phénomène signalé par Chr. Touratier doit évidemment être mis en rapport avec l'usage que fait régulièrement cette langue de la prédication nominale (cf. J. Perrot, 1984: 171); un nom hongrois — tout comme, mutatis mutandis, son homologue latin — suffit, sous certaines conditions, à constituer une phrase, autrement dit à produire, ou à parfaire, la représentation d'un état de choses — en assumant, donc, une fonction qui, en principe, est dévolue au verbe, dans les langues indo-européennes occidentales modernes. Aussi, et en toute première analyse, je suggérerais qu'un nom hongrois porte toujours, plus ou moins, le souvenir d'un acte prédicatif préalable, qui fonde l'existence, dans la langue, d'une notion donnée. Ainsi, l'existence d'un mot représentant une unité de "non moi" de l'ordre "atemporel" (soit: une entité) suppose, et implique, une prédication préalable — en "chronologie de raison" —, soit: "il exi­ ste une entité x", où x est, par exemple, "une maison". Dans le même ordre d'idées, "ma maison" repose sur une prédication préalable — quelque chose comme: "il existe une «personne», en l'occurrence une chose, «une maison», attribuable, imputable à une autre «personne», qui est «moi» —", prédication dont la structure est rigoureusement parallèle à une prédication contenant une personne "temporelle" (donc: "verbale"). Soit, en utilisant des exemples empruntés à J. Perrot, mais librement interprétés: ház-am ["il existe une maison attribuable à moi"] —> "mai­ son de moi", "ma maison" ad-om ["il existe un don attribuable à moi") —► "je fais un don", "je donne (quelque chose)". Et c'est, on le voit, le caractère "nominal" ou "verbal" de la base — soit, le fait que, lexicalement, elle représente une "personne existant hors du temps", ou "entité" ("une maison"), ou, au contraire, une "per­ sonne existant dans le temps" ("un don") — qui détermine le statut "non prédicatif' ou "prédicatif' de l'expression résultante. Mais il peut arriver que la base lexicale n'établisse pas, au départ, catégoriquement, le statut "atemporel" ou "temporel" de l'unité de non-moi, ou "per­ sonne", visée; le résultat est, alors, une expression ambiguë, dont il appartient au locuteur de fixer, a posteriori, l'orientation, "nominale" ou "verbale". Ce pourrait être, entre autres, le cas des notions de type "fonctionnel", impliquant peu ou prou une référence temporelle. Ainsi, sur une base lexicale vár, qui évoque la notion d'une "attente", on peut engendrer, au moyen de la même marque personnelle, tantôt la représentation nominale d'une entité, d'une "chose" dont le propre est d'"exister dans l'attente de, en prévision de quelque chose" — p. ex. várunk "notre forteresse" —, tantôt celle, verbale, d'une "attente mo­ mentanée" , imputable à la personne en question — várunk "nous at­ tendons" .

MODE VERBAL ET SYNTAXE DE SUBORDINATION

199

Notes 1.

Cette projection éclate dans la description suivante: "L'opposition des deux uni­ vers, du statisme de l'un au cinétisme de l'autre, amène ainsi Guillaume à voir dans l'univers-temps une transfinitude qui n'est autre que l'univers de compor­ tement des finitudes préalablement individuées dans l'univers-espace (univers d'extraction). L'infini premier livre l'être, qui ressortit à l'espace, et l'infini se­ cond ouvre le champ d'existence de cet être, l'existence étant conçue comme un comportement." (Joly 1984: 51)

2.

Tout ceci s'inscrit, bien entendu, dans le prolongement de la distinction pro­ posée par Guillaume (1973: 46) entre "personne objective" et "intitulé ordinal", variable ou invariable, de celle-ci. Mais Guillaume ne semble pas, en tout cas à ma connaissance, avoir développé l'idée de la "personne objective" comme pro­ jection de "moi", ni procédé, sur ces bases, à une redéfinition des "parties du discours".

3.

C'est l'origine de cette dimension controversée, mais, je persiste à le penser avec Varron et bien d'autres, capitale, du système verbal latin qu'est l'opposition infectum vs. perfectum. Pour n'avoir pas intégré le fondement syntaxique, morphosyntaxique, du phénomène, le débat autour de cette affaire s'est trouvé obscurci, et noyé dans des discussions subalternes autour de purs effets de sens.

4.

Par commodité, abstraction sera faite, désormais, de la dimension "perfectum", qui, naturellement, s'entend réalisée à chaque "rang" temporel atteint.

5.

Cette opposition de deux "orientations" de la personne temporelle imaginairement présente contient, de toute évidence, le principe de la "consecutio temporum".

6.

On voit que l'infinitif latin ne se réduit pas à la représentation d'une idée absr traite de temps, préalable à l'émergence de la personne (Guillaume, Molho), et pas davantage à un "nomen actionis" qui signifierait "una acción abstraída de todo sujeto, y como existente per se, aislada de su natural soporte" (Rubio 1976: 57).

Références Bally, Ch. 1965. Linguistique

générale et linguistique française.

Benveniste, E. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique

4 e m e édition, Berne.

générale. IL Paris: Gallimard.

Chevalier, J.-Cl. 1978. Verbe et phrase. Les problèmes francçais. Paris: Editions hispaniques.

de la voix en espagnol et en

Coseriu, E. 1957. "Sobre el Futuro Romance." Revista Brasileira de Filologia 3.1, 1-18. De Carvalho, P. 1985a. Nom et déclinaison. Recherches sur le mode de représentation du nom en latin. Thèse d'Etat (1983). Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de l'Université de Bordeaux III. De Carvalho, P. 1985b. "Sur le présent latin. Esquisse d'une théorie morpho-sémantique du verbe latin." Revue des Etudes Latines 62 (1984), 357-376.

200

P. DE CARVALHO

De Carvalho, P. 1985c. "Subordination, parties de langue et signification. la syntaxe des «uerba affectuum» et des «uerba dicendi, sentiendi, In: Gu. Calboli ( e . ) Subordination and other Topics in Latin (Actes loque International de Linguistique latine. Bologna, 1985), 376-399. John Benjamins Publishing Co. 1989.

A propos de iudicandi»." du 3 e m e Col­ Amsterdam:

De Carvalho, P. 1987. "Pour une synchronie historique: Futur...et futur, ou: Le devenir du futur" : Mélanges offerts à Maurice Molho, vol. 3, Linguistique (= Cahiers de Fontenay, n o s 46-47-48), 47-68. E.N.S. Fontenay & Saint-Cloud. De Carvalho, P. 1990. "Deixis et grammaire." In: M.-A. Morel & L. Danon-Boileau (éds.) La deixis. Colloque en Sorbonne, 8-9 juin 1990, pp. 95-104. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. De Carvalho, P. 1991. "Deixis «objective» vs. deixis «subjective». Sur les «substantifs démonstratifs» du latin." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 86.1, 211-244. Garcia Calvo, A. 1960. "Preparacion a un estudio orgánico de los modos verbales sobre el ejemplo del griego antiguo." Emerita 28, 1-47. Guillaume, G. 1965. Temps et Verbe. Théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps suivi L'rchitectonique du temps dans les langues classiques. 2 e m e édition (avant-propos de Roch Valin), Paris: Champion. Guillaume, G. 1973. Leçons de linguistique 1948-1949. Grammaire particulière du français et grammaire générale. I. Paris & Québec: Klincksieck & P.U. Laval. Joly, A. 1984. "La distinction du nom et du verbe d'après Guillaume." Modèles linguis­ tiques (Université de Lille III) 6.1, 41-52. Moignet. G. 1981. Systématique de la langue française. Paris: Klincksieck. Perrot, J. 1984. "Nom et verbe dans les langues ougriennes: faits hongrois et faits voguls." Modèles linguistiques (Université de Lille III) 6.1, 161-179. Rubio, L. 1976. Introducción lona: Ariel.

a la sintaxis estructural

del latin, II. La oración. Barce­

Touratier, Chr. 1977. "Valeurset fonctionnement du subjonctif latin." Revue des Etudes latines 55, 370-406. Touratier, Chr. 1982. "Valeurs et fonctionnement du subjonctif latin: En proposition subordonnée." Revue des Etudes Latines 60, 313-335.

On sentential complementation after verba affectuum Pierluigi Cuzzolin University of Pavia

1. The aim of this paper The observation that the subordinate clauses introduced by quod / quia after verba affectuum were less frequent than AcI was made by Raphael Kühner in his grammar; I'm saying nothing new but sometimes little at­ tention is paid to this fact. Even though the conjunctional clause is at­ tested indeed since the first recorded literary texts, its frequence after verba affectuum increased gradually and entered into a real competition with the normal construction of AcI only during the second century A. D., a century that can be considered a sort of border-line: I decided there­ fore not to go beyond the age when Aulus Gellius presumably lived (we cannot ascertain his chronological data but we can place them between 135 and 185 A. D.) because, as Neubauer had pointed out more than one century ago in his dissertation, Aulus Gellius is the first writer (and as far as I know, he still remains the first one) in whose work the process of replacing AcI through conjunctional clauses is accomplished: "Infinitivus cum accusativo post huiusmodi verba (i. e. verba affectuum) nusquam invenitur." (Neubauer 1890: 17). I will try to corroborate this statement reporting the data I have gathered going through all the prose texts writ­ ten by four authors: Cicero (106-43 B. C.), Titus Livius (59 B. C.-17 A. D.), Seneca (4 B. C.-65 A. D.) and Plinius Secundus the Younger (61/62113 A. D.). On the other hand, and this is the second aim of the present paper, as I said above, I'll try not to supply a new explanation of the progressive

202

P. CUZZÜLIN

s u b s t i t u t i o n of AcI with the conjunctional clause after verba affectuum — verba affectuum, however, w e r e n o t t h e only ones involved by this sub­ stitution — b u t r a t h e r to emphasize some semantic factors implied by this process t h a t surely aided the change of the subordinate clause; t h e relevance of these factors has not yet been stressed as it should be.

2. The state of the art I therefore begin providing a general reference frame for the syntax of verba affectuum. In the most i m p o r t a n t g r a m m a r s of Latin, or at least in those gram­ m a r s which are usually taken for reference g r a m m a r s ( K ü h n e r - S t e g m a n n 1914; Hofmann-Szantyr 1965; E r n o u t - T h o m a s 1953), in which t h e first purpose is to provide a synchronic description of Latin, verba affectuum are usually described as allowing two types of subordinate clause: besides AcI t h e subordinate clause introduced by quod or quia is also normally found. From a purely descriptive point of view t h e syntactical situation is cor­ rectly represented. And yet, this might also engender t h e impression t h a t t h e two types of subordinate clauses normally occur after verba affectuum w i t h t h e same statistical frequence. As a m a t t e r of fact such a n impres­ sion shouldn't be correct: a purely synchronic description of Latin, if we disregard t h e diachronic perspective, by which this process of s u b s t i t u t i o n is accounted for, ends u p hiding a well a t t e s t e d a n d still ongoing process in t h e classical period, which affected and changed t h e whole system of s u b o r d i n a t i o n in Latin. Nevertheless, in connection with t h a t , it should be sufficient to r e a d K ü h n e r ' s r e m a r k I alluded to above in order to realize t h a t for a long time it has been noticed t h a t t h e occurrences of verba affectuum followed by AcI were m u c h more frequent t h a n those of conjunctional clauses. Here are K ü h n e r ' s words: "Die Verben der G e m ü t s s t i m m u n g werden indes weit häufiger als Verben der W a h r n e h m u n g aufgefasst u n d mit d e m Acc. c. Inf. verbunden." (1914: 277). Kühner himself reported t h e n u m b e r of t h e passages he counted: "So h a t nach meiner Zählung bei doleo 57 Stellen mit Acc. c. Inf. gegen 4 quod, bei miror 110 gegen 8, bei glorior 19 gegen 2, bei queror 71 gegen 15, bei gaudeo 84 gegen 9 usw." (1914: 77), although it is difficult to say what he meant by the word "Stelle" a n d impossible t o say which texts his counting is based upon. B u t how m a n y are t h e occurrences of conjunctional clauses after verba affectuum in t h e texts of t h e a u t h o r s I have chosen for my testing?

ON SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTATION

203

3. A statistical report To my knowledge, after K ü h n e r only Perrochat, in his valuable work on infinitive in Latin (1932), gave statistical d a t a about t h e n u m b e r of t h e occurrences of AcI a n d quod/qui a -clauses as well. He counted t h e examples of five verbs (dolere, gaudere, laetari, mirari and queri occurring in t h e works of P l a u t u s , Terentius a n d Cicero (including epistulae ad familiäres, epistulae ad Atiicum, orationes and the philosophical works). For t h e sake of completeness, b u t basing my counting on t h e same five verbs Perrochat used, I went t h r o u g h the prose texts of Cicero a n d in addition, t h e texts of Livius, Seneca a n d Plinius Secundus t h e Younger; of course, I must specify I didn't choose these four a u t h o r s h a p h a z a r d l y b u t according t o some reasons: first of all I chose only prose writers who lived not earlier t h a n the first century B . C . and not later t h a n t h e second century A. D., the century I take for the t u r n i n g point of the latin syntax; moreover they seem to me to be well representative of t h e great variety of t h e Latin prose style in t h a t they exhibit a large range of linguistic registers. I begin therefore to report the d a t a I collected reading their works. 3.1. Cicero 3.1.1.

Epistulae Table n° 1 dolere: gaudere: laetari: mirari: queri:

3.1.2.

AcI 36 77 28 47 12

quod/quia 5 8 5 6 8

Orationes

laetari: mirari: queri:

3.1.3. Opera

Table n° 2 AcI quod/quia 12 4 57 5 51 3

rhetorica

dolere: gaudere: queri:

Table n° 3 AcI quod/quia 6 3 2 1 4 2

204

P. CUZZOLIN

3.1.4. Opera philosophica

dolere: gaudere: mirari : queri:

Tab]l e n ° 4 quod/quia AcI 1 8 1 10 3 13 8 5

3.2. Titus Livius

dolere: gaudere: laetari: mirari : queri:

Table n° 5 Ad quod/quia 0 3 1 8 1 7 4 19 10 106

3.3. Seneca

dolere: gaudere: laetari: mirari : queri:

Table n° 6 Ad quod/quia 9 3 16 6 3 1 45 11 22 16

3.4. Plinius Secundus

dolere: gaudere: laetari: mirari : queri:

Table n° 7 Ad quod/quia 4 0 8 4 1 7 7 5 7 3

4. How are these data to be explained? How are all the data we put together to be accounted for? Is there any consistent logic behind them? My own answer is: yes, there is. Of course, attempts at giving an explanation for the difference be­ tween the two forms gaudere plus AcI and gaudere plus quod have been made during this last century.

ON SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTATION

205

According to the hypothesis of Raphael Kühner, for instance, "quod wird nur gebraucht, wenn der Grund der Stimmung ausdrücklich als Tat­ sache (Kühner's emphasis) hervorgehoben werden soll." (1914: 277). But in this case Kühner's ideas about the meaning of the overt subordinate are not motivated at all; be here noticed, however, that my observation does not imply that Kühner's speculation is false or incorrect. Perrochat's opinion about the difference between the two construc­ tions was that AcI belongs to the syntactical structures expressing mental activity, whereas the subordinate introduced by a conjunction belongs to the language of feelings and emotions; in some sense he introduced into the discussion a distinction of sociolinguistic relevance. In more recent times stimulating observations have been made by Machtelt Bolkestein and Paulo de Carvalho: their observations deserve attention. Machtelt Bolkestein, according to the principles of functional gram­ mar as worked out by Simon Dik's school, has claimed that: "The embed­ ded predication with e. g. verba affectuum contains information presented by the speaker as presupposed to be true. [...] Embedded predications with verba dicendi, on the other hand, are of a different nature than those with verba affectuum: the latter may be said to represent states of affaires, or 'second order entities' in Lyons' sense (1977: 466), whereas the former rep­ resent the content of an act of speech or thought, i. e. predications (they are third order entities)." (1989: 19). These theoretical remarks perfectly fit the hypothesis proposed by Joan Hooper, which I shall introduce in a moment. Very interesting considerations have been expressed by de Car­ valho (1989): "Or l'observation de l'usage [...] montre que l'emploi de l'AcI dans ce contexte est généralement affecté à l'expression d'un contenu événementiel [...] non dynamique, statique, voire résultatif [...]. La subordonnée conjonctive apparaît, au contraire, là où le con­ tenu événementiel nominalisable est typiquement "anti-objectif, antirésultatif, opératif... ." (1989: 387-388). In my opinion, however, there is also a risk in such a way of describing the syntax of the verba affectuum, where the pair of subordinate clauses seems to be considered synchronically only: the risk of analysing data taken from authors who lived in different ages assuming that the semantic and syntactic features which determined the conditions for an embedded clause or a conjunctional one still hold; that is exactly what should be proven. I have no totally new explanation to give; but, since mostly seman­ tic and pragmatic reasons have been taken into consideration in order to

206

P. CUZZOLIN

account for not only the diachronic process from a stage where AcI over­ whelmingly occurred to another one, when the subordinate clause mostly occurred, b u t also for the synchronic description of the Latin syntax, I would like just to point out a couple of semantic features u p to now over­ looked: first of all, the development from AcI to quod-clauses after verba affectuum is to be analysed as p a r t of the renewal of t h e Latin system of subordination; secondly, t h e semantic p a r a m e t e r s associated with t h e verbal person played a relevant role in the formation of t h e s u b o r d i n a t e clause. In order to support m y answer with arguments I think t h a t a good point of d e p a r t u r e is the theory of predicates as p u t forward by J o a n Hooper (1975). 4 . 1 . Joan Hooper's

hypothesis

J o a n Hooper's proposal lexicon in any language factivity a n d assertivity, according to syntactical

is t h e following: considering t h e verbal entries of as belonging to a continuum between two poles, all the predicates can be divided into four groups parameters:

Factive predicates Semifactive predicates Assertive predicates Nonassertive predicates

Factivity + + -

Assertivity +1 + -

Moreover assertive predicates are divided into two sub-groups: weak assertive predicates a n d strong assertive predicates; b u t this distinction is not relevant here. Examples given by Hooper of factive predicates are t h e following verbs: regret, resent, amuse, be sorry; of semifactive predicates: find out, discover, know, realize, see; of strong assertive: admit, affirm, men­ tion, point out, say; of weak assertive: think, believe, suppose, guess; of nonassertive: be likely, be possible, be importable, doubt. Verba affectuum belong to the factive predicates: as factive predicates do, indeed, they "presuppose their complements under any conditions" (Hooper 1975: 114); for instance, in t h e sentence ƒ regret that John has gone, t h e content of t h e subordinate clause is considered to be t r u e ; i. e. J o h n has really gone, under any conditions. 2 As I tried to show elsewhere, 3 AcI began to be replaced by subor­ d i n a t e clauses from t h e beginning of the literay recorded d a t a , b u t this p h e n o m e n o n d i d n ' t take place within t h e four groups of predicates at t h e

ON SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTATION

207

same time. The number of the occurrences of the embedded construction, i. e. AcI, started decreasing, although gradually and slowly, from factive predicates to nonassertive predicates (but nonassertive predicates only in a very late period, on the border with Proto-Romance) via semifactive predicate — the phenomenon involves both groups more or less at the same time — via strong assertive (the first example occurs in bellum hispaniensef which is possibly datable to about 46 B. C. and is also rather late in comparison with the examples of verba affectuum). Even later are the first occurrences of a subordinate clause introduced by quod or quia following weak assertive predicates. 5 So, if we look at the development which involved verba affectuum in a diachronic perspective, we notice that this process is consistent: this process signifies that the subjective attitude expressed by true factives (among them verba affectuum) about the complement proposition, an at­ titude neutralized by AcI, a construction from which no modal feature is recoverable, was, so to say, at work. The conjunctional subordinate was the most adequate tool of Latin to make such modal distinctions recover­ able by the listener/reader just in order to preserve the subjective attitude of this group of predicates. For this reason I think that the situation described by de Carvalho came into being later than the age of Plautus, for instance, or generally speaking, the archaic period, and fits well from the age of Cicero on till the second century A. D. 4.2. The importance of being a person As I mentioned above, a very important parameter for the formation of the subordinate after verba affectuum was that of grammatical person, a parameter mentioned also by de Carvalho in his contribution. I have no time to discuss the following parameters with the exactitude they deserve. Let's take a look at the two following tables n° 8 and n° 9: Table n° 8

Antec. Coref. Subj.

ep. 7/32 16/32 13/32

Cicero or. rhet. 5/12 3/6 5/12 3/6 5/12 2/6

phil. 2/10 5/10 8/10

Livius

Seneca

Plinius

2/16 4/16 16/16

3/37 16/37 21/37

2/19 6/19 9/19

In this figure I organized the data — reporting them against the global number of instances — according to three parameters.

P. CUZZOLIN

208

The first one, antecedent, means any element which has an anaphoric or cataphoric value; its presence is generally considered to give the con­ junctional clause more chances to occur. The third one, subjunctive, gives the number of the occurrences of the subjunctive mood in the conjunctional clause; its number, according to what is expected, tends to increase: the new functional opposition is going to become (verbum affectuum) plus quod + indic, vs. (verbum affectuum) plus quod + subj. The second one is the parameter I would like to look at for a moment. I mean this term in the sense that, whenever there is a coindexicalization between the grammatical or the logical subject of the main clause and one of the grammatical elements of the subordinate clause, we have coreference. It is interesting to note that coreference tends to aid the occurrence of AcI and this fact is remarkable in two senses: firstly, the less stilistically literary the text is, the more frequent the cases of coreference are; secondly, this parameter loses its importance in the course of time, when the conjunctional subordinate is as normal as AcI is. 6 But something else can be added about the relevance of the grammat­ ical person for the subordinate clause: if the coreference involves the first person singular the number of AcI occurrences tends to be still higher, es­ pecially during Cicero's age. For this reason I reported all the occurrences in the table n° 9:

Epistulae Oraiiones Rhetorica Philosophica Titus Livius Seneca Plinius Secundus

Table AcI 200 157 25 40 142 95 27

n° 9 Coref. 70(53) 40(7) 8(4) 16(6) 51(2) 32(5) 3(0)

Quod 32 12 6 10 16 37 19

Coref. 16(8) 5(0) 3(2) 5(2) 4(0) 16(0) 6(2)

I counted all the occurrences of AcI and conjunctional clauses after verba affectuum in all the prose texts of the four authors and I reported them on the columns under AcI and Quod] on the right side of these columns, under the label Coref., there is the number of occurrences with coreference and between brackets the number of cases where coreference is referred to the first person singular. From these data we note not only that coreference is really an aid for the occurrence of AcI but also that the first person singular can be even a stronger help for AcI: see the high number of occurrences of AcI in Cicero's letters where coreference involves the

ON SENTENTIAL COMPLEMENTATION

209

first person singular. This fact seems to m e to be an evidence against t h e assumption of Perrochat t h a t AcI is a syntactical construction peculiar to t h e intellectual language; in reality, AcI cannot be accounted for in t e r m s of rationality vs. emotions.

5. Conclusions It seems to m e t h a t t h e following tentative conclusions can be d r a w n from t h e d a t a I quoted and confirm the hypothesis I have sketched above: 1) t h e p h e n o m e n o n of replacing embedded sentences, i. e. AcI, after verba affectuum is only a p a r t of a major t r e n d which subsequently in­ volved t h e whole system of subordinate clauses of Latin a n d spread over t h e other categories of predicates according to t h e following p a t t e r n : factive predicates → semifactive predicates → strong assertive predicates → weak assertive predicates. T h e reason for such a change, in my opin­ ion, was t h e possibility of recovering the m o d a l content of t h e s u b o r d i n a t e sentence offered by t h e conjunctional clause a n d neutralized by AcI, a n d preserving in this way the subjective a t t i t u d e typical of t h e t r u e factive predicates. 2) In addition, more detailed investigations are needed with regard t o certain semantic features. As tables n° 8 a n d n° 9 quite clearly show, there are some p a r a m e t e r s which have to be taken into account for a m o r e precise analysis of this syntactic change. T h e p a r a m e t e r of person, for instance, t u r n s out to be of particular relevance: whenever there is a coreference between t h e m a i n sentence a n d its subordinate, t h e e m b e d d e d construction doesn't necessarily occur b u t is preferred, especially if t h e person involved is t h e first singular. B u t there is still much to do in this field of t h e historical s y n t a x of Latin.

Notes 1.

Since Joan Hooper assumes that factivity and assertivity cannot occur with the same predicates semifactivity turns out to be a shortcoming in Hooper's theory. But this involves theoretical problems I prefer to put aside.

2.

I do no not enter into the problems that the correct definition of factivity raises; a great amount of literature has been written about it since Kiparsky & Kiparsky (1970) published their paper. I would like to point out that there is a very good work about factivity, written in Italian, "Fattività" by Arbasi (1986).

210

P. CUZZOLIN

3. 4.

See Cuzzolin 1991 and 1993. Bellum Hispaniense 36, 1: Dum haec geruntur legati Carteienses quod Pompeium in potestate haberent.

5.

The first example which occurs is Tacitus, Ann. XVI 6, 1 : illic, reputans ideo se fallacibus litteris accitam et honore praecipuo habitam, quodque, litus iuxta, non machinamentum ventis acta non saxis impulsa navis summa sui parte, veluti terrestre concidisset...

6.

As far as I know no history of verba affectuum in Latin has been written until now; it is a desideratum that should be fulfilled. I tried to collect new d a t a (from Plautus to Augustinus) and compare them with the d a t a of the other groups of predicates in my unpublished dissertation.

renuntiaverunt

References Arbasi, M.G. 1986. Fattività. Tesi di laurea non pubblicata. Relatore: Maria-Elisabeth Conte. Università di Pavia. Anno Accademico 1985-1986. Bolkestein, M.A. 1989. "Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin." In: Calboli, Gu. (ed.) 3-35. Calboli, Gu. (ed.) 1989. Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna, 1-5 April 1985). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. de Carvalho, P. 1989. "Subordination, parties de langue et signification. A propos de la syntaxe des verba affectuum et des verba dicendi, sentiendi, iudicandi." In: Calboli, Gu. (ed.) 375-399. Cuzzolin, P. 1991. "Sulle prime attestazioni del tipo dicere quod." Archivio Italiano 76.1, 26-75.

Glottologico

Cuzzolin, P. 1993. SulVorigine del tipo dicere q u o d ; analisi sintattica e semantica. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Ernout, A. & Fr. Thomas 2 1953. Syntaxe latine. 2 e édition revue et augmentée, Paris: Klincksieck. Herman, J. 1963. La formation du système roman des conjonctions Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

de

Hofmann, J . B . & A. Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische

München: Beck.

Syntax und Stilistik.

subordination.

Hooper, J.B. 1975. "On assertive Predicates." In: J.P. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and Se­ mantics 4. 91-124. New York & San Francisco & London: Academic Press. Kiparsky, P. & C. Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In: M. Bierwisch & K.E. Heidolph (eds.) Progress in Linguistics, 143-173. Mouton: The Hague. Kühner, R. & C. Stegmann 1914. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. II. Satzlehre. I. Teil. Zweite Auflage. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Neubauer, R. 1890. De coniunctionum Typis Carolus Friese.

causalium

apud Gellium

Perrochat, P. 1932. Recherches sur la valeur et l'emploi latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Usu. Magdeburgu:

de l'infinitif

subordonné

en

Syntaxe et stylistique du discours indirect chez Tacite: une parole rhétorique Jacqueline Dangel Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IV

Capable de recevoir chez Tacite la dénomination ďoratio, le discours indirect est-il, par-delà les apparences formelles, cet acte de parole et de communication que suppose ce terme, lorsqu'il est appliqué au discours direct? 1 Cette question mérite d'autant plus d'être posée que la place accordée par Tacite, en particulier dans les Annales, à 1'oratio obliqua aboutit, comme le montre N.P.Miller (1964: 292 et suiv), à un pourcen­ tage d'emploi supérieur à celui de 1'oratio recta (soit 54,5% pour le pre­ mier mode d'expression et 45,5% pour le second). Ajoutons que si l'on retrouve dans le discours indirect tacitéen les mêmes ellipses, raccourcis tendus, dissymétries et sententiae que dans la narration, ces rencontres syntaxico-stylistiques, comme le souligne Ed. Norden, 2 ne permettent ja­ mais de confondre les deux modes d'écriture. Pourtant tout dans l'appareil formel du discours indirect paraît con­ traire aux principes d'une parole, acte d'énonciation (Voir Lavency 1985: 255-256, § 400-403; Benveniste 1966: 228; Jakobson 1963: 178; Saussure 1974: 27-29). Est-il besoin en ce domaine de rappeler que ce que l'on a coutume d'appeler la transposition au discours indirect, suppose la dispari­ tion des embrayeurs caractéristiques de la sphère d'interlocution, la perte des déictiques, l'annulation des nuances modales et temporelles au pro­ fit d'une pure mécanique grammaticale et la neutralisation d'une donnée extra-linguistique comme l'intonation affective? Dévié ainsi de son signifié propre, voire de sa stratégie langagière originelle, le discours dit indirect semble avoir été qualifié d'oblique, à juste titre, par les Anciens. 3 De fait, le remplacement des deux personnes, émotive et conative, de la parole

212

J. DANGEL

vive p a r une troisième personne, normalement referentielle, selon la ter­ minologie de R.Jakobson (Jakobson 1963: 99; A. E r n o u t - F . T h o m a s 1984: 436), ainsi que la place prise p a r l'infinitif et par le subjonctif à la suite de l'élimination de l'indicatif et de l'impératif et la règle de la concordance des t e m p s conduisent à établir une distance entre le locuteur et son propre propos. Aussi le dire paraît-il voué à prendre la place du dit, l'énoncé celle de rénonciation. De fait, nombreux sont ainsi les grammairiens qui a t t r i b u e n t à ce m o d e d'expression u n caractère fortement intellectualisé, abstrait, voire n e u t r e (Syme 1958: 107; 197; 299; 304-305; Reiner Voss 1963: 27-42; 50; 62-63; 88-107). Ce problème d'une distorsion possible entre langue et parole doit d ' a u t a n t plus être posé à propos de Tacite qu'on s'accorde à souligner la capacité à l'abstraction de cet historien, dont on reconnaît p a r ailleurs le caractère t e n d u et pathétique de l'écriture. P o u r t a n t Tacite s'emploie à présenter le discours indirect, en particu­ lier dans les Annales, comme une parole vive et performative. Les verbes introducteurs du discours impliquent, dans la plus grande majorité des cas, l'existence non seulement d'un locuteur effectif mais d'une stratégie de parole. Aussi des verbes aussi p e u connotés que dicere ou ait fontils facilement place à des variantes expressives comme dictitare, arguere, incusare, increpare, testari, (ex)clamare ou encore des locutions (uarie disserere; orationem habere meditato temperamento).4 Conjointement, le destinataire du message est bien présent, qu'il s'agisse d'insister sur u n débat contradictoire, sur u n échange alterné ou sur une réponse, voire sur l'effet produit par le discours sur l'allocutaire, comme en témoignent certaines formules conclusives (Ann. II,15,1 Orationem ducis secutus militum ardor; Ann. II,36,4 Fauorabili in speciem oratione\ Ann. I,60,1 ConVéritable tactique langagière, comme l'est le citi per haec.Cherusci).5 discours direct, le discours indirect est également, à l'exemple de ce der­ nier, une parole spectaculaire, capable de cette dramatisation gestuelle en­ seignée dans les écoles de rhétorique conjointement à l'acteur et à l'orateur (Ann. IV,8,4 ...et effusum in lacrimas senatum uicto gemitu simul oratione continua erexit; Ann. XIII,14,7 Simul intendere manus, adgerere prohra... Ann. XIV,1,5 Haec atque talia lacrimis et arte adulterae penetrantia nemo prohibebat).6 On ne saurait cependant conclure à p a r t i r de la seule volonté arti­ stique de l'écrivain à la réalité fonctionnelle de la parole dans le discours indirect tacitéen. Seule une analyse des mécanismes syntaxico-stylistiques et de leur mode de fonctionnement est propre à donner une réponse per­ tinente.

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT

213

S'il est vrai, comme le suggère Tacite, que le discours indirect relève bien du dire et non du dit, la situation de parole dont il est alors p o r t e u r suppose la présence des personnes spécifiques de la sphère d'interlocution. Certes, comme nous l'avons déjà signalé et comme chacun sait, ce m o d e d'expression, à la différence de ce que l'on observe dans u n e présentation au style direct, ne dispose pas de marques morphologiques, capables de dis­ tinguer extérieurement le locuteur de l'allocutaire. E n revanche, l'examen des moyens non plus formels, mais fonctionnels, m o n t r e qu'il existe des procédés intratextuels propres à opérer cette distinction d'une manière pertinente. D'ordre contextuel, ceux-ci relèvent plus précisément de la référence en emploi. E n effet, bien que restreint à la seule troisième personne, le discours in­ direct a la capacité d'extraire des différents moyens d'exprimer la troisième personne, voire de la fonction référentielle même, u n jeu d'oppositions ob­ jectivement identifiables et propres à rétablir la pertinence de la sphère d'interlocution. Certes une première opposition, d ' a u t a n t plus aisément reconnaissable qu'elle est d'ordre formel, sépare le non-réfléchi des réfléchis direct et indirect. P o u r t a n t si chacune de ces formes peut selon son pla­ cement et son fonctionnement dans la phrase être finalement référée à n ' i m p o r t e quelle personne de la situation de parole, il reste que le nonréfléchi, représenté p a r des anaphoriques simples (is,ea,id) ou u n peu plus m a r q u é s (ille,illa,illud), apparaît doté d'une moins grande autonomie et charge sémantiques que les réfléchis. Aussi semble-t-il naturellement voué, sinon exclusivement, à l'expression de la tierce personne, t o u t au moins à celle de t o u t e personne a u t r e que celle du locuteur. Mieux encore, le réfléchi direct qui fonctionne comme u n interprétant du t h è m e de la proposition dans laquelle il se trouve, selon l'expression de M. Lavency (1985: 185, § 281 et 286; p . 224, § 383; M. Fruyt 1987: 204-221.) présente bien moins d'originalité que le réfléchi indirect, soumis à u n emploi codé et restrictif. P l u s exactement, dans la mesure où celui-ci doit exclusivement renvoyer au sujet d'une proposition antérieure dont il r a p p o r t e les pensées, les pa­ roles, les sentiments ou la volonté, il offre une forte connotation subjective, en adéquation pour ainsi dire organique avec t o u t e forme de discours et plus particulièrement avec le discours indirect. Tacite, fin connaisseur des ressources expressives de sa langue, a si bien compris cette originalité fonctionnelle qu'il réserve en priorité l'emploi du réfléchi indirect à l'auteur original des propos r a p p o r t é s . Mais la représentativité de ce m ê m e réfléchi indirect est si faible 7 qu'on p e u t hésiter à conférer à celui-ci u n rôle autre qu'épisodique. E n réalité, Tacite spécialise l'emploi des deux réfléchis indirect et direct dans la désignation

214

J. DANGEL

privilégiée de la personne du locuteur, transformant ainsi une homonymie formelle en synonymie fonctionnelle. Ce fait apparaît avec évidence dans les exemples suivants: Ann. 1,59,3 (discours enflammé d'Arminius) sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procobuisse: non enim se prodiiione negue aduersus feminas grauidas, sed palam aduersus armatos bellum tractare;Ann. XI,7,5 (discours n o t a m m e n t de Suillius et Cossutianus, orateurs v é n a u x ) Prompta sibi exempla, quantis mercedibus P.Clodius aut C. Curio contionari soliti sint. Se modicos senatores qui... peterent;Ann. XIII,46,2 (propos d ' O t h o n ) seque ire ad Ulam. Sibi concessam dictitans nobilitatem, pulchritudinem, uota omnium et gaudia felicium. Cette spécialisation mérite d ' a u t a n t plus d'être soulignée que César procède différemment. Modèle du discours indirect, César se livre en effet également à u n aménagement du matériel pronominal, de façon à cons­ truire u n e hiérarchie interne de la sphère d'interlocution (cf. à ce sujet Dangel 1991b). Aussi privilégie-t-il volontiers le non-réfléchi comme m a r ­ que de la tierce personne, le réfléchi direct pour l'allocutaire, le réfléchi indirect pour le locuteur. Toutefois si dans les deux premiers cas, la référence aux personnes peut être inversée, ce processus est p r a t i q u e m e n t inconnu du troisième cas, de sorte que l'on assiste à une forme de stylisa­ tion caractérisante du réfléchi indirect. Tout se passe finalement c o m m e si l'autorité de la parole du locuteur méritait plus de clarté que la position de l'allocutaire. Or c'est précisément ce dernier point que Tacite a développé jus­ q u ' à la systématisation. E n cela le discours indirect tacitéen observe très fidèlement les principes de l'éloquence de son époque. Doit-on en effet r a p ­ peler, comme le précise le Dialogue des Orateurs,8 q u ' à p a r t i r du m o m e n t où l'éloquence a quitté le forum pour se réfugier au sénat, a disparu son aspect agonistique, qui faisait de la rhétorique une action psychologique? E t , dans la mesure où les réfléchis indirect et direct réunis représentent seulement environ u n cas sur dix, n'est-ce pas à cette rareté m ê m e qu'ils doivent d'être stylistiquement marqués comme la variante expressive insi­ s t a n t e de la première personne. Il convient cependant de faire r e m a r q u e r ici, d ' u n e manière plus générale, le caractère exceptionnel, dans le discours indirect tacitéen, de t o u t e référence précise aux personnes, sous quelque forme que ce soit (réfléchis, anaphoriques, noms propres). E n effet dans ces phrases où sont recherchés les sujets notionnels et a b s t r a i t s , les personnes autres que les a c t a n t s de l'histoire ont peu droit à la parole, t a n d i s que prédomine u n e rhétorique de l'implicite et que l'affirmation de soi p e u t conduire à tous les périls. A ce sujet, l'examen de l'entrée et de la fin des discours indirects tacitéens est riche d'instructions. Alors que les personnes de la sphère

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT

215

d'interlocution interviennent seulement dans un cas sur trois à l'un de ces deux endroits stratégiques de tout morceau oratoire, l'emploi des réfléchis capables d'actualiser l'auteur même de la prise de parole reste le fait de quelques orateurs non seulement nettement individualisés, mais surtout déterminants dans le cours de l'histoire. On notera en particulier les per­ sonnalités suivantes: des Empereurs comme Tibère, Néron et Othon; le chef batave Ciuilis, défini comme un autre Sertorius ou Hannibal, des in­ termédiaires du pouvoir comme Sénèque et Agrippine ou des délateurs in­ fluents au point que leur parole peut tuer. Inversement les propos collectifs et anonymes (réactions d'une foule, rumeur publique, débat de factions), sont particulièrement pauvres en réfléchis dans la totalité des extraits qui leur sont prêtés, comme s'il s'agissait de faire entendre une voix, abstraite de son auteur. En corollaire de ce principe, ajoutons le cas par exemple de Séjan qui, s'appliquant à paraître au service de Tibère, ignore moins l'usage du réfléchi que l'emploi de celui-ci sous une forme que l'on pour­ rait appeler atypique. Cantonnant en effet ce dernier dans les réseaux les plus secondaires de l'énoncé, il évite soigneusement la référence aux per­ sonnes de la sphère d'interlocution et plus particulièrement à sa position de locuteur. 9 En revanche, on ne manquera pas d'attirer l'attention sur Tibère qui, parmi les différents orateurs, compte le plus grand nombre de discours indirects (Miller 1968: 9; Dangel 1991a: 2480 et suiv.; ibid., 1991c). Or cet Empereur, dont Tacite vise à faire ressortir l'aspect tyrannique dissimulé sous des apparences républicaines, totalise à lui seul près de la moitié des réfléchis utilisés dans les principaux discours indirects des Annales et connotés. Au total, la parcimonie avec laquelle Tacite use des personnes de la sphère d'interlocution ainsi que le mode de mise en oeuvre, mettant en relief le locuteur plus encore que l'allocutaire, sont des reflets langagiers exacts d'une époque où seules prédominent les individualités marquantes à des moments savamment calculés. A ce titre le discours indirect tacitéen relève d'un modèle d'éloquence (Calboli 1989 et 1990 [1991]). Ce modèle, fait tout à la fois d'une parole abstraite et d'une rhétorique de l'implicite est capable de la plus grande tension. Pourtant, de courte di­ mension, le discours indirect tacitéen, débarrassé des jalons visibles d'une situation semble voué à être plus intellectuel que pathétique. De fait, déchargé des mots-outils encombrants et des articulations majeures (Collart 1959: 226), il laisse place aux mots expressifs qui acquièrent de ce fait un relief inégalable. Nous venons de l'observer dans le cas des réfléchis dont la rareté est largement compensée par la charge expressive. Le procédé concerne plus précisément encore l'essentiel de l'informa­ tion, dans la mesure où celle-ci est limitée d'abord aux constituants obligés

216

J. DANGEL

de la phrase, soit, outre le verbe ou son équivalent fonctionnel, au sujet e t / o u à l'objet, en nominalisation simple ou en subordination complexe. P l u s précisément q u a n d on examine le matériel syntaxique des phrases, on observe que plus de trois subordonnées sur q u a t r e (76%) sont concernées exclusivement p a r les propositions infinitives (50%), les interrogatives in­ directes (12,5%), les relatives (13,5%). D a n s ce matériel syntaxique privilégié au niveau du discours indirect, les relatives méritent une précision. Simplement épisodiques ou en revan­ che indispensables au sens, voire à la construction phrastique, les relatives n o t a m m e n t adjectivales peuvent en effet décrire u n détail occasionnel ou au contraire définir d'une manière exclusive l'antécédent auquel elles sont référées. Or il convient de faire remarquer que les relatives des discours in­ directs tacitéens fonctionnent dans près de trois cas sur q u a t r e c o m m e des constituants obligés de la construction phrastique, soit, pour les relatives nominales comme sujet ou objet et, pour les relatives adjectivales, comme u n e partie intégrante d ' u n antécédent lui-même sujet ou objet. Ainsi ra­ rement supprimable, la relative contribue à l'information essentielle. Si l'on ajoute que les propositions infinitives et les interrogatives indirectes sont avant tout des subordonnées objets, tout se passe alors comme si le matériel syntaxique prédominant des discours indirects tacitéens était des­ tiné à concentrer l'expression sur les seuls concepts et faits d é t e r m i n a n t s , c'est-à-dire sur l'énoncé au détriment de renonciation. Conjointement, il est précisément intéressant d'observer la g r a n d e économie qui est faite des circonstances annexes au procès principal, t a n t il est vrai que le total des subordonnées circonstancielles (temporelles, causales, finales, consécutives, concessives, comparatives) atteint à peine u n emploi sur sept (13,6%). La brièveté des discours indirects ne suffit pas à justifier à elle seule ce résultat, à partir du moment où l'on observe u n mouvement exactement inverse dans les discours directs n o t a m m e n t des Annales.10 E t si nous poursuivons cette comparaison avec le discours direct, il est possible de faire ressortir l'originalité expressive du discours indirect, communication plus encore que message. Hormis le fait que celui-ci pri­ vilégie l'information essentielle en recourant avant tout aux constituants phrastiques obligés, sa véritable spécificité repose sur les propositions in­ finitives et les interrogatives indirectes. E n effet, m ê m e si leur m o d e de mise en oeuvre vise à une concentration des données, les relatives ne sau­ raient être vraiment caractéristiques du discours indirect tacitéen, d a n s la m e s u r e où leur nombre est n e t t e m e n t inférieur à celui du discours direct. L'information originale de 1'oratio obliqua se restreint alors aux infinitives

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT

217

et aux interrogations indirectes. Or, s'il est vrai, comme le soulignent cer­ tains grammairiens (Hyart 1953: 76), que l'interrogative indirecte doit être ramenée au rang de complétive, comme l'est l'infinitive, tout porte ainsi à croire que ce mode d'expression, énoncé et non énonciation, message et non communication, se définit finalement par une absence de force illocutoire. Réapparaît du même coup la capacité à l'abstraction du discours indirect pris en général et particulièrement tacitéen. L'importance ici du mode infinitif va également dans ce sens, même si cette prédominance est grammaticalement naturelle. Or ce mode, qui véhicule une information grammaticale minimale, est précisément propice à l'abstraction, lui qui "ne dit rien ni sur le protagoniste du procès de l'énoncé, ni sur la relation de ce procès aux autres procès de l'énoncé ou au procès de renonciation". 11 Mieux encore, comme nous le verrons, cette très faible caractérisation est souvent accentuée chez Tacite par l'ellipse de l'auxiliaire dans les formes périphrastiques. Pourtant l'examen fonctionnel de l'interrogative indirecte dans ces mêmes discours invite à corriger vigoureusement ce raisonnement. Plus exactement une nouvelle comparaison avec le discours direct fournit une direction de recherche intéressante. Très mal représentée dans 1' oratio recta où est évidemment recherchée l'interrogation directe, elle paraît fonction­ ner en réalité dans Y oratio obliqua non pas comme la transposition d'une interrogation directe, mais comme la variante expressive des conditionnel­ les, spécifiques du premier mode d'expression. En effet en des proporti­ ons pour ainsi dire inversées, interrogatives indirectes et conditionnelles semblent échanger leur représentativité dans les deux types d'écritures. 12 Et c'est en partant de cette véritable substitution fonctionnelle que nous allons chercher à comprendre en profondeur à quel point l'interrogative indirecte de 1'oratio obliqua, loin d'être une simple subordonnée objet, a une réelle valeur illocutoire et performative. De fait une équivalence expressive et structurale existe entre les con­ ditionnelles et les interrogatives en général, dans la mesure où en struc­ ture profonde les premières peuvent être données comme équivalant à un couple sémantique 'question-réponse' (Dangel 1982a: 39 et suiv., 1982b: 10). Aussi avons-nous qualifié la phrase conditionnelle d'énoncé-débat et avons-nous souligné sa parfaite adéquation avec la parole dont elle est effectivement un composant spécifique. Enoncé-débat, l'interrogative, fût-elle indirecte, l'est très exactement aussi, lorsqu'il arrive précisément à un orateur tacitéen d'accompagner cette proposition d'une réponse, au point d'offrir un véritable échange al­ terné de demandes d'informations et d'assertions explicatives. Nous cite­ rons comme exemple ce cas limite, dans la mesure où la question formulée à

218

J. DANGEL

l'infinitif devrait n'avoir q u ' u n e portée oratoire, sans effet interrogatif réel. Or, loin d'être u n e assertion même e m p h a t i q u e , l'énoncé a u n caractère suspensif, à p a r t i r du moment où il donne lieu à une réponse commentée. Mieux encore,les réponses qui sont formulées sur u n mode ironique et amer, comme le m o n t r e n t scilicet et saltem, supposent une intonation affective dont on ne saurait priver les questions. La particule enim de p u r e logique affective, placée à l'entrée m ê m e de ce morceau oratoire ainsi qu' u n an de persiflage invitent à cette interprétation: Ann. XIV,1,2 (propos e m p o r t é s de Poppée): Cur enim differri nuptias suas? Formam scilicet displicere et triumphalis auos. A n fecunditatem et uerum animum? Timeri ne uxor salmatris t e m iniurias patrum, iram populi aduersus superbiam auaritiamque aperiat. ("De fait pourquoi différer leur mariage? A p p a r e m m e n t sa b e a u t é déplaît et les triomphes de ses aïeux. Ou est-ce que p a r hasard ce seraient sa fécondité et la sincérité de ses sentiments? On craint q u ' u n e épouse du moins ne révèle les outrages faits au sénat, la colère du peuple contre la superbe et l'avarice d'une mère.") S'il est vrai qu'on ne saurait certes prendre comme preuve scientifique la p o n c t u a t i o n suspensive que les éditeurs n'hésitent pas à placer, comme d a n s l'extrait précédent, au t e r m e de certaines interrogatives indirectes, l'impression p r o d u i t e interdit de nier cet effet de sens et de diction. P l u s précisément, comme dans le cas précédent, l'intrusion d ' u n e intonation af­ fective dans le discours indirect tacitéen ressort d ' u n contexte dont la mise en oeuvre requiert une ligne mélodique. Hormis les indices précédents, u n cumul suivi d'interrogatifs introduit une d r a m a t i s a t i o n favorable à u n e diction pathétique. On citera p a r exemple les violentes incriminations des détracteurs de P é t u s Thrasea: Ann. XIII,49,2: Cur enim si rem publicam egere libertate senatoria crederet, tam leuia consectaretur? Quin de bello aut pace, de uectigalibus et legibus, quibusque aliis res Romana contineretur, suaderet dis suaderetue? Licere patribus(...) postulare. A n solum emendatione dignum ne Syracusis spectacula largius ederentur? Cetera per omnis imperii partis perinde egregia quam si non Nero sed Thrasea regimen eorum teneret ? Quod si summa dissimilatione transmitterentur, quanto magis inanibus abstinendum ? ("car enfin pourquoi s'il croyait que la liberté du sénat était indispensable à la république, s'attachait-il à de telles futilités? Que ne donnait-il u n avis favorable ou défavorable sur la guerre ou la paix, sur les impôts et les lois, sur toutes les questi­ ons intéressant l ' E t a t romain? Les sénateurs étaient libres de réclamer. Serait-ce p a r h a s a r d que la seule chose digne de réforme était d'empêcher les Syracusains de produire avec une certaine prodigalité des spectacles? Tout le reste à travers toutes les parties de l'Empire se remarquait-il au­ t a n t que non pas Néron, mais Thrasea en assurait la direction? Que si

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT

219

on feignait de se désintéresser des questions les plus importantes, combien plus devait-on s'abstenir des bagatelles?"). C'est finalement le morceau oratoire dans sa totalité qui est concerné par la tournure interrogative, avec un palier interne (Licere patribus...postulare) assertif et réservé à une réponse explicative, selon le procédé dégagé précédemment. Plus précisément les cinq questions accumulées ici ont une connotation subjective d'autant plus forte que quatre d'entre elles soulignent une attitude particulière du locuteur et sont au subjonctif. En effet, commencé avec une interrogation partielle (cur), qu'hypercaractérise une particule de la logique affective (enim), l'énoncé poursuit sa drama­ tisation avec un nouvel interrogatif en *kw- (quin) dont la connotation subjective est mise en relief par le tour négatif, tandis qu'on arrive au palier assertif. Et la série pressante des questions reprend avec une va­ riante illocutoire: l'interrogation partielle cède la place à l'interrogation totale. La particule an, dont on a déjà relevé la valeur subjective d'ironie et de rejet, introduit en réalité tant de pathétique que la question suivante, contrairement aux contraintes syntaxiques normales du discours indirect, intervient sans aucun support formel, sinon celui d'ordre expressif que lui confère la tonalité du contexte. Cette montée de l'émotion culmine dans la dernière phrase de ce bref discours avec une question dont le contenu ora­ toire est finalement plus exclamatif qu'interrogatif. A la limite, ce dernier énoncé apparaît plus proche d'un accusatif exclamatif du style direct que d'une interrogative indirecte avec ellipse de l'auxiliaire verbal. Le prédicat de forme nominale et le quantificateur judicatif quanto magis pourraient avoir leur place dans ce type d'exclamation qui, bien qu'évité 13 comme tel en latin, est propre à systématiser la position d'un sujet par rapport au procès, à la différence de ce que l'on observe avec le nominatif exclamatif essentiellement objectif. Cette relation possible avec l'accusatif exclamatif peut être étendue aux infinitives marquées d'une tonalité pathétique et représentées par une forme périphrastique avec ellipse de l'auxiliaire. Que penser en effet de l'énoncé suivant clamé par Arminius en fureur? Ann. 1,59,2: Neque probris temperabat: egregium patrem, magnum imperatorem, fortem exercitum quorum tot manus unam mulierculam auexerint! Sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procubuisse... ("Et il ne ménageait pas les invectives: quel père remarquable, quel grand général, quelle courageuse armée qui a eu besoin de tant de bras pour enlever une pauvre femme seule! Lui au contraire avait mis à genoux trois légions et autant de légats"). Illustration vivante de la phrase d'introduction, les trois accusatifs exclamatifs sont-ils l'expression directe de l'invective ou commence-t-on

220

J. DAN GEL

avec eux le discours indirect? Le parfait du subjonctif (auexerint) ten­ drait à favoriser la première explication, si l'on ne trouvait par ailleurs dans le discours indirect tacitéen de nombreux manquements à la règle de la concordance des temps. Et finalement est-il important de trancher entre l'une ou l'autre interprétation, porteuse de la même émotion sub­ jective? La volonté de Tacite n'est-elle pas plus encore de présenter une énonciation ambivalente, tant il est vrai que le discours indirect tacitéen est capable non seulement de pathétique et de subjectivité, mais surtout des mêmes effets de la parole vive que le discours direct. La ligne de par­ tage entre les deux modes d'expression est en effet parfois si floue que lors du passage d'un discours indirect au style direct à l'intérieur d'un même morceau d'éloquence, la question qui souvent assure la transition est for­ mulée de telle façon qu'on ne sait pas si l'on est encore dans la parole rapportée ou déjà dans la présentation immédiate de celle-ci. La liberté dans l'application ou non de la concordance des temps ou une forme no­ minale du verbe rend le dilemme insoluble. 14 Si l'on ajoute aux aptitudes expressives de l'interrogation indirecte les subjonctifs d'ordre 15 ainsi que les données d'une sphère d'interlocution où le locuteur reçoit un traitement particulier, on comprendra combien il est difficile de ne pas conclure, à ce point de notre réflexion, à l'existence d'une parole vive dans le discours indirect tacitéen. Quelques faits supplémentaires vont corroborer cette observation. Fa­ cilement identifiables, ils ne nécessitent pas de longs développements. Ainsi la capacité illocutoire du discours indirect tacitéen justifie pleinement la présence inattendue, mais non moins effective du déictique hic, haec, hoc, voire de l'adjectif possessif de la première personne du pluriel (noster) à des moments tendus du discours. 16 Il n'est pas jusqu'au manquement à la règle de la concordance des temps qui ne trouve ici sa place, comme nous avons déjà pu l'observer dans les exemples précédents. Plus précisément, dans ce dernier cas, il convient de distinguer les formes de subjonctif échappant à cette mécanique grammaticale impo­ sant, en raison d'un verbe introducteur au passé, un imparfait ou un plusque-parfait, et les tours périphrastiques privés d'auxiliaire, généralement équivalant à un infinitif.17 Reconnaissons seulement que ces tournures, représentant à peine plus d'un emploi sur trois avec respectivement 13% pour les subjonctifs sans concordance et 22,6% pour l'ellipse de l'auxiliaire dans les tours périphrastiques, sont d'un emploi mesuré. De fait, fruit d'un savant dosage, elles sont réservées aux endroits du discours qu'il con­ vient de marquer stylistiquement. Aussi interviennent-elles aux moments d'émotion intense, comme si elles en soulignaient l'acmè. Pour ce qui est

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT

221

ainsi des m a n q u e m e n t s à la règle habituelle de la concordance des t e m p s , introduisant u n parfait, voire u n présent du subjonctif dans u n contexte r a p p o r t é au passé, l'effet produit, comme on p e u t le voir à la lumière des exemples précédents, est celui d'une forme d'actualisation de l'énonciation, visant à réintroduire les temps originels du discours direct (Lavency 1985: 257, § 404). Reste que dans le cas des prédicats représentés p a r des adjectifs ver­ b a u x sans auxiliaire quelques explications supplémentaires s'imposent. O n souligne ordinairement à juste titre la plasticité sémantique des participes dont le sens se colore au gré du contexte. Expression en quelque sorte allégée du t e m p s et des r a p p o r t s chronologiques, le participe dont la signi­ fication dépend u n e fois de plus ici de sa référence en emploi, retire de ce m o d e de fonctionnement un aspect rapide et a b r u p t qui le r e n d a p t e chez Tacite à des effets aussi contradictoires, mais néanmoins complémentaires, que l'abstraction et la tension. Cette ambivalence n'est précisément pas faite pour déplaire à Tacite dans le discours indirect, p o r t e u r conjointe­ ment de ces deux types d'expressivité. Mais plus encore l'historien fait preuve u n e nouvelle fois d'originalité, en établissant une sorte de trilogie fonctionnelle des formes participiales. S'il est vrai ainsi que la forme la plus fréquemment rencontrée dans cette disposition est celle en -to (71,1%), celle-ci n ' e n reste pas moins confrontée aux tours en -turus,a,um et en -ndu8,a,um, c o m p t a n t respectivement pour le premier 14% et pour le se­ cond 14,9%. Exceptionnelles sont en effet ici les fonctions prédicatives attribuées à des formes nominales pures comme u n adjectif ou u n substan­ tif. Précisons à ce sujet que dans l'ensemble des subordonnées à l'infinitif, l'usage formel de celui-ci représente plus de la moitié des cas (55,5%), celui des participes environ le tiers (32,2%) et celui des substantifs ou adjectifs seulement à peine plus d'un dixième (12,3%). 1 8 De cette confrontation tripartite, Tacite tire plus précisément les ef­ fets suivants. Rappelons que, s'il est vrai que les tours périphrastiques en -to sont avant tout aptes à exprimer l'antériorité, voire le passé ac­ compli, ceux en -turus l'éventualité proche ou lointaine et ceux en -ndus l'obligation, on retrouve finalement là des nuances modales du discours di­ rect perdues au moment de la transposition au discours indirect. P l u s ex­ actement les tours en -turus et en -ndus fonctionnent comme de véritables opérateurs m o d a u x , capables d'apparaître comme les variantes expressi­ ves n o t a m m e n t du subjonctif de volonté et de possibilité ainsi que de ce t e m p s m o d a l ' qu'est le futur de l'indicatif. Ainsi se trouvent réintroduites, d ' u n e manière originale et une nouvelle fois p a r une judicieuse référence a u contexte, certaines des modalités du sujet de la parole vive.

