Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French 9783110825992, 9783110167238

Citation preview

Archaic Syntax in Indo-European

W DE G

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 125

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Archaic Syntax in Indo-European The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French

by

Brigitte Bauer

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

2000

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bauer, Brigitte Archaic syntax in Indo-European ; the spread of transitivity in Latin and French / by Brigitte Bauer. p. cm. - (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs; 125) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3 11 0167239 (alk. paper) 1. Indo-European languages - Syntax. 2. Indo-European languages - Verb. 3. Proto-Indo-European language - Syntax. I. Title. II. Series. P671.B38 2000 415-dc21 00-024833

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bauer, Brigitte: Archaic syntax in Indo-European : the spread of transitivity in Latin and French / by Brigitte Bauer. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2000 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 125) ISBN 3-11-016723-9

© Copyright 2000 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Disk conversion: Readymade, Berlin. Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

To Marius G.M. Bauer 1910-1997 In fond remembrance

Preface Comparative linguistic research, applying the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction, is based on two fundamental principles: arbitrariness of the linguistic sign as defined by Saussure and language consistency. Since the relation between the signiflant and the signifie is arbitrary, the occurrence of the same element and related meaning in two or more languages must be ascribed to language contact, that is borrowing, or to common linguistic origin. If in addition, systematic phonemic correspondences between similar signs are found in these languages, then the basis of the relationship can be further specified: such phonological correspondences point to a common origin (cf. Meillet 1926:20ff). They reflect language consistency. Acceptance of consistency is widely held in phonology, as indicated by the abundance of sound "laws", but linguists seem to be reluctant to acknowledge relationship between grammatical phenomena, as treatments of word order in various early languages illustrate. Advocates of so-called "free word order" are sceptical of the arguments of their "opponents", which take into account the distinction between marked and unmarked sequences, evidence from successive linguistic stages, and especially structural correspondences. That is to say syntacticians base their conclusions on regularities in ordering patterns just as phonologists do on regularities in phonological patterns and the changes they undergo. Language consistency is therefore observed in grammatical as well as in phonological patterns as I demonstrate in this book. The grammatical characteristics of languages have systems that can be accounted for in linguistic terms. This observation can be found—in essence—in the work of many Indo-Europeanists, such as Benveniste (1966a:91ff) and Meillet, who stated: une langue constitue un Systeme complexe de moyens d'expression, Systeme oü tout se tient et oü une innovation individuelle ne peut que difficilement trouver place si, provenant d'un pur caprice, eile n' est pas exactement adaptee ä ce Systeme, c'est-ä-dire si eile n'est pas en harmonie avec les regies gonerales de la langue (1926:16)

As suggested by Meillet and others as well (e.g. Benveniste 1966a), language consistency applies to synchronic as well as diachronic language stages.

VÜi

Preface

Diachronie Indo-European linguistics aims to reconstruct Proto-IndoEuropean and to analyze the developments that the protolanguage and subsequently the daughter languages underwent. Reconstruction of the protolanguage traditionally has received most attention, but both aims are intertwined as statements by Indo-Europeanists throughout the 19th century demonstrate. In the preface to their new journal, Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen (1878), Brugmann and Osthoff presented what has been labeled the manifesto of the Junggrammatiker (Lehmann 1993:7; for an English version of the text, see Lehmann 1967:198-209). In it, the authors not only reaffirm the validity of the often misinterpreted "Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze", but they also stress the importance of analysis of language change in later languages. The later stages, they argue, provide direct evidence on language change, on various types of speech, and on the results of change. The consistency of sound change, for example, is amply illustrated in languages that are attestated only orally (Brugmann and Osthoff 1878, quoted henceforth in the English version; 1967:201). Instead of focusing uniquely on the "oldest periods ... those lying closest to the original language,... [the] development, the process of change of linguistic forms through many centuries" should be pursued as well in order to reconstruct the protolanguage (Brugmann and Osthoff 1967:199, 201). Consequently, Indo-Europeanists should also focus on developments "whose previous history can be pursued at some length on the basis of texts and whose starting-point is directly known to us" (Brugmann and Osthoff 1967:200). Analysis of language change as advocated by Brugmann and Osthoff not only provides a better perception of language in general, but indirectly contributes to the reconstruction of the protolanguage as well: the developments that are observed in later stages inform us about the characteristics of the language in earlier stages. Keeping in mind Saussure's and Meillet's principle of language consistency and the manifesto of Brugmann and Osthoff, I set out in this book to analyze one of the major syntactic developments in Indo-European, the spreading of transitivity. Proto-Indo-European was a nominative language, characterized (1) by the distinction between subject of transitive and intransitive verbs on the one hand, and direct object on the other; and (2) by subject - verb agreement. In addition, it had a number of structures that traditionally have been difficult to account for, such as mihi est constructions, impersonal verbs, and absolute structures. They survived in the early daughter languages, but with time came to be replaced in most of them. On the basis of comparative analysis it will be argued that these structures were

Preface

ix

indeed inherited from the protolanguage and that they do not fit the patterns of a nominative language. That is to say, these structures were archaic and are residues of an earlier language system, as diachronic analysis will further support. This book therefore analyzes in detail those structures, their origin, their grammatical characteristics, and their development, discussing the implications for the reconstruction of the protolanguage. In addition, their identification as residues and their replacement by transitive constructions not only illustrates the spreading of transitivity in Indo-European, but also shows that transitivity is not a universal feature and cannot be taken for granted for all stages of Proto-Indo-European. Analysis of these archaic structures makes it possible, therefore, to re-evaluate the characteristics of the protolanguage as well as the developments that the daughter languages underwent, especially the spreading of transitivity. In writing this book, I received the help of a large number of scholars and institutions. This research project was planned and started during a Fellowship of the Niels Stensen Foundation (Amsterdam), which allowed me to spend more than a year at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Cambridge (UK). Subsequently, a three-year fellowship of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Amsterdam) provided the opportunity to continue and complete the project. I am most obliged to the Niels Stensen Foundation and the Board of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences for their support and the confidence they showed in electing me as one of their Fellows. Without them this book would have been impossible. These major Fellowships enabled me—while based at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands—to spend more than three years at foreign universities, to expand international contacts, and to become familiar with various university systems, academic institutions, and research approaches. Among the people to be mentioned here two persons stand out, Professor W.P. Lehmann (Linguistics Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin) and Professor Robert Coleman (Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge). Their generous hospitality in accepting me at their universities, their kind willingness to discuss the topic of my research on numerous occasions, and their constructive comments and suggestions offered me the possibility of carrying out my research in a most stimulating atmosphere. I am also most grateful to the staff of the Linguistics Research Center at Austin and the Faculty of Classics at Cambridge for allowing me to use their computer facilities. In addition, I am also deeply indebted to Professor W.P. Lehmann, for reading the manuscript of this book and for his numerous comments, which,

Preface

based on a profound understanding of the tradition he is part of, reflect his awareness of the comprehensiveness and complexity of the field and his wish to advance it. Others as well have been of great help, discussing various aspects of my research, offering their expertise, kindly sending me references and offprints, or inviting me to their university to give a paper on the topic of my investigation. In alphabetical order these scholars are: Dr Marius Bauer (Oss, The Netherlands), Dr Julie Bellquist (Austin, Texas), Professor Bernard Comrie (Max Planck Institut for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig), Wim Delsman (Univ. of Nijmegen, The Netherlands), Professor Louanna Furbee (Univ. of Missouri at Columbia), Professor T. Gamkrelidze (Univ. of Tblisi, Georgia), Dr. Jadranka Gvozdanovic (Univ. of Mannheim), Professor Geoffrey Horrocks (Univ. of Cambridge), Professor Vjaceslav Ivanov (Univ. of Moscow / UCLA), Professor Folke Josephson (Univ. of Göteborg), Dr Carol Justus (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Dr Fran Karttunen (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Professor John Killen (Univ. of Cambridge), Professor Helena Kurzovä (Univ. of Prague), Professor Bengt Löfstedt (UCLA), Professor John Lyons (Univ. of Cambridge), Professor Christiane Marchello-Nizia (Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris), Professor Peter Matthews (Univ. of Cambridge), Professor Celestina Milani (Univ. of Milan), Professor Michael Noonan (Univ. of Wisconsin at Milwaukee), Dr Elke Nowak (Univ. of Stuttgart), Professor Edgar Polome (Univ. of Texas at Austin), Dr Anneli Schaufeli (Univ. of Nijmegen, The Netherlands), Professor Pieter Seuren (Univ. of Nijmegen, The Netherlands), Dr Leon Stassen (Univ. of Nijmegen, The Netherlands), Maria Clara BauerSteinhauser (Oss, The Netherlands), Dr Reinhard Stempel (Univ. of Bonn), Professor Nigel Vincent (Univ. of Manchester), Professor Werner Winter (Univ. of Kiel), Professor Noriko Yasumura (Kanazawa University, Japan) and, finally, Professor Karl Horst Schmidt (Univ. of Bonn), who discussed the topic of my book at length and whose advice inspired by his extensive knowledge of Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages has been most useful. I am also grateful to the President and Fellows of Wolfson College, Cambridge, where during many lengthy stays as a Visiting Fellow I enjoyed the intellectual, social, and culinary aspects of Cambridge university life. Wolfson College offered ample opportunity to discuss with numerous specialists a wide range of topics varying from the cultural and linguistic implications of the opening of India, to linguistics in general, via the history of medicine and the tribulations of Western European monarchies.

Preface

xi

With their hospitality Wolfson College and the Faculty of Classics at the University of Cambridge, and the Linguistics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin offered me a wealth of academic and intellectual stimuli for which I am most grateful. B.L.M.B. Spring 1998 Penguin Palace Wolfson College, Cambridge When the manuscript was in its final stage, I received much help from the publisher, especially from the editor of the series in which this book is appearing, Werner Winter (Kiel). I owe much to his useful comments and suggestions which we were able to discuss at length during a trip to Kiel, where I enjoyed Mrs. Winter's and his hospitality. B.L.M.B. The University of Texas at Austin Summer/Fall 1999

Table of Contents

Preface Abbreviations referring to grammatical terms: Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.5

Language typology: Arbitrariness and system Indo-European linguistics and content-related typology Language types Proto-Indo-European and active typology Nominal and pronominal features Verbal characteristics The aim of this study

Chapter 2 The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.4.1 2.3.4.2 2.3.5 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.3.1 2.4.3.2

vii xvii 1 4 9 11 15 15 21 22

31

Preliminary discussion: Uhlenbeck and Sapir 32 General characteristics of ergativity 34 Markedness in ergative and nominative languages . . . 35 Consistency in ergative languages 37 Ergativity: A general view 41 Proto-Indo-European and the ergative hypothesis . . . . 43 Marking patterns in neuter and non-neuter nouns . . . . 44 Marking patterns in personal pronouns: Suppletion in animate pronouns 47 Stages in subsequent development 47 Ergative features in Indo-European languages 48 Direct evidence from Hittite? 49 Direct evidence from Indo-Iranian? 54 Ergativity in Proto-Indo-European: Conclusion 56 Non-Transitive languages 57 Active languages 59 The study of American Indian languages 60 Typological correlations in active languages 62 The distinction animate vs. inanimate 63 Active and stative verbs 65

xiv

Table of Contents

2.4.3.3 2.4.3.4 2.4.3.5 2.4.3.6 2.4.3.7 2.4.3.8 2.4.3.9 2.4.3.10 2.4.4 2.5

Adjectives Alienable vs. inalienable possession Grammatical marking on the verb Impersonal verbs The verb be Distinction in lexical categories and their functions . . . Processes of nominalization Locatives: Rest vs. motion Conclusion: Patterns in active languages Conclusion: The non-nominative stage of Proto-IndoEuropean

Chapter 3 Impersonal verbs 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 3.6

The impersonal verb in Indo-European: General considerations Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions . . . . Weather verbs: Conclusion Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions Impersonal verbs that combine with an accusative . . . . Impersonal verbs that combine with a dative Impersonal verbs that combine with an accusative and a genitive Additional impersonal constructions Impersonal verbs in Latin: Conclusion The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance Verbs developing impersonal structures Verbs developing a personal paradigm Impersonal verbs and their changes in other IndoEuropean languages Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages . . . Conclusion

69 70 74 79 80 82 84 86 88 90 93 95 97 108 109 109 110 112 116 119 121 121 127 129 135 146

Chapter 4 Possessive mihi est constructions

151

4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2

153 153

Types of possession Possession: General considerations Semantic distinction: Alienable vs. inalienable possession

155

Table of Contents

4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4 4.5

XV

Attributive possession Predicate possessive constructions Possession in Indo-European languages Alienable vs. inalienable possession in Indo-European Mihi est constructions in Indo-European The mihi est construction in Latin The possession in Latin mihi est constructions Nominal or pronominal nature of the dative The development of habeo Dative vs. genitive in possessive constructions Conclusion

156 159 161 164 171 180 181 184 186 190 193

Chapter 5 Nominal structures: Verbal mihi est constructions

197

5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3

Verbal mihi est constructions in the early daughter languages Verbal mihi est constructions in Hittite Verbal mihi est constructions in Sanskrit Verbal mihi est constructions in Greek Verbal mihi est constructions in Germanic Verbal mihi est constructions in other Indo-European languages Verbal mihi est constructions in early Indo-European: Conclusion Verbal mihi est constructions in Latin Nominal forms of the Latin verb Contexts of verbal mihi est The etymology of the forms in -ndoSyntax of the forms in -ndoThe syntactic development of the nominal forms of the verb Verbal mihi est constructions: conclusion

198 198 204 207 210 214 221 223 223 229 233 236 248 257

Chapter 6 Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

261

6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4

262 263 266 272 273

Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute

constructions constructions constructions constructions constructions

in the early daughter languages in Sanskrit in Greek in Italic in Germanic

xvi

Table of Contents

6.1.5. 6.1.6 6.1.7 6.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.5 6.6

Absolute constructions in Slavic Absolute constructions in other early Indo-European languages Absolute constructions in Hittite? Absolute constructions: An inherited characteristic? .. Absolute constructions in Latin Types of absolute construction Absolute constructions including a participle Inconsistencies in absolute constructions The development of absolute constructions in Latin .. Variation involving the logical subject and object . . . . Nominative absolutes Accusative absolutes Absolute constructions in Late Latin: Conclusion . . . . Absolutes in Old and Middle French Conclusion

279 282 283 284 289 290 295 300 304 305 312 319 324 327 330

Chapter 7 Conclusion

335

7.1 7.2 7.3

336 338

7.4

Proto-Indo-European grammar Syntactic residues in Proto-Indo-European Grammatical characteristics and the development of syntactic residues Parallels with other structures

340 346

References

351

Index

380

Abbreviations referring to grammatical terms:

A Abl. Abs. Ace. ACI Act. Adj. Adv. Antipass. Aor. AorPart. Aor.Pass.Part. Art. Caus. Comp. Dat. Def.Art. Dir.Obj. Dur. Erg. Encl. Fern. Put. Fut.Ex. Gen. Ger. Gerv. Impf. Impera. Impers. Indir.Obj. Inf. Loc. Masc. Mi. MP MPart.

agent (transitive verb) ablative absolutive accusative accusativus cum infinitive active adjective adverb antipassive aorist aorist participle aorist passive participle article causative comparative dative definite article direct object durative ergative enclitic feminine future futurum exactum genitive gerund gerundive (La. gerundivuni) imperfect imperative impersonal indirect object infinitive locative masculine middle medio-passive middle participle

XVÜi Abbreviations

MPfPart. Nom. Non-Fut. Neutr. Nom.Abs. Obi. Opt. P Part. Pass. PassPart. PDef. Pf. Pfp. Pf.Pret. PfPart. pi. Plqpf. PPart. PrGer. PrPart. Poss. PP Pr. PrPass. Pres. Pret. Progr. Pron. Prt. Pst. PstGer. S. sgStat. Subj. Subj.Nom. Subju. Sup. Superl. V.Adj.

middle perfective participle nominative non future neuter nominative absolute oblique optative patient participle passive passive participle passe defini perfective perfective present perfective preterite perfective participle plural pluperfect (plusquamperfectum) past participle present gerund present participle possessive prepositional phrase present present passive present preterite progressive pronoun particle past past gerund subject singular static subject subject-Nominative subjunctive supine superlative verbal adjective

Chapter 1 Introduction

The historical study of language has proven to us beyond all doubt that a language changes not only gradually but consistently, that it moves unconsciously from one type towards another, and that analogous trends are observable in remote quarters of the globe (Sapir 1949:121)

In the history of many major discoveries in science and medicine there is a stage at which a scholar observes vital evidence, recognizes its importance, draws conclusions, but for the time being lacks the theoretical framework to perceive the discovery in the right perspective. Only with the development of the field is it possible to fully understand and appreciate the implications of the observation. A case in point is the history of puerperal fever: Semmelweis (1818-1865) understood that the disease was transmitted by the doctors themselves, before bacteria were discovered and the true principles of contagion were known, let alone fully understood. Semmelweis had been struck by the high mortality of women in childbed in the obstetric clinic where he worked. He also noticed similarities between the symptoms of puerperal fever and those of septic shock due to wound infections. Concluding that the doctors and students themselves transmitted the disease when moving from one patient to another or from the dissecting room to the maternity ward, he ordered his underlies to wash their hands in a solution of chlorinated lime before each examination and thus became the founder of antisepsis. The death rate dropped dramatically, but, with a few exceptions, Semmelweis was not taken seriously. Only with the identification of bacteria were the implications of his observations fully acknowledged. Although Semmelweis did not know of bacteria nor the principles of contagion, his observation and conclusions were accurate as the clinical results showed. Yet the theoretical framework was lacking to put the observation in the right perspective. A - perhaps doubtful - advantage of medicine over linguistics is the unambiguous way theories or hypotheses may be confirmed: the patient may die if the hypothesis is not correct. In linguistics the effects - positive as well as negative - are less dramatic, but the history of theories and hypotheses may present similar patterns. In 1960 Benveniste published an

2

Introduction

article on possessive expressions including the verbs 'be' and 'have' (1966b). He pointed out (1) that 'have' in Indo-European languages was late and not inherited; (2) that possessive mihi est constructions were inherited from the protolanguage; and (3) that the structures showed parallels with constructions in Tunica, an American Indian language. Consequently he put the structure in a diachronic and comparative perspective and drew accurate conclusions. Yet at that time he lacked the theoretical frame that would have allowed him to see the implications of his observation: possessive mihi est constructions are residues of a non-nominative hence completely different- language system that characterized ProtoIndo-European at a very early stage. This book will analyze mihi est constructions and similar structures that so far have not been accounted for. The analysis will be carried out from the perspective that originally IndoEuropean was a non-nominative language, taking into account as a starting point research that recently has been carried out in lexical and morphological studies. The assumption that languages may differ fundamentally or that they can be retraced to a fundamentally different parent language may not be obvious in the current constellation of linguistics. Although the heydays of generative grammar are over and generativism has not contributed to IndoEuropean linguistics, its principles for more than forty years have thoroughly affected linguistic thinking in general. One of the long-lasting effects of generative grammar - and at the same time one of its principles - is the wide-spread fallacious assumption that all languages in essence are identical: "there is much reason to believe that languages are to a significant extent cast in the same mold" (Chomsky 1965:202). In this line of reasoning the structural differences that can be observed across languages are but surface phenomena: they are language specific and do not affect the core grammar, which is assumed to be inherited and genetically determined. Since the roots, the origins, and the bloom of generative grammar are embedded in English, the principles of this language over time in fact have received the status of universals. Yet their identification as universals was not based on thorough comparative analysis including a large number of, preferably, non-related languages, nor was it even based on purely statistical data from typological overviews. The simple fact that generativists focused on their mother tongue (an approach partly related to the importance attributed to the judgment of the native speaker) and that most of them were and are English speaking, explains the privileged and primordial position of English in this branch of linguistics: the very large majority of

Introducion

3

the most important generative parameters are based on data from English and - to a much lesser extent - from its closely related modern Western Indo-European sister languages. Consequently, the grammatical category of subject e.g. is generally assumed to be a universal, see for example Chomsky's definition of S: S -> NP VP, where "the grammatical function "subject of can be defined as "NP of S" (i.e. NP immediately contained in S)" (Chomsky 1986:59; see also Chomsky, 1965). Similarly, rules regarding word order proclaim the universal prevalence of S[ubject]V[erb] Ofbject], as is argued in the minimalist approach, which was proposed recently. Transitivity also received the status of a universal category and is assumed to be present or underlying in all languages. In order to propose such a claim of universality, one ought to examine, of course, a large number of languages, preferably non-related and also non-Indo-European. Proto-Indo-European after all was a nominative language, hence a language that is characterized by transitivity as a grammatical feature; the daughter languages did not change in that respect, on the contrary. Ironically while generative grammar was highly popular, the earlier major achievements of the analysis of American Indian - hence non-Indo-European - languages were thoroughly ignored. Yet it is probably the study of these languages that has made linguists aware of fundamental differences between language systems and of the assumed relation with mental concepts, as was formulated in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Despite these achievements, the majority of the exotic languages in the past and in modern times have been described, albeit often unconsciously, from the perspective of English or another modern Western Indo-European language, or even Latin. As a result, many features have passed unnoticed, or have been misinterpreted (for details, see section 2.4, which discusses American Indian languages). Returning to the best-documented and best-analyzed language family, Indo-European, we observe a number of features and characteristics in these languages as well that have not been understood or that traditionally have been difficult to account for. Although Latin, for example, was a fully developed nominative language, we observe a number of features that do not fit this type of language and that are difficult to account for, such as the mihi est construction to indicate possession. Conversely one observes that modern languages, such as the descendants of Latin, French and Spanish, which are nominative languages also, include verbs of the type avoir (French) or tener (Spanish). One therefore notices, not only that structures of the type mihi est do not fit the patterns of a nominative language - as will

4

Introduction

be demonstrated in Chapter 4 - ,but also that they have been replaced, in a subsequent stage, by structures that feature transitive syntax and that fit the patterns of a nominative language. The analysis of these and similar structures, their underlying correlations, their replacement over time by "modern" structures, and the implications for Proto-Indo-European and for language systems in general will be analyzed in this book.

1.1. Language typology: Arbitrariness and system In the past - and even now perhaps - it was not uncommon that linguists regarded with envy scientists, who apparently deal with more solid evidence and who supposedly apply more rigorous methods than do linguists. Despite the achievements of the rigorous and systematic studies of the NeoGrammarians, applying the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction (for an extensive discussion cf. Lehmann, 1993:1-69), this feeling of frustration can be found, for example, in Schleicher's work, which praises the objectivity of naturalists: Bei den Naturforschern kann man einsehen lernen, dass für die Wissenschaft nur die durch sichere, streng objective Beobachtung festgestellte Thatsache und der auf diese gebaute richtige Schluss Geltung hat; eine Erkenntniss, die manchem meiner Collegen von Nutzen wäre. Subjectives Deuteln, haltloses Etymologisieren, vage Vermuthungen ins Blaue hinein, kurz alles, wodurch die sprachlichen Studien ihrer wissenschaftlichen Strenge beraubt und in den Augen einsichtiger Leute herabgesetzt, ja sogar lächerlich gemacht werden,... (1873:6)

Since sciences had this reputation of exactitude and rigor, their methods and hypotheses have been borrowed and transferred to language analysis. One of the best known attempts is perhaps the one by Schleicher himself, who transposed Darwin's model of biological evolution directly to language, comparing the spreading and differentiation of some language phyla at the expense of others to similar processes in biology and interpreting them as the result of the struggle for life: In diesem langen Zeiträume giengen höchst wahrscheinlich viel mehr sprachliche Gattungen zu Grunde, als deren gegenwärtig noch fortleben. So erklärt sich auch die Möglichkeit der grossen Ausbreitung einzelner Sippen, z. B. der indogermanischen ..., die sich nun auf breitem Boden reich differenzierten (1873:28-29).

Language typology: Arbitrariness and system

5

Schleicher recognizes, however, that only the "Grundzüge" of Darwin's theory could be used in linguistics (1873:20). More commonly, methods rather than hypotheses have been borrowed, among them typology. Typology originally was an approach in the natural sciences, especially common in biology and comparative anatomy and zoology. From the 18th century onward, biologists and naturalists attempted to classify the mass of plants and animals on the basis of their morphological features. In this approach each class is assumed to be characterized by a series of features that are invariable, that are shared by all members of that class, and that are unique to them. The principle underlying this approach is the assumption that "all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a particular class was merely variation on an underlying theme or design which was fundamentally invariant and immutable" (Denton 1985:94). In line with this reasoning typology in the early period rejected the concept of (gradual) change, hence of temporal sequence of features and was therefore most antagonistic of Darwin's notion of organic evolution. The reason why I briefly discuss biological typology is not that I adhere to the theoretical implications of the approach. The method reveals, however, empirical implications that are highly useful for linguistics. It became soon clear that specific features come with others and also that the various parts of an organism form a consistent functioning whole: "each different kind of organism was a uniquely adapted whole. ... all the parts of each organism were so beautifully fashioned to function together ..." (Denton 1985:102). This notion of correlation of features is highly important for linguistics: by looking at features cross-linguistically and by examining their context in grammar, we may achieve a better understanding of language and of the linguistic system under consideration. One observes another parallel between biology and linguistics, which is historical: as in sciences the first aim of linguistic typology was classification; the discovery of correlation was only a later development. Accordingly, the first typologists attempted to classify languages on the basis of structural criteria and displayed a predilection for morphology. One of the best known examples is Adelung's classification in his Mithridates (18061817), which proposes, on the basis of morphological processes, a tripartite classification of the world's languages: isolating or analytic (e.g. Chinese), agglutinative (e.g. Turkish), and inflected or synthetic (e.g. Sanskrit). Similar tripartitions are found in August W. von Schlegel's work (expanding on his brother's, Friedrich von Schlegel's, classification) and became wellknown with Von Humboldt (see Robins 1979:176). Classification on the basis of morphological structures was further developed by many after

6

Introduction

these scholars, among them e.g. Sapir (1921, quoted henceforth in the edition of 1949), who was well aware of the complexity of the matter when dealing with exotic, less-known languages and who proposed a more complex model for classification. These analyses, which had many follow-ups, and also many modern ones limit their concern, however, to one level of language - in general morphology - or even to one feature only. Limiting the analysis to just one linguistic feature implies that the results of classification vary according to the criteria applied: language X and language belong to the same group G on the basis of the shared feature G; but language X and language Z belong to group H on the basis of feature H, and so forth. The possible internal correlation of a specific feature with other linguistic characteristics is not examined. This kind of typological study may therefore become rather arbitrary and in the long run one may wonder about its theoretical and descriptive usefulness or implications. It is in the field of word-order typology that this arbitrariness was dealt with early. Wilhelm Schmidt's work contributed much to this achievement because his approach aimed at correlations of features. Schmidt not only attempted to reveal regularity in the word-order patterns he observed, he was also innovative in noticing a correlation between the occurrence of preposed genitives, postpositions, and the morphological structure of the language in question. In observing this correlation, he related two levels of language, the ordering pattern in syntactic phrases and the morphological process: steht der affixlose Genitive v o r dem Substantiv, welches es näher bestimmt, so ist die Sprache eine Suffixsprache eventuell mit Postpositionen, steht der Genitiv n a c h, so ist sie eine Präfixsprache eventuell mit Präpositionen (Schmidt, 1926:382).

On the basis of correlation patterns, Greenberg, who recognized his debt to Schmidt (1963:83), proposed his implicational universals of word order, which are of the type: "if sequence X then sequence Y." Although Schmidt considered the grammatical nature and position of the genitive to be the determining factor in a given language (1926:381), he did not elaborate on this assumption or propose a larger system. Greenberg on the other hand, went further, distinguishing three main language types on the basis of the occurrence of post- vs. pre-positions, A[djective]N[oun] or N A sequences and the order of nominal subject, nominal object, and verb: SVO, VSO, and SOV (1963:61-62). In a later stage, this quest for correlation and regularity in word-order patterns received additional impetus when W.P. Lehmann introduced a diachronic perspective which turned out to be vital for our understanding

Language typology: Arbitrariness and system

7

not only of word-order change, but also of those structures in a given language that at first glance show a deviant ordering pattern, and that are difficult to account for. Because of these synchronic inconsistencies, Greenberg in an earlier stage had refused to generalize his implicational universale into a more general principle: "certain languages tend consistently to put modifying or limiting elements before those modified or limited, while others just as consistently do the opposite. ... The majority of languages, as for example English, are not as well marked it this respect" (1963:60). Diachronie analysis, however, reveals the true nature of these irregularities, which are early symptoms of a new structuration or residues of an earlier stage, e.g. in Modern English, where adjectives precede the noun, which is archaic, but direct objects - in accordance with other SVO characteristics - follow the verb. Underlying this approach is not only the awareness of the presence of patterns in synchronic structures, but also the recognition of deviant structures as being residues of earlier stages of development. Both steps are vital for the analysis that will be carried out in this book, as will be shown later. The awareness of the fact that the mass of available Indo-European data may represent various stages of linguistic development was quite late in Indo-European linguistics and turned out to be essential, for example, for the solution of the problem of ablaut (Lehmann 1993:131-133; Hirt 19211937). The subsequent step, recognizing structures - within a given synchronic context - as being residues of an earlier stage is comparable to Cuvier's identification of fossils as being remainders of extinct species (cf. Lehmann 1993). Greenberg's and Lehmann's contributions have been the basis of the achievements in word-order typology in the last twenty years: word-order typologists have been able to reveal ordering patterns in syntactic phrases and the underlying regularity of the changes taking place. In addition, word-order typology no longer is limited to the analysis of syntactic phrases once it observes regularities across syntactic as well as morphological structures and reveals the structural criteria common to both, compare the analysis in terms of branching, which distinguishes left-branching (or headlast; OV) structures from right-branching (or head-first; VO) structures in morphological and syntactic units (for a shift from left- to right-branching structures in Latin, see Bauer 1995). Despite the correlations they establish between syntactic and morphological structures, word-order analyses also deal with one feature only: the ordering of elements between which a hierarchical relation exists, the head and its complement. Yet one of the interesting aspects of biological typol-

8

Introduction

ogy was the discovery of a correlation between various biological and anatomical features. If in linguistic typology as well we can point out the correlation between linguistic features or phenomena, we would achieve a much better understanding of a given language and of language in general. Discovering and explaining correlations between linguistic features and phenomena including several linguistic levels is the aim of contentive or content-related typology. In contrast with other approaches in typology generally referred to as formal typology - content typology "examines the formal side of the language from the point of view of the content conveyed by it" (Klimov 1983:327); it includes therefore, all levels of language. It may be noted that the very assumption that linguistic phenomena are related is not new. Earlier, others as well had already advocated the internal relationship, as the quotation from Meillet in the Preface already showed. Although the main aim of content-related typology is to look for correlations among features, one characteristic of language may be considered predominant. Consequently, the structural characteristics of language are interpreted as being correlated to, or depending on, the main feature, its fundamental character, which is the way action is conceived, or in other words, the relation between action, and what in our modern perspective would be the subject and the direct object. Sapir already pointed out the importance of this characteristic in Language, although this assertion did not become the central issue in the typology he proposed: [if one wishes] to communicate an intelligible idea about a farmer, a duckling, and the act of killing ... The fundamental syntactic relations must be unambiguously expressed. I can afford to be silent on the subject of time and place and number and of a host of other possible types of concept, but I can find no way of dodging the issue as to who is doing the killing. There is no known language that can or does dodge it, any more than it succeeds in saying something without the use of symbols for concrete concepts (1949:94).

It is probably not amazing that this idea comes from one of the leading American specialists in American Indian languages: he was not only well aware of the diversity of language systems, or more specifically their incongruity, but also of the underlying cognitive differences they express or which they determine (cf. e.g. the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; Hoijer, 1954). On the basis of the concept of action, content-related typology distinguishes three types of language: active, ergative, and nominative. (Note that a fourth group of languages, class languages, which have again other characteristics, are left out here, cf. Klimov 1983:334). In each of these types, the basic characteristic, the expression of action, is related to other

Indo-European linguistics and content-related typology

9

linguistic features. In contrast with formal typology, which aims at classification of essentially different and non-related languages on the basis of one or a limited number of structural features, content-related typology analyzes language as a system: the various syntactic, morphological, and lexical features of a given language are assumed to be related to the basic concept of action and mutually interrelated. Content typologists therefore analyze languages in toto : "a typology of languages should observe and describe languages in toto, i.e., both in terms of content and expression, form of expression and form of content, morphology and syntax, vocabulary and phonology" (Klimov 1986:109; quoting Skalicka 1983). The central issue of content-related typology is therefore not only the concept of language as a type, but also, as a result, the non-arbitrariness of the criteria analyzed. Assuming that the concept of action is basic and closely related to other features of a given language, one has to reveal the underlying grammatical correlation. In other words one has to find out why feature X comes with feature Y, and so forth. From this perspective, the link between structure and content is essential because "the semantic characteristics of the structural features forming a language type make it possible to decide upon the specific features of its inner motivation" (Klimov 1983:335). Subsequently, this inner motivation or the underlying grammatical correlation provides objective criteria to identify features that do not fit a specific language type, as residues of an earlier system, precursors of a new one, or less commonly, as borrowings.

1.2. Indo-European linguistics and content-related typology Everyone who is familiar with the recent developments in Indo-European linguistics is aware of the impact of typology on that field and especially on the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European phonemic system, cf. e.g. the effect of Jakobson's paper in Oslo (1957, published in 1962) and the glottalic theory (for a discussion of the role of typology in language reconstruction cf. Birnbaum [1977]). The implications of typology on the diachronic analysis and reconstruction of Indo-European syntax are far less well known or disregarded, as is often the case also with word-order typology. Yet the approach is useful not only for the reconstruction of the protolanguage and its earlier stages, but also for the principles underlying language change. In Indo-European linguistics we are dealing with languages

10

Introduction

whose genetic relationship has been firmly established on the basis of the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. It is in genetically related languages that typological comparison of linguistic phenomena will inform us about the underlying principles and the mechanisms of their subsequent evolution. The various instances - not always identical, but historically related - of specific structures in the individual branches often make it possible to retrace the successive stages of the linguistic development that took place once the protolanguage split up; for example, the rise of the genitive replacing the original dative in possessive mihi est constructions in Sanskrit (Rosen 1989; cf. Chapter 4). As mentioned earlier, the early Indo-European languages indeed display a number of features and structures that traditionally have been difficult to account for. Among these are mihi est constructions to indicate possession, impersonal verbs, verbal mihi est constructions, absolute constructions, the use of the dative auctoris, and related phenomena. Since these elements are shared by the very large majority of- if not all - early Indo-European languages, we may assume that they have been inherited from the protolanguage. In addition, in a number of modern Indo-European languages these structures have been replaced in the course of time, whereas they are still found in others (e.g. Russian u menja kniga 'near me is a book, I have a book'). Despite these residues, the history of Indo-European languages shows a consistent replacement of these constructions by transitive, more specifically nominative-accusative, structures. In addition, these archaic features are not limited to a specific linguistic level, but are found in syntax, morphology, and the lexicon. Yet despite the variety of linguistic levels, comparison of these structures - e.g. language internally and crosslinguistically - reveals that they share specific characteristics: the similarity of their patterns, their basic characteristics, as well as their subsequent parallel development inform us about their correlation, hence about the earlier stages of Proto-Indo-European as well as the stages of language development. On the basis of their structural similarities and subsequent parallel developments, one may indeed assume that the earlier constructions, which survive as residues in a number of languages, share some kind of underlying principle; similarly their modern equivalents also have characteristics in common: in contrast to their predecessors, they are all nominative. As noted earlier, the main principle of content-related typology is the analysis of language in toto, and its aim is to reveal the internal relationship between the structures and phenomena under consideration. Comparative and language-specific analysis provides information about the earliest stages of

Language types

11

Proto-Indo-European syntax, its internal "motivation" and the successive stages of its subsequent development. It is from this perspective that the structures mentioned earlier can be evaluated. They are presumably residues of a type of syntax that expressed the relation between action, subjectAgent, and object-Patient in a way fundamentally different from what is found in modern Indo-European languages. The replacement of these residues - as they can be retraced in historical times - then reveals one of the major changes in the history of language: the emergence and increasing importance of transitivity, which affects the very concept of action.

1.3. Language types On the basis of the concept of action and the relation between action, "subject," and "object," content-related typology distinguishes active, ergative, and nominative languages. Two of these types - ergative and nominative languages - are similar in that they display transitivity as a grammatical feature. Ergative languages typically mark the "subject" of transitive verbs, whereas the "direct object" of transitive verb and the "subject" of intransitive verbs have the same grammatical marker. Since these languages focus on the patient of the action, this marker is generally zero. Conversely, in nominative languages the agent of the verb - the subject of transitive and intransitive verbs - is not marked; the direct object, on the other hand is marked as a distinct form. Active languages, on the other hand, do not feature transitivity. This does not imply that active languages have no transitive verbs, they do. In active languages, however, transitivity is not grammatically marked. Instead of the grammatical distinction transitive-intransitive, one observes in these languages the semantic distinction between active-inactive. In the lexicon therefore active nouns are found (such as man, dog, etc.), which refer to [+animate] elements, and inactive nouns, referring to states or [animate] elements, e.g. 'stone', 'yoke', etc. Parallel to this distinction, active languages feature also two types of verbs: active verbs denoting action ( e.g. 'run', 'kill', 'put'), and inactive verbs referring to a state or a situation (e.g. 'be', 'be red', 'lie'). There is, therefore, no grammatical distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs as found in ergative and nominative languages and to which the existence of syntactic processes such as passivization is related.

12

Introduction

In ergative and nominative languages the distinction between transitive and intransitive is a syntactic opposition and can be observed, for example, in the number of arguments with which verbs combine: intransitive verbs combine with one argument, transitive verbs combine with two arguments ("subject" and "object"). Transitive verbs in addition may have a passive paradigm (or an "antipassive" in ergative languages). By contrast, active languages show the distinction animate vs. inanimate, which is expressed by the morphology of the verb (e.g. separate endings for active vs. Stative verbs) and in the combination of verb and noun. In its most strict variant, active languages combine active nouns with active verbs and inactive nouns with inactive verbs. Consequently, an active language in its purest form will include examples of the type canis currit and dog-Animate run-Active 'the dog is running'

saxum iacet stone-Inanimate lie-Stative 'the stone is lying'

but not:

°saxum movet stone-Inanimate move-Active 'the stone is moving' The relation between these elements is not based on government, but on agreement or lexical concordance as expressed by the semantic feature [a animate]. Yet, since two human beings can be involved in an action featuring an agent and a patient, markers may be needed at some point to indicate the patient and the agent. These forms may then be the beginning of a case system which is typical of transitive languages. Such a development would be in line with language change: Language change shows a shift from active languages into transitive languages, either directly into a nominative language, or into an ergative language. Subsequently ergative languages may become nominative. The reverse change is not attested: "cases of an ergative or nominative language transition into active stage are not stated" (Klimov 1977:318). In line with the basic characteristic, that is, the absence of transitivity as a grammatical feature, active languages typically display a number of features at the various levels of language (cf. Klimov 1974,1977; K.H. Schmidt 1979). In chapter 2 these characteristics are further discussed and illustrated with material from especially American Indian languages. They are briefly mentioned in the following paragraphs:

Language types

13

-lexicon (a) active elements are referred to by active nouns, inactive elements are referred to by inactive nouns; (b) similarly, the lexicon distinguishes between verbs expressing action and verbs expressing a state or a situation; (c) notions susceptible of both interpretations have two lexical forms: a noun referring to the active, [+animate] element, and a noun referring to the stative, [-animate] element. The same can be observed for verbs: doublet verbs refer to the same concept, one verb being stative, one active; (d) active languages typically have a high incidence of impersonal verbs, which represent a distinctive class; -morphology (e) active languages have a weakly developed case system, if any at all; (f) by contrast, verbal morphology is extensive and based on the opposition active vs. stative verbs. As a rule, paradigms of stative verbs are defective as opposed to those of active verbs, which are fully developed; (g) the verb system is based on aspectual rather than temporal distinctions; (h) distinction between alienable and inalienable possession; (i) distinction between inclusive and exclusive pronouns. This characteristic is especially frequent in the first person plural pronouns: the inclusive pronoun 'we' refers to ego + tu (+ possible others, including more than one tu), the exclusive pronoun 'we' refers to ego + ille (+ possible others, except for tu/vos); (j) whereas grammatical cases are not relevant or non-existent, local indications are. Location therefore is important and may be the origin of the later non-grammatical cases, such as the Proto-Indo-European dative and locative; -syntax (k) absence of a verb 'have' to indicate possession. A verb of the type of Latin habeo 'have,' for example, displays transitive syntax and therefore does not fit the system of an active language. Instead a verb 'be' occurs in combination with nouns or pronouns referring to the elements that in our modern grammatical perspective would be subject and direct object. The literal translation would run: "to a person X is Y" > "X has Y";

14

Introduction

(1) instead of the distinction between direct vs. indirect object, there is an opposition between the element the action is aimed at and the element that refers to the circumstances of the action; (m) predominance of verbs, nouns, and particles. Adjectives are quasinon-existent; their functions are generally expressed by stative verbs; (n) active languages tend to be verb final, or left branching. This overview of characteristics is based on the careful analysis of languages that are neither nominative, nor ergative. The absence in these languages of transitivity as a grammatical feature and the consistent occurrence of the characteristics mentioned earlier support the assumption that these languages represent a specific language type. In Western Europe and the United States, the notion of "active language" is primarily associated with the Russian scholar Klimov because part of his work, which deals with this topic, is available in English (e.g. 1974, 1979, 1986). Yet the interpretation of these languages is not the idiosyncratic work of one man only, because the concept has been worked out by more Russian scholars (Vjaceslav Ivanov, personal communication; cf. also Klimov's bibliographies), who are perhaps less well known because their work is in Russian and has - so far - not been translated into English. Active languages can still be found, especially among the American Indians. Yet, when analyzing these languages, one has to deal with a number of typical problems. First of all, there are few active languages; in addition these do not, as a rule, have written records. Consequently, there are no direct diachronic data on active languages; the diachronic evidence we have on other non-Indo-European language families, such as the Caucasian languages is also indirect. In addition, many of these American Indian languages are on the verge of extinction. We therefore will not have any diachronic data in the future either. Finally, active languages, if analyzed at all, have often been described from the perspective of the native tongue of the linguist, or from the perspective of Latin. In Chapter 2 the problems related to the study of American Indian languages will be discussed further, and evidence from these languages that is of interest for the current analysis will be presented in greater detail.

Proto-Indo-European and active typology

15

1.4. Proto-Indo-European and active typology The careful distinction between active, ergative, and nominative languages has been advocated and elaborated by Klimov in the 1970s; K. H. Schmidt in the late 1970s (e.g. 1979) and Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in the 1980s identified early Proto-Indo-European as an active language (1984). On the basis of what they assume to be residues of an earlier stage, they postulate that Pre-Indo-European (or early Proto-Indo-European) was an active language. Subsequently Lehmann (1989a and b, 1991, 1993) elaborated the hypothesis, relating it also to what he had found much earlier in his research on early nominal inflection in Proto-Indo-European (1958). In this article Lehmann argued that instead of being grammatical markers, nominal affixes in the earliest times had lexical meaning. Yet at that time he did not have the frame of reference to explain the characteristics he observed. Similarly, Benveniste (1966b) related mihi est constructions to impersonal verbs and even compared the situation in Indo-European to the one in Tunica, which we now know to be an active language (cf. Chapter 2). Yet as mentioned earlier, he did not have the linguistic perspective to explain the correspondence: "Benveniste's analysis of impersonals [including here mihi est] as classes of stative verbs is then quite accurate; but he unfortunately did not recognize active languages as members of a specific type. And failing that, he could not propose that Pre-Indo-European was an active language" (Lehmann 1993:222). It is the recognition of active languages as being a specific type that allows to re-evaluate the features that up to now have been very difficult to account for. In their monumental work Gamkrelidze and Ivanov present their arguments on the basis of which they posit an active language system for PreIndo-European or early Proto-Indo-European. They will be briefly discussed in the following sections, which deal with nominal and pronominal features (1.4.1) and verbal characteristics (section 1.4.2; cf. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984: Chapter 5; Lehmann 1993). 1.4.1. Nominal and pronominal features One of the principal arguments in favor of the active hypothesis for early Proto-Indo-European is the binary distinction between animate (active) nouns and inanimate (inactive) nouns, of which we find residues in the daughter languages. This opposition cannot be accounted for by the ergative

16

Introduction

hypothesis because ergative languages do not feature the distinction animate vs. inanimate in a consistent way, as was convincingly demonstrated by Villar (1984). In contrast to what was generally assumed, the opposition animate ( = agent) vs. inanimate ( = patient) is not typical for ergative languages: inanimate nouns commonly occur in agent functions in these languages whereas animate nouns occur in patient functions (cf. also Chapter 2). The major distinction animate vs. inanimate - or rather its residues - is not only attested in the lexicon of Proto-Indo-European, but also in the various linguistic levels of the protolanguage. The opposition is clearest in those elements that may include both concepts and that are expressed by two separate lexical words (discussed earlier by Meillet 1948), such as 'water,' 'fire,' etc. On the basis of evidence from the daughter languages it is possible to reconstruct for Proto-Indo-European two words for these concepts, one animate (PIE *ap- 'water as moving, even divine element'), which is attested in Sanskrit apas; one inanimate, PIE *wodort-, which we find in English water. The original feature [+animate] of Latin ignis is demonstrated, for example, in the Sanskrit cognate agnis (< PIE * ng'nior *egni- [Buck 1949:71]), which is also the name of the god of fire Agnis, son of the "divine waters", αρώη nap t 'descendant of the waters' (cf. Meillet 1948:216). With the disappearance of the distinction animate-inanimate one element of each of these doublets survived in the individual languages, which accounts for the occurrence of only one word in e.g. Latin (an original animate noun, aqua [< PIE *akwha-) and one in e.g. Germanic, the original inanimate water. The opposition animate vs. inanimate can also be observed in the vocabulary of, for example, trees and fruit, of stars and other celestial bodies, in words referring to body parts, to sleep and dreams, or to day and night (Meillet 1948). This fundamental distinction between animate and inanimate, which is found in the noun and which has a parallel in the verb class (see section 1.4.2), is the main evidence in favor of the active hypothesis. All other characteristics that active languages display, and that can be found in ProtoIndo-European, are related to this feature. Consequently there is evidence in early Indo-European for a semantic-cognitive distinction between active and inactive nouns instead of the lexical distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs. The fundamental distinction between animate and inanimate nouns accounts for a number of characteristics that at first glance may appear arbitrary, but between which exists a correlation because they reflect the same

Proto-Indo-European and active typology

17

binary distinction. Yet in order to avoid circular reasoning one has to carefully formulate the steps taken: (1) one observes residues of a dichotomy between animate and inanimate nouns in the early lexicon; (2) subsequently, one observes a number of features in early Indo-European languages that can be accounted for by assuming that in an earlier stage the basic distinction was active vs. inactive; (3) this evidence then further supports the assumption that the distinction originally was [+animate] vs. [-animate]. There is indirect evidence for an original dichotomy animate vs. inanimate in a number of grammatical features that reflect the earlier binary distinction, for example, the gender system in Hittite, which is the oldest Indo-European language attested. Instead of a threefold gender distinction, masculine, feminine, and neuter, Hittite displays a grammatical distinction animate (genus commune) vs. inanimate throughout the language and lacks the feminine. That the lack of the feminine gender in Hittite is a residue and not an innovation has been demonstrated by Schmidt (1977) and also Meid (1979:165ff). In line with the lack of feminine gender Hittite adjectives only have two forms, one series referring to the genus commune and one referring to neuter nouns (Sturtevant 1951:82, 84ff). Although adjectives were late in Indo-European, many adjectival paradigms in other languages than Hittite also lack a special form for the feminine gender. Whereas the thematic stems have been regularized in the course of time and have developed three forms for the three genders, as can be observed in Latin, many adjectival classes kept their archaic character (cf. Lehmann 1993: 155157), still displaying the ancient and original distinction between animate and inanimate gender: one form for masculine/feminine (e.g. Latin utilis 'useful') and one form for neuter (e.g. Latin utiie). In addition, whereas the non-original feminine is a derived form and opposed to masculine, it is the contrast between the neuter and the animate that "is of a syntactical nature [as reflected in] the lack of a distinction between the nominative and the accusative in the neuter" (Kurylowicz 1964:207). The lateness of the feminine gender can also be demonstrated by referring to derived, or secondary compound adjectives in Greek, which do not have a specific form for the feminine (cf., Kurylowicz 1964) On the basis of Hittite data it is also possible to distinguish two forms denoting the genitive for the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European; in origin these were not differentiated according to number, but according to the distinction animate vs. inanimate (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984:268271). The other early dialects have *-(o)s as the marker for the genitive singular, and *-om as the marker for the genitive plural, cf.:

18

Introduction

Sanskrit pad-as Greek ποδ-ός Latin ped-is

foot-Gen, sg. (< PIE *ped-es/-os)

Sanskrit pad-am Greek ποδ-ών Latin ped-um

feet-Gen.