222

J. DANGEL

Parole vive, le discours indirect tacitéen l'est indiscutablement. La fo­ calisation sur la personne du locuteur, la valeur illocutoire des interrogati­ ves indirectes, la possibilité d'actualiser l'énonciation par des déictiques ou par le recours aux temps originels du discours, l'existence d'une sphère mo­ dale en variante expressive sont là pour le prouver. Il convient seulement de souligner avec vigueur à quel point le discours indirect tacitéen obtient sa performance illocutoire de la seule référence en emploi, si bien qu'il est impossible de l'étudier indépendamment de sa forme accomplie, qui est l'ensemble du morceau oratoire lui-même. Tributaire du seul contexte, il n'a plus d'existence fonctionnelle, dès qu'on l'abstrait de celui-ci. Aussi ne saurait-il donner lieu à aucune stucture ni règle en soi, capable d'une théorisation. Mieux encore, si nous disposions de plus de place, nous pour­ rions montrer, comme nous l'avons fait ailleurs (cf. Dangel 1991a), jusqu'à quel point il existe autant de variantes originales de discours indirects qu'il y a d'orateurs, de sorte que parole vive mais aussi véritable rhétorique, l'oratio obliqua représente chez Tacite le plus bel exercice oratoire visant à la meilleure stylisation caractérisante de la vérité historique.

Notes Le terme d'oratio est ainsi appliqué aux discours indirects suivants: Ann. II,15,1; 36,4; III,12,1.; IV,8,4. On ajoutera la mention de la fonction d'orator en Ann. III,37,5. Norden 1897: 334-336. Mais il va de soi que Tacite reste tributaire de l'esthétique de son temps, reposant sur un art cicéronien stylisé à partir des doctrines du Sublime. A ce sujet, voir notamment J. Perret (1954: 108-113) et dans le Dialo­ gue des Orateurs le personnage de Maternus, partisan d'une éloquence soustendue par la poésie. Si Justin (38,3) parle d'oratio obliqua, Quintilien recourt à l'expression d'allocutio obliqua (I.O. IX,2,37). Voir aussi Ch. Hyart (1953: 9) rappelant que le terme d'obliquus, traduction du grec se serait d'abord appliqué aux cas, si bien que cette dénomination insisterait notamment sur "une manière de s'exprimer où dominent les cas obliques", avant d'être étendue aux modes et au style. Ann. I,11,1; III,12,1; dictitare, Ann. I,72; XIII,46,2-3; XIV,36,4; arguere, Ann. I,40,4; XV,55,3; XVI,27; incusare, Ann. XIV,1; XV,55,3; increpare, Ann. 39,9; XII,42; testari, Ann. II,15; XI,56; XIII,14; XIV,7; 35; (ex)clamare, Ann. 11,3,5; 17. En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement la confrontation, nécessaire dans un discours, d'un locuteur et d'un allocutaire, on citera notamment les verbes intro­ ducteurs suivants: respondere, Ann. XIII,49; XV,60; rogitare, orare, Ann. XV,62; uocare, Ann. XIV,2; interrogare, Ann. 1,17,1, sans oublier les controuersiae et débats in utramque partern. Précisons enfin certains messages écrits (lettres de Tibère au sénat) destinés à la communication.

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT

223

Il est intéressant à ce sujet de remarquer que ces attitudes caractérisent con­ jointement certains discours directs, tel Othon, H. I,36, 3. Sur la deinôsis des discours tacitéens, voir C.W. Mendell (1935: 3-53); J. Cousin (1951: 228-244) R. Hanssen (1933: 348-361). Sur un corpus de 397 propositions, réfléchis directs et indirects totalisent 84 occurrences, soit 10,5%, selon la distribution suivante: les réfléchis directs et indirects renvoyant au locuteur représentent respectivement 32 et 47 cas, soit 4% et 5,9%, tandis qu'on ne compte que 5 réfléchis directs renvoyant à un sujet autre que le locuteur, soit 0,6%. A cet ensemble il convient d'adjoindre la variante marquée du réfléchi indirect rapporté au locuteur (ipse), de caractère tout à fait exceptionnel (Ann. 1,25,3, dans un message écrit de Tibère, ... in quis perscrip­ tum erat/praecipuam ipsi fortissimarum legionum curam...). Ajoutons que 32 des 84 réfléchis, soit 38,1%, se trouvent à l'un des deux endroits stratégiques d'un morceau oratoire, le début et la fin. Aussi cette disposition représente-t-elle sur un échantillon de 120 prises de parole environ un cas sur 4 (26,6%). Ajoutons la possibilité de confrontations de personnes, opposant en général le locuteur à son antagoniste, comme en Ann. 1.12,2 (Soiam diui Augusti mentem se/ab illo); XIII,4,4 (senatus/se); 42,6 (se/illum). Rappelons enfin que se impliquant l'idée du "soi (non) altéré (intégrité, permanence, singularité, particularité)" cf. Bader 1983: 7, remplit pleinement son rôle ici. Dialogue des Orateurs, 32 et aussi Ann. IV, 32-33; Syrne 1958 chap. XI, 100 et suiv; p. 188. Notre corpus se réfère aux discours indirects suivants H. 1,21,1 (Othon); 111,2,1 (Antonius Primus); IV,5 (Helvidius Prisais); 8 (Marcellus Eprius); 13 et 17 (Ci­ vilis); 57 (Vocula); Ann. 1,17,1 (Percennius); 40,4 (collectif); 59,3 et 11,15,2 (Arminius); I 67 et 111,33,2 (Cecina); ensemble des discours indirects de Tibère: Ann. 1,11,2 (au sénat); 12 (à Gallus); 1,25,3 (lettre); 69,3 (débat intérieur); 73,3 (lettre), 11,26,2 (lettre); 36,2 (au sénat); 3,1 (au sénat); Germanicus: Ann. II,14,3;70; V.Messalinus: 111,34,2; Séjan: IV,39; Silius: XI,6,1; collectif: XI,7,2;16,5;23,2; Italicus = 17; collectif: XIII,6,2; controuersiae: 26,4; collectif: 37,5; sénat: 50,2; foule: XIV,20,2; Boudicca: 35; Suetonius: 36,1; Thrasea: 48,5; Cossutianus: XV,22,1-3; Sénèque, 60,4-62. La répartition a été effectuée à partir du corpus de la note 9 ci-dessus. Elle se présente plus précisément ainsi: sur 795 propositions, dont on a retiré 47 d'entre elles caractérisées par un subjonctif d'ordre, soit sur 748 occurrences, on relève 14 temporelles (19%), 58 circonstancielles logiques (sans les conditionnel­ les) 7,7%, 30 comparatives (4%), 102 relatives (13,6%); 57 conditionnelles (7,6%); 94 interrogatives indirectes (12,5%); 37 infinitives (50%); complétives (2,7%). Le même calcul effectué uniquement à partir des Annales donne des résultats un peu plus tranchés: temporelles 1,6%; logiques 8,4%; comparatives 5,8%; relatives 12,7%; conditionnelles 6,9%; interrogatives indirectes 13,7%; infinitives 50,2%; complétives 2,7%. Un sondage effectué dans le discours direct (voir notre article 1991a, note 54) et relatif aux Annales seules donne les résultats suivants: tem­ porelles 6,5%; logiques 9,9%; comparatives 9,8%; relatives 40,8%; conditionelles 15,1%; interrogatives indirectes 2,4%; infinitives 9,4%; complétives 6,1%. Il reste que l'originalité des orateurs est telle qu'il existe de grandes variantes par rap­ port à cette moyenne générale, aussi bien dans le discours direct qu'indirect. Il suffira par exemple de comparer ces résultats avec ceux de Tibère, donnés dans le même article 1991a, notes 99 et 102.

224 11.

12.

J. DANGEL Jakobson 1963: 192; n. aussi Marouzeau 1946: 211-212; Perrochat 1932: XVII. Enfin sur le fonctionnement de la proposition infinitive et sur les conséquences expressives, on se reportera à l'important article de G. Calboli (1983) Cf. ci-dessus, note 10, soit dans les Annales, discours indirect: conditionnelles 6,9%; interrogatives indirectes 13,7%; discours direct: conditionnelles 15,1%; in­ terrogatives indirectes 2,4%.

13.

H. Vairel-Carron (1975) 41-47; sur la valeur subjective de l'accusatif et de l'infinitif exclamatifs, sur l'affinité du premier avec des adjectifs judicatifs et sur la valeur de l'intonation, voir plus particulièrement loc.cit., p. 49-150.

14.

Sur la capacité tonale des interrogatives indirectes, voir G. Serbat 1985: 9; C. Bodelot 1987: 127. Sur une rencontre syntaxique possible entre les deux sty­ les direct et indirect, voir aussi par exemple Ann. IV,40,4: Quid si i n t e n d a t u r certamen tali coniugio?//Falleris enim, Seiane, si... Le manquement à la règle de la concordance des temps est d'autant plus vraisemblable ici qu'il a lieu dès l'entrée de ce discours indirect (40,1) ceteris mortalibus in eo stare consilia quid sibi conducere p u t e n t . D'un autre côté rien ne s'oppose à ce qu'on rattache cette question déjà au style direct. Parallèlement, dans cette fin de discours indirect pathétique (Ann. II,36,3), les nombreuses questions oratoires accompagnées de leurs réponses contenues dans des infinitives, culminent sur un dernier effet al­ terné qui supporterait pour la meilleure dramatisation un passage au style direct, Quid si honorem per quinquennium a g i t e n t ? Quinquiplicari prorsus magistra­ tes, subuerti leges, quae sua spaťza...statuerint. ("Que serait-ce dans le cas de l'exercice d'une dignité pendant cinq ans? Quintupler le nombre des magistrats, renverser des lois qui ont un laps de temps précis").

15.

Cf. ci-dessus, note 10. On a relevé 47 occurrences dans ce cas, dont chacune respecte strictement la règle de la concordance des temps. On citera comme cas limite l'exemple suivant, marqué tout à la fois par une reprise binaire du déictique hic et par un nunc d'actualisation, normalement transposé en tune ou tum, et opposé ici à quondam: Ann. 111,33,4, his statim adhaerescere deterrimum quemque prouincialium, ab his negotia suscipi transigi; duorum egressus coli, duo esse praetoria, peruicacibus magis et impotentibus mulierum iussis quae Oppiis q u o n d a m aliisque legibus constrietae, n u n c , uinclis exsolutis, domos, fora, iam et exercitus regerent. Se reporter également à Ann. 11,15,1; XIII,14,6; H. III,2,3. En ce qui concerne enfin la première personne du pluriel, voir Ann. XI,23,7 (exercitus nostros), conjugué avec une absence de concordance des temps (ceciderint) et avec la présence d'un déictique hic (Recentia haec).

16.

17.

Rappelons seulement ici la capacité de Tacite à remplacer le subjonctif de certai­ nes subordonnées par un prédicat nominal, comme par exemple dans ce discours indirect H. IV,57,6: Nunc hostis, quia m o l l e s e r u i t i u m . . Un procédé sembla­ ble se retrouve dans le discours direct avec les modes personnels, tel cet exemple Ann. I,42,2, Militesne appellem.. quibus t a m p r o i e c t a s e n a t u s a u c t o r i t a s . Sur l'aspect abrupt de ces constructions, voir en particulier J. Collart (1959: 221), qui souligne l'effet de stylisation et la valeur atemporelle résultant d'une forme nominale substituée à l'expression explicite du temps. J.Marouzeau (1946: 214216) précise que l'ellipse est fréquente dans les énoncés rapides et émotionnels ainsi que dans les dictons qui visent à la brièveté oraculaire. Ainsi se trouve souligné une nouvelle fois le caractère ambivalent du style de Tacite tout à la fois abstrait et pathétique. Enfin sur l'ellipse de l'auxiliaire verbal chez Tacite, voir aussi Draeger 1868: 86; Gantrelle 1882: 44; Longrée 1990: 284 et suiv.

SYNTAXE ET STYLISTIQUE DU DISCOURS INDIRECT 18.

225

Sur la catégorie restreinte d'adjectifs capables d'assurer la fonction de prédicat, voir Jacina 1982: 53-59, et sur les capacités expressives des formes en -ndus, voir Vairel-Carron (1975: 84 et suiv. 32), Dangel (1991c: 2480-2485 et 2505-2513).

Références Bader, F. 1983. "Fonctions et étymologie pronominales." L'Information 17, 5-9. Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes Bodelot, C. 1987. L'interrogation vain.

de Linguistique

Grammaticale

générale I. Paris.

en Latin. Syntaxe.

Valeur illocutoire.

Formes. Lou-

Bodelot, C. 1990. Termes introducteurs et modes dans Vinterrogation indirecte en Latin de Plaute à Juvénal. Paris. Calboli, G. 1983. "Problemi di grammatica latina." In: W. Haase (ed.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.29.1, 3-177; II.29.2, 1215-1221. Calboli, G. 1989. "Rhétorique classique et linguistique moderne." Mnemosyne. in onore di A. Ghiselli, 75-86.

Studi

Calboli, G. 1990(1991). "Tra corte e scuola: la retorica imperiale a Roma." In: dedicato al Convegno sulla Retorica dell'Universit à delia Calabria.

Vichiana,

Cousin, J. 1951. "Rhétorique et psychologie chez Tacite: un aspect de la Revue des Etudes Latines 29, 228-244.

deinôsis"

Dangel, J. 1982a. La phrase oratoire chez Tite-Live.

Paris.

Dangel, J. 1982b. "Les phrases conditionnelles des discours liviens: un énoncé-débat subjectif." L'Information Grammaticale 15, 10-18. Dangel, J. 1991a. "Les structures de la phrase oratoire chez Tacite: études syntaxique, rythmique et métrique." Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. W. Haase (éd.) II.33.4, 2454-2538. Dangel, J. 1991b. "Stratégies de parole dans le discours indirect de César (De Bello Gallico): étude syntaxico-stylistique." À paraître in: Mélanges M. Lavency. Louvainla-Neuve. Dangel, J. 1991c. "Les discours chez Tacite: rhétorique et imitation créatrice." Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg "Grammaire Rhétorique à Rome", (28-30 novembre 1990). Ktema 14, 1989, 291-300. Collart, J. 1959. "Quelques observations statistiques sur les parties du discours." Revue des Etudes Latines 37, 215-229. Draeger, J. 1868. Ueber Syntax und Stil des Tacitus. Leipzig (Rééd. 1967, Amsterdam). Ernout A. & F. Thomas 1984. 5 Syntaxe

latine. Paris.

Fruyt, M. 1987. "Interprétation sémantico-référentielle du réfléchi latin." Glotta 204221. Gantrelle, J. 1882. Grammaire et style de Tacite. 2 e éd. Paris. Hanssen, R. 1933. Zum Gebrauch der 'oratio obliqua' in Tacitus' Historiae und Anna­ les. Lund.

226

J. DANGEL

Hyart, Ch. 1953. Les origines du style indirect latin et son emploi jusqu'à l'époque de César. Mémoires de l'Académie royale de Belgique, Cl. de Lettres, t. 48, fasc. 2, Bruxelles. Jacina, O.I. 1982. "L'emploi adjectival des participes chez Tacite." (En ukr., rés. en russe et en all.) Inozema Filolohija 45, 53-59. Jakobson, R. 1963. Essais de Linguistique

générale. Les fondations

du langage I. Paris.

Lavency, M. 1985. Vsus. Description du latin classique en vue de la lecture des auteurs. Paris & Gembloux. Longrée, D. 1990. La 'rallonge' chez Tacite; fondements linguistiques d'un procédé de style. Thèse dactylographiée. Louvain-la-Neuve. Marouzeau, J. 1954 3 . Traité de Stylistique

latine. Paris.

Mendell, Cl.W. 1935. "Dramatic construction of Tacitus' Annals." Yale Classical Stu­ dies 5, 3-53. Miller, N. P. 1964. "Dramatic speech in Tacitus." American Journal of Philology 85, 279-296. Miller, N.P. 1968. "Tiberius speaks. An examination of the utterance ascribed to him in the Annals of Tacitus." American journal of Philology 89. Perret, J. 1954. "La formation du style de Tacite." Revue des Etudes Latines 90-120. Perrochat, P. 1932. Recherches sur la valeur et l'emploi de l'infinitif subordonné en Latin. Paris. Reiner Voss, B. 1963. Der pointierte

Stil des Tacitus.

Münster.

Saussure, F. de. 1974. Cours de Linguistique générale. Ed. critique par T. de Mauro, Paris. Serbat, G. 1985. "Le verbe introducteur de la subordonnée interrogative." L'Information Grammaticale 25, 7-10. Syme, R. 1958. Tacitus. I—II. Oxford. Vairel-Carron, H. 1975. Ordre, exclamation

et défense. Paris.

Le subjonctif dans les subordonnées en cum en latin classique Sylvie Mellet Université de Nice

Au cours d'un précédent colloque,1 M. Lavency a proposé une analyse fonctionnelle, minutieuse et pertinente, des subordonnées en cum + IND. et cum + SUBJ., analyse qui permet de rendre compte des différences syn­ taxiques entre ces propositions dans le cadre général de l'opposition entre compléments conjoints et compléments adjoints; ainsi se trouve éliminée la disparité des critères jusqu'ici utilisés, dont certains étaient syntaxiques et d'autres sémantico-logiques. La question qui demeure en suspens et qu'on voudrait ici aborder, est celle du sens exact des modes et du rôle joué par le subjonctif dans cette opposition. On espère de la sorte apporter un élément supplémentaire à l'étude des subordonnées en cum et, en même temps, esquisser une présentation de la valeur générale du subjonctif en latin. L'opposition entre cum + IND. et cum + SUBJ. est, en latin classi­ que, une opposition pertinente; le choix modal est significatif et motivé: quel sens faut-il donc lui attribuer? Si l'on songe aux valeurs traditionnelle­ ment attribuées au subjonctif, aucune d'elles n'est vraiment satisfaisante: — celle de volonté ou d'obligation est ici totalement exclue; — celle de potentiel est parfois présente, c'est indéniable (cf. Ter. Andr. 856: cum faciem uideas, uidetur esse quantiuis preti 'A regarder sa figure, il a l'air de valoir tout ce qu'on veut' ou Cic. Cat. II, 15: Sed cum sint homines qui (...) dicant, idem, si interjectus esset, quid dicerent? 'Mais s'il se trouve déjà des gens pour dire ..., que diraient-ils donc si on l'avait mis à mort?'). Mais ce cas ne représente pas la majorité des occurrences, 2 surtout en récit historique. La nuance d'éventualité, de potentiel ou d'irréel

228

SYLVIE MELLET

est inconcevable en Cic. Cat. I, 19: Cum a me quoque id responsum tulisses (...), ad Q. Metellum praetorem uenisii 'Comme je t'avais répondu à mon tour que (...), tu te rendis chez le préteur Q. Metellus'; en II, 12: Quo cum Catilina uenisset, quis eum senator appellauit? 'Catilina y vint: quel sénateur lui adressa la parole?' ou en Cés. Gall. I, 27, 2: Qui cum eum in itinere conuenissent seque ad pedes proiecissent suppliciterque locuti fien­ tes pacem petissent atque eos in eo loco quo tum essent suum aduentum expectare iussisset, paruerunt 'Ceux-ci le rencontrèrent tandis qu'il était en marche, ils se jetèrent à ses pieds et, suppliants, versant des larmes, lui demandèrent la paix; il ordonna qu'ils attendissent à l'endroit où ils se trouvaient son arrivée: ils obéirent'. — De même, on voit mal, dans ces exemples, en quoi consisterait une quelconque nuance affective ou présentation subjective des faits; ces for­ mulations sont pour le moins trop imprécises. — Reste l'expression de la dépendance, dont le subjonctif devient peu à peu le mode privilégié. Il est certain que le développement des subor­ données en cum + SUBJ. au cours de l'histoire du latin participe de cette tendance remarquable qui fait du subjonctif un instrument efficace de la nominalisation des formes subordonnées. Néanmoins, à époque classique, la répartition des deux modes réserve encore une place de choix à cum + IND. et le subjonctif n'empiète que rarement sur son domaine. Par ailleurs, M. Lavency remarque ajuste titre que "l'information contenue dans la pro-' position en cum [+ SUBJ.] est sentie comme étant de même niveau que celle qui est proposée dans la proposition principale qui la régit" ; on a "le sentiment [que] la proposition en cum «historique» est moins étroitement subordonnée que la proposition en cum «temporel»" (Lavency 1989: 248). C'est pourquoi M. Lavency propose de donner à cum + SUBJ. le nom de u cum assertif' (1976: 51 et 1985a: 266; cf. aussi Gaffiot 1906: 168). Voilà qui va curieusement à l'encontre de notre conception du subjonctif comme mode de subordination et c'est un paradoxe qu'il va falloir élucider.

1. Quelques éléments d'opposition entre cum + ind. et cum + subj. 1.1. Thème et propos: le plus souvent, la proposition conjonctive en cum, qu'elle soit à l'indicatif ou au subjonctif, fournit le 'repère constitutif' 3 de l'énoncé, c'est-à-dire son domaine organisateur, le cadre dans lequel l'énoncé prend sens. Mais la différence entre les deux types de proposi­ tions est que celle à l'indicatif s'appuie sur des éléments déjà connus, elle est donc proprement thématique, tandis que celle au subjonctif semble

LE SUBJONCTIF DANS LES SUBORDONNÉES EN CUM

229

construire le domaine de référence au fur et à mesure qu'elle s'énonce. La première renvoie à une occurrence préalablement localisée — ou, pour le moins, aisément localisable en fonction du contexte —, la seconde développe le propos préliminaire à l'énoncé de la principale (Lavency 1976: 51): Tantum profeci, cum te a consulatu reppuli, ut exsul potius tentare quam consul uexare rem publicam posses (Cic. Cat. I, 27) 'J'ai du moins gagné ceci, quand je t'ai repoussé du consulat, que tu peux, comme exilé, attaquer la république, mais non pas, comme con­ sul, la bouleverser' (la date et le résultat des élections consulaires sont bien connus de chacun) Sed cum uiderem, ne uobis quidem omnibus etiam turn re probata, si illum, ut erat meritus, morte multassem, fore ut eius socios inuidia oppressus persequi non possem, rem huc deduxi ut (...) (Cic. Cat. II, 4) 'Mais comme je voyais que si je le frappais à mort, comme il l'avait mérité, alors que vous-mêmes n'étiez pas tous convaincus, je serais dans l'impossibilité de poursuivre ses complices, tant l'opinion m'eût été contraire, j ' a i conduit l'affaire de telle sorte que (...)'

C'est pourquoi les subordonnées en cum + SUBJ. sont parfois très développées, comme dans ce dernier exemple de Cicéron ou dans celui de César cité précédemment: elles sont l'occasion de fournir au destinataire des informations annexes ou des justifications à telle ou telle action; à cet égard, on comparera dans le paragraphe suivant des Catilinaires les trois lignes d'explication fournies par Cicéron sur son propre comportement avec les laconiques participes passés décrivant le même comportement chez Marcus Lepidus et Quintus Metellus: A quo non receptus, etiam ad me uenire ausus es atque ut domi meae te adseruarem rogasti. Cum a me quoque id responsum tulisses, me nullo modo posse isdem parietibus tuto esse tecum, quia magno in periculo essem quod isdem moenibus contineremur, ad Q. Metellum praetorem uenisti. A quo repudiatus, ad sodalem t u u m (...) demigrasti (Cic. Cat. I,19) 'Econduit par celui-ci, tu as eu le front de venir chez moi, de me de­ mander de te garder dans ma maison. Comme je t'avais répondu à mon tour que je ne pouvais avec sécurité partager avec toi la même maison puisque je m'estimais déjà en grand péril de partager la même ville, tu te rendis alors chez le préteur Quintus Metellus. Repoussé par lui, t u as élu domicile chez ton camarade.'

La subordonnée est ici l'occasion d'un propos secondaire qui précède le propos principal.

230

SYLVIE MELLET

1.2. Structuration du domaine: les deux types de propositions étudiées il­ lustrent bien les deux types de structuration envisageables lorsqu'il s'agit de prédiquer un procès: ou bien la structuration s'opère à partir de la classe des instants et l'on a alors des opérations d'ordre temporel, ou bien la structuration s'opère par détermination qualitative sur un domaine notionnel; 4 cette détermination ne pouvant être effectuée que par une visée du sujet énonciateur (5o), elle constitue une opération d'ordre modal; il s'agit en effet de construire une propriété /être pj pour un sujet donné en mettant provisoirement entre parenthèses les autres propriétés possibles de ce sujet. Or ces deux modes de structuration du procès sont tout à fait décelables derrière l'opposition Cicero cum consul fuit, (..-)/ Cicero, cumconsul esset, (...)', dans le premier cas, on opère une extraction dans une classe d'occurrences discontinues, opération qui pourrait être symbolisée par le schéma suivant:

On remarquera l'affinité évidente de cette structuration avec l'aoristique. Dans le second cas, on vise une propriété particulière dans un domaine notionnel, c'est-à-dire dans un domaine continu. 5 Soit symboliquement: [

] p'

[ p

p'

En même temps qu'on délimite une portion du domaine, on en construit la portion complémentaire: les frontières ouvrent sur le sousdomaine adjacent; par rapport à la propriété /être consul/, les propriétés complémentaires seront, selon les contextes /ne pas être encore consul/, /briguer le consulat/, /ne plus être consul/, /être proconsul/ ou /être pon­ tife/, /être général en chef/, /être sénateur/ ou encore /ne pas avoir de responsabilités/, /n'avoir aucun moyen d'agir/, /être à l'écart du pouvoir/. La visée sur la propriété p fait nécessairement surgir, en filigrane, l'image du sous-ensemble complémentaire p'. Nous verrons ultérieurement les ex­ ploitations contextuelles de ce phénoméne; pour l'instant, voyons comment l'emploi du subjonctif peut conduire à de telles oppositions.

LE SUBJONCTIF DANS LES SUBORDONNEES EN CUM

231

2. La valeur propre du subjonctif 2.1. L'opération de visée: Les différents emplois du subjonctif latin, diffici­ les à rassembler sous une même étiquette notionnelle, semblent en revan­ che susceptibles de recevoir une explication unifiée en termes d'opération énonciative: ils expriment tous une visée du sujet énonciateur. Qu'entendon exactement par 'visée' ? Alors que l'indicatif asserte la proposition p pour la situer dans une succession d'occurrences définies et élimine l'ensemble p ' des autres pro­ positions, le subjonctif au contraire oriente vers p dans un ensemble de propositions envisageables, tout en laissant subsister la possibilité des au­ tres propositions, y compris celle de non-p. Soit symboliquement:

So
Sop p'

L'altérité est éliminée

p'

L'altérité est maintenue

Alors que l'indicatif présente la relation prédicative comme validable par au moins un sujet énonciatif (généralement l'énonciateur S0 et le co-énonciateur ou le destinataire), le subjonctif soustrait au contraire la relation à cette validation: il empêche qu'elle puisse être déclarée vraie ou fausse. Les divers emplois du subjonctif latin peuvent être ainsi glosés: 'Quelle que soit la valeur de vérité attribuable à p dans le monde réel, situons-nous dans un cadre qui permette de formuler p\ Ainsi la visée suppose: 1) que S0 retienne p parmi l'ensemble des relations constituant le domaine notionnel 2) que toutes les autres relations restent néanmoins disponibles, présentes à l'esprit. Envisageons dans cette perspective quelques-uns des principaux em­ plois du subjonctif en latin: vouloir ou souhaiter p: c'est s'orienter (ou orienter le destinataire) vers p tout en admettant que d'autres relations predicatives pourront se réaliser; déclarer p possible, c'est retenir p, mais laisser aussi des chances à, p1, P2, pn •••; supposer p, c'est se placer dans un monde fictif où l'on peut soustraire p à l'opposition vrai/faux et la rendre énonçable sans nier pour autant les autres éventualités. On ne saurait ici entrer dans le détail des divers emplois du subjonctif; l'essentiel est de noter que ce mode ne permet en rien de préjuger de la réalité de l'état de choses qu'il décrit: quelle que soit la valeur de vérité de p, il met cette relation prédicative dans la dépendance d'une visée énonciative dont les motivations peuvent être très variées. Voyons ce que sont ces motivations dans les subordonnées introduites par cum.

232

SYLVIE MELLET

2.2. Le subjonctif dans les subordonnées en cum: 2.2.1. Le sujet énonciateur retient p comme repère constitutif nécessaire à son propos, mais reconnaît lui-même la possibilité d'autres occurrences. Cum + SUBJ. prend alors le sens de 'quand il s'agit de', 'dans le cas où'; le contexte ajoute souvent des éléments d'éventualité ou d'indétermination montrant qu'il s'agit d'un cas possible parmi d'autres: Nec uero ille artifex, cum faceret Iouis formam aut Mineruae, contemplabatur aliquem e quo similitudinem duceret (Cic. Or. 11, 9) 'Ce grand artiste, quand il sculptait son Jupiter ou sa Minerve, n'avait pas devant les yeux un modèle dont il cherchait à rendre les traits.' Erat (...) in disserendo, mira explicatio; cum de iure ciuili, cum de aequo et bono disputaretur, argumentorum et similitudinum copia (Cic. Br. 143) 'C'était, dans le développement des idées, une netteté d'exposition ad­ mirable; lorsqu'il s'agissait de discuter sur le droit civil ou sur le bien et l'équité, c'était une profusion d'arguments et d'exemples'

La subordonnée est ici une véritable protase 7 qui construit le monde de référence pour l'apodose qui suit. Elle le fait par délimitation à l'intérieur du domaine notionnel suggéré par le contexte: ainsi dans l'ensemble des activités associées à ille artifex8 elle retient l'activité de représentation d'un dieu; naturellement celle d'un humain ou d'un animal n'est pas éliminée des possibilités, mais elle n'entre pas dans la logique de l'énoncé. La visée s'inscrit ici dans une logique discursive, elle sert de tremplin à l'argumentation. 2.2.2. Pour le sujet énonciateur seule la proposition p est envisageable, mais il admet que tel n'est peut-être pas le cas pour l'interlocuteur ou le destinataire; la subordonnée par cum + SUBJ. permet alors d'orienter celui-ci vers p, d'intégrer cette proposition à son 'univers de croyance' 9 . Ainsi peut s'expliquer la formule Quae cum ita sint (Cic. Cat. I, 20 et II, 26, par ex.) qu'on glosera de la manière suivante: 'quelle que soit la valeur de vérité que tu attribues à cette analyse de la situation, prenonsla comme cadre de notre discussion'. La formule serait donc plus courtoise qu'un quoniam + IND. présupposant un consensus total entre locuteur et interlocuteur. L'exemple n'est sans doute pas très probant, dans la mesure où il s'agit d'une formule stéréotypée. Mais les textes offrent bien d'autres exemples pour illustrer cette nuance de cum + SUBJ.:

LE SUBJONCTIF DANS LES SUBORDONNEES EN CUM

233

Igitur cum tria genera sint a specie simplicia agrorum, campestre, collinum, montanum (...) (Varr. R.R. III, 1, 1) 'Donc, puisqu'il y a trois types naturels de paysages, ceux de plaine, ceux de vallons et ceux de montagne, (...)' C u m autem pulchritudinis duo genera sint quorum in altero uenustas sit, in altero dignitas, uenustatem muliebrem ducere debemus, digni­ t a t e m uirilem (Cic. Off. I, 130) 'Il existe deux genres de beauté: dans l'un réside la grâce, dans l'autre la dignité; et nous devons considérer la grâce comme propre à la femme, la dignité comme propre à l'homme.' 1 0

Un emploi plus polémique apparaît fréquemment dans les Catilinaires: Potestne tibi haec lux, Catilina, aut huius caeli spiritus esse iucundus, cum scias esse horum neminem qui nesciat te pridie Kalendas Ianuarias, Lepido et Tullo consulibus, stetisse in comitio cum telo, magnam manum, consilium et principum ciuitatis interficiendorum causa, parauisse, sceleri ac furori tuo non mentem aliquam aut timorem tuum, sed Fortunam populi romani obstitisse? (Cic. Cat. I, 15) 'Quel charme peut avoir pour toi, Catilina, la lumière de notre ciel ou l'air que nous respirons, quand tu sais que nul ici n'ignore que la veille des calendes de janvier, sous le consulat de Lepidus et de Tullus, tu te tenais avec une arme sur le forum, que tu avais aposté une grande troupe d'hommes pour assassiner les consuls et les principaux citoyens, que cette folie criminelle, ce ne fut ni un sursaut de ta volonté, ni la peur qui l'ont tenue en échec, mais la Fortune du peuple romain.'

A voir l'ampleur que prend la complétive après le verbe scias, on est conduit à penser que Cicéron n'est pas tout à fait sûr que la situation soit connue du sénat, véritable destinataire de son discours; dans l'ensemble notionnel qui couvre les différents états de connaissance de celui-ci, Cicéron vise donc la proposition / t u sais que personne n'ignore/, mais ne peut exclure des réalités contraires. Tu, cum conscientia scelerum tuorum agnoscas odium omnium iustum et iamdiu [tibi] debitum, dubitas (...)? (Cic. Cat. I, 17) 'Toi, qui, dans la conscience de tes crimes, sais que cette haine uni­ verselle est justifiée, que tu l'as depuis longtemps méritée, hésites-tu encore (...)?'

Là encore, l'attitude de Catilina jette un doute sur sa capacité à prendre conscience de ses crimes et les hésitations du Sénat jettent un doute sur l'existence et la justification d'une haine universelle. Cicéron vise p, mais le sous-ensemble complémentaire des autres propositions reste présent. 11 Le point commun à tous ces exemples est qu'il faut prendre en compte le co-énonciateur pour justifier le mode employé. On y perçoit aussi la force argumentative de la visée énonciative: elle permet d'orienter, de suggérer,

234

SYLVIE MELLET

d'expliciter dans u n cadre syntaxique qui se trouve d'emblée soustrait à l'opposition vrai/faux et qui est donc exclu de la discussion contradictoire. D a n s les exemples précédents, il s'agit d'orienter et l'interlocuteur et le de­ stinataire vers u n e représentation qu'ils ont tendance à refuser; l'emploi est donc particulièrement polémique. Mais il peut aussi s'agir tout simple­ ment d'introduire dans leur univers de croyance u n e donnée qui leur était jusque-là inconnue (cf. Cic. Cat. II, 4 cité plus h a u t ) ; telle est l'origine, nous semble-t-il, du cum historicum qui permet au n a r r a t e u r d'intégrer u n élément nouveau nécessaire au développement du récit. 2.2.3. Deux tours

particuliers:

2.2.3.1. Cum ... tum ...: F . Gaffiot (1906: 175 s.) relève plusieurs exemples d'opposition entre indicatif et subjonctif dans ce tour corrélatif. E n voici deux paires: Nam cum te semper amaui dilexique, t u m mei amantissimum cognoui, t u m patris tui pluribus beneficiis uel defensus tristibus temporibus uel ornatus secundis et sum totus uester et esse debeo (Cic. Fam. XV, 7, 1)

Nam cum te a pueritia tua unice dilexerim (...), turn hoc uel tuo facto uel populi romani de te iudicio multo acrius uehementiusque diligo (Cic. Fam. XV, 9, I)

'Car j ' a i toujours eu pour toi beaucoup d'affection et d'estime, et j ' a i pu apprécier avec quelle chaleur tu m'aimes; mais ce n'est pas tout: ton père m'a comblé de ses bienfaits, soit qu'il m'ait défendu aux heures sombres, soit qu'il ait contribué à la gloire des jours heureux.'

'En effet, tu m'as toujours inspiré, dès l'enfance, une affection exceptionnelle; mais, à cause de ce qui arrive aujourd'hui, que ce soit en raison de ton intervention ou de l'estime que tu inspires au peuple, je te chéris encore bien davantage et plus vivement.'

Equidem te cum in dicendo putaui deum, t u m uero tibi numquam eloquentiae maiorem tribui laudem quam humanitatis (Cic. de Or. I, 106)

Sed cum tota philosophia (...) frugifera et fructuosa (...) sit, t u m nullus feracior in ea locus est nec uberior quam de officiis (Cic. Off. III, 5)

'Si je t'ai toujours regardé comme le dieu de l'éloquence, je n'ai jamais prisé ton ta­ lent plus haut que ta courtoisie.'

'La philosophie toute entière est fertile et féconde, néanmoins aucun domaine en elle n'est plus riche et plus productif que celui des devoirs.'

O n observe que les occurrences à l'indicatif ne comportent aucune con­ tradiction ni aucune restriction entre les deux membres de la corrélation. E n revanche, c'est l'observation inverse qui s'impose pour les occurrences a u subjonctif, où cum p r e n d une nuance concessive. Au moment où il énonce la proposition p (par ex. / t e ego unice diligere/), l'énonciateur a

LE SUBJONCTIF DANS LES SUBORDONNÉES EN CUM

235

déjà en tête une autre proposition qui appartient au complémentaire p ' de la proposition initiale: /te ego acrius uehementiusque diligere/; p ' était donc disponible au moment où p était assertée: on retrouve la définitionmême de la visée qui définit la valeur du subjonctif. 2.2.3.2.: Cum relatif:12 la distribution des modes dans ce type de pro­ position correspond tout à fait à celle que l'on observe en général dans les relatives: les relatives par cum + SUBJ sont le plus souvent des relatives restrictives caractérisantes (Touratier 1982: 328); elles font du circonstant l'équivalent d'un sic, non pas d'un tunc; elles fournissent une détermination qualitative, une délimitation sur la notion continue de tempus, en visant la propriété caractéristique, celle qui va permettre l'interprétation des événements racontés: Turbulentissimo rei publicae tempore cum aduentu L. Sullae maxumi exercitus ciuium dissiderent a iudiciis ac legibus (Cic. Font. 6) 'A cette époque si troublée où, à l'arrivée de Sylla, des armées immenses de citoyens étaient en révolte contre l'autorité des tribunaux et des lois.' Accepit enim agrum temporibus iis cum iacerent pretia praediorum (Cic. Q. Rosc. 33) 'Il a reçu en effet un champ en ces temps où les biens ruraux étaient à bas prix.'

Au contraire, un cum relatif suivi de l'indicatif n'est que l'épithète d'une époque déjà déterminée et isolée dans un ensemble discontinu de moments spécifiés: tel est le cas dans l'exemple suivant, où la détermination préalable d'une unité parmi un ensemble d'unités analogues est assurée par l'adjectif quoddam:13 Fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum more uagabantur (Cic. de Diu. I, 2) 'Il y eut une certaine époque où les hommes erraient sans attache fixe dans les champs, à la manière des bêtes sauvages.'

Ces deux emplois de cum, qu'on peut distinguer sur le plan synta­ xique comme des emplois particuliers, n'apportent donc aucun élément spécifique à l'étude du mode de la subordonnée.

3. Le choix des temps On a souvent observé que les subordonnées en cum + SUBJ. présentaient une affinité particulière avec l'imparfait et le plus-que-parfait (voir par ex.

236

SYLVIE MELLET

Lavency 1976: 51 ou la syntaxe d'Ernout et T h o m a s , § 362). Cette affinité mérite d'être observée de près. Le trait caractéristique commun à l'imparfait et au plus-que-parfait est d'ouvrir le procès sur des perspectives ultérieures au point de repère choisi: avec l'imparfait, ces perspectives font partie du procès lui-même qui est saisi en cours de développement, avec le plus-que-parfait, elles consti­ t u e n t les séquelles du procès proprement dit qui est saisi après son t e r m e final. Mais, dans les deux cas, le repérage énonciatif aboutit à donner u n e image ouverte sur u n espace immédiatement adjacent. 1 5 La visée modale p o r t e r a donc aussi sur ce domaine adjacent. E n voici deux exemples tirés des Catilinaires: (...) fortis ab istis praedicabatur, cum industriae subsidia atque instru­ menta uirtutis in libidine audaciaque consumeret (II, 9) 'Ils lui faisaient une réputation de courage, alors qu'il gaspillait dans l'orgie et dans les forfaits ses réserves d'activité et ses ressources d'énergie.'

Ce que Cicéron vise à travers la subordonnée au subjonctif, c'est t o u t l'ensemble logique : non pas le seul procès consumere, mais aussi ses conséquences, ses développements ultérieurs; seule une visée qui englobe ainsi la suite a t t e n d u e du procès peut être mise en regard du constat fortis ab istis praedicabatur. Quid uero? nuper cum morte superioris uxoris nouis nuptiis domum uacuefecisses, nonne etiam alio incredibili scelere hoc scelus cumulauisti? (I, 14) 'Et quoi? naguère, alors que par la mort de ta première femme tu avais fait place nette dans ta maison en vue d'un nouveau mariage, n'as-tu pas couronné ce crime par un autre crime inimaginable?'

Là encore le domaine notionnel sur lequel Cicéron opère u n e visée s'organise a u t o u r des séquelles du procès décrit; ce pourrait être quel­ que chose comme {/tuer sa femme et se r e p e n t i r / , / t u e r sa femme et être c o n d a m n é / , / t u e r sa femme, puis c o m m e t t r e u n a u t r e c r i m e / } . L'orateur s'oriente et oriente son auditoire vers l'une des deux premières propositions et met en regard la réalité, qui illustre au contraire la troisième proposi­ tion; c'est u n moyen, parmi d'autres, de souligner le caractère scandaleux du c o m p o r t e m e n t de Catilina. P a r conséquent, avec l'imparfait ou le plus-que-parfait, la visée mo­ dale p o r t e non pas seulement sur le procès lui-même, mais aussi sur ses développements ou ses séquelles. 1 6 Ainsi le domaine notionnel n'est pas {p, ]?'}, mais {p puis q, p puis ç'} ou même {p donc q, p donc g'}; le sujet

LE SUBJONCTIF DANS LES SUBORDONNEES EN CUM

237

énonciateur retient l'un des développements possibles du procès tout en admettant que d'autres développements sont envisageables. Si la réalité (généralement énoncée dans la principale») confirme son choix, si elle se trouve en harmonie avec la suite p puis q (ou p donc q) ainsi visée, la succession des faits paraîtra correspondre à un enchaînement logique et prévisible: cum + SUBJ. prendra une nuance causale ou explicative (voir Cat. II, 4). Si, en revanche, la réalité infirme cet enchaînement, cum + SUBJ. exprimera l'opposition ou la concession. Il s'agit là de nuances qui ne sont pas dues au subjonctif lui-même, mais à la confrontation entre la proposition visée et la proposition assertée dans la principale. On le voit, l'emploi de l'imparfait ou du plus-que-parfait permet de renforcer l'évocation des liens logiques entre principale et subordonnée; or on a déjà remarqué (cf. § 2.2.1 et 2.2.2) que cum + SUBJ. — y compris avec le subjonctif présent ou le subjonctif parfait — avait pour fonction de four­ nir le point de départ d'une argumentation, d'une démarche spéculative ou d'une progression dans un récit. Le recours à l'imparfait ou au plusque-parfait, quand il est possible, ne peut donc que soutenir cette fonction: ceci explique, en partie au moins, la prédilection de la construction étudiée pour ces temps verbaux. En conclusion on soulignera que l'emploi du subjonctif dans les sub­ ordonnées en cum n'infirme en rien, bien au contraire, la valeur générale de ce mode, du moins en latin classique. La même opération énonciative de visée justifie ses emplois indépendants et cet emploi subordonné, qui est un emploi libre et motivé chez Cicéron et ses contemporains. Que, par la suite, la dépendance inhérente à toute visée modale fasse de ce sub­ jonctif un mode de simple subordination est indéniable. Mais il valait la peine, nous semble-t-il, de montrer en quoi l'opposition modale a pu être pertinente.

Notes 1. 2.

3ème colloque de linguistique latine, Bologne, 1-5 avril 1985. Deux exemples seulement sur les 15 occurrences fournie par les deux premières Catilinaires

3.

Terminologie d'A. Culioli.

4. 5.

Ce que M. Lavency résume par l'opposition quando? vs. quo statu rerum? Cf. J.-P. Maurel (à paraître): 'La subordonnée n'y marque pas, à l'évidence, un repère temporel, et d'ailleurs commute difficilement avec tum. Elle décrit plutôt une propriété remarquable d'un des termes de la principale'.

238 7.

SYLVIE MELLET Le remplacement de cum par si ne semble pas impossible.

8.

C'est-à-dire Phidias.

9.

Terminologie de R. Martin.

10.

Pour d'autres exemples, voir F. Gaffiot 1906: 168-9.

11. 12.

Voir aussi Cat. I,16. On reprend la terminologie traditionnelle et on entend par là les tours du type eo tempore cum (...); mais ne pourrait-on pas tout aussi bien parler de cum relatif dans Cicero, cum consul esset, (...)? Cf. G. Serbat, "Erat Pipa quaedam", R.E.L. 62, 1985, pp. 844-866.

13. 14.

Le recours à l'indicatif est aussi facilité, très probablement, par le choix du temps: l'imparfait est en effet le plus modal des temps de l'indicatif.

15.

Cf. S. Mellet, "Quelques exemple d'interférences entre temps, aspect et mode: pour une analyse énonciative", in: La validité des catégories attachées au verbe, Paris, P.U.P.S. (coll. 'Lingua latina) 1992, 63-74.

16.

On a peut-être là une clé pour l'interprétation de ce curieux passage de Diomède: Finitiuis enim iungitur quotiens ad id tempus quo agebam refertur, ueluti cum declamo uenit, id est ipso tempore quo declamo (...). Subiunctius uero, cum post factum aliquid perfectum significat, ueluti cum uenisset declamaui; significat enim prius ueniese eum et sic ne coepisse declamare iCum est construit avec l'indicatif quand il fait référence au moment-même de l'acte, par ex. dans cum declamo uenit, c'est-à-dire "au moment-même où je déclame". En revanche, il se construit avec le subjonctif quand on indique que quelque chose s'est produit après, par ex. dans cum uenisset declamaui'. on indique ici d'abord que quelqu'un est venu, et puis qu'alors on s'est mis à déclamer'. Cité et traduit par M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe à Rome. Paris: Eds. de Minuit, 1989, p. 133.

Références Calboli, Gu. 1966 et 1968. "I modi del verbo greco e latino 1903-1966." Lustrum 173-349 et 13, 405-511.

11,

Culioli, A. 1978. "Valeurs modales et opérations énonciatives." Le Franc, mod. 46, 300-317. Culioli, A. 1982. Rôle des représentations métalinguistiques en syntaxe. Collection ERA 642, Département de Recherches Linguistiques de l'Université de Paris VII. Haie, W.-G. 1887. The cum- constructions.

Cornell Univ. Press.

Handford, S.-A. 1947. The Latin subjunctive: to Tacitus. London: Methuen. Gaffiot, F. 1906. Le subjonctif

de subordination

its usage and development from

Plautus

en latin. Paris, s. n.

Lavency, M. 1975-76. "La valeur de la conjonction cum en latin." Les Et. Cl. 43, 367-386 et 44, 45-59. Lavency, M. 1985a. "Critères logiques et critères syntaxiques dans la description du latin classique." In: Mélanges Skok, 263-271. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti.

LE SUBJONCTIF DANS LES SUBORDONNÉES EN CUM

239

Lavency, M. 1985b. "Problèmes du classement des propositions en cum.'''' In: Ch. Tou­ ratier (éd.) Syntaxe et Latin. Actes du II éme colloque de linguistique latine (Aixen-Provence, 28-31 mars 83), 279-286. Univ. de Provence. Lavency, M. 1986. "Le paradigme syntaxique de l'ablatif absolu." In: F. Decreus & C. Deroux (éds.) Hommages à Joseph Veremans. Coll. Latomus n° 193, pp. 184-191. Bruxelles. Lavency, M. 1989. "Pour une description syntaxique de la phrase latine: compléments conjoints et compléments adjoints." In: Gu. Calboli (éd.) Subordination and other topics in Latin. Actes du IIIéme colloque de linguistique latine (Bologne, 1-5 avril 85), 242-252. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Maurel, J.-P. A paraître. "Cum ou la subordination dans tous ses états." In: Vsus, Hommages à M. Lavency. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain. Nutting, H.-C. 1918. Caesar's use of past tenses in cum clauses. Univ. of California Publications in Classical Philology, vol. 5, n° 1. Thomas, F.1938. Recherches sur le subjonctif latin: histoire et valeur des formes.

Paris.

Touratier, Ch. 1977 et 1982. "Valeurs et fonctionnement du subjonctif latin." Revue des Etudes Latines 55, 370-406 et 60, 313-335. Sonnenschein, E.A., 1910. The unity of Latin subjunctive.

London: J. Murray.

Vester, 1989. "Relative clauses: a description of the indicative-subjunctive opposition." In: Gu. Calboli (éd.) Subordination and other topics in Latin. Actes du IIIéme colloque de linguistique latine (Bologne, 1-5 avril 85), 327-350. Amsterdam Sz Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

The semantic value of restrictive participle clauses in Latin Johanna A.H. Mensink Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, München

Introduction1 In clause-combining one can distinguish at least two degrees of embedding of the subordinate clause within the main clause.2 In the literature several distinctions of adverbial subclauses have been made on the basis of the closeness of the connection between main clause and subclause, which in turn is established on the basis of a number of criteria (see III below). The above meant distinctions can also be applied in cases of clausecombining where participles 3 are involved. I will make use for terminology of the terms restrictiveness and non-restrictiveness 4 with the feature of omissibility as the distinctive criterion. A restrictive participle cannot be omitted without changing the message of the main clause. Two examples will illuminate the distinction. (1)

Caes. Gall.1,39,2 hic primum ortus est a tribunis militum, praefectis reliquisque, qui ex urbe amicitiae causa Caesarem secuti non magnum in re militari usum habebant. 'It began with the military tribunes, the prefects, and the men with little experience of war who had followed Caesar from Rome in order to cultivate his friendship. '

(2)

Caes.Gall.l,23,3 Helvetii ... quod timore perterritos Romanos discedere a se existimarent, eo magis quod pridie superioribus locis occupatis proelium non commisissent. 'The H. perhaps thought that we were breaking contact with them out of fear, especially as we had declined an engagement the day before, although we had the advantage of position.'

242

J.A.H. MENSINK

Instinctively one might say that the participle construction in (1) has a more independent status than the one in (2). In (1) the content of the participial clause prepares the reader for the message of the main clause and anticipates the questions that could arise for the reader, such as 'Why are they unexperienced in war?' and 'What are they doing in the army?'. In (2) the content of the participial clause itself is a salient, non-omissible part of the message of the main clause. It is presented as an explanation why the Helvetians thought that the Romans were retreating. A clue for this hypothesis could be drawn not from the mere fact that the Romans did not start a battle, but from their not doing so although they were strategically prepared for it. It appears that the Romans have changed their minds. In (2), therefore, the complex of main clause and participial clause builds a significant unit of information, whereas in (1) the participial clause independently is an information unit, providing background infor­ mation to the State of Affairs of the main clause. The aim of this paper is to review the restrictive/non-restrictive bifurca­ tion as treated by several authors (see III, below), especially the distinc­ tive features of restrictive participial clauses and their possible semantic interpretations in relation to the main clause. I hope to show that the distinction is useful because the role of the context in the interpretation of the semantic relation between participial construction and main clause is determined by the feature of restrictiveness. In the case of a restrictive participle the context is fully responsible for this semantic interpretation, whereas the context of a non-restrictive participle merely provides more or less cogent clues for the most plausible semantic interpretation. Most of the given examples are taken from Caesar, Bellum Gallicum, 1,1-39,2; Tacitus, Annales 1,1-16; and 12,1-36, three passages of Latin that I searched for all occurrences of participial constructions in my master thesis of 1989. The material comprises over 250 examples, respectively 100, 50, and 100.

I. Non-restrictive participle constructions Before turning to my subject proper I will deal briefly with the character­ istics of non-restrictive cases. One of the results of my former research was that non-restrictive participial constructions maintain less specific relations with the main clause than restrictive participle constructions. Non-restrictive participle constructions seem to contain a more or less in­ dependent message on the level of discourse, although this message usually

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 243 consists of subsidiary information. Their State of Affairs often supplies the background information needed to get the message of the main clause cor­ rectly understood in the way the author wishes. Three further examples will enlighten the characteristics of non-restrictive participles. (3)

Caes.Gall. 1,28,2 reliquos omnes obsidibus, armis, perfugis traditis in deditionem accepit. 'All the rest were allowed to surrender after handing over the hostages, deserters, and arms.'

(4)

Caes.Gall.l,4,3 cum civitas ob earn rem incitata armis ius suum exsequi conaretur... Orgetorix mortuus est. 'When his countrymen, angered by this behaviour, attempted to assert their rights by armed force... O. died.'

(5)

Tac.Ann.12,8,3 at Agrippina ne malis t a n t u m facinoribus notesceret veniam exilii pro Annaeo Seneca, simul praeturam impetrat, laetum in publicum rata ob claritudinem studiorum eius. 'A., however, was anxious not to be credited with bad actions only. So she now secured the recall of S. from exile and his appointment to a praetorship. She judged that owing to his literary eminence this would be popular.'

In (3), (4) and (5) all three participle constructions are non-restrictive, be­ cause they contain independent, subsidiary information that can be omit­ ted without altering the basic message of the main clause. In (3) the State of Affairs of traditis gives the mixed temporal and causal background for the acceptance of the surrender. Such a combined temporal and causal semantic relation with the main clause is very common for non-restrictive clauses, although in many cases either the causal or the temporal relation is felt to be predominant. The more or less purely causal cases very often supply the explanatory background for the focal element of the main clause, e.g. armis in (4). The civitas is disappointed that Orgetorix was not condemned to death during the trial in the previous context and now takes up weapons against him. The new, contrastive element, the taking up of arms, is introduced by the explanation provided in the participle construction ob earn rem incitata, referring to the acquittal. A temporal semantic relation is the unmarked interpretation of nonrestrictive participle constructions containing subsidiary information of various nature on the level of discourse, because participles always express relative tense in relation to the main clause. Sometimes a temporal nonrestrictive participial clause approximates the use of a temporal connector (e.g. his verbis dictis) and then the discourse contribution is almost zero. Apparently, one rarely finds a temporal non-restrictive participial clause

244

J.A.H. MENSINK

that strictly locates the main clause event on the time axis. A temporal frame is often not very different from a circumstantial one. A concessive relation to the main clause is the only other possible interpretation for the non-restrictive participles in my material. These cases only differ from the causals in the presence of some kind of contrast or incompatibility with an element in the surrounding context, it is important to notice that it is often very hard to label the prevalent semantic value of non-restrictive participles; i.e. the choice of the best fitting paraphrase by means of a subordinate clause with a subordinator is a difficult one. In none of the cases is the semantic relation emphasized, i.e. the relation has no focus nor are there explicit markers of the concessive relation. Example 5 is added in order to show that non-restrictive participles also occur in postponed position (never in the Caesar text, 5 times in the Ann.l, 20 times in the Ann.12 text) and to what extent non-restrictive clauses can be applied as a device to put the facts of the main clause in a favourable or — as in this case — unfavourable light. Tacitus is careful not to disturb his picture of the bad character of Agrippina by reference to a benefit on her part. So he destroys the positive effect of the main clause firstly by the preceding ne-clause which draws attention to her so-called crimes and secondly by means of the postponed participle which implies that even behind this action stands a witty calculation to her own profit. A further subtlety is the fact that Tacitus ascribes the negative remarks to Agrippina's own fictive reflexion.

II. Restrictive participle constructions The semantic value of non-restrictive participles with respect to their main clauses being unspecific, the quest for a classification of semantic relations in clause combining with restrictive participles becomes particularly rele­ vant and interesting. It is not only possible to assign a specific semantic interpretation to their relation with the main clause, but this relation is also very often focused. Firstly, I will discuss several criteria used in the literature to distin­ guish restrictive participles and show by what clues from the context one arrives at the semantic interpretation. Secondly, I will deal with each of the attested semantic groups in my material in detail and refer to the differ­ ences with non-restrictive cases yielding a similar interpretation. Special attention will be paid to concessive and conditional participles, the latter interpretation — at least in my material — being confined to restrictive

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 245 cases. Finally, I will briefly take into account a group of participle con­ structions to which no explicit semantic value can be a t t r i b u t e d t h o u g h they definitely are restrictive. I will show t h a t in these cases t h e participles lack so m a n y of t h e features of an independent full clause t h a t a relation to their m a i n clause is h a r d to specify because they are felt to be a coherent p a r t of it. These constructions always have focus function.

III. Restrictiveness in the literature W i t h reference to adverbial clauses Chafe (1984) provides cognitive criteria to achieve a distinction between what he calls Free a n d B o u n d clauses. I m p o r t a n t for his theory is t h e notion of t h e information unit, a unit containing a complete item of information with boundaries m a r k e d by intonation or, in written language, by p u n c t u a t i o n . It is unlikely for two clauses within one information unit to b o t h convey new, focal information, because t h a t would impose t o o heavily on t h e cognitive capacities of t h e language receiver (reader or hearer). E q u a t i n g t h e F r e e / B o u n d distinction a n d t h e non-restrictive/restrictive distinction, we may derive from Chafe t h e following working definition for our goal: A restrictive participle construction forms with its main clause one information unit. The information of one of the combined clauses is expected to be new or salient, the information of the other more or less familiar. In his research of t h e semantic variability of Free Adjuncts a n d Absolutes in English — to be compared with Latin participia coniuncta a n d ablativi absoluti respectively —, S t u m p (1985) draws a t t e n t i o n to t h e fact t h a t t h e semantic interpretation of these constructions is m o r e dependent on inference on t h e p a r t of t h e language receiver t h a n t h a t of adverbial clauses. Since t h e semantic relation is not m a d e explicit, t h e interpreta­ tion of these constructions requires a greater effort on t h e p a r t of t h e language r e a d e r / h e a r e r . It is, however, not only the presence or absence of a conjunction t h a t determines t h e demands m a d e on t h e r e a d e r / h e a r e r . In addition, it is i m p o r t a n t whether the m a i n clause without t h e adjunct is indetermined or non-specific. W h e n undetermined t h e m a i n clause without t h e adjunct is not a complete independent u t t e r a n c e , which is shown by t h e fact t h a t no t r u t h value can be a t t r i b u t e d to it. It is by inference of the semantic relation of t h e adjunct t h a t t h e t r u t h conditions for t h e m a i n clause are determined.

246

J.A.H. MENSINK (A1) 6 (B1) (C1)

Standing on a chair, John can touch the ceiling (ibidem: 43). Lying on the beach, John sometimes smokes a pipe (ibidem: 98). Drunk, he drives very dangerously (ibidem: 99).

In (A1), ( B l ) a n d (C1) t h e u n m a r k e d interpretation is to take t h e adjunct as t h e condition for t h e m a i n clause being true. In other words: t h e ad­ j u n c t s restrict t h e t r u t h conditions of the m a i n clause. J o h n can t o u c h t h e ceiling if he is standing on a chair, he sometimes smokes a pipe, b u t if so, always lying on t h e beach and nothing has been s t a t e d about his driving when sober. W h e r e t h e m a i n clause without the adjunct is non-specific t h e in­ formation expressed in this m a i n clause is complete in itself, t h e adjunct merely providing t e m p o r a l or causal background information. In t h e fol­ lowing examples (A2), (B2) a n d (C2) t h e u n m a r k e d a n d probably only right interpretation is to take for granted t h e facts contained in t h e m a i n clauses a n d to infer from t h e adjuncts t h e explanation for these facts. (A2) (B2) (C2)

Having unusually long arms, John can touch the ceiling (ibidem: 43) Being a sailor, John sometimes smokes a pipe (ibidem: 98). Being a drunk, he drives very dangerously (ibidem: 99).

Summarizing, I formulate freely following S t u m p : A restrictive participle construction is recognized as such if its re­ moval would leave the main clause as a semantically incomplete utterance. Furthermore the interpreting of the semantic relation will be felt as the finding of the one right key, whereas in nonrestrictive cases the inference of this relation results in the inter­ preting of the participle construction as an item of background information. F r o m t h e theory of Functional G r a m m a r , one can derive criteria similar t o those of Chafe a n d S t u m p . Vester (1988: 270) points to t h e fact t h a t t h e complex of a restrictive participle a n d its m a i n clause refers to one a n d t h e same S t a t e of Affairs whereas in t h e case of non-restrictive participles t h e r e is simply a combination of two independent States of Affairs. As proof for this independence, she calls a t t e n t i o n t o t h e fact t h a t a n a n a p h o r i c element from t h e context can separately refer to t h e State of Affairs of t h e participle construction. My material does not show any examples of such reference to free constructions, b u t one instance shows t h a t t h e point of reference of an anaphoric element is equally illustrative in restrictive cases. (6)

Caes.Gall.l,17,6 quin etiam, quod necessariam rem coactus Caesari enuntiarit intellegere sese, quanto id cum periculo fecerit, et ob earn causam quam diu potuerit tacuisse.

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 247 'Indeed — in case you wonder why I have waited to be compelled before revealing these facts — I realize I am running a very great risk in doing so. That is why I held my tongue as long as I could.'

The antecedent of the anaphoric element id obviously is the whole complex quod necessariam rem coactus Caesari enuntiarit: telling was very danger­ ous even though it was necessary and he was forced to do so. Everything serves to provide an apology for not giving certain information earlier. The restrictive/non-restrictive distinction can be further clarified by means of the pragmatic function of focus as defined in Functional Gram­ mar (Dik 1989: 277 sqq.). The participle construction and the main clause may or may not form a structure susceptible to the assignment of prag­ matic functions and truth values. A participle construction is easily recog­ nized as being restrictive if it has focus function, which in my material is very often the case. An obvious example is (7), where the ad ductus-clause is focused and praesertim emphasizes the unity of the combined clauses. (7)

C a e s . G a l l , 1 6 , 6 graviter (Caesar) eos (sc. duces Haeduorum) ac­ cusât..., praesertim cum magna ex parte eorum precibus adductus bellum susceperit. 'C. reprimanded them severely... He pointed out that it was largely in response to their entreaties that he had undertaken the campaign.'

IV. Restrictive participles expressing a condition In my corpus, I found 8 instances of participle constructions expressing a conditional relation to their main clause: 5 in Caesar, 0 in Ann.l and 3 in Ann.12. With reference to conditional clauses, non-restrictiveness means that two full propositions, having their own truth values, are combined in such a way that the truth value of the main clause is dependent upon that of the subordinate clause (if p l 5 then p 2 ). Restrictiveness, on the other hand, means that the complex of the two combined clauses forms one proposition. Because neither of the clauses represents a full proposition by itself the participle construction is non-omissible. A restrictive conditional clause is always characterised by non-factivity (Bakker 1988). This non-factivity is due to the fact that the main clause is referring to either a futural, or possible futural, a generic/habitual or an unreal State of Affairs. However, neither in my material nor elsewhere have I found nonrestrictive conditionals expressed by a participial construction. Thus all

248

J.A.H. MENSINK

of the examples 8-18 are considered to be restrictive and to refer to a non-factive State of Affairs. (8)

Tac.Ann.3,13,2 turn Fulcinius vetera et inania orditur, ambitiose avareque habitam Hispaniam; quod neque convictum noxae reo, si recentia purgaret, neque defensum absolutioni erat, si teneretur maioribus flagitiis. ' F . opened with an ancient, pointless story of corruption and ex­ tortion during Piso's Spanish governorship. Proofs of this would not damage the accused if he refuted the recent charges, and like­ wise its disproof would not exonerate him if he were convicted of the graver offences.'

The rhetorical aim of this passage, a free rendering of an oratio, is to show that the accusation of Fulcinius is of no relevance at all. Two pairs of alternatives are combined, pertaining respectively to the ability or inabil­ ity to refute the vetera et inania and to the acquittal or condemnation concerning the accusation at hand. The first pair is expressed by conditional participle constructions, the second by conditional subordinate clauses. All four conditional construc­ tions are restrictive and show the feature of non-factivity, although the scope of the si -clauses is wider than that of the participles. The latter ex­ press the condition for the content of a (negated) main predication, while the former state the condition of the combination of a main clause and a participle clause. The use of two different pairs of conditionals results in the impres­ sion that there are two alternatives where there are logically four. Two alternatives have been passed over: the possibility of proved guilt on all accounts, which is better not mentioned, and the rhetorically unimportant possibility of complete innocence. (9)

Caes.Gall.1,4,1 moribus suis Orgetorigem ex vinculis causam dicere coegerunt; damnatum poenam sequi oportebat, ut igni cremaretur. 'In accordance with the national custom O. was summoned to stand his trial in chains. Since condemnation would mean death at the stake ...'

In (9) Orgetorix is in danger of capital punishment. Reference in the main clause is to a possible futural event, depending on the trial's outcome. In the following context a condemnation will indeed not happen. (10)

Caes. Gall.1,7,5 Caesar ... concedendum non putabat; neque homi­ nes inimico animo data facultate per provinciam itineris faciundi temperaturos ab iniuria et maleficio existimabat.

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 249 'Caesar was not disposed to grant their request. If people so hos­ tile to Rome were permitted to go through the province, he did not think they were likely to refrain from damage to persons and property.'

Caesar is resolved not to give his permission for a route through the province. The conditional complex describes his expectation of what might happen. Thus the non-factivity here is caused by reference to an unreal, imaginary event. (11)

C a e s . G a l l , 3 , 8 regno occupato per tres potentissimos ac firmissimos populos totius Galliae sese potiri posse sperant. 'Hoping that once they had made themselves kings the great power of three warlike peoples they ruled would enable them to get control of all Gaul.'

(12)

Caes.Gall.l,27,4 (sive) timore perterriti, ne armis traditis supplicio adficerentur. '(Either) they were afraid that they would be massacred when once they had given up their arms.'

In 11 reference is to a situation wished for in the future, and in 12 to a dreaded event. In the Tacitus material the only conditional cases happen to be counterfactuals with nisi explicitly marking the semantic relation 7 : (13)

Tac.Ann. 12,3,3 sed nihil arduum videbatur in animo principis, cui non iudicium, non odium erat nisi indita et iussa. 'But with an emperor whose likes and dislikes were all suggested and dictated to him, anything seemed possible.'

(14)

Tac.Ann. 12,32,3 ducem, destinationis certum ne nova moliretur nisi prioribus firmatis. 'For, until his conquests were secured, he was determined to post­ pone further expansion.'

The notion of factivity is in these cases complicated by the negation, but there is no basic difference. If the emperor is given a bad opinion he has one, otherwise he has not. Reference is to a generic/habitual State of Affairs. The same is true for the rule that consolidation has prevalence over new victories in (14). As is shown by example (8), Tacitus also uses non-negated condi­ tionals that do not essentially differ from the use by Caesar. I randomly collected another 4 instances. (15)

Tac.Ann. 1,36,1 destinatum excidio Ubiorum oppidum, imbutasque praeda manus in direptionem Galliarum erupturas. 'They were also planning to destroy the capital of the Ubii, and after that taste of looting to burst into the Gallic provinces and plunder them too.'

250

J.A.H. MENSINK (16)

Tac.Ann. 1,55,3 nihil ausuram plebem principibus amotis. 'On the grounds that the removal of the chiefs would immobilize their accomplices.'

(17)

Tac.Ann.4,2,2 praetendebat lascivire militem diductum. 'His pretexts were that scattered quarters caused unruliness.'

(18)

Tac.v4nn.4,3,3 neque femina amissa pudicitia alia abnuerit. 'Since a woman who has parted with her virtue will refuse noth­ ing.'

Clues for non-factivity can be found in all the contexts of 15-18, in the sense of destination (15), futural reference (16), the meaning of praetende­ bat (17, where the test is not taken). Matters are more subtle in (18). The parenthesis is pretended to be a generic rule, while in the context the spe­ cific case of Livia is dealt with. In the preceding context Livia is shown to have fulfilled the condition of amissa pudicitia and in the following context alia will be expected on her part. It is seen that in the case of restrictive conditional participles the re­ strictiveness is inherent in the semantic relation between the two closely combined clauses, since the complex of main clause and participle forms a unity for the assignment of pragmatic function and truth value. A condi­ tional participial clause is restrictive regardless of the degree of embedding of the complex. The restrictiveness allows the complex to occur on a low syntactic level with respect to a superordinate clause, but it is not caused by this embedding. The same seems true for participles expressing a final semantic re­ lation. The number of such participles in my material is so small that I confine myself to mere quotation (19 and 20). I also add (21), the only positive case in a habitual context in my material, which shows, in fact a specific kind of conditionality (cf. ex. 13 and 14). (19)

(20)

(21)

Tac.Ann. 12,17,1 postero misere legatos, veniam liberis corporibus orantis. 'Next day, they sent envoys asking for the free population to be spared.' Tac.Ann.12,25,2 se quoque accingeret iuvene partem curarum capessituro. 'So Claudius too ought to provide himself with a young future partner in his labours.' Caes.Goll.l,18,3 propterea quod illo licente contra liceri audeat nemo. 'Because when he made a bid at the auction not a soul dared bid against him.'

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 251 V. Restrictive participles expressing a concession In all, I have found 9 instances of restrictive concessive participles in the examined material (and 7 non-restrictive cases): 5 in Caesar, 3 in Ann.1 and 1 in Ann.12. If one compares restrictive and non-restrictive participle construc­ tions yielding a concessive interpretation, the nature of the relation with the main clause can not be shown to be basically different. Their common feature is the presence of a contrast or incompatibility between the par­ ticiple and the main clause. Instead, a low syntactic level of embedding within a superordinate clause can apparently be held responsible for the feature of restrictiveness. In all 9 restrictive cases the complex as a whole is embedded, expressing one relevant piece of information. An explanation is to be found in the notion of sententiality (Lehmann 1989). Embedding caused e.g. by a transition to indirect discourse goes along with loss of independence and therefore loss of the features of a full clause. Full sententiality implies all levels of the FG clause model, compris­ ing illocutionary force on the uppermost level. Loss of sententiality caused by embedding will sooner affect non-restrictive than restrictive satellites, because the latter are non-omissible and therefore less independent. Thus, on a low syntactic level participle constructions are most likely to be re­ strictive. However this may be, the fact that the concessive participle is restric­ tive limits its use. Non-restrictive clauses are part of the author's devices for organising and presenting his discourse.8 Concessions of this type draw attention to a contrast or incompatibility signalled by the author, who is responsible for the content of the background information provided. Cf. example (1). Compare also the next example: (22)

Tac.Ann.1,14,6 candidatos praeturae duodecim nominavit, nu­ merum ab Augusto traditum; et hortante senátu ut augeret, iureiurando obstrinxit se non excessurum. 'With regard to the number of praetors Tiberius adhered to the precedent established by A. and nominated twelve candidates. The senate asked him to increase the number, but he declared on oath that he would never do so.'

Here the concession obviously has been added by the author in order to stress the importance of the oath. This function of marking importance or a quality is also seen in other instances. In my opinion a restrictive clause, on the contrary, can only contribute information on the representational level of narrated events. A restrictive concessive relation pertains between events in an extralinguistic world.

J.A.H. MENSINK

252

The concession either refers to a fact from the context or outer world and often is part of the observation by a character within the discourse. The restrictive participle construction is always focused. The nature of the contrast in hand can be of different types. Sometimes the observer of the fact expressed by the participial clause is subject to frustrated implication: the logical expectations do not come true (cf. ex. 2 and 23 below). In other cases the content of the participle construction represents a reflexion by the Agent of the main clause that is judged to be too weak (cf. ex. 24 below). (23)

Caes.Gall.l,35,2 quoniam tanto suo populique Romani beneficio adfectus ... hanc sibi populoque Romano gratiam referret, ut in conloquium venire invitatus gravaretur ..., haec esse, quae ab eo postularet. 'Since his way of showing his gratitude was to refuse an invitation to a conference ..., the envoys were instructed to deliver him an ultimatum.'

(24)

Tac.Ann. 12,25,1 sic apud divum Augustum, quamquam nepotibus subnixum, viguisse privignos. 'Just as the divine A., though supported by grandsons, advanced his stepsons.'

Example (23) is part of a message from the narrative character Caesar. He expresses his indignation over this ungrateful behaviour in spite of all kind attentions. On a higher syntactic level a non-restrictive participle of this content would just call attention to and stress the ungratitude. So also 24, if this were not the indirectly cited argument that Pallas used to persuade Claudius to adoption, the author might have stressed by means of a non-restrictive concession the powerful position of adoptive sons by giving the background information that natural sons existed as well. As it is, the concessive participles belong to the narrative of events, though these of course may be fictive or subjectively chosen by the author. They are, however, not part of the surface instrumentarium of presentation.

VI. Restrictive participles expressing a temporal or causal relation The semantic relation between temporal and causal participles and their main clauses is of the same nature whether or not the relation is restrictive. Non-restrictive satellites of these types provide background information to the State of Affairs of the main clause, while their far less frequently oc­ curring restrictive counterparts form one unit of reference with the main clause. The complex of the restrictively combined clauses is always embed­ ded, very often within indirect speech. The restrictive participle clause is

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 253 always focused, because it contains salient information. Less salient infor­ m a t i o n , functioning to shape the background for t h e whole complex, would be given by devices belonging to the presentational level of discourse e.g, a non-restrictive clause. All restrictive cases can be shown to form a functional unity of ref­ erence together with t h e m a i n clause. Here follows an example of b o t h a t e m p o r a l (25 and 26) and a causal (27 and 28) case from Caesar a n d Tacitus, respectively. (25)

C a e s . G a l l , 1 1 , 6 Caesar non expectandum sibi statuit, dum om­ nibus fortunis sociorum consumptis in Santonos Helvetii pervenirent. 'These complaints convinced Caesar that he must act immedi­ ately: if he delayed, his allies would have all their property de­ stroyed and the H. get clear away to the country of the S.'

In 25 t h e S t a t e of Affairs referred to by the complex is a situation Caesar will not be waiting for. This example shows again t h a t t h e restrictivity is only t h e effect of the embedding of the complex a n d not inherent in t h e basic semantic relation between the combined clauses. T h e traces of a mixed causal and temporal surrounding on a higher syntactic level can be conjectured. (26)

Tac.Ann.12,3,1 ut praelata ceteris et nondum uxor potentia uxoria iam uteretur. 'She tempted him ... into giving her the preference and into treat­ ing her, in anticipation, as his wife.'

In 26 t h e participle construction is focused on to show t h e outrageousness of this situation. T h e complex is embedded in an ut-clause. (27)

Caes.Gall.1,11,4 Ambarri ... Caesarem certiorem faciunt sese depopulaiis agris non facile ab oppidis vim hostium prohibere. 'The A. informed C. that their fields too had been pillaged, and that it was almost more than they could do to repel the H.'s assaults upon their towns.'

This case is typical because there is a unity of reference: t h e complex is t h e content of a message to Caesar. Exceptionally, however, b o t h combined clauses contain new, salient information, in a kind of telegraphic style. (28)

Tac.Ann.1,13,7 constat Haterium ... prope a militibus interfectum, quia Tiberius casu an manibus eius inpeditus prociderat. 'There is a well-known story about H.(...) Thereupon T. crashed to the ground, either by accident or because he was brought down by the grip of H. — who was then all but killed by the guards.'

254

J.A.H. MENSINK

In 28 the participle occurs on a low syntactic level, expressing a cause. By embedding in the quia-clause, the complex provides the reason for prope interfectum. Still, the kind of relation of the participle clause with its main clause is comparable to that of a non-restrictive causal insinuating what explanation for prociderat might be given.

VII. A special group of focused restrictive participles In the case of conditional and most cases of concessive restrictive partici­ ples a paraphrase with an adverbial phrase is possible. It seems that it is the relation between the two clauses that is focused. In many temporal and causal cases such a paraphrase is less satisfying (cf. ex. 28). I now briefly turn to participles that are hard to render by means of an adverbial clause. It is the content that is focused. The relation with the main clause is inferred from a kind of mental picture formed by the reader. (29)

Caes.Gall.l,19,5 vel ipse de eo causa cogniia statuat. 'But to consent to his either hearing the case himself and passing judgement.'

(30)

Tac.Ann. 1,8,5 num se mandante earn sententiam prompsisset, sponte dixisse respondit. 'When Tiberius asked him to confirm that he, T., had not prompted this proposal, Messalla answered that it was his own idea.'

(31)

Tac.Ann. 12,22,2 exim Claudius inaudita rea multa de claritudine eius apud senatum praefatus ... addidit perniciosa in rem publicam consilia et materiem sceleri detrahendam: proin publicatis bonis (Lollia) cederet Italia. 'The emperor did not give the defendant a hearing. He himself spoke at length about her noble connections ... But he added that her projects were a national danger and that her potentialities for mischief must be eliminated. She must therefore, he said, have her property confiscated and leave Italy.'

The focused elements causa cognita, se mandante, inaudita rea, and pub­ licatis bonis add information as to the manner in which the content of the main clause takes place. These and other cases come close to the category of Predicate Satel­ lites in Functional Grammar, defined by the criterion whether or not the State of Affairs as specified by the nuclear predication is somehow different with the satellite than it is without (Dik, Hengeveld, Vester, Vet 1990:30). So far, I have found evidence for the occurrence of the predicate satellites Manner, Additional Participant, Circumstance, Inner Cause, Instrument,

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 255 and Spatial Orientation realised by means of a participle. Further research is requested.

VIII. Conclusion Restrictive participle constructions differ in their relation to the main clause from non-restrictive participles in that they are not omissible. The complex of the restrictively combined clauses is a more tightly coherent unity characterised by criteria provided by several authors (see III). I have shown that the restrictive/non-restrictive bifurcation of the possible semantic relationships between participle clauses and their main clauses proves to be significant because the role of the context in the interpretation of these relationships differs depending upon the feature of restrictivity. In restrictive cases the context unambiguously defines the only possible semantic relation whereas in non-restrictive cases the context merely provides more or less cogent clues for the most likely semantic interpretation. Restrictivity can be due to the nature of the connection between the combined clauses itself, as is the case for conditional and final participles, and also for a case like 21 where Quantificational Aspect is involved. All participles expressing these semantic relations are restrictive, regardless of the degree of embedding of the restrictively combined clauses within a superordinate clause. No non-restrictive counterparts have been found. In the case of participles maintaining a temporal, causal, or concessive semantic relation with the main clause the restrictivity is a consequence of embedding the complex of participle and its main clause on a lower syntactic level of a superordinate clause, since this embedding influences the kind of information that the participle contributes to the discourse. On a higher syntactic level within the discourse these participles generally are non-restrictive, supplying background and subsidiary information in order to get the message of the main clause correctly understood. On a lower syntactic level the complex is most likely a restrictively united piece of discourse information. The nature of the relation between participle and main clause does not essentially differ from non-restrictive cases yielding the same semantic interpretation. Finally, it has been demonstrated that restrictive participles are not only part of the pragmatic structure of the main clause, but are indeed often focused. This feature is common to all cases dealt with in VII, none of which can be rendered by means of a paraphrase in the form of an adverbial subordinate clause.

J.A.H. MENSINK

256 Notes 1.

I would like to thank Elseline Vester, Caroline Kroon, Harm Pinkster, and Mar­ ion Kooreman for their comments. My thanks are also due to Anthony Corbeill and Evelien Keizer for correcting my English.

2.

It will turn out to be useful to distinguish between the degree of embedding of the subordinate clause within the main clause and that of the complex of the combined clauses on a higher or lower level within a superordinate clause.

3.

In this article I deal with participle clauses in general as opposed to adverbial subordinate clauses in order to investigate the coming into being of a semantic interpretation that is not made explicit by a conjunction. This does not imply that I am not convinced of a structural difference between ablativi absoluti and participia coniuncta.

4.

This terminology has also been used by Hannay and Vester (1987) for relative clauses and by Quirk et al.(1985) for adverbial subclauses.

5.

Examples from Caesar translated by S.A. Handford, Penguin Books, examples from Tacitus by M. Grant, Penguin Books.

6.

I quote the examples A1, B1, and C1 from Stump with the comma although in my opinion a restrictive construction should not thus be separated from the main clause.

7.

It is not unusual that the semantic interpretation of participles is thus made explicit. A participle expressing a concession can, for instance, be stressed by quamquam (see ex. 24 below), or tarnen in the main clause.

8.

Cf. Chafe's notions of guidepost and afterthought for pre- and postponed nonrestrictive adverbial clauses respectively.

References Bakker, E.J. 1988 "Restrictive conditionals." In: Rijksbaron et al. (eds.) In the of Raphael Kühner, 5-26. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

footsteps

Bolkestein, A.M. 1988. "Parameters in the expression of embedded predications in Latin." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceed­ ings of the Third colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna, 1-5 April 1985), 3-35. Amsterdam &; Philadelphia: Benjamins. Chafe, W.L. 1984. "How people use adverbial clauses." In: Proceedings of the Xth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437-49. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Dik, S.C. 1989. The theory of Functional Dordrecht: Foris.

Grammar,

pt.l:

The structure

of the

clause.

Dik, S.C., K. Hengeveld, E. Vester & C. Vet. 1990. "The Hierarchical Structure of the Clause and the Typology of Adverbial Satellites." In: Nuyts et al. (eds.) Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory, 25-70. Furneaux, H. 1962. The Annals of Tacitus, edited by Henry Furneaux, second edition, revised by H.F. Pelham and C D . Fisher (2 volumes). Oxford.

THE SEMANTIC VALUE OF RESTRICTIVE PARTICIPLE CLAUSES 257 Haiman, J. & S.A. Thompson (eds.) 1988. Clause combining in grammar and Amsterdam: Benjamins.

discourse.

Hannay, M. & E. Vester 1987. "Non-restrictive relatives and the representation of complex sentences." In: J. van der Auwera &; J. Goossens (eds.) Ins and Outs of the Predication. Hengeveld, K. 1989. "Layers and operators in functional grammar." Journal guistics 25, 127-157.

of Lin­

Kroon, C. Forthcoming. "Discourse connectives and discourse type: the case of Latin atP (This volume.) Laughton, E. 1964. The Participle

in Cicero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lehmann, Chr. 1988. "Towards a typology of clause linkage." In: Haiman &; Thompson (eds.). Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum h J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive language. London: Longman.

grammar of the English

Rijksbaron, A. 1986. "The pragmatics and semantics of conditional and temporal clauses. Some evidence from Dutch and Classical Greek." WPFG 13. Stump, G.T. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel. Thompson S.A. &: R.E. Longacre 1985. "Adverbial Clauses." In: Shopen, Th. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntax Descriptions, vol.2. Vester, E. 1988. "Latin participles and degrees of embedding" In: P. Coopmans &; A. Hulk (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1988, 169-177. Dordrecht: Foris.

On Latin Absolute Constructions Paolo Ramat University of Pavia

1. The typological frame of reference Being a relatively old IndoEuropean language, Latin has maintained a number of features which were typical of the ProtoIE language. Postverbal complementation has been an innovation of several IE dia­ lects. Clause combining, probably, originally involved the use of nonfinite verbal forms. Comparative evidence makes it highly plausible that PIE made little or no use of finite subordinate clauses, preferring instead non finite constructions (cp. Comrie 1993, § 3.4). It is well-known that a uni­ tarian infinitive form cannot be reconstructed for PIE. Infinitives are nom­ inal forms derived from verbal stems and can take the inflection case their syntactic function demands in the sentence. See, e.g., Vedic (1)

Agnim dvéso yótavái no grnïmasi A-Acc hostility A C C to-ward-off DAT u s A C C we-implore 'we implore Agni to ward off hostility from us' (RV 8.71.15) [lit.: we implore for-the-warding-off (GOAL) hostility us]; cp. Lehmann 1980: 125-28;

or Hittite (2)

apas-ma-mu harkanna san(a)hta he-PTCL-me to destroy tried (Hatt.III 63f.) 'he tried to destroy me' [lit.: er aber suchte mich zum Zugrundegehen; Friedrich 1974: 143; cp. Lehmann 1990: 180].

260

P. RAMAT

No need to adduce further examples of a feature which is fairly wide spread in the oldest IE languages and is attested in more recently docu­ mented languages, too: see e.g. the Old Saxon Confessio (3)

ik iuhu [...] sueriannias(GEN) endi liagannias(GEN) I confess to have perjured and lied (lit.:I confess of perjuring and lying).

Moreover, the Old Indian type (4)

tam ágacchantam

pasy ami

is to be found in Latin too: te uenientem uideo instead of the later subor­ dinating syntax: uideo quod/quia tu uenis. Absence of complementizers is revealed also by examples as (5)

agrum [...] colendum habebat (Ter. Phorm.364f.) 'he had a field to cultivate' (cp. Ramat 1987: 43),

(6)

multa habeo loqui uobis (Tert. praescr.22.8) 'I have many things to say to you'

vs. the typologically different construction with quae: (6bis)

multa habeo quae loquar ad uos (Tert. mon.2.2

= Vet.Joh. 16.12)

(see Raiskila 1990: 212) where the relative pronoun has almost acquired the function of COMP. In the same frame of reference we have to consider also the so-called 'dominant participles' (see Pinkster 1988: 198, 242) as (7)

occisus dictator [...] pulcherrimum facinus [uidebatur] (Tac. Ann. 1,8,6) 'the fact that the dictator had been killed was seen as a wonderful thing' (but lit.: the killed dictator was seen as...).

As is proved by the deletion being impossible without changing com­ pletely the meaning of the sentence (dictator pulcherrimum facinus uidebaturl), the 'dominant participle' is functionally equivalent to a subordi­ nate clause such as (7bis)

quod dictator occisus erat (/esset) pulcherrimum facinus uidebatur

and must therefore be kept apart from attributive or adpositive participles — exemplified under (8) — which could also be omitted without changing the general meaning of the sentence:

ON LATIN ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS (8)

rex Anius [....] r e d i m i t u s Aen.3,81),

261

tempora lauro occurrit (Verg.

cp. Pinkster 1988: 198, 213 2 . Once again we observe that Latin had a reduced postverbal comple­ mentation but a rich system of nonfinite verbal forms to express clause combining and particularly subordination. The 'Ablatiuus Absolutus' (AA) must be considered in this general ty­ pological frame. Latin, as well as most of the old IE languages, was poor in functional categories such as complementizers, auxiliaries and determiners, which are by contrast well represented in Romance languages. Nominal, and hence case-bound strategies were preferred to subordinate clauses for expressing circumstantials. Already Antoine Meillet had often underlined the autonomy of the IE word, which contained the morphological markers expressing its syntactic function in the sentence. This manifests itself in the prevailing of syntheticity over analyticity, And the typological shift from basically nonconfigurational Latin to Romance can be thought of as a shift from lexical to syntactic strategies with a much more rigid word order (cp. Calboli 1990: 132f.). From this point of view the much debated question of the IE 'Urkasus' of absolute constructions loses much of its importance. As well as being unable to reconstruct a PIE infinitive (i.e. nominal!) form, though infinitives are present in almost all IE languages, it is also impossible to assign to the protolanguage a specific case for absolute constructions (see Ramat 1991). The point is however that both infinitives and absolute constructions are consistent with the old IE type and may therefore be typologically ascribed to the parent language. But this last topic can be only marginal in the present paper. What is important from the Latin point of view is the fact that the AA is basically consistent with the dominant (old) Latin morphosyntactic type — non­ configurational, synthetic and poorly subordinating — and hence perfectly fitting in order to express circumstantials.

2. The 'Ablatiuus Absolutus' in Latin We have now to make clear the specificity of AA — among the other nominal constructions already mentioned (infinitives, dominant partici­ ples, gerunds, but also supines such as incredibile dictu). The most typical form of AA may be exemplified by the following items:

262

P. RAMAT (9)

[...] opus meum ut uolui perpetraui h o s t i b u s fugatis (Plaut. Pseud.1269) 'I finished my job as I had in mind, after the enemies had been put to flight';

(10)

Incredibili celeritate m a g n o s p a t i o paucis diebus c o n f e c t o [...] eiusmodi sunt tempestates consecutae uti... (Caes. Gall. 3,29,2) 'After a great distance had been covered in a few days with in­ credible speed there arrived such storms that...'.

From (9) and (10) we may elicit the prototypical properties of AA: a)

the NP forming AA has no syntactic relation with other elements of the finite sentence;

b)

the NP is formed by a Noun + P P P (Passive Past Participle);

c)

at the functional level the AA expresses a circumstantial which refers to the semantic content of the entire finite sentence as a 'satellite' (see Ramat 1991).

Actually, the by far most usual form of AA has a non omittable PPP, which makes it sensible to consider AA as an embedded predication (with satellite status : see Bolkestein 1986-1987: 99). Note that in the series of three ablatives appearing in (10) only that one which contains a participle is in fact an AA, the other two giving modal and temporal information about the events, but not in the form of embedded predication. Guy Serbat (1979: 341) is certainly right in considering these proper­ ties a "grammatical vulgata" and in underlining that there may be many counterexamples: for instance (11)

me auctore or tua re salua

do not show the b) feature. However, it cannot be denied that the 'vulgata', which goes back to the Medieval grammars of Latin, does really refer to the large majority of examples. From the historical point of view we retain Serbat's outline of the AA evolution (1979: 345): «De Plaute à l'époque impériale, l'AA a donc subi un changement formel important: il ne se présente plus que rarement avec un second terme nominal (nom ou adjectif) [like in (11)] [...]; en revanche, les participes présent et passé ont très largement ouvert leur emploi, au point de représenter la seule réalisation vivante pour le second terme de l'AA» (my emphasis).

The original state of affairs — not necessarily bound to the b) fea­ ture — and its evolution are in keeping with what we observed above,

ON LATIN ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS

263

referring to the PIE nominal constructions for clause combining, verbal complementation and circumstantial: see Vedic (12)

uchántyam(PART.PRES)usási "when the down shines"

(cp. Ramat 1991, Fn.9).

2.1. In comparison with dominant participles (see (7)), or attributive/adpositive participles (see (8)) we note that AA has no necessary semantic connection with the subject of the main clause: theoretically speaking the subject of the P P P in (9) may or may not be the "ego" of the main clause, and certainly not the tempestates have in (10) covered a great distance! König and van der Auwera (1990: 39) make the functionally relevant distinction between absolute constructions having the same subject (SS) as the main clause or different subject (DS). However, Latin AAs show a clear preponderance of DS, and SS-examples like (13)

[Camillus] p e r m i s s o [...] ut ex collegis optaret quem uellet, [...] L. Furium optauit (Liv. 6.25.5) " C , having received permission to choose out from the colleagues the one he preferred, chose L.F." 1

are by no means usual (note in this sentence that the AA may have a subordinate clause [ut...] as expansion; and this too is not that usual in the oldest texts). The passive value of the past participle usually entails a syntactic break in front of the perspective of the active main clause and its subject. In this manner AAs become more and more autonomous sentences, up to frozen expressions such as absente nobis (Ter. Eun. 649) or praesente multis (Rhet.Her. 4,16), excepto oppida (late Lat.: lord. Get. 1,6) notably without agreement and, on the contrary, with the tendency to reanalyse the participial forms as prepositions or conjunctions (see Calboli 1983: 43f.; cp. in fact excepto > Ital. eccetto, or durante in stereotyped expressions having originally absolute value like vita natural durante, and then simply as temporal conjunction, "during" ). The participial satellite may get different interpretations, according to the contextual circumstances: out of its context hostibus fugatis in (9) could mean "since the enemies had been put to flight" or "after the enemies had been put to flight", or even "though the enemies had been put to flight" and "because the enemies etc.". AAs are functionally very supple (see Krisch 1988); their asyndetic syntax reminds us of other asyndetic constructions such as the 'nominatiuus pendens' we find in examples

264

P. RAMAT (14)

ager rubricosus [...], ibi lupinum bonum fiet (Cat. Agr. 34,2) 'a reddish field, there lupine will do well'

(15)

tu, si te di amant, agere t u a m rem occasiost (Plaut. Poen. 659) 'you, if the gods love you it's time to do your affair'. 2

and

We cannot tackle here the thorny question of whether PIE can typologically be considered as a language "à thème relativement autonome" which later shifted toward a stage of "servitude subjectale", as hinted at by Hagège (1988: 276), though the asyndetic constructions now alluded to would seem to advocate this hypothesis. However that may be, the 'nominatiuus pendens' gives the 'theme' for the following 'rheme', creates the frame the speaker is going to talk about. Its nature is therefore more pragmatic than syntactic, in a language dominated by agreement such as Latin, and its functions are those of foregrounding, topicalizing, and thematizing (cp. Bolkestein 1986-1987: 98). Note that it is also possible to have participial absolute constructions in nominative: (16)

hi contemnentes eum, assurgere ei nemo uoluit 'since they despised him, nobody wanted stand up in front of him' (Calp. Piso 27; cp. Ernout & Thomas 1953: 12f., who rightly point out that this kind of nominative spreads in Late Latin).

There is really no functional difference between (16) and the AA of (10), or of the well-known account of Toxilus in (17)

Hostibus uictis, ciuibus saluis, re placida, pacibus perfectis, /Bello extincto, re bene gesta, integro exercitu et praesidiis,/[...] Eas uobis habeo gratis atque ago (Plaut. Persa 753ff.)

where the foregrounded seven AAs recapitulate the plot and give the frame of reference for what has to happen later. However, "le nominatif absolu ne prend une certaine extension qu'à basse époque: Egeria, Peregr. 16,7: benedicens nos episcopus, profecti sumus" (Ernout & Thomas 1953: 13). In this period we may also find an accusative absolute; 3 and this indifference to the case used in absolute constructions may be considered in keeping with the advancing crisis of the case system — but at the same time it testifies to the vitality of a syntactic means, which due to its asyndeticity is pretty apt to express different values and circumstantial functions. We may tentatively conclude that absolute, i.e anacolytic, asyndetic constructions reflect the paratactic syntax of the spoken register rather than the literary, full subordinating style of the classical period. They reflect a syntactic type of IE origin. The diffusion of the AAs and the

ON LATIN ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS

265

enlargement of their syntactic forms from P l a u t u s to t h e classical p e r i o d have a l r e a d y b e e n alluded to. T h o u g h t h e y later spread as literary device, t h e y were still felt as sermo infumus et cottidianus in t h e 1st c e n t u r y B . C . (Calboli 1984: 67f.). B u t this supple, u n b o u n d e d device « r e n d e r e d possible t h e organization of t h e periods, so complex a n d yet so coherent a n d lucid, in which t h e pages of Cicero a b o u n d » , P a l m e r 1954: 130; a n d t h e AA b e c a m e very p o p u l a r in writers like Sallust a n d Caesar. Later on also t h e R o m a n c e ( a n d Germanic) languages a d o p t e d absolute constructions — N.B.: not necessarily AAs! — in their literary styles.

3. Toward a taxonomy Finally, we m a y t r y t o sketch a t a x o n o m y of t h e n o m i n a l / p a r t i c i p i a l con­ s t r u c t i o n s , w i t h L a t i n as well as R o m a n c e / G e r m a n i c examples (cp. König a n d van der A u w e r a 1990): A) 'participium coniunctum' as in (8) (...redimitus tempora lauro...), or Silently laughing, Mary left the room: the participle(/gerund) specifies a circumstance characterizing the subject; in contrast to AA, it has an appositive or attributive value and therefore is not equivalent to a subordinate clause. It can be omitted without altering the sense of the main clause (cp. also the nominal Voyageur clandestin, je m'étais endormi sur la ban­ quette which shows the same syntactic construction and semantic interpretation as participial constructions); B) 'free adjunct' (FA) with Pres, or Past Participle: Be­ ing/Having been a sailor John knows all about boats. T h e FA has the value of a circumstantial subordinate clause. T h e subject of the FA may be the same as in the main clause (SS, as in the last example) or also different (DS, as in No further discussion arising, the meeting was closed). Lat. AAs belong hereto, b u t we can speak of DS or SS only from a semantic point of view, since syntactically there is no link with the main clause (cp.fn.l): his rebus cognitis, exploratores centurionesque praemittit (Caes. Gall. 11,17); C) 'dominant participle' as in (7) (occisus dictator....) or in Two old men dealing with such a young theme seems funny to me. Note here the singular ending of the main verb: it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the fact that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme (v.d. Auwera 1990: 122). The predication expressed by the participial forms cannot be con­ sidered as embedded predication having the satellite status of a circumstantial in front of the main predication (cases A,B); D) 'prepositional phrase' with a participle/gerund: post urbem captam, tristis domum redii; with my parents visiting, we don't have a lot of fun. Note the difference between a P P and its

266

P. RAMAT AA counterpart: de hostibus profectis (PP) gaudebat "he rejoiced about the departure of the enemies" vs. hostibus profeciis (AA) gaudebat "since/after the enemies had left he was very happy". Subject coreferentiality between P P and main clause is of course excluded. E) 'reduced clause': Legati ...missi (sunt) auxilium ad bellum orantes (Liv. 21.6.2) = ut auxilium ad bellum peterent; Hanni­ bal inuentum Marcelli corpus sepeliuit = ...Marcelli corpus quod inuenerat (cp. Ramat 1991) F) Finally it is also possible to have coordinated participles: prouitu(s) annoro XVII et militauit munifix annis VII; And what time would a man take, and he floating (Visser 1963: 1163—1164). These are clear examples of anacolython and I think that Leszek Bednarczuk (1971: 81) is right in considering them as proof of the great freedom of use. We are faced again with the relatively loose connection of the participle with the remaining constituents of the sentence we have already alluded to referring to the syntax of the oldest IE languages.

This sketchy and undoubtedly refutable taxonomy of participial con­ structions in Latin and Romance/Germanic languages proves that the various instances cannot be arranged in classes just on the basis of morphosyntactic or semantic criteria. Both have to be taken into account in a functional approach.

Notes Or "having been permitted (scil. to Camillus)", with an impersonal use of the PPP? Note that (15) lacks any kind of 'reprise' of the 'nomin.pend.' in the main clause — the 'reprise' which is represented by ibi in (14). E.g. reliquias recollectas tumulum tibi constitui (4th cent. AD, Africa) "having gathered your remains, I set u p a grave for you" (see Coleman 1987: 187).

ON LATIN ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS

267

References Auwera, J. van der. 1990. "Getting ahead with predicational terms, noun predica­ tion terms, and nominal participles." In: M. Hannay & E. Vester (eds.) Working with Functional Grammar: Descriptive and Computational Applications, 115132. Dordrecht & Providence: Foris. Bednarczuk, L. 1971. Indo-European skoly pedagogicznej.

Parataxis.

Krakow: Wydawn. naukowe wyzszej

Bolkestein, M.A. 1986-1987. "The bad behaviour of trivalent verbs in the ablativus absolutus." Cuadernos de Filol. Clásica 20, 93-103. Calboli, Gu. 1983. "The development of Latin (cases and infinitive)." In: H. Pinkster (ed.) Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 41-57. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Calboli, Gu. 1984. "Il latino merovingico, fra latino volgare e latino medioevale." In: Latino volgare, latino medioevale, lingue romanze. Atti...SIG (Perugia, marzo 1982), 63-81. Pisa: Giardini. Calboli, Gu. 1990. "The expansion of one Latin NP into two clauses: from IndoEuropean to Romance." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.) Papers on Grammar III, 129-145. Bologna: CLUEB. Coleman, R.G.G. 1987. "Latin and the Italic Languages." In: B. Comrie (ed.) The World's Major Languages, 180-202. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. Comrie, B. 1993. "La famiglia linguistica indoeuropea: prospettive genetiche e tipologiche." In: A. Giacalone Ramat & P. Ramat (a c. di) Le lingue indoeuropee, 95-121. Bologna: Il Mulino. Ernout, A. & F. Thomas. 1953. Syntaxe latine. 2me éd, Paris: Klincksieck. Friedrich, J. 1974. Hethitisches

Elementarbuch,

I.Teil. 3 Aufl., Heidelberg: Winter.

Hagège, C. 1988. "Contribution des recherches typologiques à l'étude diachronique des langues." In: A. Joly (éd.) La linguistique génétique. Histoire et Théories, 271— 278. Lille: Press Universitaire. König, E. & J. van der Auwera. 1990. "Adverbial participles, gerunds and absolute con­ structions in the languages of Europe." In: J. Bechert, G. Bernini & Cl. Buridant (eds.) Toward a Typology of European Languages, 337-355. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter ('EALT' 8). Krisch, T h . 1988. Zur semantischen Interpretation von absoluten Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen (v.a. lateinische und griechische Beispiele). Scientia (Schriftenreihe der Innsbr. Ges. zur Pflege der Einzelwiss. u. interdisz. Forsch.), vol. 10. Innsbruck. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1980. "The reconstruction of non-simple sentences in ProtoIndo-European." In: P. Ramat et all. (eds.) Linguistic Reconstruction and IndoEuropean Syntax, 113-144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1990. "Syntactic residues." In: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.) Lin­ guistic Typology 1987, 171-187. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Palmer, Leonard. 1954. The Latin Language. London: Faber & Faber. Pinkster, Harm. 1988. Lateinische 1462).

Syntax und Semantik.

Tübingen: Francke ( ' U T B '

268

P. RAMAT

Raiskila, P. 1990. "Periphrastic use of habere in Tertullian." In: Gu. Calboli (éd.) Latin vulgaire — Latin tardif II, 209-217. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ramat, P. 1987. Linguistic Gruyter ('EALT' 1).

Typology. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de

Ramat, P. 1991. "I costrutti assoluti nelle lingue indoeuropee." In: Studia tica...Enzo Evangelisti, 341-364. Milano: UNICOPLI. Serbat, G. 1979. "L'ablatif absolu." Revue des Etudes Latines 57, 340-354. Visser, F.Th. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.

linguis-

The internal structure of adverbial ut-clauses* Elseline Vester Free University, Amsterdam

1. Introduction In a presentation at the Louvain-la-Neuve colloquium of 1989 I gave a description of three classes of Purpose expressions, namely ut-clauses and their negated counterpart ne-clauses, gerundive constructions with ad or causa and qui + subjunctive clauses. My first point was the role of the Purpose expressions in the matrix sentence. It appeared to be the case that Purpose expressions could occur either as, in the terms of Functional Grammar, predication satellites or as illocutionary satellites. The defini­ tions of predication satellites and illocutionary satellites are given in (1) and (2) (Dik et al. 1990: 28): (1)

Predication satellites capture the lexical means which locate the State of Affairs designated by a predication with respect to spa­ tial, temporal and cognitive dimensions.

(2)

Illocutionary satellites capture the lexical means through which the speaker modifies the force of the basic illocution of a linguistic expression so as to make it fit his communicative strategy.

To understand the exact status of these satellites a small digression about the assumed clause model is necessary. Within the framework of Functional Grammar, Hengeveld (1989, 1991) developed a sentence model in which a clear distinction is made between the representational level of a clause and the interpersonal level (cf. also Bolkestein 1989). The interpersonal level represents an utterance or speech event, in which a propositional content or proposition, embedded within an illocutionary frame, is exchanged be­ tween a speaker S and an addressee A. The representational level involves

270

E. VESTER

the description of a State of Affairs or situation obtaining in some real or imaginary world to which a Speaker wants to refer, structured on the basis of a predicate with one or more arguments. On each layer operators can be added which represent grammatical categories such as Tense, Aspect, Mood, Negation. In a similar way satellites can be added to the four layers representing the optional lexical means conveying additional information on the corresponding layer. My conclusions with regard to the Purpose expressions discussed were that ut- and ne-clauses may function either as predication satellites — that is, they modify the predication — or as illocutionary satellites — and have to do, therefore, with the speaker's communicative strategy; further, that qui-clauses with a Purpose content and gerundives with ad or causa can only function as predication satellites.1 Some of the examples I gave then are the following: Predication satellites are (3)-(6): (3)

Caes. Gall. 1,13 reliquas copias Helvetiorurn ut consequi posset, pontem in Arare faciendum curat atque ita exercitum traducit 'he caused a bridge to be made over the Saone and sent his army across thereby in order to pursue the remainder of the Helvetian forces.'

(4)

Liv. 1,60,1 flexit viam Brutus... ne obvius fieret 'Brutus made a circuit to avoid meeting him.'

(5)

Caes. Gall. 1,24 equitatum qui sustineret hostium impetum 'he sent the horse to check the enemy's charge.'

(6)

Liv.1,20,7 ad ea elicienda ex mentibus divinis Iovi Elicio aram in Aventino dicavit deumque consuluit auguriis, quae suscipienda essent 'with the purpose of eliciting this knowledge from the minds of the gods, he dedicated an altar on the Aventine to Jupiter Elicius and consulted the god by augury, that he might learn what portents were to be regarded.'

misit

Examples of illocutionary satellites are: (7)

Sen. Ep.98,8 ut breviter includam quod sentio,... tarn intemper­ antes in ipsis miseriis quam sunt ante illas 'to express my thoughts in brief compass,... they are as uncon­ trolled in the midst of their troubles as they are before t h e m ' (Pinkster 1984; 1988).

(8)

Liv.1,38,5 nam, ne vos falsa opinio teneat, iniussu meo Albani subiere ad montes 'for, to undeceive you, I gave no orders that the Albans should draw off towards the mountains'.

In my Louvain-la-Neuve presentation I discussed not only the external structure, that is the status of the satellites within the matrix sentence,

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ADVERBIAL

UT-CLAUSES

271

but also briefly mentioned the differences between the three types of Pur­ pose expressions with regard to their internal structure. In this paper I shall expand the description of the internal structure on two points: I shall further clarify the internal structure of ut-/ne-clauses, especially those which function as predication satellites, both in relation to gerun­ dive constructions and to other adverbial ut-causes and I shall discuss the manner in which coreferential arguments of the satellite and of the matrix sentence are represented. That is, qui-clauses will be left out of consideration, from now on.

2. The internal structure Semantically, Purpose expressions indicate a virtual situation which is not yet realized, so they have to be represented as a predication (cf. Dik 1989: 207; Hengeveld 1990: 19) designating a State of Affairs. A State of Affairs can be located in space and time and can be evaluated in terms of its reality (cf. Hengeveld). Indications of time or space location or of evaluation of the reality can be expressed by the relevant operators and satellites, i.e. predication operators and predication satellites. 2.1. Satellites Let us now first consider which satellites occur in Purpose expressions. These satellites represent the lexical means through which the State of Affairs can be located with respect to spatial, temporal and cognitive di­ mensions. Examples with a Location satellite (ex. (9)), with Time satellites (exx. (10), (11)) and with a Causal satellite (ex.(12)) are presented here: (9)

Caes. Gall. 1,3 sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret 'to sow as much corn as possible so as to have a sufficient supply thereof on the march. '

(10)

Caes. Gall. 2,8 ... ibique tormenta conlocavit, ne, cum aciern instruxissei, hostes... ab lateribus pugnantes suos circumvenire possent '... and there posted his artillery, so that, when he had formed line, the enemy might not be able,..., to surround the Romans fighting on the flanks.'

(11)

Liv.1,36,2 datum est spatium Romanis ad comparandum de integro bellum 'an opportunity is given to the Romans to renew their prepara­ tions for the war.'

272

E. VESTER (12)

Liv.1,17,2 oriundi ab Sabinis, ne, quia post Tati mortem ab sua parte non erat regnatum, in societate aequa possessionem imperii amitterent, sui corporis creari regem volebant 'those of Sabine origin desired that, lest, having had no king on their side since the death of Tatius despite their equal rights they might lose their hold upon the sovereign power, the king should be chosen from their own body.'

As far as Time satellites are concerned, the virtual character of the State of Affairs excludes, of course, Time satellites with specific time reference, such as tomorrow ? Let us now consider, briefly, ut-clavses with other types of satellites, and expecially quoniam-clauses. Quoniam-clauses are proposition satellites. Proposition satellites capture the lexical means through which the speaker specifies his attitude towards the proposition he puts forward for consi­ deration (Dik et al. 1990: 28) and therefore either explain the subjective epistemic modality of the matrix clause or justify its illocutionary force. An example of the first type (explaining the subjective modality) is ex­ ample (13); an example of the last type (justification of the illocutionary force) is example (14). (cf. also Bolkestein forthcoming; 1990: 78; the ex­ amples are hers): (13)

(14)

Cic. Dom. 110 Quae dea est? Bonam esse oportet quoniam quidem est abs te dedicata 'What goddess is she? She must be benign since you enshrined her.' quoniam nox est, discedite 'Since it is night, go home.'

A nice example of a quoniam-clause forming part of an ut-clause, from Cicero, is: (15)

Cic. Mil. 66 nudavit se in sanctissimo templo, quoniam vita talis et civis et viri fidem non faciebat, ut eo tacente, res ipsa loqueretur 'he (Milo) bared his person in that sacred temple, so that since the life of so great a man and citizen afforded no guarantee of his innocence, the fact itself, without a word from him, might speak in his behalf.'

Notice that English so that, just like Latin ut + subjunctive mood, can both introduce Purpose and Result clauses. Quirk et al. (1985: 1070) take Purpose clauses as adjuncts (our predication satellites) and Result clauses as content disjuncts (our proposition satellites). A clause containing a Result expression can be paraphrased as designating a relation between two facts either being true or not true. A clause containing a Purpose expression, on the other hand, can be paraphrased as a relation between

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ADVERBIAL

UT-CLAUSES

273

two State of Affairs, one of which is the motivation for the occurrence of the other. Two examples are (16) and (17): 3 (16)

We paid him immediately, so that he left contented (Result)

(17)

We paid him immediately, so that he would leave contented (Pur­ pose)

Let us now return to the qu o ni am -example. The interpretation is compli­ cated. There is, in fact, a strong indication against a Purpose interpreta­ tion and for a Result interpretation, namely the occurrence of eo instead of se referring to Milo, the Subject of the matrix clause. On the other hand, Milo surely bares himself with a certain Purpose, but the question is, whether the ut-clause is the expression of this Purpose. I take this sentence as follows: a fact (nudare 'the baring') has another fact as its intended Result. Notice that res ipsa refers to the propositional content of the matrix clause rather than to the situation in which Milo is involved. So the quoniam-clause modifies the proposition and is, therefore, a propo­ sition satellite. The conclusion so far is that Purpose expressions (both ut-/ne- clauses and gerundive constructions) allow predication satellites; they describe State of Affairs which can be modified for Time, Location and Cognitive dimensions. Resultative ut-clauses, on the other hand, allow proposition satellites and describe a propositional content. 2.2. Operators The predication operators represent the grammatical means through which the State of Affairs can be located with respect to temporal, spatial and cognitive parameters. Relevant predication operators are (cf. Dik 1989: 202): - Tense operators which indicate the time of occurrence of the State of Affairs - quantificational Aspect operators which indicate the frequency of occurrence of the State of Affairs - objective Mood operators which indicate the actuality of occurrence of the State of Affairs (realis vs. irrealis) - polarity operators (positive/negative). Now it has been observed by various people that not in all cases all oper­ ators can be realized. The gerundive construction, for example, typically is a construction which is not marked for tense and modality. Moreover, gerundive constructions cannot be negated, so they cannot have an oper­ ator for polarity. The negated counterpart of an ut-clause, on the other

274

E. VESTER

hand, is a ne-clause and ut-puvpose clauses, therefore, have an operator for polarity. Let us now first consider tense. 2.2.1. Tense With respect to the absence or presence of operators Bolkestein (1990: 83-84; 94) argues for a distinction between factive predications and nonfactive predications, where factive predications have independent temporal reference, and non-factive predications lack the possibility to carry tensed verbs. Hengeveld (1990: 17ff) proposes layers with full sets of operators and layers with a restricted set of operators or even frozen operators. To illustrate this I give Hengeveld's examples: (18) (19)

I am wearing my boots in case it has rained/raines/will rain I am wearing my boots in order to keep/*have kept my feet dry

Both in case it has rained/rains/will rain and in order to keep/*have kept my feet dry are satellites wich designate State of Affairs; in (18) the satellite has the semantic function of Potential circumstance, and in (19) it functions as the Purpose of the State of Affairs designated by the matrix clause. The latter is necessarily subsequent to the State of Affairs described in the main clause, and can therefore be said to have a frozen tense operator Subs (subsequent); the satellite in (18), on the other hand, my have any tense operator. In the Latin Purpose clauses with ut there is no free tense either. The difference between the present tense petant in (20) and the imperfect tense peterent in (21) is of course the result of the tense in the main clause (so called consecutio temporum). (20) (21)

legatos mitti ut pacem petant legatos miserunt ut pacem peterent

So the representation of Latin Purpose ut-clauses will also contain a frozen tense operator Subs, which is realized as a present tense or an imperfect tense, due to the tense operator of the matrix sentence. The difference between ut-clauses and gerundive constructions is that in gerundive con­ structions no tense operator at all is present, not even a frozen one. This phenomenon is also discussed in Noonan (1985) and called dependent or determined time reference. In the case of satellites this can be defined as follows: a satellite has dependent time reference if its time reference is a necessary consequence of the semantic relation between the main clause and the satellite, that is of the semantic function of the satellite. Noonan also gives languages that utilize the indicative/subjunctive opposition to express the distinction independent time reference vs. dependent time ref­ erence. Applied to Latin, it could be argued that the subjunctive is, at

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ADVERBIAL UT-CLAUSES

275

least in Purpose ut-clauses, an indication of dependent time refence. An argument to the credit of this view is, that the consecutio temporum rule is traditionally said to only apply to subordinated clauses in the subjunctive mood. On the other hand, Result clauses also have an obligatory subjunc­ tive mood, but it is at least doutful whether they always have dependent time reference. In fact, Result clauses may often have dependent time ref­ erence, but sometimes independent time reference (cf. Szantyr 1965: 551). An example of independent time reference in a comparison clause with a notion of Result is (22), as contrasted to the pure Result clause with dependent time reference in (23). A Result clause with independent time reference is (24): (22)

Cic. Att. 6.2.8 inclusum in curia senatum habuerunt... ita... multos dies, ut interierint nonnulli fame 'they kept the members of the senate prisoners in their chamber for so long that some died of hunger'

(23)

Cic. Att. 6.1.6 inclusum in curia senatum... obsederat, ut farne senatores quinque morerentur 'he had beset the senate in their own chamber, so that five mem­ bers of the house died of starvation'

(24)

Caes. Gall. 5,15 equites hostium... acriter proelio cum equitatu nostro in itinere conflixerunt, tarnen ut nostri omnibus partibus superiores fuerint 'the horsemen of the enemy engaged in fierce conflict with our cavalry on march, with the result, however, that our troops proved their superiority in all respects'

Clearly, Result clauses may contain a State of Affairs wich has a frozen tense operator Subs or a free tense operator. And since Result clauses with a free tense operator have nevertheless a subjunctive mood, it seems unattractive to consider the subjunctive mood in Latin as a marker of dependent time reference. 2.2.2. Modality If the subjunctive mood is not a marker of dependent time reference, the next question is what exactly is the value of the subjunctive mood in Pur­ pose and Result ut-clauses. For Purpose ut-clauses the subjunctive mood can be considered as a marker of objective modality, i.e. a predication operator: the State of Affairs designated is not actualized or realized thus far. This agrees with the virtual character of the Purpose clause. Whether the subjunctive mood in Result clauses is also a realization of objective modality or has to be considered as a marker of a proposition operator for subjective modality (the propositional content of the Result clause is

276

E. VESTER

possible to the personal opinion of the Speaker), is an object for further research, in which have also to be involved other types of adverbial clauses with the subjunctive mood. 4 2.3. Anaphora, Control and Coreferentiality A last point which I want to discuss here is the way in which arguments, and especially first arguments, of Purpose and Result clauses are realized. This point is discussed as relevant in papers concerning clause linkage (Lehmann 1989) and complementation (e.g. Noonan 1985). As far as the gerundive construction is concerned, in these constructions a first argument can never be expressed, but is controlled by an argument of the matrix sentence. An example is (25): (25)

(= 6) ad ea elicienda ex mentibus divinis Iovi Elicio aram in Aventino dicavit deumque consuluit auguriis, quae suscipienda essent.