(< PIE *ped-om)

Hittite, however, features both suffixes, for both numbers: -as and -an indicate the genitive singular, as well as plural. Yet it is also clear that -an was the genitive marker of animate nouns: it "is found in Hittite only with words for living beings, in the singular less frequently than in the plural" (Sturtevant 1951:91). The suffix -as, on the other hand, was used for both the plural and the singular as well and it was the marker of the genitive singular and plural of the r/n nouns, which are archaic and typically neuter, hence inanimate. This distinction suggests that the Hittite situation maintains residues reflecting the earlier situation where the genitive markers -as and -an were distinguished by the opposition animate (-an) vs. inanimate (-as) and not by the opposition singular vs. plural, which was a later development (see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:235). That the distinction singular vs. plural is not the original distinction between both suffixes is further supported by the genitive forms in -om, which are a later formation coinciding with the emergence of the category of number. The lengthened vowel in -om is assumed to be the result of compensatory lengthening due to the loss of an -s, marker of the plural (om< om+s) (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:234). Consequently, if -s is the marker for number, then -om originally was not marked for number. This example reflects the development during which the cognitive link with the gender (animate-inanimate) distinction was lost, and number distinction came to prevail. The other daughter languages reflect the situation after the redistribution of the suffixes during which -om became the marker of the genitive plural ( -anza). Words in -anza are therefore "des nominatifs de themes en -ant, derives d'autres themes" (Benveniste 1962a:45). According to Benveniste the formation is restricted to the language of rituals especially the "vocabulaire de la magie" and is used to refer to notions as "puissances actives" cf. pir/parn- 'house', but parnant- 'house as seat of power' (Benveniste 1962a:51,48). In Benveniste's view, the suffix therefore remains basically a derivational element, whereas in Laroche's view the form in -anza is the result of a morphological derivation with a syntactic function, that of the ergative: the inanimate noun can feature as the agent of a transitive verb by a two-stage process. First, the inanimate noun followed by the suffix -ant became an animate noun, which is a derivational process; subsequently, the word in combination with a transitive verb then takes the nominative ending and the word assumes a syntactic function. Yet independently of the exact status of the suffix, it still remains to be explained why Hittite, Luvian, and Lycian featured this kind of marking in the first place. Why is it, for example, that -anza was used on a restricted

52

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

number of originally neuter nouns in Agent position. Or why is it that there are no neuters in Agent-function except for the -anza-group (Laroche 1962; Garrett 1990:270). Conversely, semantically inanimate common-gender nouns are frequent in Agent-function (Garrett 1990:271). This characteristic supports the hypothesis in Garrett's view that "ergatives" are syntactically rather than semantically motivated (1990:269271). He therefore argues that the ergative constructions in Anatolian (that is, in Hittite and Luvian) are the result of a reanalysis of a former instrumental ablative in transitive clauses, thus relating clauses of the type (a) and (b): (a)

John opened the door with the key

(b)

The key opened the door

Since instrumental ablatives as a rule do not occur in subject position in clauses featuring intransitive verbs, this type of structure is limited only to transitive clauses and could only result in an ergative, not in a nominative (cf. Garrett 1990:265). We will come back to this interpretation later. We will leave details of Garrett's phonological and morphological reasoning to the specialists in the respective Anatolian languages. Instead we will concentrate on a number of syntactic considerations his approach suggests. First, Garrett accounts for the fact that -anza in Hittite is restricted to neuter singular nouns: the ablative formation in -anza in Hittite is restricted to neuter nouns, mainly //r-stems (Garrett 1990; Jasanoff 1973). In addition, Garrett's reconstruction, which implies a marked neuter in ergative function corresponds to the typological regularities as formulated in Silverstein's hierarchy. Yet Garrett' s explanation leaves out the plural formation in -antes, which is etymologically a nominative. There are also a number of problems that are related in essence to the subsequent development that has been suggested. Earlier Puhvel also has proposed that the-anza ending is an ergative, arguing that its origin is related to impersonal constructions (1984:477), such as Latin me piget 'it troubles me,' or fulminibus hominem occisit (lightning-Abl.pl. man-Ace. kill-Pf-3sg.) 'the man was killed by lightning'. In Garrett's view the impersonal verb is too much of a marginal phenomenon in Hittite to be the triggering mechanism behind the creation of the ergative (1990:277). He instead suggests that the ergative originated in structures of the type (a) (a)

transitive verb + instrumental abl. and no overt subject,

Proto-Indo-European and the ergative hypothesis

53

such as:

Hittite: n-at witenanza Prt.-3sg.-Acc. water-Abl.sg. 's/he purifies it with water'

parkunuzi pure-Caus.-Pr.-3sg.

Reanalysis of this example would give, according to Garrett: Hittite: n-at witenanza Prt.-3sg.-Abl. water-Erg.sg. 'water purifies it' (Garrett 1990:277)

parkunuzi pure-Caus.-Pr.-3sg.

Since instrumental ablatives only occur in clauses featuring a transitive verb, the suffix -anza also only occurs in transitive contexts. This interpretation triggers a number of questions. First, there is no difference between Garrett's clauses of the type under (a) and Puhvel's examples such asfulminibus hominem occisit. In addition, there is another problem: constructions of the type fulminibus... are not restricted to Hittite or even Anatolian. They have been attested in a wide variety of IndoEuropean languages, Old Norse, Icelandic, Latin, Greek, Russian, Lithuanian, and so forth. Yet in these languages they did not give way to any ergative-like structures. The legitimate question here would be therefore to ask why "ergatives" have been restricted to a few Anatolian languages, if the original structure was more widespread? In addition, assuming that all the morphological details used by Garrett unambiguously support his claim, we still have to account for a very complicated problem: the internal split in the group of neuter words, which distinguish between nouns that have an "ergative" ending and those that do not. In other words why do some neuter nouns show a single form for nominative and accusative, whereas others distinguish a specified ergative? Adjectival agreement is another complication: in the early stages of Hittite adjectival agreement of the so-called ergatives is lacking: forms in -αηζα do not combine with neuter adjectives, but with masculine/feminine forms, which supports the derivation hypothesis referred to earlier in these pages. Only as the result of a secondary development "ergatives" combined with adjectives displaying "ergative" endings (Garrett 1990:289). On the basis of Hittite evidence and the problems that Garrett's interpretations create, there is no reason to assume that -αηζα was a full-fledged

54

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

inflectional case ending, representing an ergative, and fully integrated in the case system. In addition, the restriction of this formation to the Anatolian group excludes the possibility of a Proto-Indo-European origin. Also it suggests that the ergative-like function of the suffix -anza may be related to contact with neighboring languages that were ergative. 2.3.4.2. Direct evidence from Indo-Iranian? In a number of Eastern Indo-European languages we find a specific type of structure that has been interpreted as ergative and that indeed displays nonnominative case marking in aspectually marked contexts. In contrast to Hittite "ergatives," which are assumed to show split-ergativity according to the semantics of the nouns involved, the patterns of split-ergativity in the Eastern Indo-European languages are based on aspectual distinctions. These ergative structures were not inherited from the protolanguage, but developed independently in the Indo-Iranian branch, displaying their own characteristics of ergativity. Since many of these languages have a written past, it is possible in a number of instances to follow the development of this structure. It would bring us too far to analyze these constructions in detail, but a number of basic characteristics need to be examined in this context. An example of the structure under consideration can be found in Modern Iranian, which includes the following types of construction: Modern Iranian: Transitive verbs: (A) Past tense: (B)

Indirect Object Direct Object Verb (Underlying Subject) (Underlying Object) Other tenses: Subj-Nom. Object-Ace. Verb

Intransitive verbs: (C) All tenses:

Subj.-Nom.

Verb

Similar patterns are found in other Indo-Iranian languages, such as Hindi. The case which in structure (A) refers to the grammatical subject varies across these languages, but they all are oblique cases. The verb in these contexts displays either subject, object or mixed agreement. Although these structures may vary in detail cross-linguistically - e.g. in the exact choice of case or the type of verbal agreement - they share a number of important characteristics. First, they mark the agent of transitive verbs with an oblique case suffix; this type of "ergative" marking is restricted, however, to the past tense and/or perfective aspect. Second, al-

Proto-Indo-European and the ergative hypothesis

55

though these structures developed in the individual languages, they presumably all go back to the same type of structure, which is attested in the respective earlier languages and which is in fact a participle construction featuring the perfective participle in *-ta, as in the following example from Old Persian: Old Persian: ima tya manä kartam (astiy) this-Acc. me-Gen. do-PPart. 'this is what was done by me' (Example from the 5th or 6th century B.C.; Pirejko 1979:482) In this example the participle typically agrees with the direct object. This periphrastic verbal structure eventually replaced the inflected perfect (Meillet 1931:109). These structures, which are found e.g. in Sanskrit, not only show "agreement between the participle and object" but also "fluctuation in the choice of subject case forms" (Pirejko 1979:483), which means that the agent is typically referred to by non-nominative cases. Ergative structures in Iranian languages are not very stable because they display split-patterns: they represent a type of aspectually marked ergativity expressed only in case marking, not always accordingly in verb agreement. Consequently, the degree of ergativity varies from language to language (cf. Pirejko 1979:487). In the Indo-Aryan branch there may be a stabilizing factor in the presence of ergative neighboring languages such as TibetoBurman ones (Pirejko 1979:487; Regamey 1954). Also, in the Indo-Aryan branch the instrumental was more commonly used in the original participial construction than the genitive, which explains why the ergative marker in these languages is in fact a former instrumental (Pirejko 1979:487). Conversely, in the Iranian languages the genitive was more common, thereby establishing an explicit link between possessive and participle constructions. Assuming that the genitive is early, the predominant use of the instrumental marks a moving away from the nominal structure. In Chapter 5 these structures will be discussed in greater detail as well as their internal correlation and the differences with similar structures in other Indo-European languages. Analysis of these pages focused on the relevance of these structures for the ergative hypothesis. If indeed the socalled ergative construction in Indo-Iranian originated in the perfective participle construction, we are still dealing with a development that was confined to that branch of Indo-European. In other branches a very different development took place as we will see in Chapter 5. Consequently, the

56

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

ergative structure that we find in a number of Indo-Iranian languages cannot be inherited from the protolanguage: it may in fact owe its development, in part, to neighboring ergative languages. Its existence therefore does not support the ergative hypothesis for Proto-Indo-European. 2.3.5. Ergativity in Proto-Indo-European: Conclusion The ergative hypothesis for Proto-Indo-European is long-standing. Not only have scholars in the 19th century compared structures in Indo-Iranian with ergative constructions in Basque or Caucasian languages, from 1901 onwards they have been carrying out systematic analyses to support the assumption that Proto-Indo-European originally was ergative. The arguments used in this discussion are not very consistent, however, and some of them are refuted on the basis of evidence from recent typological and comparative analyses. Traditionally the main argument in favor of the ergative hypothesis was the explicit marking of the nominative in masculine and feminine nouns in Proto-Indo-European as opposed to the nonmarking of the neuter noun. Yet cross-linguistic analysis has pointed out that ergative marking affects first of all inanimates, and only later animates. The "ergative" marking patterns of Proto-Indo-European therefore do not fit the noun hierarchy as proposed by Silverstein (1976) and therefore no longer support the traditional ergative hypothesis for Proto-Indo-European. More recently linguists have focused, in contrast, on patterns in IndoEuropean daughter languages that are assumed to provide direct evidence in support of the ergativity hypothesis. If indeed these characteristics are ergative, we have to keep in mind that they are individual developments that took place in the specific languages and do not inform us about the originality of ergativity in Proto-Indo-European. From a more general perspective the ergative features that we find in the various Indo-European languages (assuming that they are genuine ergative structures) are too diverse and too distinct to be inherited from a common ergative protolanguage. Finally, the two scenarios of development that have been discussed in the preceding pages are not conclusively convincing for two different reasons: the assumed spreading of the antipassive, a secondary construction, as the triggering mechanism of the entire reversal of the grammatical focus in a given language seems to be far-fetched. The alternative hypothesis, which assumes the spreading of morphological marking and related functions, is more convincing and has been attested for other, nonIndo-European languages. Yet this process as such is not exclusive for the

Non-transitive languages

57

shift from ergative to nominative languages and a similar development may in fact be assumed for a shift from an active to a nominative language. Having analyzed the principal characteristics of ergative languages and having discussed the arguments that are put forth in support of the ergative hypothesis, we will now proceed to active languages, which, in contrast to nominative and ergative languages, do not have transitivity as a grammatical feature.

2.4. Non-transitive languages In the preceding pages it was pointed out that ergative and nominative languages both display transitivity as a grammatical feature, but their marking patterns of the agent of transitive verbs, the patient of transitive verbs, and the "subject" of intransitive verbs are different. In addition to differences in marking patterns, one also notes that nominative languages as a rule are consistent systems, whereas ergative languages generally are not. Ergativity may be expressed only on the morphological or syntactic level of a given language or may be limited to specific contexts: the occurrence of ergative structures may depend e.g. on the semantics of the noun phrase involved, the syntactic nature of the clause (main clause vs. subordinate clause), the aspect of the verb, and so forth (cf. section 2.2). Accordingly, ergative languages may lack an obvious typological correlation between ergative marking and other linguistic features (in lexicon, semantics, morphology, or syntax). Despite the inconsistent patterns of what is known as "split-ergativity", the splits typically affect the distribution of case marking involving the agent and patient of transitive verbs. Conversely the "subject" of intransitive verbs typically is unmarked, independently of whether the case distribution in the given language is (partly) ergative or nominative. Ergative as well as nominative languages therefore share an important characteristic: the "subject" of intransitive verbs is unmarked. From this perspective another group of languages is fundamentally different in that they show variation of case marking of the "subject" of intransitive verbs: intransitive verbs that express action or motion such as 'go', 'fall', 'walk', 'run', and so forth, take a suffix different from intransitive verbs that express state, such as 'be good', 'be red', 'forget', and so forth. Cf.:

58

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

Guarani: α-χά. Ί go' a-pua. Ί got up' In these examples the first person singular is referred to with the prefix a-, In the next two examples the first person singular is referred to with the prefix se-\ Guarani: se-rasi. Ί am sick' se-ropehn. Ί am sleepy' (examples from Mithun 1991:511) Dixon refers to this type of language as "Fluid-S" and "Split-S" languages (1979, 1994:70-83). Despite fundamental differences, he considers these languages to reflect variants of ergativity, displaying a split conditioned by "the semantic nature of the main verb" (1994:70). In his definition and brief analysis he considers these languages from a transitive perspective. As a result the mould of transitivity is placed on the marking patterns of these languages. Yet the very notion of having a split in "subject" marking in intransitive verbs (often, in addition, similar to that in transitive verbs) undermines the very assumption that transitivity is the basic feature of this morphological patterning. This reasoning will be confirmed when one examines Fluid-S and Split-S languages in greater detail. Fluid-S languages mark the subject of intransitive verbs with "Agent" or "Object" suffixes according to the notion of [a control] as conceived by the speakers of the language. In Acehnese e.g. (a West Austronesian language spoken in North Sumatra) the intransitive verb 'get up' receives the agent suffix whereas 'fall' features the object suffix because control is not involved in this verb (Dixon 1994:80). The degree of control in either of these verbs may vary in the individual languages, hence the potential crosslinguistic variation of Sa or So marking on the same semantic verb. In some languages, for example, 'vomit' may be conceived as a [+ control] verb, whereas in other languages it is a [- control] verb. In addition, "each intransitive verb has the potentiality of taking either of two markings, to directly reflect its context of use" (Dixon, 1994:82). Marking is therefore context related and it is accordingly possible to indicate control or lack of control. The same verb may be used with "object" marking when control is not implied, or "subject" marking when it is. In spoken Tibetan e.g. this marking pattern indicates the distinction between 'going somewhere' as a child as opposed to 'going somewhere' as an adult.

Non-transitive languages

59

In Split-S languages, on the other hand, "intransitive verbs are divided into two sets, roughly on semantic grounds, but each still has a single syntactic frame available" (Dixon 1994:82). The semantics of the verb are therefore inherently related to the concept of [a control], which accounts for the absence of variation. Split-S and Fluid-S languages are therefore basically the same; Fluid-S languages, however, allow context-related variation, whereas Split-S languages represent the more rigid type. It is very difficult to give an adequate analysis of these languages if one holds - be it consciously or unconsciously - to the distinction of transitive vs. intransitive (see e.g. Dixon 1994:72-78). The very split in subject marking suggests that intransitive verbs in this type of language no longer represent a specific category of their own, diametrically opposed to transitive verbs as expressed by grammatical marking. It is therefore legitimate to assume that we are dealing with a fundamentally different language system. This theoretical observation is further supported by Mithun's findings (1991) showing that in these languages the distinction is between event vs. state, and not, grammatically speaking, between transitive and intransitive. Agency marking indeed cuts across the traditional distinction of transitive vs. intransitive verb classes. Similarly, in a number of American Indian languages, such as Takelma, the morphological marker of So does not correspond to the patient marking of transitive verbs (Sapir 1917a:84). In addition to this evidence, which suggests that these languages represent a distinct type of language - to which I will further refer as "active language" - these languages, despite their lack of genetic relationship, share a number of other features that are somehow typologically and grammatically related. Consequently, these languages are interesting to IndoEuropeanists for a number of reasons: (1) a number of the structures they display can be found also in the early Indo-European dialects; and (2) a number of structures that are difficult to account for from a purely IndoEuropean perspective can be explained on the basis of an internal analysis of active languages. Comparative analysis of active languages will contribute, for example, to our understanding of impersonal verbs in Indo-European (see Chapter 3) or our perception of possessive constructions and their development in Indo-European (Chapter 4). 2.4.1. Active languages Since active languages typically do not have transitivity as a grammatically feature, transitivity is not grammatically marked. Consequently, there

60

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

is no relation of government between the arguments and the verb, but rather a relation of agreement. Instead of having an opposition between transitive and intransitive - which is the most fundamental characteristic of ergative as well as nominative languages - we find in these languages an opposition between event verbs and state verbs. Accordingly there is a distinction between animate and inanimate nouns. Since these distinctions are semantic rather than grammatical, their actual realization in the individual languages may vary. Variation can also be observed in characteristics that are typologically related to the basic distinction. The opposition between alienable and inalienable possession, for example, is rather common, but the actual choice of nouns that figure in either category of nouns may vary from language to language. In the following pages I will discuss the characteristics of active languages that are related to their basic distinction "event" vs. "state" and that are of interest to Indo-European linguistics. Since most extant languages of the active type are found among American Indians, a few words need to be said about the corresponding field of linguistics. 2.4.2. The study of American Indian languages The study of American Indian languages has to face a number of delicate problems. First, Indian languages or their speakers are, and have long been, exposed to extinction, a process that is very difficult to stop. Second, a large number of different American Indian languages are found with a wide variety of linguistic categories and processes: languages of the Americas are linguistically very diverse. The classification of these languages has traditionally been disputed, and still is considering the vehement scholarly discussions triggered by the recent publication of Greenberg's work on Language in the Americas (1987). Whereas Greenberg posits three large stocks, and relates them to three assumed waves of immigration, others in the past have proposed many more language stocks. The well-known classification by Powell (1891), for example, distinguishes 55 stocks unevenly distributed in Northern America, each representing larger or smaller groups of languages. The main criteria for his classification are lexical similarities based on word lists (670 vocabularies that had been collected over many years by the Smithsonian Institute) that did not exceed 100 items. Before Boas and his school, it was tacitly assumed that the grammar of the Indian languages was the same all over the continent.

Non-transitive languages

61

Because of the far-reaching resemblances in both structure and vocabulary among the linguistic stocks classified by Powell as "genetically distinct", Sapir (1921, quoted in the eidtion of 1951) proposed a classification of six major stocks on the basis of phonological, morphological, and syntactic similarities. Only those similarities were taken into account that were assumed to be inherited, and not borrowed as the result of language contact. Sapir thus introduced methods from Indo-European linguistics into a field that until then had been basically vocabulary oriented. Since Indian languages show four types of morphological processes - polysynthesis, agglutination, inflection, and analysis - it is indeed possible to classify them on the basis of these and additional features. The six classes proposed by Sapir range from (1) Penutian languages, which present "many analogies to the Indo-European languages" (Sapir 1951:175), such as suffixes referring to abstractions and nominal case marking, to (2) the polysynthetic Eskimo-Aleut group, whose verb structure is elaborate and displays a "fundamental distinction between the transitive and intransitive verb" (Sapir 1951:174) The corresponding nominal inflection is ergative. Similarly, the Aztec-Tanoan languages (group 3) are polysynthetic (to a lesser extent however than the Eskimo-Aleut group), they present "a sharp formal distinction between noun and verb" (Sapir 1951:175) and have transitivity as a grammatical feature. The fourth group, the Algonkin-Wakashan languages are polysynthetic and inflectional, but instead of having developed grammatical case, their suffixes refer to concrete notions, such as locality or instrumentality (adverbs), and so forth. The last two groups, the (5) Na-Dene and (6) Hokan-Siouan languages, distinguish not between transitive and intransitive verbs, but instead, between active and stative verbs. Whereas agglutination and noun incorporation are predominant processes in Hokan-Siouan, in Na-Dene languages the morphology is polysynthetic and "the radical element ... is probably always nominal in force and the verb is typically a derivative of a nominal base, which need not be found as such" (Sapir 1951:175; I will come back to this discussion of the assumed nominal base in section 2.4.3.8). If perhaps Sapir's classification does not correspond in detail to genetic reality - languages sharing the same morphological or syntactic processes do not need, after all, to share the same past, let alone the same origin - it offers at least a classification of the language types we find on the Nothern American continent.

62

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

2.4.3. Typological correlations in active languages In the following pages I discuss a number of linguistic features that are found in those American Indian languages whose grammatical system typically distinguishes between active and stative verbs, rather than between transitive and intransitive verbs. The languages examined are Navaho, one of the Na-Dene language family, the Siouan languages Winebago, Ponca, Dakota, and Mandan, and, finally, a language isolate, Tunica, which was spoken in Louisiana until recently. Reference will also be made to Tupi-Guarani, a South American language spoken in the Amazon region. The following characteristics will be discussed:

-

The distinction animate vs. inanimate (section 2.4.3.1); the distinction between active and stative verbs (section 2.4.3.2); adjectives (section 2.4.3.3); alienable vs. inalienable possession (section 2.4.3.4); grammatical marking on the verb (section 2.4.3.5); impersonal verbs (section 2.4.3.6); the verb be (section 2.4.3.7); distinction in lexical categories and their functions (section 2.4.3.8); processes of nominalization (section 2.4.3.9); locative indication and adpositions: rest vs. motion (section 2.4.3.10).

As pointed out in Chapter 1, Klimov identified these features and their correlation, arguing that they point to a specific language type. He based his assumption on his own research as well as on observations and findings of other scholars, mostly specialists in American Indian languages (cf., for example, his bibliographical references 1974, 1977). The following sections will analyze the characteristics mentioned above. The material presented here is twofold. On the one hand, data from independent studies and grammars of American Indian languages will be presented and discussed. On the other hand, reference will be made to Klimov's work, giving him the credit he deserves. This discussion therefore presents independent material that corroborates Klimov's argumentation. The structures, categories, and processes that have been mentioned in the previous paragraphs are found consistently in the languages under consideration. It is therefore necessary to point out their correlation and also to find out whether they can be found in other - non-active - languages as well. The structures that will be analyzed in the following pages are perhaps

Non-transitive languages

63

not exactly identical to what is found in Proto-Indo-European, but they present striking similarities in features and in their mutual correlation. 2.4.3.1. The distinction animate vs. inanimate Gender is an agreement category that is primarily nominal. The distinction animate vs. inanimate is found in noun classification, in demonstratives, and pronouns. Although in many languages the animate - inanimate opposition is historically closely related to the gender distinctions masculine, feminine, and neuter, it has primarily a semantic motivation. This motivation is often language specific so that the exact details of the classification or subcategorization may perhaps be difficult to grasp for a casual observer who does not analyze the system from within the language. In Ponca, for example, the distinction [a animate] is related to further subcategorization: the class of animates has a subcategorization distinguishing between animates "at rest and moving". Inanimates are further subcategorized according to shape and position: standing vs. horizontal vs. scattered objects (Boas and Swanton 1971:890). These distinctions are grammatically marked by articles (Boas and Swanton 1971:939-940). In addition to variation in classification patterns, languages also display variation in subcategorization and marking, as is clearly illustrated in Tunica. In Tunica we find an explicit distinction between animate and inanimate nouns (Haas 1940). In addition, animate nouns are classified according to the feature [a human], a characteristic commonly attested in active languages (Klimov 1977:317); each of these animate classes subsequently shows male and female subcategories. This distinction is based on natural gender and is formally marked in agreement patterns. When human animates, male and female, are referred to with one word, there is different marking in the dual, plural, and collective. In contrast to Proto-Indo-European, where the masculine plural is used when referring to masculine and feminine nouns, Tunica shows gender variation according to number: Marking patterns of combined male and female referents according to number in Tunica Dual Plural Collective [+human animate] M M M [-human animate] M F F [+ human, sex unknown or irrelevant] M M M [-human, sex unknown or irrelevant] M F F (Haas 1940:103ff)

64

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

Inanimates in Tunica do not have a distinct gender, such as neuter, but they have either masculine or feminine gender, according to specific criteria. They form a distinct category in that there is a distinction - in contrast to animates - between "continual and integral" inanimates. One and the same nominal inanimate root can be continual (or collectivized), or integral. If continual (hence collectivized), the noun will be feminine; if integral, its gender will be masculine, cf.: Tunica ta'rkuku 'tree' (masculine; individuated element) ta'rkuhci 'wood' (feminine, collectivized element) (Haas 1940:104-5) The distinction between animate and inanimate nouns is therefore not expressed by a distinct gender form (e.g. neuter as opposed to masculine/ feminine), but instead by distinct opposition patterns: the feature [+ human], [- human] in animates, and [integral] vs. [continual] in inanimates: Animate Human

/\ Female

Male

Inanimate Non-human

/\ Female

Male

Masc. Fern. Masc. (Haas 1946:358)

Fern.

Integral

Continual

Masc.

Fern.

In addition, inanimate nouns differ from animates also in position agreement, which in Tunica classifies nouns on the basis of their "characteristic position" or their inherent features (Haas 1940:110-111). Inanimates show less variety in this respect than animate nouns. Consequently, the distinction between animate and inanimate nouns is grammatically marked at various levels of the language. Findings from Tunica therefore confirm Klimov's observation that the opposition is "not expressed in the structure of the nouns themselves, ... [but] makes itself known distinctly in most various links of linguistic structure (for example, ... in the category of possession, the category of number, etc.)" (1974:14). Although Tunica formally distinguishes only two genders - masculine and feminine, as reflected also in the pronominal paradigm - there is a grammatically marked distinction between animates and inanimates: nouns are assigned differently to the two classes (animate: +/- human; inanimate:

Non-transitive languages

65

collective vs. individuated), and they display different position-agreement marking. The distinction between feminine and masculine is grammatical and not as such related to natural gender differences (except for animates), and is therefore different from the semantically motivated distinctions, animate vs. inanimate, or collective vs. individuated. As Haas put it: "All nouns are either masculine or feminine. This classification into masculine and feminine may be termed outer or "grammatical" classification. The criteria needed in determining the gender class of any noun, however, reflect an inner or "Ideological" classification which is based on a certain few selected natural characteristics of the entity to which the noun refers. These are conveniently grouped into a set of interweaving dichotomies" (1946:358). Masculine and feminine gender distinctions in Tunica are therefore grammatical but secondary, the main opposition being between animate and inanimate. This binary opposition (active vs. non-active nouns) in active languages "is based on the opposition of the referents corresponding to them according to the feature of the presence or absence in them of life activity" (Klimov 1974:13). This distinction is semantically motivated and is typically nominal, but we will see that these languages present a verbal parallel. 2.4.3.2. Active and stative verbs

The languages under discussion in this section typically do not display a grammatical distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs, but, instead, between active and stative verbs. Active stems typically refer to motion and activity: active verbs "render various activities, motions, events" (Klimov 1974:14), such as 'to make dry', 'to become dry', 'to place in a standing position', 'to stand up', 'to burn' (transitive) 'to burn' (intransitive). Stative stems, on the other hand, indicate condition and state; stative verbs generally also include nouns and adjectives that express quality. This class therefore includes verbs such as 'to be standing', 'to be sitting', 'to be tall', 'to be long', 'to be red', and so forth (Klimov 1974:14; Sapir and Hoijer 1963). Both types of stem display different morphological markers in their respective paradigms. In Siouan languages, for example, the personal pronouns that combine with either paradigm are clearly distinguished. Pronouns that refer to the "subject" of all verbs expressing activity are called "subject pronouns." "Objective pronouns", on the other hand, refer to the "subject" of verbs expressing conditions and to "objects" of verbs that express transitive action (Boas and S wanton 1971:390; cf. also Kennard 1936:8 for Mandan). A number of active languages show three distinct forms conveying these three functions (Sapir 1917a).

66

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

Stative stems in Tunica are limited in number and include verbs referring to emotional, physical, and mental states, and possession. In IndoEuropean languages many of these verbs correspond to impersonal verbs; their syntax therefore is of interest to Indo-European linguists as we will see in Chapter 3: "grammatically speaking the prefixes must be construed as objects even though they may usually be rendered as subjects in English translations" (Haas 1940:61). Stative verbs in Tunica feature obligatory pronominal prefixes which "are construed as objects" (Haas 1946:356) and which are identical to the marker of inalienable possession (see section 2.4.3.4). Many Stative verbs in Tunica have an inchoative variant, which not only includes the earlier mentioned pronominal prefixes, but also a third person "subject" feminine marker (as transimpersonal active verbs) (Haas 1940:61). Since active languages distinguish between action and state, the class of active verbs is transitivity independent (see also the beginning of this section). Active verbs in Tunica are much more numerous than stative verbs and they show a wide variety of forms: active verbs are either causative or non-causative (each featuring different "subjective" marking) or periphrastic constructions including auxiliaries. Each category displays the five subclasses mentioned earlier: transitive and intransitive verbs, transitive and intransitive "impersonals", and "personificatives" (Haas 1940:56; for a description of personificatives, see section 2.4.3.6). Active verbs also display different forms according to aspect, mood, and so forth. Suffixes or periphrastic constructions with auxiliaries express these values. In contrast to stative and auxiliary verbs, which cannot be used as infinitives (Haas 1940:59), the stem of active verbs can occur independently in the function of an infinitive (Haas 1946:352). Auxiliary verbs, finally, represent the third class of verbs in Tunica and are marked for mood (e.g. conditional), and aspect (e.g. repetitive, semelfactive). They are typically used in the "periphrastic inflection of active verbs," but some (e.g. causative auxiliaries) can also occur independently (Haas 1946:349). In Navaho we also observe two types of verbs, active and stative ones. Stative verbs are either in a perfective and/or continuative form, and "are descriptive of state, condition, existence, number, quality, position, stage, and the like" (Reichard 1951:120). "Generally, those verbs which in English describe physical condition, quality, and state are treated [in Navaho] as verbs, perhaps with static forms. Uninfiected words that precede a verb apply to general conditions, mental states, summary of circumstances, or results" (Reichard 1951:148). Although all grammatical persons are represented in the paradigms of these verbs, the third person is most common,

Non-transitive languages

67

given the meaning of the verb. In contrast to stative verbs, active verbs refer to activity and motion and have a wide variety of forms (stems, prefixes) expressing various grammatical tenses and - predominantly - aspectual values (e.g. inceptive) and moods. Stems and prefixes express also "time, motion, action, and [in verbs expressing motion] distance covered by a moving object" (Reichard 1951:129). As in Tunica, stative verbs can feature a causative affix meaning "cause state to be ...," hence "have at hand, have in readiness, keep" (Reichard 1951:128). In these languages the concept of verbal action or verbal state is slightly different from what we are used to in Indo-European languages: Reichard points out that the third person verbal form is the most frequent, which she ascribes to the fact that the verb primarily expresses "being static, or motion, if active" (1951:121). A stative verb, therefore, will not express, for example, "it is a round object," but rather "condition-of-beinground-exists" (Reichard 1951:121): "with some stems the motion or activity, rather than the expressed subject pronoun is the subject" (Reichard 1951:121), cf.: Navaho: si-bin 'it is full, there-is-condition-of-fullness' si-k'az 'it is cold, there-is-coldness' (Examples from Reichard 1951:128) In addition to the distinction active vs. stative verbs, Klimov also mentions what he calls "verb pairs": "if one of a pair of semantically identical verbs is combined exclusively with nouns of the active class, then the other is formed only with nouns of the inactive class", cf.: Navaho: -haah, -ya -kees (1974:15)

'to move' (of people, animals) 'to move' (of objects)

In the languages under consideration, which are characterized by the fundamental opposition active vs. inactive, the opposition transitive vs. intransitive is only a secondary feature. A number of verbs are inherently transitive, but many are transitive only as the result of the derivational process of causativization. In Tunica, for example, a number of active verbs are inherently causative. For others, "the process of causativization may be used in forming

68

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

transitives from intransitives and in forming either intransitives or transitives from impersonal or transimpersonals": Tunica: Basic Stems Causativized Stems wo'ru 'to learn' > wo'ru ... 'to show, teach...' (intrans.) (causativized trans.) pi'hu 'to hide oneself > pi'hu ... 'to hide ...' (intrans.) (causativized trans.) ha'm 'losing' > ha'ra... 'to play ...(an instrument)' (intrans.) (causativized trans.) All non-causative intransitive stems can be causativized, becoming morphologically a transitive stem: Tunica: lo'ta 'to run' (Haas 1940:68)

>

lo'ta...

'to cause ... to run'

In Mandan the prefix here is combined with either verb, noun, or adjective to form a compound causative verb: Mandan: psi'herero'makoc 'he blackened it' (psi - stem; here = causative; -[r\o'makoc 'narrative past'; Kennard 1936:29). The process therefore affects active as well as stative stems, as in the Mandan example: Mandan: nita 'menis kite: 'harata nita' -menis ki -te:'hara ta Poss.-2sg. horse Prefix die-Caus. -Impera.-Masc. 'kill your own horse' (The prefix ki- indicates that the agent is the owner) (Kennard 1936:11) The preceding discussion shows that instead of being a fundamental feature, transitivity is secondary and is marked by a derivative process whereby inherently intransitive stems become transitive or vice versa. This

Non-transitive languages

69

process affects active as well as stative verb stems. The derivative processes discussed in these paragraphs imply that the same verbal root can be the basis for transitive as well as intransitive verbs. The absence of transitivity as a grammatical feature in these languages further accounts for the lack of verbs of possession (such as 'have'), which are characterized by transitive syntax: these lexems indicate "typical subject - object relations" (Klimov 1974:15; for a discussion in greater detail, see section 2.4.3.7 and Chapter 4). 2.4.3.3. Adjectives An important characteristic of American Indian languages is the apparent lack of clear-cut distinctions between lexical categories (e.g. Kuiper 1968; Sasse 1993). In many of these languages the boundaries between nouns and verbs are vague, as may become apparent when we attempt to translate these elements into English: the lexical categories of one language do not cover the lexical categories of the other. This phenomenon is partly related to the verbal distinctions discussed in the previous section, where it was pointed out that some verbs are much like adjectives and that adjectives apparently are lacking in active languages. In fact, stative verbs assume the function of adjectives (or at least what from our own linguistic perspective is an adjective). In Navaho, for example, stative verbs convey "many ideas which in English are adjectives" (Reichard 1951:51). The close connection between verbs and adjectives is further shown in the fact that "a class of verbs may properly be called adjectives" (1951:51). These elements are independent; they precede the verb and have static and progressive forms, which makes them verbal elements despite their adjectival meaning (Reichard 1951:51), e.g.: Navaho: 'adi' (stat.) 'adi (progr.)

'wellbred, having breeding' 'becoming worthy, deserving'

Consequently, "in certain respects static verbs [in Navaho] take the place of adjectives in English" (Reichard 1951:120). Yet, although static verbs may cover many "descriptive functions" which are referred to by adjectives in Modern English, Navaho also features adjectives, but they represent a class that is less distinct than in modern Indo-European languages. Indeed "grammatically noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, and postposition may be differentiated. Each is treated in a distinctive way, but there is much overlapping" (Reichard 1951:47).

70

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

The verbal nature of some adjectives in Navaho is shown in a number of characteristics: they display static and progressive forms or combine with the possessive/inactive pronominal prefix (on the formal identity of these two markers, cf. also section 2.4.3.4): Navaho: si-tse · Ί am strong' (si is a possessive pronominal prefix) ni-tse · 'you are strong' (m is a possessive pronominal prefix) (Reichard 1951:147) In Tunica as well, stative verbs semantically are quite similar to adjectives and a number of adjectives are indeed derived from stative verbs. Yet their inflection is different: attributive adjectives do not feature inalienable markers (cf. Haas 1940:59). Attributive adjectives are, therefore, not verbal elements; conversely, however, stative verbs function as predicative adjectives. Accordingly, Kamaiura, a Guarani language, "lacks an independent class of adjectives" (Seki 1990:368). Instead, it includes a class of descriptive verbs, consisting "largely of verbs which predicate qualities and relations, including concepts that would be expressed by adjectives in other languages" (Seki 1990:371). These verbs as well as other inactive verbs share the feature "lack of control". It is striking that Guarani, which does not have adjectives, transfers adjectives borrowed from Spanish into the class of stative verbs (cf. Mithun 1991:514; Seki 1990). In the languages under consideration in these pages the distinction between grammatical categories is rather opaque. Adjectives and verbs are not clear-cut distinct categories as we observed in the preceding paragraphs. Instead of being nominal elements, predicate adjectives are verbal in meaning as well as grammatical behavior, since they display grammatical marking for aspect and person. We know that, in Indo-European, adjectives were late as we see for instance in the etymology of Germanic adjectives: a very small minority have Proto-Indo-European roots (cf. Heidermanns 1993). Conversely, we find quite a number of verbs that refer to a state or a quality and therefore remind us of what we find in active languages, cf. verbs of the type τυραννεύω 'to be a sovereign' or βασιλεύω Ί am king' in Greek. 2.4.3.4. Alienable vs. inalienable possession

The languages discussed in these pages, all of which feature the distinction active vs. stative verbs, typically also display the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession (Klimov 1974:22; Seki 1990). Most

Non-transitive languages

11

commonly this distinction is expressed in the pronominal system such as we find in Siouan languages. Teton, for example, a Siouan language, distinguishes two distinct sets of pronominal prefixes, one marking alienable and one marking inalienable possession (Boas and S wanton 1971:890, 946- 947). Ponca as well has a specific prefix to mark kinship relations as opposed to independent possessives (Boas and Swanton 1971:947-948). A number of languages, such as Kamaiurä, distinguish "two major classes of nominal stems" on the basis of this feature: stems that combine with -r include only inalienable nouns, those that combine with zero include both types of nouns, alienable and inalienable (Seki 1990:377). In Mandan we find "two distinctive sets of possessive pronouns..., the one used with parts of the body, things worn on the body, and certain kinship terms" (Kennard 1936:27). The other set of possessive pronouns is combined with all other nouns. Formally the distinction is quite clear-cut: the inalienable pronominal elements are prefixes, whereas the alienable ones are independent pronouns, although they may be also prefixed to nouns (Kennard 1936:27). In Tunica, finally, "personal pronominal prefixes occur in two related sets, the inalienable and the alienable" (Haas 1940:37). Both forms are prefixes but the alienable prefix is derived from the inalienable one, hence secondary. Inalienable possession in Tunica is not only marked by a specific prefix, its marking is also - in contrast to alienable possession - obligatory. Inalienably possessed nouns cannot occur without the possessive prefix. In Tunica "inalienable possessive noun stems" refer to kinship, body parts and also include "miscellaneous" words such as -e'tisa 'name' (Haas 1940:64). The motivation of the distinction alienable vs. inalienable in specific languages is not always clear-cut to linguists. Kennard, for example, notices that "with kinship terms their use is wholly irregular" (1936:27). It is a fact that the notion of inalienable possession is highly language dependent and is motivated by language-internal factors that may be very difficult to grasp, related as they may be to the cultural complexity of the society involved. Much earlier, Levy-Bruhl pointed out that some Melanesian languages show inalienable possession marking, for example, on remains of food or clothes (1914). He discovered a connection between the inalienability of clothes and the cultural habit of burning these after someone's death (see also Chapter 4). In Mandan things worn on the body "may be easily considered inalienable" (cf. Kennard 1936:27). The differentiation in the actual distribution of the feature inalienable possession therefore is language specific and it does not interfere with the fact that the notion is pertinent in some languages, among them active languages. Perhaps the

72

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

explanation of this feature may be language specific as well, related to cultural phenomena as in Melanesian languages or related to the language system itself as in active languages. The basic idea of inalienable possession in active languages seems to be that the object in question does not change owner, therefore - in contrast to alienable possession - no motion or change is implied. Inalienable possession is therefore inherently static; hence the occurrence of this feature in active languages. The correlation between inalienable possession and the feature stative is further demonstrated in morphological marking: "the inalienable prefixes are used with two sets of bound stems, possessed noun stems and stative verb stems" (Haas 1940:37). The marking of nouns and verbs with the same affix therefore not only shows that nouns and verbs are closely connected as Klimov pointed out (1974:17). The phenomenon is also closely related to the opposition alienable vs. inalienable in these languages. Alternatively, prefixes marking alienable possession also combine with active verbs denoting "objectivity" (Haas 1940:37). (Note also that objects of active verbs are not morphologically identical to the "subject" of stative ones). These similarities further suggest a distinct semantic correlation between the semantic feature [inalienable] and the notion of [state]. A similar patterning can be observed in Navaho, where possessive prefixes of the so-called possessed nouns (i.e. inalienable nouns with compulsory possessive prefix) are formally identical to what Reichard refers to as "objective prefixes of transitive verbs in the active voice, and of the subjective prefixes in the passive voice" (Reichard 1951:47-48; also 84-85). Inalienable stems in Navaho include "primarily body-parts and kinship terms" (Reichard 1951:47,56). In addition to the inalienable-alienable distinction, Navaho also features a specific marker, -c-, to indicate "belongs to, is peculiar to" as in: Navaho: ne'e-c-tit ne 'edit

'nasal mucus' ' nosebleed'

°ne'e-c-dit

(nosebleed)

and not:

[< ne'e -c

-tit

]

"because blood may be found anywhere but nasal mucus belongs especially to the nostrils" (Reichard quoting a native speaker of Navaho, 1951:65). The particle -c- is therefore a marker of inalienable possession.

Non-transitive languages

73

Another type of possessive relation can be observed in the marking of co-referentiality between the "subject" of a clause and the possessor of its "object," or in other words "reflexive possession." This marking can be observed in many active languages, such as Siouan (Boas and Swanton 1971:890). In the Siouan language Mandan, for example, one finds that the verb combines with a specific prefix (/:/-) forming "a possessive verbal form" (Kennard 1936:11), indicating that the agent is the owner: Mandan: nita 'menis kite: 'harata nita' -menis ki te:' -hara- ta Poss.-2sg. -horse Prefix die -Caus. -Impera.-Masc. 'kill your own horse' (nita is the alienable possessive prefix) Ponca and Dakota also mark the verb in this context with a given prefix (Boas and Swanton 1971:912;BoasandDeloria 1941:86-87; for Kamaiura, see also Seki 1990:378-379). We find a similar characteristic in a number of Indo-European languages such as Greek, where the use of the middle as opposed to the active form of the verb marks this difference: the middle indicates that the subject of the action is co-referential with the possessor: λύει unyoke-Pr.-Act.-3sg. λύεται unyoke-Pr.-Mi.-3sg.

Ίππον 'he unyokes the horse' horse-Ace. ΐππον 'he unyokes his (own) horse' horse-Ace.

These structures existed in various periods of Greek, including Homeric Greek. A similar phenomenon is observed in Latin, where the reflexive pronoun situs indicates identity with the subject of the clause, whereas pronominal eius (third singular pronoun genitive) does not. Once more we therefore find a similarity between patterns referring to possession in active and early Indo-European languages. Not only do some early Indo-European languages display residues of a distinction alienable vs. inalienable possession; they also show patterns of related phenomena, as we will see in greater detail in Chapter 4.

74

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

2.4.3.5. Grammatical marking on the verb Earlier it was noted that nouns in the languages under consideration display relatively little morphological marking (Klimov 1974:21, see also Chapter 1 of this book). In addition, their marking typically refers to concrete notions (cf. also section 2.4.3.10). By contrast, the use of verbal prefixes and suffixes covers various kinds of marking (cf. Klimov 1974:17; 1977). Some affixes specify the position of the "subject" during the action: standing, sitting, or lying, as in Mandan (Kennard 1936:30-31). Others specify the function of the arguments, or mark person (first through fourth person) in singular, plural, and dual, or indicate aspect, aspectual values, and tense, repetitive value, mood, and so forth. In these languages aspect is more prominent than tense, if not quasi-exclusive as in Navaho, where the "system of verbal categories is essentially one of aspect" (Sapir and Swadesh 1946, quoted in the edition of 1990:139; Klimov 1977:18). We find therefore that in contrast with nominal inflection, verbal stems combine with a wide range of morphological markers conveying a variety of meanings such as the position of the argument(s), or the verbal categories tense and aspect. Also these markers may convey "affectedness" or "agency". The languages under consideration typically display a strong tendency for cross-referencing: suffixes, but especially prefixes, refer to the nouns with which the verb is combined in the clause, and they express the specific relations of each of these nouns with the finite verb (agency, affectedness, location, and so forth). From a diachronic point of view, these relations may in a later stage be the origin of grammatical functions such as "indirect object", "subject", and so forth. Generally, these patterns are referred to in the grammars in terms of subject-object function. Yet this terminology is unfortunate if not inappropriate because the functions these terms refer to are typical for transitive languages. Klimov's analysis in terms of "active" and "stative" is more accurate. Verbs in active languages distinguish "two series of personal affixes ... active and inactive, correlating them with nominal parts of the sentence, indicating active and inactive participants of the situation" (Klimov 1974:19). Also the notion active vs. stative corresponds to similar phenomena in other parts of grammar. Another scholar who is aware of incongruity in the marking of verbs in nominative vs. active languages is Mithun, who presents a detailed analysis of case marking patterns in a number of American Indian languages that are all active (1991): Guarani, Lakhota (Siouan language), Eastern Pomo, Central Pomo (California), Caddoan, and Iroquoian. Caddoan and Iroquoian both are thought

Non-transitive languages

75

to be remotely related to Siouan languages. On the basis of her morphological findings Mithun concludes that languages with active patterns represent a separate group: active "case" marking patterns are "not simply inefficient vehicles for expressing the subject and object categories of languages like English" (1991:542). Neither are they "hybrids of accusative and ergative systems" (1991:542). Instead, they are consistent and coherent systems that are autonomous; they occur where the distribution of "case" functions does not correspond to the subject or object categories we find combined with transitive verbs in a language like English (Mithun 1991:522). Without mentioning Klimov, Mithun accordingly confirms his earlier studies on the basis of independent evidence. In addition, the marking patterns in her analysis reveal their semantic motivation and the relevance of affectedness in these languages. The active American Indian languages analyzed by Mithun are all characterized by a form of "case" marking that is semantically motivated and that as a rule is expressed on the verb only. All languages feature verbal prefixes to express "case"; in addition in Central Porno, which is the most developed of them, pronouns and nouns displaying the feature [+ human] can also be marked for case. Grammatical marking in these languages is in the first place determined by the feature [event] and [state]; event verbs combine with a specific prefix (event-prefix), whereas state verbs combine with the state-prefix. Despite this general regularity, not all prefix distribution can be accounted for along these lines: event verbs are found in combination with state-prefixes and vice versa. Some of these uses can be explained by referring to processes of lexicalization, borrowing, or grammaticalization (e.g. in Caddo all causatives feature the event prefix, independently of the meaning of the verb; Mithun 1991:528). Not all instances can be explained in this way, however, and the exceptions that are not accounted for may create the impression of arbitrariness. Yet examining these examples Mithun discovered two important regularities, which are most relevant for other fields in linguistics. Mithun's data not only demonstrate the existence of a system underlying forms that may seem at first glance arbitrary; her findings are also highly important for our understanding of impersonal verbs in Indo-European languages. The use of event and stative prefixes, which was long thought to be purely arbitrary, turned out to be determined by additional semantic criteria that may differ slightly across languages, but are basically the same. In addition to the opposition [event] / [state], a second characteristic determines the nature of the prefix used in these contexts. This criterion is agency: if the verb implies a person performing, instigating, effecting, or

76

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

controlling the action, it is marked with the event-prefix (Mithun 1991: 529ff; see also Seki 1990 about the feature "lack of control"). The exact interpretation of this semantic feature varies from language to language, as semantic features often do. In Lakhota, for example, some active verbs combine with the inactive prefix ma- because the meaning of the verb implies the non-control of the participant. In another language the same verb may be marked with the active prefix because there the action implies control. These distribution patterns may therefore vary cross-linguistically, but they are internally motivated and correlated. In some languages "control" corresponds to "perform, effect, and instigate." In languages in which it does not, we find either of those three predominating. The verb 'sneeze' is an interesting example in this respect: the participant may instigate the action, but not control it. In Lakhota the verb for sneezing is an active verb because the idea of instigating the action predominates; in Central Pomo, on the other hand, the idea of lack of control predominates in the concept of the verb, which then is classified as inactive (Mithun 1991:520). Similarly, Seki points out the predominance of [a control] in the use of verbal affixes in Kamaiurä (a Guarani language) by referring to two examples that in English are translated "one who does not talk:" Kamaiurä: i-je 'erj uma 'e 3Rel-talk Nom. 'he cannot talk, he is dumb' Kamaiurä: o-je 'eg uma 'e 3set-I-talk Nom. 'he is able to talk, but does not like it' (Seki 1990:371-372) These findings not only show that the case patterns in this type of language are not arbitrary, but instead reflect coherent and consistent processes. First, the predominating criterion is the semantic notion of state vs. event. In addition, secondary criteria, whose precise interpretation varies from language to language, determine variation on a predominating theme. These variations then correspond to various stages of development. Since these instances of case marking are semantically motivated, it is not appropriate to speak of "grammatical marking" in this context. Government is not involved, but instead some kind of agreement (co-reference)

Non-transitive languages

77

between the verb and the participants of the action. Consequently, it would be a linguistic "anachronism" to speak in this context of "subject", "object", or even "agent" and "patient", hence my using "event-prefix" vs. "state-prefix" when referring to these verb markers. While investigating the patterns of marking in these languages, Mithun also discovered an important characteristic about state-prefixes (referred to by Mithun as "patient"). Mithun found that Central Porno, Caddoan, and Iroquoian, attribute state-marking under two conditions: (1) the absence of control; (2) affectedness. The notion of affectedness is relevant for verbs expressing a state that affects the participant (e.g. 'to be sick', 'dizzy', 'embarrassed', etc.). The participant is then referred to by the "patient" marker. Also, "affectedness" takes into account the fact that something has happened to a participant resulting "in a condition of which the participant is aware" (Mithun 1991:527). In Caddo, for example, the verb Ί like', or Ί want' is expressed by a verb combined with the Stative ("patient") marker: Caddo: ku:?nutah Ί [patient case] like (it)' ku:nit'aihah Ί [patient case] want (it)' (Examples from Mithun 1991:528) These structures remind us of Indo-European impersonal verbs, as we will see in the next chapter (see Chapter 3). The exact interpretation of "affectedness" varies from language to language, but is consistent within each language. Some languages even distinguish the various degrees of affectedness: In Caddo one observes a distinction in marking between the verb denoting "being happy" and the verb denoting "being tall". Being tall, which is an inherent characteristic, affects the person in question less - it is assumed - than happiness. Consequently, 'being happy' features a "patient" marker, whereas 'being tall' features an agent marker (Mithun 1991:531). Similarly the degree of empathy may be a criterion. It is also well possible that happiness is considered as something that "happens" to someone, whereas tallness may be affected by greater activity or other factors of commitment of the person involved. We observe, therefore that we have to consider the marking patterns from within the language system, including the patterns within a given category of verbs. When analyzing the mechanisms accounting for "case" marking in these languages - as in all languages - we have to keep in mind that the semantic motivation may be obscured by processes of grammaticalization, lexica-

78

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

lization, or borrowing. When borrowing from Spanish, Guarani, for example, transfers verbs into the active class, whereas adjectives are transferred into the class of stative verbs - as was pointed out earlier, in section 2.4.3.3. This phenomenon shows the relevance of these semantic features in that language. As a result of this process, verbs that might be stative also end up in the active class. Accordingly, the Guarani verb avuri 'to be bored', which was borrowed from Spanish (aburrir), is an active verb, whereas the original Guarani verb is stative (Mithun 1991:514). Similarly the verb for 'horse riding' in Mohawk is classified as a stative verb, featuring a stative marker, whereas 'bicycle riding' is classified as active. Detailed analysis of the etymology of the verb 'horse riding' shows that it goes back to a different meaning, 'carry me on its back', instead of 'horse riding'. In this instance the spreading of semantic meaning did not change "case" marking (Mithun 1991:534). Mithun's article shows that the opposition [event] vs. [state] is fundamental to active languages; yet not all marking can be accounted for on the basis of this contrast because state verbs occasionally combine with eventprefixes, and - though to a lesser extent - vice versa. Although these "deviations" may vary in detail from language to language, thus creating the impression of arbitrariness, they all correspond to clear-cut semantic regularities, the criteria of control or affectedness. Interestingly, the situation of "case" marking that is thus revealed shows a system that displays an eventsuffix ("agent"), a state-suffix ("patient") - potentially a zero marker which marks not only the absence of control but also affectedness, and another case, the dative. These last two markers, zero and the dative, occur in some languages. The dative then typically "may assume some of the roles carried by a patient case in other languages, as in the Muskogean family" (Mithun 1991:539). The regularities revealed by Mithun, which confirm Klimov's findings, are highly important because they show that the use of these prefixes is not grammatically, but rather semantically motivated. They also show that the "case" that is generally referred to as the "patient" in these languages is not merely a non-agentive, but has its own motivation and meaning. The "patient" marker is therefore not merely the opposite of the agent marker, indicating non-agent. In fact, it turns out that the "patient" refers to an independent category with its own value. It refers to affectedness, and the occurrence of the agent marker in state verbs indicates the lack of this feature. This characteristic accounts for the occurrence - and importance of impersonal verbs in this type of language.