In this respect gerundive constructions are similar to gerunds in which also the second argument may be controlled by an argument of the matrix clause. Note that anaphorical elements, such as forms of the pronoun is are used in these constructions, but that they never refer to a constituent of the matrix sentence, but only to constituents of other sentences, they are, in other words, used on discourse level. In Purpose ut-clauses there mostly exists an (implied) relation between one of its arguments and one of the arguments of the matrix clause. In most of the cases the Subject of the ut-clause is not expressed but known by implication from the matrix clause (ex. (26)), although there are, of course, examples with a different, and therefore overtly expressed, Subject; cf. ex. (27): (26)

Caes. Gall. 1,30 ... eo consilio... domos suas Helvetii reliquissent, uti toti Galliae bellum inferrent 'the Helvetii had left their homes... with the express design of making war upon the whole of Gaul...'

(27)

Caes. Gall. 1,3 sementes quam maximas facere, ut in itinere copia frumenti suppeteret 'to sow as much corn as possible so as to have a sufficient supply thereof on the march'

An implied Subject is to be expected on account of the pragmatic rules for the use of zero, is, or ille/hic (cf. Bolkestein, this volume). Thus far I have only found one example (ex. (28)) of is and this use has to be explained as contrastive with ego.

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ADVERBIAL UT-CLAUSES (28)

277

Cic. Verr. a.pr. 6 invenit iste qui... postularet, non ut is idem conficeret... quod ego... consecutus sum 'he found himself another man to apply..., not with any idea that the latter should effect... what I have achieved.'

Result clauses, finally, seem to have a much more independent status, also with regard to Subject expression: an example of an overtly expressed Subject is (29), and an example of an anaphorical Subject is (30): (29)

Caes. Gall. 2,27 horum adventu t a n t a rerum commutatio est facta, ut nostri etiam qui... proelium redintegrarent... 'their arrival wrought a great change in the situation, so that even such of our troops as... renewed the fight...'

(30)

Cic. Verr. a.pr. 12 quam (Siciliam) iste... ita vexavit..., ut ea restitui... nullo modo possit 'which he devasteted so effectually that nothing can restore it.'

3. Conclusion In this paper I have tried to expand my description of the internal structure of two types of Purpose clauses (ut-clauses and gerundive constructions) and of Result ut-clauses: - the Purpose clauses function as predication satellites: - the Purpose gerundive construction (with ad or causa) is represented as a State of Affairs without any predication operators; - the Purpose ut-clause is represented as a State of Affairs with two frozen predication operators, one for tense (Subsequent) and one for modality (Irrealis) and an operator for polarity; - both Purpose clauses allow predication satellites. - Result ut-clauses function as proposition satellites and represent propositions. They have either an independent or a dependent tense operator. - Finally, there seems to be a relation between the complexity of the internal structure of the satellite and the expression of the first argu­ ment, either explicity, by anaphora, or by control.

278

E. VESTER

Notes *

The research for this paper was carried out within the framework of the research project 'Functional Language research: grammar and pragmatics' ( L E T T / 8 3 / 9 ) , Faculty of Letters, Free University, Amsterdam.

1.

In Vester (1989) I have argued that those relative clauses with the subjunctive mood which are not restrictive relative clauses — in which case the subjunctive is the marker of the non-specificity of the noun phrase — are Praedicativa and, for that matter, a kind of satellite. The purpose qui-clauses, which were not included explicitly in Vester (1989), can also be considered as Praedicativa.

2.

The same observation is made by Bolkestein (1990: 81) with respect to obligatory ut-clauses.

3.

Note that Dik (1989: 207) describes result clauses as predication satellites: "Re­ sult: an SoA presented as being established as a consequence of the SoA presented in the core predication".

4.

Cf. e.g. Mellet (this volume) for the value of the subjunctive, illustrated with respect to cura-clauses, and Lavency (1989).

References Bolkestein, A.M. 1989. "Latin sentential complements from a Functional Grammar perspective." In: M. Lavency & D. Longrée (eds.), 41-52. Bolkestein, A.M. 1990. "Sentential complements in functional grammar: Embedded predications, propositions, utterances in Latin." In: J. Nuyts et al. (eds.), 71-100. Bolkestein, A.M. Forthcoming. "Causally related predications and the choice between parataxis an hypotaxis in Latin." Calboli, G. (ed.) 1989. Subordination Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

and other

Topics in Latin.

Amsterdam &

Dik, S.C. 1989. The theory of Functional Foris.

Grammar, vol.1: Clause structure.

Dordrecht:

Dik, S . C , K. Hengeveld E. Vester & C. Vet 1990. "The hierarchical structure of the Clause and the Typology of adverbial Satellites." In: J. Nuyts et al. (eds.), 25-70. Haiman, J. &; S.A. Thompson. 1989. Clause combining Amsterdam: Benjamins.

in grammar

and

discourse.

Hengeveld, K. 1989. "Layers and operators in Functional Grammar." Journal of Lin­ guistics 25.1. Hengeveld, K. 1990. "The Hierarchical Structure of Utterances." In: J. Nuyts et al. (eds.), 1-23. Lavency, M. 1989. "Pour une description syntaxique de la phrase latine: compléments conjoints et compléments adjoints." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.), 241-252. Lavency, M. & D. Longrée (eds.) 1989. Actes du Ve Colloque de linguistique latine. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15.1-4. Louvain-la-Neuve. Lehmann, Chr. 1989, "Towards a typology of clause linkage." In: J. Haiman Sz S.A. Thompson (eds.).

THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF ADVERBIAL

UT-CLAUSES

279

Mellet, S. Forthcoming. "Le subjonctif dans les subordonnées en cum en Latin clas­ sique." (This volume.) Noonan, M. 1985. "Complementation." In: Th. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic descriptions II: Complex constructions, 41-140. Cambridge: CUP. Nuyts, J., A.M. Bolkestein & C. Vet (eds.) 1990. Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum & J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Vester, E. 1989. "Relative Clauses: A Description of the Indicative Subjunctive Oppo­ sition." In: Gu. Calboli (ed.), 327-350.

IV. Particles and text cohesion

Participant tracking in Latin discourse* A. Machtelt Bolkestein - Michel van de Grift University of Amsterdam

0. Introduction In Latin, as in many other languages, speakers have various alternative expressions to choose from if they want to refer back to an entity which is already given in the preceding discourse or the identity of which is recover­ able for the addressee: apart from using an NP, they may leave the 'topical' entity in question unexpressed, especially if it is syntactically Subject, but also if it has another syntactic status (somewhat curiously this is termed 'pro-drop' or 'zero-anaphora' in some approaches). We will indicate this phenomenon by 0. There is no clear survey of the conditions and restric­ tions which hold for the occurrence of 0 in Latin: these conditions are less strict than in some other languages, as appears from an example like (1): (1)

et tarnen omnibus hominibus(i) contra serpentes(j) inest venenum: ferunt ictum salivae(k) ( 0 = P o s s i) ut ferventis aquae contactum fugere (0=AgSubj j); quod si in fauces ( 0 = P o s s j) penetraverit ( 0 = S u b j k) etiam mori ( 0 = S u b j j), idque maxime ( 0 = C a u s e k) humani ieiuni oris (Plin. Nat. 7.15) 'and yet all men(i) have in them a poison against snakes(j): they say that (they(j)) flee the touch of spittle (of men(i)) as if it were the touch of boiling water; and if it has penetrated (their(j)) throat (they(j)) die, and especially (by spittle (k)) of the mouth of a sober man.'

We have gratefully profited from comments by Harm Pinkster and especially Car­ oline Kroon upon an earlier version of this paper, and from J a n de Jong's help in checking significancies.

284

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

(By the indices (i), (j) and (k) we indicate different referential identities, whether expressed or 0. Instances such as (1) are probably more frequent in non-literary, 'lower level' style, but no statistics are available). However, in order to refer to a topical entity the speaker may also prefer to select a pronominal expression rather than 0. Again the precise conditions for this choice are not clear. Furthermore, Latin has several pronouns to choose from for anaphoric reference, among other is (ea/id), The first (is) is hie (haec/hoc), ille (illa/illud), and iste (/ista/istud).1 the only one of these pronouns for which the anaphorical use (including cataphora) is basic, in that it lacks the possibility to express spatial deixis, i.e. it does not function as a demonstrative pronoun (it is called weakly deictic in the grammars). The other three pronouns may be used with spa­ tial reference, roughly paraphraseable as: 'the one near me, the speaker', 'the one over there (neither near the speaker nor the addressee)' and 'the one near you, the addressee' (often with a peiorative shade) respectively. The quite ordinary anaphorical use of these pronouns is not given much attention in the handbooks of Latin (cf. Kühner-Stegmann 1912: I. 595 f.; 617 f.; Szantyr 1965: 179 f.), and it is generally considered to be deriv­ able from their use in spatial deixis. Since in spatial deixis the pronouns differ in meaning, it is more or less taken for granted that they exhibit similar differences in meaning when used anaphorically. These differences may be traced in certain combinations, especially if two pronouns co-occur in a contrastive way (e.g. in the case of hie...Hie 'the latter the former' (but also 'the first mentioned....the last mentioned'), but they are less readily recognizable in neutral anaphoric use. Occasionally, a difference in frequency of occurrence of the three pronouns in certain contexts is pointed out: e.g. Szantyr (1965: 187; not so Kühner-Stegmann 1912: I. 625) observes that Hie is less frequently used than hie or is as a resump­ tive pronoun after introduction of an entity by means of the pragmatically marked Theme construction at the beginning of a sentence (but without being part of it), 2 as demonstrated by is in (2): (2)

Cancer ater, is olet (Cato, De Agr. 157.3.) 'a black tumor, that smells.'

However, a more systematic investigation of the factors which may be relevant for the selection of expression from among 0, is, hie or Hie is not offered in the grammars. In this paper we present a somewhat modified account of the re­ sults of a recent investigation by Van de Grift (1987) into the functional motivation for the choice among a number of expressions which are avail­ able for Subjects in classical Latin discourse. This investigation was based

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

285

on the hypothesis that the existence of alternative ways of expression in languages will usually be functionally motivated rather than redundant. If the parameters involved are pragmatic in nature, it is to be expected that results will have to be formulated in terms of tendencies and rela­ tive preferences rather than in terms of black and white rules concerning (un)grammaticality. Van de Grift's study was among other inspired by the papers in Givón (1983) (which offer evidence from various languages con­ firming both the functionality principle and the expectation that we are dealing with regularities and preferences rather than with rules), but also shows that the purely quantitative approach advocated there does not do justice to the combination of factors which seem to be relevant. 3

1. Givón's constituent continuity measurements In Givón (1983) it is claimed that in general there is an inverse correspon­ dence between the amount of 'coding' which a constituent receives and the 'degree of topicality' which it possesses. This 'degree of topicality' is a quantitative notion, computed on the basis of three different parame­ ters: (i) presence of coreferential items in the preceding context and the distance (in number of clauses) between this occurrence and the sentence under consideration (so-called referential distance (RD)); (ii) the same for the subsequent context (so-called persistence); and (iii) the presence of other entities in the immediate context which might be alternative candi­ dates for referring to (so-called ambiguity). 4 The alternative expressions 0 vs. PRO (^pronominal expression) vs. full nounphrases (NP) are viewed as three coding points on a scale from little to much coding respectively. In languages which possess different pronouns, such as unstressed or clitic ones vs. stressed, unbound forms, the former represent weaker coding than the latter, and are therefore expected to be used for constituents which are higher in 'degree of topicality' or 'continuity' (note that having a high degree of topicality defined in this sense does not necessarily exclude the possibility of carrying a high degree of focality). If the Latin pronouns under consideration are treated as one undif­ ferentiated group the results of computing the three different parameters are not very revealing (mutual differences among them are neutralized); the same holds when the three parameters are conflated into one score for continuity. However, if both the pronouns and the parameters are kept apart, we get the following global picture (3):

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

286 (3) a. b. c.

referential distance: 0 > hie > ille > is > NP persistence: ille > 0 > NP > hic > is ambiguity: ille > NP > 0 > hic > is

(For the sake of exposition we only give the relative ranking of the five alternative Subject expressions examined). In (3 a and b) the notation 'x > y' means 'x scores higher in continuity than y'. In (3 a) a higher score means that (backward) referential distance is lower, in (3 b) it means that there are more references in the following context. Thus, in the case of 0 the preceding clause contains a coreferential item more frequently than e.g. in the case of NP, where a coreferential item is absent, or further away; and (3 b) shows that clauses following a clause containing Me will more frequently contain a coreferential item than clauses following is. As to the latter pronoun, the perhaps surprising low position of is with respect to referential distance in (3 a) is partly due to the fact that instances of cataphoric is qui introducing a relative clause (much more frequent in the case of is than in the case of hic, and both more frequently than ille) were included in the sample. In (3 c) the sign > means 'scores higher in ambiguity' (in a conflation this would lead to a lower score in continuity). 5 This means that in clauses preceding ille there will frequently be other items present which are candidates for continuation of reference. The scores in (3 a-c) already show up the heterogeneity of the group PRO in Latin: with respect to two of the parameters ille is on the oppo­ site end of the scale from hie and is (the fact that (3 b) would lead to a higher continuity score for ille and (3 c) to a lower one would lead to neu­ tralization of these differences). It is not clear whether the three factors registered in (3) are the only ones determining the selection of expression, nor is it clear what happens if the context exhibits contradictory char­ acteristics (e.g. ambiguity without persistence, or low referential distance and high ambiguity or high persistence at the same time): none of the parameters really excludes any of the others. In order to find out more about the mutual differences between the various expressions under consideration, and especially between the three pronominal expressions, some other, more 'qualitative', factors were inves­ tigated which turn out to be relevant for the selection of expression. One such factor is the pragmatic status of the antecedent coreferential entity. Another seems to be the position of the Subject expression in a topic-chain (we return to this notion below). A third is the referential identity of the preceding Subject. Furthermore an examination of patterns of collocation between the pronominal expressions and certain 'causal' 'consecutive' and 'adversative' sentence connecting particles (see Kroon: this volume) shows

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

287

up some intriguing differences in distribution. Although these factors are not totally unrelated, they will be discussed separately, since at this point we are unable to unravel the degree to which they overlap. 6 The first parameter to which we will pay attention is that of the pragmatic status of the antecedent coreferential expression itself. 2. The pragmatic status of the antecedent In order to test the relevance of the pragmatic status of the antecedents, we used the distinction made in FG between three different pragmatic functions, namely Given Topic (GivTop), New Topic (NewTop) and Fo­ cus (Foc). A Given Topic antecedent is an entity of which the referential identity is recoverable from the preceding context or from general world knowledge. We assigned GivTop to topical entities, thus neglecting the distinction alluded to in note 4. 7 A New Topic antecedent constituent is one of which the referential identity is not yet explicitly established in the discourse, but which in the clause in which it occurs is recognizably intro­ duced as a 'Topic-to-be' or future Topic, for example by means of a special existential or presentative construction, an 'appearance on the scene' verb, and/or by means of marked word order, e. g. the entity in question follow­ ing rather than preceding the verb. We registered such entities as FutTop. Focus antecedents are that part of the message which conveys the mosl salient contribution to the knowledge of the addressee as assessed by the speaker at that particular point of the communication. The well known heuristic means for identifying it is to reconstruct the question to which the sentence in its context would form the most satisfactory answer. It appears that these differences in pragmatic status of the anteced­ ents of the expressions investigated correlate with a difference in anaphorical devices in the subsequent clause. The tendencies involved are given in (4): (4)

Subject expressions (SE) antecedent is 0 > ille > N P > hic > Giv Top: 51 37 20 7 197 82 3.5 18.8 10.1 41.6 25.8 % NP is > 0 > Hic > hic > FutTop: 57 22 14 11 7 3 5 38.6 24.6 19.3 12.3 % NP > is > 0 hic > Foc: ille > 22 14 9 5 25 75 18.6 6.6 33.3 29.3 12 %

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

288

In (4) the formula 'x > y' means: 'after the type of antecedent specified, x is relatively more frequently selected t h a n y'. T h e numbers under each SE are t h e total number of instances where it was possible to assign one of t h e three p r a g m a t i c functions distinguished to the antecedents. O n t h e t h i r d row I give (rough) percentages. 8 Cataphoric instances (frequent in t h e case of is) are excluded from these d a t a , since they do not have antecedents at all; furthermore instances of clause and p a r a g r a p h antecedents (specially frequent in t h e case of is and hic, cf. note 6) were also excluded. T h e d a t a in (4) have t o be interpreted as follows : in t h e case of topical entities which in the following context reoccur as Subject, most of these continuations (41.6%) are by means of 0; about a quarter by ille, a n d so on. T h e least preferred (3.5%) continuation of a topical entity is by m e a n s of is. In t h e case of F u t T o p referents, the preferred continuation is by m e a n s of hie (38.6%), followed by is; the least preferred are ille a n d N P (5%). Finally, for Focus entities ille is t h e preferred m e a n s (33.3%), followed by hie: t h e least preferred is 0 (6.6%). These tendencies hold for t h e subsamples from narrative and expository texts together; if t h e two subsamples are separated, t h e tendencies for b o t h GivTop a n d Foc still hold, whereas t h a t for FutTop differs slightly: however, t h e first two positions a n d t h e last one are t h e same (In Caes. ille is selected in 22%, in Plin. only in 7.5%. T h e n u m b e r of entities with F u t T o p s t a t u s itself is m u c h higher in Plin. (expository, 39x) t h a n in Caes. (narrative, 18x): this is due to t h e n a t u r e of these texts). As we see, for each type of antecedent b o t h t h e most preferred expressions a n d t h e least preferred ones differ: after GivTop t h e most preferred continuing references are 0 ; after F u t T o p hie ; a n d after Foc ille. Least preferred are after GivTop is is ; after NewTop N P ; a n d after Foc 0. These results suggest not only t h a t t h e p r a g m a t i c function distinctions themselves make sense, b u t also t h a t there is a nice division of labour between the various expression m e a n s for a n a p h o r a . Some characteristic examples of t h e preferred constellations according to (4) are given in (5) (by 'x ← y' we indicate anaphoric reference by some SE y to an entity with p r a g m a t i c s t a t u s x) : (5) a.

instances of preferred continuations GivTop ← 0 Praeparant hiemi et irenacei(FutTop) cibos ac...portant in cavas arbores. Iidem(GivTop) mutationem aquilonis in austrum condentes se in cubile praesagiunt. Ubi vero (0) sensere venantem, contracto ore...(0) convolvuntur in formam pilae, ne quid comprehendi possit praeter aculeos (Plin. Nat. 8.133) 'hedgehogs as well prepare food for winter, and...carry them to hollow trees. They also foretell a change of wind from North to

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

289

South by retiring to their lair. But when (they) perceive some­ one hunting, (they) draw together their mouth...and roll into the shape of a ball, so that no part (of them) can be taken except the prickles' (dispreferred: ei or hi convolvuntur). b.

FutTop ← is Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix(FutTop). Is(GivTop) ...coniurationem nobilitatis fecit et... (Caes. Gall 1.2.1.) 'among the H. the noblest man by far and the most wealthy was Orgetorix. He formed a conspiracy of the nobility and...' (dispreferred: ille...fecit).

b.'

FutTop ← hic Erat unus intus Nervius(FutTop), nomine Vertico, loco natus honesto, qui...Hic servo...persuadet...ut litteras ad Caesarem de­ ferat (Caes. Gall. 5.45.3-4) 'there was a Nervian in the camp, named V., born to an hon­ ourable estate, who...He persuaded a slave to deliver a despatch to C.' (dispreferred: 0 or ille...persuadet).

c.

Foc ← hic inde in Allobrogum fines, ab Allobrogibus in Segusiavos (Foc) exercitum ducit ( 0 = C a e s ) . Hi sunt extra provinciam trans Rhodanum primi (Caes. Gall. 1.10.5.) 'from there he guided the army to the region of the A., and from the A. to the S. These are the first ones outside the province on the other side of the Rhone' (dispreferred: 0 ...sunt).

The tendencies in (4) suggest that the pragmatic function of a constituent is one of the parameters in the selection of expression for continuing ref­ erence to this entity as a Subject. The informational status of referents in terms of the distinctions in­ vestigated above may not be the only relevant factor in the selection of expressions: information structure is not the only type of structure to be recognized in discourse. The structure of the discourse as a whole may be of importance as well.9 For example, the clauses containing one of the SE's under consideration may occur in the beginning, the middle or the end of some thematic chain or episode; the referents under consideration may be the most important (or primary) or some less important, tempo­ rary (secondary) topic in the episodes involved or in the narrative as a whole; the reference may occur in foreground or in background material, in parenthesis or digressions, etc. In the next section one of these possible parameters is investigated, namely the relevance of the position of the SE's in a thematic chain. Although this parameter may partially overlap with the informational status of antecedent referents (e.g. antecedents of chain first entities will not usually be FutTops, since these would be the starter

290

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

of the chain themselves, whereas antecedents of chain second mentions may (but need not) be), it can be examined independently.

3. The position of Subject expressions in a thematic chain By thematic chain we allude to a stretch of discourse which contains suc­ cessive references to the same participant within an episode: an episode is a series of temporally or thematically connected states of affairs (events, actions). A chain first position (ch-1) is the first reference to an entity within a chain (note that this does not in itself require this entity to be FutTop or Foc, i.e. the possibility that such entities are already topical is not excluded); chain second position (ch-2) is the reference occurring after that, and chain medial (ch-m) is every other reference after a chain second mention. The distribution of the various SE's over chain positions in the sample investigated is as follows (given in absolute numbers here; between brackets in the left column the total number of instances registered): (6)

position SE's (471) NP (97) 0 (99) is (84) hie (101) ille (90)

ch.-l ch.-2 ch.-m 114 72

-

26 9 7

174 4 16 50 77 27

183 21 83 8 15 56

(Instances of reference to clauses and paragraphs were registered as ch-2; the 26 cases of is in ch-1 are instances of cataphora.) The opposite tendencies manifested by NP (dominantly ch.-l) and 0 (dominantly ch-m, never ch.-l) need not particularly surprise us. More revealing is the behaviour of 0 and the three pronominal expressions with respect to ch.-2 and a later position in the topic chain, ch.-m: whereas both hic and is are frequent in ch.-2 position, ille (and also 0) are less preferred in that position and more frequent in ch.-m position. One can look at this from different angles of course: most instances of ille are ch.m, most instances of hie and is are ch.-2, most instances of 0 are ch.-m, and most instances of NP are ch.-l, etc. But the observation also holds that of all ch.-l positions distinguished in the sample most are filled by NP; of all ch.-2 positions most are filled by hic, followed by is; and most ch.-m positions are filled by 0, followed by ille. There were no differences between the narrative vs. the expository subsample in this respect, nor in the control sample.

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

291

T h e d a t a in (6) show t h a t it makes sense to distinguish the three chain positions, a n d also t h a t again there is a division of labour between t h e SE's investigated, since different expressions t e n d to b e selected at different points in a chain. Especially the chain second position (which may either follow a Fut Top antecedent or a GivTop or a Foc antecedent (see section 2), depending on how the chain is s t a r t e d off) is interesting: it is as if hic a n d is have t h e task of firmly establishing t h e chain before allowing 0 or ille. T h u s , if the chain has only just started, other expressions are selected for a n a p h o r a t h a n if t h e chain has been on its way for some time. Some characteristic examples which illustrate t h e preferred positions according to the tendencies in (6) are given in (7). Some less characteristic instances are given in (8): (7) a.

deinde secessus in specus separatim, in quibus pariunt XXX die plurimum quinos: hi (ch-2) sunt Candida informisque caro, paulo muribus maior, sine oculis, sine pilo (Plin. Nat. 8.126) 'afterwards they retire apart into caves, in which they give birth on the 30th day to a litter of five cubs at most: these are a white and shapeless lump of flesh, little larger than mice, without eyes or hair.'

b.

(continuation of (5 b))...Id hoc facilius (ch-m 0) persuasit, quod... 'in this he persuaded them the more easily, because...'

c.

Cuius (sc. Labieni) adventu ab hostibus cognito magnae ex finitimis civitatibus copiae convenerunt. Summa imperii traditur Camulogeno Aulerco, qui...ad eum est honorem evocatus. Is (ch2) cum animadvertisset..., hic consedit (Caes. Gall. 7.57.2-4) 'when the enemy had news of his coming, a large force assembled from the neighbouring states. The chief command was entrusted to Camulogenus, the Aulercan, who...was singled out for that dis­ tinction. He, noticing...halted there.'

In (7 a) t h e first reference quinos is followed by ch-2 hi. In (7 b) we find ch­ in 0. In (7 c) t h e first reference Camulogeno is followed by ch-2 is. In t h e last sentence t h e presence of a relative clause a t t a c h e d to t h e ch-1 referent apparently does not lead to further t r e a t m e n t of the referent as ch-m. T h e role of relative clauses remains a m a t t e r for further investigation. O t h e r characteristic instances of ch-1 N P are (5 a, b , and c), a n d of ch-2 is a n d hie (5 b a n d b ' , again after an intervening relative clause) a n d c) above. Some less preferred (non characteristic) p a t t e r n s according to t h e tendencies in (6) are given in (8):

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

292 (8) a.

Aristoteles diversa tradit, vir quern ...reor. (digression: Alexandro magno rege inflammato cupidine animalium naturas noscendi...) Is ergo tradit leaenam primo fetu parere quinque catulos (Plin. Nat. 8.45) [ch-m is instead of 0, or postponed ch-2?] 'Aristotle gives a different account, a man whom I feel bound to... King Alexander the Great being fired with desire to know the natures of animals... He then states that a lioness at the first birth produces five cubs'

b.

Eidem Alexandro et equi magna raritas contingit. Bucephalan eum vocaverunt sive ab...sive ab... XVI talentis ferunt ex Philonici Pharsalii grege (0) emptum etiam tum puero capto eius decore. Neminem hic alium quam Alexandrum regio instructus ornatu recepit in sedem (Plin. Nat. 8.154) [ch-m hic instead of 0 or rather postponed ch-2?] 'A. also had the good fortune to own a great rarity in horseflesh. They called the animal B., either because of... or because of... It is said that (he) was bought for 16 talents from the herd of P. of Pharsalus, while A. was still a boy, as he was taken by his beauty. This horse, when adorned with the royal saddle would not allow itself to be mounted by anybody except A.'

T h e examples in (8) exhibit properties which make t h e chain position to b e assigned problematic. In (8 a) on first view is seems to be ch-m: t h e referent Aristoteles figures several times in the preceding context. However, t h e s t a t u s of t h e text intervening between t h e first mention by an N P a n d t h e occurrence of is has the n a t u r e of a digression: the r e t u r n to t h e m a i n line is signalled by the particle ergo in its characteristic 'checking' function ('do we still know what we are talking a b o u t ' ) , cf. Kroon (1989). T h u s is might be classified as a postponed ch-2 r a t h e r t h a n as a ch-m, on t h e basis of t h e hierarchical diffence between the digressive passage a n d t h e discourse segments which contain t h e first reference and t h e reference by is. In (8 b ) , we have an apparent ch-m hic, in a context in which we might again prefer to analyze it as a postponed ch-2, in view of t h e r a t h e r subsidiary n a t u r e of t h e information given in between: the actual expla­ n a t i o n of w h a t constituted t h e raritas of t h e horse was not its n a m e or beauty, b u t its refusal to accept anyone b u t Alexander in the royal saddle. Again t h e fact t h a t we are dealing with a discourse b o u n d a r y seems t o motivate t h e appearance of the pronoun r a t h e r t h a n 0. T h u s assigning chain positions requires decisions about t h e discourse s t a t u s of t h e clauses involved in the overall hierarchical s t r u c t u r e of t h e discourse. F u r t h e r investigation into t h e relevance of such hierarchical dis­ tinctions is needed. Although this might lead to a revision of t h e d a t a in (6), (6) still seem to warrant t h e conclusion t h a t there is some relation

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

293

between chain position of a referent and t h e choice of Subject expression for it. Since position in a t h e m a t i c chain shows a similarity between t h e use of 0 a n d t h a t of ille on t h e one h a n d as opposed to t h a t of hic a n d is on t h e other (whereas, as we have seen in section 2, t h e s t a t u s of t h e antecedent does differentiate between 0 and ille), we will now have a closer look into the possible differences between 0 a n d ille. For this purpose we will consider yet another p a r a m e t e r , namely t h a t of Same Subject (SS) vs. Different Subject (DS); we will also come back to t h e presence of alternative referents (see section 1).

4. Changing the Subject: ille vs. 0 In this section we examine whether or not t h e SE continues (SS) t h e syntactic Subject of t h e preceding clause, or does not do so (DS). In (9) we give t h e results for this S S / D S parameter, again in t h e form of preferential hierarchies. On the second row I give t h e absolute n u m b e r s , on t h e t h i r d t h e rough percentages: (9) a.

b.

DS: NP > ille > 0 > hic > is 229 85 70 32 26 16 % 37.1 30.5 14 11.3 7 SS: 0 > 146 67 % 45.9

hic> 39 26.7

is / 14 9.6

ille

> NP10 12 8.2

( T h e DS instances include cataphorical instances; references to clauses a n d p a r a g r a p h s — which would of course be DS, and would have given a higher score of is a n d hic in (9 a) - are excluded. T h e n o t a t i o n 'x > y' in (9 a - b ) means: of the Subject expressions in the sample, a larger n u m b e r of x is found in t h e circumstance specified t h a n of y.) As we see, N P is the favoured expression if the antecedent is not t h e Subject of t h e preceding clause, followed by ille (30.5%). 0 is less often selected although not impossible (about 1/3 of all instances of 0 are DS!) a n d is least often; a Subject antecedent on t h e other h a n d is most frequently continued by 0, whereas is, ille (14%) a n d N P are relatively rare. B o t h in DS a n d in SS circumstances ille a n d 0 differ quite a lot from eachother; moreover, ille also differs from the other two pronouns in scoring m u c h higher with respect to DS. T h u s , in spite of t h e common tendency of 0 and ille to occur in ch-m r a t h e r t h a n ch-1 or ch-2 position (cf. section 3 ), we now know a n u m b e r

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

294

of facts differentiating t h e m : 0 is more continuous with respect to the preceding context as far as referential distance is concerned (cf. 3 a ) , its antecedent is more frequently GivTop (cf. 4 a), and it is preferred when t h e Subject of t h e preceding clause is continued (cf. 9 a - b ) . T h e p r o n o u n ille on t h e other h a n d is more persistent in the following context, a n d occurs often in t h e company of other candidates (cf. 3 b - c ) ; Focus antecedents t e n d to be followed by ille (cf. 4 c), and its antecedent is usually a n o t h e r constituent t h a n t h e Subject of the preceding clause (cf. 9 a). For some characteristic instances of SS 0 see (5 a) and (7 b) above; for characteristic DS ille see (10 a - b ) : 1 1 (10) a.

(— continuation of 5 b') Has ille ( = servus) in iaculo illigatas effert 'the man carried forth the despatch bound on a javelin'

b.

Pandit se pina luminibus orbum corpus minutis piscibus praebens. Adsultant Uli protinus et... (Plin. Nat. 9.142) 'the sea-pen opens, presenting the dark inside of its body to the tiny fishes; these at once dart forward and...'

E x a m p l e (11) exemplifies a less characteristic SS ille example: (11)

Cupiebat discere Antonius, sed fieri non arbitrabatur. Ergo sponsionibus factis postero die ... cenam ... Antonio (0=Cleopatra) apposuit inridenti computationemque postulanti. At illa ... confirmans ... (Plin. Nat. 9.120) ' A. was eager to learn, although he thought it was impossible. Consequently bets were made, and on the following day, she (0) set before A. a banquet, while he laughed and expostulated. But she (illa) vowed...'

This example is interesting, because, although illa is coreferent with 0 Subject of apposuit ( = C l e o p a t r a ) , which itself is a non-characteristic DS 0 Subject, t h e non-Subject Antonio is Head (and semantically Agent) of two active voice participial phrases. Consequently, Cleopatra as Subj of t h e next verb almost seems like a DS, and this may indeed be t h e motivation for selecting illa. For a further comparison of ille and the other two pronouns it is useful to point back to (3) above, where ille was shown to score t h e highest in b o t h t h e m e a s u r e for persistence and the measure for ambiguity, i.e. t h e presence of other candidates for continuating reference: on t h e basis of t h e DS preference of ille, we can now say t h a t these other candidates m a y very well be t h e Subjects in t h e preceding sentences. In fact, when we examine t h e instances of ille it t u r n s out t h a t the presence of other candidates for reference is characteristic: in 96% of t h e instances such alternative referents are found. This is illustrated in e.g. (10 a - b a n d 11) above.

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

295

We can now conclude that the variation between the three pronominal expressions for anaphorical use is not random at all, but sensitive to a number of pragmatic parameters, such as potential ambiguity, the prag­ matic function fulfilled by the antecedent and its syntactic status (which to a large degree correlates with its pragmatic function), its position in the thematic chain, and the speaker's intentions concerning the subsequent text. Ille is the expression selected for continuing non-Subject antecedents from among several candidates for continuation, at some later stage in a thematic chain, when the speaker intends to give further information about this referent in the next clauses. It may therefore indeed justifiably be called a 'switch' device, although this is a switch in perspective rather than in topic, since all three pronouns are topical by nature. The other pronouns prefer another chain position, namely ch.-2, and like to follow FutTop, thus establishing their referents as topical after the start of the chain, and they tend not to be selected in the case of a switch in perspec­ tive. In this and other respects 0 differs from both hie and is and from Me: it is the most continuous expression in that it is selected for continuing Subjects and Given Topics well established in the chain, and it does not follow Fut Top. Thus, in a sense, Givón's prediction is confirmed as well as modi­ fied. Moreover, returning to the relation between possible deictic use and anaphorical use, it is now perhaps possible to see a connection between the two: whereas in spatial deixis referents of ille are further in distance from the speech participants, and might therefore be claimed to require greater effort with respect to ease of identification, in anaphora as well they require greater effort, because they are less readily accessible in men­ tal space: they have not been clearly established as Topic-to-be (FutTop), and they are in the company of rival referents. By using the pronoun ille rather than one of the other (in spatial deixis near me/near you) pro­ nouns the speaker highlights this heightened degree of inaccessibility (his selection of ille might therefore be called a cooperative act). 12 Whether or not comparable phenomena manifest themselves in other languages is an interesting subject for further research. In order to get some confirmation of the view outlined here, we briefly examined cooccurrences between some sentence or rather discourse con­ necting particles on the one hand, and the three pronominal expressions under consideration on the other. Although these two classes of linguistic means seem to serve totally different functions (particles serve to make clear the connection between their host unit and the preceding clause or larger stretch of discourse, whereas anaphoric pronouns serve to maintain

296

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

continuity between participants) it will be seen that the specific functions of each may lead to a certain convergence (or divergence) in distribution.

5. Pronouns and particles In Kroon (1989 and this volume) a framework for the description of dis­ course connectives is outlined on the basis of an examination of some 'causal' (nam and enim), 'consecutive' (ergo and igitur) and 'adversative' (autem and at) particles. Kroon distinguishes three levels on which such particles may function, rather than the distinction in two levels made else­ where (the semantic or representational vs. the pragmatic or interpersonal level). 13 It is argued there that within the seemingly similar particle pairs mentioned the individual particles differ as to the level of discourse on which they primarily function. A quick computerized registration of collocations between the three pronouns and various connecting particles in a large sample shows the following tendencies: (13) hic is ille

enim 123 104 35

nam 37 42 27

igitur 41 12 3

ergo 39 16 21

autem 86 76 50

at 21 14 58

(The occurrences registered are not limited to substantival instances, nor to nominative cases, but also contain accusatives and some other caseforms: thus they are not immediately comparable to the data on pronouns in Subject function which are the focus of attention in this paper. They may, however, be compared to each other for the purpose of tracking dif­ ferences between them. 14 Furthermore, instances of cataphora (including is...qui) have not been filtered out. Such instances are of course much more frequent in the case of is than in the case of hie and ille. Also included are instances of reference to clauses and paragraphs (cf. note 6). In spite of the heterogeneous phenomena mixed up in (13), still cer­ tain combinations deserve attention: the high proportion of instances of ille vs. the other two pronouns in the case of the particle at is remark­ able (in all other collocations apart from ergo, ille is less frequent than either of the other two; however, the combination with autem is quite common). Furthermore the extremely low frequency of combinations of ille and igitur, as opposed e.g. to ergo requires an explanation. When we take into account both the characteristic functions of the pronominal expressions as described in the present paper, and the descrip­ tion given of the main functions of the connective particles involved given

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

297

in Kroon (1989; this volume; and in prep.), this picture is not at all sur­ prising. T h e overall lower frequency of ille in host sentences of coherence particles is in itself not unexpected in view of the more restricted distribu­ tion of ille, and the fact t h a t it is rarely used for referring to p a r a g r a p h s or clauses; on the other h a n d , its high frequency in collocation with at may be viewed in the light of the characteristic n a t u r e of this particle a t t r i b u t e d to it in Kroon (this volume): its primarily functioning on t h e interactive level (and accordingly, its preference for occurring in discourse with an expressive a n d communicative character). According to Kroon, at primarily introduces a reactive move. T h e relatively frequent collocation of at a n d ille suggests t h a t there is a tendency towards convergence of a certain interactional strategy with a particular distribution of information s t r u c t u r e in a stretch of text: speakers who disagree with or want to con­ t r i b u t e unexpected information in the light of an earlier statement (which is indicated by at) apparently tend to do so in contexts in which more t h a n one candidate for continuation is available, and they start their argument by performing a topic shift, choosing the least obvious candidate, i.e. a different subject t h a n t h a t in t h e preceding clause. T h e low frequency of collocations of ille and igitur as opposed to ergo can also be explained on the basis of t h e primary function a t t r i b u t e d to igitur in Kroon (1989), 1 5 namely t h a t of introducing a central text unit after a p r e p a r a t o r y unit leading u p to it. A topic switch is not to be expected in such a unit. In the case of ergo this 'near incompatibility' does not exist: ergo functions primarily on the interactional level, at points where t h e speaker wants to make sure the right interpretation is arrived at a n d the communication is successful.

6. Concluding remarks In t h e major p a r t of this paper we have, on the basis of an investigation of a sample of 471 Subject expressions from narrative and expository prose (Caesar a n d Pliny respectively) discussed some p a r a m e t e r s determining t h e selection of alternative expressions for Subjects in Latin discourse, namely 0, ille, hic, is, and full nounphrases. T h e p a r a m e t e r s examined are t h e quantitative measurements of Givón, the p r a g m a t i c s t a t u s of t h e antecedent coreferent entity in the case of topical Subjects, the position of t h e Subject entities in a topic chain, t h e question whether or not t h e Subject expression under consideration represents a Subject shift with respect to t h e preceding sentence, and finally the presence of other candi­ dates for continuing reference to. All of these parameters seperately a n d

298

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

taken together show up differences in 'preferred' or 'characteristic' uses of the alternative expressions: 0 prefers well-established topics in chain me­ dial position without Subject shift; hie and is are characteristically used to establish newly introduced entities (Future Topics), and prefer chain second position. They do not require identity of Subject, and are not pre­ ferred when other candidates are present. lilt tends to occur after Focus antecedents but not after Future Topics; while sharing the preference for chain medial position with 0, it frequently is different from the preced­ ing Subject, and is characteristically selected when several candidates are available. During the analysis it became apparent that the status of the clause in the hierarchical structure of the discourse may have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining what chain position to assign, and even for the decision whether or not we are dealing with Subject con­ tinuity. Certain instances of the pronouns hic and is which from a purely linear point of view seem less expected, may be motivated by the fact that we are dealing with a discourse segment boundary. Further research on this point seems fruitful. As an overall generalization we may state that pronouns are used rather than 0 at points where the discourse develops in what might be called a 'non-default' way: the introduction of FutTop, a switch in perspective, a jump towards a different level of the discourse. Each of these circumstances seems to favour its own variant. In the last section we pay attention to certain combinations of dis­ course connecting particles and pronouns. Some peculiarities in the distri­ bution of ille can be explained in terms of (near) (in)compatibilty between the primary function of these particles and the characteristic function of ille, and thus confirm the analysis arrived at.

Notes 1.

As is well known, the adjectival use of ille is the source for the Romance definite article, a phenomenon lacking in classical Latin. We will not go into the ongoing discussion about when and how the change took place. See Pinkster (1987) for a demonstration that at the time of Petronius the (relatively frequent, cf. Peters­ mann 1977) use of substantival ille was (still) governed by the same functional principles as in earlier Latin. In this paper we will not consider the pronouns iste, ipse or idem. Their anaphorical usage is somewhat more restricted and also much less frequent than that of the three is/hic/ille. Furthermore we also do not discuss so-called 'connective relative clauses' (the use of relative pronouns introducing new sentences), which is quite frequent in classical prose. Bolkestein (fc) investigates the motivation for the selection of the connecting relative.

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

299

2.

In accordance with Functional Grammar (Dik 1989) we make a distinction be­ tween Theme on the one hand, and Topic on the other (for the latter see note 4). The notion Theme applies to entities introduced outside the predication proper, for the special purpose of specifying the domain with respect to which the fol­ lowing clause is relevant. Such constituents are usually not topical in the sense of having been mentioned in the previous context, but they are seldomly totally brand-new (see Hoffmann 1989; Somers: this volume): they need not themselves reoccur as a constituent in the following clause, although they often do (cf. Pinkster 1990: 37). Languages differ in the degree to which they require the presence of a coreferential resumptive pronoun in the latter case. As Somers points out, without information concerning intonation Theme-constituents may be difficult to identify as such in languages with flexible word order and allowing 'pro-drop' such as Latin, in which topical information may be placed at the first position of the sentence.

3.

Van de Grift (1987) examines a large sample of Subject expressions from two text types, narrative (Caesar, 231 Subject expressions) and expository (Plinius the elder, 240 Subject expressions) prose, chosen in order to be able to make a comparison between text types possible as well. For the pronouns the sample consisted of Caes. Gall. 1 apart from caput 1; 4.22-38; 5 with the exclusion of 13-14; 6.1-10; 6.229-44; 7 and Plin. Nat. 7-11. For 0 and NP only a part of these was used (Caes. Gall. 4. 22-27 and 5. 4-7, Plin. Nat. 8.133.-153). Further­ more a control sample of 285 Subject expressions from Cic. Att. (first 33 letters from Shackleton Bailey's 1980 selection), Columella (random) and Livy 1 was examined (for 0 and NP narrowed down to Cic. Att. 4. 3., Columella 1.2.1.1.3.5 and Livy 1.26-27.4). The similarities between the subsamples turned out to be larger than the differences. In order to avoid misunderstanding: only sub­ stantival instances are investigated. Furthermore certain syntactic constellations were excluded from registration, such as instances of coordination of two clauses sharing the same Subject, and instances of coreference between Subjects of main clauses and those of subordinate clauses, participial and infinitival constructions in complex sentences: in both circumstances 0 expression is the rule.

4.

T h e term topic in Givón (1983) is not a pragmatic notion but just means 'entity' or 'participant' involved in the states of affairs designated (i.e., sentences may contain more than one topic). Differently, in for example Functional Grammar (Dik 1989) topicality is a qualitative notion, defined in terms of the speaker's evaluation of the state of knowledge of his addressee at the moment of speaking. In FG currently a distinction is made between topicality and Topic. Topicality is assigned to that part of the information which can be assumed to be available or accessible to the hearer at a particular stage in the communication. Topic on the other hand is, somewhat confusingly, used in several ways: on the one hand in a loose sense, for what (to the analyzing linguist) seems to be the topical information or for that part of the topical information which somehow seems central (e.g. because it is the information with respect to which ('about' which) the focal information is provided); and on the other hand, more narrowly, for that part of the topical info which because of its special pragmatic status systematically receives special treatment in a particular language. In the latter sense Topic is a language specific notion, although topicality is not (for discussion of the relevance of Topic for English see Hannay 1991). In other frameworks either topical information or Topic (or both undifferentiated^) are sometimes called Theme (e.g. in the Prague school). In FG Theme refers to a different phenomenon, see note 2.

300 5.

6.

7.

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT There are some differences between the subsamples, which we will not go into here. However, these differences do not effect the extreme (first and last) posi­ tions on each scale. There are some more factors which also show up differences: thus Me seldom refers back to either whole clauses or paragraphs, whereas is and hic frequently do (29 x and 27 x respectively). As a consequence there are further differences as to semantic roles as well (both 0 and ille are more frequently Agent, for example) and as to semantic features of the referents (both 0 and ille are relatively more frequently + human, for example). We will not discuss these further. Thus, in deviation from Dik (1989), in this paper the label GivTop is used in a wide sense (cf. note 4), and is to be understood as 'topical information'. From De Jong (this volume) it is clear that in Latin there is no one to one relation between being topical information and receiving a specific systematic treatment as far as linear placement is concerned. Note that a FutTop is not topical in the clause in which it occurs (which may in fact lack a topic altogether), although it need not necessarily be brandnew (it may be evoked or inferrable, i.e. be SubTopic, cf. Hannay 1985). In its own clause FutTop obviously is focal. In Latin FutTop often occurs in VS order, but not necessarily, nor do all instances of VS necessarily contain a FutTop. As far as Focus is concerned, I leave the further differentiation between types of Focus proposed in Dik (1989) out of account.

8.

Although differences within the hierarchies may not be statistically significant, the extreme positions certainly are.

9.

Although we assume that discourse structure is codetermined by the speaker's main and subsidiary goals and intentions, and is hierarchical in nature, we will not elaborate this point further. Clauses or larger stretches of discourse may cohere in different ways, in the sense that they may fulfill different functions in a larger whole: and the function of such discourse segments with respect to some higher level discourse segment may be a relevant factor in the selection of expression as well (as it has been shown to be for the description of Latin causal, consecutive and adversative connecting particles in Kroon 1989 and this volume).

10.

In the control sample these hierarchies look slightly different for the three pro­ nouns; 0 and NP however are in the same extreme positions, with ille somewhere in the middle (but not adjacent to 0).

11.

Because of limitations of space I refrain from illustrating the more and less characteristic uses of the other SE's.

12.

We owe this point to Jan de Jong (pc).

13.

Bolkestein 1991 uses the division into two levels in order to demonstrate the dis­ tinction between quia on the one hand and quoniam on the other. It is suggested there that the difference between nam and enim can be formulated in terms of the type of Focus in the preceding clause: the possibility of their functioning on a different level is not raised. Kroon (1989) convincingly argues for the latter view.

14.

The data were collected with help of the PHI CD Rom by Y. Bentvelsen. The sample consists of the prose of Caes., Cato, C i c , Liv., Nepos, Petr., Plin. NH., Plin. Ep. Quint., Sail., Sen.Ph., Sen.Rhet., T a c , Varro and Vitr. The forms counted were just hic/haec/hoc/hunc/hanc, is/ea/id/eum/eam and ille /illa /illud/ilium /illam: thus no other oblique cases apart from the acc. and

PARTICIPANT TRACKING IN LATIN DISCOURSE

301

(where the form is identical) the abl. sg.; and no plur. apart from neutr. This was done for no reason but limits of time, and the expectation that genitives and datives would not occur very frequently anyway. 15.

See also Kroon this volume. We are indebted to Kroon pc for pointing out the significance of the rarity of collocations of igitur and ille.

References Bolkestein, A.M. 1991. "Causally related predications and the choice between parataxis and hyptaxis in Latin." In: R. Coleman (ed.) New Studies in Latin Linguistics, 427-451. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bolkestein, A.M. 1992. "Anaforische Subjecten en Tekststructuur in het Latijn." Gramma/TTT 1, 111-124. Dik, S.C., 1989. The Theory of Functional clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Fox, B. 1987. Discourse Structure

Grammar.

and Anaphora.

Part I. The structure

of the

Cambridge: C.U.P.

Fugier H. 1991. "Nominal anaphora, text, argumentation (from Plautus to Cicero)." In: R. Coleman (ed.) New Studies in Latin Linguistics, 381-399. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (ed.) 1983. Topic Continuity.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Grift, M. van de. 1987. Zero, IS, HIC, ILLE. Pragmatic constraints on the use of Latin Subject expressions. Unpubl. M.A.Thesis. University of Amsterdam, Dept. of Clas­ sics. Hannay, M. 1991. "Pragmatic function assignment and word order variation in a Func­ tional Grammar of English." Journal of Pragmatics 16, 131-155. Hoffmann, M. 1989. "A typology of Latin Theme constituents." Cahiers de l'Tnstitut de Linguistique de Louvain 15.1-4, 185-196. Kleiber, G. 1986. "Adjectif démonstratif et article défini en anaphore fidèle." In: J. David &; G. Kleiber (eds.) Déterminants: syntaxe et sémantique. Paris: Klincksieck. Kleiber, G. 1992. "Cap sur les topiques avec le pronom il" L'Information 54.1-4, 231-243.

Grammaticale

Kroon, C. 1989. "Causal connectors in Latin: the discoursefunction of nam, enim, igitur and ergo." Cahiers de ITnstitut de linguistique de Louvain 15.1-4, 231-243. Kroon, C. Forthcoming. "Discourse connectives and discourse type: the case of Latin at." Paper presented at the Latin Linguistics Conference, Budapest 1991. (This volume.) Kroon, C. Forthcoming. Discourse

Connectives

in

Latin.

Kühner, R & C. Stegmann. 1912. Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache II: Satzlehre. Hannover (repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1962). Pinkster, H. 1987. "The use of Subject pronouns in Latin." In: Etudes de Linguistique Générale and de Linguistique Latine offertes en hommage à Guy S erbat, 369-379. Paris: SIG.

302

A.M. BOLKESTEIN - M. VAN DE GRIFT

Pinkster, H. 1990. Latin Syntax and Semantics.

London: Routledge.

Somers, M.H. Forthcoming. "Theme and Topic: the relation between discourse and con­ stituent fronting in Latin." Paper presented at the Latin Linguistics Conference, Budapest 1991. (This volume.) Szantyr, A. 1965. Lateinische

Syntax und Stilistik.

München: Beck.

Discourse connectives and discourse type: the case of Latin at Caroline Kroon Free University & University of Amsterdam

1. Introduction1 In Kroon (1989) I argued that the so-called causal coordinating conjunc­ tions nam, enim, igitur and ergo cannot be adequately described in terms of interclausal semantic relationships, but should rather be accounted for within the wider perspective of their contribution to the discourse coher­ ence. There are at least two reasons for this view. The first reason is, that in a purely semantic approach the differences in the use of a single con­ nective are often left unaccounted for, whereas in a discourse-pragmatic approach the assumed 'deviating' uses can be explained quite well as the combination of an inviariable general discourse function and a variable specific context. A second advantage of a discourse approach is that it brings to light essential differences between alleged synonyms such as enim and nam, which would remain concealed in a predominantly semantic ap­ proach. A more recent study along the same lines, involving the so-called adversative connectives at, autem and vero (all usually rendered 'but'), confirms the usefulness of describing 'coordinating conjunctions' in terms of their discourse function. One of the conclusions of this study is that, although autem, vero and at may all — in varying degrees — be said to have some adversative connotation, they are not adversative in the same

C. KROON

304

way.2 If applicable at all, the notion of adversativity should at least be related to different aspects of the discourse coherence. In this paper I first give a brief sketch of the analytical framework I propose for the description and subcategorization of the group of 'coor­ dinating conjunctions' (see also Kroon, 1994). I then put the theoretical outlines to practice, by investigating the discourse function of the connec­ tive particle at and its manifestation in various discourse types.

2. The analytical framework The analytical framework employed for the description and subcategoriza­ tion of 'coordinating conjunctions' is summarized in (1): LEVEL O F DISCOURSE

T Y P E O F RELATIONSHIP

representational

semantic relations between states of affairs in the represented world functional relations between discourse units

presentational

interactional

the relation of a discourse unit to the communicative situation

'CONNECTIVE PARTICLES' (some examples) quia, ubi, ut postquam, etc. sed, et igitur, nam autem tum, nunc enim vero modo, etiam

This framework (which may also be used for the description of particles other than the 'connective' ones that are the subject of this article) is based on the following principles: (i) coherence is established simultaneously at multiple levels of discourse, which I call the representational, the presentational, and the interactional level of discourse. (ii) coherence-marking devices, including various types of particles, 3 can best be described and subcategorized in terms of the discourse levels on which they function. In other words, the discourse function of particles is stated in terms of the discourse level they are primarily concerned with. 4 A subcategorization of particles along the lines of this framework yields three main function groups: representational particles, presenta­ tional particles, and interactional particles. More subtle subdistinctions can be made within each main group, but for our present purposes these can be disregarded.

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE

305

The representational level of discourse is concerned with the depiction or representation of some real or imaginary world. Particles with a function on this level of discourse signal relations between the denoted states of affairs that make up the represented world. In many languages, including Latin, the job of expressing representational relations between states of affairs is typically fulfilled by subordinating conjunctions, such as quia ('because'), ubi ('when'), ut ('so that') and postquam ('after'). When used as coordinators Latin et ('and') and sed ('but'), too may be regarded as primarily representational particles. Other particles with a function on the representational level of dis­ course are not so much involved in marking relations between two explicitly expressed events in the represented world, but rather evaluate an event (or concept) in terms of the implicit norms and expectations that hold in the depicted world. Or they relate concepts and events of the represented world to an implicit possible alternative world. Latin examples are modo ('only'), etiam ('also', 'even'), iam ('already'), demum ('only') and vero ('really'), in part of their uses. Presentational particles, on the other hand, are not primarily involved in displaying semantic relations between states of affairs or entities in the represented world; their function rather pertains to how the represented world is presented or 'staged' by the language user. Presentational particles may, for instance, signal how a discourse segment is functionally related to another discourse segment (in terms of central and less central information units; preparative, explanatory, or elaborating discourse units; etc.). Or they may have a signpost function at discourse boundaries, helping us to keep track of where we are in the complex thematic organization of a monological stretch of text. As such they may serve to indicate digressions, resumptions, discourse topic shifts, and so on. The discourse units within the scope of a presentational particle may be of any size, ranging from single NPs to extensive paragraphs. Part of the so-called coordinating conjunctions in Latin (see section 1) have a primary function on the presentational level of discourse, for instance nam, igitur and autem.5 Other presentational particles are nunc and turn, which — just like their English equivalents now and then — are not only used adverbially to indicate time relations in the represented world, but also have a discourse organizing, presentational use. The third level of discourse, the interactional level, accounts for the fact that every coherent stretch of discourse is integrated into a specific interactional situation. By interactional situation I mean the non-verbal, extralinguistic environment of an utterance, including the communicative

306

C. KROON

intentions, attitudes, knowledge, etc. of the discourse participants, as well as the social relationships between them. Whereas particles of the pre­ sentational type indicate how a discourse unit fits into its (monological) textual environment, interactional particles may for instance signal how an utterance fits into — or is evaluated in terms of — some aspect of the interactional situation. Moreover, interactional particles may indicate how an utterance fits into the interactional exchange taking place between two or more interlocutors. Thus, particles with a primary function on the interactional level may pertain to the involvement of the discourse participants in the communicative situation, or to their commitment to the message being exchanged; they may modify or specify the illocutionary intention; they may indicate the turn-taking system in a conversation; and so on. On account of the fact that interactional particles often occur in isolated sen­ tences, we may conclude that they are not always connective in a textual sense. In the literature they are usually referred to as modal particles, attitudinal particles, or illocutionary particles. Latin examples are modo, tandem and etiam in part of their uses. 6 However, also the ostensibly connective particles vero and enim may, in my opinion, be described as interactional particles. Vero and enim have in common that they are both concerned with the involvement of the discourse participants in the communication process. By using vero the speaker or writer indicates his own commitment to the utterance, whereas by using enim he solicits the commitment and cooperation of the ad­ dressee. The adversative connotation of vero and the causal connotation of enim, are to be regarded as additional effects of the use of these particles in a specific context. 7 In summary we can say that certain items of the group of so-called co­ ordinating conjunctions (e.g. nam, igitur, autem) have a primary function on the presentational level of discourse. These particles somehow reveal the organization of a monological stretch of discourse, in that they point to functional links or thematic boundaries between the various informa­ tion units. Other items of the group, however, like vero and enim, have a primary function on the interactional level of discourse. They are not primarily involved in the internal organization of a monological stretch of text; rather they relate an information unit to the interactional frame­ work of writer and reader, or speaker and addressee. An author may or may not choose to refer explicitly to this interactional framework. In other words, texts may differ as to the extent to which they reveal traces of a communicative exchange between the author and his audience.

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE

307

3. The case of at 3.1. Discourse type When we now turn to at and attempt to describe this particle's primary discourse function in accordance with the theoretical outlines sketched above, the situation seems somewhat complicated. Judging by the infor­ mation in the handbooks, which base their statements largely on Hand's particle study, there is no single basic function of at. At appears to have an interactional use, a presentational use, and a representational use as well, as is illustrated by (2)-(4): (2)

eloquere # at pudet (Plaut. Cas. 911) 'Go on, tell me # But I'm ashamed to.'

(3)

Postquam Caesar dicendi finem fecit, ceteri verbo alius alii varie assentiebatur. At M. Porcius Cato rogatus sententiam huiuscemodi orationem habuit: "...." (Sall. Cat. 52,1) 'After Caesar had finished speaking, the rest briefly expressed their adherence to one or another of the various proposals. But M. Porcius Cato... spoke to the following purport: "...".'

(4)

tempore illi praecepto, at hi numero avium regnum trahebant (Liv. 1,7,2) '...the one party laid claim to the honour from priority, but the other from the number of the birds.'

Example (2) is representative of the widespread use of interactional at in conversational texts, notably in Latin comedy. In the cases concerned at links two moves in an interactional exchange and indicates the introduction of an objection. Examples (3) and (4), on the other hand, are illustrative of the use of at in monologal text types, such as narrative, historiographical, and expository prose. In these types of text one does not expect to find very many interactional particles, and certainly not reactive particles with a challenging character such as at in its conversational use. As is wellrecognized, however, at is fairly common in these types of text as well. The common view is therefore that at in non-conversational text types more or less acts as a stronger variant of the adversative coordinator sed, as seems to be the case in (4). In addition to this seemingly representational use the handbooks hint at a usage of at that is roughly comparable to the basic function of autem (cf. note 5), and would thus qualify (in terms of the framework proposed in section 2 above) for the label 'presentational'. This observation is based on cases like (3), where at seems to signal a discourse topic change. All in all this yields the picture of a chameleonic particle at, a passe­ partout which — in addition to its rather specific interactional use —

308

C. KROON

can also be employed to do the representational job of sed, or the pre­ sentational, organizational job of autem. For a few isolated authors, for instance Celsus, this view might hold good. But in general the interac­ tional flavour of at, which is not applicable to autem and sed, appears to be more pervasive in the Latin literature than we might at first sight be inclined to assume. What is essential to realize, in this respect, is that the interactional nature of at may not always be equally transparent. In order to substantiate this claim I first have to make some gen­ eral remarks about discourse type. First, discourse type should be distin­ guished from text type. Text type (e.g. narrative, procedural, argumen­ tative, and expository prose) is determined by the factors subject matter and speaker/author's aims and goals. Discourse type, on the other hand, refers to the communicative mode associated with a text, for instance monologue, dialogue, and polylogue.8 In contrast to text type, discourse type is a local phenomenon which may change several times within the same text. My second remark concerns the observation that discourse type has a formal and & functional aspect, a point which has been put forward in most detail in Roulet et al. (1985).9 In terms of form a discourse may be said to be dialogal or monologal. A monologal text is a text which is phrased and produced by one single speaker or writer; a dialogal text is phrased by at least two speakers. Most Latin texts have, of course, a predominantly monologal form, because there is a central reporter who phrases the text, usually coinciding with the author. Exceptions are, for instance, Latin comedy and Ciceronian dialogue, in which the actors themselves (and not a central reporter) phrase and produce the text, and which thus have an inherently dialogal form. The functional aspect of discourse type, on the other hand, is con­ cerned with the opposition monological versus dialogical. A stretch of text is considered dialogical when it reveals the properties of a communica­ tive interaction. This means that the text contains alternating moves of distinct discourse partners, related by their corresponding speech act func­ tions and together constituting an interactional exchange. 10 A monological stretch of text, however, is not composed of independent initiative moves and corresponding reactive moves, but consists of only one single move (which, though, may show any degree of complexity). The combination of the two parameters form and function yields four different discourse types, as we can see in (5):

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE (5)

309

discourse types:

1. 2. 3. 4.

FUNCTION dialogical monological dialogical monological

— — — —

FORM dialogal dialogal monologal monologal

T h e discourse types dialogical dialogal (1) and monological monologal (4) are more or less self-explanatory: they can be said to represent t h e 'default' situation. T h e y refer to monologues and dialogues in the more conventional sense of t h e word. We can speak of a dialogical monologal discourse (3) when a text is phrased by a central reporter (for instance t h e a u t h o r ) , b u t simulates or reports a conversational exchange. This is often t h e case in Ci­ cero's letters a n d orations, when Cicero simulates a conversation between himself a n d a fictitious or real discussion p a r t n e r . Another example of dis­ course t y p e 3. is reported conversation in t h e oblique oration. 1 1 Discourse t y p e 2, monological dialogal discourse, is r a r e . 1 2 Unfortunately this is not the whole story about discourse type. An i m p o r t a n t additional insight concerns the fact t h a t monological discourse may contain w h a t could be called 'embedded voices'. This m e a n s t h a t a central reporter phrases two distinct voices or opinions, not set a p a r t a n d alternating as in conventional dialogue, b u t b o t h inhabiting t h e same u t t e r a n c e or move. In (6), which is a graphical reproduction of (5) above, I refer to this discourse type as diaphonic discourse. We will see some examples of diaphonic discourse in the next section. (6) DISCOURSE T Y P E

\ dialogal dialogical

monological

monophonie

3.2. The particle

monologal

diaphonie

dialogical

monological

monophonie

diaphonie

at

W h a t are t h e implications of this lengthy discussion of discourse t y p e for t h e case of at? One of the conclusions of the diagram in (6) is t h a t t h e r e are several discourse types t h a t could be called 'interactional'; they differ only in t h e degree of embeddedness of t h e conversation taking place. In t h e d i a g r a m in (6) these discourse types are italicized. 1 3

C. KROON

310

Now t h e majority of the instances of at in my corpus a p p e a r e d to occur in such interactional discourse types, t h a t is, in a dialogical or at least a diaphonic environment. Examples (7)-(19) below serve to illustrate this point. T h e material is divided into three categories, in accordance with t h e three 'interactional' discourse types distinguished in (6). I will start my exposition with t h e clearest examples of interactional at (such as (2) above), a n d will t h e n a t t e m p t to demonstrate t h a t t h e same interactional basic function can be established for less clear cases as well, such as (3) a n d (4). I

dialogical dialogal (direct discourse without an overt central reporter) (7)

A: ubi tu nata es? B: ut mihi mater dixit, in culina A: at ego patriam te rogo quae sit tua (Plaut. Pers. 635) 'Where were you born? # In the kitchen, so my mother told me # But I'm asking you what your country is.'

(8)

A: eia vero age dic B: at deridebitis A: non edepol faciemus (Plaut. Epid. 262) 'Come on, out with it ! # But you two will make fun of me # No, no, upon my word.'

(9)

A: confracta navis in mari est illis B: ita est. at hercle nobis villa in terra et tegulae (Plaut. Rud. 153) 'They've been shipwrecked # T h a t ' s right. But we've been housewrecked.'

In (7), (8) a n d (9) at is used in a dialogical dialogal environment, a n d has a clear interactional character, as it introduces a challenging reactive move. T h e particle indicates t h a t t h e speaker acknowledges t h e validity or t r u t h of t h e (content of the) prior move, b u t objects to its p r a g m a t i c implications or relevance for t h e present situation. As a result, the at-clause r e t o r t s t h e prior move of t h e first speaker, thus frustrating t h e expected or preferred course of t h e discourse. T h e conceded p a r t may remain implicit, as is t h e case in (7) a n d (8), or may be expressed explicitly, as in (9) by ita est ('so it is'). II

dialogical monologal (interaction between central reporter and implied discussion p a r t n e r : occupatio)

Examples (10), (11), and (12) are all instances of dialogical monologal discourse, in t h e g r a m m a r s usually called occupatio. This m e a n s t h a t t h e

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE

311

central reporter stages a fictitious discourse partner with whom he enters into a discussion. The instances are close to real dialogue, and the function of at is the same as in (7), (8) and (9) above, i.e. the introduction of a challenging move: (10)

"ať' inquis" ' aliquid". Non recuso id quidem (Cic. Att. 15,4,3) ' "But", you say "write something in the style of Heracleides" That I don't refuse.'

(11)

At enim, ut iam ita sint haec, quid ad vos, Romani? Hoc tu dicas liberantibus Graeciam? (Liv. 34,32,13) 'But granting now that all is so, how does this concern you, Ro­ mans? # Is this what you would say to the deliverers of Greece?'

(12)

At enim magnificum est liberare civitates servas. Ita opinor, si nihil hostile adversos vos fecerunt; sin autem... (Liv. 37,53,28) 'But there will be protests because it is a fine thing to liberate enslaved cities. # Such is my opinion, if they have committed no hostile acts against you; but if...'

There may be various formal indications that create the impression of an actual conversation, for instance the use of reporting phrases like aliquis dicat, dices, or inquis — as is the case in (10). In (11) there is no such reporting clause, but the use of the vocative Romani, as well as the use of vos instead of nos, contribute to the impression of a real exchange between two (groups of) discourse participants. In (12) formal signs of a dialogical discourse type seem to be lacking. However, the context, and especially ita opinor ('such is my opinion'), which is a typical turn-initiator in reactive speech acts, strongly point into this direction. [II

monological monologal (+ diaphonic)

The next stage on the scale of 'embeddedness of conversation' is the dia­ phonie discourse type. The majority of the ostensibly non-interactional instances of at in my corpus appeared to occur in a diaphonie environment. Examples (13)—(19) illustrate the various possibilities. Relatively unproblematic are instances like (13): (13)

At enim ego violavi et everti, quod Argivorum civitatem teneo. Quo modo hoc tuear? (Liv. 34,31,6) 'But (in your eyes) I violated it (sc. the treaty), because I hold the city of Argos. How shall I defend myself against this charge?'

It is clear that the function of at in (13) does not substantially differ from its function in (10), (11) and (12). That the at-clause counts as an objection or a reproach of the move of a discussion partner is proved by

312

C. KROON

tuear ('I will defend'). It is, moreover, also suggested by t h e combina­ tion of at with t h e interactional particle enim. T h e only difference with t h e preceding examples is t h a t in (13) the discourse t y p e is monological instead of dialogical, as the deictic orientation of a central reporter has b e e n retained: in a dialogical variant t h e first person ego would have been replaced by a second person tu. T h u s , what we see in (13) is an implied dialogue between an embedded voice and t h e reporting speaker. In (14) a n d (15) the conversational exchange t h a t explains in my opinion t h e use of at is still more deeply embedded: (14)

s i t u i n legione bellator clues, at ego in culina clueo (Plaut. Truc. 615) 'you may be a well known hero in the army, but that's what I am in the kitchen.'

(15)

"si vos urbis, Quirites, si vestri nulla cura tangit, at vos veremini deos vestros ab hostibus captos..." (Liv. 3,17,3) 'If you feel no concern, Quirites, for your city, or for yourselves, yet fear your gods, whom the enemy hold captive...'

In b o t h (14) a n d (15) at occurs between a subordinate clause a n d a m a i n clause, which obviously is not a very likely environment for a reactive marker in an interactional exchange. G r a m m a r s usually speak of 'at at t h e beginning of an apodosis'. However, t h e subordinate clause in this frequent si ... at construction is of a very special type, viz. a quotative or semi-factual conditional. 1 5 Quotative conditionals, which are always in t h e indicative m o o d , record contextually or situationally given information, which stems from another source t h a n t h e reporter himself, a n d which is not (or not yet) accepted by him. 1 6 T h e quotative si-clause contains, in other words, an embedded voice against which t h e reporter raises an objection. T h e subordinate clause is relatively loosely related to t h e m a i n clause, as is proved by (15), where the sz-clause falls outside t h e scope of t h e directive illocutionary force of t h e m a i n clause. This is also indicated by instances like (16) and (17), which are fully comparable to (14) a n d (15) (cf. si ita vis in 17), b u t in which the embedded voice is carried by an independent clause: (16)

sit fur, sit sacrilegus...; at est bonus imperator (Cic. Verr. 5,4) 'granted that Verres is a thief, that he is a sacrilegious thief...; yet he is a great commander.'

(17)

satis, si ita vis, naturae fortasse (sc. vixisti)...; at, quod maximum est, patriae certe parum (Cic. Marc. 25) 'long enough, if you will have it so, have you lived for nature; but, what is more than all this, for your country all too brief a span.'

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE

313

The last group of instances, but probably the most interesting one, is exemplified by (4), (18) and (19): (4)

Priori Remo augurium venisse fertur, sex vultures; iamque nuntiato augurio cum duplex Romulo se ostendisset, utrumque regem sua multitudo consalutaverat: tempore illi praecepto, at hi nu­ mero avium regnum trahebant (Liv. 1,7,2) '... the one party laid claim to the honour on the ground of pri­ ority, but the other on the ground of the number of the birds.'

(18)

est enim inter magnos homines summa dissensio. Thales... ex aqua dixit constare omnia. At hoc Anaximandro... non persuasit (Cic. Ac. 2,118) 'It is a subject extremely debated among the great. Thaïes... said that all things are made of water. But in this he did not carry conviction with his fellow-citizen and associate A.'

(19)

quem (sc. Posidonium) ut vidisset (sc. Pompeius)... molesteque se dixisset ferre, quod eum non posset audire, at ille: "tu vero" inquit "potes..." (Cic. Tusc. 2,61 ) 'when he had seen him... and had said that he regretted that he was not able to hear him, Posidonius said: "But you can hear me..." '

In (4), (18) and (19) the reporter relates the fact that a discussion has taken place between the characters of the narrated world. One explanation why at is used in (4) (instead of, for instance, sed) may be that Livy wants to evoke the image of an actual dispute between two parties, though without going as far as to interrupt the narrative style for an embedded speech. At is, so to speak, the last trace of a conversational mode. Sed and autem both lack this interactional flavour which gives the narrative a livelier character. The same explanation may be given for (18) and (19), and for a considerably large number of other instances of monological at in my corpus. In all these cases at occurs in a context where the reporter recounts a dispute between narrated characters. It should be mentioned here that the difference between "at" inquit "... " ("but" he said "..."), and at inquit: "..." (but he said: "...") may be described as a mere difference in the discourse type chosen. In the former expression at is part of the direct speech of an internal character (dialogical discourse), whereas in the latter at belongs to the narrative part of an external reporter (monological discourse). In both expression types the use of at has, in my view, more or less the same effect: it signals the occurrence of a reactive move with a challenging purport. In this respect it would also be interesting to compare pairs like at ille: "... " and ille autem: "... ",18 Although more research is needed here, my expectation is that ille autem will be used preferably at the introduction of a shifted initiating and

C. KROON

314

non-challenging move (i.e. at the introduction of a new discourse topic), whereas at ille will be reserved for the introduction of reactive, challenging moves. Such a difference would explain why the interactional particle at is used instead of the presentational topic shifter autem in instances like (3), repeated here for convenience: (3)

Postquam Caesar dicendi finem fecit, ceteri verbo alius alii varie assentiebatur. At M. Porcius Cato rogatus sententiam huiuscemodi orationem habuit: "...." (Sall. Cat. 52,1) 'After Caesar had finished speaking, the rest briefly expressed their adherence to one or another of the various proposals. But M. Porcius Cato... spoke to the following purport: "...".'

On account of the above considerations we come to the following descrip­ tion of the primary discourse function of at : at is primarily an interactional particle, which indicates that the language user in some respect challenges the preceding move of his discourse partner, thus frustrating the expected continuation of the discourse. This description holds good for most in­ stances of at, in both dialogical and monological environments. 19 There is a small residuum of instances in my corpus that appear to fit in less well with this description. In Caesar, Sallust and Curtius Rufus, for instance, at is sometimes used in a non-conversational discourse type, and appears to signal strong contrasts and major discourse tonic shifts. However, these instances have in common that they have a strong expressive overtone, which is lacking where sed or autem are used. They are in line with the interactional use of at in as much as they signal the introduction of a new move with a challenging character, which is due to the surprising content of the at-unit, or to its unexpectedness in the current stage of the discourse. The author puts himself, as it were, in the position of the reader who raises a point that is more relevant, interesting, or opportune than the expected continuation of the discourse.

4. Conclusions In this article I proposed a framework for the description and subclassifi­ cation of connective particles. This framework is characterized by the fact that it distinguishes between three levels of discourse at which particles may function: the representational level, the presentational level, and the interactional level. With regard to at my main point has been to show that we may arrive at a more unitary description of this particle by systematically exploring

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE

315

the discourse type it is used in. In the majority of instances in my corpus (cf. n.2) at appeared to have a primary function on the interactional level of discourse. This is indicated by the fact that it preferably occurs in what could be called dia-discourse, that is, discourse with an expressive and communicative character. The term 'expressive' pertains to the subjective involvement of the speaker/author, the term 'communicative' to the overt involvement of a speaker and an addressee in an interactional exchange. Dia-discourse may obtain at two layers of a text: the layer of the author and his audience, or the layer of the characters in the narrated world. At shares this interactional character with, for instance, the alleged coordinating conjunctions vero and enim.20 In monophonic discourse, on the other hand, the central author merely phrases and organizes the information, with a minimum of subjec­ tive involvement and without overt traces of a communicative exchange with the audience. It is this type of discourse where we find presentational particles like autem, nam and igitur.21 Although there has been no room in this article for a discussion of the discourse functions of autem and vero, I hope to have made clear by my treatment of at that there may be a lot more to say about the 'coordinating conjunctions' autem, vero and at than that they display adversative relations between independent clauses, and only differ as to their relative strength. 22 Or, to put it in other words, autem, vero and at do not simply mean "but", "butter" and "butst".

Notes 1.

I would like to thank Machtelt Bolkestein, Harm Pinkster and Rodie Risselada for their comments.

2.

See Kroon (1994). The corpus on which the conclusions are based consists of about 350 instances of each of the three 'adversative' particles. They were taken mainly from Plautus, Cicero, historical prose, Seneca, and Petronius.

3.

I define particles in a very broad sense, viz. as those invariable words which have in common that they fit their host unit into a wider perspective, which may be the surrounding context and its implications, or the discourse situation in which the text is integrated. This definition implies that I do not make an a priori distinction between 'connective' particles and 'sentence particles' (e.g. modal particles; illocutionary particles), but to a certain extent treat them alike as coherence-marking devices. This is in accordance with my observation that synchronically only part of the Latin 'coordinating conjunctions' are connective in a strict sense, whereas others predominantly or partly reveal properties of sentence particles.

4.

Although it is generally agreed that coherence exists at multiple levels of dis­ course, there is no consensus as to what those levels are. My own ideas are

316

C. KROON influenced especially by Halliday's metafunction theory (see e.g. Halliday 1985), and by Schiffrin (1987), but differ from both approaches in various respects.

5.

Nam signals that its host unit has a subsidiary function with regard to a more central discourse unit (i.e. central in terms of the communicative intentions of a language user). Igitur signals that its host unit is central with regard to a prepar­ ative discourse unit. Autem signals a transition from one separate discourse unit to another, thereby causing a thematic reorientation of the evolving discourse. See Kroon (1989; 1994) for elaborate discussions of these particles.

6.

For modo see Risselada (this volume). The interactional particles tandem and etiam express the indignation, resentment or impatience of the speaker with regard to the message of the host utterance.

7.

For the alleged adversative connector vero and the alleged causal connector enim, see Kroon (1989; 1994).

8.

In theory any discourse type may be used for a specific text type, but in practice every text type has one or more preferred discourse types.

9.

I use the terminology of Roulet et al. (1985), which in turn has been based on concepts formulated by the Soviet theoretician Bakhtin, and by Ducrot.

10.

For the concepts 'move' and 'exchange' see Sinclair Sz Coulthard (1975).

11.

In publications of the French pragmatic school of linguistics the distinction be­ tween reporter and speaking character is captured by the opposition 'locuteur' vs. 'énonciateur'. Examples of discourse type 2 (monological dialogal) can be found in Plautus, viz. when two conversation partners supplement each others utterances, and so together constitute one single move; or when a conversation participant restricts his contributions to minimal responses, so that there is no actual exchange taking place.

12.

13.

The purely hypothetical discourse type monological dialogal ( + diaphonie) is only added for the sake of completeness, and will not be considered further here.

14. 15.

A comparable example is Cic. Phil. 2,12. In a few scattered instances etsi, quamquam si. Cf. TLL s.v. at, p. 1006-7.

16.

The semi-factual character of the si-clause is proved not only by the fact that the si-clause is always in the indicative mood, but also by the fact that in this specific construction type si non is used instead of nisi. Semi-factual/quotative conditionals to some extent resemble pseudo-conditionals. For the former cate­ gory see Dik (1990); for the latter see van de Griend (1989: 452) and Pinkster (1990: 35-36).

and quoniam are used instead of

17.

Other examples: Cic. Dom. 77; Ter. Haut. 572 (esto).

18.

The former expression may be paraphrased 'but the other one replied', the lat­ ter 'now the other one said the following'. Both are frequent combinations, cf. Bolkestein & Van de Grift (this volume).

19.

The description also holds good for the 'pathetical' instances of at mentioned in the grammars, which I left out of account in this paper.

20.

A number of observations corroborate this view, for instance the fact that at, enim and vero often occur in clusters in the same context, and that they can be easily combined with interactional elements such as hercle and edepol. Another

DISCOURSE CONNECTIVES AND DISCOURSE TYPE

317

significant observation is that in Livy at, vero and enim are almost confined to direct or indirect speech. 21.

As expected these particles do not cooccur with at, enim or vero, nor with any other interactional particle.

22.

Cf. e.g. Riemann (1886: 569-73); DeWitt (1932); Ernout-Thomas (1951: 37880); Blatt (1952: 334).

References Blatt, F. 1952. Précis de syntaxe latine. Lyon: Edition IAC. DeWitt, N.W. 1937. "The semantics of Latin particles." CU 33, 450-456. Dik, S.C. 1990. "On the semantics of conditionals." In: J. Nuyts, A.M. Bolkestein & C. Vet (eds.) Layers and levels of representation in language theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ernout, A. & F. Thomas 1951. Syntaxe

latine. Paris: Klincksieck.

Griend, M.E. van de. 1989. "Pseudoconditionals in Latin." In: Lavency, M. & D. Longrée (eds.) 447-455. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland. Hand, F. 1829-1845. Tursellinus

seu de particulis Latinis commentarii

I-IV. Leipzig.

Kroon, C. 1989. "Causal connectors in Latin: the discourse function of nam, enim, igitur, ergo." In: M. Lavency & D. Longrée (eds.) 231-244. Kroon, C. 1994. Discourse connectives in Latin. Diss. University of Amsterdam. Lavency, M. & D. Longrée (eds.) 1989. Proceedings of the Vth Colloquium Linguistics. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15.1-4. Pinkster, H. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics.

on Latin

London: Routledge.

Rebert, H.F. 1929. "The origin and meaning of Latin ať." Classical Philology 169-75. Riemann, O. 1886. Syntaxe

24,

latine. Paris: Klincksieck (7th revised ed., 1942).

Roulet, E. et al. 1985. L'articulation Lang.

du discours en français contemporain.

Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers.

Bern: Peter

Cambridge: University Press.

Sinclair, J.M. & R.M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis University Press.

of discourse.

Oxford:

Modo and s an e, or what to do with particles in Latin directives Rodie Risselada University of Amsterdam

1. Introduction* Directive u t t e r a n c e s 1 in Latin often contain particles such as dum, age, modo, quin, vero, sane, and proinde. T h e y are usually described as p a r t i ­ cles t h a t modify t h e directive illocutionary force, either by reinforcing it or by mitigating its effect. 2 W h e n these particles are examined in m o r e detail, however, we see t h a t their contribution to t h e directives in which they are used is actually quite diverse. Some of t h e m focus on t h e im­ m e d i a t e execution of t h e directive involved (age, dum), whereas others emphasize the sincerity of t h e speaker's intentions in issuing a directive (vero), or concentrate on t h e content of t h e directive (modo, quin). Sane a n d proinde, finally, do not relate to the directive in itself, b u t to t h e way in which this directive fits into t h e surrounding context. F u r t h e r m o r e , these particles vary as to whether they are limited t o directives or can be used in other speech acts as well. T h u s age, dum, a n d proinde occur exclusively in directives, whereas for instance sane a n d vero are used in a variety of speech acts and do not have specific connections w i t h directives. T h e case of modo is more complicated, because it occurs exclusively in directives and wishes in one of its functions, b u t is employed m o r e freely in others. Another difference concerns t h e m u t u a l compatibil­ ity of these particles. Age is t h e most 'compatible' particle, although it

320

R. RISSELADA

clearly favours dum and vero; in the same way, quin and modo are often found together, b u t they are occasionally combined with vero as well. Sane a n d proinde, on t h e other h a n d , are b o t h r a t h e r solitary particles. T h e aim of this paper is to present an approach to particles which enables us to account for differences such as those mentioned above. Al­ t h o u g h this approach is presented here primarily for t h e purpose of ana­ lyzing t h e role of particles in directives, it is based on a n u m b e r of m o r e general descriptive principles, which I shall discuss first (§ 2). Because an analysis of all these particles would exceed t h e scope of this paper, I will concentrate on modo and sane and refer to t h e other particles only occa­ sionally for t h e sake of comparison. Modo illustrates t h e complex n a t u r e of an 'illocutionary particle' (§ 3), while sane will be used as an example of t h e effects which 'non-illocutionary particles' can have on t h e directives in which they are used ( § 4 ) . Together they not only give a good impression of t h e various roles which particles can play in directives, b u t they also illustrate more in general t h e problems involved in particle analysis.

2. Accounting for particles: some descriptive principles Any a t t e m p t to analyze particles involves a number of problems. First, t h e ' m e a n i n g ' of a particle, i.e. its contribution to t h e u t t e r a n c e in which it is used, is often quite opaque. Although one can usually assess in a general way t h e effect which t h e use of a particle has on the u t t e r a n c e in which it occurs, it is difficult to determine more precisely how this effect is obtained. A second problem concerns t h e fact t h a t particles often display a variety of — seemingly unconnected — uses. If we compare t h e u t t e r a n c e s listed u n d e r ( 1 - 4 ) , modo''s effect on the utterances in which it is used is quite diverse. In (1), modo is used to indicate t h a t 'no more t h a n ' one little casket with toys is missing. T h e use of modo lends a reassuring effect to this s t a t e m e n t . In (2), modo seems to lend a similar reassuring effect to a directive: ' d o n ' t worry, just go inside, I'll take care'. In (3), on t h e other h a n d , which like (2) is a directive, modo seems to reinforce the impatient order A m p h i t r u o gives to his slave, who keeps interrupting A m p h i t r u o ' s wife Alcumene. In (4) modo seems to reinforce t h e conditional relationship t h a t obtains between t h e 'imperative protasis' and t h e apodosis; by using modo t h e speaker presents t h e decrease of fear more exclusively as a result of t h e addressee's (i.e. Lucilius') philosophical progress.

MODO AND SANE (1)

(the speaker is handing back a trunk to the addressee) omnia insunt salva; una istinc cistella excepta est modo cum crepundiis, quibuscum... (Plaut. Rud 1362) 'everything inside is intact — except for our removing a little casket of toys which enabled me to...'

(2)

C T : pater est? SYRUS: ipsust CL: Syre, quid agimus? SYRUS: fuge modo intro, ego videro (Ter. Ad. 537-38) 'is it my father? # your father it is # Syrus, what are we to do? # run away indoors, I'll see to it.'

(3)

ALC: (is telling her story) SOSIA: (comments on it) AMPH: [→ SOSIA:] ne interpella; [→ALC:] perge porro dicere ALC: (continues her story) SOSIA: (comments on it) AMPH: sine modo argumenta dicat (Plaut. Amph. 803-806) '(..) (to S.) no interruptions, (to A.) go on with your story. (..) that will do. let her state her case.'

(4)

(about the fear of dying:) profice modo: intelleges quaedam ideo minus timenda quia multum metus adferunt (Sen. Ep. 4,3) 'all you need to do is to advance; you will then understand that some things are less to be dreaded precisely because they inspire us with great fear.'

321

The diversity of uses which many particles display is reflected in the treat­ ment which they receive in Latin grammars. The various uses of individual particles are usually dealt with in separate chapters, with no indication of the relationship between these uses. 4 Although, strictly speaking, I am also dealing with only one particular use of the particles under discussion, namely in directives, I prefer to link this to their other uses, for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is attractive from a theoretical point of view to provide a coherent analysis, in which a particle's uses in directives are somehow in keeping with its other uses. A more practical reason is that these other uses may provide useful clues to the nature of the particle's use in directives. Thus the more perspicuous uses of modo, such as exemplified in (1), are helpful in establishing the nature of the more opaque uses of modo in (2) and (3). An additional advantage of a more comprehensive approach to particles is that one will be less inclined to 'overinterpret' side effects of other functions as illocutionary reinforcement, which has, for example, been the case in most accounts of sane's use in directives. This more comprehensive approach to particles should enable us to account for the variety of a particle's uses, as well as the connection be­ tween these various uses. For that purpose I propose a three-stage analysis, in which the uses of a particle are analyzed as the result of the interplay between: 5

322

R. RISSELADA (i) the general 'basic meaning' of the particle involved (ii) the level of the utterance to which the particle relates (iii) pragmatic and contextual properties of the particular utterance in which the particle is used.

A particle's basic meaning (stage i) is the element which unifies the va­ riety of its uses. By 'basic meaning' I do not mean a full-blown, specific and concrete 'Grundbedeutung' from which other uses may be derived. 6 Rather, it should be described as a relatively abstract, semantically de­ fined 'core meaning' which underlies all of a particle's uses and cannot be identified with any one of them. In a way, this basic meaning is no more than a semantic 'common denominator', which can be established only on the basis of all of a parti­ cle's actual uses. In some cases, the basic meaning of a particle can also be related to the original lexical meaning of the adverb from which the par­ ticle developed (e.g. sane and vero); in other cases, the basic meaning can be defined in terms of abstract features. Thus, the basic meaning of modo can be defined in terms of 'exclusiveness' and 'scalarity' (cf. § 3 below). The variety of uses to which a single particle lends itself stems, in the first place, from the various ways in which this constant basic meaning (stage i) can be applied to the utterances in which the particle is used. These 'various ways' have to do with the various 'levels' of an utterance to which this particle can pertain (stage ii). Thus a particle can be used to evaluate the extralinguistic state of affairs represented in the content of the utterance; following Kroon (this vol.) I would say that the particle then functions at the 'representational' level.7 However, particles can also relate to illocutionary aspects of the utterance involved (i.e. to the utterance in its capacity as a speech act) or to the way in which the utterance fits into the interactional situation (Kroon's 'interactional level' cf. note 7). In this respect, modo's function in (1) differs from its function in (2) and (3). In (1), modo relates to an element within the state of affairs in the real world to which the utterance refers: it is used to evaluate the things that are missing from a trunk. In (2) and (3), on the other hand, modo does not relate to representational aspects of the utterances involved but to their illocutionary force. In these cases modo is used to evaluate 'Ctesipho's fleeing inside' (ex. 2.) or 'Sosia's letting Alcumena state her case' (ex. 3.), not as a state of affairs in the real world, but as the content of the directive speech act that is being performed: by using modo, the speaker presents the directives as demanding 'just that, no more' from the addressee.

MODO AND SANE

323

However, the way in which 'illocutionary modo'' can modify the direc­ tive illocution is quite diverse: in (2) modo's modification of the illocution consists of a reassuring mitigation of the directive involved, whereas in (3) it takes the form of a reinforcement. This makes clear that the stages (i) and (ii) (i.e. the application of a basic meaning to one or another level of an utterance) are in itself not sufficient.to describe a particle's use; the pragmatic and contextual properties of the particular utterance in which modo is used, are also of influence (stage iii). As a result of this third stage, modo 's modification of the directive illocution may take various forms. In § 3.2. I will discuss in more detail how the interplay between 'illocutionary modo'' and certain contextually determined properties of the directives in­ volved can lead to such diverse effects on the illocution as exemplified in (2) and (3). In this paper the term 'actual function' is used to describe such particular 'uses' of a particle in a given utterance. Actual functions result from the interplay of all three stages. The term 'primary function' on the other hand, is used to describe in a more general way a particle's functioning at a particular level (i.e. stage i plus ii) without taking into account the specific pragmatic and contextual properties of the utterances in which the particle is used. It should be noted that if a single particle can function at more than one level, it is necessary to distinguish more than one primary function; each primary function results from the application of the basic meaning to a different level.8 Before turning to the analyses of modo and sane, I must introduce one more notion, viz. the notion of side effect. Up to this point, a particle's actual function in a particular utterance has been analyzed exclusively in terms of the level of its primary function. In some cases, however, a particle's use at one particular level brings along additional 'side effects' at other levels of the utterance. Thus modo''s function in (1) is primarily representational: modo is used to evaluate the loss of the little casket with toys as a part of the extra-linguistic world to which the speaker refers in his utterance. By using modo the speaker evaluates the loss as a relatively minor one. In addition, however, this actual function of modo at the representational level brings with it a reassuring side effect at the interactional level: by evaluating the loss of the casket through modo as 'a minor loss', the speaker attempts to play down the negative impact which his statement might have for the addressee (who is the owner of the trunk). It would, however, not be correct to see this mitigating interactional effect as the direct result of modo's primary function; rather, it should be seen as an interactional side effect of modo's representational function in this particular utterance.

324

R. RISSELADA

The notion of side effect plays furthermore a role in the account of sane's use in directives which will be discussed in § 4. It is also needed to explain modo's alleged conditional value (cf. ex. 4.), which is in fact no more than a side effect of the particle's illocutionary function in particular contexts. Before dealing with this particular side effect of modo (in § 3.3.) I will first discuss modo's basic meaning and primary functions.

3. Modo In the preceding section some examples of modo were used to illustrate the principles that underly my analysis of particles. In this section I will give a more detailed analysis of modo on the basis of these principles. I will start with modo's basic meaning. Modo is usually described as a 'restrictive' particle. 9 Two features which together define modo's basic meaning more precisely, in my opinion, are 'exclusiveness' and 'scalarity'. Exclusive particles evoke the possibility of alternatives for the unit to which the particle applies, but exclude these alternatives at the same time. 10 Two examples of exclusive particles in English are only and just: (5)

A: whom did you meet? B: only John (→ I might have met other people as well, but I didn't)

(6)

I caught just one fish (→ I expected to catch more fish, but I didn't).

In addition to being an exclusive particle, modo also has scalar proper­ ties. The notion of scalarity more or less crosscuts the exclusive-inclusive distinction (cf. note 10). It can be explained by comparing only with just: while the former 'simply' excludes possible alternatives, without implying any judgement on the alternatives excluded, just implies a certain scale of expectation, on which the item focused on by just occupies a lower position than the excluded alternatives do. In some cases this scale is an objectively existing one; an example is the scale of ordinary numbers, on which one scores lower than three or five in an objective and categorical way. Sometimes, however, the use of just implies a subjective or incidental scale rather than refering to an objectively existing one. Thus a speaker who answers just John in (5'), instead of only John (cf. 5), implies a cer­ tain scale on which John ranks lower than any other persons the speaker might have met or expected to meet. Note, however, that the effect of

MODO AND SANE

325

using just does not necessarily imply a negative evaluation, as we can see in an u t t e r a n c e like (7): (5') (7)

A: whom did you meet? B: just John it was just a little accident, nobody got wounded.

It depends on t h e n a t u r e of t h e scale of expectation t h a t is evoked whether t h e use of just implies a negative (as in 6) or a positive evaluation (as in 7). Even t h e context plays a role: when t h e speaker of (6) is an illegal fisherman who is confronted with t h e police, the fact t h a t 'one fish' ranks lower on an implied scale t h a n other amounts of fish will b e intended as a positive evaluation r a t h e r t h a n as a negative evaluation. As we will see in § 3.2., this evaluative neutrality of just (and modo) a n d their dependency on t h e context in this respect is also responsible for t h e various ways in which these particles can modify t h e illocution. In fact, Latin modo is very similar to English just, not only with respect to t h e exclusive, scalar basic meaning which they b o t h have, b u t also as regards t h e levels at which they primarily function, viz. as a representational a n d as an illocutionary particle. 1 1 I will now discuss some more examples of b o t h primary functions of modo. 3.1. Modo

as a representational

particle

At t h e representational level, modo is used to evaluate t h e s t a t e of affairs t h a t is represented in the u t t e r a n c e in which modo is used, either as a whole (cf. 9) or p a r t of it (cf. 1 and 8). Its primary function is to exclude alternatives for this (part of the) state of affairs. By using modo the speaker implies t h a t the alternatives excluded rank higher on some relevant scale of expectation. As we saw in section 2, the speaker uses modo in (1) to exclude t h e possibility of other things missing from the trunk. Modo's scalarity implies, in my opinion, not only t h a t 'no more t h a n one i t e m ' is missing, b u t also t h a t t h e thing actually missing (i.e. the little casket with toys) is not as serious a loss as other things missing would have been. T h u s , the actual function of modo in (1) is to exclude worse alternatives. Besides, as was mentioned at t h e end of § 2, modo's use in (1) has a reassuring side effect at t h e interactional level: the speaker a t t e m p t s to play down t h e unpleasant character which his statement might have for t h e addressee (i.e. the owner of the t r u n k ) . It is interesting in this respect to compare (1) with (8), which lacks this interactional side effect:

326

R. RISSELADA (8)

(Alcumena complains in a monologue about the fact that joy is always followed by sorrow; she has experienced this herself..), d u m viri mei potestas videndi fuit noctem unam modo (Plaut. Am. 638-639) 'allowed to see my husband for just one night.'

In (8), modo is used to evaluate unam noctem as t h e period of t i m e in t h e extra-linguistic world during which t h e state of affairs involved has obtained. T h e alternatives excluded (i.e. to have her h u s b a n d with her for any longer period of time) h a p p e n to be more desirable for A l c u m e n a in this particular case; as a consequence, modo does not have any reassuring interactional side effect at all. In (9) modo does not evaluate one element within t h e state of affairs t h a t is represented, b u t t h e state of affairs as a whole. Modo is used to m a k e clear t h a t other future actions will not take place in t h e extra-linguistic world, besides t h e one announced. Moreover, by using modo t h e speaker implies t h a t t h e action announced is relatively insignificant on an implied scale of d u r a t i o n of time. Again there is a mitigating side effect on t h e interactional level, because the speaker a t t e m p t s to play down t h e delay which his action will cause with respect to complying with t h e addressee's invitation to join him. Again, however, this is not to be analyzed as modo's actual function, which lies in t h e first place at the representational level. (9)

EPIGN: eamus, tu PAMPH: deos salutabo modo, poste ad te continuo transeo (Plaut. Stich. 622-623) 'come, let's go # I'll just pay homage to the gods; then I'll come across at once and join you.'

Modo as a representational particle is found in all kinds of speech acts. As such, it may also be used in directives, b u t in t h a t case it is not primarily used to modify t h e illocution. An example is (10), in which modo primarily pertains to semel, i.e. to t h e number of times a certain action is to b e performed: 'just once, not more often'. Modo evaluates an element of t h e s t a t e of affairs which is to be performed in the (future) extra-linguistic world, a n d does not evaluate the content of directive. Nevertheless, t h e expression semel modo as a whole is used by the speaker in an a t t e m p t to play down t h e imposition which his directive creates for the addressee. As such this expression as a whole (but not modo on its own!) has a mitigating interactional side effect. Note t h a t the expression cum lucro 'to your own profit' has in fact a similar function of depicting t h e content of t h e directive as less u n a t t r a c t i v e t h a n the addressee apparently thinks it is.

MODO AND SANE (10)

327

potin ut semel modo, Ballio, huc cum lucro respicias? (Plaut. Ps. 264) 'can't you give us just one friendly look, Ballio, to your own profit?'

3.2. Modo as an illocutionary particle In addition to its representational primary function, modo can also have a primary function at the illocutionary level. In that case, modo''s modi­ fication of the illocution is not a side effect of an actual function at the representational level (as in some of the examples in 3.1.), but it results directly from modo's primary function as an illocutionary particle. As in the case of representational modo, the primary function of 'illocutionary' modo is based on its exclusive and scalar basic meaning, but what is ex­ cluded here are alternatives for the content of the speech act, rather than alternative states of affairs as taking place in the extra-linguistic world. Modo as an illocutionary particle is exclusively found in directives and wishes. 12 By using illocutionary modo in a directive, the speaker indicates that the addressee has to do 'no more than' the content of the directive which is mentioned in the utterance; alternative actions are excluded. The speaker moreover implies that the content focused on by modo ranks lower on some relevant scale of expectation than the excluded alternative con­ tents would do. However, as we saw before, the nature of this scale of expectation is determined by pragmatic and contextual properties of the directive involved, because modo itself is neutral in this respect. By means of the scale of expectation that is invoked, these pragmatic and contextual properties also determine modo's actual function. This can be illustrated by looking again at the examples (2) and (3), which are repeated here: (2)

fuge modo intro, ego videro (Ter. Ad. 538) 'run away indoors, I'll see to it.'

(3)

sine modo argumenta dicat (Plaut. Amph. 'that will do. let her state her case.'

806)

In (2), Ctesipho's fleeing inside is presented by Syrus, through modo, as 'all you have to do'. Ctesipho does not have to do other, in this particular case more unpleasant things, such as meeting his father; this will be taken care of by Syrus himself. The content of the directive is thus presented as relatively attractive and, as a consequence, modo's actual function is a mitigation of the directive illocution. The situation in (3) is quite the opposite. As in (2), modo is used to make clear that the speaker demands from Sosia that he do no more

328

R. RISSELADA

t h a n 'letting Alcumena state her case'. However, in (3) t h e alternatives excluded do not consist of actions t h a t would be more u n a t t r a c t i v e for Sosia, b u t they refer to Sosia's actual behaviour, which is t h u s rejected by t h e speaker. By using modo t h e speaker rejects Sosia's actual behaviour m o r e explicitly t h a n he would have done by giving t h e order without using modo. Consequently, the use of modo results in this case in a reinforcement of t h e directive r a t h e r t h a n a mitigation. In 'mitigation cases' like (2) modo's scalar basic meaning is more eas­ ily recognizable. T w o more examples are (11) and (12). In (11), t h e son implies, by using modo, t h a t allowing him to receive something from a friend is less unacceptable for the father t h a n allowing h i m to give some­ t h i n g to this friend. He thus presents his directive as relatively light a n d polite. Similarly, in (12) t h e speaker (a rich m a n who has promised t h e addressee to b e q u e a t h him some money after his d e a t h on t h e condition t h a t t h e addressee will eat the speaker's dead body) implies t h a t 'eating m o n e y ' is less repulsive t h a n 'eating h u m a n flesh': closing his eyes to t h e m o r e repulsive reality is therefore a reassuring advice. Again modo clearly has a mitigating function. (11)

PHIL: (..) agedum eloquere, quid dare illi nunc vis? LYS: nihil quicquam, pater; tu modo ne me prohibeas accipere si quid det mihi (Plaut. Trin. 369-370) 'But come on, speak out. What do you wish to give him now? # Nothing at all, father; only don't you prevent my accepting, if he gives me something.'

(12)

Operi modo oculos et finge te non humana viscera sed centies sestertium comesse (Petr. Sat. 141) 'Just shut your eyes and dream that you are eating up a solid million instead of human flesh.'

Nevertheless, modo's scalarity also plays a role in cases like (3), in which modo's actual function is reinforcing. An example like (13) will help to illustrate this more clearly: (13)

A (is going away, but stops to give more instructions to B) B: quin tu i modo A: (continues giving instructions) B: i modo A: because.. B: quin tu i modo A: and... (plus 4 more such exchanges) B: i modo, i modo, i modo. tandem impetravi abiret. (Plaut. Trin. 582-591) 'yes, yes, only you go now # . . # only do go! # . . . # yes, yes only you go now! # . . # . . etc. # only do go! only do go! only do go! At last I've got him to be gone.'

MODO AND SANE

329

In (13) t h e repeated i modo 'just go' excludes 'giving more instructions', i.e. t h e speaker's actual behaviour. However, 'going' as t h e content of t h e directive is not compared with (and implied to rank lower t h a n ) 'giving instructions' in itself, b u t 'going' is compared with 'giving instructions before (i.e. plus) going'. By using modo t h e speaker presents his directive as: 'all I want you to do is to go and do not ALSO give instructions before you go'. In such cases t h e speaker focuses, by using modo, on 'just executing t h e directive' and t h e speaker excludes any ' e x t r a ' activities, which might delay the execution. In (14) Ergasilus uses modo in a similar way t o reinforce his order, because by using modo he focuses on 'just executing my order' (i.e. rejoice) without (first) asking for a motivation. As in (13), modo is used in (14) to exclude any delay in executing t h e directive, more in particular any delay t h a t is constituted by t h e addressee's present behaviour. Modo's reinforcement of the illocution in these cases results from this rejection of any delay. (14)

ERGASILUS: gaude HEGIO: quid ego gaudeam? ERGASILUS: quia ego impero, age, gaude modo (Plaut. Capt. 839) 'rejoice! # rejoice-I? what for? # because I bid you to. come now, rejoice.'

In fact, modo is used quite frequently in cases in which t h e speaker w a n t s to exclude additional actions of t h e addressee t h a t interfere with or delay t h e execution of t h e directive involved. 1 3 This need, however, not always b e t h e case, as was illustrated by (3) above and also by (15). In b o t h cases, modo is used to strongly reinforce the directive involved ('shut u p ' ) by excluding any alternative action, in particular t h e addressee's behaviour at t h e moment, viz. 'talking'. In these cases, modo's scalar n a t u r e fits in with t h e fact t h a t 'talking' simply involves more activity t h a n ' s h u t t i n g u p ' does. (15)

(Tyndarus has told Hegio that Aristophanes is crazy and danger­ ous. Aristophanes tries to prove that this is not true; he is even willing to be tied up, if that would prove his point:) ARIS: [→ HEGIO] 'I am not crazy:' verum si quid metuis a me, iube me vinciri: volo dum istic [sc. Tyndarus] itidem vinciatur. TYND: immo enim vero, Hegio, istic qui volt vinciatur ARIS: [→ TYND] tace modo (Plaut. Capi. 607-610) '(..) however, if you're at all afraid of me, have me tied up. I am willing, provided that fellow [i.e. Tyndarus, RR] is tied up too. # no indeed, certainly not: tie up the fellow that wants it # you keep still now!'

330

R. RISSELADA

It is interesting to see that the various types of utterances containing illocutionary modo roughly divide into three groups, as is shown under (16). Modo 's actual function is mitigation of the illocution in the first group and sheer reinforcement in the third. Although modo has a reinforcing function also in the intermediate group, the reinforcement is less absolute, and the utterances in this group share some of the characteristics of the first group. (16)

illocutionary modo:

excluded al­ ternatives: examples: raodo's actual function:

I other activities which are less attractive (2) (11) (12)

II delaying extra activities

III present behaviour

(13) (14)

(3) (15)

MITIGATION

← REINFORCEMENT→ weaker stronger

The first group consists of those cases in which the alternatives excluded are more or less specific, independent, contextually implied or inferrable alternatives for the content of the directive in which modo is used. By using modo these alternatives are implied to be less attractive for and/or more imposing on the addressee; as a result, modo's actual function in these cases is to mitigate the effect of the directive involved by presenting it as relatively harmless or attractive. Examples were (2), (11), and (12) discussed above. In the third group we find cases like (3) and (15), in which the al­ ternatives excluded coincide with the addressee's actual behaviour. The addressee's actual behaviour invariably involves 'more activity than' the content of the directive focused on by modo does, which usually amounts to doing or saying 'just nothing'. In these cases, modo's actual function is to reject the addressee's present behaviour and thus to reinforce the directive in which it is used. In between we find cases like (13) and (14), in which modo is used to exclude any 'extra action' that would delay the immediate execution of the directive. As in (3) and (15), the alternatives excluded also comprise the actual behaviour of the addressee; as a consequence modo reinforces the directive by emphasizing the execution of the content straightaway. In addition, however, the use of modo implies that the addressee can save himself the trouble of doing what he is doing; his present behaviour is presented as superfluous rather than resectable. As a result, modo's rein­ forcement of the directive is less categorical than it is in the cases of the third group.

MODO AND SANE 3.3. So-called conditional

331

modo

The last group of uses to be discussed here are those in which modo is said to have some sort of conditional value. An example was given under (4) in section 2: (4)

profice modo: intelleges quaedam ideo minus timenda quia mult u m metus adferunt (Sen. Ep. 4,3) 'all you need to do is to advance; you will then understand that some things are less to be dreaded precisely because they inspire us with great fear.'

In cases like this, modo is taken by some to express a conditional rela­ tionship that holds between the 'apodosis' ('you will understand ..') and the directive preceding it, which thus gets a protasis-like value: only if the addressee executes the directive, the 'apodosis' will obtain. 14 However, although this conditional relationship does indeed hold, it is in my opinion not expressed by modo, as we can see by comparing (4) with (17) and (18). Rather it results from the juxtaposition of two clauses whose contents refer to two states of affairs that are conditionally related in the extra-linguistic world.15 (17)

vise ad me intra, iam scies (Plaut. Mil. 520) 'go into my house and look, you soon will know.'

(18)

id ago, si taceas modo (Plaut. Ps. 997) 'so I am [i.e. doing RR], if you'd only shut u p . '

In (17), a similar conditional relationship obtains between the two clauses as in (4), without modo being present. The situation is even clearer in (18), where the conditional relationship is explicitly expressed through si. These cases make clear that modo itself is not responsible for the condi­ tional value. If we compare (4) with (2), it is clear that the conditional interpretation crucially depends on the extra-linguistic conditional rela­ tionship between the states of affairs to which the two clauses refer. In (2) there is no such conditional relationship in the extra-linguistic world: Syrus' taking care of the situation does not depend on Ctesipho's fleeing inside. As a consequence, the juxtaposition of these two clause does not result in a conditional interpretation: (2)

fuge modo intro, ego videro (Ter. Ad. 537-538) 'run away indoors, I'll see to it.'

In a more moderate view of modo's alleged 'conditional value', modo would be taken to just reinforce a conditional relationship which is already there,

332

R. RISSELADA

independent from modo. In my opinion, however, modo does not primarily have such a reinforcing conditional function either. In fact, modo's function in cases like (4) is not very different from t h e cases of 'illocutionary modo'' t h a t were discussed in t h e preceding section: modo primarily p e r t a i n s t o t h e illocution of t h e 'protasis-like' directive itself. If there h a p p e n s t o b e any reinforcement of a conditional relationship between this directive a n d a preceding or following clause whose content refers to the consequences of executing this directive, 1 6 this is no more t h a n a side effect of modo's p r i m a r y function as an illocutionary particle. As in t h e cases of 'illocutionary modo'' t h a t were discussed in t h e pre­ ceding section, modo can have either a mitigating or a reinforcing actual function in t h e cases under discussion. Example (4) is an illustration of t h e former: as in (2) modo is used to present the content of t h e directive as involving only a minimal effort: 'all you have to do is to advance (cf. t h e Loeb translation); even this relatively small effort will make you un­ derstand....'. E x a m p l e (19), on t h e other h a n d , r a t h e r resembles (14): t h e directive containing modo is an impatient directive which repeats an ear­ lier directive with which t h e addressee h a d not complied; t h e speaker uses modo to exclude any superfluous delaying activities, in particular t h e ad­ dressee's actual asking for a motivation for t h e preceding directive. Modo's actual function is therefore a reinforcement of the directive illocution. (19)

P E R I P H : vise intro; ego faxo scies hoc ita esse EPID: quid est negoti? P E R I P H : iam ipsa res dicet tibi. abi modo intro (Plaut. Epid. 712-714) 'go look inside; you will see it is so, I warrant you # what does this mean? # the facts will speak for themselves, just you go inside.'

Modo is, to m y knowledge, not found in cases in which t h e imperative protasis contains a purely hypothetical condition without having some sort of directive force at t h e same t i m e . 1 7 Alleged counterexamples like (20) usually constitute challenges r a t h e r t h a n purely hypothetical conditions: 1 8 (20)

tange modo, iam ego te hic agnum faciam et medium distruncabo (Plaut. Truc. 614) 'you only touch me, and I'll use you for a lamb here and desunder you up in the middle.'

In this case, the conditional side effect is stronger t h a n it was in some of t h e cases discussed above; t h e speaker t h r e a t e n s to take his revenge im­ mediately when t h e other will 'only' have touched h i m (ergo, he will not wait untill more h a r m is done to h i m ) . However, even here modo primarily relates to t h e 'content' of t h e challenge, albeit it in an ironic way. Most

MODO AND SANE

333

challenges can in fact be analyzed as ironic or even sarcastic directives, for which the sincerity condition ('the speaker wants the addressee to execute the content of the directive') is flouted in a way which will be immedi­ ately clear to the addressee. In (20), the speaker sarcastically invites the addressee to touch him, and presents the content of his 'invitation', in an equally sarcastic way, as being 'just a minor action'. This sarcastic ele­ ment is also present in challenges like (21), in which there is no 'apodosis' and the speaker does not explicitly mention the sanctions which he may have in mind. Cases like this support my analysis of modo in (20) as not reinforcing the conditional relation, but pertaining in the first place to the illocutionary force. (21)

CYAMUS: accede huc modo, adi modo huc STRAT: etiam, scelus viri, minitare? (Plaut. Truc. 620-621) 'just you come over here, just you come here! # ha, scoundrel! threats?'19

Having discussed the various uses of modo in directives, I shall now turn to the second particle under discussion: sane.

4. Sane Sane is one of the particles whose adverbial origin is quite clear. 20 Sane's basic meaning as a particle can be somehow related to its original full lexical meaning as an adverb ('healthily, soundly'). As a particle, sane expresses the speaker's positive reaction to the unit to which sane re­ lates. Sane is used to 'confirm', or to 'validate', the appropriateness or the correctness of this unit. This 'confirmative' basic meaning underlies both sane's primary function as an 'intensifying' particle at the representational level (to be discussed in 4.1.), and its primary function as a 'consenting' reactive particle at the interactional level (cf. 4.2.). In the former case, sane is used to confirm the appropriateness of a particular description of a state of affairs in the extra-linguistic world; in a way, the speaker con­ firms his own words, and thus intensifies them. 21 In the latter case, the speaker uses sane to confirm the appropriateness of a preceding speech act by the addressee and thus to express a positive reaction to it. Depend­ ing on the nature of the preceding speech act, sane expresses compliance, consent or acceptance. Besides these two uses of sane, there is the so-called concessive use. This is, in fact no more than a special case of interactional sane which results from a specific contextual constellation. In these cases, the speaker

334

R. RISSELADA

uses sane to express his assent of t h e content of one speech act, while immediately objecting against its possible consequences in t h e next speech act. T h e first speech act (containing sane) is usually implicitly or explicitly a t t r i b u t e d to t h e addressee. Although this type of use is quite frequent, especially in Cicero's speeches, I will not go into it in this paper because these cases are not relevant for sane's use in directives. It is, however, i m p o r t a n t to note here t h a t this concessive use of sane also fits in with sane's confirmative basic meaning, a n d could be handled without problems in t h e approach of sane t h a t is proposed here. 4 . 1 . Representational

sane

At t h e representational level speakers use sane to confirm t h a t a particular description of some state of affairs is appropriate. As a consequence, sane reinforces t h e expression t h a t is used to make this description. In this p r i m a r y function, sane is used as an intensifier of adjectives t h a t are used to describe a particular entity and of adverbs t h a t describe t h e way in which a particular state of affairs takes place; besides, it is also used as a n intensifier of verbal or adjectival predicates t h a t are used t o describe a s t a t e of affairs as a whole. T h e expressions t h a t are thus reinforced by sane often involve an evaluation r a t h e r t h a n an objective description. 2 2 In view of t h e subjective a n d evaluative n a t u r e of this p r i m a r y func­ tion of sane, it is most commonly used in assertive a n d expressive speech a c t s . 2 3 It is interesting t o note t h a t t h e positive value of sane's original full lexical meaning as an adverb (i.e. 'soundly') still makes itself felt, in t h a t sane is far more often used to intensify positively evaluating descrip­ tions (as in 22, 27 a n d 28). However, sane can also be used in order t o intensify negatively evaluating descriptions (cf. 23) a n d is, moreover, also quite frequently used t o intensify negations (cf. 24). This makes clear t h a t representational sane does not express t h e speaker's positive evaluation of t h e s t a t e of affairs itself, b u t it expresses t h e speaker's approval of t h e a p ­ propriateness of a particular descriptive expression for t h e s t a t e of affairs involved. T h e examples will make this more clear: (22)

nam cum ilia sane congruos sermo tibi (Plaut. Mil. 1116) 'for you are an ideal person to parley with her'

(23)

Agraria [lex] autem promulgata est a Flavio sane levis (Cic. Ait. 1,18,6) 'an agrarian law has been promulgated by Flavius, an irresponsi­ ble affair.'

MODO AND SANE

335

(24) nec vero nunc erat sane quod scriberem (Cic. AU. 5,3,1) 'and now I have nothing really to write about.' (25)

Sane dolui meas litteras redditas non esse (Cic. AU. 15,24) 'I was very sorry he did not get my letter.'

In most cases, sane intensifies a gradable adjective, adverb, or verbal pred­ icate. When sane accompanies a non-gradable expression, as is more or less the case in (26), sane seems to intensify the description of the state of affairs in a more general way: (26)

Et sane iam lucernae mihi plures videbantur ardere totumque triclinium esse mutatum, cum... (Petr. 64) 'By this time, I own, the lamps were multiplying before my eyes, and the whole dining-room was altering; then...'

As a representational particle, sane is also used in directives. One partic­ ularly interesting group of cases are those in which sane intensifies lexical directive expressions such as volo/nolo (expressing requests or wishes) and censeo plus gerund (expressing advice). Some examples are a request in (27), a wish (preparing the directive that follows it) in (28), and an advice in (29): (27)

(Cicero has paid Atticus some compliments on a friend of his) ei te hoc scribere a me tibi esse missum sane volo (Cic. AU. 2,25,1) 'I'd appreciate it very much if you would write to him to say that I have told you this.'

(28)

Trebatium nostrum (...) tarnen videre sane velim. Quern fac hor­ t e n s ut properet (Cic. AU. 9,9,4) 'I should be very glad to see our friend Trebatius (...); please ask him to make haste.'

(29)

MES: nunc in istoc portu stat navis praedatoria, aps qua cavendum nobis sane censeo MEN: mones quidem hercle recte (Plaut. Men. 344-346) 'now in that port there [scil. Erotium's house, RR] lies a pirate bark [scil. Erotium, RR] that I surely think we'd better beware of.'