Non-transitive languages

79

2.4.3.6. Impersonal verbs

Impersonal verbs represent an important class in active languages. They occur in both types of verbs, active as well as stative. In section 2.4.3.5 I referred to Mithun's observation that state marking in Guarani, Lakhota, and Iroquoian is related to affectedness: "[the] verbs denote states significantly affecting their participants ('be sick', 'be tired', 'be caught')" (Mithun 1991:523). Tunica, on the other hand, distinguishes in the active class of verbs between transitive, intransitive (including personificatives), and impersonal verbs, and so-called transimpersonals, which are much like impersonals. Impersonals, which are morphologically third-person feminine forms, refer to "a non-realistic or nameless entity which can never be substantially expressed within the sentence" (Haas 1940:56-57). By contrast, personificatives display only third-person masculine/feminine forms hence their resemblance to impersonal verbs - but they refer "to a realistic entity... which may be substantially expressed within the sentence" (Haas 1940:56). Transimpersonals are third-person feminine forms as well, but "in addition they must be inflected for pronominal object" (Haas 1940:58). State verbs, on the other hand, typically combine with an inalienable prefix and convey "emotional..., physical ..., and mental state" (Haas 1940:58). We will return to this topic and its implications for Indo-European impersonals in Chapter 3. As the examples mentioned above show, impersonal verbs in these languages express states that affect participants (such as 'be dizzy', 'want'), weather conditions, or age as in Navaho. Klimov did not refer explicitly to impersonal verbs, but rather to "verba sentiendi", which represent the "third lexical group of verbs" and "which indicate actions experienced by the agent ('to see', 'to hear', 'to love', 'to fall asleep', etc.)" (Klimov 1974:15). These structures are not to be seen in terms of direct or indirect object because the opposition does not exist. Finally, we find that these verbs are subject to change. In an earlier stage of the language, so-called transimpersonals in Tunica, for example, included also stems referring to involuntary action, such as 'to breathe', 'to cough' (Haas 1940:59). Now these verbs are intransitives. Since transimpersonals imply "an impersonal or nameless agent which is conceived of as acting upon the pronominal object" (Haas 1940:58), we have a true shift from an impersonal construction to a personified verb structure. These findings are also interesting from an Indo-European perspective as will become clear in Chapter 3, where I will discuss the shift from impersonal verbs to structures with a complete personified paradigm.

80

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

2.4.3.7. The verb be

The languages under consideration display, as a rule, several stems referring to 'be', as in Navaho where one stem e.g. "expresses state or condition in a general way" (adjectival elements; Reichard 1951:361). Another stem conveys 'be' in reference to a person; another again 'be' in the meaning of 'belong to, be of,' or 'be with,' 'be valuable, have value;' it may also express 'be available' with reference to objects, and so forth (Reichard 1951:361-363). These elements also occur in compounds, verbal as well as nominal, and may express possession and "coming into possession" (see also below) (1951:363-364). In addition, Navaho has "type verbs", the static forms of which specify a situation, quality, state or condition and, therefore, "indicate the presence or state of an object when often in English a noun with "is" or "are" would be used" (Reichard 1951:339). In Mandan we find a similar variety of meanings related to the notion of "exist", although the way of expressing it is slightly different. The verb in Mandan is not only marked for "grammatical" features, such as tense and aspect, but also for semantic notions such as shape of the elements combined with the verb: the language shows a series of suffixes that are used to express the position of the grammatical logical subject during the moment of action: standing, sitting, lying, and so forth: Mandan: mihy'p s i 'watara' mi hy'p -s my -moccasin Def.Art. nak -oc sitting position-Subj.- Pres. 'she is sewing my moccasins (Kennard 1936:31)

kanakoc i 'watara' k sew

aDur.-

in a sitting position'

Moreover, the distinction motion vs. state is also here expressed: "if the object is standing stationary -te is used. If moving -hak is used" (Kennard 1936:31). In addition, Mandan distinguishes three classes of nouns according to their form: "tall objects stand, round objects sit, and flat long objects lie" (Kennard 1936:31). The affixes that specify the position and shape of the elements involved in Mandan can also be used as independent elements, i.e. as verbs, and they "take the place of the verb to be or exist" (Kennard 1936:31).

Non-transitive languages

81

Earlier it was noted that nouns in Tunica are also classified according to their position (section 2.4.3.1). The same observation can be made in relation to the verbal expression "to be". Instead of one verb "be" as in English, we find a number of verbs expressing "being". Accordingly, verbs expressing "be" and specifying the position of the element involved are "often used in situations where English would use forms of the verb "to be", e.g. in such expressions as "there is a, the man"; "there is a, the dog"; "there is a, the tree" (Haas 1940:110). Similarly, rather than featuring the unspecified "be" (which is found in English), the Tunican equivalent of "there is the kettle" is "the kettle is standing". In section 2.4.3.2 it was noted that in active languages "semantically identical verbs" occur in pairs, one of which is combined exclusively "with nouns of the active class," the other "with nouns of the inactive class" (Klimov 1974:15). Klimov supports his observation with examples from Navaho: Navaho: ti' 'to be' (of people, animals) -tel 'to be' (of objects) Finally, evidence from Tunica and the other languages under consideration clearly shows the specific nature of the notion of possession in this language: stative verbs that combine with the "objective" prefix typically express states such as emotional, physical, and mental states and also possession (Haas 1940:60; Benveniste 1966b:198). Possession therefore is expressed with a stative verb, generally conveying 'be', and an inactive affix referring to the "possessor". Accordingly, there are no verba habendi: their syntax is transitive and they are therefore excluded from the language (cf. Klimov 1977:315). For an analysis of similar constructions in Proto-IndoEuropean, see the chapter on mihi est constructions in this book (chapter 4). Evidence presented in the preceding pages shows that the languages under consideration not only include a variety of verbs of the type 'be', but also a variety of verbs that convey what would be rendered by a single verb, 'be', in a number of modern Indo-European languages: Whereas English includes just one verb in the contexts mentioned above, many Indo-European languages feature a number of verbs specifying the position of the elements involved, cf. German: es steht stand-Pr.-3sg

ein Glas a glass

auf on

dem Tisch the table

82

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

which is rendered in English by: there is a glass on the table

but: German: es liegt lie-Pr.-3sg.

ein Buch a book

auf dem Tisch on the table

The verb used in English is 'be': there is a book on the table This characteristic presumably is an early feature that survived in a number of Indo-European languages spoken today. 2.4.3.8. Distinction in lexical categories and their functions In the preceding pages it has become clear that the categorial distinctions are not as clear-cut as in modern Indo-European languages. Distinction in lexical categories presents a long-standing topic of discussion in American Indian linguistics, and active languages offer especially interesting evidence in this respect. Earlier it was noted that stative verbs in active languages refer to meanings conveyed by adjectives in Indo-European languages. Other lexical categories as well do not present the clear-cut distinction we are used to in Indo-European languages. In Mandan, grammatical categories are expressed either by prefixes or suffixes. Categories that are generally assumed to be nominal (e.g. indication of locality or instrumentality) are referred to by prefixes, whereas tense, number, definiteness, exclusive pronominal reference and mode are expressed by suffixes (Kennard 1936:7). These categories, however, are not exclusively verbal. Although Kennard assumes a clear-cut distinction between nominal and verbal stems (1936:7), he also points out a characteristic that in fact refutes his assumption: the majority of affixed elements, "although primarily verbal in character, may be used with nouns" (1936:7). In these complexes the verbal suffixes are the "equivalent of the English 'be'" and "form predicate nouns of the stems to which they are affixed" (Kennard 1936:7). In pronominal marking also the distinction is not obvious between what from our (Indo-European) perspective are typically

Non-transitive languages

83

nominal elements and stative verbs: the "same pronouns which are used with the neutral verbs [= statives] are used with nouns and adjectives" (Kennard 1936:8). Similarly, a number of derivative suffixes in Mandan combine with verbal as well as nominal stems (Kennard 1936:23-24): Mandan: e'he -rahka 'just as he said it' say-3sg. at that moment su'kahka 'just the children' In Navaho the primary function of the stem, "which may be nominal, verbal, or postpositional in character" seems to be verbal (Reichard 1951:55): stems, even those that are clearly nominal may feature conjugation, verbal elements can function as nouns, and nominalizer suffixes combine with any element (verbal stem, particles, and so forth). Similarly postpositions and enclitics are very much like verbs displaying conjugation and static and progressive forms (Reichard 1951:49). The problem of category distinction is particularly apparent in adjectives in Navaho, because "many descriptive functions inhere in the verb stem" and because adjectival elements display stative and progressive forms, even though they do not show conjugation (Reichard 1951:147). This evidence shows that although Navaho distinguishes grammatically between pronouns, nouns, adjectives, verbs, and postpositions, "there is much overlapping" in the way they are treated (Reichard 1951:47). Reichard therefore concludes that classification by nouns, verbs, postpostions and particles, though convenient, does not entirely correspond to reality: "theoretically [they] all are in a single class" (1951:55). Reichard points out that "the primary meaning of nouns, pronouns and postpositions, and other elements seems to be verbal" (1951:47): "So common is the verbal meaning of nouns, pronouns and locatives that a great many idiomatic constructions may be carried on any verb whatsoever", cf.: Navaho: be' · c 'it is a flint' rather than 'a flint' cim-Q. 'it is my mother' rather than 'my mother' The "verbal" value of nouns is further supported in Reichard's view by the formal correspondences of possessive markers on nouns and "object" marking on (active) verbs, or "object" prefixes of postpositions (Reichard

84

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

1951:47-48). Also, many word complexes include possessive as well as verbal forms, whereas possessive nouns can also occur as verbs. Yet in contrast to verbs, nouns can be used alone as bare stems, which is impossible with verbs. One therefore finds that the grammatical categories in these active languages show much overlap in meaning as well as grammatical processes: stative verbs have the function of adjectives, the same suffixes are used for different categories, stems occur as conjugated as well as nominalized elements, the same word occurs as verb and as noun, adjectives may display progressive and stative forms, and so forth. Some of these phenomena may remind us of what we find in early Indo-European languages, where nominal forms of the verb represent an essential part of the grammar and display even nominal syntax (Chapters 5 and 6), or where we still find so-called "nominal clauses", which do not include a verb 'be', cf. Latin omnia praeclara rara all-Nom.pl. beautiful-Nom.pl. rare-Nom.pl. 'all beautiful things are rare' 2.4.3.9. Processes of nominalization

In the previous section we saw that some lexical categories display inflectional morphological processes typical of other categories. In addition, derivational processes allow words to shift from one category to another. These processes are numerous. The main difference between verbs and nouns in Mandan apparently relates to their accessibility to derivative processes: verbs can be nominalized and are subject to other derivative processes [e.g. instrumental prefixes, agentive formation], whereas "nouns [as a rule] are never verbalized" (Kennard 1936:25). Similarly adjectives can undergo nominalization. Whereas it is not possible to derive verbs from nouns in Mandan (Kennard 1936:7), verbs and adjectives can be nominalized by the use of prefixes, each of which expresses specific values such as agentive, or just plain nominalization: Mandan: mini'x 'to play' o'minix 'celebration' kate'heres ka te' here s agentive -die -Caus. Def.Art 'the killer' (Kennard 1936:14-15)

Non-transitive languages

85

The only affix that can be used in a process of verbalization is the causative -here, which combines in Mandan with verbs, nouns, or adjectives to form verbs. The accessibility of these categories to this process of verbalization shows the fuzzy distinction between them. Yet despite the obvious similarities between verbs and nouns in Mandan, their derivational patterns vary greatly. Other active languages also display a wide variety of verb - noun derivations but rarely the opposite process. In Navaho few morphological processes are necessary to change a verb into a noun: verb forms "without any modification are often nouns" and they may feature possessive prefixes as "the monosyllabic independent nouns" (Reichard 1951:50). In addition, in Navaho one observes the formation of participles which typically feature a prefix ('a- 'some, something, someone') and which are "nominal as well as verbal" (Reichard 1951:71). Also we notice that semantically these formations, which can be the basis of further nominalizations, have passive as well as active meaning (which reminds us of the situation in Hittite where participles in -anza are passive and active in meaning): Navaho: 'at/oh ('atfoh-ί 'asttg 'at'e-s

'weaving something, being woven' (present) 'weaver') 'weaving, something is woven' (perfective) 'something in frying' (present)

'azt'e

'something is roasted'

but: (perfective)

Once these formations have become further nominalized (e.g. 'attoh-i 'weaver'), they behave like full-fledged nouns (Reichard 1951:71-72). Despite the wide-spread lack of clear-cut distinction between lexical categories in active languages, one observes an important difference in derivation processes: verbs and adjectives can be nominalized, but nouns, as a rule, cannot be verbalized. It would be tempting to draw a parallel with what is found in early Indo-European languages where the lexical categories are distinct and nouns can be verbalized to some extent, but where nominal forms of the verb represent an important aspect of grammar with their own syntax (for further analysis, see Chapters 5 and 6).

86

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

2.4.3.10. Locatives: rest vs. motion

In the languages under consideration the distinction stative - active is not only pertinent in noun and verb classification, as we have seen, but also in postpositions: in Siouan languages e.g. the notions "rest" and "motion" are "sharply distinguished" in the local relation of nouns: "the local relations of nouns are expressed with great nicety by means of post-position, in which Doctor S wanton finds the ideas of rest and motion clearly and sharply distinguished" (Boas and S wanton 1971:891). In addition, in Navaho many postpositions show two forms, one stative, one progressive, cf.: Navaho: -i ·' (stat.) -ta' (stat.) -tc@·' (stat.)

'within' 'between' 'in the way, obstructing'

vs.

-i-h (progr.) 'into' -tah (progr.) 'among' -teg. -h (progr.) 'moving in front of; interceding' (Reichard 1951:95; with a list of additional examples on pages 95-114) In contrast to verbs, nouns in these languages display little inflection, if any at all (see also Klimov 1974:17, 21; 1977:131). Also, if there is morphological marking, it is not the type of case marking known from IndoEuropean languages, but rather reference to concrete functions, such as location, or direction as in Tunica. Consequently, "Navaho shares with other North American languages the insistence on place" (Reichard 1951: 336). In Mandan as well as Tunica there is no distinction between direct and indirect objects in the pronominal paradigm (Kennard 1936:10; Haas 1940:55). If from an English perspective both the direct and indirect object could occur in a given context, only the indirect object will be found in Tunica and will be referred to in the form of a direct object (Haas 1940:55). On nouns, however, Mandan features a postposition meaning 'to' and referring to what from our perspective would be an indirect object:

Non-transitive languages

87

Mandan: suks i 'i£ta ku 'ta suk -s i'yta ku -'ta child -Def.Art. to give-stem -Impera.-Masc. 'give it to the child' (Example from Kennard 1936:25) Similarly, Mandan has an indirect-object formation which adds the verbal stem ku 'give' to the pronoun referring to the indirect object function: Mandan: i 'seka maku 'ta i'seka ma -ku -'ta make-stem me -"Indir.Obj." -Impera.-Masc. 'make it for me' (Example from Kennard 1936:24) Consequently, instead of having case marking referring to the indirect object, Mandan shows suffixes with a directive meaning on nouns and the use of a verb 'give' in combination with the pronoun. Navaho also "speaks of handling ... a thing to or from someone" (Sapir and Swadesh 1990:137). In Yana, another active language (Northern California), the notion 'give' is rendered by the idea that a thing (whose shape is specified) "is moved away from someone and to someone else" (Sapir 1990:137). In this language not only location but also the idea of 'movement' is expressed. Other nominal suffixes in Mandan as well cover directional and locative meanings (Kennard 1936:25-26). In other Siouan languages also one finds "extended use of verbal prefixes indicating the instrumental by which an action is performed: The verb also carries indication of locative and direction" (Kennard 1936:12; with enumeration of prefixes on pages 12-14). Consequently, instead of an abstract grammatical case - such as the Indo-European dative, postpositions are found with a locative or directional meaning. We therefore once more hit upon the opposition state movement/event, which is basic in these languages. If there is any case marking, then this proces indicates active as opposed to Stative. In fact this distinction predominates to the extent that the opposition indirect object vs. direct object does not exist in active languages (Klimov 1974:16). Instead, the canonical sentence includes either SO'V (stative and affective verbs) or

88

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

SO'O"V (active verbs). O" "is used only in sentences with the active verbpredicate and denotes an object to which the action refers" (or rather the inactive element as opposed to the S which indicates the active case), e.g. "a bear breaks a tree" or "a serpent crawls to the river" (Klimov 1977:316). The object O" therefore does not cover exactly the Indo-European grammatical notion of direct object. O' in the structure mentioned above "is similar by its function to adverbials" (Klimov 1977:316). It is clear from the structures discussed in the previous paragraphs that they are locative in nature. 2 A A. Conclusion: Patterns in active languages The features briefly discussed in the preceding pages are typically found in active languages. Some of them are also attested in non-active languages but their combination and interrelationship as well as their internal linguistic motivation are unique to active languages. The predominant feature of these languages is the absence of transitivity as a grammatical feature. Instead, the language system is based on the opposition active vs. Stative. Morphological processes of causativization, which apply in active and stative verb classes, show that transitivity - if present at all - is but a secondary feature and independent of the distinction stative vs. active. The stative vs. active opposition is first of all apparent in the classification of nouns as well as verbs. The distinction animate vs. inanimate is indeed the main nominal distinction in these languages: it is semantically motivated and its grammatical marking affects various levels of the languages in question. Parallel to this nominal distinction, one finds the lexical opposition between stative and active verbs, which convey activity and state respectively. Stative verbs convey condition, state, or quality. Consequently, whereas "adjectives" in these languages (if present at all) may behave as verbs, stative verbs often convey meanings that are rendered by adjectives in modern Indo-European languages. Stative verbs also convey emotional and physical state and accordingly display specific marking patterns referring to the person affected. As a result, impersonal verbs represent an important category in these languages. Similarly, the verb 'be' is a predominant verb in this type of language: it is a typical stative verb and refers to "condition" in a general way, but its variants may also specify the shape and position of elements whose mere existence is indicated. Moreover, the verb 'to be' in combination with a non-active affix typically expresses possession.

Non-transitive languages

89

The opposition stative vs. active is also reflected in the distinction between alienable and inalienable possession. This distinction can be observed in other, non-active, languages as well, but its motivation in these may be different. Whereas the distinction in Melanesian languages, for example, is related to cultural phenomena, in active languages it is internally motivated and intertwined with the dominating pattern of the language: inalienable possession, which implies absence of change, is closely connected to stativity. This assumption has morphological support in the formal identity between the inalienable possessive marker and the inactive affix in languages such as Tunica. In addition, active languages also feature phenomena that are related to inalienable possession, such as the morphological marking of coreferentiality between the "subject/agent" and the possessor. Morphological marking in active languages differs fundamentally from morphological marking in nominative languages in two respects. First, active languages have little, if any, case marking. Conversely morphological marking on the verb is extensive, that is on active verbs. Second, whereas in nominative languages person marking on verbs typically refers to the grammatical subject, in active languages we may find reference to several elements in the clause. The patterns found in the languages discussed here reveal the predominance in these languages of the features 'stative' vs. 'active,' and also their semantic motivation. In addition, the distribution of the socalled "state-affixes" shows that "affectedness" is an independent category and not merely a reference to "non-agency". This is an important observation because speakers of modern Indo-European languages tend to project albeit unconsciously - their own linguistic perspective on non-Indo-European languages and, hence, overvalue the function of the agent, which is the focus of their language system. Instead, the significance of "affectedness" in active languages underlines, and accounts for, the importance of impersonal verbs, which convey a state (or event) that affects someone. Parallel to the abundance of morphological marking in verbs, verbs (and adjectives, if any) are often subject to derivational processes as opposed to nouns, which cannot - as a rule - be verbalized. Yet the distinction between lexical categories is not clear-cut in active languages as some morphological processes and semantic meanings show. The fundamental distinction between active and stative appears, finally, in the grammatical category of adpositions (often particles), which distinguish between rest and motion. In addition, if an active language displays some kind of "case marking", affixes refer not to abstract notions - as in Indo-European languages - but rather convey locality and direction, which once more reflects the fundamental opposition stative vs. active.

90

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

We therefore find that the features of active languages that were discussed in the preceding pages are closely interrelated and share the same underlying similarity: they all reflect in some way or other the fundamental distinction active vs. stative. A number of these features may be found in other languages also, such as inalienable possession. Yet in these instances they do not occur in systematic combination with the other features discussed here. Moreover their occurrence may have a completely different motivation from what we find in active languages, where the predominant feature is the opposition active vs. stative. Finally, we found that many of the features discussed in the preceding pages show similarities with phenomena in Indo-European languages that have not been accounted for by referring to language systems other than active. Active typology is therefore the perspective that will be taken into account when I discuss these structures in later chapters.

2.5. Conclusion: The non-nominative stage of Proto-Indo-European Discussions of the typology of early Proto-Indo-European traditionally focus on the nominative and ergative hypotheses, while the active hypothesis, despite its relevance in the earliest scholarly confrontations (cf. Sapir 1917a/b), was never seriously taken into consideration. It is striking, for example, that Sapir himself did nothing with his observations, nor did his students. They analyzed languages that we now recognize as active. Yet, as W.P. Lehmann pointed out, "their statements were purely descriptive" (personal communication). With the work of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984) and - in the Western world - Schmidt (1979) and Lehmann (1989a), the active hypothesis has finally received the attention it deserved. The majority of studies on the alleged ergativity of Proto-Indo-European do not treat the "typology" of these languages but focus on the correlation between case marking (the use of the ergative) and the degree of animacy ([+ animate] noun). In the first part of this chapter (sections 2.2 and 2.3) it was argued, however, that both phenomena - case marking and animacy - in fact represent two different linguistic entities: one is semantic, the other grammatical. The two phenomena do not necessarily coincide or combine. Moreover, ergativity refers to a grammatical rather than a semantic relation. Consequently, in the analysis of ergativity one does not focus on the degree of animacy, but rather on the marking of the grammatical

Conclusion: The non-nominative stage of Proto-Indo-European

91

functions involved. From this perspective we find a clear-cut distinction between nominative systems, which mark the patient, and ergative systems, which mark the agent. Although ergative and nominative languages display different marking patterns in conveying agent, patient, and subject, both include transitivity as a grammatical feature. Similarly, both often have extensive case marking, including locatives and Instrumentals as well as abstract grammatical functions. In addition to different marking of the agent, nominative and ergative languages present another distinction. Whereas nominative languages show a strong regularity in marking the agent, subject and patient in all levels of language as well as in the various linguistic categories (nouns, pronouns, and so forth), ergative languages are notoriously inconsistent. These inconsistencies affect the basics of the language involved: in some languages ergativity is expressed by morphological means, in others by syntactic processes, and in very few languages - if any at all - by both morphological and syntactic processes. Moreover, the phenomenon of "split-ergativity" is widespread. As recently as 1994 Dixon therefore argued that to his knowledge there are no consistent ergative languages. This inconsistency may be closely related to the apparent absence of correlation between ergative and other typological features. Evidence put forth in support of the ergativity hypothesis for ProtoIndo-European is twofold. Originally the evidence presented was indirect, such as the marking patterns in Proto-Indo-European: The explicit marking of the nominative in non-neuters as reflected in the -s suffix (section 2.3.1) and pronominal suppletion (section 2.3.2) have traditionally been interpreted as residues of a stage in which the animate noun was marked for action as opposed to the inanimate noun, which supposedly could not occur in agent function. This variant of the ergative hypothesis has been refuted by linguistic considerations, as well as by cross-linguistic and typological evidence, which shows the grammatical marking - in ergative languages of inanimates instead of animates. More recently, structures in Indo-European languages have been discussed that are assumed to provide direct evidence in favor of the ergative hypothesis. Yet even if these structures may up to some point display ergativity, it is clear that they are restricted phenomena (the nouns in -anza in Hittite) or late developments (cf. the "ergative" patterns in Indo-Iranian). In addition, these structures, which may partly be ascribed to linguistic contact with neighboring, non-Indo-European languages, differ too much to assume a common ergative prehistory for Indo-European.

92

The ergative and active hypotheses for Proto-Indo-European

The assumption that Proto-Indo-European in origin was an ergative language implies that Proto-Indo-European subsequently developed nominative typology. The two pathways that have been commonly assumed for this development, are either not convincing (the spreading of the "antipassive", a secondary construction) nor exclusively related to ergativity (the massive spreading of case marking and related functions). Yet if indeed the arguments in favor of the ergative hypothesis are not all together convincing, we still have to account for a number of structures in Indo-European languages that do not fit the patterns of a nominative language. It has been suggested here, in line with the work by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984) and Lehmann (1989a), that these characteristics can be traced back to a non-nominative, presumably active stage, of Proto-IndoEuropean. I therefore attempted to show in the second part of this chapter that active languages include a number of features that are interrelated and that share the same underlying characteristic, which is the fundamental distinction between active and stative. In contrast to ergative languages, active languages are systematic and their system is based on agreement (lexical and semantic) rather than on government. Since active languages are based on agreement and do not show transitivity as a grammatical feature, this type of language differs more from nominative languages than ergative ones do. In the preceding pages characteristics of active languages have been discussed: evidence from independent analyses of a number of American Indian languages was used. The identification of these languages as being active and the internal correlation of features is Klimov's contribution. It is striking that data from independent studies systematically confirm his observations. We also found that features of active languages show striking similarities with phenomena in early Indo-European that have not been accounted for so far. Yet it is clear that we are dealing with similar, not identical structures. We will not assume, therefore, that Proto-Indo-European in a very early stage was identical to some of the American Indian languages. Instead it will be argued that both groups of languages display structural similarities that can be accounted for by assuming a concept of verbal action different from what is known in Proto-Indo-European and IndoEuropean languages, a concept based not on the opposition transitive vs. intransitive, but rather active vs. stative. It is from this perspective that I will analyze, in the remaining chapters, a number of structures in early Indo-European languages - focusing on Latin - that have not been accounted for in traditional analyses.

Chapter 3 Impersonal verbs

Ich halte für das Indogermanische ... die unpersönliche Ausdrucksweise für alt. ... Man kann außerdem überhaupt verfolgen, daß fast alle unpersönlichen Ausdrucksweisen im Laufe der Zeit durch persönliche abgelöst werden, daß also der ältere Typus durch einen neuen ersetzt wird (Hirt 1937:11)

Although impersonal verbs are common cross-linguistically, their analysis traditionally has been what the French call 'Tenfant pauvre" of grammars of the individual languages as well as of linguistic analyses in general. In the prominent grammars of Greek and Latin, impersonal verbs are not discussed in a specific chapter or even a subchapter (Leumann and Hofmann 1965; Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950). There is therefore no mention of them in the table of contents; one just finds a number of individual verbs in the word index. The impersonal verb in Latin turns out to be discussed in the section on syntax, in the chapter dealing with non-complex clauses ("der einfache Satz", Leumann and Hofmann 1965:397-467), which discusses a wide range of topics varying from word order to impersonal verbs. The impersonal verb is analyzed in the section on one-word clauses ("Einund mehrgliedrige Sätze", Leumann and Hofmann 1965:414). This organization goes back to at least as early as Brugmann (1925), who discussed the impersonal verb, together with the vocative, the interjection, and the imperative, in his chapter "Eingliedrige Sätze". The characteristic common to these elements is that they can all form a clause of their own. Interestingly, impersonal verbs are acknowledged in these works as being a part of syntax; cf. also Delbriick (1900), who discusses impersonal verbs in his chapter on the syntax of subjectless clauses. When we examine the grammars of other languages, the lack of attention becomes more serious for the simple reason that these languages are generally less well analyzed than Latin and sometimes also because the impersonal verb may be less widespread than it is in Latin. The situation becomes increasingly difficult when we refer to non-Indo-European languages. These languages also may be less well analyzed; in addition, the very notion of impersonal verb may be a problem. At this point we may have to decide whether we are interested in a similar semantic concept, in equivalents of impersonals in English (hence a translation), or in equivalent structures.

94

Impersonal verbs

The following example shows the Japanese equivalent for an English impersonal verb referring to a weather condition. One may, however, have serious doubts as to the exact status of this structure, which in contrast to English features an explicit subject and a verb. In addition, the verb - reflecting the characteristics of Japanese - typically is not marked for person: Japanese: yuki -ga snow -Subj. 'it is snowing'

futte falling

imasu Pres.

The non-occurrence of impersonal verbs in grammars by no means implies that the languages in question have no impersonal verbs. They do, as a rule, to some extent, but the information about - if available - them is scattered throughout the works. This situation is the result of the fact that impersonal verbs have not been a special focus of interest. The fact that impersonal verbs in Indo-European, for example, represent a widespread and varied grammatical category only underscores the lack of interest of grammarians and linguists who have specialized in these languages. The reasons for this lack of interest remain unclear. Perhaps it is related to the complexity of the topic, which is indeed rather tangled. In addition, the linguistic processes involved may seem arbitrary at first glance. Also, since impersonal verbs represent specific groups of lexical elements, their mere existence has perhaps been assumed to be simply a lexical matter. Finally, impersonal verbs may be considered a matter of the individual languages, which explains why Indo-Europeanists have not analyzed the problem in a consistent way, as Lehmann has suggested recently (1997: 225). Yet this observation does not account for the fact that specialists in the individual branches do not seem to be much interested either. Although impersonal verbs indeed represent a specific group of lexical elements, it is clear also that they come with distinctive structures and that these structures are tied in with the grammar of the given language and its development, as will be demonstrated in these pages. Consequently, impersonal verbs and their evolution represent an important aspect in the analysis of language change in general and of Indo-European languages in particular. From this perspective evidence from Latin is crucial. Latin is one of the Indo-European languages where impersonal verbs are still well represented. In addition, in its well-documented history one observes a shift in impersonal structures, cf. e.g.:

The impersonal verb in Indo-European: General considerations

95

Latin: French: me pudet >(a) j'ai honte I-Ace. be-ashamed-Impers. I-Nom.-have-lsg. shame Ί am ashamed' mihi I-Dat.

licet >(b) allow-Impers. >(c)

j'ai I-Nom.-have-lsg. il m' est it me-Dat.-be-3sg.

le droit de the right to permis de allowedNom. to

Ί am allowed to' As these examples show, the Latin impersonal verb turns out to be replaced in (a) and (b) by a structure featuring a subject-Nominative and a verb, avoir 'have,' which displays transitive syntax. Consequently, over time a replacement has taken place, which, as we will see, is consistent. This shift, however, is very slow; its pace accounts for the maintenance of some impersonal verbs in Modern French, where structures of type (c) above, il m'est permis, are still common, or structures such as il me plait Ί like', or ilpleut 'it is raining'. In other Indo-European languages the occurrence of impersonal verbs is even greater, e.g. in Modern German, where instances of the type es gef llt mir Ί enjoy ...', are common, cf. also es regnet, which is the German equivalent of the English impersonal it is raining.

3.1. The impersonal verb in Indo-European: General considerations The grammatical category of impersonal verb covers a wide range of expressions in Indo-European languages, varying in meaning and, to some extent, form. Yet whatever the concrete choice of the verb or the nature of the other elements involved (nominal, pronominal, adjectival), the impersonal verb typically features a third-person singular. This is a very general definition, referred to earlier by Lehmann (1991:33), and it conveniently accounts for the distinction between Latin pluit and French // pleut or Modern German es regnet and its earlier Gothic equivalent without es, rignei > 'it is raining.' The presence of the pronominal element es or // and so forth is a later development and is related to the change of word order

96

Impersonal verbs

and the subsequent morphological shift that took place in the Indo-European languages (cf. section 3.2). Impersonal verbs are found in all Indo-European languages, but their distribution, number and frequency vary from dialect to dialect. In Sanskrit and Greek, for example, there are relatively few, whereas they are wellrepresented in Latin, Slavic, and Germanic. Classification of categories of meanings covered by impersonal verbs has been put forth by Delbriick (1900), Wackernagel (1920), Brugmann (1925), and more recently Lehmann (1991). I will briefly repeat these categories here: Category I: verbs referring to meteorological conditions and states, or natural events, cf.: Skt. La. Gr. Ru. Goth.

tapati varsati pluit nivit caletur (Ζευς) ύει (ο θεός) νείφει morozit rignei?

'it is hot' 'it is raining' 'it is raining' 'it is snowing' 'it is warm' 'it is raining' 'it is snowing' 'it is freezing' 'it is raining'

Category II: verbs conveying emotions and feelings, physical or mental state or experience, cf.: La. Gr. OE OHG ModG Lith.

me pudet μέλει μοί him hungreth mir anget mih durstit es freut mich es juckt mich/mir man n zti

Ί am ashamed' Ί care' 'he is hungry' Ί am afraid' Ί am thirsty' Ί am glad' 'it itches me' 'it itches me'

Category III: verbs expressing necessity, possibility, and so forth. In the following pages I refer to this type as "modality verbs", cf.:

Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions

La. Ru. Gr.

me decet necesse est padobaet δει με εξεστι μοι δήλοι μοι πρέπει μοι

97

'it becomes me' 'it is necessary' 'it is appropriate' Ί have to' Ί am allowed' 'it is clear to me' 'it is fitting'

These and similar examples illustrate impersonal verbs and their variety of meanings and nuances. Yet the semantic variation in the individual languages always covers the three basic meanings mentioned here. On the basis of the structural regularities and the coherence in the meanings these verbs convey, we can assume that we are dealing with patterns that have been inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In the following pages I will first discuss impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions (section 3.2). Their structural stability and lexical variation, and the occurrence of subjects in this context are discussed. The two other types of impersonal verbs, those referring to emotional and physical experience and those conveying modality, are examined in section 3.3. Their analysis focuses on Latin and includes additional impersonal constructions as well. Analysis of the development of impersonal verbs in Latin and the shift to Romance will show the consistency of the changes involved. This consistency is also attested in other Indo-European languages (section 3.4). Finally, impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages are briefly discussed, showing that impersonal verbs like those in Indo-European are not as widespread as is generally assumed (section 3.5). Their characteristics therefore provide information about the early language system in Indo-European.

3.2. Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions Impersonal verbs are found in all Indo-European languages; the more one goes back in time, the more one will find. Although their distribution varies from one language to another, the most frequent and most consistent type refers to weather conditions. These impersonal verbs are common and well-represented in all of Indo-European. In addition, some may share the same root across the Indo-European languages. Yet, there is only one

98

Impersonal verbs

weather condition for which it is possible to reconstruct the Proto-IndoEuropean etymon with certainty. For other weather conditions there is too much root variation to do so. The impersonal verb for 'rain', for example, displays six different roots across the daughter languages. Some of these refer in origin to a nominal element 'water, juice', cf. Skt. varsati 'it is raining' from vrs- which is cognate to Avestan vor- or Sanskrit van- 'water'; others refer to a verb 'flow, pour, well', such as Latin pluit < ProtoIndo-European *pleu- 'flow'. Typically a given root can mean 'rain' in one language, but may have a different meaning in another. Yet despite their variation these roots display the same basic meaning and belong to the same semantic field. In addition, when we examine the etymology of the weather verbs, we notice that some roots are rather stable whereas others are definitely not. This divergence can be observed in the history of the individual branches as well. The root for 'wind' is very stable cross-linguistically, as is the root for 'rain' in Germanic, for example, cf. Gothic rign; Old Norse and Danish, and Swedish regn; OE regn > ME rein > ModE rain; Dutch regen, which has parallels in MHG and NHG (< OHG regan) (Buck, 1949:67). By contrast, the roots for 'thunder', 'thunderbolt', and 'lightning' are highly unstable, reflecting probably a change in the concept of the related natural phenomenon or in geographical location as W.P. Lehmann pointed out (personal communication). The natural events that make up a thunderstorm were referred to in the early languages by three different roots: a root referring to 'lightning' (La..fulgor/fulget), a root referring to 'thunder', (La. tonitrus/tonai), and one identifying 'thunderbolt and lightning' as "striking" elements (La. fulmen/fulminaf). Indo-European languages generally have two words for this last concept, one referring to lightning as such, the other to its devastating effect (Buck 1949:59). Whereas all three words are found in Latin, Romance evidence is somewhat different. The distinction between fulgor andfulmen has disappeared in favor of one word, the one for lightning, as in French: fulgor > OPfoldre > ModF foudre In Modem French, however,/owdre is giving way to eclair, which explicitly refers to visual lightning. The use of foudre is most established in the expression coup de foudre 'love at first sight'. Likewise in Spanish, Latin fulmen gave way torayo (< Latin radius) 'shining ray' > 'lightning', which also refers to visual lightning. In English, we observe a similar change: the earlier struck by thunder recently came to be replaced by struck by light-

Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions

99

rang (Buck 1949:59). Evidence from various Indo-European languages therefore shows a shift in vocabulary referring to thunderstorm conditions, highlighting visual rather than physical effects. The only weather verb for which it is possible to reconstruct an IndoEuropean etymon is 'snowing'. The stem for 'snowing' (*sneigwh-) is most consistently maintained throughout Indo-European; it is best represented in the daughter languages. The words we find in the modern Indo-European languages go back, however, to five different roots. One of these (*sneigwh-} is indeed widespread, and its original meaning 'snowing' has been well preserved. An exception to this regularity is Irish snigid 'it is raining'; yet its cognate in Welsh, nyf/nyfio (now obsolete), means 'snow'. The four other roots came to mean 'snow' only in a secondary development. The original meaning of these words used to be 'cold', 'winter', or 'fall down', cf. Sanskrit hima- or Greek χίων 'snow' which originally meant 'winter', cf. Latin hiems. The Proto-Indo-European root *sneigwh- can be found in Sanskrit in snihyati 'it is/becomes sticky'. On the basis of its widespread and its original meaning - as opposed to the secondary meaning 'snow' in the other roots - we may assume that *sneigwh- was inherited in form and meaning from the protolanguage. In addition, the stem was very consistent over time and place, as we notice when examining the Indo-European daughter languages on the one hand and the individual branches, on the other, such as Germanic, where all verbs share the same etymon, and Romance, where only Rumanian shows a different word, z pad , a borrowing from Slavic with the meaning 'going down'. In Slavic the word refers to sunset; it is a derivation from za-pasii 'fall' (cf. OCS zapad 'going down of the sun'), and by extension conveys 'the West'. In Rumanian it developed the meaning of 'fall, fall of snow', subsequently 'snow' (Buck 1949:69). Analysis of the weather verbs shows that they form a group of their own, whose binding factor is (1) the semantic field; (2) the syntactic context; and (3) etymology. Whereas many impersonal weather verbs share the same etymology across the various daughter languages, impersonal verbs of type II and III do not (cf. Brugmann [1925:22-24], who assumed for this reason that weather verbs were the earliest impersonal verbs and were inherited ([see also Lehmann, 1991:33-34]). The number of roots per weather condition is limited; the variety of roots we find in the daughter languages is the result of the ease with which lexical change occurs in this category. This variation does not imply, however, that weather conditions did not have a common Proto-Indo-European etymon. The evidence necessary for reconstruction simply was lost over time.

100

Impersonal verbs

Despite the variation in roots, etymological evidence suggests that we are dealing with an inherited structure of Proto-Indo-European. This observation is supported when we briefly examine verbs referring to weather conditions in non-Indo-European languages (for a more extensive analysis of impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages, see section 3.5). These languages generally include different structures, which underscores the specificity of the Indo-European patterns. Whereas the basic weather verb in Indo-European is a third-person singular, in non-Indo-European languages the basic constructions referring to weather conditions are different, such as: Hebrew: beroq bäräq (Ps. 144.6) Lit. '(Yahweh) lightened' ki lo himtjr Iahu$ 'it is raining' kuna mawingu there is clouds 'it is cloudy' Japanese: yuki -ga futte iru snow -Subj. falling Pres. 'snow (is) falling; it is snowing' Turkish: yagmur yagiyor Lit. 'rain rains' In addition to etymological similarities, impersonal weather verbs in Indo-European share a syntactic characteristic as well: they typically do not feature argument structure. In this respect also they differ from the other impersonal verbs in Indo-European. Impersonal weather verbs are therefore lexical verbs that occur exclusively in the third-person singular form

Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions

101

and that, in origin at least, did not govern an oblique case, cf. Latin nivit 'it is snowing', gelat 'it is freezing', pluit 'it is raining', and so forth. Yet there are instances in Latin, for example, of weather verbs combined with an oblique case, but these are late and rather rare. The element in the oblique case specifies the material involved, see for example: imbre rain-Abl.

lapidat rain-Impers.

'it is pouring'

sanguine pluit blood-Abl. rain-Impers.

'it is raining blood'

lapidibus pluit stones-Abl. rain-Impers.

'it is raining stones'

The oblique case used in these instances in Latin is typically the ablative as is shown in these examples. Later we may also find accusatives: Dominus pluit... Lord rain-3sg. (Vulg. Gen. 19.25)

sulphur et ignem sulphur-Ace, and fire-Ace.

Similar examples can be found in Biblical Greek, cf: εβρεξεν πυρ και θείον

(Luc. 17.29)

This example may have had a strong influence from Hebrew. Other late instances are rorat imbrem 'it is pouring', pluit sanguinem 'it is raining blood', or pluit lapides. In Germanic we find similar examples, cf. (Brugmann 1925:24): German: es regnet it rain-3sg. 'it is pouring'

einen a-Acc.

starken GUSS heavy-Ace, downpour

By contrast, in the early Indo-European dialects the impersonal weather verb occasionally combines with the subject-Nominative. In the various languages and in the various texts of the various periods impersonal verbs occur in combination with a nominative. The question that arises is whether these structures developed later or whether they were original. Discussions in earlier times focused on this historical matter as well as on the question

102

Impersonal verbs

whether the subject was genuinely absent or "underlying". Paul, for example wondered why the clause would feature a third person form of the verb, if there were no subject (1937:130-133). In 1900 Delbriick changed his earlier assumption (1888) that impersonal verbs were original and developed a personal paradigm only later. He changed his mind, however, not because of new data or a reinterpretation of the evidence, but because of "the interpretations of others" (Lehmann 1995:37), especially philosophers. Meillet also assumed that the construction with subject was original and that the development went from personal to impersonal constructions (1937; edition of 1964). In this Meillet probably was guided by the animistic concept that he ascribed to the early Indo-Europeans, who were assumed to explain natural phenomena by referring to divinized or animate forces (1926:211-229). Another argument that is often put forth in support of the "ellipsis hypothesis" is the assumed syntactic parallel with equivalent structures in the modern Western Indo-European languages, which have e.g.: German es regnet French il pleut English it is raining Since these examples display a pronominal element in a subject function, it is assumed that examples of this type go back to similar structures in earlier times. Yet the parallel in question is not between French il tonne and Latin Jupiter tonat, but between // tonne and Latin tonat. Second, the presence of an obligatory subject pronoun does not imply that the verb can also be combined with a nominal subject, as French examples show, cf. il pleut, but not as a rule, *le del pleut (though we may find highly marked instances in poetry). In addition, it is not legitimate to base a reconstruction of the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European on evidence from modern languages, especially since we know that a major structural change has taken place in the history of the Indo-European languages. The occurrence of the pronominal element in the examples quoted earlier (U, es, it respectively) is related to the development of right-branching patterns in these languages and as such has nothing to do with the hypothetical presence of subject-Nominatives in an earlier stage. Consequently, it cannot be an argument in support of the "ellipsis hypothesis." The development of the pronominal "subject" in French il pleut (< Launpluif) or German es regnet (cf. Gothic rignei?} is a secondary development, as cross-linguistic variation of the form further supports. In the development of word order from

Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions

103

Proto-Indo-European to the modern languages, one observes a shift from OV (or left-branching) structures to VO (or right-branching) structures. This pervasive shift occurred not only in syntactic phrases (GN switching to NG, AN switching to NA, OV switching to VO, and so forth), but also in morphological structures, where the elements are ordered according to the same patterns. In morphology endings came to be replaced by prepositions, auxiliaries, or pronouns. As a result of this morphological shift, right-branching structures, in which the head (i.e. the grammatical element) precedes the lexical element, came to replace their earlier equivalents with the reverse order as in: leg-ibus (Lat.) > (Gothic dag-is)

avec des his (Fr.) 'with laws' von dem Tag (Germ.) Of the day'

Whereas prepositions and articles replaced case endings in nominal inflection, subject pronouns and auxiliaries replaced the earlier suffixes of the verbal conjugation: lauda-t laudav-erit

> >

il loue 'he praises' il aura loue 'he will have praised'

Whereas the development of the independent preceding auxiliary 'have' started in Late Latin, the emergence of the obligatory subject pronoun is late and can be traced in Old and Middle French (cf. Bauer 1995:117-118). It is, therefore, a development that takes place in the individual Romance languages. In this respect reference to Italian is revealing: Italian does not yet have obligatory subject pronouns, although occasional uses of a subject pronoun can be observed (Rohlfs, 1968:145-146). Consequently the equivalents of the Latin weather examples in Italian do not display a pronominal element, as in piove 'it is raining' (< Latin pluit). The pronominal element that comes with the impersonal verb in some of the modern Indo-European languages (German es, Dutch het, French il, English it, Danish det, and so forth) is therefore just a grammatical marker, which supports Brugmann's interpretation that these elements are "Scheinsubjekte" i.e. empty elements: "Formwort[er] ... urn ... Forderungen des Satzbaues zu erfüllen" (1925:22). Consequently, the occurrence of a pronominal element with weather verbs does not support the assumption that these verbs originally were personal. The nominal elements - featuring a nominative - that are combined with impersonal verbs in Indo-European are twofold:

104

Impersonal verbs

(1) Most common are names of deities, who are considered subjectAgents responsible for the weather condition, cf.: lupiter Jupiter-Norn.

fulgurat lightning-3sg.

(lightning)

Ζευς Zeus-Nom.

Οει rain-3sg.

(rain)

Ζευς Zeus-Nom.

άστράπτει (Horn., //. 9.237) lighten-3sg.

(lightning)

Ζευς βρόντησε (Horn., Od. 12.415) (thunder) Zeus-Nom. thunder-Aor.-3sg. (see also Chantraine 1953:7) These and similar examples can be found in the early dialects. In Christian times instances are attested in Latin featuring Dominus or caelum, as in: caelum pluit Dominus pluit

(rain) (rain)

These instances may be ascribed to Greek and ultimately Hebrew influence. Hebrew expressions for weather conditions in early days typically referred to Yahweh (Brockelmann 1961:121). (2) Common nouns in combination with verbs conveying weather conditions or natural events are less frequent, for example: (a)

Latin: dies day-Nom. dies day-Nom.

illucescit dawn-3sg. illuxisset (Cic., Diu 1.50) dawn-Plqpf.-Subju.-3sg.

(dawn) (dawn)

(b)

Sanskrit: as u tapati Dem. glow-3sg. (heat) 'that one glows' > 'the sun glows' > 'it is hot' vat v ti 'the wind blows' (wind)

(c)

Old Church Slavonic: oblak'b dzzdifb 'the cloud rains'

(rain)

Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions

(d)

Russian: sneg idet snow-Nom. go-3sg. grom gremit

'snow falls' 'thunder thunders'

Latvian: smgs smg 'snow snows' leetus list 'rain rains' (Brugmann 1925:20-25; Delbruck 1900:23ff)

105

(snow) (thunder)

(e)

(snow) (rain)

The verbs in these instances all may occur as "pure" impersonals: Skt. vdti 'there is wind', tapati 'it is hot', and so forth. Expressions as under (d) and (e), which include a noun and a verb both referring to the meteorological events, are limited basically to Balto-Slavic, although occasional instances can also be observed in other Indo-European languages. Reference to both types of "subject", names of gods and common nouns, can also be found in expressions that are almost formulaic, such as ablative absolutes with a present participle, in which the noun refers to the underlying subject: Latin: love Jupiter-Abl.

tonante thunder-PrPart.-Abl.sg. (thunder)

love Jupiter-Abl.

fulgente lighten-PrPart.-Abl.sg. (lightning)

fulgente lighten-PrPart.-Abl.sg.

caelo sky-Abl.

lucente die get-light-PrPart.-Abl.sg. day-Abl.