Sane's function in these cases is not essentially different from the cases discussed before: it intensifies the meaning of the verbal predicate by con­ firming the applicability of the expression involved to a particular situa­ tion. However, because these verbal predicates happen to be conventional lexical expressions of (the speaker's attitude underlying) directive speech acts and wishes, the use of s an e has in these cases a side effect of reinforc­ ing the directive illocution. It would, however, not be correct to say that

336

R. RISSELADA

sane's function is primarily illocutionary. Sane's function in these cases also differs from sane's interactional function, to which I will turn now. 4.2. Interactional

sane

When sane functions at the interactional level, its primary function is to express the speaker's consent with a preceding 'interactional move' of the addressee. Therefore, interactional sane does not modify the illocu­ tionary force of the utterance itself, but it expresses a positive reaction to the content of a preceding speech act. In this primary function, sane is not connected with particular types of speech acts, but it is crucially connected with a specific type of 'interactional move' viz. with 'reactive moves'. Interactional sane is thus found in answers to questions (cf. 30), in the acceptance of offers and invitations (cf. 31), in reactions to state­ ments (cf. 32), etc. As a consequence of its consenting reactive nature, interactional sane is not used in questions. Questions are usually found in initiating 'moves'; if they are found in reacting moves, they are raising problems rather than expressing consent. (30)

(31)

(32)

CHR: eho, dum dic mihi: estne, ut fertur, forma? PAM: sane (Ter. Eun. 360-361) 'I say now, tell me, is she the beauty she is said to be? # yes' DAVUS: ubi voles accerse SIMO: bene sane (Ter. 848) 'you may fetch her when you like # very good, yes'

Andr.

CHAR: an ego occasionem mi ostentam tantam, tarn brevem, tam optatam, tam insperatam amitterem? Tum pol ego is essem vero qui adsimulabar. ANT: sane hercle ut dicis (Ter. Eun. 604-607) 'was I to lose an opportunity so offered me, such a chance, so short, so much desired, so little expected? Jove, I should then have been what I set up for [sc. an eunuch, RR] # no, really, you're right.'

Interactional sane is also found in directives. In some of these cases sane involves the granting of permission; an example is (33). Although the granting of permission is a sort of directive value, it is clearly compatible with sane's confirmative basic meaning as well as with the essentially reactive nature of interactional sane.24 (33)

(two slaves are throwing a party) SANG: age dice uter utrubi accumbamus STICH: abi tu sane superior (Plaut. Stich. 696) 'get at it! you say who's to lie where # go along, of course you take the top.'

MODO AND SANE

337

More often, however, sane is not involved in the directive itself, but it expresses approval of or compliance with the preceding speech act; this consent just happens in these cases to be packaged in a directive. Examples are (34) and (35): (34)

(the lines are part of an invented dialogue between a father-in-law and his son-in-law; the latter offers the former some girls 'to play with') SON-IN-LAW: 'immo duas dabo' (..) 'una si parumst' 'et si duarum paenitebit' (...) 'addentur duae' FATHER-IN-LAW: 'si vis' (..) 'quattuor sane d a t o ' (Plaut. Stich. 550-553) 'better still, I'll give you two, if one is not enough, and if the two don't satisfy, you shall have two more # yes, give me four, by all means, if you like.'

(35)

(Trachalio and Ampelisca have been talking for some time; then he asks her to point out to him where her mistress is:) TRACH: sed duce me ad illam ubi est AMP: I sane in Veneris fanum hue intro, sedentem flentemque opprimes (Plaut, Rud. 386-387) 'but take me to where she is # O.K. [RR], go into the temple of Venus here; you'll find her sitting there crying.'

In the former, sane is used to express the speaker's approving acceptance of the addressee's offer which precedes. In the latter, Ampelisca uses sane to confirm her compliance with Trachalio's request; in the same utterance, this compliance is materialized in the instruction which she gives him ("O.K., go inside..."). In cases like this, sane has been misinterpreted as pertaining to the illocutionary force, and hence as reinforcing the directive, but a reinforcement of this instruction would in fact be quite strange here. The reactive, interactional interpretation which is proposed here, on the other hand, fits in very well with the other, non-directive uses of sane. In some cases the speaker's compliance with the addressee's preceding speech act involves resignation on the speaker's part, which results in a disinterested kind of directive. This sense of resignation is, however, not evoked by sane itself, but rather by the situation (and perhaps by the intonation). Nevertheless, sane is clearly compatible with this kind of reaction as well: (36)

TOX: tabellas tene has, pellege. DORD: istae quid ad me? TOX: immo ad te attinent et t u a refert (..) # •• # •• # DORD: quid istae narrant? TOX: percontare ex ipsis. ipsae tibi narrabunt. DORD: cedo sane (Plaut. Pers. 497-500) (take this letter and read it through # how does it concern me? # ah, but it does concern you and you'll find it of interest ...

338

R. RISSELADA # . . # . . # what does it say? # ask it. it'll tell you itself. # all right, give it here.'

Sane can also be used when it does not react to a directly preceding interactional move, but forms a belated reaction to an earlier move, as in (37); i sane nunciam is the delayed consenting reaction to numquid vis, which is a conventional announcement of departure: (37)

CAL: numquid vis? MEG: cures tuam fidem CALL: fiet sedulo MEG: sed quid ais? CAL: quid vis? MEG: ubi nunc adulescens habet? CAL: (anwers) MEG: istuc volebam scire, i sane nunciam (Plaut. Trin. 192195) 'there's nothing else? # yes, take care you're trustworthy # I'll do my best # but I say # what is it? # where's the young fellow living now? # (answer) # that's what I wanted to know. All right, go along now at once.'

More complicated are those cases in which a consenting reaction to the previous speaker is 'packaged' in a speech act that is directed to a third person. A clear example is (38), in which Sagaristio's compliance with Dordalus' request is enveloped in the directive which is addressed to the girl. As in (35), the directive in which sane occurs is the materialization of Sagaristio's compliance with Dordalus' request; therefore, it is not so strange that sane is embedded in it. (38)

(Dordalus wants to buy a girl from Sagaristio, but first he wants to ask her some questions) DORD: iube dum ea hue accédât ad me SAG: [to the girl] i sane ac morem illi gere (Plaut. Pers. 605) 'just bid her step over here to me # O.K. [RR] go and humour him.'

An even more complicated example is (39), which is usually quoted to illustrate that sane can be used to reinforce the directive illocutionary force. In my opinion, however, sane must be interpreted as expressing the speaker's 'sarcastic approval' of the (uncooperative) behaviour of the preceding speaker (who is not the addressee of the utterance containing sane). Sane is directed at Labrax and means something like "o.k., if that is your attitude, well Trachalio...". This interpretation is very much in keeping with sane's reactive function in other directives. Moreover, if this interpretation is accepted, we do not need to assume that there are a few exceptional cases in which sane 'suddenly' has a directive reinforcing function, which it does not have in all the other directives in which it is used. 25

MODO AND SANE (39)

339

(Plesidippus is threatening Labrax, who refuses to be chased off) PLES: [→ Labrax] opta ocius: rapi te obtorto collo mavis an trahi? u t r u m vis opta, d u m licet. LABR: neutrum volo. PLES: [→ Trach.] abi sane ad litus curricolo, Trachalio, iube illos in urbem ire obviam .., quos mecum duxi, hunc qui ad carnificem traderent. (Plaut. Rud. 852-857) 'quick now, choose! would you rather be hauled off with your neck in a noose, or dragged off? take your choice while you have the chance # neither suits me # O.K. [RR], now then, Trachalio, run down to the shore and tell 'em...

5. Concluding remarks In this paper I have proposed an approach to particles which aims at a unified account of the variety of uses which individual particles display. This approach is based on a three-stage analysis, which makes it possible to distinguish between the various factors that together are responsible for a particle's 'meaning' in a particular utterance: a unifying (semantic) basic meaning, the (discourse) level at which the particle operates, and certain (pragmatic and contextual) properties of the utterance in which the particle occurs. I have shown that this three-stage approach enables us to account for the unity as well as for the diversity of a particle's uses. The former was illustrated by sane's use in directives: on the basis of a unified account of sane's use as a reactive interactional particle we can get rid of some misinterpretations of sane as an illocution reinforcing particle. An illustration of the latter was provided by the discussion of modo's widely diverse uses in directives, which can be related to certain contextual properties of the directives involved. A comparison of the analyses of modo and sane makes clear that the relative importance of the three stages may vary. Thus the third stage, which is decisive for a particle's actual function in a particular utterance, is much more important in the case of modo than it is in the case of sane. For other particles, on the other hand, such as age or dum (cf. note 8), the second stage plays a less decisive role, because they are only used at one level. Nevertheless, it is important for these particles as well to make clear at which level they function, because this is an essential part of their 'meaning'. The descriptions of modo and sane provide, however, only a first test of the approach to particles that is proposed here. Further research, con­ cerning the remaining 'directive particles' that were listed at the beginning

340

R. RISSELADA

of this paper as well as other Latin particles, will be needed t o test a n d to develop this approach.

Notes *

This paper is a revised version of a paper that was read at the Vlth Collo­ quium on Latin linguistics in Budapest, March 1991. I would like to thank Harm Pinkster, J a a p Wisse, and especially Caroline Kroon for their useful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This research was supported by the Foundation for Linguistic Research, which is funded by the Netherlands organization for research, NWO. My visit to the Colloquium was supported by a grant from the Netherlands organization for research, N W O (SIR 11-313).

1.

Throughout this paper, 'directive utterances' and 'directives' are used as a con­ venient shorthand for 'utterances that have a directive illocutionary function', i.e. utterances by means of which the speaker attempts to get the addressee to do something (cf. Searle 1976). This includes not only orders and requests, but also supplications, prayers, advice, suggestions, and proposals (cf. Risselada 1993).

2.

Cf. e.g. Loch (1871: 17-19); Bennett (I, 349-50); Kühner-Stegmann (I, 201-202); Löfstedt (1966: 103-110); Pinkster (1990: 198, 204).

3.

The translations quoted in this paper are those of the Loeb editions, except for Cicero's letters for which I quote Shackleton Bailey's translation. In some cases, in which the meaning of the particle involved is rendered not clearly or not correctly, I have added a translation of my own, marked by 'RR'.

4.

Cf. e.g. Kühner-Stegmann's treatment of sane, which is distributed over I, 189190 (sane in concessions); I, 202 (sane in imperative sentences); I, 793-794 (sane as a 'steigernd' adverb); I, 799 (sane as a 'Modaladverb'); and II, 531 (sane in affirmative answers). Hand's attempt to provide unified analyses of Latin particles in his Tursellinus seu de particulis laiinis commentarii forms a positive exception. Hand did not deal with sane (or other particles beyond the P ) , but his analysis of modo is very insightful.

5.

This three-stage analysis is partly inspired by Fooien (1989), who proposes a slightly more elaborate four-stage analysis of modal particles. For the distinction between the more abstract 'primary' function of a particle (stage ii) and the contextually determined 'actual function' which results from stage (iii) cf. also Kroon 's analysis of Latin causal connectors (Kroon 1989).

6.

Such a derivation would be presented as either a diachronic or a metaphorical process, or a combination of both. I do not deny that such processes have played a role in the development of the various uses of individual particles from each other or from adverbial uses, but here I am interested in the synchronic relationship between the various uses of particles rather than in their diachronic relationship. My 'basic meaning' is therefore a descriptive construct rather than a mental or a diachronic concept.

7.

Caroline Kroon proposes a framework for the description and subcategorization of Latin particles which is based on three major levels of utterances (or, in her terminology, 'discourse levels') at which particles can function: the representa­ tional level, the interactional level, and the presentational level. These three

MODO AND SANE

341

major classes of particles each cover various subgroups; thus e.g. particles func­ tioning at the illocutionary level belong to the larger category of interactional particles. For more details, cf. Kroon (this volume; 1994). 8.

Note however that some particles have only one primary function. The particle dum, for instance, functions only at the level of the illocution; the same holds true for age.

9.

Cf. Hand (III, 627): "[modo] primum enim restringit"; TLL (s.v. modo, 1297, 83): usu restrictivo; Lodge (II, 78) vi restricUva.

10.

'Exclusive' particles contrast with 'inclusive' particles, such as also and even. T h e latter also evoke the thought of alternatives, without however excluding them; the alternatives (or at least some of them) are simply presupposed, cf.: we also went to the movies (→ even John attented the meeting (→

besides doing other things) in addition to other people).

I owe the notions of in/exclusiveness and scalarity to König's article on ' T h e meaning of scalar particles in German' (König 1981). Cf. also Fooien's definition of the Dutch modal particle maar (Fooien 1984: 69), which resembles just and modo. Bakker (1988) uses scalarity to define the Greek particle per. 11.

Interestingly, both just and modo are also used as a temporal adverb, with roughly the same meaning, viz. 'only a short moment ago'. This makes clear that the temporal use of modo is not as unconnected to its 'restrictive use' as is usually maintained. For an attractive analysis of the connections between temporal and restrictive just, cf. Lee (1987).

12.

In fact, wishes and directives are related as speech act types, because both are concerned with some future state of affairs whose realization is somehow preferable for the speaker. They differ, however, as to the speaker's expectations' concerning the realization of this state of affairs and/or the addressee's role in realizing it, cf. Risselada (1993: 41). In view of the limitations of this paper, I shall not go into modo's functions in wishes, which are however not essentially different from the ways in which modo functions in directives.

13.

Another example is Plaut. Am. 788, where Amphitruo answers aperi modo 'just open it', when Sosia does not immediately open up a certain casket because he first wants to show its seal to Amphitruo.

14.

Cf. Bennett (I, 268-269); Kühner-Stegmann (II, 446-448); Scherer (1975: 263).

15.

It should be noted that we do not exclusively find imperative clauses in such 'paratactic protases'. Similar conditional relations are also expressed by means of the juxtaposition of an assertive protasis plus apodosis, or a question-protasis plus apodosis, cf. Kühner-Stegmann (II, 164-166); Risselada (1993: 120-122).

16.

Note that the relative order between the directive protasis and the apodosis is not fixed; beside: (i)

sequere hac me modo, iam faxo ipsum hominem manufesto op­ primas (Plaut. As. 876) 'just follow me this way I'll soon make you drop on our gentle­ man in the very act.'

we find: (ii)

manufesto faxo iam opprimas: sequere hac modo 561).

(Plaut. Men.

342 17.

R. RISSELADA An example of a purely hypothetical condition containing an 'imperative prota­ sis' (without modo!) is cited by Kühner-Stegmann (II, 165): subduc cibum unum diem athletae, (..) ferre se non posse clamabit (Cic. Tusc. 2,40) 'take away an athletic's food for a single day: (..) he will cry out that he cannot endure it.'

18.

The example is taken from Bolkestein (1980: 45), who argues, however, in favour of a purely conditional value of the imperative protasis and denies its directive (i.e. challenging) nature.

19.

Very conveniently, the addressee supports my interpretation of Cyamus' words as a threat by answering: etiam minitare?

20.

I will not discuss here the relationship between 'the adverb sane' and 'the par­ ticle sane'. In this paper I simply assume that, diachronically speaking, the particle sane has developed from the adverb through a process of grammaticalization, which involved a decrease of lexical meaning together with an increase of 'pragmatic meaning'; synchronically, however, adverb and particle coexist.

21.

Although most people will agree to regard sane in its interactional function as a particle, some might find it surprising that I do the same with sane in its in­ tensifying function at the representational level. In my opinion, seme's functions can be regarded as forming a continuum which ranges from the adverb with its full lexical meaning ('soundly', cf. Plaut. Cur. 176), via its intensifying function at the representational level, to its interactional function in which sane is clearly a particle. It is in fact a rather arbitrary decision at which point one changes the name from adverb to particle; I associate this change with the loss of full lexical meaning, and therefore consider representational sane a particle.

22.

Some other 'intensifiers' that are mentioned by Kühner-Stegmann (I, 794) be­ sides sane are belle, bene, egregie, perfecte, vehementer. It is interesting to note that, unlike sane, none of these have undergone a further grammaticalization to the interactional level. Cf. also Pinkster (1972: 50-54) for a discussion of the se­ mantic properties of 'intensifiers' and the types of expressions that are modified by them.

23.

Assertives (statements, assertions, etc.) can be loosely defined as speech acts by means of which a speaker presents a particular state of affairs as obtaining at some moment in a real or possible world (cf. 22-24). In the case of expressives, on the other hand, a speaker rather expresses his emotions concerning a particular state of affairs, whose obtaining is simply presupposed; examples are apologies, congratulations, exclamations, etc. (cf. 25).

24.

Note, however, that here too sane might simply express the speaker's willingness to comply with the addressee's invitation to appoint the places.

25.

Other cases in which sane is misinterpreted as reinforcing a directive are Plaut. Aul. 451 and Plaut. Am. 353. In the former, sane expresses compliance with the earlier requests of the cooks to be allowed to remain inside in order to cook dinner (cf. 431; 435); in the latter sane expresses the speaker's compliance with the 'natural' desire of every sentry to be allowed to go home and sleep.

343

MODO AND SANE References Bakker, E.J. 1988. Linguistics and Formulas in Homer. Scalarity and the of the particle per, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

description

Bennett, Ch. 1910. A Syntax of Early latin I. The Verb. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bolkestein, A.M. 1980. Problems in the description of modal verbs. Assen: Van Gorcum. Brugman, Cl. 1984. "The very Idea: A case Study in Polysemy and Cross-Lexical Generalizations." CLS 20, part II: Parasession on Lexical Semantics, p. 20-38. Fooien, A. 1984. "Maar als modaal partikel in imperatieve zinnen." In: J. Van der Auwera Sz W. Vandeweghe (eds.) Studies over Nederlandse partikels. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics nr. 35, 65-75. Fooien, A. 1989. Beschreibungsebenen für Partikelbedeutungen. In: H. Weydt (ed.) Sprechen mit Partikeln, 305-317. Berlin Sz New York: De Gruyter. Hand, F. 1829-45. Tursellinus seu de particulis (repr. 1969, Amsterdam: Hakkert).

latinis commentarii

(4 vols). Leipzig

König, E. 1981. "The Meaning of Scalar Particles in German." In: H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Reiser (eds.) Words, Worlds, and Context, 107-132. Berlin Sz New York: De Gruyter. Kroon, C.H.M. 1989. "Causal connectors in Latin: The discourse function of nam, enim, igitur, and ergo." In: Lavency, M. & D. Longrée (eds.) Actes du Ve Colloque de Linguistique latine. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15.1-4, 2 3 1 243. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters. Kroon, C.H.M. (Forthcoming.) "Discourse connectives and discourse type: the case of Latin at." (This volume.) Kroon, C.H.M. 1994. Discourse connectives in Latin. Dissertation. University of Ams­ terdam. Kühner, R. Sz C. Stegmann, C. 1912. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II, Satzlehre (2 vols). Repr. 1956, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Lee, D. 1987. "The semantics of just."

Journal of Pragmatics

11, 377-398.

Loch, E. 1871 "Zum Gebrauch des Imperativus bei Plautus." In: XIe Gymn. Memel, 2-26. Lodge, G. 1904-1933. Lexicon Hildesheim: Olms).

Plautinum

Progr.

(2 vols). Leipzig: Teubner (repr. 1971,

Löfstedt, L. 1966 Les expressions du commandement et de la défense en Latin et leur survie dans les langues romanes. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Pinkster, H. 1972. On latin adverbs. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Pinkster, H. 1990. Latin Syntax and semantics.

London: Routledge.

Risselada, R. 1993. Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. Amsterdam: Gieben. Scherer, A. 1975. Handbuch der Lateinischen Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Searle, J.R. 1976. "A classification of illocutionary acts." Language in Society 5, 1-24.

The Syntax of adhuc with verbal Predicates* María E. Torrego Universidad Autonoma de Madrid

1. Introduction This paper deals with the semantic value of adhuc in its distributions with verbal predicates. This adverb can, of course, also work in association with adjectives and other elements (cf. TLL s.v.). However, these cases will not be considered here. The adverb adhuc is usually understood to be a temporal adverb. Its etymology (ad hoc / huc) (cf. Ernout-Meillet s. v.), should make it an adverb expressing the temporal limit of a state of affairs (English 'until'), but it can, in fact, also be interpreted as an adverb of continuation (e. g. English adverbs 'still' / 'yet', German 'noch', French 'encore', Spanish 'todavía, aún') or, according to the TLL, it can signal the repetition of a state of affairs. Sentences (l)-(4) illustrate these three notions: limitation with a present (1) or past reference point (2), continuation (3) and repetition (4): (l)a) (2)a) b) (3)a) b) (4)

occultatum est usque adhuc, nunc non potest (Plaut. Aul 277) hoc adhuc defuerat tibi lugere vivos (Sen. Dial. 11, 2, 5) adhuc poenam nullam suscepit (Cic. Man. 7) adhuc de consuetudine exercitationis loquor, nondum de ratione (Cic. Tusc. 2, 40) scribit etiam ad ipsum haec familiariter adhuc necdum pla­ ne inimicus aut hostis (Suet. Aug. 69, 2) de hoc enim adhuc loquamur (Plin. Nat. 35, 61)

Adhuc implies also a presupposition about the development of the event to which it is associated, as in the case of the continuative parti­ cles in the languages mentioned above: the speaker means that a situation

346

M.E. TORREGO

continues beyond his expectations. 1 It should be noted that henceforth my paper will not deal with this content of adhuc, which I assume to be present in all the combinations of the particle. My aim here is to exam­ ine the function of this adverb with regards to its temporal features. I will be solely concerned with analysing the factors on which the various interpretations depend. In other words, I will look into whether the dif­ ferent values of the particle must be interpreted as arising from divergent meanings or if, rather, a single meaning can account for all the required interpretations. Considering that the limitative value appears mostly in combination with perfectum stem tenses whereas the continuative one is associated to infectum stem tenses (v. infra), the aspectual system of the latin verb would at first sight seem to be the single factor triggering the different interpretations. 2 However, two facts appear to deny this: (i) the limitative value of adhuc with the present, an infectum stem tense and (ii) the iterative value, which seems unrelated to any aspectual features, inasmuch as it can be found with perfect and future tenses, both of which have different aspectual content. Hence, the interpretation of ad­ huc requires that, besides the aspectual content, general aspectual factors be taken into account. My anlyse will take as a starting point for my analysis those tenses with which more than one interpretation of the adverb can obtain and will examine the features which enable the adverb to be understood in different ways. I will also try to explain why not every interpretation fits every tense. The review follows the different tenses in this order: present, perfect, imperfect, pluperfect and future. The corpus I have considered for my study comprises the data in­ cluded in the TLL as well as the works of Cicero, Caesar, Livy and Taci­ tus.

2. Adhuc with verbal predicates 2.1. Adhuc

+ present tense

Two interpretations can be given to the adverb when it appears with the present, which is an aspectually imperfective tense: a limitative one, as English 'until now' or a continuative one, corresponding to the English 'still' or 'yet'. A limitative value can be found in cases such as (5): 3

THE SYNTAX OF ADHUC WITH VERBAL PREDICATES (5)a) b)

c) d)

347

optime usque adhuc conveniunt signa, porro operam date (Plaut. Men. 1110) quartus locus est quo demonstratur... multos alacriores ad maleficia futuros, quos adhuc expectatio iudicii remoratur (Rhet. Her. 2, 48) flet adhuc et porro flebit Adonin...Venus (Gratt. 66) nos tarnen adhuc et utilitas amicorum et ratio aetatis moratur ac retinet: veremur enim ne forte non has indignitates reliquisse sed laborem fugisse videamur (Plin. Epist. 2, 14, 14)

T h e following, (6), are examples of a continuative interpretation: (6)a) b) c)

aut cur colitur Latona per aras, numen adhuc sine ture meum est? (Ov. Met. 6, 171) semper illos colui, immo adhuc colo (Sen. Contr. 2, 1, 27) occuluitque caput (Nilus) et adhuc latet (Ov. Met. 2, 255)

As b o t h groups of examples share the t e m p o r a l a n d aspectual condi­ tions of t h e predicate, let us now look for contextual differences to justify t h e two interpretations. T h e m a i n difference between t h e sentences in (5) a n d (6) concerns t h e t e m p o r a l sequence of the events. In (5) all sentences explicitely con­ nect t h e present event associated with adhuc to a later event: in every case t h e present tense is followed by a future which implies some kind of continuance: it can express continuation proper (5c) or a c o m m a n d for t h e continuance of t h e first event (5a). In (5b), those who t o d a y are halted by courts of law h a s t e n to do wrong later; in (5d) veremur m e a n s the fear of a change in t h e previous situation etc. T h e examples in (6), on the other hand, lack all reference to an event following t h a t to which adhuc refers. It is characteristic of this use t h a t t h e sentence associated with the adverb concerns t h e present continuation of a state of affairs b e g u n in the past, as in (6b) and (6c) (adhuc colo of (6b) is t h e continuation of colui as latet of (6b) is a continuation of occuluit), b u t , as (6a) proves this is not necessarily so. In spite of t h e varying interpretations of adhuc, it is possible to find a single grammatical value for the adverb which can account for b o t h its t h e limitative and continuative uses: adhuc m a r k s a limit in t h e t e m p o r a l sequence, such t h a t its presence implies two different events: a prior one, already accomplished or to be inmediately accomplished, a n d a second one, beginning at t h e moment to which the adverb refers. O n t h e basis of t h e single function and meaning of adhuc a n d insofar as aspectual factors cannot be invoked here, context imposes t h e divergent limitative and continuative interpretation of the adverb: (i) W h e n two different a n d subsequent states of affairs are implied, as in (5), adhuc gets the so called limitative interpretation because t h e

348

M.E. TORREGO

adverb refers to the moment when the event is occurring — the present time —, but will be finished immediately to be followed by the second state of affairs. Note that even though the second event is actually the continuation of the first, as it is the case of (5c), both are separately considered and mentioned as two different events. So, in (5) the overlap of the two events coincides with the final limit of the first one. Thus, this use mean that the present tense, belonging to the infectum stem and being aspectually imperfective — and it behaves as such in other cases, e.g. (6) — becomes somewhat perfective by means of a contextual disposition. 4 (ii) If only one state of affairs is concerned, with no mention of a later event, as instance in (6), adhuc also refers to the present moment, when the state of affairs expressed by the predicate is still ongoing, as the imperfective stem of the present tense indicates. But now no further event will put an immediate end to the first, which will, therefore, continue beyond and after the limit referred to by the adverb. The second moment required by the adverb will not be filled with another state of affairs, but with the continuation of the same one hypothetically limited by adhuc. So, it can be said that the data concerning the present tense show that continuative and limitative values are merely a matter of contextual interpretation, rather than of different meanings of the adverb. 2.2. Perfect tense Three kinds of data can be found when considering the perfect tense: (i) a limitative interpretation for adhuc with a present reference point; (ii) a limitative interpretation in a past reference point; (iii) adhuc with an iterative interpretation. Let us take up the first of these. (7) shows some examples of adhuc with a limitative interpretation and a present reference point (see also example (1)): (7)a) b) c)

d) e)

tacui adhuc, nunc (non) tacebo (Plaut. Truc. 817) offici me deliberatio- cruciat cruciavit adhuc (Cic. Att. 8, 15, 2) usque adhuc certe neminem ex iis quos eduxerat mecum,... ibi amisi; di modo in posterum hoc mihi gaudeum servent (Plin. Epist. 5, 6, 46) aeque adhuc prosperum plebeium et patricium fuit porroque erit (Liv. 10, 8, 10) gravius agerem... quam adhuc egi (Cic. Flacc. 60)

In such sentences, adhuc refers to a limit located at a time immedi­ ately before the present. The sequential configuration of these cases is the same as in (5): the state of affairs linked to adhuc is configured so that it always appears in relation to a second state of affairs which is presented

THE SYNTAX OF ADHUC WITH VERBAL PREDICATES

349

as new and as continuing after the end of the first one. This new situation may be the negation of the previous one, as in (7a), or some kind of a modification thereof, as in (7e); it can be also its continuation, as either in (7b) or (7d). Nontheless even in those cases, the events are put forth as two distinct phases of a state of affairs temporally related in terms of anterior-posterior. Sentences in (8) are examples of adhuc with a limitative value and a past reference point; that is, meaning 'until then': (8) a)

b)

etenim adhuc ita nostri cum illo rege contenderunt imperatores ut ab illo insignia victoriae, non victoriam reportarent (Cic. Man. 8, 1) Deinde equitatum ad hunc morem constituit, qui usque adhuc est retentus (Cic. Rep. 2, 36)

Here, the perfect is used to indicate a situation concluded in the past. The general configuration of the sentences, i.e., the temporal relationship between the perfect associated with adhuc and the other tenses of the sentence or context is such that the perfect with adhuc always refers to an event taking place before another. Hence, (8a) describes two moments of the relationship with Mitridates: Sulla's and Murena's time and a later historical moment, the time of Pompeius with the adverb inserting a limit between the two. In (8b) adhuc marks the limit of a situation whose al­ tering is described in the first part of the sentence. Thus, such cases show the perfect working very much like a pluperfect. 5 Indeed, sentences in (7) and (8) differ only in the reference point, which is present in (7) and past in (8): in (7) it coincides with the speech moment while in (8) it concurs with the time of the event. It is, therefore, important to note that the instances of limitative in­ terpretation with perfect tense exhibit the same contextual characteristics as did the present: a temporal structure where two relevant events oc­ cur one before the other. On the other hand, given that the perfect is aspectually perfective, a continuative interpretation is inapplicable. The adverb adhuc can also be found in contexts that indicate repe­ tition of a situation. This value is also proposed for equivalent adverbs in other languages such as the German 'noch' (Löbner 1989), or the French 'encore' (Hoepelman-Rohrer 1980). The Spanish 'todavía' also has this quality. The following, (9), are some examples: (9)a) b)

Unus adhuc fuit post Romam conditam... cui res publica totam se traderet.., L. Sulla (Cic. Verr. 3, 81) Quirinus post dictum repudium adhuc infensus (Tac. Ann. 3, 22)

350

M.E. TORREGO

In these cases, as (8), the perfect is used to refer to a situation con­ cluded in the past, but as opposed to (8), in (9) the perfect is not related to any posterior event, but to an earlier one. In other words, for the data in (9) the reference point does not lie after or at the same time of the event, as it has been in the cases analysed up to now, but, rather, is located be­ fore the time of the event, as evidenced by the post + Ac. element. 6 Aside from this, and regarding the temporality which the adverb expresses, these cases can still be analysed as pointing to a moment in time in which some­ thing can be said to have happened. Therefore, it is also the case here that the adverb separates the temporal reality into two parts: a part preceding the anchor-moment of adhuc and an other following it. What the location of the reference point does in these cases is to break the temporal continuity between the reference moment and the time of the event to which adhuc is anchored. In effect, the iterative interpretation only arises if a lapse of time between these two moments is assumed. Let us consider the example (9b). There may in fact exist a repetition of the situation described by infensus if we suppose Quirinus to be his wife's enemy until getting the divorce, then leaving her alone and later becoming her enemy again. How­ ever, we can also understand the text as indicating no repetition, but rather a continous development, if it was the case that Quirinus was his wife's enemy until getting the divorce and continuing to be her enemy after that. In such a case, we would only have a broken continuity. So, the only difference between both interpretations would be in presupposing tempo­ ral continuity or temporal break. Repetition — i.e. beginning again — is the only way for the event to occur if there is a temporal break. Other elements of the context, such as unus in (9a), are probably suggesting the idea of 'once more' or 'again', as the TLL suggests. The differences in contexts like (9) arise again from their temporal configuration. As we will see in § 2.5., the existence of a reference point preceding the time of the event makes these cases similar to those with future, with which it is also possible to obtain the so called iterative interpretation. Differences between these two tenses arise from the aspectual content of the predicates. In the case of the perfect, its perfective feature prevents a purely continuative interpretation because it expresses a limited-in-thepast event. Correspondingly, the future, being aspectually imperfective, cannot be interpreted as a limitative, but as continuative or as iterative depending on the temporal continuity. To summarize, we can say that the so called iterative use of adhuc does not differ from its limitative and continuative uses. It is produced, as

THE SYNTAX OF ADHUC WITH VERBAL PREDICATES

351

are the other interpretations, by interaction between temporal configura­ tion and aspect in the predicate. Temporal configuration with a reference point preceding the time of the event occasions a gap between the mo­ ments relevant for the analysis of the adverb. The perfective aspect of the predicate precludes a continuative interpretation, although there is no mention of a posterior phase of the event. 2.3. Imperfect In the corpus reviewed, all the data with adhuc + imperfect are similar to those in (6) for the present tense, i.e., situations with a predicate uncon­ nected to any ensuing event. As in (6), they are subject to continuative interpretation. There are some cases in (10): (10)a) b) c)

quamquam communis adhuc Mars belli erat, necdum discrimen fortuna fecerat... haudquaquam similis pugna in dextro laevoque cornu erat (Liv. 10, 28, 1) nondum videlicet spiritus omnis exierat, sed adhuc emissa sui parte maiore oberrabat (Sen. Nat 6, 31, 1) adhuc loquebatur cum crepuit ostium (Petr. 99)

Notice that, though sometimes connected with each other, (see (10a) adhuc Mars erat.., haudquaquam similis pugna erat, or (10c)), situations here are simultaneous in time. It cannot be said that they configure a before-after sequence. My corpus has not shown any examples of adhuc + imperfect in temporal contexts such as those of (5) or (9) — that is, with a limitative or iterative interpretation. The lack of cases with a limitative value may be interpreted in two different ways: (i) either the imperfect, because of its purely imperfective content, does not allow cutting off by a subsequent event, which would make it perfective, as is the case of the present tense followed by a future, (ii) or it is due to a contingency. In favour of the first option one can put forth other cases in which the imperfect, being the most imperfective tense, 7 behaves differently from the present. This would point to an aspect-motivated restriction in the imperfect, not shared by the present, because of the special character of this tense (see n. 4). However, it would be also possible to think of adhuc having a limi­ tative interpretation, 8 as is the case in other Romance languages such as Spanish, in which the function of the imperfect is somewhat similar to the Latin model. (11) is an example of a possible context:

M.E. TORREGO

352 (11)

? adhuc faciebant, postea non fecerunt

Meaning that they were still doing something and later stopped doing it. As for the iterative value, it depends only on the previous location of the reference point, I find no grammatical reason precluding examples such as (12): (12)

? post repudium is adhuc infensus erat

It is also possible that the use of an imperfect i.e. with a previous reference point — can only conditions. In any case, it is an issue regarding rather than the distribution of the adverb and I

after a post element, — take place under certain the use of the imperfect cannot address it here. 9

2.4. Pluperfect Linked to the pluperfect, a tense that refers to a moment located before a past reference point, adhuc also expresses temporal limitation. Let us consider some examples in (13): (13)a) b)

unam adhuc a te epistulam acceperam... in qua significabatur aliam te ante dedisse quam non acceperam (Cic. AU. 7, 12, 1) magnitudo amplissima adhuc visa nobis erat (sc. crystalli)... quam Livia Augusti dicaverat (Plin. Nat. 37, 27)

Note that here the combination of adhuc and the predicate takes shape in the same way as in (8), that is to say, as a phase ended in the past after which another phase is expected to occur. Adhuc is anchored between them, just at the point which works as a temporal reference point. As for the temporal relation between the events, the first one precedes the second, as the use of the pluperfect evidences. In the corpus reviewed there are no examples of continuative adhuc of the kind exemplified in (6) nor of iterative value, as that found in (9). The absence of the former may be due to the perfectivity of the pluperfect, blocking the possibility of continuation. The iterative interpretation is not viable with the pluperfect because, as we saw, this value results from a reference point located before the time of the event, as the pluperfect itself speaks of an event taking place before a reference point, a reference point prior to it would be a contradiction. 2.5. Future tense For adhuc with the future tense we find two kinds of data: some demanding a continuative interpretation (14) and some an iterative one (15):

THE SYNTAX OF ADHUC WITH VERBAL PREDICATES

353

(14)a) b)

omnes legent (bella) et adhuc tibi, Magne, favebunt (Luc. 7, 212) Germanicus... d a n d u m adhuc spatium ratus (Tac. Ann. 1, 48)

(15)a) b)

praeter haec adhuc invenies genus aliud (Sen. Episi. 66, 5) de hac parte et in alio nobis opere plenius dictum est et in hoc saepe tractatur et adhuc spargetur omnibus locis (Quint. Inst. 8, 3, 58)

The only difference between (14) and (15) is again the location of the reference point: in (14) it coincides with the time of the event. There the sentences in (14) are similar to any other combination of adhuc with an infectum tense where no reference is made to a posterior event, as in the case of (6) or (10). In (15), however, the reference point does not coincide with the time of the event, but with the speech moment. So, cases here are similar to those in (9): their reference point is also previous to the time in which the event takes place. Likewise, it is also possible to see a temporal break between these two moments. Note that as long as a temporal continuity is supposed in (15) the sentences can understood to be continuative. The future contains no examples of limitative interpretation. As in the other cases of infectum tenses, it would be theoretically possible if the adequate contextual conditions obtain. It is the case that my corpus contains few examples of future. An enlargement of the corpus would be necessary to take a position on this point.

3. Conclusions As a result of this analysis it is possible to state the following: (1) Adhuc has a single meaning which can be defined as follows: it marks a point in relation to which the temporal sequence is organised. Thus, it separates temporal reality into two moments between which it is itself placed. The development of the situation beyond the point marked by adhuc is dependent on verbal aspect configuration and temporal sequence. (2) The three possible values of this adverb arise from three interrelated factors: (i) the position of the reference point. (ii) The grammatical aspect of the predicate. (iii) The temporal configuration of the context.

354

M.E. TORREGO

The three factors function as follows: (A) If the adverb is linked to an event taking place before the reference point, the aspect of the predicate and contextual features determine interpretation so that (a) perfective aspect gives rise to a limitative interpretation, (b) imperfective aspect opens to a limitative or continuative inter­ pretation, depending on whether or not there is explicit mention of a subsequent event. (B) If the adverb is linked to an event taking place after the reference point, it receives the so called iterative interpretation because a tem­ poral break is assumed between the reference point and the moment when the event takes place.

Notes *

This paper was modified through the critique and comments of several people. Among them I am especially grateful to H. Pinkster. J. de la Villa read several previous versions and improved each of them with his accurate criticism. My thanks must also go to J. de John, who printed the d a t a of Cicero for me.

1.

T h e presuppositional content is also present in corresponding adverbs in other languages. This feature imposes lexical constraints on the distributional posibilities of these adverbs: it cannot appear with all classes of predicates. The restrictions described by Doherty (1973) for the German 'noch' coincide with my own d a t a in which the adverb doesn't appear with / + t e l i c / verbs except in the negative. For a definition of / + t e l i c / see Pinkster 1983 and Rijksbaron 1989.

2.

In this paper I am assuming the aspectual system organised in terms of perfectivity, expressed by the perfectum stem, and imperfectivity, expressed by the infectum stem. See Ronconi 1968. A review of the whole temporal and aspectual system can be found in Pinkster 1983. A relation of adverbs like adhuc with the aspect has also been proposed for other languages. Cf. Doherty 1973, Morrissey 1973, Hoepelman-Rohrer 1980.

3.

Usque sometimes reinforces the limitative use. As its presence is not mandatory (cf. examples (5)b), c), d)), I don' t consider it as a relevant mark of this use.

4.

Present time — although philosophically and logically concieved as momentaneous — is perceived as having a short duration (see Ruipérez 1954: 96). This is probably the reason why a present tense situation can be interpreted either as perfective, that is, just finishing at the speech moment, or imperfective, i.e. continuing for a little while after the speech moment.

5.

These uses of the perfect are described in Ernout-Thomas (1953: 225)

6.

So, three moments seem to be relevant for the analysis of adhuc, the speech moment, the time of the event, located in relation to the speech moment, and the reference point, necessary for a temporal location regarding other events. Note that this coincides with Reichenbach's approach to verbal tense (see Reichenbach 1947).

THE SYNTAX OF ADHUC WITH VERBAL PREDICATES

355

7.

Indeed, this is the only point about aspect in Latin verb on which almost every linguist agrees. See Pinkster 1983: 279.

8.

As for instance in the use of the elements expressing duration (See Garcia Hernández 1979, Torrego 1988) and frequency (cf. Torrego 1989).

9.

I don't yet have enough data to prove this statement, but I believe it may be explained as follows: the role of the imperfect as a background tense in narrative structure makes its use very difficult for narrative sequence, except for habitual contexts. See Pinkster 1983: 303 ff. More research is needed to describe this type of constraints.

References Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge. Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge. Doherty, M. 1973. "'Noch' and 'schon' and their presuppositions." In: F. Kiefer & N. Ruwet (eds.) Generative Grammar in Europe, 154-177. Dordrecht. Ernout, A. & A. Meillet 1967 4 . Dictionnaire étymologique Ernout, A. & F. Thomas 1953. Syntaxe Latine. Paris.

de la langue latine. Paris.

Garcia Hernandez, B. 1977. "El sistema del aspecto verbal en latin y en espaňol." SPhS 1, 65-114. Hoepelman, J. & G. Rohrer 1980. "'Déjà' et 'encore' et les temps du passé du Français." In: J. David & R. Martin (eds.) La notion d'aspect, 119-143. Paris. Löbner, S. 1989. "German schon, erst, noch: and integrated analysis." Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 167-212. Mariner, S. 1958. "La oposición infectum/perfectum ante un análisis estructural." In: Adas del I Congreso Español de EE CC, 259-33. Madrid. Morrissey, M.D. 1973. "The English perfective and 'still'/'anymore'." JL 9, 65-69. Pinkster, H. 1983. "Tense, Aspect and Aktionsart in Latin." In: W. Haase (ed.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 29.1, 270-319. Berlin: De Gruyter. Reichenbach, E. 1947. Elements Rijksbaron, A. 1989. Aristotle,

of Symbolic Logic. London, New York. Verb Meaning and Functional

Ronconi, A. 1968. Il verbo latino. Firenze. Ruipérez, M.S. 1954. Estructura del sistema antiguo. Salamanca.

Grammar.

de aspectos y tiempos

Amsterdam.

del verbo griego

Torrego, M.E. 1988. "Restricciones de la categoría verbal aspecto sobre los elementos de duración en latin." Minerva 2, 259-278. Torrego, M.E. 1989. "Distribución de los adverbios de frecuencia en Latin." 3, 231-238.

Minerva

V. Problems of the lexicon

The lexical relationships of Latin in Indo-European Robert Coleman University of Cambridge

1.1. It is no exaggeration to say that little progress has been made in the assessment of degrees of relationship between different members of a group of languages that are all demonstrably related to one another. This is true even of phonology and morphology, which have the advantages of being closed and highly structured systems and are amenable to the application of modern typological criteria. Indeed it is not easy to arrive at a definition of, say, morphological relationship such that it would enable us to ask the question "Are Latin and Greek more closely related morphologically than either is to Hittite?" Paradoxically the lexicon, which has neither of the advantages mentioned (in the end it remains stubbornly true that 'chaque mot a son histoire'), is the area that has received most attention, again without much success. The lack of progress here is due to a number of causes. 1.2. Often the linguistic units chosen have been either too vast or incom­ mensurate in size. To make comparison between multi-lingual groups like Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic 1 or even between more justifiable groups like Celtic and Slavic obscures the variations within each group, while to com­ pare individual languages like Albanian or Armenian with such groups 2 is bound to produce distortions. Our comparisons must be between Albanian and Irish or Armenian and Russian. 3

360

ROBERT COLEMAN

1.3. Moreover t h e individual languages themselves must be taken at a par­ ticular period in their history. An IE root attested in, say, early Byzantine Greek can be assumed to have been in t h e language in Mycenaean times (not necessarily with t h e same meaning of course), unless there is good reason for thinking t h a t the word (or words) in which it occurs was bor­ rowed into Greek in t h e intervening period. It is best in fact to work with t h e earliest stage of a language for which a suitably b r o a d lexical cor­ pus is e x t a n t . 4 For the present research 5 the following seven languages have been examined: Classical Latin, Vedic Sanskrit, Classical A r m e n i a n , Classical Attic Greek, Lithuanian, Old English a n d Old Irish (abbreviated respectively as La, Ve, Ar, Gr, Li, E n and Ir). 1.4. B u t w h a t are we to compare in t h e lexicons of these languages? Roots, meanings a n d words were all mentioned in t h e preceding p a r a g r a p h . T h e retention of a specific n u m b e r of P I E roots has often been used as a crite­ rion of relatedness. However, P I E roots can be very abstract a n d P r o t e a n entities. For instance are Pokorny's *, ' c u t ' and * ' c u t ' two roots or variants of t h e same root, with * < *. On our answer a n d scindere a n d their depends t h e relative s t a t u s of Lat. alignment with forms in other languages such as OCS a n d Ve chydti. F u r t h e r m o r e t h e roots criterion favours a language with a large surviv­ ing lexical corpus: *dhegwh- has three chances of finding Latin reflexes — fauilla, febris, jonere — b u t only one in W . Tocharian — teki 'illness, fever'. Finally t h e roots criterion cannot easily take account of m e a n i n g a n d so loses t h e distinctive semantic development of a word like scire. We need in fact to work with actual words a n d their meanings. B u t which words? 1.5. Sometimes the enquiry has been conducted on a very narrow range of d a t a : a small n u m b e r of cognate synonyms 6 t h a t appear to be exclu­ sive innovations to a particular group of languages. Some of these are clearly i m p o r t a n t . T h e root: *tep-, widely attested in t h e m e a n i n g 'warm, h o t ' , provides uniquely the Celtic words for 'fire', Ir tene, W . tan. T h e exclusively Balto-Slavic words for 'king', Li karalius O C S kralí are bor­ rowed from Germanic karl (viz. Charlemagne), while Germanic itself uses two other roots, represented by E n cyning (cf. cyn 'people') a n d Gothic piudans (cf. piuda 'people'). T h e significance of these a n d similar lexical isoglosses can, however, be properly assessed only against a p a t t e r n of relationship established over a larger segment of t h e lexicon.

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN

361

1.6. A manageable sample that is likely to occur in even a moderately sized corpus and is relatively stable within each language is provided by a basic or core vocabulary. This concept was first formulated and applied by Swadesh and his associates, and the ideal size and composition of such a vocabulary is perhaps overdue for re-examination. Few would dispute the inclusion of day, father, head, water, three, black, good, to die, to talk. But should prepositions and conjunctions be excluded (as in the present paper)? What proportion of the list should be given to numerals, parts of the body, colour or kinship? What in fact is the ideal size? Of course those who disagree with a given list can always compile their own and use it to test the results obtained. The 196 item vocabulary used here is adapted, somewhat arbitrarily and with a few additions, from the longer list employed by Bergsland and Vogt. Here it is in alphabetical order: all, animal, ashes, back, bad, belly, berry, big, bird, to bite, black, blood, to blow, blunt, bone, breast, to breathe, brother, to burn, child, claw, clothing, cloud, cold, to come, to cook, to cry, to cut, to dance, day, to die, to dig, dirty, dog, to drink, dry, dust, ear, earth, to eat, egg, eye, to fall, far, father, to fear, feather, few, to fight, fire, fish, five, to float, to flow, flower, to fly, fog, foot, four, full, to give, good, grass, green, hair, hand, head, to hear, heart, heavy, to hit, to hold, horn, hundred, to hunt, husband, ice, to kill, knee, to know, lake, to laugh, leaf, left (side), leg, to lie, to live, liver, long, man (male), many, meat (flesh), moon, mother, mountain, month, name, narrow, near, neck, new, night, nose, old, one, person, to play, to pull, to push, to rain, red, right (correct), right (side), river, road, root, rope, round, to rub, salt, sand, to say, sea, to see, seed, to sew, sharp, short, to sing, sister, to sit, skin, sky, to sleep, small, to smell, smoke, smooth, snake, snow, to speak, spear, to spit, to split, to stand, star, stone, straight, to suck, sun, to swim, tail, ten, thick, thin, to think, three, to throw, to tie, tongue, tooth, tree, to turn, twenty, two, to vomit, to walk, warm, to wash, water, wet, white, wide, wife, wind, wing, woman, woods, to work, worm, year, yellow.

1.7. The choice of exponents of the various specified meanings is not easy. Even in one's own language there can be hesitation; for instance between big and large, wide and broad, belly and stomach, tale and story. Dead languages compound this problem severely. Thus few, one hopes, would disagree with the choice of La aqua, caput, dies, pater, très, bonus, niger, loquï, mon, etc. But for 'warm' is it to be calidus or tepidus; for 'cold' frigidus or gelidus, for 'walk' ambulare or procedere or progredi? In each instance the first one named has been chosen. Similarly mulier, puer, timor and uestis have been preferred to fëmina, infans, metus and uestimentum;

362

ROBERT COLEMAN

crassus, flauus, hebes, omnis, siccus and umidus to densus, croceus, ob­ tusus, totus, äridus and madidus; fiere, ligäre, secäre to plöräre, uincire and caedere; comburere to ürere or incendere or cremare. The problem is of course magnified as we enlarge the range of test languages, but the choice of a sufficiently large list enables any items that are of doubtful meaning or etymology simply to be omitted from consideration. In what follows all the Latin words cited are from the chosen basic vocabulary.

2.1. At the semantic level no less than five different categories of relation­ ship can be distinguished between any two words in genetically related languages. (a) The two words are exact semantic equivalents — synonyms in Buck's terminology. These PRIMARY SYNONYMS are of course our most im­ portant category, concerned as we are with a semantically defined list. Examples are plenus and Ve pürnáh, pater and Ar hayr. (b) They are SECONDARY SYNONYMS, one being less often attested than the other in the relevant meaning; or restricted to a particular regis­ ter; e.g. homo and En guma (cf. man); ös and Ve afp (cf. múkhah). (c) They are TERTIARY SYNONYMS, one being the HYPERONYM of the other or else a SUPPLETIVE FORM in the paradigm of the other's primary synonym; e.g. auis and Ar haw 'hen' (cf. t'rc'un), equus and En eoh 'war-horse' (cf. hors). (d) They are PLESIONYMS, their semantic fields being adjacent but not overlapping within the synchronic lexical system; e.g. mordere and Ve mardayati 'grinds' (cf. dásati), nebula and En nifol 'dark' (cf. mist). (e) They are HETERONYMS, their semantic fields being remote from each other synchronically, however plausible a semantic diachrony may be constructed to link them together. Examples include dies and Ve dyaúh 'sky' (cf. ahar), breuis and En myrge 'attractive' (cf. sceort). In some instances one might argue for reallocation as between one category and its immediate neighbour, e.g. for moving a word from (c) to (b) or (d), but never for moving the same word as far as (a) or (e). So, although the dividing lines are not easily drawn, they do represent gra­ dations in meaning. Where there is a contrast in word class, e.g. between coquere and Ar hac 'bread' (cf. ep'em), rotundus and Ir roth 'wheel' (cf. cruinn), luna and Li laukas 'pale' (cf. mènuo), these are perhaps better distinguished at the morphological level (cf. § 2.2.: (ca) etc.).

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN

363

2.2. In addition to semantic distinctions, pairs of words in genetically related languages exhibit at least four levels of morphological relationship. (a) T h e two words are P R I M A R Y C O G N A T E S , whose differences are accounted for solely in terms of their language's historical phonology. Ex­ amples are t h e pairs cited in § 2.1., which are therefore coded (aa), ( b a ) , (ca), (da), (ea) respectively. (b) T h e y are S E C O N D A R Y C O G N A T E S , having cognate roots b u t dif­ ferent derivational morphology. Examples include: (ab) t h e p r i m a r y synonyms magnus a n d Ar mec, piscis a n d Ir ïasc] (bb) t h e secondary synonyms augustus a n d Li añkštas (cf. siauras), grauis a n d Mid Ir bair (cf. trom)] (cb) t h e t e r t i a r y synonyms uermis a n d Li varma 'insect' (cf. kirmele), ferire a n d E n gebered 'crushed' (cf. slean); (db) corpus a n d E n hrif 'belly' (cf. lic, pluere a n d Li pláuju 'wash' (cf. lýti); (eb) t h e heteronyms saltare and Li sálti 'to flow' (cf. šókti), trahere a n d Ir traig 'foot' (cf. srengim). (c) T h e two words are T E R T I A R Y C O G N A T E S , having cognate roots t h a t have either undergone more elaborate derivational processes or formed c o m p o u n d s with other lexical roots. Examples include: (ac) t h e p r i m a r y synonyms sol a n d Ve sûryah] herba a n d E n græs; sedere and Ar u s t i m , olfacere and Li uodziù] (bc) t h e secondary synonyms dormire a n d Ve drati (cf. svdpati)] (cc) the tertiary synonyms secare a n d Li isekti 'to engrave' (cf. piauti), nox a n d Ir innocht 'tonight' (cf. adaig)] (dc) t h e plesionyms caput a n d Ve kapucchalam 'hair on t h e h e a d ' (cf. sïrsa), calidus and E n hleow 'mild, sheltered' (cf. wearm)] (ec) t h e heteronyms card a n d Ar kcorem 'scratch' (cf. mis), teuere cougaibim). a n d Ir tét 'cord' (cf. T h e dividing line between (b) and (c) here a n d t h e question w h e t h e r (c) itself should be subdivided are b o t h debatable. (d) T h e two words are I N C O G N A T E S , having roots t h a t are unconnected etymologically. Examples include: (ad) t h e p r i m a r y synonyms dicere and Ir asbeir 'says'; latus a n d Ve uruh. T h e other semantic classes, ( b d ) , (cd), ( d d ) , (ed), can of course b e ignored.