(lightning) (dawn)

vesperascente caelo (getting dark) get-dark-PrPart.-Abl.sg. sky-Abl. (cf. vesperascit ([Ter. Heaut. 248]; 'it is getting dark') or in expressions featuring an adjective: lupiter pluvius (Tib. 1.7.26) 'Jupiter, who dispenses rain'

(rain)

106

Impersonal verbs

Although early instances of subject-Nominatives combined with an impersonal verb are attested, we cannot assume without reserve that this construction was inherited from the protolanguage. The question here is whether weather verbs originally combined with a subject referring to a deity. Other subjects that are combined with weather verbs are definitely not inherited, cf. e.g. 'heaven' (Latin caelum), which is late, or 'rain' as in 'rain rains,' which is restricted to specific dialects. In addition, there are several arguments against the originality of the occurrence of a subjectNominative in this context: - The majority of the weather conditions are referred to without reference to a god-Agent or any other subject. In the early dialects therefore many instances occur of impersonal verbs - the vast majority - without subject, nominal or pronominal. - The occurrence of subjects is not systematic, neither cross-linguistically nor within a given language. Some examples in Greek, Sanskrit, or Latin e.g. combine sometimes with a subject-Nominative, sometimes they do not; others never do. - No Indo-European language has exclusively personal weather verbs (cf. also Siebs 1910:265). - The only Indo-European verb stem common to all Indo-European languages, *sneygwh - 'snow', has no reference to a god in its etymology. As a rule, there is no etymological connection between the name of a god and a weather condition (an exception may be Lithuanian Perkunas 'thundergod' in perkunas 'thunder,' which is late). - There is much variation in the connection between a given deity and a specific meteorological condition. Zeus in Greek for example, is referred to as the god of thunder, lightning, snow, and rain (Ζευςβροντά, [thunder], Ζευς ύει [rain] Ζευς νείφει [snow], and so forth). Also, in a specific language the function of a given god can be very different from that in another language. In Greek, for example, Zeus is strongly connected with rain (cf. the old prayer in Athens referred to by Marcus Aurelius: ύσον, ύσον, ώ φίλε Ζεΰ, 'rain, rain, o dear Zeus' [Wackernagel 1920:115]). In Latin, on the other hand, the connection with rain is almost non-existent (see Le Bourdelles 1967), whereas the connection with lightning is very strong, perhaps also due to Etruscan influence (cf. Dumezil 1966:61 Off). The Romans not only had special burial prescriptions for those who were killed by lightning ("touched" by Jupiter) (cf. ¥estus,LexReg.; Ovid, 3.5.7; Pliny, N HI. 145), they also had a special cult for Jupiter Fulgor, whose temple was at the Campus Martius and whose celebration was incorporated in the pre-Julian calendar (cf. Schilling 1979:359-361). Alternatively, the example that re-

Impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions

107

fers to rain and that was mentioned earlier, lupiter pluvius, must be late because the word for rain that was originally common in Latin was imber, andpluvia, from whichpluvius is derived, came into frequent use only later (TLL 7.421-422). - Finally, one has to keep in mind that originally the subject was less compulsory than in later times (cf. Löfstedt 1963). In Latin e.g. the subject was explicitly expressed only if it differed from the subject in the preceding sentence; similarly the subject is often absent in early texts when a general subject is understood, such as the farmer, or the overseer (Löfstedt 19651966:81-82) e.g.: alieno manum abstineat another-Abl. hand-Ace. abstain-Subju.-3sg. 'he (overseer) must withhold his hands from someone else's goods' (Cato, Agr. 5.1) As Meillet and Vendryes pointed out, the nominal subject was not expressed when it was already known or when it was implied in the context or in the meaning of the verb: "ä la 3e personne, le sujet [en grec et en latin] n'a pas besoin d'etre indique s'il comprend un substantif que le lecteur ne connaisse d'avance ... [ou] quand il est suggere par le contexte ou par le sens meme du verbe" (1924:306). Although the linguistic mechanism at stake here is somewhat different, and impersonal verbs typically do not feature a subject - whereas the verb in the example above normally does it is clear that it was not uncommon to find a verb without an explicit subject. Since the language was left-branching at early times, grammatical person was automatically referred to with a suffix in the finite verb form. Yet evidence from other fields within Indo-European studies may suggest that weather verbs with a subject did exist in the late stages of ProtoIndo-European: the notion of gods being responsible for weather conditions was found in all Indo-European peoples as Edgar Polome pointed out to me (personal communication), who therefore suggests that examples of the type Jupiter tonat were relic forms in which the deity responsible for the atmospheric condition occurs in combination with the verb expressing it (see Bauer 1998:101-102). In 1998 I concluded on the basis of evidence from Indo-European religion and the predominance of weather verbs without subject in the early daughter languages that both types of verb existed in the late stages of Proto-Indo-European. Further research is needed into the connection in Indo-European and non-Indo-European cultures between, on the one hand, early religion, the notion of divine intervention and re-

108

Impersonal verbs

sponsibility, and, on the other hand, grammatical structures in order to determine the originality of either structure in the earliest stages of ProtoIndo-European. 3.2.1. Weather verbs: Conclusion Weather verbs in the daughter language all have Indo-European roots, the majority of which originally however did not convey weather conditions. Cross-linguistically, each weather phenomenon in Indo-European has therefore more than one root and all languages do not have the same root. The roots are, however, semantically closely related and - as a rule - they do not convey a stative notion as other impersonal verbs in Indo-European tend to do (see section 3.3). Since all phenomena- except 'snow', for which we can reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European root - are expressed by more than one root, we assume that the lexical elements changed over time. Indeed, examination of evidence from languages with a well-documented history shows that lexical elements referring to weather conditions change rather frequently. Yet expressions for some phenomena are more stable than those for others, cf. rain, which is rather stable lexically as opposed to 'lightning/thunderbolt' whose lexical elements changed considerably over time, possibly reflecting a change in the related concept or in the geographical location of the speakers. In addition, the use of the subject-Nominative with an impersonal weather verb as well ties in with beliefs that may predominate at given periods. Independently of whether the subject-Nominative was original or not, it is clear that the subject-Nominative disappeared (again) over time. The short interlude in Christian times during which dominus or caelum came to be used with weather verbs in Latin shows that the occurrence of a subject-Nominative may be connected with religious backgrounds. In modern times reference to dieties is absent: the concept of divine intervention is apparently no longer valuable when it comes to weather conditions. In some of the modern languages we just find the use of it, il, or es, which is the result of a grammatical development as I pointed out earlier and is therefore no reason to assume that impersonal verbs were not original. The occurrence of both types of structure in the early daughter languages, the predominance of weather verbs without subject, and the religious concept found in all Indo-European peoples of gods being responsible for weather conditions suggest that both types of structure were found in the late stages of Proto-Indo-European. The true originality

Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions

109

of either of them for the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European needs further analysis especially within related fields such as the development of religious concepts, among them the notion of acting or responsible deity (cf. Bauer 1998:101ff). Finally, impersonal weather verbs (although they are not typically transitive or intransitive, or active or Stative) typically do not have a complement. In the lack of any argument structure - subject as well as complement - weather verbs differ from the other impersonal verbs, which will be discussed in the next section.

3.3. Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions The two other categories of impersonal verbs in Indo-European refer to emotional and physical experience (Category II), and modality (Category III). Their similarity with weather verbs resides in the use of the thirdperson singular of the verb, although occasionally third-person plural forms occur as well. The categories II and III differ from weather verbs, however, in that they typically have an argument structure (non subject) and that they can be bound or unbound. They may, therefore, introduce a subordinate clause, an infinitive, or an accusative with infinitive (ACI) construction. Weather verbs are typically unbound. Consequently, the verbs that will be discussed in the following pages do not occur as verbs alone - as weather verbs do - but are normally combined with a nominal element, either a noun, a pronoun, or occasionally an adjective. This type of impersonal verb in Latin can be divided into three groups according to their syntax: impersonal verbs that combine with an accusative (section 3.3.1), those that combine with a dative (section 3.3.2), and those that combine with a genitive and an accusative (section 3.3.3). These groups and impersonal expressions (section 3.3.4) will be analyzed in the following pages. 3.3. L Impersonal verbs that combine with an accusative The first group of impersonal verbs discussed here govern an accusative, such as mefallit (Pf.fefellit) Ί am ignorant of, me delectat (Pf. delectavit)

110

Impersonal verbs

Ί am pleased', or me decet (Pf. decitum esf) 'it is proper'. These verbs occur in unbound structures, such as: ita ut vos as you-Acc. pi. 'just as it becomes you'

decet (PL, Most. 729) become-Impers.

and in a bound construction: non te mi irasci decet not you-Acc. I-Dat. be-angry-Inf. become-Impers. 'you ought not to be angry with me' (PL, Am. 522) and with a full infinitive "passive", desisti decet (PL, Mil. 737) Ί have to set down' This group includes verbs of various conjugations (fallit is a third-conjugation verb, decet a second-conjugation verb), and covers both categories of meaning, emotions as well as modality. Among the impersonal verbs mentioned here, decet has a perfective in -itum (decitum est), which implies that decet - a second-conjugation verb - originally was an impersonal. This is further confirmed by the use with the "passive" infinitive in desisti decet in the last example. 3.3.2. Impersonal verbs that combine with a dative The second group of impersonal verbs, which govern a dative, was more common, more homogeneous, and also included more verbs. There are approximately 15simple verbs (mihi licet Ί am allowed', mihi dolet Ί am in pain', and so forth), with many derivatives and compounds, which all show the same syntactic patterns and therefore combine with a dative. This abundance suggests that these impersonal verbs represented a productive morphological category. Although the majority of these verbs convey physical and emotional states and experiences, Category III verbs also occur in this group, cf.: Present placet displicet

Perfective placitum est/placuit displicuit

'enjoy' 'displease'

Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions

lubet collibet dolet condolesco vacat subolet disconvenit licet videtur contingit accidit

libitum est/libuit collibitum est/collibuit doluit condolu.it vacavit suboluit disconvenit licitum est/licuit visum est contigit accidit

111

'like' 'like' 'hurt' 'to be in pain, distress' 'there is room/time for' 'notice' 'disagree' 'be allowed' 'seem proper' 'befall, happen' 'happen'

The element in the dative refers to the person (or persons) involved, or the one experiencing the feeling or emotion. In addition to productive derivation, these verbs show other interesting morphological characteristics. First, we notice a significant predominance in this group of secondconjugation verbs. Second-conjugation verbs in Latin (verbs in -ere) typically are intransitives and statives (cf. also section 3.3.3). In addition, the perfectum of these verbs originally was in -itum est (cf. mihi placitum est Ί was pleased') and only later developed forms in -uit (placuif). Consequently, we may assume that these verbs originally were impersonals. As a rule, these structures show no subject at all. The very few subjects that occur are almost exclusively pronominal, cf.: Example without subject: mihi dolebit, non tibi, si quid I-Dat. hurt-Impers.-Fut. not you-Dat. if something-Ace. ego stulte fecero (PI., Men. 438) I-Nom. stupid-Adv. do-Fut.Ex.-lsg. 'it will hurt me, not you, if I do something stupid' Example with a pronominal subject: quodne vobis placeat, displiceat what-Nom. you-Dat. please-Subju.-3sg. displease-Subju.-3sg. mihi? (PL, Mil. 614) I-Dat. 'can I be dissatisfied with what satisfies you?'

112

Impersonal verbs

The syntactic structure is either unbound, or bound as in: id... acciderat, ut Galli consilium it-Nom. happen-Plqpf.-3sg. that Gauls-Nom. plan-Ace. caperent (Caes., DBG 3.2) adopt-Subju.-Past-3pl. 'it happened that the Gauls adopted the plan ...' This overview shows that these verbs all share a number of morphological as well as syntactic characteristics: these second-conjugation verbs typically govern a dative when referring to the person who undergoes the physical or mental experience. In modern structures this person is referred to in a subject-Nominative as the translation shows (see also section 3.4). In contrast to weather verbs, which are typically unbound, these verbs can be bound as well as unbound structures. 3.3.3. Impersonal verbs that combine with an accusative and a genitive This group of impersonals includes verbs that combine an accusative and a genitive. This type of verb, which almost exclusively expresses emotions and feelings, is less frequent than those that feature a dative, cf.: fratris me ... pudet pigetque brother-Gen. I-Acc. be-ashamed-Impers. disgust-Impers.-and Ί am sick and ashamed of my brother' (Ter., Ad. 391-392) In these structures the accusative refers to the person who is experiencing the feeling whereas the genitive refers to what from our perspective is the reason or source of the feeling. Cf. also: me civitatis morum pi§et I-Acc. culture-Gen. customs-Gen. disgust-Impers. taedetque (Sal., J. 4.9) tire-Impers. -and Ί feel sorrow and indignation at the customs of my country' Occasionally, these verbs combine with a nominative, which takes the form of a pronoun, cf.:

Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions

113

non te haec pudent (Ter., Ad. 754) not you-Acc. things-Norn. be-ashamed-3pl. 'don't these things make you feel ashamed?' In Latin at least five non-compound verbs of this type are found: Present (Pro)Noun-Gen. me pudet (Pro)Noun-Gen. me piget (Pro)Noun-Gen. me miseret (Pro)Noun-Gen. me paenitet (Pro)Noun-Gen. me taedet

Perfective (puditum est; later puduit) (shame) (pigitum est; later piguit) (disgust) (misertum est; later miserulf) (pity) (paenitumest;\aterpaenituit) (regret) (taesum est; later taeduit) (disgust)

These are all second-conjugation verbs and they form the basis for an important number of derivatives and compounds (e.g. distaedet 'be disgusted with', commiserescit 'take pity upon', and so forth). The numerous derivatives and compounds are also predominantly second-conjugation verbs and are characterized by the same type of syntax, combining a genitive and an accusative. The simple verbs form a perfective in -itum combined with a third-singular form of esse, and may therefore be considered original impersonals. These verbs present an intriguing problem because of the combination of a genitive and an accusative, and the absence of a subject. Although we have instances of the type as given above - te haec pudent instead of te horum pudet - the genitive does not refer to the some kind of underlying subject. This assumption is supported by instances that include an ACI: the genitive in these examples does not change, whereas a subject-Nominative typically would take the form of an accusative: possessio cuius eos non pudere possession-Nom. Rel.-Gen. they-Acc. not be-ashamed-Inf. demiror (Cic., Phil. 10.10.22) wonder-Isg. 'possession of which I wonder they are not ashamed of Since the genitive is no genitivus objectivus either, we find no explanation for this problem in comparing these verbs with those that govern a genitive, such as the stative memini, or its causative cognate moneo. Although these verbs also have genitives in their argument structure and are stative verbs, the genitive in these instances is a genitive of object, cf:

114

Impersonal verbs

Caecina milites temporis ac necessitatis Caecina-Nom. soldiers-Ace. time-Gen, and necessity-Gen. monet warn-3sg. 'Caecina admonishes the soldiers about time and necessity' (Tac.,/1 1.67) The genitives in these instances are partitive genitives and can also be found with a number of other verbs, cf. cupio 'long for', or obliviscor 'to forget' (Meillet and Vendryes 1924:510); cf: 'vivorum memini' nee tarnen Epicuri living-Gen.pl remember-Impera. and-not yet Epicurus-Gen. licet oblivisci (Cic., Fin. 5.1.3) be-allowed-Impers. forget-Inf. "think of those who are alive;' and yet I cannot forget Epicurus' Although it is difficult to pinpoint the exact status of the genitive in impersonal verb constructions, it does not have the status of an underlying direct object. It is only later with the development from impersonal to personal structures (cf. section 3.4), that the genitive in these instances functions as a genitivus objectivus, as in: coepi taedere captivitatis (Hier., Vit. Malch.) start-Pf.-lsg disgust-Inf. imprisonment-Gen. Ί started to be disgusted by this imprisonment' Before that stage, however, the structure typically had an impersonal verb, an accusative, and a genitive. Traditionally the genitive in this context has been referred to as a genitive of reference. Equally difficult to account for, but perhaps related, is the following example, where the genitive has the meaning of 'in the presence of: perii, pudet Philwnenae (Ter., Hec. 793) perish-Pf.-lsg be-ashamed-3sg. Philumena-Gen. Ί am lost, I feel ashamed in the presence of Philumena' (In this example me is absent, probably because it is implied in the preceding clause [perii]). The distribution of the genitive and the accusative may be related to the feature [+ animate]: whereas the experiencer is always typically [+ ani-

Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions

115

mate], the source or motive of the emotion can be either animate or inanimate. The distribution of the accusative, referring to animate, and the genitive referring to both animate and inanimate is not exceptional and can be observed in other languages as well. Yet the question remains why some impersonals combine with a genitive and an accusative in the first place and why other verbs instead combine with a dative or occasionally with a (pronominal) nominative and dative as we saw in section 3.3.2. K hner and Stegmann argued that impersonal verbs have both nominal and verbal characteristics, which is reflected in the simultaneous use of the accusative and the genitive in structures of the typefratris mepudet (1955:468-469). Yet this hypothesis does not account for impersonal verbs with a dative, which are more frequent. Second, if the nominal nature of the verb were so strong as to trigger a genitive, one would not expect the underlying object to be formally an accusative. Finally, the combining of two non-nominative cases with an impersonal verb is not confined to Latin nor to combinations of the genitive and the accusative, as the example from Greek illustrates: μέλει μοί care-Impers. I-Dat. Ί care for something'

TWOS something-Gen.

Similarly, in Russian predicative adverbs are used impersonally in combination with a dative and an accusative, cf.: Russian: mne zaV vasu sestru I-Dat. feel-sorry-Adv. your-Acc. sister-Ace. Ί am sorry for your sister' (Example from Borras and Christian 1971:202) The exact syntactic structure of impersonal constructions including two non-nominative elements and no subject-Nominative is difficult to capture and the choice of case (e.g. dative / genitive in Greek as opposed to accusative / genitive in Latin) may be language specific. A number of characteristics suggest, however, that these structures with oblique case marking are early. First, these instances of impersonal verbs are almost exclusively third-singular forms. This feature distinguishes them from the verbs mentioned earlier in these pages (section 3.3.2) that occasionally combine with a nominative, such as impersonal verbs that "govern" a dative. In addition, like the verbs discussed in the preceding section, these verbs are all second-

116

Impersonal verbs

conjugation verbs with a perfective in -itwn est, which shows their original status as impersonals. Despite their originality, however, very few impersonal verbs in Latin share their etymological roots with impersonal verbs in other languages. Finally, the structures combining a genitive and an accusative are typically nominal in that the arguments are either nouns or pronouns and that the syntax is unbound. Consequently, from the morphological point of view we find second-conjugation verbs, which are originally stative and intransitive verbs (see also section 3.3.5); from the syntactic point of view the context of these verbs is nominal and typically unbound. Although we are as yet unable to explain why these structures show the characteristics they do (combining, for example, a genitive and an accusative), it is clear on the basis of the regularity of the conjugation, their perfective forms - which are neuter, and the typical combination with oblique cases, that these types of structure are indeed archaic. Their subsequent development, which will be analyzed in section 3.4, will confirm this conclusion. 3.3.4, Additional impersonal constructions In addition to impersonal verbs, Latin also had numerous impersonal expressions. Because of their variety in meaning and form impersonal expressions that include nominal elements such as nouns and adjectives seem to be secondary. By contrast, the distribution and the history of verbal forms in -r suggest that these forms are original. Forms in -r As is well-known, the passive in Indo-European languages was late and developed independently in the various dialects. Its marker in Latin and Celtic, the suffix -r, previously had a different function. Forms of the type curritur One runs', itur One goes', which are intransitive verbs and which were common from the earliest time onward, show that we are dealing with a form that originally was definitely not a passive or passivespecific (see Ernout's extensive study of these forms in Latin [19081909]). Instead, Zimmer on the basis of Celtic data suggested that -r originally was the marker of the impersonal and also that it was a "basic inflection" (Lehmann 1991:37; Zimmer 1890). Later Ernout supported this hypothesis with evidence from his analysis of the meaning of these forms in Latin, Oscan, and Umbrian, and also from his analysis of the development of their meaning in the various Celtic languages. He as-

Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions

117

sumed, therefore, the possibility of an impersonal in -r for Proto-IndoEuropean: "peut-etre y a-t-il eu en indo-europeen une forme en -r caracterisant I'impersonnel" (Ernout 1908-1909:277; see also Meillet and Vendryes 1924:330-331). Recently Lehmann (1991), accepting these interpretations, has accounted for the impersonal verbs in -r, which do not fit nominative typology: he identifies them as a sub-class of inactive verbs and relates them to the morphological patterning typical of a language system that includes active as opposed to stative marking. The use of verb forms in -r in Latin shows not only their definite impersonal meaning, but also the productivity of that formation (cf. the examples in Ernout 1908-1909): impersonals in -r not only are found in all tenses and aspectual forms, but also in new formations, such asca/efwrused by Plautus. Conversely, impersonals in -r are attested in the earliest stages of Latin and in Oscan and Umbrian as well, cf. Umbrian: hertur

'it is proper'

Oscan: sakaratur One carries out a sacrifice' (Edition Buck 1979:213, 215)

(Ig. Tabl. I I A 40) (Tabl. ofAgnone2l)

Although the suffix -r combines with intransitive and transitive verbs, these impersonal verbs as a rule do not combine with a direct object: "ä part quelques restes tres incertains, I'impersonnel est generalement employe seul, sans complement" (Ernout 1908-1909:291). Yet since instances of these forms with a direct object occur in Celtic as Ernout demonstrated, it is not clear whether the Latin structures were original. These may be details, however, that affect the subsequent development in the individual languages. Of more interest for the matter under discussion is Lehmann's identification of the forms in -r as an original subclass of the stative verb system and his identification of the morphological process involved as one of the processes that indicate the opposition stative vs. active (1991; 1993:220-221). In a number of dialects formations in -r continued to be used, but in a different function such as passives (as in Italic and Celtic, cf. Meillet and Vendryes 1924:330-331) or as medio-passives as in Hittite (forms in -ri) (see Lehmann 1991) or Tocharion, where r- passives are a subclass of medio-passive forms (Werner Winter, personal communication; see also Krause and Thomas 1960:260-261). In other dialects the formation was lost over time.

118

Impersonal verbs

Impersonal constructions that include a nominal element In addition to impersonate in -r, Latin also had a wide range of impersonal constructions. Nominal structures are found, for example, that have the value of plain impersonal verbs, such as: (a)

(b)

par est dignum est opus est pudor est lubido est melius est copia est

decet

'it is proper'

oportet pudet lubet praestat licet

'there is need for' 'to be ashamed' 'desire' 'it is better' 'it is possible'

dignissimumst > decet me amare becoming-Superl.-Nom.-is become-Impers. me-Acc. love-Inf. 'it is very becoming; it is proper for me to love'

These instances show that impersonal expressions in Latin typically include est and a noun or an adjective (e.g. necesse est 'it is necessary'). Expressions with an adverb and est are less common. Nouns take the form of a nominative and generally refer to an abstract concept, as in: tempus est miseria est fas est mos est (moris est)

'it is time' 'it is a misfortune' 'it is permitted' 'it is the habit'

In addition, both types of impersonal expressions - featuring nouns or adjectives - are typically bound. The last group of impersonal constructions treated in this section are the ones that include either a gerund or a gerundive: nunc bibendum est (Hör., Od. 37) now drink-Ger. be-3sg. 'now it is incumbent to drink' liber legendus est book-Nom. read-Gerv.-Nom.sg. be-3sg. 'it is incumbent to read the book' As I attempted to show earlier (1993), these structures are archaic in that they display nominal syntax; over time that came to be replaced with

Impersonal verbs in Latin not referring to weather conditions

119

transitive syntax. The examples given above (nunc bibendum est and liber legendus est) have no personal reference at all. Yet these structures may refer to a person: the person who from our linguistic perspective would be the "agent" of the action is then referred to in the dative, as in: liber mihi legendus est book-Nom I-Dat. read-Gerv.-Nom. be-3sg 'it is incumbent upon me to read the book' These structures and their development are analyzed in greater detail in Chapter 5 of this book. It is clear from this overview, however, that impersonal expressions in Latin are nominal constructions: they typically include nominal elements and convey abstract notions. 3.3.5. Impersonal verbs in Latin: Conclusion Impersonals are very common in Latin and vary in construction. The basic distinction is between impersonal verbs, which are third-singular forms, and impersonal expressions, which include a third-singular verb form of the verb 'be' accompanied by a nominal element, either a noun, an adjective, or a verbal adjective. Moreover, these structures typically include (pro)nominal elements in the oblique case that refer to what from our modern perspective is the experiencer or the person involved. Expressions with an adverb existed, but were quite rare. The forms in -r, finally, do not have an argument structure, but are third-person forms. It has been argued that they are impersonals that were inherited from the protolanguage where their etyma were stative (Lehmann 1991). Our discussion has shown that impersonal verbs and impersonal expressions typically do not have modern transitive syntax, which is characterized by the occurrence of a subject-Nominative, a direct object-Accusative, and a finite verb form characterized by subject - verb agreement. Instead a number of characteristics suggest that impersonal verbs represent an archaic and consistent phenomenon: - From a morphological point of view, a significant predominance of impersonal verbs fall in the second conjugation, which are typically intransitive and stative verbs. Leumann (1977) referred to second-conjugation verbs as a "komplizierte Mischklasse," which includes (1) roots in long -e, causatives and intensives (cf. moneo and memini 'remind' vs. 'remember'); (2) intransitive denominatives, derived from adjectives and

120

Impersonal verbs

nouns referring to color, and so forth; and (3) root verbs with a stem extension -e. This last subgroup includes statives, e-duratives, and impersonals (1977: 540-542). In addition, the second conjugation in Latin is related to the fourth conjugation in Sanskrit, many verbs of which "signify a state or feeling, or a condition of mind or body" (Whitney 1889:273). They are therefore related to the original Stative conjugation (see also Lehmann 1993). In active languages stative verbs typically combine with oblique cases (see also infra). - Impersonal expressions typically include a noun or an adjective, and a third-person form of the verb esse. The occurrence of esse, which is a stative verb, suggests "stativity." - The genuine impersonal verbs have nominal equivalents (cf. decet vs. dignum est) and a perfective form in -itum est, which supports the position that these forms originally were impersonals. - There is no subject-Nominative, nor is there subject - verb agreement. Instead, there is oblique case marking. In contexts with an impersonal verb the dative and accusative typically indicate (1) the person involved in the situation referred to by a category III (or modality) verb, or (2) the person experiencing the emotion referred to by a category II (or emotional) verb; the genitive in these contexts typically refers to the cause or motive of the emotional or physical experience. The combination of a genitive and accusative is confined to a specific group of impersonal verbs. In these structures the accusative refers to the animate element- the experiencerwhereas the genitive either refers to animate or inanimate elements that cause the emotion. These verbs typically convey emotions, physical conditions, and so forth, and their constructions are nominal in that they are unbound and include only nominal elements (nouns and pronouns) combined with an impersonal verb. The occurrence of an oblique case is also observed in combination with gerunds, gerundives, and adjectives. In these instances, the oblique case typically takes the form of a dative, referring to the underlying "agent" of the action expressed by the verb. The next two chapters treat nominal characteristics as well in possessive constructions and in structures featuring a gerundive or a gerund (see also Bauer 1993 and 1996). Evidence from Latin therefore suggests that we are dealing with archaic expressions, as shown in the absence of agent-Nominatives in impersonal verbs or impersonal expressions. Instead, oblique cases refer to the person involved. The archaism of these verbs is further supported by their morphology: impersonal verbs conveying category II and III meanings typically are second-conjugation verbs. Consequently, they are morphologi-

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

121

cally connected to the old class of stative verbs, and they show syntactic similarities with stative verbs in existent active languages (see also sections 2.4.3.5, 2.4.3.6, and 3.5).

3.4. The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance While few Latin impersonal verbs go back to an Indo-European root for impersonal verbs, they have Indo-European roots. Diachronically therefore, many changes of lexical elements are observed, but not of the structure. Consequently, it is interesting to analyze the development that took place from Latin to Romance, especially French: Latin had a high number of impersonals, whereas in the Romance languages the impersonal verb is less well represented. Latin not only includes numerous impersonal verbs, it was one of the branches in Indo-European that had most of them. In section 3.2 it was pointed out that an occasional shifting back and forth in Indo-European languages is observed in the use of a subject-Nominative with weather verbs. Yet at some point in time these structures became again exclusively impersonal. The other categories of impersonal verbs also underwent a change: (a) impersonal verbs developed personal paradigms, and conversely (b) personal verbs became impersonal. The first change - impersonal verbs becoming personal - was more common than the reverse shift. Verbs that were at first exclusively impersonal, and referred to a person by an oblique case, became personal verbs over time. The reverse development, however, also took place as noted in the following section (section 3.4.1). 3.4.1. Verbs developing impersonal structures Among Latin verbs that developed an impersonal structure over time, the most widespread were debere (debet), posse (potest), valere (valet), and facere (facit) and höhere (habet). Although facere and höhere did not become category III impersonal - as the others did - they no longer have their original lexical meaning in impersonal use.

122

Impersonal verbs

Debet + infinitive The development of this structure is commonly ascribed to Greek influence (Löfstedt 1936:136-137), which was especially strong in early Christian times. Yet examples of impersonal debet are attested before that period in Varro, for example, who uses debet without complement, cf.: ..., ut debuit ...(L.L. 10.1.1) 'as it ought to be' or in Cicero, where instances with a complement are found, as in: perspicuum debet esse ... + ACI (Cic. Tusc, 1.40) 'it has to be clear that...' Although Greek influence was an undeniable factor in the spreading of the form, instances of debet occur in texts that have no Greek example, as Löfstedt pointed out (1936:137). In addition, the use of debet in Late Latin texts, such as the Mulomedicina, shows a syntax different from the examples given above: debet occurs in combination with an active infinitive and a direct object, which shows that it had become an impersonal verb: sanguinem emittere ... de capite debet,... (Mul 33) blood-Ace. let-Inf. from head-Abl. must-Impers. One ought to let blood from its head' In the development of the impersonal use, debet may have gone through a stage during which the impersonal \ alue was related to the occurrence of a passive infinitive in the same clause, as shown in an earlier example (Löfstedt 1936:137-138): cum ... exsempla... provocari... debeat because examples produce-Inf.-Pass. must-Subju.-3sg. 'because it is necessary that examples are produced' (C.I.L. 11.3614; 114 AD) Instances of debet, combined with a passive infinitive and a nominative, indeed did occur and represent an intermediary stage, before debet became a full-fledged impersonal with an infinitive governing a direct object: noun-Norn. + Inf.Pass. + sanguis detrahi numquam blood-Nom. let-Inf.-Pass. never

debet debet must-3sg

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

de matrice from womb-Abl. One ought never let blood from the womb'

123

(Mul. 8.19)

This structure in fact replaces gerundive constructions, which typically display archaic, nominal syntax and which would have been the norm in earlier times (see also Chapter 5): cf. the equivalent sentence in the work by Vegetius, who adapted the same text in a more literary style: de matrice nwnquam detrahendus from womb-Abl. never let-Gerv.-Nom.sg est sanguis (Vet. 2.17.5) be-3sg. blood-Nom. One ought never let blood from the womb' The emergence ofdebet + infinitive is therefore not only an example of language borrowing, but also reflects a change in Latin syntax. The form became an impersonal verb and its syntax was transitive in that it combined with the infinitive of transitive verbs and their direct object. Potest + infinitive 'it is possible' The first uses of impersonal potest are unbound: potest occurs alone, and in archaic times was quite common in expressions such as: quantum potest

'as soon as possible'

In Cicero it is no longer completely independent syntactically: si potest ut potest

'if possible, if it is possible' 'when (it is) possible'

Later instances of potest are also found with an infinitive, active as well as passive, cf.: quod, antequam subeas, facere non potes(f) what-Acc. before arrive-Subju.-2sg. do-Inf. not can-3sg 'which one could not (do) before one arrives' (Per. 2.7) Valet + infinitive 'it is possible' The structure including valet was a later innovation (Löfstedt 1936:41-42). Like the two previous constructions, this form also survived in Romance,

124

Impersonal verbs

and even in Modern French, though with a slightly different meaning: il vaut mieux que there means 'it is better to'. Impersonal potest and debet survived in Romance in reflexive forms as in French // se peut 'it is possible', or il se doit One ought', which has been attested from 1196 AD onward. Similarly, impersonal se pouvoir has been atttested from the end of the 12th century, conveying its traditional meaning 'it is possible'. Other examples of verbs developing into impersonal structures were less common: favet incumbit+

'to be well disposed' Dat. + Inf. 'it is incumbent' (Fr. il m 'incombe de) solet (replacing mos est) 'it is the habit' continet 'it is written' vacat + Dat. 'have time, enjoy' (vacat existed earlier, but became popular in Late Latin) gestit + ACI 'long for' (disappeared) + Abl. 'long for' (rare)

These verbs - the frequent as well as the infrequent ones - have in common that they almost all convey modal meanings: these are categoryIll verbs. Consequently, we observe that the shift from personal to impersonal structures especially affected verbs of modality. There are two exceptions to this tendency: horret and offendit, which are both verbs that convey emotions, occasionally could be used in impersonal structures. Yet these instances were not common (Löfstedt 1936:136). Habet + accusative In addition to this series of verbs, habere andfacere also developed impersonal constructions. These verbs are highly important because of their survival in and their significance for, the Romance languages and because of their wide range of meanings. Yet in these contexts neither verb features a lexical meaning. The structures in question were habet + accusative and facit + accusative. Instances without direct object are found as well, cf.: avis bona est, bird-Nom. good-Nom. be-3sg. sed puto hie non habere yet think-Isg. here not have-Inf. 'this bird is good, but I think there is none here' (Anthim. 33)

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

125

Habet+accusative not only represented the origin of a new lexical element, its development was closely related to the emergence ofhabeo as a verb of possession and auxiliary. Its emergence is therefore closely related to the spreading of transitive syntax (see Bauer 1999). Instead of the stative verb 'be' (in the meaning of 'there is'), which was typical for contexts referring to existence in the early Indo-European daughter languages, examples of the type habet + accusative, that is reflecting transitive syntax occur in later texts (for a full analysis of this change, see Bauer 1999), cf.: habet in bibliotheca ... lib rum ... have-3sg. in library book-Ace, 'there is a book in the library ...' (Vopisc. Tac. 8.1; L fstedt 1911) This development has a parallel in German, where the structure es gibt + accusative, emerged with - in the Southern dialects - a variants hat (see Brugmann 1925; Paul 1937) and in many other Indo-European languages. See also Brugmann (1925:35-36), who gives the following parallels in other Indo-European languages: Modern Greek έχει + Dir. Obj. Bulg. ima + Dir. Obj. Polish niema+ Dir. Obj.

'there is' 'there is' 'there is no'

Instances in Latin of habet + accusative are found from the Late Latin period onward, but the structure was spread at first especially in the West Romance languages, where it remained a common expression. It is very common in French (il y a ) and Spanish (hay). Habet in these contexts conveys two meanings: that of location and existence, and that of time, as in: -

location and existence habebat... de... loco ad montem ... have- Impf.-3sg. from place-Abl. to mountain-Ace. quattuor milia four miles-Ace. 'it was four miles from that place to the mountain' (Per. 1.2) in area Noe habuit homines (Hier. Ep. 123.9) in ark-Abl. Noah have-Pf.-3sg. men-Ace, 'there were men in Noah's ark'

126

Impersonal verbs

-

time Latin habet annos XIV (Hist. Apoll. 31) 'fourteen years ago' (cf.Lofstedtl911) French il y a 14 ans 'fourteen years ago' Spanish hace tres anos 'three years ago'

Habere is not a transitive verb in the strict sense, but its syntax is transitive. Instances of habetur with an accusative as well are found in contexts similar to those above (in addition to examples of habetur with a noun in the nominative; see Bauer 1999:600-601) and they provide definite evidence for an impersonal structure: habetur ... tumulculum have-Pass.-3sg. small hill-Ace, 'there is a small hill/tomb' The development of impersonal habet constructions therefore is in line with the spreading of transitivity and reflects in fact an advanced stage of the process by which intransitive constructions with esse came to be replaced by transitive constructions with habere (see also Chapter 4; Bauer 1999). In addition, the development of impersonal uses in otherwise fully developed verbal paradigms was not an isolated phenomenon either. The same patterns - emergence of impersonal use in a transitive context - is found in facit constructions as well. Facit + accusative Instances of facit governing an accusative became very important in expressing weather conditions. In addition to the typical weather verb - a third-person form without argument structure - a periphrastic variant developed and even partly replaced the original impersonal verb. Weather conditions therefore came to be conveyed with a verb that displays transitive syntax and that does not have its original lexical meaning, cf. examples from French: ilfait chaud; 'it is hot;

ilfaitfroid, it is cold,'

ilfait du soleil; 'it is sunny;

ilfait du vent there is wind'

but also:

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

127

Instances in Latin are attested from the period of Saint Augustine onward; they show that these structures are transitive because they include an accusative, as in: numquam fecit tale frigus (Aug., Serm. 25.3) never make-Pf.-3sg. such-Ace. cold-Ace, 'never had it been so cold' gravem eo anno hiemem fecit severe-Ace, that year-Abl. winter-Ace. make-Pf.-3sg. 'that year, winter was particularly cold' (Greg, of Tours, H.F. 3.37) The overview of verbs developing impersonal structures showed that the change affected almost exclusively category-Ill verbs, which convey modality, and the verbs habere andfacere, which in this use have non-lexical meaning. Habet and facit became very important in the Romance languages (cf. for example Italian fa fredo 'it is cold') and typically show impersonal forms, but their syntax is transitive. 3.4.2. Verbs developing a personal paradigm The reverse shift from impersonal to personal use was common in Latin and can be observed from early times on, cf. me pudet me miseret me paenitet

> > >

me piget me taedet

> > >

oportet

>

pudeo (extremely rare before Late Latin) misereo paeniteo (before Late Latin an impersonal or used only as an infinitive) paeniteor pigeo (very rare before Late latin) taedeo taedeor oporteo

> >

libeo deceo (remained very rare)

Rare examples are: mihi Übet me decet

128

Impersonal verbs

I do not want to imply that these forms were not attested before the Late Latin period, some definitely were (e.g. pudeo, cf. Bennett 1910:9). Yet "personal" instances were very rare in earlier periods. Although one may find in any period of Latin the personal and impersonal variant of a given impersonal verb, diachronic evidence demonstrates that the impersonal form was the original one. This assumption finds further support in the morphology of verbs whose perfective forms originally were of the type -itum est. The personal forms mentioned earlier became not only much more frequent in the later period, their use of grammatical person became more varied, including first and second singular and plural forms. In earlier instances the majority of these verbs when used with a subject occurred only in the third-person singular or the infinitive. The underlying subject in these instances is, then, clear from the context, cf.: adsuefaciebant ... militem... accustom-Impf.-3pl. ... soldier-Ace. minus... aut virtutis aut fortunae less or courage-Gen. or luck-Gen. paenitere suae be dissatisfied his-Gen. (Liv. 22.12.10) 'they accustomed the soldier to be less dissatisfied about his own courage and luck' The chronological order of the change from impersonal to personal construction is unknown. Forms of the type taedeor probably preceded taedeo, the more so since many of the impersonals that with time came to introduce a personal paradigm originally combined with an accusative (e.g. me taedef). Yet we have no evidence to further support this assumption, nor do we have any forms of the type °pigeor or °pudeor. A systematic occurrence of that type of form might have supported this chronology. More important than the exact chronology is the nature of the verbs involved in this change: The verbs that shifted to personal forms expressed emotional and physical experience (category II). While occasional instances of modality verbs - such as liceo or deceo - occur in this use, these forms remained rare and their pattern was not extended to similar verbs. Accordingly, the process of verbs shifting to "personal" use typically affected verbs that convey expression of emotions and feelings. Consequently, a switch has taken place in the history of Latin during which the "experiencer-Obliquus" came to be replaced by a subject-Nominative. In

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

129

contrast to modality verbs, the "subject" is easily identifiable in verbs of emotions. The development of these verbs is in line with the increasing importance of the subject-Nominative in Indo-European languages. With the disappearance, or decrease, of impersonal category-II verbs, the impersonal unbound structure died out as well. As pointed out earlier, modality verbs typically are bound structures, whereas category-II verbs may be unbound. When unbound, category-II verbs are nominal in nature. Consequently, with the disappearance of category-II verbs, the unbound, nominal structures definitely disappeared from the language. Examination of the French data in greater detail indicates that impersonal verbs in it typically express modality. A number of impersonal verbs convey emotions, but instances are rather rare, cf. il me plait Ί like', which goes back directly to Latin mihi placet. Although impersonal verbs and their development have been analyzed before (see, for example, Einar L fstedt 1911, Bengt L fstedt 1963, Ernout 1908-1909; Ernout and Thomas 1964, V n nen 1967, and so forth), the consistency of the change that occurred has - to my knowledge - not been pointed out. Late Latin provides evidence, however, for retracing the development of impersonal verbs, which is characterized by a shift from a wide range conveying weather conditions, feelings, and modality to a more restricted group of impersonal weather verbs - some of which feature transitive syntax (facit + Ace.; habet + Ace.) - and impersonal verbs of modality. The majority of the impersonal verbs conveying emotions shifted to personal conjugation. In the next section evidence from other Indo-European languages is discussed in order to find out whether the development attested for Latin is general or confined to this branch of Indo-European. 3.4.3. Impersonal verbs and their changes in other Indo-European languages Comparison shows that similar changes took place in other Indo-European languages, resulting in the same situation we find in Romance. At an early time already Ancient Greek no longer had many impersonal verbs left; we find that - in addition to weather verbs - the large majority are in fact modality verbs, cf.: εγένετο μέλει εξεστι

+ + + +

Dat. Dat. pers./Gen. Dat. + Inf. Ace. + Inf.

'it happened' 'there is care for' 'it is allowed' 'it is possible'

130

Impersonal verbs

πρέπει δήλοι

+ +

δει

+ + +

Dat. + Inf. Dat.

'it is fitting' 'it is clear' 'there is need' Ace. + Inf. One must' Dat. (pers.) + Inf. 'there is need' Gen. (obj.) 'there is need'

On the basis of our findings in the history of Latin, we assume that a similar development took place in Greek and that the earlier variety of impersonal verbs including category I, II, and III gave way to a predominance of impersonal verbs conveying weather conditions and modality. Similarly in Sanskrit, which also included relatively few impersonal verbs, verbs of category II are uncommon or rather isolated, as Brugmann pointed out, having found "nur vereinzelte Beispiele im Altindischen" (1925:26), cf.: Sanskrit: kitavq tat pa (RV 10.34.11) 'it hurt the player' Moreover, whereas Latin has an impersonal mihi lubet (Oscan loufir Or'), its cognate in Sanskrit is personified, cf. lubhyati. The majority of impersonal verbs in Sanskrit convey weather conditions and modal values (Category III) as in: Sanskrit: kalpate 'it becomes, it is succeeding' In Germanic and Slavic, where impersonal verbs are very common, all categories are well represented: in Old High German instances of categoryII verbs in combination with an accusative (mih iucchit 'it itches me') or a dative ( mir anget Ί am afraid') are numerous. For further examples, cf. Brugmann (1925); Delbriick (1900). Similarly in Balto-Slavic languages, such as Lithuanian, we find Lithuanian: man neszti

'it itches me'

In Modern Russian many instances of impersonal verbs occur conveying not only modality, but emotions and feelings as well:

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

131

Russian: menja znobit I-Acc. be-feverish-Impers. Ί am feverish' menja tosnit I-Acc. feel sick-Impers. Ί feel sick' u nego otleglo ot serdca Prep. he-Gen, feel great relief-Impers.-Past (lift from heart) 'he felt great relief (Examples from Borras and Christian 1971:202; Tauscher and Kirschbaum 1989:510) In addition to full-fledged verbs, Modern Russian also has a variety of predicative adverbs in impersonal use that refer to mental, physical, or emotional state: Russian: mne iaV vasu I-Dat. feel-sorry-Adv. your-Acc. Ί feel sorry for your sister'

sestru sister-Ace.

Verbs of category III are also well represented, and perhaps even more frequent and numerous than category-II verbs. They also include formations with a predicative adverb, as in: Russian: nado + Dat. mozno

'it is necessary' 'it is possible'

as well as structures displaying a noun, such as: Russian: pom nacat' time-Norn. begin-Inf. 'it is time to start work'

rabotu work-Ace.

In Germanic, impersonal verbs of category III are well represented and in modern times they tend to outnumber their equivalents that refer to emotions and feelings. This last category of verbs increasingly tends also

132

Impersonal verbs

in German to become personified, just as in Middle English. Similarly in Modern Dutch, category-Ill verbs outnumber their category-II equivalents. It is possible to trace the development of impersonal verbs in detail in Old English. The change that took place there is in many ways similar to the Latin development. The shift in Old and Middle English Old English included approximately forty impersonal verbs (derivatives and compounds not included) (Van der Gaaf 1904:3-12), conveying weather conditions, emotional and physical experience, and modality. Impersonal verbs that did not refer to weather conditions, governed either a dative or an accusative; the majority of them expressed emotional and physical experiences (category II). Most of the original Old English impersonal verbs survived in the Middle English period, being on a par with personal variants that developed at that time. Moreover, in the Middle English period an important number of impersonal and personal verbs was borrowed from the Scandinavian languages and especially French. These verbs gradually replaced many of the Old English equivalents, cf.: gebyrian+ Dat.

'happen'

>

hap[pen] (< Scan, hap 'luck') maetan + Dat./Acc. 'dream' > dremen (< Scand.) hreowan + Dat. /Ace. 'cause sorrow' > greven (< OF grever) lician + Dat. 'please' > plesen (< OF plaisir, plaire) (Van der Gaaf 1904:12-25, passim) Meanwhile the impersonal verbs that were borrowed developed personal forms as well, thereby corroborating the development that the genuine Old English impersonal verb was undergoing. Yet, as we will see in further detail below, the shift toward personal forms was limited basically to verbs conveying emotions, feelings, and physical experience. Weather verbs remained impersonal, as evidence from Modern English also shows; modality verbs also did not change their basic characteristics. The data for these conclusions are taken from Van der Gaaf's extensive list and description of impersonal verbs in Old and Middle English (1904), from Visser (1963-1973), and from Mitchell (1985). This evidence shows that two important shifts took place in the development from Old to Middle English: (a) a shift from an impersonal verb governing a dative to an impersonal verb governing a prepositional phrase:

The development of impersonal verbs in the shift from Latin to Romance

133

hit happed hem > it happened to him (Mod. English) (Chaucer, Leg. of Good W. A. 634; Van der Gaaf 1904:17) This change is related to the loss of case and the emergence of rightbranching structures in morphology; although it does not affect the impersonal structure itself, it is of importance here because it shows that not all impersonal verbs were affected by the second change; (b) a shift from impersonal verbs governing an accusative or a dative to a construction consisting of a personal verb combined with a subjectNominative, as in the following examples of verbs expressing emotion: it reowe} me melo>e>

> >

ich reowe hit I lo>e

Ί regret' 'I loathe'

Similarly, the two verbs below, which refer to physical conditions, shifted from impersonal to personal structures in the development from Old to Middle English, cf: me hingrode me ne >yrste

(Mat. 25.35) (Joh. 4.15)

Ί was hungry' Ί was not thirsty'

In Middle English, these meanings are conveyed in different structures: / have hunger/thirst I am hungry/thirsty In present day English the verb to hunger and to thirst "are used figuratively, while the adjectival expressions are employed in the literal sense" (Van der Gaaf 1904:158). For these verbs the impersonal construction has therefore become obsolete. The shift from impersonal to personal constructions took place in the 14th and 15th centuries and affected verbs such as rewen 'regret', longen 'long', lo>en 'loathe', liken 'like', list(en) 'like', meten 'dream', sinken 'think', for sinken 'consider', geynen 'profit', hap(pen) 'befall', lakken 'lack', myster ben 'be necessary', neden 'need', wanten 'want' (see Van der Gaaf 1904:61ff). The very large majority of the verbs - if not all - that underwent this shift convey emotional or physical experience; they are impersonal verbs of category II. The only example that, at first glance, seems irregular is the verb neden 'need', which did not develop personal

134

Impersonal verbs

structures in all instances. Closer examination reveals, however, that there is a system in its distribution patterns of personal vs. impersonal constructions. The personal construction is used when the verb means 'need', the impersonal when it conveys a modal meaning (cf. examples from Van der Gaaf 1904:127-29), as in: Middle English me nede}

Modern English I need

I have nede of me is nede but:

it nedeth to be asked The impersonal therefore survives in it needs + passive infinitive, which was very common in Middle English and which survives in Modern English. Whereas verbs with oblique cases came to be used personally, other verbs "although 'personal' in Old English and early Middle English, became so very usual in the [impersonal] construction that they have even been erroneously called 'impersonal'" (Van der Gaaf 1904:145-46): ayn Owe', deynen 'dare', repenten 'regret', >ar 'be in want'. Interestingly, here again, a-$en, "adopted the impersonal construction" only when it had the modal meaning of 'duty', which was quite frequent (Van der Gaaf 1904:146, who illustrates his observation with ample examples). Analogy with other impersonal verbs expressing 'duty' (such as me behove}, me seme >, me nede >, and so forth) must have played a role in this development. Similarly the verb >ar 'be in want, require', switched to an impersonal construction also in analogy to me nede >, me wante > (Van der Gaaf 1904:154) Analogy must also have been the decisive factor in the development of deynen (< OPdaignier), which was a category-II verb that became impersonal in analogy with verbs such as liken, plesen, and list, which were all still impersonal verbs at that time. Another borrowing from Old French, repenten (< OF se repentir 'regret') became impersonal probably because its reflexive form was taken for an impersonal (cf. / repent, I repent me, it repented me; examples from Van der Gaaf 1904:152). These instances of category-II verbs that developed impersonal forms can be accounted for. They, therefore, do not contradict the observation above that the shift from impersonal to personal constructions especially affected category-II verbs.

Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages

135

Comparison of diachronic evidence from Old and Middle English and Latin therefore shows a similar development in the history of both languages: we find a shift from impersonal to personal structures in categoryII verbs and the continuation of category-Ill impersonal verbs. Moreover, languages that have few impersonal verbs show a clear preference for category-Ill verbs (Sanskrit and Greek), but in those languages that still include a large number of impersonal verbs, all categories are well represented. In modern languages that include all categories, however, impersonal verbs referring to modality also are increasingly predominant (German, Dutch, and to a lesser extent Slavic languages). Although more detailed analyses of impersonal verbs in the individual Indo-European languages are necessary, the patterns noted in the synchronic and diachronic examination of Latin data in sections 3.3 and 3.4 suggest that languages featuring relatively few impersonal verbs have lost them over time and that this loss especially affected verbs of category II. This development is in line with the increasing tendency in Indo-European languages to create structures with a subject-Nominative. This assumption is further supported by the predominance in these languages of verbs that express modality values. Consequently, when the overall number of impersonal verbs is low in a given language, they tend to be predominantly category-Ill verbs. This distribution pattern is the result of a non-arbitrary linguistic change. Whereas the development of impersonal verbs fits the general development of the Indo-European languages, it would be interesting to determine whether the patterns of impersonal verbs in these languages are general or whether they are language specific and accordingly related to the characteristics of the language type involved. In an attempt to find an answer, the next section (3.5) examines the equivalents of impersonal verbs in nonIndo-European languages.

3.5. Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages The answer to the question whether impersonal verbs represent a universal feature in language depends on the definition of "impersonal verb". If the characterization given at the beginning of this chapter is valid, by which independently from "the concrete choice of the verb or the nature of the other elements involved, ... the impersonal verb typically [and exclusively]

136

Impersonal verbs

features a third-person singular", we will find that a number of languages do not have impersonal verbs. If the notion of impersonal verb is extended to verb forms that do not display grammatical person as some grammars seem to do, then the number of languages with "impersonal verbs" increases dramatically. Expressions that in a given language literally mean e.g. 'dancing' have been interpreted as impersonal verbs because they were translated into English as if they were verb forms with an indefinite subject, as in German es wird getanzt. Yet structures like these may in fact just be nominal forms of the verb and therefore may lack any person specification. The absence of person in a given form does not make the form an impersonal verb. Yet in grammars of many languages the translation of a given structure into an English impersonal verb construction has often been misinterpreted as an indication that the structure in the described language is an impersonal verb as well. Swahili, a class language of the Bantu family, presents a good example of the non-congruity of impersonal verbs in different languages. In many instances where English has an impersonal verb, Swahili includes a personal construction that shows class agreement (Loogman 1965:328), which underscores the personal character of the structure. As a result of the inaccuracy of many grammars, it has traditionally and implicitly been assumed that impersonal verbs represent a widespread - if not quasi-universal - linguistic phenomenon. In addition, since impersonal verbs have been notoriously neglected in morphological and syntactic analyses, as pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, it is difficult to verify this hypothesis. Yet the following pages may indicate that impersonal verbs like those in Indo-European languages are not as widespread as is tacitly assumed; rather, their occurrence is to some extent language specific and therefore may inform us about the language system involved. To support this assumption impersonal constructions in a number of nonIndo-European languages are examined below, among them, Semitic languages (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic), Bantu (Swahili), Dravidian, Caucasian, Japanese, Turkish, and active American Indian languages. As pointed out earlier, examining impersonal verbs in these languages is rather difficult. Subject indexes of most grammars do not feature the concept and it was necessary to go through each grammar looking for some mention of impersonal verbs or examples that might point to an - underlying - impersonal verb or construction. For a number of languages it was possible to ask native speakers to translate a list of examples. This modus operandi leaves us with the uncomfortable thought, however, that specific languages may have more impersonal verbs than we could find but which

Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages

137

were left unmentioned in grammars because they were not an issue of explicit concern of their authors. The choice of each individual language discussed here depends therefore somewhat arbitrarily on the availability of grammatical descriptions. Given this arbitrariness, it is the more striking that most of the impersonal constructions in the languages analyzed cover roughly the same semantic fields as we found in Indo-European languages. Overall they convey: (a) meteorological conditions and natural events; (b) emotional and physical experience; (c) expressions of obligation, possibility; (d) general or indefinite subjects. Yet impersonal verbs in few languages cover all these categories, most of them reflect just one or two. Others convey additional meanings. In Semitic languages, for example, where impersonal verbs are well represented, the impersonals are used to express (I) meteorological conditions, (II) physical and mental experience, and (III) indications of time. Recently Hebrew also developed impersonal constructions with modal values. The type of impersonal verb that is most widespread cross-linguistically refers to meteorological conditions. Yet such verbs are by no means represented in all languages. Very commonly, a subject is connected to the verb, referring to the natural element involved, as in the Mende language, where examples appear of the type: fonio be fele wind be in blowing 'the wind is blowing' (Example from Beck 1922:81) Meteorological expressions in Arabic include reference to an abstract notion in subject position, as in the following example: Arabic: barrakit iddinja lightens weather/environment 'there is heavy lightning'

halak strong

In Hebrew, weather conditions are typically referred to with impersonal verbs. Yet as in some of the early Indo-European languages, some expressions include as subject Yah weh, who is assumed to be responsible for the event or the natural force involved (Brockelmann 1961:121). Brockelmann

138

Impersonal verbs

argued that impersonal verbs were not original in Semitic (1961:119). According to him, clauses featuring a verb in combination with an explicit subject were original and impersonal constructions only developed later. He did not specify the arguments on which he based his assumptions. Another type of structure that conveys weather condition and that is quite common also can be found in Turkish, where the clause displays a subject and a verb both referring directly to the event in question, as in (the following Turkish examples are from Anneli Schaufeli [Univ. of Nijmegen, The Netherlands], personal communication): Turkish: yagmur rain-Noun 'it is raining'

yag- lyor rain-Progr-3sg.

Similarly: Turkish: kar yag- lyor snow-Noun rain-Progr-3sg 'it is snowing' In Japanese, on the other hand, a subject refers directly to the meteorological event, but in line with Japanese grammar there is no person marking on the verb. Consequently, there is no impersonal verb of the type we know from Indo-European, cf.: Japanese: yuki-ga futte iru snow-Subj. falling Pres. 'snow is falling, it is snowing' Instead of a verb referring to a meteorological event, Swahili includes expressions with a noun and an element expressing the notion of 'there is'. Instances that come closest to being an impersonal verb in Swahili are forms marked by a prefix i-, ya, ku-, pa-, mu-\ they express statements of the type inasemwa 'it is said', or meteorological conditions (Loogman 1965:328). Neither the nature of these prefixes, nor the nature of the second element is clear in all instances. Bantu originally had three local prefixes, mu- 'in',/>a- 'at' (short distance), and ku- 'at' (further away). This distinction no longer exists in Swahili, but the three prefixes have been maintained

Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages

139

in another function where they are combined with an adjective or a pronoun and also in adverb-like expressions: pana and kuna meaning 'there are, there is'. These structures are also used to convey weather conditions, as in: Swahili: kuna mawingu there-is clouds 'it is cloudy' Similarly, Swahili: kuna jua kali there-is sun sharp 'the weather is hot' (Examples from Loogman 1965:328). Consequently, what is referred to as an impersonal verb in the grammar is in fact a construction featuring a noun with an adverb-like element meaning 'there is', which originally may well have been a prefix of location. The structure, therefore, is not typicallly impersonal. Despite their confined and strict meaning and their occurrence in many languages, structures that refer to weather conditions vary considerably. Structures most similar to those in Indo-European are the weather verbs in Semitic and Caucasian languages (e.g. Georgian elabs 'it is lightning' [-fulgurat] or stovs 'it is snowing' [=ningit]). The impersonal verb that refers to weather conditions and that is common in Indo-European languages is therefore not as widespread as one might assume at first glance. Whereas most languages have a specific type of structure referring to weather conditions, the situation becomes even more complex for verbs that convey emotion, feelings or physical experience. In Semitic languages these meanings are typically rendered by impersonal verbs. Expressions referring to emotional or physical feelings often display a subject referring to the body part assumed to be responsible for the pain, and an oblique case referring to the person who experiences the feeling. As for weather verbs, Brockelmann argued that these structures were original in Semitic and only later developed fully impersonal characteristics (1921:122-124). In other languages as well the person affected may be referred to by an oblique case, combined with another element, such as an adverbial expression or a finite verb, as in Dravidian (examples from Steever [1988:49]):

140

Impersonal verbs

Dravidian avan ukkup he-Dat. 'he is hungry'

paci-kkir-atu hunger-Pres.-3sn

In these instances the dative typically combines with stative predicates, especially verbs that express a mental or emotional state (Steever 1988). In Finnish on the other hand, physical conditions are conveyed by an "impersonal" without subject indication; the person involved is referred to in the partitive: Finnish: miuna janotaa me-Partitive thirst Ί am thirsty' Yet the verbal forms in instances of this type often are not impersonal verbs, they are instead non-finite forms of the verb. In other languages, adjectives or conjugated verbs instead of an impersonal verb are found, as in Turkish, where Ί am hungry' is rendered by a verb meaning 'to be hungry': Turkish: gocuk acikti boy to-be-hungry-Pst.-3sg. 'the boy was hungry' but also: Turkish: focugun harm ας boy-Gen. stomach-3sg.-Poss. hungry-3sg. 'the stomach of the boy is hungry' To be ashamed' is expressed by a personified verb, as in: Turkish: ondan utang he-Abl. shame Ί am ashamed for him'

duyuyorum feel-Progr.-lsg

bunlar seni utandinyor these-Pl. you-Acc. feel-ashamed-Caus.-Progr.-3sg. 'these things make you feel ashamed'

Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages

141

'Hurting' also is rendered by a personified verb as in: Turkish: basim agnyor head-lsg-Poss. hurt-Progr.-3sg. 'my head hurts' Modality, on the other hand, may be expressed in Turkish by a verb in the third-person singular and a dative referring to the person involved, cf. the following example: Turkish: bana uyuyor I-Dat. become-Progr.-3sg. 'it becomes me' or:

Turkish: bana geliyor ki I-Dat. seem-Progr.-3sg. that 'it seems to me that...' We observe that cross-linguistically impersonal structures that convey modality values are better represented than structures that express feelings or emotions. Consequently, very few languages, if any at all, have the wide range of meanings conveyed by the Indo-European impersonal verb, including meteorological conditions, physical and emotional experience, and modality. Moreover, very few languages have these meaning expressed in the systematic way exemplified by the Indo-European languages. Two groups of languages, however, display a number of interesting similarities: the impersonal structures in the Caucasian languages and those in active American Indian languages. Causasian languages Impersonal verbs, which are attested in all Caucasian languages, cover the three categories found in Indo-European: weather verbs (category I), verbs expressing emotions and physical condition (category II), and modality (category III). In addition, these verbs also convey perception, 'hearing', 'listening', 'seeing', and so forth. By contrast, Indo-European impersonal verbs do not express that kind of meaning.

142

Impersonal verbs

Caucasian languages have impersonal structures comparable to those in Indo-European, but with a number of differences. They include impersonal weather verbs and impersonal verbs that combine with an oblique argument structure. Caucasian distinguishes three types of construction: transitive ergative constructions (Georgian examples as under number [1]); intransitive nominative constructions (examples as under [2]); and the socalled "affective" constructions, which express feelings and observations by the senses (examples as under [3]): (1)

(2)

(3)

Georgian: monadirem (Erg.) mok'la (Aor.) 'the hunter killed the deer' monadire (Nom.) iq Ό (Impf.) 'the hunter was in town'

iremi (Nom.)

kalaksi

Old Georgian: mi-q'uar-s kalc'uli I-Dat. love girl-Nom. Ί love the girl'; equivalent of German mir ist das M dchen lieb (Schmidt 1984:312)

"Affective" verbs therefore represent a distinct group of verbs displaying their own syntax, which is generally referred to in the literature as "inversive" syntax (e.g. Klimov 1969a:61; Deeters, Solta, and Inglisian 1963). The verbs in question convey emotions and feelings, such as 'love', 'like', 'desire', 'be disgusted', 'be afraid', 'think', 'be hungry', 'be awake', 'remember', but also meanings such as 'wish', 'be able', 'want', 'be permitted', and so forth. "Inversive" syntax implies that in structures that feature verbs of perception or verbs expressing feelings (verba sentiendi), the person affected is referred to in the oblique case (generally the dative). The "object" or "person" that is the origin of the perception or feeling is referred to in a nominative, that is, the less marked case. The structures found in the Caucasian languages are especially well illustrated in Georgian (examples taken from Aronson 1982:332): Georgian: me Ana mi-qvar-s me-Dat. Ann-Nom. love Ί love Ann'

Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages

me Ana da Eduardi me-Dat. Ann and Edward-Norn, Ί love Ann and Edward'

143

mi-qvar-s love

Although this type of structure is attested in many Caucasian languages, there are minor variations, as in Avar, where verbs referring to feelings combine with a (pro)noun in the dative, but verbs conveying perception combine with a (pro)noun in the locative. Deeters, Solta, and Inglisian (1963) compare this type of construction with Indo-European impersonals, such as German mir scheint, or mir gef llt (1963:61). Yet it is clear from Indo-European evidence that in these languages impersonals do not combine with a subject-Nominative. Impersonal verbs in Indo-European languages typically do not combine with any subject, in none of the three categories. Instead they display a third-person singular verb form and a nominal form in the oblique case referring to the person(s) or element(s) involved or affected. Consequently, although structures of the type mir ist das M dchen lieb occasionally do occur, the similarity between the structures in Indo-European and Caucasian languages resides in the occurrence of the oblique case and its specific function. Although German structures of the type Anna ist mir lieb indeed are similar to those in Caucasian languages, they are not equivalent: "in Georgian the source of the emotion ... usually does not have number agreement with the verb" (Aronson 1982:332). Instead the verb agrees in number with the experiencer and occasionally may also refer to the "motive", as in: Georgian: Mas Ana Χ Υ

u-qvar -s X-Verb -Y

Consequently, "affective" verbs in Caucasian languages show a number of similarities with impersonal verbs in Indo-European but they are not identical. First, they cover the same categories of meaning. In addition, the majority of the verba sentiendi in Caucasian languages denote "states" (Aronson 1982:333). Finally, the person affected is referred to, as in IndoEuropean languages, in the oblique case. Conversely, we find that in addition to the three categories of meaning covered, Caucasian affective verbs also convey perception. In addition, the Caucasian structure typically features an element in the nominative that refers to the "motive" or "source" of the experience. Indo-European impersonal verbs as a rule do not display a subject. Consequently, we may assume that both groups have structures

144

Impersonal verbs

(called "impersonal" in Indo-European and "affective" in Caucasian) whose similarities suggest that their origin may be rooted in the same type of (impersonal) structure. Klimov has interpreted the affective verbs in Caucasian languages as residues of the active stage in Caucasian. He derived them from a large class of verbs that convey involuntary actions and states (1969a:254), but did not present evidence in support. If indeed the origin of the verbs is the same, then it is the development that subsequently took place in the individual language families that may account for the specific characteristics these verbs acquired: Indo-European developed into nominative languages, whereas Caucasian languages became ergative. The morphological patterns related to affective verbs in Caucasian languages may be closely linked to the marking patterns typical of ergative languages, such as verb agreement with the experiencer. American Indian languages Indian languages have many impersonal verbs that feature oblique case (Pinnow 1964:84). Such verbs cover various categories of meaning, including 'illness', 'certitude', 'sleep', 'hunger', 'possibility', Obligation'. Tunica includes a group of verbs that may be referred to as impersonal weather/natural event verbs and a group of Stative verbs that typically convey emotions and physical experience. The weather verbs are referred to by Haas as "personificatives" (1940; see also section 2.4.3.6). They are third-person forms, either masculine or feminine, depending on the natural force that is assumed to be implied in the event. Certain weather manifestations are referred to by a masculine personificative, whereas "changes of the moon" or the sun are referred to by feminine personificatives. Verbs referring to weather conditions imply that the "Thundering Being, personified as a man" is responsible, whereas the moon and the sun are personified as a grandmother (moon) and a young woman (sun) respectively (Haas 1940:57). In addition, another group of "impersonal verbs" is found among stative verbs in Tunica. As noted earlier, stative verbs in Tunica contain an obligatory inalienable prefix and cover meanings such as: (a)

emotional state, e.g.

(b) (c)

physical state, e.g. mental state, e.g. (Haas 1940:60)

-ya'ri -wa'na -ya'hpa -e'rusa

'to be ashamed' 'to want, wish' 'to be hungry' 'to know'

Impersonal verbs in non-Indo-European languages

145

The personal prefixes in these forms "grammatically speaking ... must be construed as objects even though they may usually be rendered as subjects in English translations" (Haas 1940:61). In this respect these verbs show a striking similarity with Indo-European impersonal verbs, which also typically feature an oblique case, where one might have expected from our "modern" linguistic point of view - a nominative referring to the subject-Agent. The overview of the "impersonal verbs" in Tunica shows that this type of verb typically covers weather conditions, emotional and physical state, and to a certain extent- modality ('wish'). In addition, impersonal verbs referring to weather conditions differ from the other impersonal verbs, as they do in Proto-Indo-European: they do not refer to a state as such and they typically lack any argument structure. Yet it is not impossible to find the verbal form connected with an (underlying) subject. By contrast, verbs of the categories II and III feature an inalienable element (corresponding to the inactive nature of the verb) that functions as object. The linguistic system of Tunica presents therefore a number of remarkable similarities with Proto-Indo-European impersonal verbs. In addition, there is also a structural parallel. In Chapter 2 it was noted that active languages typically mark affectedness. The "stative" affix not only occurs in reference to state; it also indicates that an element is affected by the event or the state referred to in the verb. This structuration therefore accounts for the presence of impersonal verbs in active languages: they fit the mould of the language. Impersonal verbs like those in Indo-European are cross-linguistically less well represented than might be assumed at first glance. This first impression is based, however, on erroneous characterizations in many grammars that confound the English translation and the original linguistic structure. Although impersonal verbs are not uncommon, they are not present in all languages, and they do not convey the same meanings in all languages either. The consistency in form and meaning of Indo-European impersonal verbs is very rare and therefore language specific and inherited. We find similar structures, however, in Semitic and Caucasian languages, and in active American Indian languages. Consequently, the historically wellattested occurrences of impersonal verbs in Indo-European languages can be assumed to be an important and telling characteristic of the structure of the protolanguage.

146

Impersonal verbs

3.6. Conclusion At the beginning of this chapter it was pointed out that impersonal verbs traditionally were the enfantpauvre of grammatical analyses. It is striking, however, that especially in recent years these verbs have lacked attention. Overviews and descriptive analyses (which are not numerous) mostly date from the end of the 19th or the beginning of the 20th century (Zimmer 1890; Delbr ck 1900; Brugmann 1917, 1925; Paul 1937, and so forth). Apparently all that could be said, has been said, and the theoretical frame to account for their occurrence was lacking. With the active hypothesis for Indo-European impersonal verbs have become again a topic of research because this approach offers the theoretical frame to account for their existence. It is clear that Indo-European languages contain many impersonal verbs, although their distribution and frequency vary from language to language. Despite the limited variety in expression and meaning, it is legitimate to assume that impersonal verbs represent a pattern that was inherited from Proto-Indo-European: this assumption is based on the consistency in structure - which typically includes a third-person singular verb form - and also on the consistency in meaning. Impersonal verbs in Indo-European languages typically convey three categories of meaning, (1) meteorological conditions and natural events; (2) expression of emotions and feelings, and physical experience, and (3) expression of modality. These categories are all covered, but only these. Although the lexical elements may change often over time, the semantic categories covered remain the same as do the syntactic structures. As a result of lexical changes, few impersonal verbs - if any at all - go back to a Proto-Indo-European impersonal root. Yet all impersonal verbs have Indo-European roots, even if they do not necessarily share the same ones. Also few impersonal verbs occur in more than one language, cf. e.g. Romance mi place, il me plait, and so forth, which go back to Latin mihi placet Ί like'. Yet the Latin word has no cognates in other languages. The only impersonal verb of this type in Latin with a cognate in another Indo-European language may well be decet which is related to Greek δοκεΐμοι 'it seems to me'. In addition, despite lexical changes, the impersonal structure remained the same over time, as is well illustrated in weather verbs. These verbs typically occur as third-person singular forms and as a rule have no argument structure in the oblique case. The variation in oblique case in verbs of categories II and III does not interfere with the cross-linguistic syntactic

Conclusion

147

consistency observed for impersonal verbs. The main point is that the person that is affected is referred to in an oblique case. Since impersonal verbs in Indo-European share the same structural and semantic patterns across the individual dialects and since they differ from evidence in non-Indo-European languages, it is clear that these structures were inherited. The inherited structure subsequently underwent major changes in the individual daughter languages. The main development that took place over time in impersonal weather verbs is the complete disappearance of the subject. The occurrence of subject-Nominatives referring to gods or common nouns may be assumed for a late stage of Proto-Indo-European. Yet we do not know with certainty whether these constructions represented an innovation and a transitory stage. By contrast, it is clear that the nominal subject no longer occurs in these contexts, with the exception of some instances in Balto-Slavic languages. The development of religious concepts and society presumably no longer fits the use of a subject in these contexts. Instead, in many languages, a grammatical pronominal element has developed as part of the grammatical shift to VO or right-branching structures, replacing the former suffix marker referring to the third person singular. This pronominal element is, therefore, a purely grammatical marker. Impersonal verbs conveying emotional and physical feelings and state in Latin developed a personal paradigm in modern structures: the experiencer is referred to in the nominative and the finite form of the verb agrees with the grammatical subject. By contrast, it is the category of verbs conveying modality that remained impersonal or even developed new impersonal structures: verbs that originally were genuine personal verbs came to be used as impersonals, with a modal meaning. As a result of this twofold development, the number of impersonal verbs expressing modal values came to exceed that of impersonal verbs conveying emotions, as the current situation in French or English shows. This situation is the reverse of the situation found in Latin, where originally category-II impersonals outnumbered their modality equivalents by far, although all categories of impersonal verbs were well-represented. The development corresponds to what took place in Old and Middle English and also to what we find in Ancient Greek or Sanskrit, where the limited number of impersonal verbs basically refers to modality. By contrast, Slavic and Germanic languages, which have numerous impersonal verbs, include all categories. The shift from impersonal to personal constructions and from personal to impersonal verbs, pointed out in the previous pages does not imply that the impersonal verbs of Late Latin survived directly in French. This is not

148

Impersonal verbs

what happened as one might expect on the basis of the easy change of lexical elements noticed earlier in this chapter. The important observation that can be made, however, is that the shift from impersonal to personal and the reverse change from personal to impersonal was not arbitrary, but tended to occur with specific types of verbs. As a result, the use of impersonal verbs became limited over time to verbs conveying modal values and to verb such asfacere and habere that display transitive syntax, but not their lexical meaning. This change ties in with the development of modal expressions in Indo-European languages: modal values increasingly are expressed by auxiliaries. In addition, impersonal verbs that came to dominate in the course of time typically are bound constructions. Conversely, the structures that were lost over time were typically nominal and unbound constructions, such as the following example, which was given earlier: fratris me piget pudetque am sick and ashamed of my brother' where we find: Noun-Gen.

Pronoun-Ace. Impers.

Impers.

The noun and pronoun may be replaced respectively by a pronoun and a noun, hence by nominal elements only. These structures are therefore typically nominal. From this perspective, the characterization by Ernout and Thomas is very accurate: they described the meaning of verbal forms in -r in terms of "there is in respect to me pity, regret, shame, and so forth" ("il y a en ce qui me concerne... pitie, repentir, mecontentement, honte, degoüt" [1964:19]). Lehmann's identification of these forms as being a subclass of inactive verbs fits this description. On the basis of the characteristics found in other impersonal verbs, Ernout's and Thomas's characterization may be extended to impersonals in general. In the discussion about impersonal verbs in Indo-European, it is necessary also to take into account the specific nature of the grammatical person involved: the third person. Impersonal verbs in Indo-European typically are third-person forms, be they verbs (category I-III), forms in -r, or impersonal expressions. The third person can be animate or inanimate. Moreover, the third person as Benveniste pointed out, typically indicates that the first and the second person are excluded (1947:4ff). This grammatical person therefore is not referential, it does not inherently refer to a person. Consequently, there is no person specification in the verb itself because the

Conclusion

149

third-person singular is the only form of the paradigm. Since there is no person specification in the verb form itself, it only conveys the state (or the event in weather verbs). These considerations leave us with the question, however, why IndoEuropean had impersonal verbs in the first place. In section 3.5 it was argued that impersonal verbs like those in Indo-European languages are not found widely in other languages. Their consistency in form and meaning, which is rare cross-linguistically, suggests that these structures are language specific and related to the language system. Similar structures are attested in Caucasian and Semitic languages, which are assumed to have been active in an earlier stage. Structural similarities with impersonal constructions in active languages seem to support this observation. Consequently impersonal verbs in Indo-European languages inform us about the language system in which they were integrated. The majority of these verbs (category II and III) typically have a stati ve etymology, they convey state, and do not display transitive structures, but instead indicate the person affected. The assumption that early Proto-IndoEuropean was a language where the notion of "stative" was an important grammatical feature, may account for these structures. In addition, active languages typically mark the person or persons affected by the state or the event expressed by the verb. In Chapter 2 (section 2.4.3.5) I discussed grammatical marking on the verb in active languages. Research carried out by Mithun (1991) has shown that active languages use grammatical markers not only to express state vs. action, which is their primary distinction, but affectedness as well: the use of affixes therefore is often motivated by several semantic criteria, predominantly [a state], but also [a affectedness] and [a control]. Consequently, the notion of affectedness and the way it is expressed are positively motivated and do not just express lack of control: it refers to the participant who is affected by the state expressed by the verb and the affix used in this context conveys an independent grammatical category that has its own value and motivation, that of affectedness. Impersonal verbs as found in Indo-European, whose structure typically conveys the person affected, therefore fit the structural mold of active languages. The combination of a non-nominative case with a verb - instead of a Nominative - Verb combination - does not imply that these structures were ergative. In ergative syntax one typically finds a transitive verbs with the agent referred to in the ergative and possibly morphological agreement between the verb and the experiencer. Impersonal verbs, however, may be intransitive or transitive and there is typically no verb agreement. Yet we may find similar structures in some ergative languages, such as Georgian

150

Impersonal verbs

(Schmidt 1973), but these structures have been ascribed to an earlier stage by Klimov (1969a). Since there is no mention of impersonal verbs in analyses of ergative languages or of ergativity in general, Klimov may have been correct in his assumption. For the time being I therefore assume that impersonal verbs like those in Latin and other early Indo-European languages, with their non-transitive characteristics, fit the pattern of a language where "stative" is an important grammatical category, as well as "affectedness". From this perspective impersonal verbs can be considered residues of an earlier stage of language that was characterized by a different syntax. The subsequent shift from impersonal to personal constructions in verbs expressing emotional and physical feelings is in line with the tendency in Indo-European to have a subject-Nominative to convey the experiencer in the same way as it came to convey the possessor (see Chapter 4) and the agent in verbal mihi est constructions (Chapter 5). Accordingly, subject verb agreement corresponds to these same patterns. Impersonal verbs therefore structurally fit the patterns of an active language whereas the subsequent development that some of them underwent fits the spreading of nominative features in Indo-European.

Chapter 4

Possessive mihi est constructions Entre Findo-europden, qui n'avait meme pas 1'amorce d'un verbe "avoir", et une langue moderne teile que le frangais, il y a tout la fois un changement profond d'institutions sociales, un changement dans la structure de la phrase et un changement dans la mentalite1 des hommes (Meillet 1923:13) Au sein meme des langues indo-europ6ennes, [avoir] est une acquisition tardive, qui mit longtemps s'imposer ... Et... on observe souvent que Γ evolution se fait de "mihi est" "habeo", non Finverse, ce qui signifie que la meme ou "habeo" existe, il peut sortir d'un "mihi est" anterieur (Benveniste 1966b:195-196)

Possessive mihi est constructions are structures that convey possession and that include a nominative referring to the element in possession, a dative referring to the possessor, and a form of the verb 'be'. They are found in Latin as well as in the other early Indo-European languages. Moreover, a number of modern Indo-European languages still include the construction, albeit in a slightly modified form, cf. for example Russian, where a prepositional phrase is used instead of a case form and where the verb 'be' in the present tense is lacking according to the rules of Russian grammar : Russian: u menja kniga near me-Gen. book-Nom. Ί have a book' It has been long noted that Proto-Indo-European lacked a verb 'have' (e.g. Meillet 1923). Examination of the individual daughter languages shows that the various branches all display their own root for a verb 'have', which implies that the verb was not inherited from the protolanguage, but developed after the protolanguage split up, cf.: Greek OCS Baltic

έχω imarm turiu

Latin habeo Gothic haba and aih Albanian kam Armenian unim (Meillet 1923:9)

152

Possessive mihi est constructions

Since most languages belonging to the same branch share the same root, however, the introduction of a transitive verb meaning 'have' must have started early in the individual branches, before they split up. Instead of a verb 'have', Proto-Indo-European used a predicative construction, the mihi est construction mentioned above, which included a third-person form of the verb 'be' and an oblique case, referring to the possessor. (The example from Russian at the beginning of this chapter shows that the verb may be omitted in some languages.) Over time this structure came to be replaced with habeo in Latin and its equivalents in the other branches of Indo-European. Habeo structures differ from mihi est constructions in that the possessor is referred to with a nominative and the object in possession is indicated with an accusative: liber puero book-Norn. boy-Dat. puer librum boy-Norn. book-Ace. 'the boy has a book'

est > be-3sg.> habet have-3sg.

This chapter will first examine the different types of "possession" found in the various Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages, including the grammatical processes involved (such as predicative vs. attributive possession) and their semantic characteristics, in particular the distinction alienable vs. inalienable possession (section 4.1). Subsequently, the analysis will focus on possession in Indo-European. Its grammatical markers will be discussed as well as the possibility of there having been a distinction between alienable and inalienable possession in early Proto-Indo-European and the use of mihi est in the early daughter languages (section 4.2). Section 4.3 will examine mihi est constructions in Latin which are attested in all early stages and whose use is twofold. In addition to structures conveying possession, mihi est also occurred in verbal constructions in combination with a nominal form of the principal verb, as in Latin: mihi est I-Dat. be-3sg. Ί have to read'

legendum read-Ger.

Verbal constructions of this type are widely found in the early Indo-European languages. It was noted before that mihi est in possessive constructions was replaced in time by a structure including the verb habeo or a

Types of possession

153

comparable verb in the dialects. In the history of Latin it is possible to retrace the stages of the development during which the verbal mihi est constructions as well came to be replaced byhabeo; this development is not confined to the Italic branch. While Chapter 5 of this book analyzes verbal mihi est constructions, the current Chapter will focus on possessivem//»' est constructions. The analysis focuses on the occurrence of mihi est in the various Indo-European languages and the alternative constructions that include a genitive (section 4.2). Subsequently, the syntactic and semantic context of the construction in Latin will be further examined as well as its subsequent development, which is characterized by a gradual replacement by the verb habeo (section 4.3). The last section of this chapter discusses the differences between the genitive and dative predicative possessive constructions and their chronology (section 4.4).

4.1. Types of possession The notion of possession, which covers a wide range of extra-linguistic phenomena, is difficult to define. In addition, languages use a variety of expressions conveying "possession". Accordingly one can approach the topic of possession in language from either of two perspectives: the philosophical / anthropological, which analyzes the notion of possession as such, or the linguistic, which analyzes the various ways in which a given language or languages express possession. For a linguist this approach is preferable. 4.1.2. Possession: General considerations Languages express possession in attributive and predicative constructions. The attributive structure is nominal and includes a noun that refers to the element in possession and is combined with another noun or pronoun. Depending on whether the language is dependent marking or head marking, inflectional markers or affixes - indicating the possessive relationship - combine with the element that refers to the possessor or the element in possession, cf. the following examples from Latin, which is a dependentmarking language:

154

Possessive mihi est constructions

Noun-Gen. hominum men-Gen. 'a nation of men'

Noun natio (PI., Men. 258) nation-Norn.

Pronoun Noun eius uxor Pron.-3sg.-Gen.-Masc./Fem. wife 'his wife' The attributive structure is notoriously ambiguous as Seiler pointed out (1983a) because its meaning is not precise. On the one hand my father, my car, my decision, my life, all express the same kind of "possessive" relation between 'me' and the noun in question, but the actual relation varies with the noun. My father for example, conveys a personal relation and refers to kinship with no inherently exclusive value: the person in question (my father) can also be the father of someone else (see Sapir 1917b:88). In our monogamous Western civilization this observation does not apply to my husband, though it may in polygamous cultures. The phrase my car, on the other hand, refers to a relation of true and "exclusive" possession (Sapir 1917b:88), whereas my decision expresses quite another type of relation. The lack of precision in attributive constructions is further demonstrated in examples of the type John 's movie, which expresses a variety of meanings: 'the movie John made', 'the movie about John', 'the movie John likes', 'the movie John happens to have, but does not own', and so forth. While attributive possessive constructions may be understood in more than one way, as the examples mentioned above illustrate, predicative structures, which express possession primarily with a verb, may also cover a variety of meanings. The use of the verb 'have' illustrates this observation: The following examples show that the same verb in French, avoir, expresses a variety of meanings (see also Meillet 1923): French: il a raison he-Subj. have-3sg. reason-Dir.Obj. 'he is right' U a des vacances he-Subj. have-3sg. holiday-Dir.Obj. 'he is on holiday'

Types of possession

155

il a une voiture he-Subj. have-3sg. a car-Dir.Obj. 'he owns a car' // a de l'argent he-Subj. have-3sg. money-Dir.Obj. 'he has money' il a encore ses parents he-Subj. have-3sg. still his parents-Dir.Obj. 'he still has his parents / his parents are still alive' Yet despite the semantic variety of 'have', not all possessive relations can be expressed in terms of 'have': sa mort 'his death' is not equivalent to *// a une mort. This observation undermines the concept of generative grammarians who attribute to all possessive expressions a deep structure with the verb 'have' (see Seiler 1983a:22). 4.1.2. Semantic distinction: Alienable vs. inalienable possession The examples given above illustrate that the notion as well as the expression of "possession" therefore are inherently vague and difficult to capture in a definition. Accordingly the analysis of the expression of possession calls for a semantic (section 4.1.2) and formal approach (sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4). From a semantic point of view possession refers to (1) the relation between predominantly animate (especially human) elements and their kin men, their body, body parts, material, belongings, cultural and intellectual products; and (2) the relation between the whole of an object and its individual parts (Seiler 1983a:3). In addition to the formal distinction between predicative and attributive possessive structures, languages may also display semantic differences between alienable and inalienable possession (or in Seller's terminology established vs. inherent [1983a]). On the basis of cross-linguistic evidence, Uhlenbeck (1916a) and Sapir (1917b) have shown that morphological processes expressing inalienable possession are less explicit or less grammaticalized in comparison to established possession. Uhlenbeck's and Sapir's findings have been confirmed later by evidence from other languages as well. Established possession tends to be indicated by syntactic and explicit processes. In addition, the alienable element represents often

156

Possessive mihi est constructions

the marked variant, as was noted in Tunica, for example, where the alienable suffix is derived from the inalienable one (section 2.4.3.4). The concept of "inalienable" or "inherent" possession is not a linguistic universal and its actual occurrence in the individual languages varies considerably. Consequently inalienable possession illustrates well the phenomenon of linguistic incongruity. In an early and well-known article LevyBruhl (1914) pointed out that Melanesian languages display two series of possessive markers: possession is expressed either by suffixes or by independent words that precede the noun in possession. The suffixes combine with elements in inalienable possession: body parts, parts of a whole, kinship, objects closely related to the person in question, and so forth. In addition, Melanesian languages typically include in their group of inalienable nouns words referring to remains of food and personal garbage, such as hair, excrement, or nails (Levy-Bruhl 1914:101-102). It is striking that Levy-Bruhl also found a parallel between the linguistic feature of inalienable possession and a socio-cultural phenomenon: products that have been made by someone, as well as the objects that were in frequent physical contact with them, such as clothes, weapons, and so forth ("les objets qui ont ete produits par 1'individu ou qui ont ete en contact frequent avec son corps, ses vetements, ses armes, ses ornements" [Levy-Bruhl 1914:102]) are considered intrinsically related to the person in question. Being objects of inalienable possession - and grammatically indicated as such - they are burnt at the person's death. Similarly, cultural background information in a number of languages clarifies why "husband" will not feature inalienable marking, whereas "son" will: kinship in the related culture is determined by maternal relationship. While inalienable possession in these languages has a cultural background, in other languages it may be primarily related to the language system as was pointed out above (section 2.4.3.4). In active languages, the distinction alienable vs. inalienable possession corresponds to the opposition active vs. stative. This parallel may also be reflected in morphological processes: inalienable markers are then morphologically identical to stative markers (see Klimov 1974; for the phenomenon in Tunica, see section 2.4.3.4). 4.1.3. Attributive possession It was mentioned above that attributive structures combine two nominal elements, generally nouns or pronouns, cf.:

Types of possession

Noun hominum

Noun natio

'the nation of the men'

Pronoun sua

Noun natio

'his (own) nation'

157

They may also include an adjective as in the following example, where the derivative adjective conveys possession: Greek: Noun Adjective βίη Ήρακληείη strength-Norn. Hercules-Adj.-Nom. 'strength of Hercules' According to Seiler, structures of the type Noun - Pronoun are "prototypical" and "predominantly inalienable" (1983a:17). Seller's observation does not imply that any Noun - Pronoun construction conveys inalienable possession, because many languages do not display the feature inalienable possession. Seller's observation is based on cross-linguistic evidence and is probably related to the tendency of languages that feature the distinction alienable vs. inalienable possession to express inalienable possession with affixed pronominal elements. By contrast, alienable possession in these languages is generally referred to by full and independent pronouns. In a number of languages the distinction may also be indicated by deletion, or conversely, obligatory presence of possessive pronominal elements (Seiler 1983a). In addition to these processes of direct marking, indirect processes are also attested to indicate possession, as the following example from French shows: French: il a leve le bras he-Subj. have-3sg. lift-PPart. the arm-Dir.Obj. 'he lifted the arm > he lifted his arm' (Seiler 1983a:19) Although French does not distinguish between alienable vs. inalienable possession, the above structure expresses some kind of possession as the English translation clearly shows. Yet there is no possessive pronoun, as in the following example, where instead of a possessive pronoun we find a pronoun functioning as an indirect object, cf.:

158

Possessive mihi est constructions

French: il m 'a casse he-Subj. me-Indir.Obj.-have-3sg. break-PPart. le bras the arm-Dir.Obj. 'he broke my arm' Similar structures can also be found in Russian (Levine 1986), Ancient Greek, or German. Yet even if these structures express some kind of possession, the indirect object in this context is not a possessive element, but a dativus sympatheticus. This dative is commonly found in early IndoEuropean languages but has been replaced in most of them by a possessive pronoun (see Löfstedt 1928). The loss of the dativus sympatheticus is presumably related to the loss of the case system. This assumption is supported by evidence from languages where its use is still attested, such as German or Russian, which have case. Similarly in Modern French the structure is still used in pronominal, but not in nominal contexts: in contrast to nouns, pronouns still feature some case marking, cf.: French: °il a casse le bras a Jean he-Subj. have-3sg. break-PPart. the arm-Dir.Obj. to Jean but:

il lui a casse le bras he-Subj. he-Indir.Obj. have-3sg. break-PPart. the arm-Dir.Obj. According to Seiler, attributive possession markers also include connectives, possessive classifiers, and case. Connectives and possessive classifiers are uncommon in Indo-European languages; they may be found in Austronesian languages, which express possession with connectives as an example from Tolai shows: Tolai: a pal ka-i ra tutana Art. house Clfr-Poss.Masc. Art. man 'the house of the man' (Mosel [1982] quoted by Seiler 1983a:34) Possessive classifiers, on the other hand, are "found primarily, if not exclusively, in Oceanic languages ... and in Amerindian languages" (Seiler

Types of possession

159

1983a:35). These classifiers express "a great number of contrasts" indicating number, the opposition exclusive vs. inclusive in the first person plural, "benefacticity", and so forth (Seiler 1983a:36). While the strategies mentioned in the preceding paragraph are almost non-existent in Indo-European languages, case marking by contrast is widespread. In this type of structure Seiler also includes constructions of the type Copula + Noun + Dative/Genitive, as well as participle constructions with a form of the verb 'be' and an oblique case, such as (Seiler 1983a:54): mihi est elaboratum I-Dat. be-3sg. work-PfPart.-Neutr. Ί have worked' Yet because these structures are predicative, they should be analyzed in the section that deals with predication. Despite their nominal characteristics, these structures typically have a verb. Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish between possessive constructions that feature nouns in an oblique case such as (a) below and possessive constructions that in addition include a verb and are, therefore, predicative, as in (b): (a)

senatus consultum Senate-Gen. decision-Nom. 'the decision of the Senate'

(b)

tibi sunt you-Dat. be-3pl. 'you have twins'

gemini (PL, Mil. 717) twins-Nom.

The analysis in this chapter focuses on predicative possessive constructions and their position among the other possessive constructions in IndoEuropean (section 4.2) because their characteristics as reflected in synchronic and diachronic evidence inform us about the earlier stages of Proto-Indo-European (sections 4.3 and 4.4) 4.1.4. Predicative possessive constructions Predicative possessive constructions are characterized by the occurrence of a verb, which may be a copula or a full verb. The copula most commonly is the verb 'be'; full verbs on the other hand range from verbs specifying the mode of possession (e.g. English 'belong' vs. 'possess') to verbs con-

160

Possessive mihi est constructions

veying a vaguer type of meaning, such as 'have'. In contrast to attributive constructions, predicative constructions typically may convey alienable possession: alienable constructions "corresponding to the lesser inherent relationships usually included some predicative element" (Seiler 1983a:55). Languages show a variety - cross-linguistically and language internally - of possessive verbs. A number of languages express possession in terms of existence, as the formal correspondences in the following three examples show, cf.: (1)

existential expression:

books exist there are books

(2)

locative expression:

a. b.

the book is on the table there is a book on the table

(3)

possessive expression:

a. b.

the book is John 's John has a book

(Lyons 1967:390) "John" in John has a book is, according to Lyons, "the underlying locative subject" as "on the table" is "the underlying locative subject in there is a book on the table (1977:723). In Russian the parallels are stronger: Russian: kniga na stole book-Norn, on table-Loc. 'there is a book on the table' kniga moja book-Nom. my-Nom.-Fem. 'the book is mine' u near Ί have (Lyons

menja kniga (na stole) me-Gen. book-Nom. on table-Loc. a book (on the table)' 1967:394)

In line with the localist hypothesis, which assumes that grammatical categories such as aspect and case are derived from locative expressions (see e.g. Anderson 1971), Lyons argues that "in many, and perhaps in all, languages existential and possessive constructions derive (both synchronically and diachronically) from locatives" (1967:390).

Possession in Indo-European languages

161

As Seiler pointed out, however, the expression of possession in terms of existence in a number of languages does not imply ipso facto an underlying connection between possession and existence, let alone an underlying connection in all languages. Moreover, many languages do not express possession in terms of location or existence, but even distinguish various types of possessive expressions, among them locatives. A number of African languages, for example, "distinguish ... between socially determined inherence (kin terms), partitive inherence (part/whole), and localizing inherence (operation in space)". It is striking that "the syntactic behavior of locative phrases differs in certain definite ways from that of both kin and part/whole expressions" (Seiler 1983a:56). Whereas a number of languages display parallels between expressions of possession and existence, others introduce in their possessive constructions the notion of directionality, or definiteness and indefmiteness. Finally, Sapir found in a number of American Indian languages "that personal relation, possession, is primarily expressed by the possessive pronominal affixes of relationship terms" (1917b:88). From this perspective the distinction exclusive vs. inclusive possession is also pertinent: whereas my father, as mentioned earlier, conveys a relation between me and someone who can be someone else's father also, while the nominal phrase my car or my hat conveys pure and exclusive possession (1917b:88). These considerations account for the complex patterns in possessive marking of the various noun classes in these languages. This overview shows that although possession is a widespread phenomenon and linguistically important feature, the notion itself as well as its expression present a significant variety cross-linguistically as well as in the individual languages. In the following pages I will analyze the two basic ways of conveying possession in Indo-European languages, attributive and predicative structures.

4.2. Possession in Indo-European languages In Indo-European languages possession is expressed in attributive as well as predicative constructions. Yet they only use a few of the numerous grammatical processes that are attested in the cross-linguistic analyses mentioned in the previous sections. The attributive structures that are well represented in the daughter languages include adjectives, nominal and

162

Possessive mihi est constructions

pronominal genitives, and possessive pronouns. In addition, particles are found in Old Hittite, cf.: Hittite: SAG.GEME.IRMES e-es-har-se-mi-it (BoTU 919) servants their-blood 'the servants's blood' (Example from Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:241) Since similar examples can be found in Sumerian (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:242), this type of structure may be borrowed. In addition the structure, which is characterized by head marking (the grammatical element is attached to the head of the noun phrase), differs from the "normal" IndoEuropean grammatical structures, which are dependent marking. Moreover, the absence of instances in languages other than Old Hittite further supports Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's assumption that these structures were borrowings. By contrast, adjectives commonly express possession in the early daughter languages, where they combine with names. See for example, patronymic expressions in Homer: Τελαμόνιος Αίας Telamon-Adj.-Norn. Ajax-Nom. 'Ajax son of Telamon' (Seiler 1983a:30; Homer, passim) Similarly nominalized adjectives are attested in this use, showing the importance of the formation: ό Άγαμεμνονίδης Art-Norn. Agamemnon-Adj.-Nom. 'Agamemnon's son (Orestes)' This use is also attested in Mycenaean Greek (cf. Ventris and Chadwick 1956:75,92). Patronymic adjectives are also found in genealogical formula in Latin, specifying appurtenance to the gens: Quintus Tullius Marci fllius Cicero (Praenomen Gens Nomen Cognomen) Quintus-Nom. Tullius-Adj. Marcus-Gen. son-Nom.Cicero 'Quintus Tullius Cicero, son of Marcus' (Marcus Tullius Cicero's - the orator's - brother)

Possession in Indo-European languages

163

In Homer the use of possessive adjectives also includes other contexts, such as common nouns, cf. the example given in section 4.1.3: βίη Ήρακληείη strength-Norn. Hercules-Adj.-Nom. 'the strength of Hercules' which exists beside a genitive: βίη Διομήδεος strength-Norn. Diomedes-Gen. 'the strength of Diomedes' These structures are also found in other Indo-European languages as the examples given by Meillet illustrate (1964:346-347): Latin domus Petri (house-Nom. Peter-Gen.) is rendered in Old Church Slavonic by: Old Church Slavonic: dom Petrov house-Nom.sg. Peter-Adj.-Nom.sg. The structure in Modern Russian has a noun in the genitive; in Armenian an adjective in -ean parallel to OCS -ova is found, as is illustrated by the form for Noah below: Armenian: Noyean tapan Noah-Adj. ark (Meillet 1964:347) The most widespread possessive construction in Indo-European languages is the genitive of nouns and pronouns, as in oi ... των Περσέων (Her., Hist. 5.1.1) Art-Nom.-pl. Art.-Gen.pl Persians-Gen, 'those of the Persians' τον Δαρείου στρατοί/ Art.-Acc. Darius-Gen. army-Ace, 'the army of Darius'

(Her., Hist. 5.27)

per agrum Sequanorum et Aeduorum through territory-Ace. Sequani-Gen. and Aedui-Gen. 'through the territory of the Sequani and Aedui' (Caes.,DZ?G 1.10)

164

Possessive mihi est constructions

Finally, Proto-Indo-European had two series of possessive pronouns, independent pronouns, residues of which are found in Greek έμός, Avestan ma- (< PIE *(e)mos) or Sanskrit tva- (< PIE *twos) and enclitics, reflexes of which are found in Latin meus, OCS moji or Gothic mei- (as in meins 'my') (< PIE *moi/*mei). Hittite shows both series of pronouns. These forms are discussed in greater detail in the next section. 4.2.1. Alienable vs. inalienable possession in Indo-European No Indo-European language distinguishes explicitly between alienable and inalienable possession. Yet reinterpretation of evidence from a number of daughter languages suggests that Indo-European at a very early stage may have had this distinction. As mentioned in the previous section, a number of Indo-European languages include pronouns that are historically enclitic elements, whereas the other languages have pronouns that are originally independent elements. On the basis of this evidence two series of possessive elements have been reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984). The individual branches lost the distinction after the split-up and continued to use either of the two series. A number of them have reflexes of an original enclitic element (*moi/*mei; *toi/*tei', *soi/*sei), cf.: Latin OCS Gothic

meus mo mei-

'my' 'my' (as in meins 'mine')

The independent pronouns (< *(e)mos, *twos, *nsmos; *usmos) on the other hand can be found in: Greek εμός 'my', σος 'your' Avestan ma'my', Qwa 'your' Vedic Sanskrit tva'your' (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:252; Brugmann 1911:403-409; Szemerenyi 1990:233) While the other daughter languages include pronouns that originated either in independent or enclitic possessive pronominal elements, Hittite preserves both series of possessive pronominal elements. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984) consider these two series residues of an earlier opposition between alienable and inalienable possession. Possession is expressed with the genitive of the independent personal pronoun, as in:

Possession in Indo-European languages 165

Hittite: ammel attas I-Gen. father-Norn, 'my father' tuel anni you-Gen. mother-Dat. 'to your mother' (Friedrich 1960:64) In addition, Old Hittite also displays enclitic possessive elements, such as -mi- 'my', -ti- 'your', -si- 'his, her', -smi- 'your, plural', -5m/- 'their' (Friedrich 1960:65). The noun as well as the enclitic pronominal element is declined: Hittite: kardiias heart-Gen. Of your heart'

-tas your-Gen.

kissari -mi hand-Dat./Loc. -my-Loc./Dat. 'in my hand' (Friedrich 1960:66) In later Hittite, these forms are no longer treated as consisting of two components and forms of the type Hittite: attasmin father-my-Acc. 'my father' are found instead of the earlier Hittite: attan -min father-Ace. my-Acc. (cf. Friedrich 1960:66) It is striking that the enclitic pronominal elements "are regularly used with relational nouns" (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:252), such as 'father'

166

Possessive mihi est constructions

(attas-mis 'my father'), 'lord' (eshas-mis 'my lord'), 'household, family' (pir-mit 'my household and family'), and so forth. But they are also used with nouns such as 'hand' (kessaras-mis 'my hand'), 'heart' (ker-met 'my heart'), 'name' (laman-mit 'my name'), 'frontside' (piran-set 'his frontside'), and so forth. This distribution corresponds to patterns found in languages that display inalienable vs. alienable possession. It was mentioned above (section 4.1.2) that nouns of inalienable possession typically are kinship terms, body parts, parts of a whole, and so forth. In addition we know from Fijian (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:252), but more importantly, from active American Indian languages that inalienable possession is expressed by non-independent affixal elements, whereas alienable possession is referred to by independent pronouns (see section 2.4.3.4 of this book; Klimov 1974). In his cross-linguistic overview of possession, Seiler recognized the same patterns (1983a:20). Consequently the morphological and semantic patterns found in Hittite correspond to typological evidence, suggesting that inalienable possession was a linguistic feature at an earlier stage. Similarly, Rosen (1989) points out a connection between two series of pronominal elements in Sanskrit and inalienable possession: one series is enclitic (mad- 'my', twad- 'your'), the other is independent and derived from the genitive of the personal pronoun (mama-ka 'my' [ 'when I was a boy'. Finally, adjectives in this context typically convey state, which is their primary function, cf.dis inimicis 'with the gods being hostile' (PL, Most. 563). In both types of all-noun absolutes - those that combine with a noun and those that combine with an adjective - the head (pro)noun refers to what from our perspective may be considered the underlying subject e.g.: me ... impulsore I-Abl. instigator-Abl. 'while I am instigator' > 'with me as instigator'

Absolute constructions in Latin

293

as in:

me suasore atque impulsore id I-Abl. advisor-Abl. and instigator-Abl. this-Acc. factum (PL, Most. 916} happen-PfPart-Acc.sg. '(that) this happened with me as advisor and instigator' These structures show syntactic similarities with present participial absolutes, cf. populo praesente (PL, Bacch. 336) people-Abl. be-present-PrPart-Abl.sg 'while the people are present' Reasoning in terms of subject and verb, some linguists have assumed that a participle of the verb esse is understood in all-noun absolutes (e.g. Riemann 1927:156). In connection with similar examples in Sanskrit the same assumption has been made for that language (Renou 1952:314; see section 6.1.1). In line with this reasoning, the participle in question is assumed to be a present participle because these noun combinations express simultaneity including causality and accompaniment. Yet the presence of a participle may not be implied. First, if a participle of 'be' were assumed, then the construction would change dramatically in that it would include in its core structure three instead of two elements, as in: (Pro)Noun-1 1

Noun-2/Adjective 2

Participle 3

There are no attestations of absolute constructions including these three elements. Nor are there parallel instances of a noun, a perfective participle, and a participle of the verb 'be' as for example in: °homine mortuo fuente man-Abl. die-PfPart-Abl. be-PrPart-Abl. 'while the man was in the state resulting from dying' Absolute constructions typically include only two elements in their core structure. Even the later examples that show extensions do not affect the core of the structure, as instances discussed by Coleman indicate (1989: 362):

294

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

duabus legionibus quas proxime two-Abl. legions-Abl. that-Acc. recently conscripserat in castris relictis (Caes., DBG 2.8.5) enrol-Plqpf.-3sg. in camp-Abl. leave-PfPart-Abl.pl 'the two legions he had recently enrolled being left in the camp ...' In this example the extension, a relative clause, does not affect the core structure of the absolute legionibus relictis. Examples including a second predicate noun are attested in all periods, but they are very rare (Leumann and Hofmann 1965:141), cf.: prudenti viro adiuncto collega foreseeing-Abl.sg. man-Abl.join-PfPart.-Abl.sg. colleague-Abl. 'after giving (to him) as his colleague a man with foresight' (Liv. 27.34.3) For these reasons it seems more appropriate to assume that structures of the type me impulsore are the absolute variants of nominal clauses (in French phrases nominales), which were common in Indo-European and which also typically had no verb (cf. Benveniste 1950, quoted from the edition of 1966; 1966a:151-167). Instances are found in proverbs, as in: omnia praeclara rara all-Nom.N.-pl. beautiful-Nom.N.-pl. rare-Nom.N.-pl. 'all beautiful things are rare' or also in Plautus's Latin, cf: quid peius muliere aut what-Nom. bad-Comp.-Nom.Neutr. woman-Abl. or audacius (Mil., 307) audacious-Comp.-Nom.-Neutr. 'what is worse or more audacious than a woman?' The aim of this discussion is not to argue that instances of the type me adiutore 'with me as assistant' are actually derived from these nominal clauses. The existence of nominal clauses demonstrates, however, that exclusively nominal phrases did occur in the early languages and their occurrence further suggests that absolutes may also have been exclusively nominal. They therefore do not represent an isolated phenomenon.