364

ROBERT COLEMAN

2.3. Where the primary synonym in one language is a loanword from an­ other, it cannot be included in any list that supports a genetic relationship with that language or with any other language whose primary synonym is cognate. 8 It can however be used to dissociate any language that has an incognate primary synonym. Thus En cocsian is not related as an (ac) form to La coquere, from which it is ultimately borrowed, but it can be dissociated as an (ad) form from Li virti. Gr siróngulos 'round' must sim­ ilarly be dissociated from its indirect Latin loanword strangulare, but not from its (ec) cognate stringere. 3.1. Space does not permit anything like a full display of the data, but the following list, drawn up for Latin and Greek, will illustrate in detail the systematic application of the classifications set out in § 2. The Latin primary exponents of the meanings listed in § 1.6. appear in order in the left column. Opposite each is the closest Greek cognate with its appropri­ ate code attached. If the latter is not also the primary synonym in Greek, then the word that is, together with its coding, is placed underneath in the right column and its closest Latin cognate, again with the appropriate coding, appears in the left column opposite. The bracketed forms are those not certainly attested for the relevant period or dialect. omnis

animal

pas

ad db ad

uiuus

cc

ánemos zoion

cinis fauilla

bc

kónis téphra

cb ad

orégo erötáö

ec ad

nôton

ad

kakós

ad

rogare dorsum nates

cb

malus uenter gemere

dc

gaster

ad

baca racemus

dc

rhäks

ad

magnus

mégas

ac

auis

aietós órnis

ce ad

dáknö

ad

mordere

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN niger mélas

ad

haîma

ad

pnéö

ad

sanguis flare hebes mollis

dc

amblús

ad

corpus tomentum

ec

soma

ad

ostéon

ab

stérnon

ad

frater

pneo phrater adelphós

ca ad

comburere

heuo kaío

dc ad

pais

ac

ónuks

ac

hïmátia

ac

pectus sternere

eb

spirare

puer unguis uestis nübës nebula

ad

nephéle

ad

frigidus

rhïgéo psükhrós

cc ad

uenïre ruere

baíno érkhomai

bb

coquere

pésso

ab

klaío

ad

da

flere secare temnere saltare ruere

témno

ad

hállomai orkhéomai

db ad

filia

thêsthai thugátër

ec ad

dies

Zeús heméra

ea ad

brotós apothnëísko

db ad

eb

365

366

ROBERT COLEMAN fodere runcäre

bóthros orussö

cc

sordidus

-

canis bibere siccus serënus puluis cinis

rhuparós

ad

kúon

ab

píno

ac kserós -

ec cb

auris

ad

oûs

ac

térsomai

-

gê

esse öuum

ad

kónis

terra

oculus cadere petere procul

cc ad

ec ad

esthío

ac

oîon

ab ósse ophthalmós pípto próka

ad eb

têle

ad

pater

pater

aa

timor

-

-

phóbos

ad

penna

pterón

ac

paucï pugnare ignis -

paûros olígoi pugmë mákhomai pur

dc ad dc ad

eb

-

bb ac

ad

piscis

-

-

ikhthüs

ad

pénte

aa

quinque fluitare phluo pluere fluere phlúo flös -

da

rhéö

db ad da ad

phúllon ánthos

dc ad

pléö

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN uolare petere

pétomai

ea

nebula

nephélë

-

omíkhle

pes

ad da ad

poús

aa

quattuor

téssares

ab

plënus

plërës

ac

dare

dídomi

ab

bonus herba -

agathós -

ad

póa

ad

uiridis -

khlorós

ad

capillus -

thríks

ad

manus -

máře kheír

bc ad

caput -

kephalë

audïre auris

cc

cor

cc

akoúo

ad

kardía

grauis

ad

aisthánomai

ab barús

ab

[pháros túptö

de] ad eb

cornu

kéras

ac

equus

hippos

ferire stupëre tenere

eb teíno

-

ékho

ad

aedës ulcus

aithö da

centum uënarï férus marïtus potis glaciës pägus interficere -

de da eb

ac ec

oîkos

ad

hekat ón

ac

thëreuö meîraks pósis págos entíthemi apokteíno

ad ec ad ad ec ad

367

368

ROBERT COLEMAN rex

orégo

-

basileús

ad

gónu

ab

skháo oîda lákkos límně

ec ad cb ad

genu scire uidëre lacus limus

dc db

rïdëre

-

folium sinister ars crus scelus

ec ea

geláo

ad

phúllon

ac

aristerós skélos

iacere ciuis

ec

híemai

ad ec

keîmai

ad

uïuere

zaö

ac

iecur

hepar

ab

longus macer uir multï plus

ec

ad

ea

makrós aněr mála polloí

dc

carö cruor

kérma ec

lac

ad ad db ad ec

kréas

ad

gála

ab

luna

lúkhnos

db

selené

ad

mater

meter

aa

mons ruere os

oros -

ad

stoma

ad

ec

-

ónoma

nōmen angustus prope pellere collum -

ec

ánkhō stenos próka plesíon trákhelos

ab dc ad cc ad ad

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN nouus

néos

ca

kainós

ad

nox

núks

aa

nāsus uetus -

rhïs étos palaîos

ad ea ad

heîs

ca ad

recëns

ünus semel

cc

oine bc

homo -

khamaí ánthrōpos

lūdere puer

ec

fundere trahere sulcus pellere -

flümen petere

ad ac eb ad ec ad

húei

ad

eruthrós

aa

ab

orektós orthós deksíteros deksiós

da ad ba ab

ec

phluzö potamós

dc ad

ec

hodos

ec ōthéō pléō ec

db

uia sedes

de

paízō

trékhein hélkein pélas

ruber rēctus arduus dexter dexter

loídoros khéō

pluere sücus

ec ad

da

ad

radix

rhíza

ac

funis rotundus stringere

thômi(n)ks skhoînos stróngulos

cc ad

ec

terere

teirō

-

ad eb

trïbö

ac

sal

háls

aa

h arēn a sabulum dïcere legere

psámmos deíknümi légö

ad eb ad

bb ea

369

370

ROBERT COLEMAN mare uidēre uerērï

thálassa

ad

eîdon horáō

bb ac

ec

sēmen -

spérma

suere -

humën rháptō

acutus -

oksús

ad

óis

ba

ouis pröuentus

ec

breuis canere soror sedëre sedēre

eb ad da] ad

hézomai káthëmai

cb ac

skûtos

cc

dérma

caelum

ad

ec

dormïre paruus

ouranós katadarthánō katheúdō paûros

dc

olfacere fümus uapor

ab

[éores

-

mica

ad

brakhús

adelphe

cutis

ūrïna

próbaton

kanassō äídō

ac

ad ad ad

cc ad ca

mikrós

ad

osphrainomai

ac

thūmós

ea

kapnós

ad

lëuis

leîos

ab

anguis nix hiems fïlius -

énkhelus óphis neíphei khiōn thêsthai huiús

de ad bc ad ec ad

légö

ad

dóru

ad

loquï legere hasta -

dc

ad

db

ea

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN spuere findere scindere

bb

ptúo

aa

pheídomai skhízo

eb ad

éstēn

cb

héstëka

ac

stāre stare

ac

stëlla

astér

ab

lapis rēctus arduus

eb

lépas líthos orektós orthós

cc ad da ad

sügere felāre

bb

thëlázö

ad

cc

théros

ad

sol

hélios

ab

nāre

nëhö

ab

aestäs feruēre

aithö

cōda

dc

-

-

ourä

ad

decern

déka

aa

crassus tenuis lepidus cögitare

kártallos pakhús tanaós leptós agö

ec ad eb ad ec

ennoéö

ad

db

trēs iacere ligare -

treîs híēmi bállō déö

aa cb ad ad

lingua

-

-

glôssa

ad

dens

odoús

aa

arbor uertere

oródamnos dendron rhatanë

de ad ec

eikosi

ac

-

trépō

uïgintl duo uomere

duō eméō

ad aa ab

371

372

ROBERT COLEMAN ambulare uenïre

dc

êlthon badízō

cc

thermos

ad

louö

aa

calidus feruëre

-

lauere aqua unda

dc ad

hudōr

ad

nōs

hëmeîs

ac

ümidus

hugrós

ac

albus lücus latus planus uxor -

alphós leukós

da ad ec ad

uentus animus

dc

ea stéllō dc

platus gunë áella

ad

ea

ánemos

cc ad

ákson

ec

dc

ptéruks

ad

hiems

kheíma

ac

mulier silua

gunë -

ad

-

hule

ad

lenoš érion

cb ad

ala penna

lana ueruex

dc

laböräre -

ergázomai

ad

uermis scelus

ec

[rhómos skôleks

dc] ad

annus uetus

da

étos

ad

fläuus cänus

de

ksanthós

ad

3.2. For each pair of languages we can summarize the correspondences in tabular form. The columns contain the number of items in each of the five semantic categories a to e, and the lines the numbers in each of the four morphological categories a to d. There are of course no figures for bd to ed. Here is the table abstracted from the Latin-Greek list in § 3.1.:

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN

a b c d Total

a 13 18 24 62 117

b e 2 5 2 7 2 12 6 24

d e 6 3 6 6 12 17 24 26

373

Total 29 39 67 62

197

3.3. A set of five totals can now be compiled: (i) all t h e (aa) entries, viz. the Greek words t h a t are b o t h p r i m a r y synonyms a n d primary cognates of the Latin words listed: 13 = 7%; (ii) all the (aa) and (ab) entries, viz. the Greek primary synonyms t h a t are relatively close cognates: 31 = 16%; (iii) all t h e (aa), (ab) and (ac) entries, viz. the Greek p r i m a r y syn­ onyms t h a t are in any way cognate: 55 = 28%; (iv) all the entries from columns (b), (c) and (d), viz. t h e Greek cog­ n a t e s t h a t are in any way related semantically — as secondary synonyms, h y p e r o n y m s , hyponyms or plesionyms — to t h e Latin words listed: 54 = 27%. ( T h e figure for column e is omitted as of little i m p o r t a n c e for t h e present enquiry.); (v) those (ad) Greek words whose incognate primary synonyms in Latin do not have any cognates at all in Greek (e.g. pas 'all' in contrast to zōîon 'animal') : 62 = 32%. 3.4. T h e same procedure yields comparable percentages for t h e other five languages surveyed: La-

-Gr

-Ve

-Ar

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

7 16 28

19 24 30

7 21 22

8 27 29

17 26 29

14 19 24

27 32

24 34

6 70

9 51

19 39

17 47

0.88

0.88

0.31

0.57

0.74

0.51

(v) (iii)/(v)

-Li -En

-Ir

Vedic, Old English a n d Old Irish show the highest percentages of p r i m a r y synonyms t h a t are also primary cognates. As t h e range of cognation is extended to (ii) a n d (iii), the position changes somewhat, until for all de­ grees of cognate primary synonyms Vedic, Lithuanian a n d Old English come out as the top three. However, the spread of the six languages nar­ rows quite remarkably, from 19-7%, in (i) to 30-22% in (iii). By contrast

374

ROBERT COLEMAN

the spread in (v) is much larger, 33% to 70%, and this can be used to counteract the bunching effect in (iii) by the simple device of taking as our index of comparison the ratio of (iii) to (v). This ratio is shown in the last line of the table and gives an order: Vedic, Classical Greek, Old English, then after a gap Lithuanian and Old Irish and after a further gap Armenian. In fact this coincides for the most part with the order in (iv), except that Irish changes place with Lithuanian, having the larger percentage of plesionymic cognates to the Latin words listed. While the low position of Classical Armenian should surprise no-one, the high posi­ tion of Old English relative to Old Irish will not be good news to anyone aspiring to resuscitate the Italo-Celtic hypothesis. 9 The relatively close relationship with the Vedic and Classical Greek lexicons is again not al­ together surprising. It is confirmed by a similar study on the Classical Greek lexicon, in comparison with which the Classical Latin (iii)/(v) ratio is 0.78, as against 0.98 for Vedic and 0.43 for Armenian and Gothic 10 , and by preliminary research on Vedic. Reciprocal relationships must be fully explored in order to confirm or modify conclusions reached by the present system of comparisons. 3.5. The relatively low medians in (iii) and in the (iii)/(v) ratio suggest that the Latin lexicon is not in fact very closely related to that of any of the other six languages. This is confirmed by comparison with the percentages for Gothic and Latin against English: En(i) (ii)

(iii) (iv) (v) (iii)/(v)

-Go 61 64 69 8 21 3.3

-La 17 27 31 14 49 0.63

Here the figures for Latin are of a similar order to those for and indeed for the whole Latin table. But for Gothic the (iii) and the ratio of (iii) to (v) are strikingly high. This is consonant with the close relationship between English and generally recognized on other criteria.

Latin-English percentage at of course fully Gothic that is

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN

375

4.1. One problem, that has not been addressed so far in this paper is the chronological scatter of the material. None of the lexicons chosen is contemporary with Latin; the closest in time, Classical Greek and Classical Armenian, are separated by several centuries on either side, Vedic by the best part of a millennium and Lithuanian by fourteen hundred years. It is true that two languages attested a thousand years apart may be more closely related to and even more recently separated from each other than a pair that are attested at or near the same period. The relative positions of Classical Armenian and Lithuanian vis-à-vis Classical Latin in § 3.4. are instructive here. Nevertheless, if the material were all contemporary with Classical Latin, the spread would be narrower and in particular the figures for Vedic, for example, would be reduced, those for Lithuanian and Old English increased. 4.2. The solution proposed by Swadesh and the glottochronologists was to devise a fixed numerical formula for the millennial rate of change of basic vocabularies. The wayward results that came from the application of this formula to Germanic and especially Romance 11 brought the whole enter­ prise into disrepute. However, it should be possible to devise an alternative formula, based this time on a wide and rigorous survey of languages for which material is available over a long period. 12 This would then enable us both to calculate the length of separation between two related lexicons attested at the same period and also to adjust the figures for those that are attested at different dates. 4.3. In the meantime we might be able to cope with the practical problem in a limited way by adjusting each of the figures for the six languages in the Latin table by a factor that takes account of the median values for the relevant figures in each language in turn. Thus the median index of comparison, defined as the (iii)/(v) ratio, is 0.66 for the six languages in the Latin table (see § 3.4.). The corresponding median for Greek, mea­ sured against Latin and the other five languages, is 0.43. Hence the Greek ratio here would be revised from 0.80 to (66/43 x 0.80 =) 1.23; and so on for each of the other languages in the Latin table, once their full figures became available. This would of course be no more than a reconciling pro­ cedure and would leave a number of questions still unanswered. 13 But then there are many questions raised by this paper that await further research and reflexion.

376

ROBERT COLEMAN

Notes 1. 2.

See for instance Herdan 1962: 87-92. Thus many scholars from Kroeber and Chretien 1937: 87ff. to Bird passim, who merely adopts the index groupings in Pokorny 1969: 2.493-5.

3.

As already used by Czekanowski, cited in Kroeber and Chretien 1937: 83-8 and, more recently, e.g. by Elsie 1979.

4. 5.

For the chronological difficulties involved in this choice see § 4.1. Which develops a method first sketched in Coleman 1985. In addition to Buck 1949, and Pokorny 1959-1962, the standard etymological dictionaries of the rel­ evant languages have been used throughout.

6.

See Pokorny 1959-1962. 1.895-6, 919-22.

7.

The term is used as in Buck 1949.

8.

Loanwords nevertheless attest prolonged bilingual contact. For their role in the history of the English basic vocabulary see Coleman 1990. 82-4.

9.

No easy task anyway after Watkins's body-blow in 1966.

10. 11.

See Coleman 1991. The discrepancies in the figures for (i) and (iii) are due to reconsideration of the criteria and of the data since that paper was written. A detailed critique is given by Bergsland and Vogt 1962, who do not however address the composition of the list referred to in § 1.6.

12.

See the diachronic analysis of the English basic vocabulary in Coleman 1990.

13.

For instance the one raised by Dyen 1975. p.25, when he doubts the possibility of accepting lexicostatistics as a criterion for subgrouping without also accepting its glottochronological aspects. Important in a different way is the question which of the various mathematical models on offer is most appropriate for the further processing of the actual data.

References Bergsland, K. k, H. Vogt. 1962. "The validity of glottochronology." Current pology 3, 115-153. Bird, N. 1982. The Distribution Philologists. Wiesbaden. Buck, C D . 1949. A Dictionary Languages. Chicago.

of Indo-European

Root Morphemes:

of Selected Synonyms

in the Principal

Anthro­

A Checklist

for

Indo-European

Coleman, R. 1984. "The Indo-European affinities of the Greek and Latin lexicons." Concilium Eirene 16 (1982), Vol.2, 296-301. Praha. Coleman, R. 1990, "The assessment of lexical mortality and replacement between Old and Modern English." In: S. Adamson, V.A. Law, N. Vincent & S. Wright (eds.) Papers from the 5th International Conference of English Historical Linguistics, 69-86. Amsterdam. Coleman, R. 1991. "Le lexique grec et le lexique indo-européen: étude comparative." In: F. Létoublon (ed.) Actes du Colloque Pierre Chantraine, 2-10. Grenoble. Dyen, I. 1975. Linguistic

Subgrouping

and Lexicostatistics.

S'Gravenhage.

THE LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS OF LATIN IN INDO-EUROPEAN

377

Elsie, R.W. 1979. The Position of Brittonic. A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Genetic Relationships in the Basic Vocabulary of Brittonic Celtic. Bonn. Herdan, G. 1962. The Calculus of Linguistic

Observations.

S'Gravenhage.

Kroeber, A.L. & C D . Chretien. 1937. "Quantitative classification of Indo-European languages." Language 13, 83-103. Pokorny, J. 1959., 1962. Indogermanisches Etymologisches by H.B. Partridge. Bern and München.

Wörterbuch

I, II, compiled

Swadesh, M. 1952. "Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts." Proc. Philos. Soc. 96, 452-463. Watkins, C. 1966. "Italo-Celtic revisited." In: H. Birnbaum & J. Puhvel (eds.) Indo-European Dialects, 29-50. Berkeley.

Amer. Ancient

From lexemics to syntax: the double accusative with doceo and the dative with sum Benjamin García-Hernández Universidad Autonoma de Madrid

1. From lexemics to syntax From Priscianus to the present a long and fertile tradition has been cre­ ated in the study of Latin syntax. However, it was in the second half of this century that it saw an enormous progress compared with that of its preceding history. This is the result of the spectacular development of several linguistic schools creating diverse grammatical models, such as the Transformational-Generative, the Functional and other methods of lin­ guistic analysis. These methods were inspired by syntactic interests, but progressively revealed the importance of semantic functions for linguis­ tic explanation. The form of semantics in these frameworks is however, obviously, a grammar oriented semantics. We have gone the other way around. Our semantic analysis starts with the study of lexical fields. This lexical study is, above all, of a paradigmatic nature due to its method which is closer to a morphemic analysis than to a purely syntactic one. Two fundamental lexemic structures are the semantic fields and the semantic class; both are essentially paradigmatic, as Coseriu (1977: 170 ff.) defined them. The semantic class which is based on the existence of a 'classeme' or generic semantic feature, is a structure very close to the grammatical level of the language and exerts a strong influence on the syntactic behaviour of the words. From the analysis of the semantic fields we have developed a classemic system that we have partially demonstrated in previous colloquia. This

380

B. GARCIA-HERNANDEZ

system presents lexical classes that are analogous to categories which are grammatical. For example, between doceo and disco, which denote the same process viewed from different angles, there is a diathetic relationship similar to that which exists between the active and the passive of doceo (García-Hernández 1989: 293 ff.): magister

discipulos docet .discipuli discunt

magister discipulos docet . (a magistro) discipuli docentur; Cic. de orat. III 70 ea, quae isti scriptores artis docent,

discere.

The classemic relationship between doceo and disco is 'intersubjective' (magister .- discipuli)] that is to say, doceo and disco are verbs of com­ plementary class,1 and so are the nouns magister and discipulus: Plaut. Bacch. 163-165 peior magister te istaec docuit, non ego. nimio es tu ad istas res discipulus docilior quam ad illa quae te docui, ubi operam perdidi.

Other actions included in the same process are found, on the con­ trary, in an 'intrasubjective' relationship. This is the case of disco scio which make up an aspectual sequence ( ) of a "non-resultative" - "resultative" class (García-Hernández 1985: 517 ff.): discipuli grammaticam discunt — sciunt; Plaut. Merc. 147 philosophari numquam didici neque scio.

This aspectual lexical relationship is analogous to the grammatical relation "non-perfective" — "perfective" (infectum — perfectum): discipuli grammaticam discunt

didicerunt

An intrasubjective relationship also holds between the following verbs: discipuli grammaticam discunt \ dediscunt; discipuli grammaticam sciunt \ ignorant; Plaut. Amph. 688 quod didicit, id dediscit.

The alternative actions (marked by the sign |) correspond, at the gram­ matical level, to the negative and positive formulation of the same action (García-Hernández 1991: 135): discipuli grammaticam sciunt \ nesciunt; Plaut. Merc. 147 nescio ego istaec: philosophari numquam didici neque scio.

FROM LEXEMICS TO SYNTAX

381

In order to understand the functionality of the intersubjective rela­ tionship, and on the other hand, of the intrasubjective relation, it is useful to bear in mind that the process as a unit is an important criterion of ana­ lysis. The actions of doceo and disco are in an intersubjective relationship, whenever they denote parts of the same process: Sen. nat. VII 32, 4 si . . . hoc maiores docerent, hoc addiscerent.

minores

But if we refer doceo and disco to the same subject: Sen. epist. 7, 8 homines, dum docent,

discunt.

we could be inclined to think that the relation between these two verbs is no longer intersubjective, but intrasubjective, because they have a com­ mon subject (homines). This is only so at the syntactic level: at the se­ mantic level however, doceo implies the existence of the action of disco with regard to its explicit or implicit object: homines, dum docent (alios qui discunt),

(ipsi)

discunt.

Therefore, in the intrasubjective syntactic combination of Seneca's sen­ tence homines, dum docent, discunt there are two superimposed processes which should be distinguished in the semantic analysis. Hence, it may be deduced that the classemic system with which we operate is essentially paradigmatic: it is a lexemic system and not a syn­ tactic one. At the syntactic level, any two actions can be found referring to the same subject or a different one. At the semantic level, on the other hand, the intersubjective relationships are stricter and are intimately tied to the structure of the semantic field. Such being the case, the relationship between complementary lexical entities can help to explain some syntactic constructions, such as the dou­ ble accusative with doceo and the so-called possessive dative with sum. Studying grammar from a lexemic viewpoint is a methodological innova­ tion that we have been proposing for some years. And we believe that this approach is supported by the evolution of language which shows the same trend. By resorting to lexical forms grammatical expression is renewed throughout history: suffice to mention the grammaticalization that takes place in the auxiliary verbs.

B. GARCIA-HERNANDEZ

382

2. Double accusative with doceo As we have pointed out above there exists a diathetic relationship between doceo a n d disco t h a t we call lexical complementarity (doceo .- disco): magister

discipulos grammaticam docet .— discipuli grammaticam discunt.

This lexical diathesis is analogous to the grammatical diathesis t h a t exists between doceo and doceor: magister discipulos grammaticam docet .(a magistro) discipuli grammaticam docentur.

T h e r e is as much of an intersubjective relation between t h e lexemes of doceo a n d disco as there is between t h e active and t h e passive of doceo. All diathesis, be it lexical or grammatical, is based on an intersubjec­ tive relation between the actants t h a t take p a r t in t h e process. In this intersubjective relation between the active and t h e passive of doceo, t h e a n i m a t e object is transformed into t h e nominative subject of t h e passive. T h e i n a n i m a t e object (grammaticam) may remain in t h e accusative: Hor. carm. III 6. 21-22 motus doceri gaudet Ionicos matura uirgo.

This accusative is usually thought of as an accusative of respect of t h e pas­ sive verb. 2 However, there might be a more adequate explanation for this construction taking into account the intersubjective relationship between t h e lexemes doceo and disco. Doceo is indeed a causative verb containing in itself the complemen­ t a r y action of disco: t h a t is, doceo is analyzed in "facio" + "discere" (facio ut discas, discat, discatis, discant)] doceo is therefore a composite of two actions a n d each one of t h e m corresponds to an accusative: magister discipulos grammaticam docet : "magister discipulos facit ut grammaticam

discant."

T h e i n a n i m a t e accusative (grammaticam) is, at a deeper level, direct ob­ ject of t h e action of "disco" contained in doceo. W h e n doceo is p u t into passive, t h e diathetic transformation only affects the causative content of "facio", so t h a t only the a n i m a t e accusative becomes nominative: discipuli docentur. T h e accusative grammaticam remains, because grammaticam docentur contains t h e complementary action of "disco" in t h e active form. Therefore, t h e syntactic structure of the passive of doceo coincides with t h e s t r u c t u r e of its complementary t e r m , disco:

383

FROM LEXEMICS TO SYNTAX discipuli grammaticam docentur discipuli grammaticam discunt

This proves the analogy between lexical diathesis a n d g r a m m a t i c a l diathe­ sis: doceo .- disco :: doceo . - doctor. T h e analysis of doceo into two semantic components ("facio" + "discere"), each one with its own direct object, is comparable to t h e analysis t h a t can be given of certain prefixed verbs t h a t are also constructed with the double accusative: Caes. Gall. II 5, 4 flumen Axonam . . . exercitum traducere

maturauit

when these verbs are expressed in the passive, they can also keep t h e accusative in t h e complement which depends directly on t h e preverb: Caes. ciu. III 76, 1 traductoque

exercitu flumen Genusum.

T h e lexical diathesis, t h a t has enabled us to see in t h e accusative grammaticam not an accusative of respect, b u t the direct object of t h e action of disco contained in doceo, also allows us to see in t h e dative with sum a normal indirect object, comparable to t h e indirect object of do.

3. The dative with sum and the complementary relationship sum . - habeo T h e dative construction with sum is known as "possessive dative" in tra­ ditional g r a m m a r . In other recent papers to be published at t h e same time as this one, we have shown t h a t it is misleading, terminologically as well as conceptually, to apply t h e t e r m "possessive" to this dative; 3 we have main­ tained t h a t it is not so much a specific dative as a normal use of this case, 4 a n d we have also described its historical evolution and its progressive a n d systematic replacement by t h e complementary lexeme habeo.5 T h e explanatory key to all these conclusions rests in t h e complemen­ t a r y relationship t h a t s u m + d a t i v e has with habeo. A diathetic (.-) lexical relationship exists betwen sum a n d habeo: liber mihi est .- (ego) librum habeo:

with t h e same intersubjective character as exists between a g r a m m a t i c a l passive a n d active: liber a me scribitur .- (ego) librum scribo.

F u r t h e r m o r e , habeo does not require a passive, because it is replaced by sum w i t h dative:

384

B. GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ liber mihi est (liber mihi habetur) .- (ego) librum habeo

In t h e same way fio takes t h e place of t h e passive of facio in

infectum:

(a me/mihi) liber fit .- (ego) librum facio

Obviously, fio is not the grammatical passive of facio, b u t t h e complemen­ t a r y lexical t e r m , t h a t replaces t h e non-existent passive (Lopez M o r e d a 1987: 136 f.; G arci a-Hernandez 1989: 300 f.). Given t h e complementary relationship between mihi est a n d habeo, it is convenient to make clear t h a t mihi est does not express any idea of possession. We have to do with a transitive notion a n d its expression cor­ responds to habeo, which is a synonym of possideo, although t h e former carries a m o r e general a n d abstract sense. Therefore, whenever t h e "pos­ sessive dative" is mentioned, t h e construction of sum receives a n inappro­ p r i a t e n a m e , since it is only characteristic of t h e complementary content of habeo.6 This confusion in b o t h terminology and concept is as serious as confusing a passive with its respective active. If mihi est liber were a pos­ sessive construction, since it can be transformed into (ego) librum habeo a n d , moreover, it is normally translated into a possessive construction ("I have a b o o k " ) , t h e n we could say t h a t copiae augentur is likewise active, as it can also be transformed into copias augent, a n d also be t r a n s l a t e d into a n active construction ("They are increasing the t r o o p s " ) . If our gram­ m a t i c a l conscience does not allow a passive to be confused with a n active, why do we have to accept a confusion of lexical t e r m s t h a t have different diathesis? As a result of a t t r i b u t i n g a possessive meaning to it, t h e dative with sum is considered an abnormal usage of this case, without realizing t h a t it is not different from other datives (Rubio 1966: 148 f.), as it is shown by t h e historical s u b s t i t u t i o n of habeo for mihi est: — — habeo: — habeo: —

dat. of possession : seruus mihi est .- seruum habeo: dat. of the agent : seruus mihi emptus est .- seruum

emptum

sympathetic dat. : Dauus mihi seruus est .- Dauum

seruum

dat. iudicantis : Dauus mihi seruus est .- Dauum seruum habeo (uidetur) (esse duco): — double dat. : (hoc laudi mihi est) .- hoc laudi habeo.

T h e complementary correspondence between mihi est a n d habeo is proof of t h e semantic unity of these datives t h a t receive different classifications in t r a d i t i o n a l g r a m m a r . In addition, it must be taken into consideration t h a t t h e notion of possession (librum habeo) has ended u p by prevailing in b o t h R o m a n c e

FROM LEXEMICS TO SYNTAX

385

and Germanic languages over the notion of the existence of something in relation to someone (liber mihi est). From Indo-European to Latin (Meillet 1924: Benveniste 1966) and from Latin to the Romance languages, the expression of possession (habeo, teneo, possideo) has progressively gained ground with respect to the expression of existence (sum). In the evolu­ tion of Latin a time arrives when the construction mihi est needs to be explained in popular language by the glose habeo (Löfstedt, B. 1963: 80): CGL IV 177, 47 sunt mici : habeo

The close complementary relationship between mihi est and habeo that has served us in order to explain such facts, and the complementary re­ lationship, that the same verb si£ra-|-dative holds with respect to do, will help us now to determine the degree of dependency of this dative on sum.

4. Degree of dependency of the dative on sum and the complementary relationship sum .- do Other scholars have already expressed their views on the matter of the degree of dependency of the dative on sum. Benveniste (1966: 197) re­ gards this dative as a marginal case. Scherer (1975: 46) considers it a free expansion of the verb, and Happ (1976: 497), on the contrary, an obligatory complement. Bolkestein (1983: 79 f.) describes it as an oblig­ atory constituent (argument), rather than optional (satellite), in view of the possibility that this dative has to govern reflexive pronouns (erat ei hospes par sui, Plaut. Rud. 49) and of its animate character. According to Pinkster (1988: 29 f.), the dative with sum is exactly a "complement" (Komplement)] in other words, that argument which does not work as either subject or object in divalent verbs and, therefore, does not become a subject in the passive transformation. Indeed, this dative is a fundamental actant in the existential pre­ dication of sum and what is marginal is the possesive notion which the grammarians have been attributing to it since ancient classical times. The complementary relationships of sum with habeo and with do can clear up the degree of dependency of the dative on sum. Mihi est and habeo are complementary terms that exchange the functions of their actants as passive and active sentences do. In the sentence filio liber est the dative is the indirect object of est and constitutes an actant that is as close to the verb as the subject is to habeo (filius librum habet).7 On the other hand, the dative in question is the indirect object of sum with the same rank as it is of do in the sentence pater filio librum dat

B. GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ

386

(cf. Pinkster 1988: 29). The three previous sentences constitute only one process of three complementary actions (do -. sum + dat. .- habeo)\ and each of these actions corresponds to the perspective of one of the three act ants involved in the process (Garcia-Hernandez 1989: 293 f.): pater librum filio dat .liber filio est .librum filius habet.8

The relationship between the three complementary actions is intersubjec­ tive (pater .- liber .-filius) and, therefore, diathetic. The lexical diathesis to be found in pater librum filio dat .- liber filio est

is comparable to the grammatical diathesis of do: pater librum filio dat .- liber filio datur.

The sentences liber filio datur and liber filio est, both complementary of the active of do, are in an intrasubjective relation: that is, they have the same subject (liber) and, consequently, the difference between them cannot be diathetic. On the contrary, they compose an aspectual sequence ( ) of non-resultative and resultative terms: liber filio datur

liber filio est

Let us establish a simple parallel. The intersubjective relationship between do and sum -(-dative is analogous to the one that exists between iacio and iaceo: pater librum in terram iacit .liber in terra iacet;

and this diathetic relationship is comparable to the one that exists between iacio and iacior: pater librum in terram iacit .liber in terra iacitur.

In turn, iacitur finds itself in an aspectual intrasubjective relation with iacet (liber iacitur iacet): the first term is non-resultative and the second is resultative, as the difference in their respective regimes shows, lative (in terram iacitur) and locative (in terra iacet). The intrasubjective sequence formed by liber filio datur — liber filio est is analogous to that which is composed by liber in terram iacitur liber in terra iacet. Given this sequential link between datur and est it is

FROM LEXEMICS TO SYNTAX

387

useless to try and see in filio est a different dative from that which there is in filio datur, for the dynamic meaning of datur is not reflected in a case variation such as that of iacitur (in terram) with respect to iacet (in terra)] thus filio is an indirect object with either verb 9 . The dative of sum is not different, nor does it serve a syntactic func­ tion different from that of the dative with any other transitive or intran­ sitive verb: Plaut. Amph. 402 quod mihi praedicas uitium, id tibi est.

Here tibi is not a different dative from that of mihi. Any different shade that might be perceived must be attached to the respective verb, but not to the dative case, which is identical with both verbs. This identity might be seen more clearly if the dative had the same referent with both verbs: Verg. ecl. 2. 36-37 est mihi disparibus septem compacta cicutis fistula, Damoetas dono mihi quam dedit olim

The action of do is causative as much with respect to sum with dative as to habeo; therefore, an order of events is often established between them, which is reflected in the choice of tenses (mihi dedit .- mihi est; dedisti .habeo): Plaut. Truc. 960 10 tu dedisti iam, < h i c > daturust: istuc habeo, hoc expeto.

The dative of sum, then, is an obligatory complement. Without it, sum would cease to be the complementary term of do and habeo and would go over to another of the various classemic systems in which this verb operates. The main system in which sum takes part is not that of attribution of something (do .- sum .- habeo), but that of the constitution of the being (facio .- fio sum: cf. faire .- devenir être] make .become — be] machen .- werden — sein. etc.). This is a more general and elementary system and its terms have gone through partial shifts similar to the historic replacement of sum with dative by habeo ; hence fio lends its perfect, fui, to sum and the space that it leaves is covered by the passive perfect (factus sum) of facio: intersubjective opposition (diathetic) facio factus sum

fio; ►

intrasubjective opposition (aspectual) fio fui

►

sum.

The shift of the perfect fui is realized within the aspectual sequence fio — sum, whereas the passive character of j'actus sum manifests the diathetic relationship of facio .- fio (Garcia-Hernandez 1982; Lopez Moreda 1987:

388

B. GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ

136 f.). The terms of the aspectual sequence liber fit — liber est are also those of the sequence liber filio datur — liber filio est] and the expression of the dative is as necessary in the second term (filio est) as in the first (filio datur). If the dative of do is dative by definition, since it is a casus dandi, as Varron (ling. X 65) called it, it is not less true for the dative of sum, as a complementary term of do. Nonetheless, someone could object that in the construction filio est it is as mistaken to call filio dative as it is to call it "possessive", for a label is given to the sum case that should specifically only correspond to the do case (pater filio dat). Nevertheless, the name "dative", in principle applied to the do case, was attributed by generalisation to the same case with other verbs. Therefore, it is an appropriate name. What does not make sense is to call the dative of sum "possessive", attributing to it the content corresponding to habeo, the other complementary term that precisely does not govern a dative. Words are not isolated in a language system; on the contrary, they are intertwined in bundles of classemic relationships. So, do is part of a complementary system (.-) with sum and both govern the same dative case (pater librum filio dat .- liber filio est : datur). On the other hand, do is also part of an alternative system (|) with antonyms such as adimo that are equally constructed with a dative (pater librum filio dat \ pater librum filio adimit); and, in addition, it forms a sequential system (—) with nonresultative terms such as "promise" and "offer" that also govern the dative (pater librum filio pollicetur — offert — dat). It can not be denied that the dative construction is characteristic of the complex classemic system of do, of which the above mentioned verbs are only a rough sketch (cf. Martin Rodriguez 1984; García-Hernández 1987). There may be other verbs, used as often or more frequently, that govern the dative, such as the complementary pairs "to order" .- "to obey", "to show" .- "to appear", or the alternative "to look alike" | "to be different"; but there does not seem to be such a complex system, with so many units governing the dative as there is in the case of "to give". The "to say" verbs may be more frequent, according to De Mauro (1965: 155 ff.), but with them the dative does not have such a permanent character as with "to give"; for the same reason, there is no complementary term for "to say" as qualified to govern dative as sum is in relation to do. The classemic system of do, in addition to being the most characteristic of the verbs governing a dative, is also somewhat analogous to any other among those that govern a dative. Therefore, there is no objection for this case to carry the name of do, this being the most representative verb of the

FROM LEXEMICS TO SYNTAX

389

system analyzed here. And, likewise, there is no objection to call t h e dative of sum, which in t u r n is the complementary t e r m of do, simply dative. T h e r e is no scientific basis to m a i n t a i n the traditional classification of t h e possessive dative. On t h e contrary, if there is a "possessive" dative in aliquid mihi est, t h e n we can hold with t h e same a m o u n t of reason, t h a t t h e r e is a "visual" dative in aliquid mihi apparet. For if t h e notion of possession of the complementary verb habeo is a t t r i b u t e d to t h e dative of sum: aliquid mihi est .- aliquid habeo

(possideo),

we can also a t t r i b u t e t h e notion of vision of t h e complementary verb uideo to t h e dative of appareo: aliquid mihi apparet .- aliquid uideo

According to w h a t we have said, complementary lexemes constitute dia­ thetic oppositions analogous to the oppositions of t h e g r a m m a t i c a l voice: aliquid mihi est (: mihi habetur) .- aliquid habeo: aliquid mihi apparet (: mihi uidetur) .- aliquid uideo.

In conclusion, if we do not allow for t h e confusion of t h e g r a m m a t i c a l categories of active a n d passive, we should not tolerate t h e confusion of complementary lexical notions, either; such as calling t h e dative of sum "possessive", which is a dative and a verb t h a t does not indicate possession. Suum cuique.

Notes 1.

Disco is the principal complementary term of doceo, but it is not the only one. About the different meanings and constructions of doceo in the Republican and Imperial literature cf. Hus 1965: 11-162; and about the relationship of doceo with other causative synonyms (dico, moneo, ostendo, praecipio, trado, etc.) cf. Hus 1971. Of course, each one of these verbs has characteristic complementary terms (disco .- audio; moneo .- memini; ostendo - uideo; praecipio .- oboedio; trado .- accipio).

2.

A notable exception to this common opinion is that of Rubio (1966: 127 f.), who bases his explanation of the double accusative of this and other verbs on the causative diathesis that we develop here.

3.

"El dativo llamado posesivo: una confusion terminológica y conceptual", in De usu. Etudes de syntaxe latine offertes en hommage à M. Lavency. Louvain: CILL, 1993 (forthcoming).

4.

"El dativo con sum, £un dativo especifico?", in Humanitas. Fontán. Madrid: Gredos, 1992 (forthcoming).

Homenaje

a Antonio

390

B. GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ

5.

"Die komplementäre Beziehung zwischen mihi est und habeo. Seine historische Entwicklung. IF 97, 1993, 186-199.

6.

A well founded criticism of this intuitive and inexact idea of possession that the traditional grammar has attributed not only to the dative of sum, but above all to adjectives and the genitive can be found in Maurel (1989: 46 ff.). T h e Latin grammarians, Priscianus in particular, provide us with rich documentation of the trivial use of the term possessiuus (cf. García-Hernández, paper cited in Note 3). Seiler's monograph (1983), dedicated to the topic of the possession, is a clear example of the banalization of this concept. In Lavency's words (1985: 163), "le verbe esse se trouve complete par un nom animé au D. dans une construction qui correspond systématiquement à celle du verbe habere avec ce nom animé au N.": amplissimae tibi diuitiae sunt Cic. Phil. X 4 : amplissimas diutias habes.

7.

Actually, the construction of the dative of sum is no more than a type of lexical passive with habeo. 8.

Maurel (1989: 161) is right when he says that verbs such as do imply a certain idea of "possession". This is so whenever do implies habeo, to which the idea of "possession" really belongs. The procedural unity of these two verbs and of s um -(-dative may help to explain historical evolutions in a wider scope. For example, the same root *ghabh-, that yields the concept of "to give" in Germanic (Goth, giban, OHG. geban, MHG. geben, Engl. give, etc. Cf. Pokorny 1969: 407 ff.), expresses the concept of "to have" in Latin (habeo). An even clearer example is the following: whichever of the three complementary terms of the system "dat" .- "est" .- "habet" can be used to indicate the notion of existence. Hence "dat" in German (es gibt); "est" in English (there is), German (es ist), Italian (c'è), etc.; "habet" in French (il y a), Spanish (hay), Catalan (hi ha), etc.

9.

This correlation between the dative of do and of sum, that we deduce within the complementary system made up by do .- sum .- habeo, has not gone unnoticed by other grammarians: "That the dative of possessor is an outgrowth from the dative of receiver seems to me clear: nobis poma sunt data readely yields nobis poma sunt" (Fay 1911: 195; cf. Gustafsson 1904: 16).

10.

De Carvalho (1985: 787) comments on mihi est and habeo: "le latin n ' a pas une vision unique, générale et abstraite, mais deux visions particulières, successives et complémentaires, restituant les deux "moments" nécessaires de toute possession: un moment d'avant, où l'on voit l'existence du contenu x comme un apport fait à un contenant y passif, et un moment d'après, où l'on voit le contenant y "tenant" x en son pouvoir". However, it is not the temporal relationship between both constructions, but the diathetic relationship which is really important.

FROM LEXEMICS TO SYNTAX

391

References Benveniste, E. 1966. "Etre et avoir dans leurs fonctions linguistiques." In: de linguistique générale, 186-207. Paris: Gallimard.

Problèmes

Bolkestein, A.M. 1983. "Genitive and dative possessors in Latin." In: S.C. Dik (ed.) Advances in functional grammar, 55-91. Dordrecht: Foris. Coseriu, E. 1977. Principios

de semántica

estructural.

Madrid: Gredos.

Carvalho, P. de 1985. Nom et déclinaison. Recherches morp ho syntaxiques sur le mode de représentation du nom en latin. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires. Mauro, T. de 1965. "Il nome del dativo e la teoria dei casi greci." Atti delV Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti 20, 151-211.

Accademia

Fay, E.W. 1911. "The Latin dative: nomenclature and classification." CQ 5, 185-195. García-Hernández, B. 1980. Semántica Barcelona: Editorial Avesta.

estructural

y lexemdtica

del verbo. Reus y

García-Hernández, B. 1982. "El desplazamiento secuencial de fui ( = iui)" Adas VI Congres o Espaňol de Estudios Clâsicos II, 331-340. Madrid: Gredos.

del

García-Hernández, B. 1985. "Le système de l'aspect verbal en latin." In: Ch. Touratier (éd.) Syntaxe et latin. Actes du / / e m e Congrès International de Linguistique La­ tine, 515-534. Aix en Provence: Publications Université de Provence. García-Hernández, B. 1987. "Estructuras léxicas en los epigramas de Marcial: pedir .dar (| negar) .- recibir tener" In: Adas del Simposio sobre Marco Valerio Marcial, poeta de Bilbilis y de Roma II, 241-258. Zaragoza: Diputación Provincial. García-Hernández, B. 1989. "Complémentarité lexicale et voix verbale." In: Gu. Calboli (éd.) Subordination and other topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Col­ loquium on Latin Linguistics, 289-309. Amsterdam: Benjamins. García-Hernández, B. 1991. "The lexical system of intersubjective and intrasubjective relationship." In: R. Coleman (ed.) New studies in Latin linguistics. Selected Papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, 127-147. Amsterdam: Benjamins. GustafFson, F. 1904. De dativo latino. Helsinki: O. Weilin Sz G. Aktiebolag. Happ. H. 1976. Grundfragen einer Dependenzgrammatik Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hus, A. 1965. Docere et les mots de la famille

des Lateinischen.

Göttingen:

de docere. Paris: P U F .

Hus, A. 1971. "Docere et les verbes de sens voisin en latin classique." RPh 45, 258-273. Lavency, M. 1985. Vsus: Grammaire

latine. Paris &; Gembloux: Duculot.

Löfstedt, B. 1963. "Zum lateinischen possessiven Dativ." ZVS 78, 64-83. Lopez Moreda, S. 1987. Los grupos lexematicos de "facio" y "ago" en el latin arcaico y clásico. Estudio estructural. Universidad de Leon: Servicio de Publicaciones. Martin Rodriguez, A.M. 1984. Análisis semántico del grupo lexemático de "do" en el latin arcaico. Memoria de Licenciatura (unpublished). Universidad de Leon. Maurel, J.-P. 1989. Le syntagme nominal en latin. Les emplois du génitif chez Plaute et Térence, Tome I. Thèse d'Etat (unpublished). Université de Strasbourg.

392

B. GARCÍA-HERNÁNDEZ

Meillet, A. 1924. "Le développement du verbe avoir." In: Antidôron. Wackernagel, 9-13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Festschrift

J.

Pinkster, H. 1988. Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Tübingen: Francke. Pokorný, J. 1969. Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch I—II. Bern & München: Francke. Rubio, L. 1966. Introducción a la sintaxis estructural ciones. Barcelona: Ariel.

del latin, Vol.I. Casos y preposi-

Scherer, A. 1975. Handbuch der lateinischen Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.

Problèmes de composition nominale, en latin Léon Nadjo Université de Tours

La plupart des études consacrées à la composition nominale en grec ou en latin se sont d'abord bornées au classement des différents types de composés selon la nature de leurs membres au regard des parties du dis­ cours et du fait phonétique intervenu à la jonction des deux termes. Un excellent exemple de cette tendance purement descriptive et classificatoire est illlustré par Fr. Stolz (1877), dans sa plaquette intitulée Die lateinische Nominal-Composition in formaler Hinsicht, avec sa bipartition 1 "Forma­ tion der Stämme im ersten Gliede" (1877: 13-52); "Formation des zweiten Gliedes" (1877: 53-72). Sans doute de telles enquêtes sont-elles utiles, mais elles abordent très rarement les vrais problèmes linguistiques soulevés par ce procédé de la for­ mation des mots, même lorsque leurs titres peuvent laisser croire à cette inflexion heureuse. Ainsi est-on déçu, de ce point de vue, par l'extrême pauvreté de la courte étude de Franciscus Skutsch (1888), De nominum latinorum compositione quaestiones selectae. Il s'agit, il est vrai, d'une dis­ sertation philologique où sont étudiés les types de composés (1888: 5-14), la disposition de leurs membres et les composés qui commencent par un verbe (1888: 14-24), les composés copulatifs (1888: 24-32), enfin les com­ posés commençant par un numéral (1888: 32-38). Quand, sans méconnaître la nécessité d'une telle tendance, les cher­ cheurs en sont venus à situer leurs enquêtes sur un terrain plus proprement linguistique, les solutions généralement proposées nous semblent avoir été gâtées par une volonté de systématisation qui ne prend pas en compte la richesse du phénomène, la souplesse et la liberté qui président à sa naissance. Ainsi de l'origine uniquement phrastique du composé, soutenue

394

L. NADJO

explicitement ou implicitement de H. Jacobi (1897) à B. Pottier (1984), en passant, par exemple, par R. Lees (19601) pour le domaine anglais et sur­ tout E. Benveniste (1967) dans Fondements syntaxiques de la composition nominale. Voilà pourquoi, depuis un peu plus d'un lustre, il nous a paru utile de multiplier les enquêtes sur tel ou tel aspect de la question, et de soumettre aujourd'hui à votre sagacité quelques solutions globales esquissées à partir de nos recherches. Nous partirons de la définition que nous proposons de la composition, qui essaie d'apporter quelques solutions à des problèmes soulevés: genèse du composé et nature de ses membres, critères d'identification, mot com­ posé et syntaxe. * *

*

La composition est la conjonction en une "unité d'image" de deux lexèmes nécessairement non grammaticalisés ou de deux termes dégrammaticalisés, pourvus d'un élément suffixal qui confère un statut morphologique à l'ensemble des lexèmes ainsi conjoints et, dans les com­ posés possessifs (bahuvrïhi), en réfère l'idée à un attributaire. Une telle définition, si elle indique, pour la genèse du composé, deux voies possibles — la seconde étant le passage, sous certaines conditions (L. Nadjo, 1989), des "syntagmes de rencontre habituelle" en composés (cf. trimuir, septemtriō,2 etc.) —, invite à analyser ainsi une forme comme pusillanimus: pusillanimus est composé des lexemes *pusill-expiimant l'idée de petitesse, d'étroitesse, et *-anim- exprimant l'idée d'esprit, qui se présentent uniquement sous forme de thèmes et auxquels s'ajoute le morphème amalgamé -us, amalgame du suffixe et de la désinence, qui s'attache non au second thème, mais à l'ensemble de la conjonction formée par les deux thèmes * pusillanim-, dont il synthétise les notions, qu'il ad­ jective, ici, et dont il rapporte la qualité exprimée à l'être ou à l'objet qualifiés. Cette analyse rompt avec la tradition selon laquelle si, dans les com­ posés nominaux indo-européens, le thème du premier membre est nu, c'est le second membre qui porte le poids morphologique. Ainsi lit-on dans A. Meillet et J. Vendryes (1960 3: 424). "Ce qui définit la composition no­ minale en indo-européen, c'est que le premier terme est un thème sans désinence" et, un peu plus loin (ibid. 430): "Le second terme étant fléchi conserve en principe la flexion qu'il possède par lui-même". Une telle vue

PROBLEMES DE COMPOSITION NOMINALE, EN LATIN

395

est démentie p a r l'existence, ici, du doublet pusillanimis (Sidoine Apol­ linaire, Epist., 7, 17), qui en m o n t r e le caractère illusoire et conforte n o t r e analyse précédente. Mais, du coup, se trouve posé le problème du s t a t u t , au point de vue synchronique, des membres ainsi conjoints. Sans doute ce point n'a-t-il été soulevé, chez la plupart des analystes, q u ' à propos du premier m e m b r e considéré seul comme u n thème nu. Gageons, toutefois, que l'explication avancée p a r eux aurait été valable pour le second m e m b r e , s'ils en avai­ ent reconnu la vraie n a t u r e . Or, depuis G. Curtius (1867: 100), repris sur ce point p a r exemple par A. Bergaigne (1878: 4), E. Benveniste (1935: 98-99), A. Meillet et J. Vendryes (1960 3 : 421, par. 631), Fr. Bader (1962: 18-19), les thèmes nus ont été considérés comme les vestiges d ' u n état préflexionnel indo-européen, qu'on y voie comme G. C u r t i u s , des "anachronismes" (1867: 100), ou, comme Fr. Bader, des "archaïsmes" (Bader 1962: 19). Cette trouvaille ingénieuse et séduisante nous laisse p o u r t a n t scepti­ que, car, outre la méfiance que nous inspirent les explications qui relèguent les faits linguistiques dans u n passé mythique, l'hypothèse soutenue p a r ces linguistes ne vaut pas toujours en matière de composition nominale, ne serait-ce q u ' à cause de la possibilité, déjà signalée, pour certains jux­ taposés de devenir, sous certaines conditions, des composés. Aussi nous semble-t-il plus judicieux de parler de thèmes non fléchis, parfois m ê m e figés, comme dans triumuir, où l'absence d'accord en n o m b r e prouve le figement, si cher à H. Frei, de trium et la lexicalisation de la forme. Parler de lexemes nécessairement non grammaticalisés ou de deux termes dégrammaticalisés, c'est suggérer la p r i m a u t é des contenus notionnels des lexemes, c'est suggérer la valeur prédominante du critère les lexemes non grammaticalisés sémantique. Ainsi, dans pusillanimus, *pusill- et *-anim- sont-ils identifiables sémantiquement et non g r a m m a ­ ticalement à pusillus (adj. dim.) et à animus (subst.) ou anima (subst.), mais plus vraisemblablement animus, parce que pusillus animus3 est at­ testé chez Cicéron. Voilà pourquoi, même si le mot composé est "un si­ gne lexical motivé", "la catégorie syntaxique" des lexemes conjoints nous paraît "un facteur secondaire", comme l'est celle de la base d ' u n dérivé, selon l'hypothèse de G. Serbat (1988: 68). P o u r t a n t , cette référence aux parties du discours est multiséculaire. O n la trouve, p a r exemple, déjà au VI e siècle de n o t r e ère, dans les Institutiones Grammaticae (livre V) de nominibus, Priscien de Césarée: Nomina utro componuntur uel cum aliis ut "omniparens", "paterfamilias", uel cum uerbis, ut "armiger", "lucifer", uel cum participiis, ut "senatusdecretum", "plebisscitum"',...4

396

L. NADJO

E t Priscien de passer en revue toutes les autres parties du discours suscep­ tibles d'entrer dans u n composé, dans la suite de ce passage dont l'ensemble est recueilli dans les Grammatici latini de Keil (II, 179, 11 sqq.), mais où le lecteur quelque peu averti constatera la confusion, si fréquente chez les grammairiens latins, entre composés (armiger, lucifer), juxtaposés (pater­ familias) et préfixés (impudens, perfidus). Cette indication de la catégorie syntaxique des lexemes conjoints est u n e p r a t i q u e d ' a u t a n t plus courante que sa portée classificatoire est ma­ nifeste. Aussi comprend-on que R. Oniga s'y soit conformé dans son b e a u livre récent (1988), mais peut-on s'étonner de l'importance excessive qu'il lui accorde ici, "un' i m p o r t a n z a centrale per la morfologia", écrit-il (1988: 50), à propos des "categorie lessicali maggiori" (ibid.) que sont le n o m [N], l'adjectif [A], le verbe [V]. Or, une telle insistance, qui semble ignorer que la composition est au carrefour de la morphologie, avec quelques implications phonétiques, de la sémantique et de la syntaxe, peut égarer l'analyse, être dangereuse au point de vue heuristique, dans la mesure où elle peut laisser croire que le lexeme provient nécessairement de la partie du discours indiquée, alors que la seule certitude est qu'il est en r a p p o r t sémantique avec elle. Veut-on u n argument supplémentaire en faveur de notre point de vue? O n peut le trouver dans l'analyse finalement lexicaliste faite, dès 1970, p a r N. Chomsky, dans Remarks on Nominalization, à propos du dérivé refusai — on sait qu'il y a une parenté certaine entre la dérivation et la composi­ tion, puisque les deux peuvent relever, 5 selon la r e m a r q u e judicieuse de B. P o t t i e r (1984: 164), d ' u n phénomène d ' I N T E G R A T I O N —: or, pour N. Chomsky, dans John's refusal of the offer, refusal ne provient pas d'une transformation de nominalisation de refuse, mais refuse et refusal sont deux visages d ' u n seul et "même item abstrait de la base" (cf. Chomsky 1970: 190). Ainsi en va-t-il, à notre avis, au plan synchronique, p o u r les lexèmes conjoints d ' u n composé. Ces lexèmes conjoints forment une "unité d'image", t r a d u c t i o n au plan sémantique de leur fusion synthétique en une unité nouvelle désignant u n spécifié unique. Il y a là u n des critères fondamentaux d'identification du composé nominal, si fondamental qu'il a été privilégié p a r des lingui­ stes comme A. D armesteter, K. Nyrop, C. Bally. D a n s les cas les plus favorables, ce critère est perceptible sur l'axe paradigmatique, q u a n d le composé p e u t commuter avec u n vocable simple synonyme: "oiseau-lyre" = "ménure"; "papier-monnaie" = "assignat", à une époque historique; "chien-loup" = "berger". Cette "unité d'image" est soulignée p a r u n trait prosodique, signalé déjà p a r les grammairiens latins, Diomède (Grammatici Latini, Keil —

PROBLEMES DE COMPOSITION NOMINALE, EN LATIN

397

GLK I, 433, 30), Donat (GLK IV, 371, 22), Sergius (GLK IV, 483, 25), Priscien (GLK III, 520, 22), qui répètent à l'envi que "dans les mots com­ posés, il n'y a qu'un seul accent". 6 Or, dans une langue comme le latin, l'accent est, selon la remarque judicieuse de L. Bloomfield (1970: 172), "un démarcateur de mot". 7 Malheureusement, ce critère sémantique est, parfois, si subjectif que la distinction entre syntagme et composé est malaisée, comme ont eu raison de le souligner par exemple H. Mitterand (1963: 50), A. Martinet (1969: 58), etc. Ainsi le latin uërïsimilis exprime-t-il une idée unique ou non? Est-il un composé ou un juxtaposé? A s'en tenir uniquement au critère sémantique, on peut hésiter. D'où le nécessaire recours aux critères plus objectifs que sont l'insécabilité, l'inséparabilité des éléments constitutifs, leur globalité synta­ xique, c'est-à-dire "l'impossibilité de les disjoindre par une détermination interne ou externe" (Wagner 1968: 69), point très souvent souligné par A, Martinet (1967: 10) dans ses nombreux travaux sur la synthématique. Par exemple ici, l'attestation dans les Tusculanes de Cicéron de simillimum uēri (Tusc. V , l l ) permet de lever l'hésitation née de l'insuffisance du seul critère sémantique et de ne voir dans uërïsimilis qu'un juxtaposé, au moins pour deux raisons (modalité et ordre). L'inséparabilité des éléments suppose, en effet, une certaine fixité de leur ordre, un ordre quasi canonique déterminant-déterminé en latin et dans quelques langues indo-européennes comme l'anglais, ordre que sa quasi-constance — les exceptions comme ouifer (Apicius 8, 352) "mouton sauvage", equifer(us) (Pline 28, 159) "cheval sauvage" sont très rares — fait apparaître comme un critère possible d'identification du composé. Sans doute cet ordre a-t-il été remarqué depuis longtemps, puisque A. Bergaigne (1878: 27) écrivait déjà: "(dans les composés), le terme qualifiant précède le terme qualifié et le terme régi précède le terme régissant". Mais ce constat communément fait appelle rarement, dans les travaux dépouillés, une hypothèse explicative. Peut-être cet ordre favorise-t-il l'intégration du déterminant au déterminé, car la "tête" du syntagme est, pour ainsi dire, le second élément que détermine le premier, d'où la nécessité de prendre en compte l'ensemble (v. Nadjo 1989: 10). Il nous faut enfin signaler quelques indices d'intégration phoni­ que, morpho-syntaxi que, qui peuvent aider au repérage des composés: l'écrasante prépondérance, à la jonction des deux membres, de la voy­ elle -z-; la possibilité de servir de bases à des dérivés: ainsi l'attestation de triumuirâlis8 "des triumvirs" (ex.: triumuirale supplicium [Tacite, Anna­ les 5, 9] "pendaison") nous paraît-elle, parmi d'autres indices, susceptible de nous aider à voir dans triumuir un composé.

398

L. NADJO

Voilà une gamme de critères qui peuvent favoriser le repérage du composé nominal latin. Qu'on est loin de ces analyses transformationnelles qui ont voulu assigner origine uniquement et purement phrastique au composé nominal! Voilà qui nous invite à nous interroger, une fois de plus, brièvement sur ce point. * *

*

Pour les faits gréco-latins et même, en partie, français, il faut rappe­ ler, ici, l'article essentiel et au titre programmatique d'E. Benveniste (1967: 15-31), Fondements syntaxiques de la composition nominale, article dont l'orientation générativo-transformationnelle frappe. E. Benveniste y sou­ tient, dès le début, que "La composition nominale est une micro-syntaxe. Chaque type de composé est à étudier comme la transformation d'un type d'énoncé syntaxique libre" (ibid.: 15). Et, dans sa conclusion, il nous assène encore cette idée fondamentale pour lui: "Ils — il s'agit des composés — représentent la transformation de certaines propositions typiques, simples ou complexes, en signes nominaux" (ibid.: 30). Il y là une conception qui, comme nous l'avions montré ailleurs (L. Nadjo, 1984: 142-143), s'inscrit dans une tradition qui affleure déjà dans Les idées latentes du langage de M. Bréal (1868: 17) et apparaît plus nettement chez A. Darmesteter (1894: 5), voire chez C. Bally (1944: 98). Il y a là une conception déjà mise en oeuvre par R. Lees, au chapitre IV de The Grammar of English Nominalizations, dont la première édition est de 1960 et où Lees ramène, par exemple, les composés nominaux anglais à huit noyaux phrastiques, "kernel sentences", huit phrases-types compor­ tant, en structure profonde, différents rapports grammaticaux dont voici, par exemple, les trois premiers: "I. II. III.

— Subject — Predicate Ex.: girl-friend < the friend is a girl. — Subject — Middle Object Ex.: marrow bone < the bone has marrow. — Subject — Verb Ex.: crybaby < the baby cries. " (Lees 1960 1 : 125)

Plus récemment, B. Pottier (1984: 157-166) dans La syntaxe in­ terne du mot, nous semble s'incrire dans cette tendance, quand il écrit: "Un modèle relationnel, fonctionnant comme pro-phrase générique, peut être considéré comme une base, historiquement probable, et heuristiquement utile, d'explication des dérivés, des composés, et des nominalisa-

PROBLEMES DE COMPOSITION NOMINALE, EN LATIN

399

tions" (ibid.: 166). Et de supposer au composé "tire-bouchons" "le s u p p o r t générique" suivant: " T O U T QUELQUE CHOSE

tire bouchon

est un (transf.)

tire-bouchons"

(ibid.: 164)

Ces genèses, malgré leur ingéniosité et leur brio, nous convainquent peu, car elles sont démenties p a r de n o m b r e u x exemples comme "francbourgeois", "prix choc", "tenue léopard" qui, loin d'appeler "la médiation d ' u n énoncé complet", naissent hors syntaxe. De plus, p r é t e n d r e u n e médiation phrastique nécessaire, c'est, selon la r e m a r q u e avisée de Nina Cat ach (1981: 32), supposer «connaître "dans la conscience du sujet" ce qui s'est réellement passé et comment cela s'est passé». Or, il nous paraît invraisemblable que la genèse du composé "antirouille" relève des différentes transformations indiquées p a r J. Dubois (1969: 176): — — — — — —

ce produit est contre la rouille; ce produit est contre rouille (phrase agrammaticale) ; ce produit qui est antirouille', ce produit antirouille', un N antirouille; un antirouille.