Absolute constructions in Latin

295

Although all-noun absolutes did occur, the most common type of absolute construction in Latin, by far, includes a noun and a participle. Instances outnumber the structures with a noun or adjective as second element from early times on and they even increased in number over time. In the writings of Jordanes, for example, 392 participial ablative absolutes are found, but only 10 instances with a noun (4) or an adjective (6) (Helttula 1983:46). In the period of Late Latin the structure became almost exclusively participial. Instances of participial absolutes in Classical Latin will be discussed in the next section. 6.3.2. Absolute constructions including a participle Absolute constructions in Latin with a participle express a variety of meanings, including temporal value (simultaneity or anteriority), or causal, concessive, and conditional meaning. The perfective participle is most common in this context in Latin. The occurrence of the future active participle, on the other hand, is very late and rare. The second most common type of absolute includes a present participle whose use - in comparison with that of the perfective participle - was restricted in the early period. It spread over time and became even frequent in Late Latin, but never exceeded the perfective participle in frequency. Yet there is some variety in the individual authors. In the Peregrinatio, for example, two thirds of absolutes are perfective (approximately 58 of the total of 95). This tendency may not be general, as evidence from the Vulgata, for example, demonstrates, where present absolutes are much more common than their perfective equivalents. This predominance may be related to the Greek origin of the text. As was pointed out earlier, Greek presented a high occurrence of present absolutes and a greater variety of participles in general. The Greek text therefore included absolute constructions that could not be rendered by an absolute in Latin, such as those that had a perfective active participle. These instances were then translated in Latin with a subordinate clause. Over time not only a change in frequency took place, but also a change in syntactic patterns of absolute constructions with a present participle. The corpus of examples from Early Latin in Bennett (1914) shows a high incidence among present participles of intransitive and especially stative verbs (see also Bauer 1994:69-70): absente ero (PL, Asin. 500) be-absent-PrPart.-Abl.sg. master-Abl. 'the master being absent'

296

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

populo praesente (PL, Bacch. 336) people-Abi.sg. be-present-PrPart.-Abl.sg 'the people being present' luna decrescente eximito (Cat., Agr. 31.2) moon-Abl. wane-PrPart-Abl.sg. take-out-Impera.-3sg. One ought to take out... when the moon is waning' In fact, transitive verbs are very rare in this context and if attested, they occur without direct object. A transitive verb likescio 'know', for example, is found in this construction, but it is used, as a rule, without object: insciente domino (Cat., Agr, 5.4; PL, Mil. 144) not-know-PrPart-Abl. master-Abl. 'the master not knowing' In later times direct objects are used in these structures (see section 6.4.1). Conversely, in addition to being more frequent from the early period onward, perfective absolute constructions also show a much greater variety and include transitive as well as intransitive verbs. The perfective of deponent verbs was also included in absolute constructions but emerged only in the later stage. It has been pointed out by Leumann and Hofmann, moreover, that the use of deponents in this context, though common in the Classical period, was limited to verbs expressing "origin" (e.g. Cicerone nato 'when Cicero was born') and "movement", and only later included transitive verbs as well (1965:139). Laughton reports a restricted number of deponent verbs in this context in Cicero: "none of them is used transitively" (1964:110), exstincto animo et elapso (Tusc. 1.104) 'when the soul has been destroyed and has slipped away', illoprofecto (SulL, 56) 'when it has begun', and so forth. One of the earliest instances of a deponent verb in the absolute with a direct object is found in Sallust: Sulla omnia pollicito (Sail., lug. 103.7) Sulla-Abl. all-Acc.pl promise-PfPart.-Abl.sg 'after Sulla had promised everything' The chronology of these different structures suggests that the development of the deponent verb was similar to that of the absolute present participle (see below). In addition to absolutes including two elements (nominal, pronominal, or adjectival), there are also instances that include only a participle,

Absolute constructions in Latin

297

"employe seul au neutre impersonnel" (Ernout and Thomas 1964:104). In these instances the verb is assumed to be used as an impersonal verb, or to be used with an indefinite subject: plebeius ... magistrates nullus plebeian-Nom. magistrate-Norn. none-Nom. auspicato creatur (Liv. 6.41.5) take-the-auspices-PfPart-Abl.sg. elect-Pass.-Pr.-3sg. 'no plebeian magistrate is elected once the auspices are being taken' Compare also: pugnatur

'there is fighting'

pugnato

Once the fighting is finished'

vs.

Examples of this type of structure are especially common in fixed formulae in the legal language, which suggests an archaism: intestate 'without a will' contestato 'by aid of witness' (For more examples, see Ernout and Thomas 1964:104-105.) Absolute constructions are often tacitly assumed to be "subordinate clauses" (e.g. Riemann 1927:531-532; Väänänen 1987:91). This interpretation is based on the translation of these clauses in the modern Western Indo-European languages rather than on the actual characteristics of the structure. Absolute constructions are not subordinate clauses, even if they are rendered by subordinate clauses in modern languages. Subordinate clauses include a finite verb, a grammatical subject and - with transitive verbs - possibly a direct object; absolute constructions do not. Instead, the verb in absolute constructions is a participle and the distribution of grammatical functions is also different. The relation between the elements of the absolute construction is not one of government - as in subordinate and main clauses - but rather one of agreement: whereas action in a finite clause is conveyed by a verb that governs a direct object as in (A), action in absolute constructions is expressed with a nominal form of the verb that agrees with the head noun, as in (B):

298

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

(A)

cum urbem cepisset when town-Ace. take-Plqpf.-Subju.-3sg. 'when he had taken the town, ...'

(B)

urbe capta town-Abl. take-PfPart-Abl.sg. 'when the town was taken, he ...'

Consequently, absolute structures are typically nominal. Instances without participle which were discussed in the previous paragraphs support this interpretation because they are exclusively nominal. Absolute constructions are therefore fundamentally different from constructions with a finite verb. Of the two elements included in absolute constructions one is the grammatical head - a noun or a pronoun. This nominal head combines with a second nominal element, a noun used in apposition, an adjective, or a participle, which agrees in gender, number, and case with the head noun. The participle is included not because it is a verb, but because it is the nominal - that is adjectival - form of the verb. The nominal nature of the structure further reflects its stative value: as in the other Indo-European languages, absolute constructions in Latin are aspectually marked because the participles they include are aspectually marked. In order to be a true absolute, the ablative absolute in its strict form in Latin has no grammatical links with any other element in the clause, by apposition, co-reference, or anaphoric relation: (a) None of the other elements has any syntactic relation with the absolute construction. If there were a grammatical connection, the participle would be a participium coniunctum. (b) There is no anaphorical reference in the clause. Yet instances of ablative absolutes with anaphoric reference are attested, as in: exeunte episcopo... omnes ad manum leave-PrPart.-Abl.sg bishop-Abl. all-Norn, to hand ei accedunt (Per. 24.2) he-Dat. approach-3pl. 'when the bishop left all kissed his hand (approached him closely)' (c) There is no co-reference between the subject of the finite clause and the logical subject of the (perfective) absolute participle. Instances of this type of co-reference are rather common, however:

Absolute constructions in Latin

299

Hac re cognita Caesar this-Abl. matter-Abl. know-PfPart-Abl.sg. Caesar-Norn. mittit complures equitum turmas(Caes., DBG 1.45) send-Pr. -3 sg. several-Ace. cavalry-Gen. troupes-Ace. 'when Caesar had heard about this matter, he sent several troupes of cavalry' (d) There is no co-reference between the absolute construction and any other element in the clause. Examples with this type of co-reference are, however, found, as in: meas mihi ancillas, me my-Acc.pl. I-Dat. female slaves-Ace. I-Abl. invito, eripis (PI., Rud. 712) unwilling-Abl.sg. take-away-Pr.-2sg. 'you take my female slaves away from me against my will' The examples from Latin texts given in the previous paragraphs show that variation in absolute constructions was not exclusively limited to specific periods or styles. Although infractions of the regular patterns are attested in all periods of Latin, they became more frequent over time and also more varied. These variations will be discussed in further detail in the next section (6.3.3). In the linguistic literature the perfect and present absolute constructions are treated as on a par and grammatically identical. The noun in both types of structure is commonly referred to as "the subject" (e.g. Miiller-Lance 1994). This definition is based on the assumption (a) that the absolute construction is the equivalent of a subordinate construction including a subject and a verb; and (b) that the participle in -nt- is active as opposed to the participle in -to-, which is assumed to be passive. Earlier (section 6.1) it has been noted for Sanskrit, however, that the participle in *-to- is primarily a perfective element. Its passive value is secondary, which is in accordance with the development of Indo-European languages. Similarly in Latin the primary opposition between the participle in -nt- and the one in -to- is not active vs. passive, but rather imperfective vs. perfective. The occurrence of intransitive verbs in -to- in Latin (e.g. venitus < venire 'come') further supports this interpretation: if the participles in -to- were mere passives, they would not be attested in the paradigms of intransitive verbs. Accordingly, the primary distinction between both types of participial absolutes in Latin is therefore one of aspect.

300

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

In addition, from a syntactic point of view as well, both types of absolute construction - perfective and present - are not each other's equivalent. The noun in the present participle refers to the underlying agent of the action expressed by the verb; the noun in the perfective absolute, on the other hand, refers to the underlying patient of the action expressed by the verb. In these structures there is, therefore, no reference to the grammatical or semantic subject. This distinction is vital for the later development of the absolute construction, which will be discussed in section 6.4. Before examining in greater detail this development, which reflects a major change, it will be shown in the next paragraphs that absolute structures from early times onward showed inconsistencies (section 6.3.3). These, however, did not affect the core of the construction as did later developments (section 6.4). 6.3.3. Inconsistencies in absolute constructions The criteria mentioned above that make an absolute construction truly absolute are often not met. It was pointed out in the preceding section that inconsistencies are found from early times onward already, but that they became increasingly frequent over time and showed variation. In the following pages inconsistencies will be discussed that do not necessarily affect the core of the absolute construction, such as lack of number agreement or co-reference between the logical subject of the absolute construction and the subject of the finite clause. Yet both phenomena marked the early stages of a major syntactic development, which will be discussed in greater detail in section 6.4. Most common among inconsistencies in absolute constructions - and also early - is co-reference between the logical subject of the participle and the subject of the finite clause as in: cognito... adventu Ariovistus ... mittit learn-PfPart-Abl.sg. arrival-Abl. Ariovistus-Nom send-Pr.-3sg 'when he learnt of the arrival, Ariovistus sent...' (Caes., DBG 1.42) The logical subject of the participle in this example, Ariovistus, is coreferential with the subject of the finite verb, cf. the translation 'when he learnt of the arrival, Ariovistus sent....'. It goes without saying that there is no indication as such that Ariovistus is the logical subject of the absolute construction; in fact there is no material reference at all to Ariovistus, but

Absolute constructions in Latin

301

the context is clear. Co-referentiality may be explicitly indicated in the text: the subject of the finite clause then precedes the absolute construction or is inserted in the absolute phrase, as in: hac re this-Abl. matter-Abl. cognita . ... know-PfPart.-Abl.sg 'Caesar having learnt gether ...'

statim Caesar... at once Caesar-Norn. continuit (Caes., DBG 2.11) keep together-Pf.-3sg. at once about this matter, he kept to-

Co-referentiality in absolute constructions is especially frequent in Caesar but is also attested in other writers, in Classical as well as Early Latin. In the spoken Latin of Plautus's comedies Captiva and Casina, Miiller-Lance (1994:152) found that 50% of the absolutes were co-referential with the subject of the finite clause. In later times the percentage increased. Although these instances were frequent, they point only to semantic coreference while the core of the absolute construction is not grammatically affected. Since the noun in the perfective absolute construction refers to the underlying patient of the action expressed by the participle, co-reference between the logical subject of the absolute and the subject of the finite clause does not create an anacoluthon. These considerations account for the early occurrence of this type of structure and its frequency in writers of all periods. Conversely, co-reference between a present absolute ablative and the subject of the finite verb necessarily creates an ungrammatical construction which accounts for its occurrence in the late period only (for further discussion, see section 6.4.2). Co-reference between the underlying subject of the perfective absolute and the subject of the finite clause is often assumed to be related to the absence in Latin of an active perfective participle. Since this participle did not exist, it is difficult to prove the opposite. It is striking, however, that in the Vulgata, where present participles are common and outnumber by far their perfective equivalents, perfective participles in Greek are rendered generally by a plain subordinate clause, and not by an absolute construction, which shows that Greek perfective participles are not automatically rendered by co-referential absolutes in Latin. The very occurrence of the co-referential absolute suggests, however, that more and more absolute constructions took characteristics of finite clauses, which have an explicit subject. The translation patterns of Greek also suggest that at that time absolutes were considered to be on a par with subordinate clauses.

302

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

Infraction of the other criteria mentioned in section 6.3.2 may directly impede on the absolute nature of the structure, as in the following example where an anaphoric element in the finite clause refers to the (pro)noun in the absolute construction, indicating grammatical co-reference: adhibitis centurionibus vehementer summon-PfPart.-Abl.pl centurions-Abl. vehemently eos incusavit (Caes., DBG 1.40) they-Acc. reprimand-Pf.-3sg. 'when the centurions were summoned he vehemently reprimanded them' According to Horn, examples of this type are limited to sentences where the absolute construction precedes the finite clause. In constructions with the reverse order there is no reference to the finite clause (1918:21-22). The anaphoric elements in this context as a rule are not ablatives because otherwise the structure would be either ambiguous or include a participium coniunctum. Reference to the absolute noun varies, including pronouns or anaphors, but also the re-occurrence of nouns, and the use of adverbial elements of time and place (e.g. ibi; see Horn 1918). Co-reference between the absolute construction and an oblique element of the finite clause was uncommon, but is attested, cf. the example given earlier: meas mihi ancillas, me my-Acc.pl. I-Dat. female slaves-Ace. me-Abl. invito, eripis (PL, Rud. 712) unwilling-Abl.sg. take-away-2sg. 'you take my female slaves away from me against my will' Me in the absolute construction is co-referential with both the possessive pronoun and the dative in the finite clause. Finally, well-known instances of inconsistent absolute constructions affect number agreement: in the writings of Terence and Plautus one finds examples of the type: absente nobis (Ter., Eun. 649) be-absent-PrPart.-Abl.sg. we-Abl. 'while we were absent' praesente his (Ace. 428) be-present-PrPart.-Abl.sg. they-Abl.pi 'while they were present'

Absolute constructions in Latin

303

Instances of a noun in this context are also attested: posuit titulum ... astante place-Pf.-3sg. tomb-stone-Acc. stand by-PrPart.-Abl.sg. civibus suis(C.I.L. 5.895) citizens-Abl. his-Abl.pl 'he placed a tombstone with the help of his citizens' (Löfstedt 1963:180-181) With perfective participles: excepto peregrinis (It. Ant. PL 1.6) except-PfPart-Abl.sg. pilgrims-Abl. 'pilgrims excepted' (Löfstedt 1911:298) This inconsistent use of number is attested predominantly for present participles: similar instances with the perfective participle are less frequent. In addition, these inconsistencies are systematic in that the participle is singular while the noun is plural. The reverse was rare, if it occurred at all. It is striking, finally, that in these instances only the use of grammatical number is affected, not the use of case. Consequently here also the core of the absolute construction is not affected. In the later period, however, the present participle in the ablative is found in combination with a noun in the nominative cf.: sol ruente (GdT, HF 1.48) sun-Nom. sink-PrPart-Abl.sg. 'when the sun is sinking, at sunset' According to Löfstedt these instances indicate the transition from ablative absolutes to nominative absolutes, which became frequent in Late Latin (1963:181). Yet although number and case inconsistency in these examples are related, the implications of this connection does not automatically point to the emergence of nominative absolutes as will be demonstrated in section 6.4. Though inherited and archaic, the absolute construction in Latin represented a productive process: it is attested in writings of all periods and all types of register: in inscriptions and texts, in direct speech and narrative fragments. In addition, although instances with perfective as well as present

304

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

participles were most common, the construction also included nouns and adjectives. The productivity of the structure is further apparent in the wide range of lexical elements that occur in this context (for data, see MiillerLance 1994:165-169) as both head and second elements. In addition to numerical differences - the perfective variant being more frequent, more productive, and more varied - both types of structure differ also grammatically: there is an aspectual distinction and a syntactic distinction between perfective and present absolutes. The noun in present absolutes refers to the underlying subject, whereas the noun in perfective absolutes refers to the underlying object. These grammatical differences are also reflected in the inconsistencies that are observed in these structures: co-referentiality is found in perfective absolutes from early times on but is late in present absolutes; number inconsistency, on the other hand, is more common in present absolutes. These inconsistencies are early symptoms of the later development. The patterns of variation - e.g. semantic and grammatical coreference - discussed in these pages do not affect the core of the structure. It is only in the later period that the ablative absolute underwent a number of fundamental changes, which will be further analyzed in section 6.4.

6.4. The development of absolute constructions in Latin In the preceding pages a number of inconsistencies in absolute constructions have been discussed among them (1) co-reference between the logical subject of the absolute construction and the subject of the finite clause, and (2) the lack of number agreement between the elements of the absolute construction. It was noted that Löfstedt had related the absence of number agreement in e.g. praesente nobis 'in our presence' with structures of the type sol ruente 'at sunset'. Yet these instances, although related, reflect two different processes: one affects number agreement, the other affects case agreement. Although both processes are nominal, their changes reflect fundamentally different phenomena. These instances and related phenomena will be discussed in greater detail in the following pages (section 6.4.1). Subsequently, two other types of "deviant" constructions will be analyzed, nominative and accusative absolutes (sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3).

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

305

6.4.1. Variation involving the logical subject and object In the development of absolute constructions a dramatic change took place that eventually affected the true nature of their syntax. It was pointed out earlier (section 6.3.2) that the fundamental distinction between present and perfective absolute constructions in Latin was the reference to the underlying grammatical and semantic functions. In present-absolute constructions the noun refers to the underlying agent of the action whereas the noun in perfective absolutes refers to the patient of the action expressed by the participle (a distinction found in other Indo-European languages as well), e.g.: insciente domino (Cat., Agr. 5.4) 'without the master knowing' vs.

armis... acceptis Crassus ... (Caes.,D5G3.23) arms-Abl. accept-PfPart-Abl.pl Crassus-Nom. 'when the arms were received, Crassus ... / when he had received the arms, Crassus ...' In addition, it has been pointed out that in Early Latin the very large majority of ablative absolutes with a present participle include intransitive verbs (see Bauer 1994:69-70). In Bennett's corpus of examples that comprises approximately 58 instances of present absolutes, 44 at least include an intransitive verb. Moreover, all constructions with transitive verbs are used without a complement or direct object (1914:369-370). The absence of direct objects in this context is not related to the participle as such: participles in -nt- in other than absolute constructions may govern a direct object in Latin. If, according to Marouzeau, examples of this type were still ambiguous in Plautus, the use was established from Terence onward and included pronominal or nominal direct objects as complements, and even subordinate clauses (1910:13-15). In these instances the participle is predominantly a nominative (Marouzeau 1910:15). In later writers the use of the participle had developed: its transitive use in Sallust exceeds its intransitive use, and the participle in this context also conveys other than nominative functions. The incidence varies from author to author (Marouzeau 1910:16-19). In accordance with the spreading of the use of direct objects in combination with present participles, the direct object also came to be inserted

306

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

in present absolutes. Yet this change is rather dramatic and instances of it are very rare in Plautus, Terence, Cato, and Varro. Marouzeau (1910) gives examples from Sallust, Caesar and his imitators, Cicero, Nepos, and Lucretius. Despite Catullus's abundant use of direct objects in combination with a present participle, Marouzeau only found one instance of an ablative absolute including a direct object in his poetry (1910:19, 21). Instances include examples such as: plerisque faciem eius ignorantibus (Sail., lug. 63.4) most-Abl.pl. face-Ace, his not know-PrPart.-Abl.pl. 'most did not know his face (by sight)' or:

nullo hoste prohibente aut no-Abl. enemy-Abl. hinder-PrPart.-Abl.sg. or iter demorante (Caes., DBG 3.6) march-Ace. delay-PrPart.-Abl.sg. 'no enemy to hinder him or delay his march' (For additional examples, see Marouzeau 1910:20-21.) Since constructions including a present participle and a direct object (in absolute and other contexts) were used most freely by Sallust and Cicero, Marouzeau argued that the structure was sophisticated: it is almost nonexistent in early and vulgar texts, or in authors of sober style (Varro and Caesar): "eile ne prend defmitivement sa place dans la langue litteraire que grace aux ecrivains savants ou pedants qui fixent les innovations de la syntaxe (Salluste, Ciceron,...)" (Marouzeau 1910:22). Yet evidence shows that the direct object also occurred in absolute participial constructions after the early period and that the structure was still in use in the late period as the following example from the Peregrinatio illustrates: diacono dicente singulorum nomina (24.5) deacon-Abl. say-PrPart.-Abl.sg. each-Gen.pl names-Ace, 'while the deacon said the names of all individually ...' Absolutes with a direct object typically include elements referring to the "agent", the "patient", and the verb which denotes the action. The patient is referred to with a noun in the accusative; the relation between the agent and the verb is, on the other hand, one of adjectival agreement: the verbal

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

307

adjective agrees in number, gender, and case with the underlying subject (diacono in the previous example), thus reflecting nominal syntax. In addition, the underlying subject is not referred to with a nominative but instead with an oblique case. Conversely, the insertion of the direct object in this context reflects the emergence of verbal syntax because the noun in question is governed by the verb. A similar change occurred in perfective structures although the implications are more dramatic. Structures are found in Late Latin that include a perfective participle and elements that are grammatically ambivalent, cf.: nihil impetrato (Amm. 20.11.7) nothing gain-PfPart.-Abl.sg. 'nothing was gained' Compare also the following example, which was later, grammatically inconsistent, and includes a noun: foedus inito (lord. 87.4) treaty-Ace. conclude-PfPart.-Abl. 'the treaty being concluded' The corpus of examples presented by Biese (1928) has 58 instances and shows that the structure included a variety of grammatical forms: neuter singular and plural nouns, as well as feminine and masculine singular and plural nouns (for a discussion of the assumed "neuter" character of nouns in this context, see Biese 1928:69-70). Variation in nouns and verbs implies primarily that the structure was not formulaic, but strongly alive. In addition, the 58 examples presented by Biese show that there was system in the inconsistencies: case agreement is lacking, and occasionally also number and gender agreement, cf: excepto oppida vel possessiones (Jord. 55.6) except-PfPart.-Abl.sg. towns-Ace, or possessions-Ace, 'with the exception of towns and possession' See also: excepto plagas et except-PfPart.-Abl.sg. wounds-Ace, and 'wounds and strokes being excepted'

feritas (Roth 35) strokes-Ace,

308

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

accepta uxorem (Anon. Val. 65) accept-PfPart-Abl.sg. wife-Ace, 'having accepted his wife' complete matutinas (It. Ant. PI. 11) complete-PfPart.-Abl.sg. matins-Ace. 'having completed the matins' (For additional examples in the Itineraria, see Milani 1990:127128.) Variants of these structures may include two nouns, each conveying a different case - the ablative and the accusative: these instances demonstrate that [participle - noun-Ace.] combinations are indeed absolute structures that have become inconsistent: factis orationibus et cetera quae do-PfPart.-Abl.pl. prayers-Abl. and other things-Ace. that-Nom. 'after having said the prayers and done other things that...' (Per. 19.2) vocatis monachis et matrem (GT.,//F7.290.15) call-PfPart.-Abl.pl. monks-Abl. and mother-Ace, 'after calling the monks and mother' In a number of these instances gender agreement is lost also as the occurrence of the participle in -to (ablative masculine/neuter singular) in combination with feminine plural nouns in the examples above unambiguously shows (e.g. completo matutinas). In perfective absolutes the loss of case agreement is more systematic and grammatically also more important. Since these instances show otherwise correct declension and case variation, the possibility of there being copying mistakes or hypercorrection may be excluded. In addition, if it were hypercorrection related to the loss of the accusative ending -m, (for example uxore being interpreted as uxorem with the loss of final -m) then instances of this type (which will be called henceforth "mixed constructions") would not include plural nouns. Accordingly a linguistic explanation must be found for this phenomenon. Mixed constructions have been the object of many interpretations. According to some they show the emergence of the accusative as the general oblique case "cette substitution tient a la preponderance que prenait 1'accusatif comme cas oblique par excellence" (Väänänen 1963:180).

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

309

Accordingly, it is assumed that mixed constructions represent an intermediate stage in the development from ablative to accusative absolute constructions (Väänänen 1963:180; see also section 6.4.3). This interpretation raises the legitimate question why the emergence of the accusative absolute would first affect the noun and only at a later stage affect the participle, reintroducing agreement, hence nominal syntax. Others have interpreted mixed constructions as evidence of a shift from participle to preposition (e.g. Väänänen 1987:89), supporting the claim with examples from the Romance languages, such as French: French: excepte les filles ( < Late Latin: exceptato filias) excepted the girls 'with the exception of the girls' Yet it was pointed out independently that prepositions and conjunctions developed from absolute constructions at a much later stage. Evidence from Miiller-Lance shows that the verbs in question were not yet fully developed prepositions and conjunctions in the Middle French period. Miiller-Lance pointed out that only saulve was a preposition in Old French (1994:255). In Middle French instances of the type excepte (preposition) and excepte que (conjunction) were still in a transitional stage (MiillerLance 1994:256). It is therefore only in the Middle French period that prepositions and conjunctions developed from absolute constructions (see also section 6.5). In addition, instances of this type of structure show too much lexical variation to assume that they represent prepositional phrases. Prepositions typically represent a closed group. Instances of mixed constructions are, however, neither limited nor restricted, but include a wide variety of verbs. Moreover, despite grammatical inconsistency, these structures - which are predominantly perfective - have two important characteristics: (a) in contrast to the "pure" absolute constructions, there is no case nor - occasionally - number agreement; (b) the distribution of grammatical case over the elements of these structures is very consistent: the perfective participle consistently is an ablative; the noun consistently is an accusative (very rarely a genitive is attested as well, cf. excompleto earum septimanarum 'by the end of the week' [Per. 29.1]). Since the noun refers to the patient of the action, there is a relation of government - instead of the former relation of agreement - between the two elements of the absolute construe-

310

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

tion. The insertion of the direct object in this context therefore reflects the emergence of verbal syntax in these structures: the noun in question is governed by the verb and accordingly takes the form of the accusative; in the original construction the verb agreed with the noun, which from our modern perspective is the patient of the action. In other words, as Horn put it, the noun is considered direct object and is marked accordingly (1918:84; see also Adams 1977:60, who assumes for the instance from Anonymus Valesianus [accepta uxorem, 63] a contamination ofaccepta uxore and ille accepit uxorem). Consequently, instead of the noun, the verb is now head of the structure, cf: urbe city-Abl. [Noun-Head

condita found-PfPart-Abl.sg. [Verbal Adjective-Complement]]

urbem city-Ace. [[Noun-Complement]

condita found-PfPart.-Abl.sg. Verb-Head]

vs.

Mixed constructions therefore reflect the development from nominal to verbal syntax, which is a major development in the history of these structures. The continuing occurrence of the ablative in this context (the participle) has convincing parallels in the occurrence of the ablative of the gerund (see the previous chapter), which emerged also in Late Latin as the "verbal case" and continued to be used long after. Similarly structures of the type sol ruente, may be explained along the same lines: the participle remains an ablative but the grammatical marking of the underlying semantic function, that is the agent, emerges: the oblique case gives way to a nominative. Consequently, the syntax of absolute constructions took characteristics of finite clauses including a subject and a direct object. The loss of gender and number agreement further supports this "transitivity hypothesis". In addition to the examples given earlier in these paragraphs, other instances of a perfective participle in -to are found (hence masculine or neuter) in combination with a noun (masculine, neuter, or feminine) in the accusative. The parallels with the gerund in similar contexts are striking (e.g. dicendo psalmos 'reciting psalms' [Per. 15.5]) and suggest that these structures were not arbitrary, but instead are integrated in one and the same development. Instances that include an accusative but

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

311

have correct number and gender agreement represent an earlier stage and present additional evidence that the disintegration of the case system was not involved in this process. They show instead that at that stage the writers were aware of the main characteristic of absolutes, which is nominal agreement, but that verbal syntax came to prevail in their choice of case. In addition, specific word order patterns further support the "transitivity hypothesis" as the following numerical data from Biese's corpus suggest:

Participle-Abl.

Noun-Ace. [Noun = FemTMasc. sg.]

VN

NV

Total

17 (+!)(*)

5

23

6

2(+l)

9

2 (+1) (*)

14 (+1)

18

2 (+2) (*)

2

6

(*): (also: 1VNN) [Noun = FemTMasc. pi.] (NV= 1; 1 ANY; 1 NNque V) [Noun = Neu. sg.] (*): (also: 1 VNN, 1 NVV; NV= 8 quod) [NounNeu.pl.] (*): (also 2 VNN)

These numerical instances suggest that the order in mixed constructions was Verb - Noun-Ace. There is a predominance of 30 Verb-Noun sequences (26 VN ; 4 VNN) over 25 instances of Noun Verb (23 NV, 1 NqueV, 1 NVV). Of those Noun-Verb sequences 14 contain a relative pronoun, which always occurs in clause-initial position, and accordingly precedes the participle, e.g.: quod comperto quod viso quod diviso

(GT., HF 6.272) 'this being ascertained' (GT., HF 7.320.8) 'this being seen' (GT., HF 7.320.28) 'this being distributed'

On the basis of parallels with unmarked word order patterns in verb phrases in main clauses, which were right-branching at that stage (see Bauer 1995:92-102), these numerical data provide additional evidence that the participle in mixed constructions was considered a fully verbal element. (Note that word order in subordinate clauses at that stage was still predominantly Object - Verb [cf. Bauer 1995], which may account for occasional OV instances in mixed constructions.) The ordering patterns in accusative absolutes, which will be discussed in section 6.4.3, further support the hypothesis of a connection between the nature of the elements and word order.

312

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

Evidence presented in the preceding pages shows that subjects and objects came to be introduced in absolute constructions in Latin, which affected the core of the structure. The participle - perfective as well as present - retained the form of an ablative whereas the underlying grammatical function of the noun came to be marked according to the principles of a nominative language. The underlying subject of present-absolute constructions therefore took the form of a nominative, whereas the underlying object of the perfective participle formally became an accusative. Consequently, instead of being random, the changes in these structures were consistent and reflect a major grammatical development: the introduction of verbal syntax and the patterns of a nominative language in structures that so far had been typically nominal. Consequently transitivity was introduced in residues of an earlier language system. In a subsequent stage other changes occurred, which will be discussed in the next sections (6.4.2 and 6.4.3.). 6.4.2. Nominative absolutes In Late Latin a number of absolute constructions are found that differ from the ones discussed so far in that they are not ablative nor show the internal inconsistencies of the structures examined in section 6.4.1. The absolutes discussed in the following pages show case and number agreement, but they are characterized by a different case: instead of an ablative, an accusative or a nominative are found, as in the following example, which includes a nominative absolute: exiens de... cancellos... ei ad leave-PrPart.-Nom.sg. from closure-Ace. he-Dat. to manum acceditur (Per. 24.3) hand-Ace. approach-3sg. 'when he left from behind the enclosure, they kissed his hand' An accusative absolute is found in: venas intercisas quomodo demonstravi, ... veins-Ace. cut-PfPart.-Acc.pl. how demonstrate-Pf.-lsg. 'the veins being cut, I showed ...' (Mul. 34.10) The emergence of the accusative absolute and also of the nominative absolute has been explained by referring to the loss of case marking over

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

313

time (e.g. Wölfflin 1887:276) and the related emergence of a unique oblique case i.e. the accusative (Bonnet 1968:561). Several considerations lead us to question this reasoning. First, the ablative absolute was not eradicated by the two "new" absolutes; it remained a common construction even if the nominative and the accusative spread, taking over in many instances. In thePeregrinatio, for example, the ablative absolute is attested approximately 95 times, whereas the nominative and accusative absolutes are much less frequent (six instances). Over time this numerical gap shrank. In sections I through V of the Historia Francorum e.g. 24 nominative absolutes are found as opposed to 200 accusative absolutes and many more ablative absolutes, which are attested on every page (Bonnet 1968:261, 567-568; Löfstedt 1911:159). In the writings of Jordanes the distribution is 402 ablative absolutes vs. 72 accusative absolutes (Helttula 1983). Consequently even in later times ablative absolutes not only remained common constructions, they also were the more frequent ones, even if they were not uncommon literary constructions as evidence from Anonymus Valesianus shows (cf. Adams 1976:99ff) or their occurrence in "formulary expressions". Yet as Milani points out it is possible to recognize also "personal creativity" at that stage (Milani, forthcoming:ms 7). Consequently, in number and use ablative absolutes were still well represented, which does not support the hypothesis that nominative and accusative absolutes merely reflect the breakdown of the case system. Moreover, the very fact that nominative absolutes developed simultaneously with accusative absolutes (see also section 6.4.3) undermines the assumption that the shift was a mere emergence of a single casus obliquus. Finally, the specific characteristics of both absolutes - nominative and accusative - indicate that they were not just the result of morphological desintegration: accusative absolutes were predominantly perfective whereas nominative absolutes primarily contained present participles. Seventeen of the 24 instances of nominative absolutes found in books I through V of the Historia Francorum have a present participle (cf. data from Löfstedt 1911:159; Bonnet 1968:567-568). Similarly, thePeregrinatio has only one instance of a perfective nominative absolute, cf.: ingressi... in ecclesia, dicuntur ymni, enter-PfPart.-Nom.pl. inchurch-Abl. say-Pass.-3pl. hymns-Norn. fit oratio, benedicuntur... (Per. 43.7) do-3sg. prayer-Nom. bless-Pass.-3pl. 'when they have entered the church, hymns are said, a prayer is said, and they are blessed'

314

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

By contrast, the other instances of nominative absolutes in this text have a present participle. Perfective participles did occur in nominative absolutes, however, as the example from the Peregrinatio illustrated, and were derived, as a rule, from intransitive verbs. Yet the following example shows that transitive verbs were not excluded in this context: mater... crudele morte necata, mother-Norn. cruel-Abl. death-Abl. kill-PfPart.-Nom.sg. soror transmittitur(GT, HF. 5.39) sister-Nom. transfer-Pass.-Pr.-3sg. 'when the mother was killed in a cruel death, her sister was transferred' The aspectual distinction between accusative and nominative absolutes is directly related to the fundamental opposition between perfective and present absolute constructions in earlier Latin, which was pointed out in section 6.3. The noun in present absolutes refers to the underlying subject; in accordance with the grammatical function of this element, the structures became nominative absolutes. The noun in perfective absolutes, on the other hand, refers to the underlying object of the action, and gave way to accusative absolutes (see also section 6.4.3). While accusative absolutes will be examined in section 6.4.3, nominative absolutes will be discussed in these pages. The nominative absolute is attested in the Late Latin period although an occasional instance is found in earlier times, cf: caementum de silice frangatur..., chips-Nom.sg. of flintstone-Abl. crush-Pass.-Subju.-3sg. calx... mortario mixta, chalk-Norn. mortar-Abl. mix-PfPart.-Nom.sg. ita ut... so that... (Vitr. 8.16.14) 'chips of flintstone ought to be crushed..., after the chalk is mixed with the mortar ... so that...' The nominative absolute is the least frequent of the absolute constructions that are found in Latin. Yet it is common in the writings of Gregory of Tours, in the Mulomedicina and is also attested in earlier texts, such as the Peregrinatio or in the writings of Victor Vitensis. Nominative absolutes are

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

315

therefore common in the late period from the 4th century onward. This observation does not mean that the structure was common in all texts. Milani found that whereas nominative absolutes are attested in the Peregrinatio as true equivalents of ablative absolutes, few or no instances are found in the other Itineraria she analyzed (1990:124-126). Present nominative absolutes include transitive as well as intransitive verbs. Like ablative absolutes they may also contain direct objects, pronominal as well as nominal, cf.: multitudo ... attingeret litus, mass-Nom. reach-Subju.-Impf.-3sg. coast-Ace. dividentes Vandali et Mauri split-PrPart.-Nom.pl. Vandals-Norn, and Moors-Nom. ... populi quantitatem... people-Gen. number-Ace. mariti ab uxoribus separabantur husbands-Norn, from wives-Abl. separte-Pass.-Impf.-3pl. '(that) the mass reached the coast when the Vandals and Moors split a group of people and husbands were separated from their wives' (Viet. Vt. 1.25) Or with a pronominal object: benedicens nos episcopus bless-PrPart.-Nom.sg. we-Acc. bishop-Nom. prof ecu sumus (Per. 16.7) depart-PfPart-Nom. pi. be-lpl. 'when the bishop had blessed us, we left' These two instances - like the previous ones with a perfective participle - also show that the noun in nominative absolutes is not co-referential with the subject of the finite clause, as was also observed for ablative absolutes. The following example shows similar characteristics: hi contemnentes eum, assurgere they-Nom. despise-PrPart.-Nom.pl. he-Ace, stand up-Inf. ei nemo voluit (Calp. Hist. 2) he-Dat. nobody-Nom. want-Pf.-3sg. 'because they despised him, nobody wanted to stand up for him' (Example from Väänänen 1963:181)

316

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

Yet this example differs from the other ones. The participle and its (plural) underlying subject are grammatically different from the singular subject of the finite clause (nemo), but semantically they may be considered co-referential. In addition, there is grammatical co-reference in this example between two other elements, that is between the object ofcontemnentes and the indirect object of assurgere: hi contemnentes eum, assurgere ei nemo voluit (Calp.Hist. 2) 'because they despised him, nobody wanted to stand up for him' Similarly, in the example from the Peregrinatio (16.7) given earlier the subject of the absolute and the subject of the finite clause are not coreferential either, but the pronominal direct object of the participial construction (nos} is co-referential with the subject of the finite clause expressed in the verbal formsumus: benedicens nos episcopusprofecti sumus. One notes therefore that in nominative absolutes the criteria of absoluteness are not strictly applied. Instances of the type given above show that nominative absolutes may present a wide range of grammatical and semantic relations with the finite clause. This variety may be related to the specific nature of nominative absolutes. As noted before (section 6.1) the oblique cases predominate in absolute constructions in Indo-European because, for one reason, they are syntactically more independent than grammatical cases. Conversely, among the grammatical cases, the nominative in this context is potentially most ambiguous. Nominative absolutes are potentially ambiguous because of the obligatory presence (though not necessarily expressed) of the subjectNominative in finite clauses in nominative languages. Only when both the absolute and the finite clause have distinct (underlying) subjects and there is no other grammatical connection, is the structure genuinely absolute. In addition, since present absolutes - independently of their case - may include a direct object and contain ipso facto an (underlying) subject, they only differ from finite clauses in that the verb is a participle. The occurrence of a direct object and a subject in this context was closely related to the aspectual value of the participle as was pointed out earlier. When the direct object appeared in present ablative absolutes, the shift to a nominative absolute was only a minor step. With this change the "underlying" subject assumed the case appropriate for an agent. Both characteristics, potential ambiguities and similarities with finite clauses account for the occurrence of nominative absolutes in a variety of contexts that at first glance seem to be rather arbitrary and that may be

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

317

considered incorrect. Yet closer examination shows that the use is not inconsistent. "Inconsistent" contexts of nominative absolutes The examples given earlier show that nominative absolutes were often combined with other structures: They are found in combination with ablative absolutes and with finite clauses. Similarities of absolute nominatives with finite verb constructions account first of all for the coordination of finite clauses and absolute nominatives. Both clauses may be connected with the coordinating conjunction et, as in: et respiciens eum unanimem ... and consider-PrPart.-Nom.sg. he-Ace. accordant ... et dignum diaconum didicisset and worthy-Ace. deacon-Ace, begin to know-Plqpf.-3sg. 'considering him of one mind ... and beginning to know (him) as a worthy deacon' (Act. Petr. c. Sim. 5) (Horn 1918:54). The conjunction et in this example shows that the absolute construction is linked to the finite clause and is therefore no longer absolute; both structures are syntactically equivalent despite the difference in verbal forms. This observation is further supported by the co-reference of both subjects. In addition to co-ordination, other instances show the occurrence of an absolute nominative instead of a finite (subordinate) clause. The combination of a nominative absolute with a finite clause, each with distinct subjects, is not exceptional in Late Latin, where finite clauses (main and subordinate) with different subjects are often combined in one sentence (for examples, see Horn 1918:53). Second, the nominative participle is commonly used in Late Latin texts and often occurs in contexts that are not co-referential, cf.: deambulantes per palatium, vidit... walk-PrPart.-Nom.pl. through palace-Ace. see-Pf.-3sg. tabolam marmoream (GT, HF 5.19) table-Ace. marble-Ace. 'when they were walking through the palace, he saw a marble table' The difference in number makes the structure syntactically non-co-referential, even if semantically the singular subject of the finite clause is included in the plural of the absolute. If, by contrast, the underlying subject is iden-

318

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

tical in both clauses, the structure is no longer an absolute (for numerous examples, see Horn 1918:75-76). Only when the subjects are different, is the structure an absolute nominative. Ablative and nominative absolutes - including both perfective and present participles - are frequently used in the same sentence, often in coreference, which suggests that the structures were equivalent, cf.: respicientibus in valles... et look-PrPart-Abl.pl. to valleys-Ace. ... and perambulantes monasteria ... go-around-PrPart.-Nom.pl. monasteries-Ace. videmus multitudinem (It. Ant. Plac. 16.2) see-Pr.-lpl. mass-Ace. 'looking around in valleys ... and visiting monasteries, we see a mass ...' Also: revertentes in... discendentibus return-PrPart.-Nom.pl. to ... descend-PrPart.-Abl.pl. venimus (It. Ant. PL 31) arrive-Pr.-lpl. 'returning to ..., descending ...., we arrive ...' (cf. also Bell. Afr. 15.3)

nobis... we-Abl.

Since the subject of the nominative absolute in instances of this type is coreferential with the subject of the finite verb, the nominative participle may also be considered a participium coniunctwn. Yet the parallel with the ablative absolute suggests an absolute construction which is used instead of a subordinate clause with a finite verb. It is striking that the absolute in the large majority of instances tends to occur in initial position, at the beginning of the sentence (Horn 1918:32). In these instances the order of the clause is commonly as follows: Abi. Abs. Finite verb Part. Coni./Nom.Abs. (for further discussion, see Horn 1918:32-33) or:

Abi. Abs.

Part. Conj./Nom.Abs.

Finite verb

In these instances a nominative absolute is found instead of a subordinate clause with a finite verb. The combining of the nominative absolute with

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

319

finite verbs, with ablative absolutes and with participia coniuncta, is closely related to the specific relation between present absolutes and the agentfunction of the noun involved. The phenomena discussed in these pages suggest that nominative absolutes tended to have characteristics of subordinate clauses. Yet many instances of nominative absolutes include a noun that is not co-referential with the subject of the finite clause and are therefore true absolutes. Consequently, it is inaccurate to speak of "inconsistencies" because these characteristics fit the true nature of absolute constructions. One observes, however, here again a parallel with subordinate clauses. Since nominative absolutes include a subject and may also include a direct object, the differences from subordinate clauses are minimal. Formally the structure continued to be a true absolute, however, as the presence of a participle, its combining with a noun, their agreement in case and number, and their cooccurrence with the ablative absolute shows. Yet often only the presence of the participial form - and the morphological implications - distinguishes these clauses from their finite equivalent. 6.4.3. Accusative absolutes In the previous section it was pointed out that nominative absolutes differed from other absolutes in Latin in frequency, aspect, and syntax: it was the least common of all absolutes, it was predominantly an imperfective structure, and it commonly included not only a subject, but a direct object as well. Because of its similarities with finite clauses, it often is attested in combination with subordinate clauses or replaces them. Conversely, the structure still had the fundamental characteristics of an absolute - as shown in the occurrence of the participial form of the verb — which accounts for its occurrence in combination with ablative absolutes. The situation was somewhat different for accusative absolutes. Accusative absolutes emerged approximately at the same time as nominative absolutes. Though not very frequent, they are attested in late texts of the 4th century, such as the Peregrinatio, the writings of Ennodius, Victor Vitensis, and Lucifer Calaritanus (Biese 1928:20). Their attestations increased dramatically in the Mulomedicina (400 A.D.), and the writings of Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, and also in texts from the 7th century, such as Visio Baronti, and so forth. From the 8th and 9th century onward these instances gradually decreased (for numerical details, see Biese 1928:17-28). The occurrence of accusative absolutes therefore shows the same patterns as that of nominative absolutes.