Quelle complexité! E t puis, le changement possible, sous certaines conditions, des j u x t a p o s é s en composés prouve que le composé peut ne pas procéder d ' u n ensemble p h r a s t i q u e . Enfin, est-il inimaginable que la phrase sorte, p a r transforma­ tion, du composé? De telles objections nous font douter de la p r é t e n d u e origine p h r a ­ stique nécessairement assignée au composé, et ce doute est plus que par­ tagé, pour les faits de composition, p a r d'illustres prédécesseurs c o m m e H. M a r c h a n d (1965: 57-71), R . - L . Wagner (1968: 65-82). Le premier, p a r exemple, après avoir attentivement examiné les analyses conduites p a r R. Lees p o u r les composés, écrit sans détour: "There is, however, one t h i n g in particular I reject in Lees'method. I do not think t h a t c o m p o u n d s can be described as t h e result of transforms" ( M a r c h a n d 1965: 58). E t p o u r t a n t , il y a place pour la syntaxe dans cette "unité syntaxi­ que minimale" (Martinet, 1975: 188) qu'est le m o t composé, pour c e t t e "syntaxe intérieure" si chère à Adolphe Régnier et qui vise à retrouver, fût-ce mentalement, le type de connexion existant entre les lexèmes con­ stitutifs d u composé. Ainsi est-ce sur la n a t u r e du r a p p o r t logique e n t r e les deux lexèmes que les grammairiens hindous ont fondé, depuis P ā n i n i , les différentes classes de composés (Nadjo 1989: 665): r a p p o r t de coordi­ nation, de d é t e r m i n a t i o n sous son triple aspect, de possession, etc.

400

L. NADJO

Au fond, peut-être avons-nous en miniature dans le mot composé la double structuration dont parle si judicieusement Jean Perrot (1978: 95) à propos des "données linguistiques", des "phrases réalisées": la structu­ ration syntaxique et la structuration informative et "leur étroite imbri­ cation", à ceci près que le sens de certains composés ne nous est connu que par une initiation, que légué par l'usage. Ainsi de "franc-bourgeois". 9 Aussi A. Grenier (1912: 42) a-t-il pu écrire que "le sens (du mot com­ posé), fixé une fois pour toutes, au moment où fut créé le mot, devient absolument conventionnel. Il ne se précise que pour les seuls initiés". * *

*

Voilà quelques réflexions dégagées des différentes enquêtes jusqu'ici menées. Pour arriver à ces idées, nous avons essayé d'être constamment docile aux faits; nous en avons inféré quelques vues théoriques dont nous nous sommes efforcé d'éprouver la validité par d'autres enquêtes. Car si la théorie nous paraît nécessaire, utile, capable de féconder la recherche, elle ne doit jamais être déconnectée du réel, ni tuer l'esprit critique, ni être une simple concession à une mode d'époque.

Notes 1.

Pour un examen plus détaillé du contenu de chacune de ces parties, voir L. Nadjo (1991).

2.

On peut avoir aussi la forme

3. 4.

"Esprit mesquin", "petit esprit", "esprit étroit". Cicéron, Fam., 2, 17, 7. "Mais les noms sont composés soit au moyen d'autres noms, comme omniparens 'qui produit toute chose', paterfamilias 'père de famille', soit au moyen de verbes, comme armiger 'qui porte des armes', lucifer 'qui apporte la lumière', soit au moyen de participes, comme senatusdecreturn 'décret du sénat', plebisscitum 'décret du peuple'."

5.

Cette nuance de possibilité est de nous. B. Pottier (1984: 164), plus catégorique, affirme: "On voit que la dérivation et la composition relèvent du même phénomène que nous appelons l'INTEGRATION du syntaxique libre vers le lexical lié:..."

6.

In conpositis dictionibus unus accentus est non minus quam in una parte orationis,... GLK, I 433, 30.

7.

Les traits prosodiques sont fort importants pour le repérage des composés dans les langues à accent. A preuve les travaux, si convaincants et si intéressants, de H. Marchand, pour l'anglais. Voir, par exemple, H. Marchand (1960).

septentriō.

PROBLEMES DE COMPOSITION NOMINALE, EN LATIN

401

8.

Horace, Epodes, 4, 11. On peut aussi citer, comme autre dérivé intéressant, triumuirātus -ūs (m.) 'commission de triumvirs', 'triumvirat', cf. Cicéron, Br., 117; Tite-Live, 9, 46, 3; etc.

9.

"Au Moyen Age, celui qui, dépendant d'un seigneur, ne participait pas aux charges municipales", selon le Petit Larousse illustré (1980: 448, s.u.).

Références Bader, Fr. 1962. La formation res.

des composés nominaux

du latin. Paris: Les Belles Lett­

Bally, Ch. 1944. Linguistique générale et linguistique entièrement refondue. Berne: A. Francke.

française.

Seconde édition

Benveniste, E. 1935. Origine de la formation des noms en indo-europén. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve. Benveniste, E. 1967. "Fondements syntaxiques de la composition nominale." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 62.1, 15-31. Bergaigne, A. 1878. "Essai sur la construction grammaticale considérée dans son développement historique en sanskrit, en grec, en latin, dans les langues roma­ nes et dans les langues germaniques." Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 3. Bloomfield, L. 1970. Le langage. Traduit de l'américain par Janick Gazio. Paris: Payot. Bréal, M. 1868. Les idées latentes du langage. Paris: Hachette. Catach, N. 1981. Orthographe et lexicographie. Les mots composés. Paris: F. Nathan. Chomsky, N. 1970. "Remarks on Nominalization." In: R.-A. Jacobs & P.-S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184-221. Waltham, Mas­ sachusetts: Ginn and Company. Curtius, G. 1887. "La chronologie dans la formation des langues indo-germaniques." Trad. par A. Bergaigne A. In: Recueil de travaux originaux ou traduits relatifs à la philologie et à l'histoire littéraire. Nouvelle série. Premier fascicule, Paris: F. Vieweg. Darmesteter, A. 1894. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. Corrigée et en partie refondue, avec une Préface de Gaston Paris. 2e édition revue, Paris: E. Bouillon. Dubois, J. 1969. Grammaire structurale formations. Paris: Larousse.

du français,

Tome 3. La phrase et ses trans­

Grenier, A. 1912. Etude sur la formation et l'emploi des composés nominaux latin archaïque. Paris & Nancy: Berger & Levrault.

dans le

Jacobi, H. 1897. Compositum und Nebensatz. Studien über die indogermanische Spra­ chentwicklung. Bonn. Lees, R.-B. 1960. "The Grammar of English Nominalizations 1 ." International Journal of American Linguistics, Volume 16, number 3. Lees, R.-B. 1963. The Grammar of English Nominalizations2. Co.

The Hague: Mouton and

402

L. NADJO

Marchand, H. 1960. The categories and types of present-day Wiesbaden: O. Harrossowitz.

English

word-formation.

Marchand, H. 1965. "The Analysis of Verbal Nexus Substantives." IF 70, 57-71. Martinet, A. 1967. "Syntagme et synthème." La linguistique 2, 1-14. Martinet, A. 1969. La linguistique. Martinet et H. Walter, Paris.

Guide alphabétique.

Martinet, A. 1975. Studies in Functional

Syntax.

München: Fink.

Meillet, A. Sz Vendryes. 1960. Traité de grammaire Paris: Champion. Mitterand, H. 1963. Les mots français.

Avec la collaboration de J.

comparée des langues classiques

.

Paris: P.U.F.

Nadjo, L. 1984. "«Septimontium», Emile Benveniste et la composition nominale." In: E. Benveniste aujourd'hui, 141-155. Louvain & Paris: Peeters. Nadjo, L. 1989. "Remarques sur la composition nominale en latin." In: Subordination and other topics in latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Lin­ guistics (Bologna, 1-5 April 1985), 655-680. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Nadjo, L. 1989. "Sur deux composés nominaux plautiniens: 'multibibus' et 'merobibus'." L'Information Grammaticale 42, 9-11. Nadjo, L. 1989. "Composition nominale et cas, en latin." Actes du Ve Colloque de Linguistique latine. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 15.1-4, 3 2 1 332. Louvain-la-Neuve. Nadjo, L. 1990. "Un aspect de la nominalisation dans le lexique latin: la composition." In: Actes du Colloque de Luxembourg, 118-135. Luxembourg. Oniga, R. 1988. I composti Patron.

nominali

latini.

Una morfologia

generativa.

Bologna:

Perrot, J. 1978. "Fonctions syntaxiques, énonciation, information." Bulletin Société de Linguistique de Paris 73.1, 85-101. Pottier, B. 1984. "La syntaxe interne du mot." In: E. Benveniste Louvain & Paris: Peeters. Serbat, G. 1988. Linguistique

latine et linguistique

aujourd'hui,

de la

157-166.

générale. Louvain-la-Neuve.

Skutsch, Fr. 1888. De nominum latinorum compositione tatio Philologica. Nissae: Typis A. Letzelii.

quaestiones

Stolz, Fr. 1877. Die lateinische Nominal-Composition in formaler Verlag der Wagner'schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung.

selectae.

Hinsicht.

Disser-

Innsbruck:

Wagner, R.-L. 1968. "Réflexions à propos des mots construits en français (au sujet du im modernen Franzö­ livre de Chr. Rohrer (1967)." Die Wortzusammensetzung sischen II—261 p.), Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 63.1, 65-82.

Analyse sémique et actancielle du verbe dare Christian Touratier Université de Provence

Nous voudrions montrer que, pour décrire d'une façon rigoureuse et systématique la signification d'un verbe comme dare, il convient de com­ biner la théorie des sèmes (c'est-à-dire des traits sémiques distinctifs) et du sémème (c'est-à-dire de l'ensemble des sèmes correspondant au signifié d'un morphème) qu'ont proposée les structuralistes et la théorie de la va­ lence formulée par Tesnière, à condition toutefois de donner à ces deux théories une formulation plus adaptée à la complexité du fonctionnement sémantique qu'on ne le fait ordinairement. 1. LE SÉMÈME DE DARE: Les dictionnaires latins ne sont pas d'un grand secours pour celui qui souhaite définir avec précision la signification d'un verbe comme dare. Le dictionnaire de Gaffiot se contente de proposer la traduction française de "donner". Les dictionnaires des synonymes ne sont guère plus prolixes. "Dare, donner, dans le sens le plus étendu", dit, sans plus de précisions, le Traité des synonymes de la langue latine de Barrault (1853; 735); "Dare, donner, faire don, accorder. Dare a une signification aussi étendue que notre mot donner", explique également le lexique des Synonymes latins de Gardin Dumesnil et Auvray (1862; 108). Il est dans ces conditions peut-être possible de partir de la définition assez suggestive que le dictionnaire des synonymes de Henri Bénac propose du verbe français donner: "Donner, mettre à la disposition de quelqu'un, sans rétribution, une chose que l'on possède ou dont on jouit pour que lui-même en ait la propriété ou l'usage" (Bénac 1956: 275),

404

C. TOURATIER

définition qui rejoint assez bien celle qu'a proposée Sénèque pour le verbe latin dare: quia uenditio alienatio est et rei suae iurisque in ea sui ad alium trans­ latie». Atqui quemadmodum uendere, sic dare aliquid a se dimittere est et id, quod tenueris, habendum alteri tradere (Sen. benef. 5,10,1) 'Car vendre c'est aliéner et transférer à autrui un bien que l'on possède et le droit qu'on a sur ce bien. Or, tout comme consiste à se séparer d'un bien et à remettre à autrui ce qu'on possédait, pour qu'il en soit le maître' (F. Préchac).

a. POSSESSION? Contrairement à ces définitions et à ce que pour­ raient suggérer les exemples latins auxquels on pense immédiatement, comme: pecuniam Pyrrhi, quam Fabricio dabat (Cic. parad. 48) 'l'argent que P. donnait à F . ' (J. Molager) (cf. Cic. Verr. 2,1,101) équités, frumentum, pecuniam <...> inuitissimi dare coacti sunt (Cic. Font. 26) ' ont été contraints de fournir la cavalerie, du blé, de l'argent, <...> à leur corps défendant' (A. Boulanger) Caesar <...> se frumentum daturum pollicetur (Caes. civ. 1,87,11) 'César promet de donner du blé' quibus illi agros dederunt (Caes. Gall. 1,28,5) 'à qui ils donnèrent des terres.'

la notion de possession ne fait pas partie des traits distinctifs de dare. Il est en effet parfaitement possible de "donner" ce qu'on ne possède pas, au sens précis et juridique du terme, c'est-à-dire ce dont on n'est pas ou on ne saurait être le propriétaire, par exemple de l'argent public: earn pecuniam publicam esse constabat datamque a Pompeio in stipen­ dium (Caes. civ. 1,23,2) 'il < é t a i t > notoire que cet argent appartenait à l'Etat, et que Pompée l'avait < d o n n é > pour le paiement de la solde' (P. Fabre).

sa fille: eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat (Caes. Gall. 1,3,5) 'et il lui donne sa fille en mariage' (L.-A. Constans).

ou encore des réalités non concrètes par rapport auxquelles la notion de propriété est dépourvue de toute pertinence: Sed quoniam aduesperascit, dabis nobis diem aliquem ut contra ista dicamus (Cic. nat. deor. 3,94) 'Mais puisque le soir approche, tu nous fixeras un jour pour que nous critiquions tes idées'; si rationem hominibus di dederunt, malitiam dederunt (Cic. nat. deor. 3,75) 'si les dieux ont donné la raison aux hommes, ils leur ont donné d'être mauvais.'

ANALYSE SÉMIQUE ET ACTANCIELLE DU VERBE DARE

405

Si ce qui est donné n'est pas forcément une propriété de celui qui donne, il ne devient pas non plus nécessairement une propriété de celui à qui on le donne: Caesar mittit ad eum (=Scipionem) A. Clodium < . . . > . Huic (=Clodio) dat litteras mandataque ad eum (Caes. civ. 3,57,1-2) 'César envoie vers Scipion A. Clodius <...> à qui il donne une lettre et des instructions pour celui-là.'

C'est uniquement lorsque ce qui passe d'une personne à l'autre est une réalité matérielle susceptible d'être possédée dans la société romaine que le verbe dare se charge d'un élément de signification impliquant la "posses­ sion". Mais cet élément sémique n'est pas un sème de ce verbe. C'est sim­ plement un trait sémique virtuel, ce que l'on appelle parfois un virtuème. On remarquera que la formulation avancée par Henri Bénac suggère que la notion de propriété ne fait pas proprement partie du sémème du verbe français, puisque le lexicographe a éprouvé le besoin, tout à fait légitime, de corriger ce qu'il pouvait y avoir d'exagéré dans la première approximation du sens de donner qui vient spontanément à l'esprit. Il dit en effet que le verbe donner s'applique à "une chose que l'on possède ou", à défaut, "dont on jouit", ce qui n'est pas exactement la même chose; et du même coup, le bénéficiaire en a ainsi "la propriété" ou, à défaut, simplement "l'usage". b. LA GRATUITE: Le composant "sans rétribution" de la définition de Bénac n'est pas non plus un trait sémique distinctif de dare. Cette valeur particulière n'apparaît en effet que lorsque, d'une façon ou d'une autre, le locuteur oppose expressément ou allusivement dare à uendere, comme dans Cic. Verr. 2,3,228 qui sera cité plus bas. C'est en fait uni­ quement parce qu'il est contextuellement opposé à un verbe qui, pour reprendre la bonne définition que Henri Bénac propose du verbe vendre, signifie, quand il est appliqué à une réalité matérielle susceptible d'être possédée, "céder à quelqu'un la propriété d'une chose pour un certain prix" (Bénac 1956: 993), et dont le sémème contient par conséquent un trait dis­ tinctif "contre de l'argent", que le verbe dare se charge alors d'un trait sémique contraire et présente un effet de sens (c'est-à-dire une variante de sens) qui ajoute à son sémème le trait contextuel de "sans rétribution". c. A LA DISPOSITION? Faut-il admettre dans le sémème de dare un trait comme "mettre à la disposition", qui est peut-être un peu trop précis et particulier? A vrai dire le trait "pour en disposer", c'est-à-dire "pour s'en servir" conviendrait fort bien à praebere, qui semble signifier "donner qque chose à qqu'un pour qu'il s'en serve":

406

C. TOURATIER praebere 'présenter, fournir' du pain (Nep. Them. 10,3)

ou p l u t ô t , vu la possibilité de tours comme: me seuerum uehementemque praebebo (Cic. Catil. 4,12) 'je me mon­ trerai sévère et rigoureux'

"présenter qque chose à q q u ' u n pour qu'il s'en serve", c'est-à-dire qque chose pour qu'il s'en serve".

"offerre

d. Nous proposerons donc comme définition sémique pour dare non pas "X met Y dont il dispose à la disposition de Z", mais "X fait passer Y qui est dans sa sphère dans la sphère de Z", où X, Y et Z représentent les trois variables concernées p a r le sens du verbe, à savoir celui qui est à l'origine du procès, c'est-à-dire celui qui donne, ce à quoi le procès est appliqué, c'est-à-dire ce qui est donné, et celui qui est le t e r m e du procès, c'est-à-dire celui à qui est donné. Ce sont les arguments qui dans la logique m o d e r n e doivent être saturés pour que le "prédicat logique" forme u n e proposition logique, ou les trois actants qu'exige le sémantisme du verbe dare et qui déterminent ce que Tesnière appelle la valence de ce verbe. O n p e u t , p a r commodité, découper cette définition en trois composants sémiques, à savoir: 1) "X fait passer", 2) "Y qui est dans sa sphère" et 3) "dans la sphère de Z". Mais il serait moins artificiel de ne pas tenir c o m p t e de la linéarité que cette définition sémique aurait s'il s'agissait d ' u n énoncé et non de la formulation métalinguistique d ' u n sémème, et de postuler trois sèmes imbriqués les uns dans les autres, à savoir 1) u n sème central "fait passer Y... d a n s " , et deux sèmes qui le complètent 2) "Y est dans la sphère de X" et 3) "dans la sphère de Z", ce qui donnerait quelque chose comme: 1) "X fait passer Y... 2) "qui est dans la sphère de X" ... dans" 3) "la sphère de Z".

Un tel sémème p e r m e t t r a d'opposer dare à u n certain n o m b r e de verbes latins de sens plus ou moins voisin, et d ' a b o r d à des lexèmes qui ajoutent aux sèmes de dare u n ou plusieurs sèmes supplémentaires, à savoir 1) reddere: "X fait passer" "Y qui est dans sa sphère" "dans la sphère de Z" "où il était préalablement" 2) uendere: "X fait passer" "contre de l'argent" "Y qui est dans sa sphère" "dans la sphère de Z" 3) dedere: "X fait passer" "définitivement" "Y qui est dans sa sphère" "dans la sphère de Z"; ce verbe en effet "contient l'idée particulière que le d o n a t e u r renonce à tous ses droits sur l'objet donné: «Simul Convenit,

ANALYSE SÉMIQUE ET ACTANCIELLE DU VERBE DARE

407

victi utri sint eo proelio, Urbem, agrum, aras, focos, seque uti dederent» (Plaut. Amph. 1,1,71 ) 4) donare: "X fait passer" "en présent" "Y qui est dans sa sphère" "dans la sphère de Z", et largiri: "X fait passer" "en présent" "et généreu­ sement" "Y qui est dans sa sphère" "dans la sphère de Z". A côté de ces lexèmes qui sont marqués par rapport à dare, puisque le sémème de dare est inclus dans leurs propres sémèmes, il y en a d'autres qui remplacent, modifient ou suppriment certains des sèmes de dare] par exemple 1) capere inverse le rôles des actants Y et Z et signifie "X fait passer" "Y qui est dans la sphère de Z" "dans la sphère de X", à quoi furari "voler, dérober" ajoute le sème "indûment"; 2) traducere supprime deux des sèmes de dare et signifie simplement "X fait passer Y dans Z", lequel est forcément un lieu; 3) tradere se distingue de traducere par le fait que son troisième actant n'est pas un lieu comme pour ce dernier verbe, mais est un animé comme dans le cas de dare. Il signifie "X fait passer Y à Z". 2. LES CONSRTUCTIONS DE DARE: Le sémème que nous postu­ lons pour dare suppose que ce verbe est trivalent. Mais il importe de bien voir d'une part que ces trois actants peuvent appartenir à des classes sémantiques différentes et d'autre part qu'à la différence des arguments de la logique des prédicats, ils peuvent très bien, dans des énoncés parti­ culiers, ne pas recevoir d'expression formelle propre. a. STRUCTURE ACTANCIELLE: Le premier et le troisième actant (le X et le Z de notre sémème) ne sont pas obligatoirement des réalités animées comme pourraient le donner à penser les exemples cités jusqu'à présent. Le premier actant peut en effet fort bien correspondre à un SN non animé tel que fors "la chance" (cf. Liv. 1,45,3), fortuna "la fortune" (cf. Cic. S. Rosc. 46), patria "la patrie" (cf. Cic. Phil. 13,14 ), natura "la nature" (cf. Cic. Quir. 2) ou hae feriae "ces jours de fête": Dabant hae feriae tibi opportunam sane facultatem ad explicandas tuas litteras (Cic. rep. 1,14) 'Ces jours de vacances te donnaient une belle occasion d'ouvrir tes livres' (E. Bréguet).

De même le troisième actant peut être un syntagme adverbial correspon­ dant normalement à la question de lieu quo puisque dare implique un changement de sphère, comme dans les expressions aliquem dare in fugam "mettre qqu'un en fuite" ou aliquem dare ad terram "jeter qqu'un à terre", où bien entendu la nuance de "cadeau, présent" ne saurait se développer,

408

C. TOURATIER

puisque le troisième actant, faute d'être animé, ne saurait être considéré comme le bénéficiaire du changement de sphère. Quant au deuxième actant, ce peut être n'importe quel SN désignant aussi bien un être animé que quelque chose de non animé, ainsi que nous l'avons vu précédemment. Il peut même être un pronom réfléchi, qui désigne donc le même individu que le premier actant. Dans un tel cas de figure, le verbe dare semble signifier simplement "placer, mettre", ce que les étymologistes expliquent en invoquant une confusion entre les deux racines indo-européennes dö- "donner" et dhë- "poser". Cette explication historique n'est peut-être pas impossible; mais au niveau synchronique, la particularité de cet emploi vient simplement de ce que le second actant est représenté par un individu qui est le même que le premier actant. En passant dans la sphère du troisième actant, le deuxième actant ne cesse pas pour autant de dépendre de lui-même, c'est-à-dire du premier actant. Le procès ne peut dans ces conditions correspondre qu'à un changement dans le comportement de cet individu. Le deuxième actant a encore la possibilité de correspondre à un con­ tenu propositionnel, exprimé soit par une subordonnée complétive ou in­ finitive, c'est-à-dire une subordonnée qui appartient au paradigme du SN: Si tibi fortuna non dedit ut patre certo nascerere (Cic. S.Rose. 46) 'si la fortune ne t'a pas donné de naître d'un père connu' (cf. Liv. 1,19,3; Tac. ann. 3,23) di tibi dent capta classem reducere Troia (Hor. sat. 2,3,191) 'que les dieux te donnent de ramener la flotte après la prise de Troie'

soit par un SN contenant un adjectif verbal: quattuor legiones in Senones Parisiosque Labieno ducendas dedit (Caes. Gall. 7,34,2) 'il donna à Labiénus quatre légions à mener contre les S. et les P.' (cf. Cic. Phil. 8,15) et confirmandorum militum causa diripiendas his ciuitates dedit (Caes. civ. 3,31,4) 'et, pour affermir le moral de ses troupes, < i l > leur donna des cités à piller' (P. Fabre) (cf. Cic. epist. 14,14,1).

On remarquera qu'à cause de la différence des contextes sémantiques, le verbe dare prend, dans l'avant-dernier exemple, le sens de "il donna à L. l'ordre de faire..." et, dans le dernier, celui de "il leur donna la permission de faire..." b. LES DIFFERENTS TYPES D'INTRANSITIVATION: Il semble parfaitement possible de rattacher à une structure trivalente toutes les constructions que les dictionnaires relèvent dans les textes, à condition d'avoir bien vu que la valence était un concept sémantique qu'il fallait

ANALYSE SÉMIQUE ET ACTANCIELLE DU VERBE DARE

409

distinguer de la transitivité, qui, elle, est un concept syntaxique. Normale­ ment un verbe trivalent se construit transitivement en faisant de ces deux derniers actants des compléments de verbe, c'est-à-dire des constituants immédiats de SV qui sont en même temps des adjonctions de V. Mais ce même verbe peut, sans pour autant changer de valence, recevoir une construction intransitive, c'est-à-dire être employé avec un seul ou même avec aucun complément de verbe. Il reste alors sémantiquement trivalent, parce que son interprétation sémantique suppose toujours trois actants. Et sa seule particularité vient de ce qu'il est communicativement inutile, superflu, ou même impossible de spécifier l'actant ou les actants non men­ tionnés. Par exemple dans un cas comme etiamne haec noua debent edicta et <...> Veneriorum seniorum furta rapinasque ferre? etiamne frumentum pro empto gratis dare? etiamne in cellam cum cupiant gratis dare, ultro pecuniam grandem addere? (Cic. Verr. 2,3,228) 'Est-ce que doivent supporter en­ core ces édits nouveaux et <...> les vols et les rapines des esclaves de Vénus? Doivent-ils donner gratuitement le froment qui doit être acheté? Doivent-ils encore, lorsqu'ils demandent à donner gra­ tuitement <...> pour le grenier privé, doivent-ils de plus ajouter < . . . > une grande somme d'argent?' (H. de la Ville de Mirmont)

le verbe dare est dans la deuxième phrase construit avec un seul complément de verbe, mais cela n'empêche pas les Siciliens d'avoir à don­ ner à quelqu'un le froment qu'on leur réclame. Ce quelqu'un n'a tou­ tefois aucune importance: ce qui, pour Cicéron, est scandaleux ce n'est pas que les Siciliens remettent à telle ou telle personne du froment, mais qu'ils soient obligés de donner le froment qu'ils devraient tout norma­ lement vendre. Dans la troisième phrase, le verbe dare n'a plus aucun complément de verbe; mais tout lecteur comprend que le second actant doit être tiré du mot frumentum qui précède et est donc en quelque sorte "fourni", comme le disait Blinkenberg, par le contexte. Dans ces deux cas, comme dans ses autres emplois intransitifs, le verbe dare n'en est pas moins sémantiquement trivalent: et c'est toujours à partir d'un sémantisme tri­ valent que l'on construit l'interprétation qu'il convient de lui reconnaître dans chacun des énoncés particuliers où il se trouve. c. DES CONSTRUCTIONS PARTICULIERES: A côté des construc­ tions intransitives où certains actants ne reçoivent pas d'expression synta­ xique, le verbe dare apparaît dans des syntagmes qui contiennent d'autres constituants que les deux compléments de verbe attendus. Ces consti­ tuants sont ordinairement des circonstants, c'est-à-dire des constituants immédiats de SV qui sont en même temps des expansions de SV, et

410

C. TOURATIER

cela même dans les tours apparemment délicats avec double datif ou avec complément à la question de lieu quo, où l'on pourrait être tenté d'admettre un quatrième actant. La variante à l'accusatif du morphème /in...Abl./ à la question quo affecte ordinairement le complément des verbes qui expriment un change­ ment de lieu. Mais rien en soi ne l'empêche d'apparaître aussi quand le syntagme adverbial de lieu est un circonstant, comme dans: Emi atque argentum dedi, Minas quadraginta, adulescenti ipsi in manum (Plaut. Trin. 125-126) 'Je la lui ai achetée, et je lui ai donné l'argent, quarante mines, à lui-même, en mains propres' (P. Grimai) (cf. Plaut. Trin. 130-131)

où in manum apporte une précision supplémentaire qui n'est nullement ap­ pelée par le sémantisme du verbe une fois que le SN adulescenti ipsi spécifie le troisième actant, mais qui est néanmoins le point d'aboutissement phy­ sique du changement de sphère exprimé par dare. Dans le double datif de si despicere se dicant ea quae plerique mirentur, imperia et magistratus, iis non modo non laudi, uerum etiam uitio dandum puto (Cic. off. 1,71) 'ils disaient mépriser ces pouvoirs et ces charges que la plupart admirent, j'estime que non seulement il ne faudrait pas leur en faire gloire, mais même leur en faire grief' (M. Testard)

le datif non animé est un circonstant, même lorsqu'il apporte une colora­ tion particulière qui empêche d'utiliser en français le verbe donner, comme c'est le plus souvent le cas, ou lorsque sa présence est ce qui permet, comme dans: cum in accusatione sua Q. Gallio crimini dedisset sibi eum uenenum parauisse <...> (Cic. Brut. 277) 'comme dans son accusation il avait fait grief à Q. Gallius d'avoir tenté de l'empoisonner' (cf. Cic. Verr. 2,1,12)

de donner au deuxième actant un contenu propositionnel. Le cas de l'attribut du complément de verbe est différent. S'il n'est pas impossible de retrouver dans un exemple comme coactos esse Sequanis obsides dare nobilissimos ciuitatis (Caes. Gall. 1,31) 'ils avaient été réduits à donner en otage aux Séquanes leurs premiers citoyens' (L.-A. Const ans) (cf. Cic. rep. 1,19)

la signification attendue de "donner", cela paraît beaucoup plus difficile à propos d'une phrase comme:

ANALYSE SÉMIQUE ET ACTANCIELLE DU VERBE DARE

411

dat iste uiros optimos reciperatores (Cic. Verr. 2,3,54) "cet homme désigne comme récupérateurs de très honnêtes gens" (H. de la Ville de Mirmont).

II est alors bien t e n t a n t de considérer que, dans les deux cas, l ' a t t r i b u t du complément de verbe fait, comme le complément de verbe lui-même, partie de la valence du verbe. Mais plutôt que de postuler u n verbe dare quadrivalent homonyme de dare trivalent, il nous semble préférable, à cause de la p a r e n t é sémantique que l'éventuel verbe quadrivalent entretient manifestement avec le verbe dare trivalent, de dire que le complément d'objet et son a t t r i b u t représentent non pas deux a c t a n t s différents, mais les deux éléments constitutifs d ' u n seul actant propositionnel. Il s'agirait alors de constructions analogues à is me heredem fecit (Plaut. Poen. 1070) 'il m'a fait son héritier' In quo potes me dicere ingratum? (Cic. Phil. 2,6) 'En quoi peux-tu me dire ingrat?'

qui sont les équivalents sémantiques de "il a fait que je suis son héritier" et de "peux-tu dire que je suis i n g r a t ? " , et qui construisent avec deux compléments des verbes sémantiquement bivalents à second actant propo­ sitionnel. Avec u n e telle façon de voir, le verbe dare ne cesse pas d'être sémantiquement trivalent, tout en é t a n t syntaxiquement construit avec trois compléments de verbe. Au point de vue de la signification, il subit, lorqu'il se voit ainsi affecter une telle construction syntaxique, soit le modèle analogique du verbe facere, comme dans l'exemple de César, où il p r e n d le sens de "faire, en les donnant, que des personnes sont des ota­ ges", soit celui du verbe dicere, comme dans l'exemple de Cicéron, où il présente le sens de "dire, en donnant leur nom, que des personnes sont des r é c u p é r a t e u r s " (cf. Touratier 1991: 120-123). E n dehors de ce cas délicat, tous les autres constituants qui ent­ rent éventuellement dans u n SV dont le noyau est le verbe dare sont, à l'évidence, des circonstants, que ce verbe soit syntaxi quement construit avec tous ses actants: littera ad te numquam habui cui darem, quin dederim (Cic. epist. 12,19,3) 'je n'ai jamais eu quelqu'un à qui donner une lettre pour toi sans que je le fasse' <...> quo plures det sibi tanquam ansas ad reprehendum (Cic. Lael. 59) 'pour qu'il donne plus souvent prise à la critique, en quelque sorte' (R. Combes)

ou qu'il soit intransitivé: <...> me ubi uoles nuptum dare (Plaut. Pers. 383) 'lorsque tu voudras me donner en mariage'

412

C. TOURATIER

3. LES SENS DE DARE: Si le verbe dare a bien toujours une signifi­ cation trivalente, le sémème que nous lui avons reconnu permet-il de rendre compte de tous les sens que les dictionnaires lui attribuent? Bon nombre de ces sens différents peuvent aisément être considérés comme des réalisations particulières de notre sémème, c'est-à-dire comme des variantes de sens ou des effets de sens dus aux particularités mêmes du contexte linguistique ou aux particularités de la situation désignée. C'est ainsi que dans la langue juridique, dare, quand il s'agit d'un préteur, veut dire "donner à qui de droit le nom d'un juge, et donc désigner un juge", conformément à l'une des attributions officielles et bien connues du préteur: (Il n'y avait pas de juges choisis sur la liste de la circonscription. Cette troupe de juges, dont je parle, ce n'était pas la cohorte de Q. Scaevola) qui tarnen de cohorte sua dare non solebat (Cic. Verr. 2,2,34) 'qui pourtant n'avait pas l'habitude de désigner des juges dans sa cohorte, (mais c'était la cohorte de Verres)'

Par contre poenam dare que l'on traduit couramment par "subir un châtiment" ou "être puni" ne fait difficulté que parce qu'on a l'habitude d'attribuer à poena la signification de "peine, châtiment", alors que ce mot signifie en fait "réparation, compensation pour une faute". Le problème est alors un problème de traduction et non pas de signification; car si c'est le juge par exemple qui donne un châtiment ou une peine, c'est le justiciable qui donne une réparation. Et quand, à propos d'un jugement par exemple, on traduit par "peine, châtiment" un mot qui signifie "compensation", il faut obligatoirement, pour préserver le sens, inverser les relations entre les personnes concernées, comme dans Mihi poenarum illi plus quam optarem dederunt (Cic. Phil. 2,1) 'A ceux-là j ' a i fait expier leur crime plus durement que je ne le souhaitais' (P. Wuilleumier) (cf. Cic. AU. 9,10,2)

où le complément de verbe indiquant, en latin, le destinataire du procès devient le sujet dans la traduction française. Mais si on traduit poenam par "réparation" ou "rançon", il est alors parfaitement possible d'employer, en français, le verbe "donner" exactement comme dans l'expression latine poenam dare, et, cette fois, sans inverser les rôles des actants. Dans la langue militaire, nomina dare se dit des jeunes recrues, qui "donnent leur nom (aux recruteurs)" et prend ainsi le sens de "s'enrôler pour le service militaire" (cf. Cic. Phil 7,13). Par contre manus dare se dit des soldats vaincus, qui "donnent les mains <à l'ennemi>" et par conséquent "se rendent" (cf. Caes. Gal. 5,31,3; Nep. Ham. 1,4); et quand il ne s'agit pas de soldat, comme dans

ANALYSE SÉMIQUE ET ACTANCIELLE DU VERBE DARE

413

atque ad extremum det manus uincique se patiatur (Cic. Lael. 99) '(le flatteur) à la fin se rend et se laisse vaincre'

le contexte permet de comprendre que l'on a affaire à u n e m é t a p h o r e militaire. Lorsqu'on dit des soldats terga dare, cela signifie qu'ils "donnent leurs dos (à l'ennemi, actant non exprimé)" au lieu de lui faire face, et p a r conséquent qu'ils prennent la fuite (cf. Liv. 22,29,5; 36,38,4). Mais il arrive que le troisième a c t a n t soit explicité, comme dans: Inter duas acies Etrusci, cum in uicem his atque illis terga darent, occidione occisi (Liv. 2,51,9) 'Pris entre les deux armées, les Etrusques, tournant tour à tour le dos aux uns et aux autres, furent complètement massacrés.'

P a r contre lorsqu'on dit hostes in fugam dare (cf. Caes. Gall. 4,26,5; 5,51,5), le complément de lieu à la question quo est le troisième actant du verbe, comme nous l'avons remarqué plus h a u t et comme le confirme la possibilité de le remplacer p a r u n constituant au datif (cf. Cic. Att. 7,23,2). L'expression veut donc dire alors "faire passer l'ennemi de sa pro­ pre sphère, c'est-à-dire de la ligne où on l'affronte, à la fuite" et donc "le m e t t r e en fuite", effet de sens qui est tout à fait parallèle à celui de l'expression hostes in fugam conicere (cf. Caes. Gall. 3,6,2; 4,12,2). Une telle signification serait p a r contre impossible avec le verbe ponere, qui, lui, se construit avec u n complément de lieu à la question ubi et n o n à la question quo. P onere est donc inapte à indiquer le passage d ' u n lieu à u n a u t r e ou d ' u n état à u n a u t r e , alors que ce changement de sphère fait naturellement partie de la signification que nous avons admise pour dare. La seule chose u n peu étonnante est qu'il ne soit pas possible d'employer le verbe français donner dans le m ê m e contexte. A vrai dire, la particularité de l'expression latine vient moins de la situation militaire ainsi désignée que de la possibilité de construire dare en lui donnant comme troisième ac­ t a n t u n complément à la question quo. Cette particularité se retrouve dans les expressions aliquem ad terram dare "jeter q q u ' u n à terre" ( cf. P l a u t . Capt. 797; Liv. 31,37,9), in uiam se dare "se m e t t r e en r o u t e " (cf. Cic. in pistrinum dare "précipiter q q u ' u n epist. 14,12), aliquem praecipitem t ê t e première au moulin" (cf. Ter. Andr. 214), et dans certaines expressi­ ons où le complément de lieu n ' a pas une signification proprement spatiale comme se dare ad lenitatem "se ranger du côté de l'indulgence" (cf. Cic "se lancer dans u n exercice" (cf. epist. 13,1,4), se dare in exercitationem Cic. acad. 1,7).

C. TOURATIER

414

4. DIFFERENCES D'EMPLOI D'AVEC DONNER: Si on fait une analyse sémantique du verbe français donner, on est amené à postuler exactement le même sémème que pour dare. Mais le verbe français entre dans un champ sémantique qui ne présente pas exactement les mêmes oppositions que le champ sémantique de dare. On pourrait en donner la représentation ensembliste ci-dessous, où 1° "faire passer" = donner U prendre, 2° donner C prêter, 3° donner C rendre, et 4° prendre C voler. Si la plupart des emplois de dare peuvent très normalement être rendus par donner, un certain nombre correspondent plutôt au verbe prêter, qui n'a pas d'équivalent en latin. C'est ainsi que là où le latin dit operam dare alicui, le français préfère dire "prêter son attention à" (Plaut., Capt. 54) ou "accorder ses soins à", "prêter son concours à" (Ter.Phorm. 30), tout prendre

donner

prêter

qqch de sa sphère" "qqch de la sphère "faire "dans la sphère de qq'un" passer" de qq'un" "dans sa sphère" "indûment"

voler

"non dé­ finitive­ ment"

"où il était auparavant" rendre

en ayant parfaitement la possibilité de dire: "nous donner votre attention" (cf. P. Grimai, pour Plaut. Cas. 22). Dans d'autres cas, il est impossible d'employer en français le verbe donner. Le français ne peut pas rendre littéralement: tempus, fors (cf. Liv. 1,45,3), locus se dat 'le moment, l'occasion, l'opportunité se présente'

alors qu'il lui est parfaitement possible de dire: "donner le l'occasion, la chance de". Mais cela est peut-être à mettre au moins des habitudes sémantiques différentes des verbes dare et que des emplois différents de la construction réfléchie. Par contre, il existe incontestablement un certain nombre de ons, comme celles qui correspondent aux expressions dare terg a et

temps, compte donner, situati­ se dare

ANALYSE SÉMIQUE ET ACTANCIELLE DU VERBE DARE

415

in fugam, où les latins voient un cas particulier de dare et qui ne sont pas du tout analysées de la même façon par les français. C'est dans de tels cas qu'il est parfaitement légitime de dire qu'une langue donnée reflète une analyse particulière du monde et correspond non pas tant à une façon de penser qu'à une façon de voir les choses qu'elle impose en quelque sorte à ses usagers. Pour prendre un autre exemple, à propos duquel les ma­ nuels scolaires parleraient volontiers de faux amis, les expressions donner une pièce de théâtre et fabulam dare ne sont pas totalement équivalentes. Certes dans les deux cas il s'agit de donner un spectacle au public, le pu­ blic étant, dans les deux cas, un actant non exprimé qui est "fourni" par la situation désignée. Mais en français le premier actant est le metteur en scène ou le directeur du théâtre, en latin c'est l'auteur; car à Rome, c'était les auteurs qui montaient eux-mêmes leurs pièces. A cause d'une telle différence de société, l'expression latine fabulam dare peut prendre le sens métonymique de "écrire une pièce" (cf. Cic. Brut. 73), ce qui ne semble guère possible à l'expression française donner une pièce. Dans d'autres cas la différence entre les deux langues est purement phraséologique. On peut en latin causam dare tout comme en français il est possible de donner une raison. Mais là où, avec ce même sens, le latin emploie une interrogative indirecte Nunc quamobrem has partis didicerim paucis dabo (Ter. Haut. 10) 'Maintenant, je vais vous dire en quelques mots pourquoi j ' a i assumé ce rôle-ci' (P. Grimai)

le français ne peut qu'utiliser un syntagme nominal avec relative: 'Maintenant je vais en peu de mots vous donner la raison pour laquelle je me suis chargé du présent rôle' (J. Marouzeau).

Toutefois cette différence tient peut-être moins au verbe lui-même qu'à la subordonnée interrogative qui, en latin, peut plus facilement qu'en français dépendre de verbes principaux qui n'ont par eux-mêmes rien d'interrogatif. La différence est encore plus frappante lorsqu'on prend en con­ sidération les emplois métaphoriques plus ou moins institutionalises. Les dictionnaires latins en relèvent assez peu, mais les dictionnaires français sont riches d'emplois idiomatiques de donner tels que: donner ( = dénoncer) un volcur à la police. Je vous le donne en mille. Donner ( = tomber) dans une embuscade, dans un piège. Donner de ( = se manifester par) la voix. Le navire alla donner sur (= heurter) les écueils. etc.

qu'il semble impassible de rendre en latin par dare.

416

C. TOURATIER

Quoi qu'il en soit, si cette analyse rapide n'est pas trop inexacte ni trop incomplète, nous avons voulu montrer d'une part que la définition actancielle d'un verbe fait partie de sa définition sémique, et d'autre part qu'il n'est pas impossible de rattacher tous les emplois d'un même verbe à une même définition sémique ainsi comprise, même si des langues différentes comme le latin et le français n'ont pas forcément l'habitude d'utiliser de la même façon et d'appliquer aux mêmes situations un même sémème.

Références Barrault, E. 1853. Traité des synonymes Bénac, H. 1956. Dictionnaire

de la langue latine. Paris: Hachette.

des synonymes.

Paris: Hachette.

Gardin Dumesnil, J.B. 1862. Synonymes latins et leurs différentes significations. Nou­ velle édition avec des corrections et des augmentations par J.A. Auvray. Paris: Delalain. Touratier, Chr. (éd.). 1991. Compléments prédicatifs et attributs du complément en latin. Publications de l'Université de Provence.

d'objet

Index

Abel, F. 130, 131, 148 Adams, J.N. 72, 74, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 126 Adamson, S. 376 Allen, A.S. 51, 52 Allen, W.S. 17, 18 Arbasi, M.G. 209, 210 Austin, J.L. 173 Auvray, J.A. 403 Auwera, J. 263, 265, 267 Bader, F. 76, 83, 89, 172, 175, 223, 225, 395, 401 Baker, M.C. 78, 82, 84, 87, 89 Bakhtin, M.M. 316 Bakker, E.J. 247, 256, 341, 343 Bakkum, C.L.M. 19 Bally, Ch. 181, 199, 396, 398, 401 Baltin, M.R. 73, 74 Baratin, M. 238 Barbelenet, D. 51, 52 Barone, M. 51, 52 Barrault, E. 403, 416 Bassols de Climent, M. 57, 62 Bechert, J. 267 Bednarczuk, L. 266, 267 Bénac, H. 403, 405, 416 Bennett, Ch. 340, 341, 343 Benveniste, E. 111, 189, 199, 211, 225, 384, 385, 391, 393, 398, 401, Berettoni, R 51, 53 Bergaigne, A. 395, 397, 401 Bergsland, K. 376 Bernini, G. 267 Bird, N. 376 Birnbaum, H. 377 Birt, Th. 12, 18 Biville, F. 3, 17, 18

Blatt, F. 317 Blinkenberg, A. 84, 89 Bloomfield, L. 401 Blümel, W. 20, 34, 37, 38, 146, Bodelot, C. 224, 225 Bolkestein, A.M. 100, 153, 163, 256, 262, 264, 267, 269, 276, 278, 283, 298, 300, 342, 343, 385, 391 Bortolussi, B. 79, 86, 89 Bourciez, E. 51, 52 Bréal, M. 196, 398, 401 Brown, G. 163 Browning, R. 123, 126 Brugman, Cl. 343 Brugmann, K. 51, 52 Buck, C D . 376 Buridant, C. 267 Büchner, K. 139, 147, 148

148 205, 210, 272, 274, 301, 316,

Calboli, G. 126, 135, 137, 148, 167, 168, 172-175, 210, 215, 224, 225, 238, 261, 263, 265, 267, 268 Canedo, J. 51, 52 Carnoy, A. 56, 62 Cartier, A. 75, 78, 89 Carvalho, P. de 179, 188, 189, 193, 197, 199, 200, 205, 207, 210, 390, 391 Catach, N. 399, 401 Cavenaile, R. 125, 126 Chafe, W.L. 245, 246, 256 Charpin, F. 82, 89 Chevalier, J.-Cl. 185, 196, 199 Chomsky, N. 176, 396, 401 Chrétien, C D . 376, 377 Coleman, R. 126, 266, 267, 301, 359, 376 Collart, J. 215, 224, 225 Comrie, B. 87, 89, 125, 126, 259, 267, 355

418

INDEX

Coseriu, E. 189, 199, 379, 391 Coulthard, R.M. 316, 317 Cousin, J. 223, 225 Creissels, D. 103, 111 Culioli, A. 237, 238 Curtius, G. 395, 401 Cushing, S. 170, 176 Cuzzolin, P. 174, 176, 201, 210 Czekanowski 376 Dangel, J. 211, 214, 217, 221, 224, 225 Darmesteter, A. 396, 398, 401 David, J. 301 Debrunner, A. 137 DeWitt, N.W. 317 Dik, S.C.151,152,156,159,162,163,205, 247, 254, 256, 269, 271-273, 278, 298-301, 316, 317, 391 Doherty, M. 354, 355 Draeger, J. 224, 225 Dragunoff, A.A. 135, 148 Dressler, W. 136, 148 Dubois, J. 399, 401 Ducrot, O. 316 Dyen, I. 376 Elerick, Ch. 67, 70, 74 Elsie, R.W. 376, 377 Enkvist, N.E. 100 Ernout, A. 51, 52, 57, 62, 79, 89, 109, 111, 174, 181, 202, 210, 211, 225, 235, 264, 267, 317, 354, 355 Fay, E.W. 390, 391 Feix, J. 175, 176 Feltenius, L. 81, 89 Feuillet, J. 103, 106, 111 Fooien, A. 340, 341, 343 Fox, B. 301 Fox, W. 38 Frei, H. 395 Friedrich, J. 259, 267 Friedrich, P. 71, 74 Fruyt, M. 213, 225 Fugier, H. 75, 301 Furneaux, H. 256 Gaffiot, F. 228, 234, 238 Gamillscheg, E. 129, 148 Gantrelle, J. 224, 225 Garcia Calvo, A. 180, 200

García-Hernández, B. 51, 52, 81, 89, 355, 379, 380, 384, 385, 387, 388, 390, 391 Garde, P. 103, 105, 111 Gardin Dumesnil, J.B. 403, 416 Garret Winter, J. 177 Gerth, B. 137, 168, 176 Giacalone Ramat, A. 267 Gignac, F.T. 126 Gildersleeve, B. 147, 148 Giry-Schneider, J. 84, 89 Givón, T . 9 8 , 100, 162, 284, 285, 295, 297, 299, 301 Greenbaum, S. 257, 279 Greenberg, J.H. 126, 133, 149 Grenier, A. 399, 401 Griend, M.E. van de 316, 317 Grift, M. van de 160, 163, 283, 284, 299, 301 Groenendijk, J. 168, 169, 176 Guillaume, G. 180, 182, 184, 187, 189, 199, 200 Gustaffson, F. 390, 391 Hagège, Cl. 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 267 Haiman, J. 100, 257, 278 Hajicová, E. 93, 101 Hale, W.-G. 238 Halliday, M.A.K. 315, 317 Hand, F. 317, 340, 341, 343 Handford, S.-A. 238 Hannay, M. 256, 257, 267, 299, 300, 301 Hanssen, R. 223, 225 Happ. H. 385, 391 Harris, M. 133, 149 Haudry, J. 79, 89, 172, 176 Haverling, G. 41 Hawkins, A. 67, 70, 71, 73, 74, 125, 126 Hengeveld, K. 254, 256, 257, 269, 271, 274, 278 Herdan, S. 376, 377 Herman, J. 57, 62, 125, 126, 148, 149, 174, 176, 210 Hesse, H. 168, 169, 173, 176 Hetzron, R. 92, 100 Hoekstra, T.A. 79, 89 Hoepelman, J. 349, 354, 355 Hoffmann, M. 151, 152, 154, 156, 162, 163, 299, 301 Hofmann, J.B. 57, 62, 167, 171, 172, 176, 202, 210 Hooper, J.B. 206, 209, 210

INDEX Humbert, J. 126 Hus, A. 389, 391 Husband, R.W. 12, 18 Hyart, C.H. 216, 222, 226 Jacina, O.I. 224, 226 Jacobi, H. 393, 401 Jacquinod, B. 75, 78, 84, 89 Jakobson, R. 211, 224, 226 Jiménez Zamudio 37 Joly, A. 199, 200, 267 Jong, J.R. de 38, 70, 74, 91, 100, 283, 300 Kaimio, J. 126 Kajanto, I. 35, 38 King, R.D. 71, 74 Kiparsky, C. 209, 210 Kiparsky, P. 209, 210 Kleiber, G. 301 Koestermann, E. 62, 174, 176 Konjetzny, G. 56, 62 König, E. 265, 267, 341, 343 Kramer 114, 125, 126 Krisch, Th. 263, 267 Kroeber, A.L. 376, 377 Kroon, C.H.M. 157, 163, 257, 292, 296, 297, 300, 301, 317, 340, 343 Kühner, R. 137, 167, 168, 168, 202, 205, 210, 284, 284, 341, 343 Küstner, A. 168, 169, 173, 176

283, 286, 303, 316, 171, 176, 301, 340,

Lake, B.J. 70, 74 Laughton, E. 257 Lavency, M. 103, 110, 111, 211, 213, 220, 226-228, 235, 237-239, 278, 317, 390, 391 Law, V.A. 376 Lazard, G. 75, 90 Lee, D. 341, 343 Lees, R.B. 394, 398, 399, 401 Lehmann, Chr. 170, 172, 176, 257, 259, 259, 267 276, 278 Lehmann, W.P. 67, 73, 74 Lereh, E. 147, 149 Létoublon, F. 376 Leumann, M. 17, 18, 20, 37, 39, 51, 52 Levinson, S.C. 154, 163 Li, Ch.M. 135, 149 Lindholm, E. 172, 176 Lindsay, W.M. 17, 18, 76 Loch, E. 340, 343

419

Lommatsch, Th. 37, 38 Longacre, R.E. 257 Longrée, D. 224, 226, 278, 317 López-Moreda, S. 83, 84, 90, 384, 387, 391 Löbner, S. 349, 355 Löfstedt, B. 385, 391 Löfstedt, E. 55, 57, 62, 63, 129, 130, 147, 149, 172, 176 Löfstedt, L. 149, 340, 343 Lujan, M. 72, 74 Luraghi, S. 61, 63, 171, 176 Lühr, R. 173, 176 Malinson, G. 70, 74 Marchand, H. 399, 400, 402 Mariner Bigorra, S. 17, 18 Mariner, S. 355 Marouzeau, J. 74, 116, 125, 127, 224, 226 Marshall, M.H.B. 119, 127 Martin, R. 238 Martín Rodriguez, A.M. 388, 391 Martinet, A. 397, 399, 402 Maurel, J.-P. 237, 239, 390, 391 Mauro, T. de 388, 391 Mayer, A. 20, 39 Mazzarino, A. 36, 39 Meader, C L . 149 Meillet, A. 51, 52, 355, 384, 392, 394, 395, 402 Mellet, S. 227, 238, 278 Mendell, Cl.W. 222, 226 Mensink, J.A.H. 241 Merkelbach 114, 125 Meyer, K.M. 51, 52 Meyer-Lübke, W. 139, 147, 149 Mignot, X. 51, 52 Mihaescu, H. 55, 63 Miller, N.P. 211, 214, 226 Minaya, L. 72, 74 Mithun, M. 75, 78, 84, 87, 90 Mitterand, H. 397, 402 Moignet, G. 184, 200 Molho, M. 183, 184, 199 Molinelli, P. 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127 Montague, R. 170, 176 Montevecchi, O. 113, 114, 125, 127 Moralejo, J.L. 57, 63 Morrissey, M.D. 354, 355 Nadjo, L. 393, 394, 402 Neubauer, R. 201, 210 Nicolaie, V. 51, 52

420

INDEX

Noonan, U. 274, 276, 279 Norberg, D. 148, 149 Norden, E. 211, 222 Nutting, H.C. 239 Nuyts, J. 279 Nyrop, K. 396 Oniga, R. 396, 402 Orlandini, A. 139, 149 Otto, A. 138, 149 Packard, D.W. 69, 74 Palmer, L. 264, 267 Panenová, E. 93, 101 Panhuis, D.G.J. 72, 74, 101, 135, 149 Partridge, H.B. 377 Pascucci, G. 168, 176 Perret, J. 222, 226 Perrochat, P. 210, 224, 226 Perrot, J. 198, 399, 402 Peruzzi, E. 37, 39 Petersmann, H. 176, 298 Pfister, R. 104, 111 Pighi, G. 127 Pinkster, H. 51, 52, 53, 135, 147, 148, 149, 163, 170, 176, 260, 261, 267, 270, 283, 298, 301, 302, 316, 317, 340, 342, 343, 354, 355, 385, 392 Pirson, J. 55, 63 Pokorný, J. 376, 377, 390, 392 Poncelet, R. 138, 139, 149 Porzig, W. 52, 53 Pottier, B. 393, 398, 402 Prince, E. 154, 163 Puhvel, J. 377 Quirk, R. 256, 257, 272, 279 Raiskila, P. 260, 268 Ramat, P. 259-263, 266, 268 Rebert, H.F. 317 Régnier, A. 399 Reichenbach, E. 354, 355 Reiner Voss, B. 212, 226 Richter, E. 148, 149 Riemann, O. 317 Rijksbaron, A. 257, 354, 355 Risselada, R. 316, 319, 320, 322, 324, 326, 328, 330, 332, 334, 336, 338, 340, 342 Rizzi, E. 113-116, 118, 120, 122, 124-127 Rohrer, G. 349, 354, 355 Ronconi, A. 354, 355

Rosén, Haiim, B. 135, 147, 149 Rosen, Hannah 83, 84, 86, 90, 129, 133, 134, 146, 150 Roulet, E. 316, 317 Rubio, L. 180, 199, 200, 384, 389, 392 Ruipérez, M.S. 58, 63, 354, 355 RygaloíF, A. 135, 150 Sankoff, D. 72, 74 Sapir, E. 70, 74, 75, 90 Sasse, H.J. 75, 78, 90 Saussure, F. de 211, 226 Scherer, A. 341, 343, 385, 392 Schiffrin, D. 315, 317 Schwyzer, E.S. 137 Searle, J.R. 174, 340, 343 Seider, R. 114, 125, 127 Seiler, H. 390, 392 Selig, M. 139, 140, 150 Serbat, G. 57, 60, 63, 104, 111, 224, 226, 238, 262, 268, 301, 395, 402 Sgall, P. 93, 101 Shields, K. 51, 53 Sinclair, J.M. 316, 317 Skutsch, Fr. 393, 402, Somers, M.H. 151, 162, 163, 298, 302 Sonnenschein, E.A. 239 Soubiran, J. 17, 18 Stegmann, C. 167, 168, 171, 176, 202, 210, 284, 301, 340, 341, 343 Stokhof, M. 168, 169, 176 Stolz, Fr. 393, 402 Stump, G.T. 245, 246, 256, 257 Suárez Martinez, P.M. 55 Svartvik, J. 257, 279 Svennung, J. 172, 177 Swadesh, M. 361, 375, 377 Syrne, R. 212, 223, 226 Szantyr, A. 51, 53, 57, 62, 75, 77, 83, 84, 90, 146, 167, 171, 176, 202, 210, 274, 284 Szemerényi, O. 51, 53 Tchechoff, Ch. 107, 111 Tesnière, L. 403, 406 Thomas, F.T. 51, 52, 57, 62, 79, 89, 111, 181, 202, 210, 211, 225, 239, 264, 267, 317, 354, 355 Thompson, S.A. 135, 149, 257, 278 Torrego, M.E. 345, 355 Touratier, Chr. 17, 18, 81, 90, 103, 111, 167, 170, 177, 180, 197, 200, 235, 239, 403, 411, 416

109, 235,

110, 198,

INDEX Trager, G.L. 150 Vairel-Carron, H. 106, 111, 224, 226 Vendryes, J. 51, 52, 394, 395, 402 Vennemann, Th. 67, 74 Vester, E. 239, 246, 254, 256, 257, 267, 269, 278, 279 Vet, C. 254, 256, 278 Veyrenc, J. 103, 105, 109 Vincent, N. 376 Visser, F.Th. 266, 268 Vives, J.I. 56, 63 Vogliano, A. 125, 127

421

Vogt, H. 376 Väänäanen, V. 57, 63, 172, 177 Wachter, R. 20, 37, 38, 39 Wackernagel, J. 51, 53, 118 Wagner, R.L. 397, 399, 402 Watkins, C. 376, 377 Wehr, B. 92, 101 Weil, H. 91 Wolterstroff, G. 139, 144, 146, 148, 150 Wright, S. 376 Youtie, H.Ch. 172, 177 Yule, G. 163