320

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

Despite these similarities, accusative absolutes were much more frequent than their nominative equivalents throughout this period; in inscriptions, for example, accusative absolutes largely outnumbered nominative absolutes, which were not common in that context. The oldest attestation of an accusative absolute is found in an inscription from Rome dated 238 A.D. (Biese 1928:2). From that date onward accusative absolutes are attested in inscriptions from Rome (3 instances), Gaul (one example), and Africa (many instances), cf. the following example from North Africa: viro qui impleta tempora man-Dat. who-Nom. complete-PfPart.-Acc.pl times-Ace. cessit (C.LL. 8.4551; Numidy 250; Väänänen 1963:180) die-Pf.-3sg. 'to the man who died when his time was completed' Since these structures occurred in texts that also have ablatives, formally and functionally as distinct cases, one may exclude the possibility of a grammatical or scribal error. This assumption is further supported by the consistent occurrence of ablative absolutes next to accusative absolutes in all texts (see also section 6.4.2). Consequently, the accusative absolute was geographically widely attested from the third century onward in a variety of texts ranging from inscriptions to written texts, including poetry, medical treatises (Mulomedicina), historical accounts (the works of Gregory of Tours), and so forth. In addition, the writers of these texts, though they all wrote in Latin, had different geographical backgrounds. Accusative absolutes differ grammatically from nominative absolutes in that they are predominantly perfective (in Jordanes's writing, for example, 65 of the 72 instances of accusative absolutes are perfective [Helttula 1983:49]), which also accounts for their higher frequency. Historically absolutes in Latin are mainly perfective. Accordingly, since the accusative absolute is mainly perfective and the nominative absolute is predominantly present, it is the accusative absolute that predominated. Occasionally, however, present participles are attested in accusative absolutes, as the following example shows: regina ... neminem scientem subterfugit queen-Norn, nobody-Ace. know-PrPart-Ace.sg. escape-Pf-3sg. 'the queen escaped, without anybody knowing' (lord.,/tow. 350) (example in Väänänen 1963:180; see also Adams 1977:59-60, who reports instances from Terentianus's letters)

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

321

Moreover, whereas a large number of nominative absolutes - if not all include a participle, accusative absolutes show the same variety of construction as ablative absolutes. In addition to the more common constructions with a participle, instances are found of accusative absolutes that are exclusively nominal, the secondary element being an adjective or a noun instead of a participle, cf.: Noun-Accusative Noun-Accusative Noun-Accusative structures C. Manium et G. Aemilium builders-Ace. C. Manius-Acc. and G. Aemilius-Acc. 'with C.Manius and G. Aemilius as constructors' (C./.L. 8.23.833) (Example from Biese 1928:6) Similarly, accusative absolutes with an adjective are attested, cf.: ((Pro)Noun-Accusative Adjective-Accusative) Sextilius et Felicissima se vivum emerunt Sextilius and Felicissima alive-Ace. buy-Pf.-3pl 'Sextilius and Felicissima bought it during their lifetime' (C./.L. 6.34.728) Se vivum replaces the very frequent and almost formulaic se vivo; it is found also in the context of a feminine singular (se vivam) and in the plural (se vivos). Although the patterns of accusative absolutes are basically identical to those of the ablative absolute, there is a greater freedom in use. It was noted earlier that the underlying subject of ablative absolutes was often identical to the subject of the finite clause, as in Caesar's his rebus cognitis Caesar these-Abl. matters-Abl. know-PfPart-Abl.pl. Caesar-Norn. Gallorum animos verbis confirmavit (DBG 1.33) Gauls-Gen. minds-Ace. words-Abl. comfort-Pf.-3sg. 'having heard about these matters, Caesar comforted the Gauls with words' This co-reference was occasionally indicated by the insertion of the subject in front of the absolute construction. In accusative absolutes the finite and the participial subject often are co-referential as well, which is commonly indicated by the insertion of the subject of the finite clause in front of or even inside the absolute clause (see also below), cf.:

322

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

omnesque inimicos Theodosius all-Acc. enemies-Acc. Theodosius-Nom. separatos in pace excessit separate-PfPart.-Acc.pl. in peace-Abl. die-Pf.-3sg. 'when Theodosius had separated all enemies, he passed away in peace' (Jord., Rom. 37.30) Accusative absolutes are found in combination with an ablative absolute, which shows that the structures were on a par. Biese found 44 instances, which makes the structure "not uncommon" (Biese 1928:33). The occurrence is attested in inscriptions and in later texts. Biese argued that when both structures are attested side by side, it is the ablative absolute that conveys the shorter and more formal expression whereas the accusative absolute is the longer and also more verbal one: "aus diesen Beispielen wie aus einer späteren Zusammenstellung geht hervor, dass die Verbalhandlung im Akk. Abs. mehr als im Abi. Abs. hervortritt und dass der aktive Charakter der Konstruktion sehr deutlich ist" (Biese 1928:35). Moreover, accusative absolutes tend to be more complex, including subordination and other forms of complementation. In addition, comparison of the use of ablative and accusative absolutes in Jordanes's works reveals that ablative absolutes often are "set phrases" with adverbial value (Helttula 1983:47), a tendency that Milani found in the Itineraria as well: "they are often formulary expressions" (forthcoming: ms 7). By contrast, the accusative absolute in Jordanes's writings was "an essential element of his historical narrative, particularly in descriptions of war and violence". Approximately 50% of the verbs used in this context refer to "killing, robbing, expelling, capturing, ..." (Helttula 1983:51). It is striking that this use survived in the Romance languages (see section 6.5). On the basis of a large corpus of data, Miiller-Lance (1994:143-148) found that ablative absolutes in Plautus and Classical Latin occurred in main and subordinate clauses and that they are found in clause-initial, not as a rule - in sentence-initial position. With the development in Late Latin, and the increase of co-reference in perfective absolutes, structures were used in which the subject of the finite clause precedes the accusative absolute, which in its turn precedes the rest of the clause. In addition, in many of these instances the participle follows the head noun creating the following sequence: Subject hie ...

[Noun-Ace. Verb-Accusative] [Persidam vastatam] ... urbes

finite verb occupavit

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

323

hie ... Persidam vastatam ... this man-Norn. Farsitan-Acc. destroy-PfPart.-Acc.sg. urbes occupavit (lord., Rom. 294) towns-Ace. occupy-Pf.-3sg. 'when this man had destroyed Farsitan, he took the towns ...' The subject in the finite clause is identical to the one in the absolute phrase and instances show the following ordering patterns: (1) (2) (3)

Subject Noun-Ace. Verb-Part.-Ace. Noun-Ace. Subject Verb-Part-Acc. (N= pron. rel.] V-Part.-Acc. Subj. Noun-Ace.

V-fmitum V-fmitum V-fmitum

It is striking that accusative absolutes in general present a high incidence of ordering patterns of the type: Noun Participle omnem Persidam vastatam occupavit 'when whole Farsitan was destroyed, he occupied ...' (lord., Rom. 294) urbem expoliatam... abduxit (lord., Rom. 334) 'when the town was ruined, he took away with him ...' (Examples from Helttula 1983:50) This order is the reverse of what was found in the so-called mixed constructions, where the participle as a rule precedes the noun unless the nominal element is a relative pronoun. In section 6.4.1 it was argued that the replacement of an ablative noun by an accusative noun reflects the shift from nominal to verbal syntax. The underlying direct object of the verb is referred to in the accusative and the participle is primarily a verbal element. This interpretation was further supported by the ordering of the elements in the phrase: the noun in the accusative - the direct object - tends to follow the verbal element. This pattern corresponds to the ordering patterns in main clauses in the language of that period. Evidence from accusative absolutes further confirms these findings. Accusative absolutes are characterized by adjectival agreement, hence nominal syntax. As said earlier, these instances do not show a predilection of the order Verb - Object. Of the 65 instances of perfective accusative absolutes "the nounal part... functions as object to the participle, with the

324

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

subject of the main proposition as its logical subject" (Helttula 1983:50). Yet the incidence of Noun - Participle is frequent, which may be accounted for by the adjectival nature of the participle: the participle being an adjectival element, tends to follow the noun in unmarked order (Marouzeau 1938; Bauer 1995). Since the tendency to have Noun - Participle sequences was already attested in the earlier stages of Latin, cf. e.g. data from MiillerLance (1994), the order in accusative absolutes in Late Latin was not fundamentally different from the absolutes found in earlier stages. The patterns found in these structures were therefore not primarily determined by analogy with word-order patterns in subordinate clauses as was suggested by Helttula (1983:50). The emergence of accusative absolutes has traditionnally been accounted for by referring to the coalescence of the ablative and the accusative (see Leumann and Hofmann 1965:143). Yet since the emergence of this structure coincided with that of the nominative absolute and since both types of structure have their own characteristics as was shown in these pages, their development cannot be the result of the disappearance of the case system. Their emergence reflects a major development and is related to other changes as well. 6.4.4. Absolute constructions in Late Latin: Conclusion Despite grammatical variation, absolutes in the later period show many similarities with the structures in earlier stages. A number of fundamental changes took place, however. First, instances of exclusively nominal absolutes - including a noun or an adjective as second element - became less frequent over time. In fact, they became rare in Late Latin, especially as nominative absolutes. Miiller-Lance found no instances of exclusively nominal accusative or nominative absolutes (1994:181-183). Moreover, the use of present participles in absolute constructions increased overall and even dramatically in a number of texts. In the Vulgata, for example, present absolutes are most common. Similarly the occurrence of present participles in the corpus of texts analyzed by Miiller-Lance is significantly higher in Late Latin (2 perfective absolutes : 1 present absolute) than in Classical or Early Latin (4 : 1) (1994:182). Another characteristic that spread over time is co-reference of the subject in the absolute phrase and the finite clause, especially semantic coreference which does not need to be explicit. In addition, whereas ablative absolutes are found both in main and subordinate clauses in the early and classical period, they become predominantly more frequent in main clauses

The development of absolute constructions in Latin

325

in later times. Their occurrence in subordinate clauses never exceeds 20% in the Late Latin authors analyzed by Müller-Lance (1994:186), for example. This tendency is related to the subordinate characteristics that absolutes adopted. Extension of absolutes shows basically the same patterns in Early and Classical Latin, with the exception of the literary qualities in Classical Latin as pointed out by Coleman (1989). The statistical overview offered by Miiller-Lance on the basis of his corpus of Late and Medieval Latin (1994:191-195) presents, however, two interesting innovative tendencies: (a) The majority of extensions in later times are in fact attributes to the verb. In earlier times this attributive element referred almost exclusively to the noun (2 noun extensions vs. 1 verb extension). In Late Latin the distribution became 50% - 50%, which shows that the verb in these instances became increasingly important. (b) Similarly, the incidence of direct and indirect objects further supports the increasing importance of the verb. The more so since direct objects tend to occur in present absolutes, whereas indirect objects are found in perfective absolutes. Instances of this type show that the (underlying) direct object was assumed to be present. It has been pointed out in the preceding sections that there was no lexical restriction in absolute constructions before the Late Latin period. This situation changed in later texts, which show less lexical variation: the number of verbs used was restricted as well as the number of nouns, creating much repetition. Absolute constructions in the later period show more formulaic expressions. The major change that took place, however, affected the core of the absolute construction: subjects and objects came to be introduced in perfective as well as present absolute constructions, resulting (a) in present absolutes including a direct object and (b) in the so-called mixed constructions, which are predominantly perfective. These instances show that nominal syntax as reflected in agreement gave way to verbal government, which characterizes nominative languages. Absolute constructions, which were archaic and nominal, finally included the characteristics that were the rule for finite verbs. It is striking that this development took place in the Late Latin period, before Latin became a learned language. Subsequently, another change occurred in absolute constructions with the emergence of nominative and accusative absolutes. These structures are characterized by adjectival agreement and are formally either accusatives (including a perfective participle) or nominatives (including a present participle). This distribution of case is related to the underlying grammatical function of the noun - subject vs. object - which accordingly triggers the

326

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

use of an accusative or a nominative. Consequently, although these structures mark a shift back to adjectival agreement - a nominal characteristic they differ from the original absolute construction in that they reflect more transitivity. These structures were retained in the Romance languages, where their use is restricted to a limited group of verbs and refers especially to body parts and clothes (see section 6.5). Consequently one observes in the history of absolute constructions in Late Latin two distinct developments, one that took place before Latin became a learned language and one that occurred after that. In Late Latin before Latin was a learned language - absolute constructions came to include direct objects not only in present absolutes, but - more dramatically - in perfective absolutes, reflecting the introduction of transitivity in otherwise nominal structures. In a subsequent stage two additional structures developed, each with its own specific characteristics. Accordingly they were not merely the result of the breakdown of the case system: accusative absolutes, which were perfective, and nominative absolutes, which were present. Although these structures mark a shift back to nominal syntax, as reflected in adjectival agreement, the underlying grammatical functions of direct object and subject are marked according to the principles of a nominative language. In addition, ab urbe condita constructions (see Chapter 5) with the preposition post 'after' also became common in this context. The preposition strengthened "the weakening temporal meaning of the participle" (Helttula 1987:115). This development reminds us of evidence that was found in Germanic (see section 6.1). It is very difficult to account for the emergence of accusative and nominative absolutes. Helttula argues that accusative absolutes originated in participia coniuncta, which became absolutes (1987). This explanation was also put forth by Brugmann to account for the origin of absolutes in Indo-European (for a discussion see section 6.1). The hypothesis is difficult to prove or disprove for Latin. It is true that the distinction between absolutes andparticipia coniuncta is often vague as became clear in the preceding pages (see also Helttula 1987:114). Yet if accusative absolutes were originally participia coniuncta, why is it that only acusatives became independent clauses with the exclusion of datives or genitives. In addition, accusative absolutes cannot be isolated from nominative absolutes, nor can their development in Latin be isolated from similar developments in other Indo-European languages. While we cannot account for the emergence of these absolutes, it is clear that they occurred as secondary constructions in the later stages of a number of Indo-European dialects, when transitivity was well installed in the syntax of the languages involved and continued to

Absolutes in Old and Middle French

327

spread as the development of other structures shows (cf. Chapters 3,4, and 5). In Latin they appeared when the language had become a learned language. Mixed constructions, on the other hand, emerged before that stage and therefore represent a natural development of Latin, which is characterized by the spreading of transitivity. Accusative and nominative absolutes in Latin mark a shift back to the original absolute constructions characterized by nominal syntax. Yet the use of the accusative and nominative corresponds to the underlying syntactic functions of the nouns involved and the structures therefore are more explicitly transitive than the earlier ablative absolutes.

6.5. Absolutes in Old and Middle French The frequency of absolute constructions dropped dramatically in Old French as texts of that period show, as well as grammars and detailed analyses (e.g. Miiller-Lance 1994:207-208). Yet it is clear from these data that absolute constructions were still commonly used and also occurred in fragments of direct speech. Despite the possibilities that the defective case system in Old French offered (which still distinguished between the object and subject in masculine nouns), Miiller-Lance (1994:212) found only one example of a nominative absolute in his corpus of 87 instances, cf.: li cheval covert et the-Nom. sg. horse-Nom.sg. cover-PPart.-Nom.sg. and ens eile (Con., 155) saddle-PPart.-Nom.sg. Once the horse was covered and saddled' Occasionally other instances are attested: elles venues en chambres..., they-Nom. arrive-PPart.-Pl. in rooms ung barbier fut mande a chin piece be-PDef.-3sg. order-PPart.sg 'when they had arrived in the rooms, a chin piece was ordered' (Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles 373-4)

328

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

The quasi-exclusiveness of the oblique case points to a continuation of the accusative and ablative absolute of Late Latin, which also were predominantly perfective, like their Old French equivalents, cf.: juntes ses mains est alet join-PPart.-Acc.pl. his hands-Ace. be-3sg. go-PPart. asafin (Rol. 2392) to his end 'his hands joined, he went to his death' On the basis of the functions of absolutes in early Romance, Norberg (1943) came to a similar conclusion when he correlated the Latin "schildernden Accusativus Absolutus" with the Romance absolute (1943:88; see below). Supporting his hypothesis with ample data from Late Latin, he rejected the hypothesis accepted among Romanists according to which these structures were either earlier ablativi modi or Romance innovations (Meyer-Lübke 1899:49; Norberg 1943:88). The very large majority (80% and more) of absolutes in Old French are embedded in main clauses, and the most common connection between the absolute and the finite clause is co-reference of the subject. Extensions do occur, but they are shorter than those in Latin, they do not include negation, nor direct or indirect objects, which shows that the clause value of the structures was less strong (cf. Müller-Lance 1994:206ff). Accordingly absolute constructions in Old French typically have descriptive value. Temporal value, which was common in earlier stages, is only occasionally attested: prowesses et serments fails (Chastelain 67) promises-Ace, and oaths-Ace. make-PPart.-Nom.pl 'when promises were made and oaths taken, ...' (Example from Martin and Wilmet 1980:220) The descriptive value is also reflected in the choice of nouns included in the construction. Norberg found that nouns in this context refer to body parts, clothes, or equipment (1943:87). Similarly, in Müller-Lance's findings 40 of the 87 instances refer to clothes, equipment, and so forth; others refer to presence or absence of persons or objects, and five absolutes are time or date indications. The lexical variation of verbs used in this context was also rather limited: the 87 instances reported by Müller-Lance include 93 verbs, 28 of which occur only once (1994:227-8). The other verbs are used more often. A number of these absolutes are in fact formulaic: combinations of

Absolutes in Old and Middle French

329

the same noun and the same verb occur more than once, e.g. Helmes laciez (8 instances), espee gainte (6 instances) (Muller-Lance 1994:228). In addition, many instances report new information (rhematic), whereas in earlier times thematic absolute constructions predominantly conveyed thematic information. Finally in Old French, as in Late Latin, instances are found including a preposition, which are equivalents of ab urbe condita constructions. The proposition apres 'after' is most commonly attested in this context, cf.: apres tout service fait after all service-Ace. make-PPart.-Acc.sg allerem disner en la grant salle go-PDef.-3pl. have dinner in the large hall Once the whole service was carried out, they went to have dinner in the large hall' (Charles V77, 120) (Example from Marchello-Nizia 1979:339-341) Of the three Middle French and early Renaissance texts analyzed by Müller-Lance (Grand Testament by Villon, Pantagruel by Rabelais, and Deffence et Illustration de la language francaise by Du Bellay), the prose text by Rabelais has most instances of absolutes. The language of this work of the early Renaissance is very close to the spoken register, which suggests that absolute constructions were used at that time. This assumption is further supported by the occurrence (8 instances) of absolutes in direct speech. The structure in Middle French differs slightly from its equivalent in Old French and is more similar to the Latin absolutes. First the perfective participle predominates more in Middle (4:1) than in Old French (2:1) (Muller-Lance 1994:240). Accordingly, absolutes more commonly have temporal value. Absolutes including a present participle show a variety of meanings (descriptive, causal, conditional, and so forth). Although the temporal value predominates, the descriptive value is widespread as well, especially with verbs or adjectives such as present 'be present', oy 'having heard', voyant 'seeing', considere 'taken into consideration'. These structures were especially common in 15th-century prose and were very frequent in the 16th century (Marchello-Nizia 1979:340), cf: tous ... furent sur le champs, oye all be-PDef.-3pl. on the battle field hear-PPart.-sg. leur ... solempnelle messe, ... their solemn mass (Saintre, p.214) 'all were on the battlefield having having attended Holy Mass'

330

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

Absolutes in Middle French occur more often in clause-initial position (as opposed to the clause-medial position in Old French), and co-reference of the underlying subject with the subject of the finite clause is found in only 27.3% of them (as opposed to 70% in Old French; Müller-Lance 1994:246). Similarly, extensions of the structure are more common than in Old French and show more variation, but they do not include negation. In 58 instances of absolutes found in Miiller-Lance's corpus, 64 verbs are included of which 18 only occur once, showing that the lexical variation was less strong than in Old French. Consequently, the absolute in Middle French became less frequent, shorter, and more independent. The predominance of perfective participles, the related temporal value of the construction, and the independence of the structure made it very similar to its Latin equivalent. Yet the low degree of variety of lexical elements involved suggests that the construction was no longer very productive. This assumption is further supported by the process of grammaticalization in Middle French by which prepositions and conjunctions developed from absolutes, creating structures of the type excepte lesfilles (see also section 6.4.1).

6.6. Conclusion Absolute constructions are widespread in the Indo-European daughter languages and commonly have more than one form as in Sanskrit, where genitive absolutes are found in addition to locative absolutes. Similarly, in Greek genitive absolutes are found as well as nominative and accusative absolutes, while Late Latin has ablative, nominative, and accusative absolutes. Diachronie and language-internal analysis shows, however, that in each of the daughter languages one of these structures was the predominant and original one; the others were secondary. In addition, whereas the primary structure is basically identical cross-linguistically, the secondary ones vary in form: the nominative absolute in Greek, for example, which is secondary, has characteristics different from those of Latin nominative absolutes. Likewise, Greek accusative absolutes differ from their Latin equivalents. Germanic developed secondary constructions that were prepositional (which are also found in Late Latin) and which developed over time. By contrast, the primary absolutes in each of the daughter languages share the same characteristics: they include a noun or a pronoun as the first

Conclusion

331

element, which combines with a noun, adjective, or participle as the second element. The first element is the head of the construction; the second element is nominal, predominantly adjectival and agrees in number, gender, and case with the head. Formally the entire phrase is an oblique case: the locative in Sanskrit and Iranian languages, the genitive in Greek, the ablative-instrumental in Italic, the dative in Germanic and Balto-Slavic, the genitive in Armenian, and so forth. In addition, it is striking that the absolute construction was by no means the only nominal structure in these languages. First, participles and participial constructions were very prominent in early Indo-European languages. These structures had functions that would increasingly be taken over by subordinate constructions; subordination only developed in the individual languages. Moreover, it was pointed out in Chapter 5 thatmihi est constructions typically combined with nominal forms of the verb. As a rule, these forms originally did not have verbal syntax. Instead, their characteristics as well include adjectival agreement or the occurrence of the genitive, reflecting nominal syntax. Similarly, absolute constructions are typically nominal: (1) the elements included are all nominal: a noun or pronoun as a first element in combination with a noun, adjective, or participle; (2) the grammatical relation between these elements is one of agreement: the second element agrees in number, gender, and case with the head (pro)noun; (3) the phrase takes the form of nominal inflection; (4) the verb takes the form of a participle, which is a nominal form of the verb characterized by adjectival agreement; (5) the predicate contains transitive and intransitive verbs although there is language-specific variation in this respect; (6) the participial forms are aspectually marked. On the basis of comparison of early data and on the basis of languageinternal evidence - the parallel with other nominal constructions and the late emergence of subordination - one may assume that absolute constructions were inherited from the protolanguage. The structure one may reconstruct for Proto-Indo-European is a core structure, a combining of two nominal elements of the type discussed in the preceding paragraph. One may assume that this phrase originally had the form of an oblique case without one being able, however, to further identify the case in question. The original case system in Proto-Indo-European is a matter of discussion, which receives new impetus with the active hypothesis (cf. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984; Lehmann 1958) and evidence from the early languages

332

Nominal structures: Absolute constructions

does not allow us to go any further than to assume that absolutes originally were oblique cases. Earlier Wackernagel (1920, quoted in the edition of 1926; 1926:292-293) argued that absolute constructions were inherited from the protolanguage, but that it was impossible to determine the exact case of these structures. Detailed analysis of absolute constructions in Latin further supports the assumption that absolutes originally were single constructions (anobliquus absolutus) and that their variants were secondary. The occurrence of exclusively nominal absolutes (Noun + Noun or Noun + Adjective) further suggests that the structure was primarily nominal, not verbal. Likewise, extensions of the absolute originally were predominantly nominal (including attributes of the noun, not of the predicate). Only in later times was the predicate further extended, which at that stage was almost exclusively participial. Similarly, in present-absolute constructions direct objects came to be introduced. These changes all suggest that these structures became increasingly verbal. The tendency increased with the development in Late Latin of mixed absolutes, which in fact were structures of the type [VerbAbi. - Direct Object-Ace.] and which show important parallels with the ablative gerund in Late Latin. Likewise, present absolutes of the type sol ruente reflect a similar reorganization of syntactic functions: the verb remains formally an ablative singular, but the logical subject takes the form of a nominative. The later development in Latin - when it had become a learned language - of nominative and accusative absolutes is closely related to the aspectual distinctions which were fundamental to Latin absolutes: present absolutes - whose noun referred to the underlying subject - developed nominative absolute constructions whereas perfective absolutes - whose noun referred to the underlying object - developed accusative absolutes. Consequently, the nominative absolute, which has specific characteristics because of the nominative case, was an agent absolute, whereas the accusative absolute, which showed more similarities with the ablative absolute, was a patient absolute. The systematic underlying patterns suggest that these innovations were not the result of the disappearance of formal and functional case. The emergence of mixed absolutes and their close parallels with the gerund as well as the extensions of the absolute phrase that were verb-oriented suggest that the original nominal structure - based on nominal agreement, hence nominal syntax - gave way to a construction where the verb was the principal element, which points to verbal government. The development of nominal and accusative absolutes seems to some extent to point in the same

Conclusion

333

direction, but in these structures nominal agreement was the fundamental feature. These structures survived in the Romance languages, where their occurrence came to be restricted to specific verbs and nouns: the verbs included are limited, whereas the nouns predominantly convey elements of external description of such items as clothes, body parts, weapons, and so forth. The structure therefore, primarily had descriptive value. Consequently, the development of absolute constructions in Late Latin is twofold. Structures of the type Verb-Abl. Noun-Ace. reflect verbal syntax and show that the verb was a fully verbal element conveying action; combinations of Verb-Ace. - Noun-Ace. and Verb-Nom. - Noun-Norn., on the other hand, primarily are descriptive, but reflect more transitivity than the original ablative absolute. Despite the development of transitive features, it is obvious that absolute constructions survived long in the individual languages. They are even attested in Modern French (e.g. ceci dit 'this being said, having said this, ...'). Yet the changes that took place in the history of Italic and of Latin in particular show not only the archaic, nominal nature of these structures, but also the ongoing spreading of transitivity.

Chapter 7 Conclusion

Inintelligible ä epoque historique, oü eile n'est qu'une survivance, la categoric grammaticale du genre avail sa pleine valeur en indo-europ6en, c'est-a -dire dans la langue d'un peuple qui opposait d'une maniere syste"matique et constante I'anim6 ä rinanime" (Meillet 1926:228)

In the preceding chapters a number of early Indo-European structures have been analyzed that traditionally have not been accounted for: impersonal verbs, possessive mihi est constructions, verbal mihi est constructions, and absolute structures. Although the choice of these structures may seem, at first glance, to be arbitrary, analysis shows that they are closely related. They not only share many grammatical characteristics that are not found elsewhere, they underwent similar changes as well. The characteristics they share and their later .development reveal their true nature and provide information about the earliest stages of Proto-Indo-European and the subsequent principal developments. Impersonal verbs, possessive and verbal mihi est constructions, and absolute structures were inherited from the protolanguage. Since these structures are non-transitive and therefore do not fit the patterns of a nominative language, I argue that they are residues of a language system that characterized Proto-Indo-European at an early stage. This assumption is further supported by the development these structures subsequently underwent, and which can be traced in detail in the history of Latin: it reveals a consistent replacement of archaic characteristics by nominative transitive ones. Accordingly, this book further expands upon the discussion about the active origins of the protolanguage. It offers comparative and diachronic evidence suggesting that the grammar of Proto-Indo-European included patterns that did not fit those of a nominative language; their disappearance in the daughter languages confirms the spreading of transitivity. In order to assess the true nature of the structures mentioned, it is necessary to examine them in relation to other characteristics of ProtoIndo-European syntax. The next section (7.1) will therefore briefly analyze the features of the protolanguage that are relevant to the structures under consideration. Subsequently, the importance of residues for purposes of reconstruction will be further discussed and it will be argued that Proto-

336

Conclusion

Indo-European itself included them in its structure (section 7.2). The structural and diachronic parallels of the structures under consideration will be analyzed as well as their implications for other phenomena in the early language and the hypothesis put forth by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984; 1995), K.H. Schmidt (1979), and Lehmann (1989a and 1989b), according to which Proto-Indo-European at an earlier stage was characterized by active typology (section 7.3). Finally, the syntactic evidence from the analysis in this book will be related to the morphological arguments that are put forth in support of the active hypothesis (section 7.4).

7.1. Proto-Indo-European grammar Proto-Indo-European grammar is primarily characterized by extensive inflection in nominal and verbal elements, OV or left-branching word-order patterns, and nominative syntax. Nominal inflection included a case system with grammatical and non-grammatical cases, distinguishing singular, plural, and possibly - in later stages - dual forms. In addition, the accusative and later prepositions with the accusative expressed motion whereas other cases (the ablative in Latin, for example, or the dative in Greek) typically conveyed rest. Verbal inflection, on the other hand, was more complex, marking the verb for person (first, second, and third), aspect, tense, mood, voice, and number (singular and plural; a dual may have existed at a late stage for the first and second persons, although evidence from Tocharian may suggest that the dual existed at an earlier stage already [Werner Winter, personal communication]). Although the extent to which aspect and tense are expressed differs across the individual daughter languages - varying from seven (Sanskrit and Greek) to two (Hittite) distinct forms - the verb in Proto-Indo-European was primarily based on aspectual distinctions (e.g. Kurylowicz 1964:130; Meillet and Vendryes 1924). Much as the verbal bases conveyed aspect, suffixes and - in a number of languages - an augment, were used to convey temporal distinctions (Meillet and Vendryes 1924:249) and were therefore secondary. In fact the rendering of tense in the base was an innovation in Latin: "Γinnovation fundamentale du latin est d'exprimer la notion de "temps" par le theme. En indo-europeen, les themes verbaux expriment d'ordinaire des nuances d'aspect" (Meillet and Vendryes 1924: 249). The introduction in Latin of tense distinctions in perfective and infective bases is illustrated in the infective amo Ί love', amabam Ί loved', and

Proto-Indo-European grammar

337

amabo Ί will love' vs. the perfective amavi Ί have loved', amaveram Ί had loved', and amavero Ί will have loved'. Over time, temporal distinctions became increasingly important and superseded aspect, which is well illustrated in the history of Latin - French, where the verb avoir (< Latin habere) developed and became a temporal auxiliary whereas the originally Stative 'be' has primarily become a passive auxiliary in addition to being a temporal auxiliary with intransitive verbs. Although Proto-Indo-European was a nominative language (see also below), voice distinctions were limited to the active and the middle. The middle indicates that the action affects the subject, or as Benveniste put it, indicates that "the subject is the seat of the action" (1966a:172). In the daughter languages the middle came to convey related meanings such as "reflexivity", "reciprocity", "oneself (for an enumeration of the nuances of meaning, see Meillet and Vendryes 1924:289-294). Proto-Indo-European had no passive. The cross-linguistic variation of passive suffixes and the various stages of the development of the passive found in the dialects show that it was a secondary development in the individual languages. In Greek, for example, the middle is used as a passive; a formally distinct passive only exists in the future and the aorist paradigms. The Tocharian verb has active and middle paradigms. The middle functions primarily as a deponent, but is occasionally used as a passive as well (Krause and Thomas 1960:173). Conversely, Latin had a fully developed passive paradigm. In addition to extensive inflection, the Proto-Indo-European verb also included many nominal forms, either participles, verbal nouns, or verbal adjectives. Participial constructions were very common in the early daughter languages, which may be related to the late emergence of subordination. Instead of subordinate clauses, paratactic, correlative, and participial constructions were found. Moreover, verbal nouns and adjectives were frequently used, often in combination with finite verb forms. In the preceding chapters it was argued that these structures as well as absolute participial constructions have characteristics that do not fit nominative languages (see also section 7.3). Word order in Proto-Indo-European was left-branching (or OV). Comparative analysis of evidence from the early daughter languages and the interpretation of evidence from successive language stages show that the direct object originally preceded its verb in unmarked order, the genitive preceded its head noun, and nouns preceded adpositions. Similarly, adjectives preceded the head noun, and the term of reference the comparative. With time the order became right-branching or VO, which was a longlasting shift, affecting the structures of all Indo-European languages, but at

338

Conclusion

different rates and according to different chronologies (see Lehmann 1974; Bauer 1995). In addition to left-branching word-order patterns and extensive morphological marking, Proto-Indo-European had nominative characteristics as well, which is illustrated, for example, in case distinctions and functions: "subjects" of transitive and intransitive verbs are referred to by nominatives, and when non-neuter they therefore differ morphologically from direct objects of transitive verbs. These elements are expressed by accusatives, which are marked. Similarly, the verb in Proto-Indo-European agreed with the subject of both transitive and intransitive verbs. The Proto-IndoEuropean clause therefore included the following structure: Noun-Nom. Subject

Noun-Ace. Object

Finite Verb Verb

In addition, the subsequent development in the individual languages of the passive indicates that Indo-European languages became increasingly nominative. It therefore shows that the spreading of nominative features was not limited to the structures analyzed in this book, but is manifest in other aspects of grammar as well. Proto-Indo-European therefore was a nominative language in which typical nominative characteristics, such as the emergence of the passive, were lacking and in which residues of an earlier stage were still attested. In addition, it also included characteristics that were related to the structures discussed here, such as the extensive use of participles. Despite their own specific characteristics, absolutes - which were participial constructions were therefore not corpora aliena in Proto-Indo-European syntax. Similarly, the widespread use of participles also shows that verbal mihi est constructions were not the only structures including nominal forms of the verb. Consequently, although impersonal verbs, possessive and verbalmi/z/ est constructions, and absolutes did not reflect the patterns of a nominative transitive language, they were not isolated structures.

7.2. Syntactic residues in Proto-Indo-European In the preceding paragraphs reference was made to the reconstruction of word order in Proto-Indo-European and to the analysis of word-order change in Indo-European languages. The results in this field are important

Syntactic residues in Proto-Indo-European

339

from a theoretical point of view as well, since they illustrate (1) that it is possible to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European syntax on the basis of common patterns in the early daughter languages; (2) that grammatical residues and synchronic and diachronic aspects of their use are most relevant to the reconstruction of the early stages of Proto-Indo-European; (3) and that it is most important to distinguish successive diachronic stages in the individual daughter languages. In addition, the investigation of word order is based on the principle that some characteristics not only tend to co-occur, but that there is a grammatical motivation for their co-occurrence. The correlation between OV ordering patterns and the occurrence of a case system, for example, is motivated by the same organization: both types of structure are head last. In OV or left-branching syntactic structures the head comes last; likewise, in case forms the grammatical marker - the case ending - comes last as well (cf. Bauer 1995). The observed correlation therefore is linguistically motivated. Similarly, in fields other than that of word order, correlation of characteristics and its motivation require further investigation. Correlation and motivation are, for example, crucial for the analysis of residues in order to evaluate the implications of their presence for the reconstruction of the earliest stages of the protolanguage. In the preceding section it was argued that Proto-Indo-European was a nominative language: the principal distinction found in the protolanguage is between transitive and intransitive verbs, and subject and direct object; moreover, there is subject - verb agreement. These nominative features are not found in the structures that have been analyzed in this book, possessive and verbal mihi est constructions, impersonal verbs, and absolute constructions. Although analysis has demonstrated that these structures share many characteristics, their correlation is not obvious at first glance, which is further illustrated, for example, by the variety of focus in the scholarly literature on these structures in the individual languages: - The discussion about absolute constructions concentrates on the origin of the structure: a number of linguists argue that the structures were inherited whereas others maintain the opposite. - The discussion about impersonal verbs, which has been a neglected topic lately, focuses on the question whether these structures originally included subject-Nominatives. This topic relates especially to weather verbs. - The discussion about possessive mihi est constructions resolves around the question whether the dative or the genitive is original in this context.

340

Conclusion

- Analyses of verbal mihi est constructions are generally restricted to a given language and to one structure at a time. With the exception of Benveniste (1966b), who related perfective constructions to possessive mihi est constructions, other parallels are not investigated. Whereas earlier research does not connect the structures mentioned, I argue, on the basis of comparative evidence, that they share an important number of relevant characteristics. First, impersonal verbs, verbal and possessive mihi est constructions, and absolute constructions are inherited from the protolanguage. Impersonal verbs, if they had argument structure, typically combined with oblique cases (category II and III verbs). Similarly, predicative possession was expressed with an oblique case, which was a dative in Proto-Indo-European. In addition to their origin, the structures mentioned here also share other grammatical characteristics and the same diachronic developments as well, which will be further discussed in the next section.

7.3. Grammatical characteristics and the development of syntactic residues Much as the structures under consideration include verbs, they show strong nominal characteristics. First, impersonal verbs, verbal and possessive mihi est constructions, and absolute constructions primarily include nominal elements: - Impersonal verbs typically combine with an oblique case, hence a nominal or pronominal element. In addition, a number of them exclusively combine with nominal and pronominal elements and are unbound structures, such as Latin fratris me piget Ί am ashamed of my brother'. - Possessive mihi est constructions combine with a nominal or pronominal element in the nominative (possessum) and the dative (possessor). - Verbal mihi est constructions combine with nominal forms of the verb. These nominal forms are either nouns or participles, or other adjectival elements. - Absolute constructions are typically nominal in that they include a nominal or pronominal element in combination with a participle, or less commonly, an adjective or noun. Moreover, the structure in its totality takes the form of an oblique case. In addition to nominal elements, other characteristics of the individual structures show that they are strongly nominal. These will be discussed in the following pages.

Grammatical characteristics and the development of syntactic residues

341

Although their distribution and their frequency vary across the early languages, impersonal verbs in Indo-European are consistent in form and meaning: they are typically third-person forms, conveying weather conditions, physical or emotional experience, and modality. Despite lexical variation and, consequently the lack of common roots, it is legitimate on the basis of their structural and semantic consistencies, to assume that impersonal verbs were inherited from the protolanguage. Moreover, evidence from non-Indo-European languages has shown (section 3.5) that impersonal verbs, though not uncommon, are not found in all languages, do not cover the same meanings, present formal differences, and are not as consistent as Indo-European impersonals. Impersonal verbs like those in IndoEuropean therefore provide information about the protolanguage. In contrast to weather verbs, impersonal verbs conveying emotions and physical experience and those conveying modality typically include oblique cases in their structure which refer to the experiencer or the person involved. Consequently, instead of a subject-Nominative, one finds an oblique case and instead of subject - verb agreement, one finds an independent third-person singular finite verb form. Since there is no person marking in the impersonal verb itself, reference to person is uniquely included in the oblique case. In addition, Latin and Sanskrit evidence shows that these verbs are etymologically related to intransitive and especially stative roots: the verbs in question are therefore originally stative, nontransitive roots that do not refer to the agent but to the person affected. The development of impersonal verbs reveals two tendencies. On the one hand, a number of weather verbs in later stages of Proto-Indo-European combined with a subject in the nominative which referred to the deity assumed to be responsible for the meteorological condition. Whether original or not, these instances show that the verb adopted a structure typical of a nominative language. On the other hand, impersonal verbs conveying physical and emotional experience developed personal paradigms in which the former oblique case according to its function of experiencer takes the form of a subject-Nominative. In modality verbs, where the subject is less easily identifiable, this tendency was less strong. In addition, a number of verbs developed impersonal structures and came to convey modality. In Latin a number of existent verbs developed impersonal uses to express weather conditions (facit) and the notion of "there is" (habet). Yet in contrast to earlier instances, these impersonals governed an accusative, and therefore have transitive syntax. Third-person verb forms are also fundamental in possessive and verbal mihi est constructions. The absence of a common root in Indo-European for

342

Conclusion

a verb 'have,' on the one hand, and the widespread and consistent occurrence, on the other, ofmihi est in the early daughter languages, suggest that 'have' was not inherited from the protolanguage but that predicative possession in Proto-Indo-European was expressed by mihi est constructions. These structures include a verb 'be' in the third singular or plural, a nominative which refers to the element in possession, and an oblique case, which refers to the possessor. Although a number of languages also include predicative constructions with a genitive, the construction in Proto-Indo-European originally included a dative. In addition to restrictions in meaning ('belonging' vs. 'possession in a broad sense') and occurrence (the predicative genitive was not attested in all languages), the genitive is primarily a nominal case and therefore not common in verbal constructions. By contrast, the dative, which is a verbal case, is consistently used in combination with verbs, in predicate possession, but also in structures including a form of 'be' and a nominal form of the verb. Verbal mihi est constructions are similar to possessive ones in many respects. Comparative evidence suggests that nominal forms of the verb in combination with a finite form of 'be' and an obliquus referring to the agent, were inherited from the protolanguage. Like possessive constructions, they include a third-person singular or plural form of the verb 'be'. Second, if the nominal form of the verb is a noun it is, as a rule, the grammatical subject of the clause; if the element is an adjective, the accompanying noun, which refers to what from our modern perspective is the patient, is the subject and is formally a nominative, as in epistulae lectae sunt letters-Nom. read-PfPart.-Nom.pl. be-3pl '(the) letters are read' epistulae legendae letters-Nom. read-Gerv.-Nom.pl. '(the) letters have to be read'

sunt be-3pl.

Since the "agent" takes the form of a dative, these structures are similar to the possessive constructions, cf.r epistulae mihi lectae letters-Nom. I-Dat. read-PfPart.-Nom.pl. Ί have read (the) letters'

sunt be-3pl.

Grammatical characteristics and the development of syntactic residues

343

vs.:

epistulae mihi letters-Norn. I-Dat. Ί have letters'

sunt be-3pl.

Consequently, in possessive and verbal mihi est constructions the elements that from our modern perspective are the possessum and the patient are referred to in the nominative. Conversely, the possessor and the "agent" are referred to by a dative. It was noted that the oblique case in impersonal verbs conveying emotions came to take the form of a nominative according to the patterns of a nominative language, which favors sentences of the type subject-Nominative + Verb. Similarly, mihi est constructions came to be replaced by a verb 'have', (or its equivalents in the other languages) whose subject refers to the agent or possessor and takes the form of a nominative. Accordingly, the element in possession or patient is referred to in the accusative. This development can be traced in detail in the history of Latin, which shows an increasing restriction of the use of mihi est in favor of 'have', reflecting the spreading of transitivity in the expression of possession (Chapter 4). In verbal mihi est constructions, this development implied an additional dramatic change, which affected the nominal element of the verb. With the introduction ofhabeo referring to an agent-Subject the stative nature of the nominal form of the verb, which corresponded to the stative 'be', changed as well. Instead of the genitive or the earlier adjectival agreement, reflecting nominal syntax, the verbal form came to govern a direct object, which is marked accordingly. In Latin this development is illustrated by the coalescence of the participle and the gerund and of the gerund and the infinitive (Chapter 5). Consequently, like impersonal verbs, mihi est constructions shifted from oblique marking to subject-Nominative constructions. In addition, the possessum took the form of an accusative and accordingly, the nominal forms of the verb came to govern a direct object, which also demonstrates a shift to verbal syntax. In a parallel development, another type of nominal construction, absolute structures, also developed transitive syntax (Chapter 6). Despite crosslinguistic and language-internal variation, it is possible to reconstruct these structures for Proto-Indo-European. Absolute constructions are one of the many participial constructions that were common in Proto-Indo-European, but they have their own additional characteristics. Their core structure included a noun or a pronoun and, predominantly, a participle, which

344

Conclusion

agrees in number, gender, and case with the head noun. The nominal character of these structures is further noted in the form they take: originally they take the form of oblique cases. In addition, since participles are aspectually marked, the structures are aspectually marked as well. When the verb is a perfective participle, the noun refers to what from our modern perspective is the patient of the action expressed by the verb. Yet since the verb is an adjectival form, it agrees in gender, number, and case with the noun. Consequently, one observes on the basis of adjectival agreement that the noun - instead of the verb - is the head of the verbal phrase. Accordingly one observes in these structures nominal instead of verbal syntax. In Latin this syntactic situation changed dramatically when the noun in present absolute constructions took the form of a nominative (e.g. sol ruente) and, more so, when in perfective constructions the noun took the form of an accusative. One finds, therefore, that the underlying grammatical functions (subject and direct object) came to prevail in case assignment. The emergence of perfective mixed constructions has a strong parallel in the development of gerunds, whose original nominal syntax in the later period gave way to verbal syntax: like perfective participles, gerunds in the ablative came to govern a direct object which took the form of an accusative. Consequently, verbal mihi est constructions and absolute structures originally included transitive verbs and a nominal element that from our modern perspective referred to a direct object. The relation between the verb and the patient, however, originally was not a relation of government, but instead was characterized by adjectival agreement, hence nominal syntax. Comparative analysis of the structures in question demonstrates that in early times the syntax of finite verbs and that of nominal forms of the verb reflect a profoundly different distribution of grammatical functions. The finite verb in Proto-Indo-European and the daughter languages agrees with the subject-Nominative and governs a direct object which takes the form of an accusative. Nominal forms of the verb that combine -wilhmihi est, on the other hand have no direct objects, but instead favor adjectival agreement or combine with a genitive which points to nominal syntax as well. In addition, impersonal verbs and possessive mihi est constructions differ from "regular" finite verbs in that the possessor or the person involved is not referred to in a nominative but in an oblique case. Moreover, impersonal verbs, which do not mark person, typically have no subject - verb agreement. Yet the use of an oblique case in these structures does not point to ergativity. Ergative structures are based on the distinction transitive vs.

Grammatical characteristics and the development of syntactic residues

345

intransitive and typically mark the agent of transitive verbs. Possessive and verbal mihi est constructions in Indo-European do not include transitive verbs, but instead the stative 'be' (which is also an intransitive). In addition, the etymology of impersonal verbs in Latin points to stative verbs as well. Consequently, these structures, which are not transitive, do not point to ergativity. It may be noted moreover that the nominal form of the verb (legendus) in verbal mihi est constructions (liber mihi legendus est) is not syntactically related to est, but to the noun (liber), with which it agrees in case, number, and gender. The verb of the structure is therefore est, which is stative. On the basis of grammatical characteristics, which point to nominal, hence archaic syntax, and on the basis of the development that took place, the true nature of the structures analyzed in this book becomes apparent: they are not only inherited from the protolanguage, they are residues of an earlier language stage as well. One observes that the structures under consideration not only share important characteristics (such as nominal elements, nominal syntax, stative verbs, oblique case, and so forth), but a similar development as well: they developed transitive syntax. In the subsequent development of these structures one observes therefore a shift from nominal to verbal syntax. That these individual changes are closely related is illustrated in the many overlaps that were found. As noted in the previous paragraphs, the perfective mixed structures that the absolute constructions in Latin developed are very similar to the structures including the gerund in the Late Latin period. In addition, while habeo replaced mihi est in predicative possessive and verbal mihi est constructions (Chapters 4 and 5), habet also emerged as an impersonal with transitive syntax in the Late Latin period (Chapter 3). Nominative and accusative absolutes, which emerged in a number of languages at a later stage, are of interest as well. In Latin they developed after it had become a learned language. Although evidence from that period, as a rule, is not used in analysis of language change, the development that took place is striking. I argue on the basis of their consistency, that these absolute constructions are not the result of the disintegration of the case system (see Chapter 6). Nominative absolutes systematically include present participles and their noun refers to the underlying subject. Accusative absolutes, on the other hand, include perfective participles and the noun involved therefore refers to the underlying direct object. Nominative and accusative absolutes are therefore in fact agent and patient absolutes. Accordingly, these patterns reflect a tendency similar to the one observed earlier. The underlying grammatical function (subject vs. direct object) comes to prevail, showing patterns of a nominative language: the subject

346

Conclusion

takes the form of a nominative, the direct object that of an accusative. Despite their being nominal structures, based on adjectival agreement, these absolute structures therefore reflect modern tendencies. On the basis of comparative and diachronic evidence I argue that the structures analyzed in this book are residues of a language system that characterized Indo-European at a very early stage. This observation does not mean that these structures were mere fossils. Their use in all registers and their internal variation show that the structures - though archaic - were much alive in the individual languages. The question why they survived at all and for such a long time is, so far, difficult to answer. Yet it is important to note that the structures in question are not isolated phenomena: as noted in section 7.1 Proto-Indo-European included many participial structures, which often assumed functions that were taken over later by subordinate clauses. In addition, the structures under consideration typically involve verbs and share nominal characteristics. In this line of reasoning the survival of both possessive and verbal mihi est constructions further supports this observation. The structures that tend to survive longest are impersonal verbs. In the Italic branch possessive and verbal mihi est constructions and absolute constructions have almost completely disappeared from the language. Impersonal verbs still exist, however, with a strong preference for modality verbs. Their strong lexical characteristics and their almost formulaic character on the one hand and the connection between modality impersonals and auxiliaries may account for their long survival.

7.4. Parallels with other structures In the Introduction I briefly mentioned the lexical, morphological, and syntactical arguments that have been put forth to support the active hypothesis (cf. Schmidt 1979; Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, 1995; Lehmann 1993). The strongest argument is the original opposition in Proto-IndoEuropean between the genus commune (animate) and the genus neutrum (inanimate) and its reflexes in the morphology and the lexicon of the early daughter languages. In contrast to the other arguments, the opposition animate vs. inanimate provides direct evidence. First, it is found in Hittite, which had only a binary gender distinction, the genus commune and the genus neutrum, thus reflecting the original Proto-Indo-European situation.

Parallels with other structures

347

The archaic nature of binary gender distinction is further supported by morphological evidence in other Indo-European languages, which shows that the feminine is secondary. It has been pointed out, for example, that the distinction inanimate vs. animate is reflected in adjectival classes that have no special forms for the feminine, such as Latin grandis (M/F) vs. grande (N) 'big', or Greek πέπων(M/F) vs. πέπον(Ν) 'ripe'. Similar patterns are found in pronominal inflection. In addition, Proto-Indo-European had a number of nominal pairs: the two elements referred to the same semantic concept, one conveying it as an animate element, the other as an inanimate element (e.g. *ap- 'living water,' vs. *wodort- 'inanimate water'). In addition to characteristics that point to an original animate vs. inanimate opposition, evidence in support of a different language system at a very early stage may be found in the possible traces of the distinction between inclusive and exclusive personal pronouns, inclusive and exclusive suffixes for person marking on the verb, alienable vs. inalienable possession, or - possibly - the distinction motion vs. rest as expressed in the use of the accusative vs. oblique case with or without adposition (see Chapters 2 and 4). As noted in the Introduction, the combination of the individual facts, which at first glance may seem arbitrary, shows a widespread pattern of binarism reflecting the opposition animate vs. inanimate, which supports the hypothesis that Proto-Indo-European at an early stage was characterized by a different, presumably active language system. The arguments presented in the preceding paragraphs, though all nominal, vary in nature and type. A number of them are based on evidence from all Indo-European languages, others are based on data found in only a few. Evidence that may point to an early distinction alienable vs. inalienable possession, for example, is found in Sanskrit and Greek and a few other languages (see Chapter 4). Yet this limitation does not mean that the phenomenon did not exist (or had not existed) in other languages as well. To my knowledge, the topic has not been systematically investigated in other Indo-European languages. Although further research is needed, another type of evidence is found in the possible distinction between inclusive and exclusive pronouns, which is based on the reinterpretation of data from a new perspective. Conversely, evidence for an original binary gender system is different not only because it is found in many more languages, but also because the evidence is direct Evidence on the verb put forth by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in support of the hypothesis is different. They argue that the distinction animate vs. inanimate, which was found in nouns, also existed in verbs: "the division of the verbs into two subsets implied by the binary noun classification leads

348

Conclusion

naturally to a semantic grouping of verb forms into two classes based on whether they expressed active or inactive semantics" (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:255). As in nouns, reflexes of this distinction are assumed to be found in verbal pairs: "doublet lexemes arose for verbs whose semantics allowed combination with respectively active or inactive nouns" (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995:255), such as 'be', 'lie', 'stand', and so forth. Residues of these doublets are found, for example, in the two roots that are used in the paradigm of the verb 'be' in many daughter languages, cf. *es'be' vs. *bhew-, * bhü- 'be, become.' Although a number of verbs that include suppletion of this type or similar phenomena can now be accounted for, there is no direct evidence to support Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's argument, showing that the roots can be traced back to verbal pairs or that they represent a consistent pattern of binary oppositions. Verbal doublets are attested in active American Indian languages (Klimov 1977; Haas 1940; see also Chapter 2), but for Indo-European further investigation is needed as well as solid independent evidence. Additional and stronger evidence on the verb comes from the interpretation of the complex relation between the perfective and the middle, which developed from the perfective (cf. Neu 1968; Lehmann 1993), and the interpretation of the hi- and mi-conjugations in Hittite and their reflexes in other Indo-European languages (see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984, 1995; Lehmann 1993). The active hypothesis accounts for the grammatical characteristics of these forms and their developments. Although this interpretation therefore further supports the active hypothesis, it does not provide independent evidence. The only independent verbal evidence is the occurrence of possessive mihi est constructions and impersonal verbs. These structures are attested in the early daughter languages and are also found in active American Indian languages. This book focused on these and related constructions, which may provide direct evidence for an originally different language system in the early stages of Proto-Indo-European. It was demonstrated that impersonal verbs and possessive mihi est constructions were inherited from the protolanguage and that their grammatical characteristics differ from the IndoEuropean patterns: oblique case and for impersonal verbs, the absence of subject - verb agreement. In addition, whereas the stative nature of mihi est constructions is obvious because of the presence of the verb 'be', the etymology of impersonals in Latin pointed to stative verbs as well. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984, 1995) pointed out the importance of possessive mihi est for the reconstruction of the earliest stages of ProtoIndo-European and pointed out their stative character. On the basis of

Parallels with other structures

349

comparative and diachronic evidence, I argue that these structures, in addition, were typically non-transitive as is further shown in verbal mihi est constructions and, by extension, in the syntax of the nominal forms of the verb (e.g. absolute constructions). The nominal forms of the verb found in verbal mihi est constructions, absolute structures, and Latin gerundive constructions are characterized by nominal instead of verbal syntax (Chapters 5 and 6). Moreover, it is this characteristic that underwent dramatic changes over time: nominative transitive patterns eventually infiltrated residues. The history of impersonal verbs on the one hand, and that of possessive and verbal mihi est constructions and absolute structures, on the other, shows that the agent-Nominative, subject - verb agreement, and verbal government took over in these structures. These developments reflect the spreading of transitivity. There is therefore additional evidence, involving the syntax of early verbs to support the hypothesis that at a very early stage Proto-Indo-European had different typology, which was characterized by the absence of transitivity. The structures that have been analyzed in this book include verbs and provide information about the early syntax of Proto-Indo-European. They show that Proto-Indo-European included structures that were non-transitive but instead conveyed nominal syntax. It has become clear as well that these non-transitive structures had strong stative characteristics or etymologies. In a comparative analysis of verbal abstracts and infinitives, Kurylowicz pointed out that the two structures showed different syntactic behavior: "verbal government (e.g. accusative) with the infinitive, nominal government (genitive) with the abstract noun" (1964:158). Evidence from impersonal verbs, possessive and verbal mihi est constructions, and absolute constructions shows that nominal syntax was not limited to verbal abstracts but common to nominal forms of the verb. It also shows that in the history of Indo-European a consistent process took place by which nominal syntax gave way to verbal syntax. At the beginning of this section it was noted that the best argument in support of the active hypothesis for Proto-Indo-European is the original opposition animate vs. inanimate. This grammatical distinction is primarily a nominal characteristic; transitivity on the other hand, is a verbal characteristic. Since Meillet in 1926 pointed out the fundamental characteristic of the early gender system in Proto-Indo-European, evidence in support of this view has consistently increased. Data come from syntax, morphology, and the lexicon. In addition occasionally cultural aspects may point in the same direction, as is suggested in the Vedic concept of the terrestrial world, which "is modeled after the opposition between "living" (literally "mov-

350

Conclusion

ing") -jagat-and "non-living" (literally "standing") -sthätar-" (Elizarenkova 1995:12). Since the distinction between animate and inanimate represents a nominal characteristic and since it was a fundamental feature in the early stages of Proto-Indo-European, nominal syntax as reflected in archaic structures is consistent with the principal characteristics of the language. The replacement of these archaic structures in the daughter languages by nominative ones is in line with the spreading of transitivity, which, although present in the protolanguage, became increasingly important.

References

Aalto, Pentti 1949

Untersuchungen über das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 62-3. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Adams, James N. 1976 The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II). London: University of London. 1977 The Vulgär Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester: University Press. 1991 "Some Neglected Evidence for Latin habeo with Infinitive: The Order of the Constituents". Transactions of the Philological Society 89: 131-196. Anderson, John M. 1971 The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localist Theory. London: Cambridge University Press. Anttila, Raimo 1989 Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Aronson, Howard I. 1982 Georgian: A Reading Grammar. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Asher, R.E. 1968 "Existential, Possessive, Locative and Copulative Sentences in Malayalam". In: John W.M. Verhaar (ed.), The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 88-111. Baader, Theodor 1929 Die identifizierende Funktion derlch-Deixis im Indoeuropäischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Bader, Fransoise 1962 La formation des composes nominaux du latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bammesberger, Alfred 1986 Der Aufbau des germanischen Verbalsystems. Heidelberg: Winter. Barat, J. 1914 "Les proterito-prisents en francique". Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 18: 65-88; 126-145. Bauer, Brigitte L.M. 1993 "The Coalescence of the Participle and the Gerund/Gerundive: An Integrated Change". In: Henk Aertsen and Robert J. Jeffers (eds.),

352

References

1994 1995

1996 1997

1998

1999

Beck, Ernst 1922

Historical Linguistics 1989. Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 59-71. "The Development of Latin Absolute Constructions: From Stative to Transitive Structures". General Linguistics 33: 64-83. The Emergence and Development ofSVO Patterning in Latin and French. Diachronie and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford/ New York: Oxford University Press. "Residues of Non-Nominative Syntax in Latin: The Mini Es t Construction". Historische Sprachforschung 109: 242-257. "Nominal Syntax in Italic: A Diachronie Perspective". In: Jadranka Gvozdanovid (ed.), Language Change. Functions and Explanations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 273-301. "Impersonal Verbs in Italic: Their Development from an IndoEuropean Perspective". The Journal of Indo-European Studies 26: 91-120. "Impersonal Habet Constructions in Latin: At the Cross-Roads of Indo-European Innovation". In: Carol F. Justus and Edgar C. Polome (eds.), Language Change and Typological Variation: In Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of His 83rd Birthday. 2. Grammatical Universals and Typology. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph 31. Pp. 590-612.

Die Impersonalien in sprachtypologischer, logischer und linguistischer Hinsicht. Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer. Bennett, Charles E. 1910 Syntax of Early Latin. 1. The Verb. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1914 Syntax of Early Latin. 2. The Cases. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Benveniste, Emile 1929 Essai de grammaire sogdienne. II. Morphologie, syntaxe et glossaire. Paris: Geuthner. 1933 "Les adjectifs latins en -cundus". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 34: 186-190. 1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeen. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. 1947 "Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 43: 1-12. 1948 Noms d'agent et noms d'action en indo-europeen. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve. 1949 "Sur l'emploi des cas en hittite". Archiv orientalni 17: 44-45. 1950 "La phrase nominale". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 46. Also published in Problemes de linguistique generale I. Paris: Gallimard. Pp. 151-167. 1962a "Les substantifs en -ant du hittite". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 57: 44-51.

References 1962b

353

Hittite et indo-europeen. Etudes comparatives. Paris: Maisonneuve. 1966a Problemes de linguistique generate. I. Paris: Gallimard. 1966b ""Etre" et "avoir" dans leurs functions linguistiques". Problemes de linguistique generate I. Paris: Gallimard. Pp. 187-207. Published earlier in: Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 46 (1960): 113-134. 1969 "Philos". Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeennes. I. Economic, parente, societe. Paris: Minuit. Pp. 335-353. 1974 Problemes de linguistique generate. II. Paris: Gallimard. Bielmeier, Roland and Reinhard Stempel (eds.) 1995 Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Biese, Y.M 1928 Der spätlateinische Akkusativus Absolutus und Verwandtes. Helsingfors. Birnbaum, Henrik 1977 Linguistic Reconstruction: Its Potentials and Limitations in New Perspective. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph 2. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Holt. Boas, Franz and John R. Swanton 1971 The Siouan Indian Languages. (Abstract from Handbook of American Indian Languages). Seattle, WA: Shorey. Boas, Franz and Ella Deloria 1941 Dakota Grammar. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol 23. Washington, DC. Boeder, W. 1979 "Ergative Syntax and Morphology in Language Change: The South Caucasian Languages". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 435-480. Bonnet, Max 1968 Le latin de Gregoire de Tours. 2nd edition. Hildesheim: Olms. Borras, P.M. and R.F. Christian 1971 Russian Syntax. Aspects of Modern Russian Syntax and Vocabulary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bossong, Georg 1980 "Syntax und Semantik der Fundamentalrelation. Das Guarani als Sprache des aktiven Typus". Lingua 50: 359-379. Bourciez, Edouard 1956 Elements de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck. Brandenstein, Wilhelm 1928 "Das Problem der Impersonalien". Indogermanische Forschungen 46: 1-26.

354

References

Braune, Wilhelm. 1886 Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer. Brauner, Siegmund and Joseph Bantu 1964 Lehrbuch des Swahili. Leipzig: V.E.B. Brettschneider, G. 1979 "Typological Characteristics of Basque". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 371-384. Brockelmann, Carl 1956 Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen: Moers. 1961 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. 2. Syntax. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Brugmann, Karl 1889 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2.1. Straßburg: Trübner. 1890 "Zur Frage der Entstehung des grammatischen Geslechts". Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 15: 523-531. 1892 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2.2. Straßburg: Trübner. 1897-1916 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 6 vols. Straßburg: Trübner. 1911 Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2.2. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch. Straßburg: Trübner. 1917 Der Ursprung des Scheinsubjekts 'es' in den germanischen und romanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Teubner. 1922 Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter. 1925 Die Syntax des einfachen Satzes im Indogermanischen. Berlin/ Leipzig: De Gruyter. Brugmann, Karl and Hermann Osthoff 1878 Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. I. iii-xx.Leipzig: Hirzel. English version in W.P. Lehmann (ed.), A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press (1967). Pp. 198-209. Buck, Carl Darling 1949 A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1979(1904). A Grammar of scan and Umbrian. Hildesheim: Olms. Burrow, Thomas 1973 The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber. Bynon, Theodora 1977 Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References Caland, W. 1890

355

"Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Avesta". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 30: 534-547. Calboli, Gualtiero (ed.) 1989 Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Studies in Language Companion Series 17. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Callaway, M. 1913 The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington. 1918 Studies in the Syntax of the Lindisfarne Gospels. Baltimore. Cardona, George 1970 "The Indo-Iranian Construction mana (mama) krtam". Language 46: 1-12. Chafe, Wallace L. 1976 The Caddoan, Iroquoian, and Siouan Languages. The Hague/ Paris: Mouton. Chantraine, Pierre 1947 Morphologie historique du grec. Paris: Klincksieck. 1948 Grammaire homerique. I. Phonetique et morphologic. Paris: Klincksieck. 1953 Grammaire homerique. II. Syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck. Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. 1972a Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. 1972b "The Formal Nature of Language". Language and Mind. Enlarged edition. New York, Chicago: Jovanovich. Pp. 115-160. 1986 Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. Coigneallaig, M.O. 1968 "On Verbs of being in Classical Armenian". In: John W.M. Verhaar (ed), The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies. Part 3. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 44-51. Coleman, Robert 1989 "The Rise and Fall of Absolute Constructions: A Latin Case History". In: Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Studies in Language Companion Series 17. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 353- 374. Coleman, Robert (ed.) 1991 New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Comrie, Bernard 1978 "Ergativity". In: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Sussex: The Harvester Press. Pp. 329-394.

356

References 1989

Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd. edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994 "Was Indo-European Ergative?" Bulletin of the Language Institute ofGakushuin University 17: 3-14. Conway, Robert S. 1897 The Italic Dialects. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbett, Greville 1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corrodi, Hans 1925 "Das Subjekt der sog. unpersönlichen Verben". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 53: 1-36. Costello, John R. 1980 "The Absolute Construction in Gothic". Word 31: 91 -104. Daube, David 1956 Forms of Roman Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1969 Roman Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Deeters, Gerhard 1954 "'Haben' im Georgischen". In: Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung. Festschrift Alben Debrunner. Bern: Francke. Pp. 109-119. Deeters, Gerhard, Georg R. Solta, and Vahan Inglisian 1963 Armenisch und kaukasische Sprachen. Leiden: Brill. Delbrück, Berthold 1888 Altindische Syntax. Halle a.d. S.: Waisenhaus. 1893 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. 1. Theil. Straßburg: Trübner. 1897 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2. Theil. Straßburg: Trübner. 1900 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. 3. Theil. Straßburg: Trübner. Denton, Michael 1985 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett. Desowitz, Robert S. 1991 The Malaria Capers. New York and London: Norton. Diakonoff, I.M. 1971 Mürrisch und Urartäisch. München: Kitzinger. Disterheft, Dorothy 1980 The Syntactic Development of the Infinitive in Indo-European. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979 "Ergativity". Language 55: 59-138. 1987 "Studies in Ergativity". Lingua 71: 1-16. 1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drexler, Hans and Klaus Strunk 1962 "Über Gerundium und Gerundivum". Gymnasium 69: 429-460.

References

357

Drossard, Werner 1984 Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Tübingen: Narr. Dumezil, Georges 1966 La religion romaine archaique. Paris: Payot. Edel'man, Dzoj I. 1975 "Les verbes "etre" et "avoir" dans les langues iraniennes". In: Franfoise Bader et al. (eds.), Melanges linguistiques offerts a Emile Benveniste. Louvain: Peelers. Pp. 151-158. Eeden, Bernard I.C. van 1956 Zoeloe-Grammatika. Stellenbosch: Universiteitsuitgevers Beperk. Elizarenkova, Tatyana J. 1995 Language and Style of the Vedic Rsis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ernout, Alfred 1908-1909 "Recherches surl'emploi du passif latin ä l'epoque republicaine". Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 15: 273-333. 1946 "Infinitif grec et gorondif latin". Philologica. Paris: Klincksieck. Pp. 203-223. 1953 Morphologie historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck. 1961 Le dialecte ombrien. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, Alfred and Antoine Meillet 1959 Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. Paris: Klincksieck. Ernout, Alfred and Fran9ois Thomas 1964 Syntaxe latine. Paris: Klincksieck. Eska, Joseph and D. Ellis Evans 1993 "Continental Celtic". In: Martin J. Ball (ed.), The Celtic Languages. London/New York: Routledge. Pp. 26-63. Fife, James 1990 "A Visit to the Galapagos". In: Martin Ball, James Fife, Erich Poppe, and Jenny Rowland (eds.), Celtic Linguistics leithyddiaeth Geltaidd. Readings in the Brythonic Languages. Festschrift for T. Arwyn Watkins. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 77-88. Forchheimer, Paul 1953 The Category of Person in Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. Foulet, Lucien 1923 Petite syntaxe de l'ancienfrangais. Paris: Champion. Francetto, Bruna 1990 "Ergativity and Nominativity in Kuikuro and other Carib Languages". In: Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press. Pp. 407-429. Friedrich, Johannes 1960 Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.

358

References

Gaatone, D. 1970

"La transformation impersonnelle en fransais". Lefran$ais moderne 37: 389-411. Gamkrelidze, Thomas 1995 "Proto-Indo-European as a Language of Stative-Active Typology". In: Roland Bielmeier and Reinhard Stempel (eds.) Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 265-211. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Vjaceslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy [Indo-European and the Indo- Europeans]. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University. 1995 Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Translation by Johanna Nichols. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Garcia-Hernändez, Benjamin 1992 "Nuevos verbos Impersonales en latin tardio e influencia griega". In: Maria Iliescu and Werner Marxgut (eds.), Latin vulgaire latin tardiflll. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pp. 159-172. Garrett, Andrew 1990 "The Origin of Split-Ergativity". Language 66: 261-296. Geldner, Karl 1889-1892 "asa, vohu mananha". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 31: 319-323. Georgiev, Vladimir 1985 "Das Medium: Funktion und Herkunft". In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien Funktion und Geschichte. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pp. 218-228. Gillies, William 1990 "An Impersonal Usage in Scottish Gaelic". In: A.T.E. Matonis and Daniel F. Melia (eds.), Celtic Language, Celtic Culture: A Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp. Van Nuys, CA: Ford and Bailie. Pp. 207-217. Goetze, Albrecht 1930 Neue Bruchstücke zum großen Text des Hattusilis und den Paralleltexten. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 34. 2. Golla, Victor Karl 1970 Hupa Grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Gonda, J. 1975 "On the Use of the Absolute in Sanskrit". Selected Studies. Presented to the Author by the Staff of the Oriental Institute, Utrecht University,on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. 2. Sanskrit: Grammatical and Philological Studies. Leiden: Brill. Pb. 91-94. Gougenheim, Georges 1974 Grammaire de la langue fra^aise du XVIe siede. Paris: Picard.

References

359

Green, Alexander 1913 The Dative of Agency. A Chapter of Indo-European Case-Syntax. London: Oxford University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963 "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements". In: Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. Pp. 58-90. 1987 Language in the Americas. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Grevisse, Maurice 1986 Le ban usage. Paris and Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot. Grimm, Jacob 1898 Deutsche Grammatik. 4. Syntax. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann. 1967 Deutsche Grammatik. 4. Syntax. Reprint of the 1898 edition. Heidelberg: Olms. Haarmann, Harald 1976 Aspekte der Arealtypologie. Die Problematik der europäischen Sprachbünde. Tübingen: Narr. Haas, Mary R. 1940 Tunica. New York: Augustin. 1946 "A Grammatical Sketch of Tunica". Linguistic Structures of Native America. New York. Viking Fund. Publications in Anthropology. Hahn, E. Adelaide 1966 "Verbal Nouns and Adjectives in Some Ancient Languages". Language 42: 378-398. Hakulinen, Lauri 1961 The Structure and Development of the Finnish Language. Translation by John Atkinson. The Hague: Mouton. Harris, Alice 1985 Diachronie Syntax: The Kartvelian Case. New York: Academic Press. Harris, Martin 1978 The Evolution of French Syntax. A Comparative Approach. London/New York: Longman. Hartmann, Hans 1954 Das Passiv. Heidelberg: Winter. Haudry, Jean 1970 "L'instrumental et la structure de la phrase simple en indoeuropoen". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 65: 44-84. Havers, Wilhelm 1911 Untersuchungen zur Kasussyntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Trübner

360

References 1914

"Zum Gebrauch des Dativs in den italischen Dialekten". Glotta 5: 1-8. 1931 Handbuch der erklärenden Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Heidermanns, Frank 1993 Etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen Primäradjektive. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd 1982 "African Noun Class Systems". In: Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.), Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. 1. Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene. Tübingen: Narr. Pp. 189-216. Helttula, Anne 1983 "Ablative and Accusative Absolute in Jordanes and his Sources". Studies in Classical and Modern Philology Presented to . . Biese on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Pp. 45-54. 1987 Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 81. Herman, Jozsef 1990 "Le datif possessif dans la latinite balkanique". Du latin aux langues romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pp. 315-320. Hettrich, Heinrich 1993 "Nogmals zu Gerundium und Gerundivum". In: Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck. Pp. 190-208. Heyde, Joh. Erich 1927 "Zur Frage der Impersonalia". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 54: 149-155. Hirt, Hermann 1921-1937 Indogermanische Grammatik, l Vols. Heidelberg: Winter. 1934a Handbuch des Urgermanischen. 3. Abriß der Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. 1934b Indogermanische Grammatik. 4. Syntax I. Heidelberg: Winter. 1937 Indogermanische Grammatik 7. Syntax II. Die Lehre vom einfachen und zusammengesetzten Satz. Heidelberg: Winter. Hock, Hans Henrich 1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd ed. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoijer, Harry 1954 "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis". The American Anthropologist. Language in Culture. Proceedings of the Conference on the Interrelations of Language and Other Aspects of Culture. The American Anthropological Association. Vol. 54. Pp. 92-105.

References Holland, Gary 1986 Horn, Frederik 1918

361

"Nominal Sentences and the Origin of Absolute Constructions in Indo-European". Indogermanische Forschungen 99: 163-193. Zur Geschichte der absoluten Partizipialkonstruktionen im Lateinischen. Lund: Gleerup; Leipzig: Harrassowitz.

Humbert, Jean 1945 Syntaxe grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. Ivanov, Vjaceslav 1979 "Syntactical Archaisms of Old Hittite". Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Linguistik). Pp. 73-78. Jakobson, Roman 1962 "Typological Studies and their Contribution to Historical Comparative Linguistics". Selected Writings I.'s-Gravenhage: Mouton. Pp. 523-532. Jamison, Stephanie 1979 "Remarks on the Expression of Agency with the Passive in Vedic and Indo-European". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196-219. Jasanoff, Jay 1973 "The Hittite Ablative in -anz(a)". Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 31: 123 -128. 1978 Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Linguistik). Jeffers, Robert and Robert Kantor 1984 "A History of the Sanskrit Gerund". Indogermanische Forschungen 89: 89-103. Jenner, Henry 1904 A Handbook of the Cornish Language. London. Jensen, Cheryl 1990 "Cross-referencing Changes in some Tupi-Guarani Languages". In: Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Pp. 117-158. Jespersen, Otto 1924 The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Kachru, Yamuna 1969 "A Note of Possessive Constructions in Hindi-Urdu". Journal of Linguistics 6: 37-45. Kahn, Charles H. 1966 "The Greek Verb 'to be' and the Concept of Being". Foundations of Language 2: 245-265. 1973 The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms. 6. The Verb 'Be' in Ancient Greek. Dordrecht: Reidel.

362

References

Kammenhuber, Annelies 1969 "Hethitisch, Palaisch, Luwisch und Hieroglyphenluwisch". In: Berthold Spuler (ed.), Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Handbuch der Orientalisük. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 119-355. Kennard, Edward 1936 Mandan Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 9. New York: Columbia University Press. Keydana, Götz 1997 Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Kieckers, Ernst 1920 "Zum 'pleonastischen' inquit". Glotta 10: 200-209. 1928 Handbuch der vergleichenden gotischen Grammatik. München: Hueber. Kiefer, Ferenc 1968 "A Transformational Approach to the Verb van 'to be' in Hungarian". In: John W.M. Verhaar (ed.), The Verb 'Be' and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies. 3. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 53ff. Kirk, W.H. 1942 "The Syntax of the Gerund and the Gerundive". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 73:293-307. 1945 "The Syntax of the Gerund and the Gerundive, ". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 76: 166-176. Klimov, Georgij Einführung in die kaukasische Sprachwissenschaft. Translation 1969a by lost Gippert. Hamburg: Buske. 1969b Die kaukasischen Sprachen. Translat;on by Jost Gippert. Hamburg: Buske. 1974 "On the Character of Languages of Active Typology". Linguistics 131: 11-25. 1977 Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja [The Typology of Languages of Active System]. Moskva: Nauka. 1979 "On the Position of the Ergative Type in Typological Classification". In: Frans Plank (ed.),Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 327-332. "On Contentive Typology". Lingua e Stile 18: 327-341. 1983 1984 "On the Expression of Object Relations in the Ergative System". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. Pp.211-219. "Über die Grundkasus des ergativischen Systems". In: Bernfried 1985 Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien Funktion und Geschichte. Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 250-256.

References 1986

363

"On the Notion of Language Type". In: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1985. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 105-110. 1990a "Integral Typology vs. Partial Typology". In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists III. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Pp. 149-154. 1990b "On the Source of the Genitive in Ergative Languages". In: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1987. Systematic Balance in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 91-94. Körner, Karl-Hermann 1985 "Die zwei Positionen der Romania auf der Skala "akkusativisch-ergativisch". Ein syntaktischer Beitrag zur typologischen Klassifizierung der romanischen Sprachen". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Relational Typology. Berlin/New York: Mouton. Pp. 213-234. Krause, Wolfgang and Werner Thomas 1960 Tocharisches Elementarbuch, l. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Kühner, Raphael 1904 Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. 2. Satzlehre. 3rd ed. revised by Bernhard Gerth. Hannover/Leipzig: Hahn. Kühner, Raphael and Carl Stegmann 1955 Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. Satzlehre. 1. 3rd. ed. Leverkusen: Gottschalksche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Kuiper, Aert 1968 "The Categories Verb- Noun and Transitive- Intransitive in English and Squamish". Lingua 21: 610-626. Kunst, Karl 1923 "Vom Wesen und Ursprung des absoluten Genitivs". Glotta 12: 29-50. Kurschat, Friedrich 1876 Grammatik der litauischen Sprache. 1. Grammatik. Halle: Waisenhaus. Kurzovä, Helena 1986 "Accusativus cum Infinitivo in the Strucutral-Typological Approach". Listy filologicke 109: 1-10. 1989 "Subordination in Latin". Eirene 26: 23-36. 1993 From Indo-European to Latin. The Evolution of a Morphosyntactic Type. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kurytowicz, Jerzy 1935 Etudes indo-europeennes. I. Krakow: Skiad Gtowny. 1964 The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Laborderie, R. 1934 "Pour une histoire du datif latin". Revue des etudes latines 12: 278-280. Labourt, J£rome 1949 Saint Jerome. Lettres. 1. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

364

References

Laroche, E. 1962

"Un "ergatif" en indo-europeen d'Asie Mineure". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 57: 23-43.

Laughton, Eric 1964 The Participle in Cicero. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le Bourdelles, H. 1967 "Pluit - Tonat". Revue des etudes latines 44: 377-406. Lehiste, Ilse 1969 ""Being" and "Having" in Estonian". Foundations of Language 5: 324-341. Lehmann, Christian 1985 "Ergative and Active Traits in Latin". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Relational Typology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 243-255. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1958 "On Earlier Stages of the Indo-European Inflection". Language 34: 179-202. 1967 A Reader in Nineteenth Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. 1972 "Contemporary Linguistics and Indo-European Studies". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 87:976-993. 1973 "A Structural Principle of Language and its Implications". Language 49: 47-66. 1974 Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 1989a "Problems in Proto-Indo-European Grammar: Residues from Pre-Indo-European Active Structure". General Linguistics 29: 228-246. 1989b "Earlier Stages of Proto-Indo-European". In: Karin Heller, Oswald Panagl, and Johann Tischler (eds.), Indogermanica Europaea, Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid. Graz: Grazer Linguistische Monographien 4. Pp. 109-131. 1990 "Syntactic Residues". In: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1987. Systematic Balance in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 171-187. 1991 "Impersonal Verbs as Relics of a Subclass in Pre-Indo-European". In: Georgij Klimov (ed.), Istoriceskaja lingvistika i tipologija [Historical Linguistics and Typology]. Festschrift for Thomas V. Gamkrelidze. Moskva: Nauka. Pp. 33-38. 1992 "Swäs. From the Middle to Pronominal Reflexive Markers". In: Claudia Blank (ed.), Language and Civilization. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Pp. 139-146. 1993 Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge.

References 1995

365

"Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects". Innsbriicker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 62. Innsbruck. 1997 "Frozen Residues and Relative Dating". In: Miriam Robbins Dexter and Edgar C. Polome (eds.), Varia on the Indo-European Past: Papers in Memory ofMarija Gimbutas. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph 19. 222-246. Leroy, Maurice and Francino Mawet 1986 La place de I'armenien dans les languages indo-europeennes. Leuven: Peeters. Leumann, Manu 1963 Lateinsche Laut- und Formenlehre. München: Beck. 1977 Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. 5th ed. München: Beck. Leumann, Manu and Johann Baptist Hofmann 1928 Lateinische Grammatik. München: Beck. Leumann, Manu and Johan Baptist Hofmann 1965 Lateinsche Grammatik. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Edition revised by Anton Szantyr. München: Beck. Levin, Saul 1984 "The Cases of Nouns and Pronouns in Ancient Indo-European Languages: Morphology Partly at Odds with Syntax". The Eleventh Lacus Forum. Colombia, SCA. Pp.447-457. Levine, James S. 1986 "Remarks on the Pragmatics of the "Inalienable Dative" in Russian". In: Richard Brecht and James S. Levine (eds.), Case in Slavic. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Pp. 437-451. Levy-Bruhl, Lucien 1914 "L'expression de la possession dans les langues melanesiennes". Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 19: 96-104. Lewis, Henry and Holger Pedersen 1961 Celtic Grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Lodge, Gonzalez 1962 Lexicon Plautinum. Hildesheim: Olms. Löfstedt, Bengt 1963 "Zum lateinischen possessiven Dativ". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 78: 64-83. 1965-1966 "Die subjektlose 3. Person im Lateinischen". Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Pp. 80-107. Löfstedt, Einar 1908a "Vermischte Beiträge zur lateinischen Sprachkunde". Eranos 8: 85-116. 1908b Spätlateinische Studien. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz.

366

References 1911

Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1928 Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. I and II. Lund: Gleerup. 1936 Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen Sprachkunde und Syntax. Lund: Gleerup. 1956 Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins. II. Lund: Gleerup. Loogman, Alfons 1965 Swahili Grammar and Syntax. Louvain: Nauwelaerts. Lunt, Horace 1974 Old Church Slavonic. The Hague: Mouton. Luraghi, Silvia 1986 "On the Distribution of Instrumental and Agentive Markers for Human and Non-Human Agents of Passive Verbs in Some IndoEuropean Languages". Indogermanische Forschungen 91:48-66. 1990 Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London/New York: Routledge. Lyons, John 1967 "A Note on Possessive, Existential and Locative Sentences". Foundations of Language 3: 390-396. 1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977 Semantics II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marchello-Nizia, Christiane 1979 Histoire de la langue frangaise aux XlVe et XVe siecles. Paris: Bordas. Marouzeau, Jules 1910 L'emploi du participe present a I'epoque republicaine. Paris: Champion. 1938 Vordre des mots dans la phrase latine. 2. Le verbe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Martin, Robert 1970 "La transformation impersonnelle". Revue de linguistique romane: 34. 377-394. Martin, Robert and Marc Wilmet 1980 Manuel dufranqais du moyen age. 2. Syntaxe du moyenfrangais. Bordeaux: Sobodi. Martinet, Andr6 1962 A Functional View of Language. Oxford: Clarendon. Masica, Colin P. 1976 Defining a Linguistic Area. South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Matsumoto, Katsumi 1993 "Problems of Ergativity in Indo-European". Journal oflndo European Studies 21: 303-329.

References

367

McGlynn, Patricius 1967 Lexicon Terentianum. London/Glasgow: Blackie et filii. Meid, Wolfgang 1979 "Der Archaismus des Hethitisehen". In: Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Innsbruck: Institut f r Sprachwissenschaft (Innsbrucker Beitr ge zur Linguistik). Pp. 159-176. Meillet, Antoine 1903 Esquisse d'une grammaire comparee de l'armenien classique. Vienne: Imprimerie des peres Mekhitharistes. 1916 "Latin pluit et arme'nien helum". Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 19: 178-180. 1923 "Le doveloppement du verbe "avoir"". In: Aντιδωρον. Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel. G ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Pp. 9-13. 1926 Linguistique historique et linguistique generate. Paris: Champion. 1931 Grammaire du vieux perse. 2nd ed. revised by Emile Benveniste. Paris: Champion. 1948 "La categoric du genre et les conceptions indo-europeennes". Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. Paris: Champion. Pp. 211-229. 1951 Linguistique historique et linguistique generale. II. Paris: Klincksieck. 1964(1937) Introduction a I 'etude comparative des langues indo-europeennes. University, ALA: University of Alabama Press. 1965 Le slave commun. Second revised and extended edition with the collaboration of Andre Vaillant. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine and Joseph Vendryes 1924 Traite de grammaire comparee des langues classiques. Paris: Champion. Mey, Jacob 1969 "Possessive and Transitive in Eskimo". Journal of Linguistics 6: 47-56. Meyer-L bke, Wilhelm 1899 Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 3. Syntax. Leipzig: Reisland. Michaelis, Laura A. 1993 "On Deviant Case-Marking in Latin". In: Robert van Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 311-373. Migeod, Frederick W.H. 1908 The Mende Language. London: Paul, Trench, Tr bner. Milani, Celestina 1990 "L'ablativo assoluto negli itineraria ad loca sancta". In: Tradizione dell'antico neue letterature e neue arti d'Occidente. Studi in

368

References

1994

memoria di Maria Bellincioni Scarpat. Universita di Parma. Pp. 115-129. "Aspetti classici della lingua degli Ittineraria ad loca sancta (IV-VIII secolo)". Paper delivered at the Seminar on "Momenti e aspetti della sopravvivenza della cultura classica in eta medioevale." Verona. Forthcoming "Classical Latin versus Late Latin: The Language of Itineraria (IV-VIII a. Chr.)". Folia Historica Linguistica.

Mitchell, Bruce 1985 Old English Syntax. 1. Oxford: Clarendon. 1990 A Critical Bibliography of Old English Syntax to the End of 1984 Including Addenda and Corrigenda to Old English Syntax. Oxford:Blackwell. Mithun, Marianne 1991 "Active/Agentive Case Marking and its Motivations". Language 67: 510-546. Modini, Paul 1985 "The Origin of the Indo-Iranian Ergative Construction". Indogermanische Forschungen 98: 211-213. Mohrmann, Christine 1962 Le latin pretendu vulgaire et l'origine des langues romanes. Straßbourg: Centre de Philologie Romane. Moignet, Gorard 1973 Grammaire de I'ancienfrangais. Paris: Klincksieck. Mosel, Ulrik 1982 "Possessive Constructions in Tolai". Arbeiten des kölner Universalien Projekt 44. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Moss6, Fernand 1942 Manuel de la langue gotique. Paris: Aubier. Moulton, James H. 1957 A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: Clark. Müller, C.F.W. 1910 "Die Syntax des Dativs im Lateinischen". Glotta 2: 169-181. Müller-Lance, Johannes 1994 Absolute Konstruktionen vom Altlatein bis zum Neufranzösischen. Tübingen: Narr Neckel, Gustav 1910 "Zum Instrumentalis". Indogermanische Forschungen 21: 182-192. Neu, Erich 1968 Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nichols, Johanna 1986 "Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar". Language 62: 56-119.

References 1990a

1990b

1992

369

"Some Preconditions and Typical Traits of the Stative-Active Language Type (with Reference to Proto-Indo-European)". In: Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Language Typology 1987. Systematic Balance in Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 95-113. "Linguistic Diversity and the First Settlement of the New World". Language 66: 475-521. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Noonan, Michael "A Tale of Two Passives in Irish". In: Barbara Fox and Paul 1994 Hopper (eds.), Voice. Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 279-311. Norberg, Dag Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und 1943 des frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harassowitz. 1944 Beiträge zur Spätlateinischen Syntax. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Oinas, Felix J. Basic Course in Estonian. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1966 The Hague: Mouton. Ose, Fritz 1944 Supinum und Infinitiv im Hittitischen. Leipzig: Hinrich. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 47. Heft 1. Ostrowski, Manfred 1982a "Zum Konzept der Kongruenz". In: Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.), Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. 1: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene. Tübingen: Narr. Pp. 252-269. 1982b "Zu den substantivischen Kategorien des Urindogermanischen". In: Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.), Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, l: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene. Tübingen: Narr. Pp.270-274. Panagl, Oswald 1985 "Das lateinische Supinum: Geschichte und Funktion einer grammatischen Kategorie". In: Bernfield Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien Funktion und Geschichte. Pp. 324-339. Paul, Hermann 1937 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer. Payne, Doris L. 1985 Aspects of the Grammar of Yagua: A Typological Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation University of California at Los Angeles.

370

References

Payne, Doris L. (ed.) 1990 Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Payne, Thomas E. 1990 "Transitivity and Ergativity in Panar". In: Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press. Pp. 429-453. Pedersen, Holger 1907 "Neues und Nachträgliches". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 20: 129-217. 1913 Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 1938 Hittitisch und die anderen indogermanischen Sprachen. K0benhavn: Levin & Munksgaard. Pilch, Herbert 1975 "Typologie der kymrischen Passivkonstruktion". Zeitschrift für keltische Philologie 34: 103-118. Pinkster, Harm 1992 "The Latin Impersonal Passive". Mnemosyne 45: 159-177. Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen 1964 Die nordamerikanischen Indianersprachen. Ein Überblick über ihren Bau und ihre Besonderheiten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pirejko, L.A. 1979 "On the Genesis of the Ergative Construction in Indo-Iranian". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York/London: Academic Press. Pp. 481-488. Plank, Frans 1979 "Ergativity, Syntactic Typology and Universal Grammar: Some Past and Present Viewpoints". In: Frans (ed.),Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York/London: Academic Press. Pp. 3-36. Plank, Frans (ed.) 1979 Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York/London: Academic Press. 1984 Objects. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press. 1985 Relational Typology. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Planta, Robert von 1897 Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte. Straßburg: Trübner. Pope, Mildred 1956 From Latin to Modern French, with Special Consideration of Anglo-Norman: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

References

371

Pott, August F. 1873 "Unterschied eines transitiven und intransitiven Nominativs". Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 7: 73ff. Powell, John Wesley 1891 Indian Linguistic Families North of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report for 1885-1886. VIII. Pp. 1-142. Press, Ian 1986 A Grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Prokosch, Edward 1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Puhvel, Jaan 1984 Hittite Etymological Dictionary 1-2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ramage, Edwin S. 1961 "Cicero on Extra-Roman Speech". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 92: 481-494. Regamey, Constantin 1954 "A propos de la "construction ergative" en indo-aryen moderne". In: Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung. Festschrift Albert Debrunner. Bern: Francke. Pp. 363-381. Reichard, Gladys A. 1951 Navaho Grammar. New York: Augustin. Reichelt, Hans 1967 Awestisches Elementarbuch. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Renou, Louis 1952 Grammaire de la langue vedique. Lyon: Collection "Les Langues du Monde". Riemann, Othon 1885 Etudes sur la langue et la grammaire de Tile-Live. Paris: Thorin. 1927 Syntaxe latine. 7th edition revised by Alfred Ernout. Paris: Klincksieck. Risch, Ernst 1984 Gerundivum und Gerundium. Gebrauch im klassischen und älteren Latein. Entstehung und Vorgeschichte. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Robins, Robert H. 1979 A Short History of Linguistics. 2nd edition. London: Longman. Rodrigues, Aryon D. 1990 "You and I = Neither You nor I. The Personal System of Tupinambe". In: Doris Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Pp. 393-405.

372

References

Rohlfs, Gerhard 1968 Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia. Transl. by Temistocle Franceschi. Torino: Einaudi. Rönsch, Hermann 1965 Itala und Vulgata. Miinchen:Hueber. Rood, David S. 1971 "Agent and Object in Wichita". Lingua 28: 100-107. Rosen, Haiim B. 1959 "Die Ausdrucksform für "Veräusserlichen" und "Unveräusserlichen Besitz" im Frühgriechischen". Lingua 8: 264-293. 1970 "Uterum Dolet und Verwandtes. Zu einigen übersehenen frühlateinischen Zeugnissen impersonaler oder intransitiver Verbalkonstruktion". Folia Linguistica 4: 135-147. 1989 "A Marginal Note on Sanskrit Case-Syntax". In: Subhadra Kumar Sen (ed.), Hanjamana. University of Calcutta Press.Pp. 33-39. Rothstein, Robert 1986 "Equation vs. Ascription: The Nominative/Instrumental Opposition in West Slavic". In: Richard D. Brecht and James S. Levine (eds.), Case in Slavic. Cambridge, MA: Slavica. Pp. 312-322. Rumsey, Alan 1987 "The Chimera of Proto-Indo-European Ergativity". Lingua 71: 297-318. Sapir, Edward 1917a "Review of C.C. Uhlenbeck: Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van NoordAmerika". International journal of 'American Linguistics 1: 82-86. 1917b "Review of C.C. Uhlenbeck: Het indentificerend karakter der possessieve flexie in talen van Noord-Amerika". International Journal of American Linguistics 1: 86-90. 1949 (1921) Language. New York: Harvest. 1951 "Central and North American Languages". In: David G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir on Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University Press. Pp. 169-178. Sapir, Edward and Harry Hoijer 1963 "Phonology and Morphology of the Navaho Language". University of California Publications 29. Berkely and Los Angeles. Sapir, Edward and Morris Swadesh 1990 (1946) "American Indian Grammatical Categories". In: William Bright (ed.), The Collected Works of Edward Sapir. V. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 133-142. Originally published in Word 2. 103-112. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1993 "Das Nomen - eine universale Kategorie?" Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46: 187-221.

References

373

Savcenko, A.N. 1976 "Ergativnaja konstrukcija predlozenija v praindoevropejskom jazyke". Zirmunskij. 74-90. Schaubert, E. von 1954 Vorkommen, gebietsmässige Verbreitung und Herkunft altenglischer absoluter Parüzipialkonstruktionen in Nominativ und Akkusativ. Paderborn: Schöningh. Schenk, R. 1892 De dativi possessivi usu Ciceroniano. I. Bergedorf. Schilling, Robert 1979 Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome. Paris: Klincksieck. Schleicher, August 1873 (1863) Die Darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Offenes Sendschreiben an Herrn Dr. Ernst Häckel. 2nd. ed. Weimar: Böhlau. Schlerath, Bernfried (ed) 1985 Grammatische Kategorien Funktion und Geschichte. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmalstieg, William M. 1976 Old Church Slavic. Cambridge, MA: Slavica. 1981 "Ergativity in Indo-European". In: Yoel Arbeitman and Allan Bomhard (eds.), Bono homini Donum. Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory ofJ. Alexander Kerns. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 243-258. 1982 "The Shift of Intransitive to Transitive Passive in the Lithuanian and Indo-European Verb". Baltistica 18: 119-134. Schmalz, W. and Friedrich Stolz 1910 Lateinische Grammatik. 4th edition. München: Beck. Schmidt, Karl Horst 1969 "Die Stellung des Keltischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Sprachfamilie, historisch-vergleichend und typologisch gesehen". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 83: 108-123. 1973 "Transitiv und Intransitiv". In: Georges Redard (ed.), Akten der IV. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Pp. 108-124. 1974 "Das Verbum im Keltischen: sprachgeschichtliche Grundlagen und typologische Entwicklung". Zeitschrift für keltische Philologie 33: 28-44. 1976 "Der Beitrag der keltiberischen Inschrift von Botorrita zur Rekonstruktion der protokeltischen Syntax". Word 28: 51-62. 1977 "Probleme der Ergativkonstruktion". Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36: 97-116. 1979 "Reconstructing Active and Ergative Stages of Pre-Indo-European". In: Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity. Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London, New York: Academic Press. PP. 333-345.

374

References 1980

"Zur Typologie des Vorindogermanischen". In: Paolo Ramat (ed.), Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 91-112. 1984 "Völker im Süden und Osten des Kaukasus". Bedi Kartlisa 42: 293-331. 1989 "Class Inflection and Related Categories in the Caucasus". In: Howard I. Aronson (ed), The Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR: Linguistic Studies. Papers from the Fourth Conference. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. Pp. 185-192. 1992 "Contributions from New Data to the Reconstruction of the ProtoLanguage". In: Edgar and Werner Winter (eds.), Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 35-61. Schmidt, P. Wilhelm 1926 Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachkreise der Erde. Heidelberg: Winter. Schmitt, Rüdiger 1981 Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck. Schuchardt, Hugo 1895 "Über den passiven Charakter des Transitivs in den kaukasischen Sprachen". Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. 133. Pp. 1-91. Schulze, Wilhelm 1934 "Das Neutrum im Germanischen und die indogermanischen Witterungsimpersonalien". Kleine Schriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Pp. 849-857. Schunck, J. 1900 Quantum intersit inter dativi possessivi usum Ciceronis et Plauti. Zweibrücken. Schwyzer, Eduard 1927 "Miszellen". Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 76: 433-439. 1983 "Zum persönlichen Agens beim Passiv, besonders im Griechischen". In: Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Kleine Schriften. Innsbruck. Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 45. Pp. 3-79. Schwyzer, Eduard and Albert Debrunner 1950 Griechische Grammatik. II. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. München: Beck. Seefranz-Montag, Ariane von 1995 "Impersonalien". In: Joachim Jacobs, Amim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung.2. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 1277-1287.

References

375

Seiler, Hansjakob 1971 "Possessivität und Universalien". Arbeitspapier 18. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Köln. 1983a Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Narr. 1983b "Possessivity, Subject and Object". Studies in Language 7: 89-117. Seiler, Hansjakob and Christian Lehmann (eds.) 1982 Apprehension. Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. 1. Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene. Tübingen: Narr. Seki, Lucy 1990 "Kamaiurä (Tupi-Guarani) as an Active-Stative Language". Doris L. Payne (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics. Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Pp. 367-391. Senn, Alfred 1966 Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 1985 Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siebs, Theodor 1910 "Die sogenannten subjektlosen Sätze". Zeitschrift für vergleichenden Sprachforschung 43: 253-276. Sihler, Andrew 1995 New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silverstein, Michael 1976 "Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity". In: R. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and New Jersey: Humanities Press. Pp. 112-171. Skalicka, Vladimir 1967 "Sprachtypologie und Sprachentwicklung". To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. 3. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Pp. 1826-1831. 1979 Typologische Studien. Braunschweig and Wiesbaden: Viewieg. Smyth, Herbert 1956 Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sommer, Ferdinand 1947 Hethiter und Hethitisch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Steever, Sanford B. 1988 The Serial Verb Formation in the Dravidian Languages. Dehli: Motilal Bararsidass.

376

References

Stempel, Reinhard 1983 Die Infinitiven Verbalformen des Armenischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 1995 "Das lateinische Gerundium und Gerundivum in historischer und typologischer Perspektive". Glottall: 235-251. Stepanov, Jurij S. 1992 "Lexical Entries in Major Sentence Types of Proto-Indo-European". In: Edgar and Werner Winter (eds.), Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 157-183. Strachan, John 1909 An Introduction to Early Welsh. Manchester: The University Press. Streitberg, Wilhelm 1960 Die gotische Bibel. 3rd edition. Heidelberg: Winter. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1944 "Hittite Verbal Nouns in -tar and the Latin Gerund". Language 20:206-211. 1951 Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language. 2nd edition. New Haven: Yale University Press. Swift, Lloyd R. 1963 A Reference Grammar of Modern Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Szemerenyi, Oswald 1990 (1970) Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4th ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Tauscher, E. and E.-G. Kirschbaum 1989 Grammatik der russischen Sprache. Düsseldorf: Brücken. Ternes, Elmar 1979 "Die Sonderstellung der Bretonischen innerhalb der keltischen Sprachen". Zeitschrift für Keltische Philologie 37: 214-228. Thielmann, Ph. 1885a "Habere mit dem Infinitiv und die Entstehung des romanischen Futurums". Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. 20: 48-89; 157-202. 1885b "Habere mit dem Part. Perf. Pass". Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. 20: 372-549. Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Thumeysen, Rudolf 1909 Handbuch des Alt-Irischen. 1. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Tovar, Antonio 1975 "Ein neues Denkmal der keltiberischen Sprache: die Bronze von Botorita". Zeitschrift für keltische Philologie 34: 1-19.

References

377

Uhlenbeck, C.Cornelis 1901 "Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen". Indogermanische Forschungen 12: 170-171. 1916a "Het identificerend karakter der possessieve flexie in talen van Noord Amerika". Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afd. Leiteren. 5e reeks. 2:345-371. 1916b "Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Noord-Amerika". Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afd. Letteren. 5e reeks. 187-216. Ultan, Russell 1978 "Toward a Typology of Substantival Possession". Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pp. 11-49. Usener, H. 1905 "Keraunos". Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 60: 1-30. Väänänen, Veikko 1963 Introduction au latin vulgaire. Paris: Klincksieck. 1966 Le latin des inscriptions pompeennes. 3rd ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1967 Introduction au latin vulgaire. 2nd ed. Paris: Bibliotheque fran$aise et romane. 1987 Le journal-epitre d'Egerie. Etude linguistique. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Vaillant, Andre 1936 "L'ergatif indo-europeen". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 37. 93-108. 1962 "Le parfait indo-europden en balto-slave". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 57: 52-56. 1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d'Etudes Slaves. 1966 Grammaire comparee des langues slaves. 1/2. Paris: Klincksieck. Van der Gaaf, W 1904 The Transition from the Impersonal to the Personal Construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter. Van Ginneken, Jacques 1939 ""Avoir" et "Etre" du point de vue de la linguistique generate". Melanges Bally. Geneve: Georg. Pp. 83-92. Van Wijk, Nicolaas 1902 Der nominale Genitiv Singular im Indogermanischen in seinem Verhältnis zum Nominativ. Zwolle. Vendryes, Joseph 1937 "Sur l'emploi de l'auxiliaire "avoir" pour marquer le passe". Melanges de linguistique et de philologie offerts a Jacques van Ginneken. Paris: Klincksieck. Pp. 85-92.

378

References

Ventris, Michael and John Chadwick 1956 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Veyrenc, Jacques 1975 "Fonction datif et factitif". In: Fran9oise Bader et al (eds.), Melanges linguistiques offerts ä Emile Benveniste. Louvain: Peelers. Pp. 519-526. Villar, Francesco 1984 "Ergativity and Animate/Inanimate Gender in Indo-European". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97: 167-196. Visser, F. Th. 1963-1973 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill. 1970 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 1 Leiden: Brill. 1972 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 2. Syntactical Units with One Word. Leiden: Brill. Vondräk, Wenzel 1912 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann. 1928 Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. 2. Formenlehre und Syntax. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Wackernagel, Jacob 1908 "Genitiv und Adjektiv". Melanges de linguistique offerts a Ferdinand de Saussure. Paris: Champion. Pp. 125-152. 1920 Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel: Birkhäuser. 1926 Vorlesungen über Syntax. 2nd edition. Basel: Birkhäuser. Warmington, E.H. 1979 (1940) Remains ofOld Latin. IV. Archaic Inscriptions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann. Watkins, Calvert 1967 "Remarks on the Genitive". In: To Honor Roman Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Pp. 2191-2198. 1969 Indogermanische Grammatik. 3. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Whitney, William D. 1889 Sanskrit Grammar. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Winter, Werner 1967 "Basic Principles of the Comparative Method". In: Paul L. Garvin (ed.), Method and Theory in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 147-156. 1995 "Griechisch -men und griechisch -mes." In: Roland Bielmeier and Reinhard Stempel (eds.),Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 265-271.

References

379

Wölfflin, Eduard 1887 "Über die Latinität der Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta". Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. 4: 259-276. Wright, Joseph 1910 Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford: Clarendon. Yoshida, Daisuke 1987 Die Syntax des althethitischen substantivischen Genitivs. Heidelberg: Winter. Zimmer, H. 1890 "Über das italo-keltische Passivum und Deponens". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 30: 224-292. Zubaty, Josef 1907 "Die "man"-sätze". Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 40:478-513. Zupitza, E. "Das sogenannte participium necessitatis des Irischen". Zeitschrift 1989 für vergleichende Sprachforschung 35: 444-461.

Index